Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schumer: Trump's Supreme Court pick will need 60 votes
The Hill ^ | 2/1/17 | JORDAIN CARNEY

Posted on 02/01/2017 11:14:36 AM PST by jeannineinsd

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) insisted on Wednesday that Neil Gorsuch, Trump's Supreme Court pick, will need 60 votes to clear the upper chamber.

"We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process. There will be 60 votes for confirmation," he said from the Senate floor. "There will be 60 votes for confirmation."

Trump's nomination of the well-respected conservative jurist is kicking off a high-stakes battle in the Senate. Five progressive lawmakers, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), have already come out in opposition to Trump's nominee.

Schumer said requiring 60 votes for confirmation of Gorsuch is "the right thing to do."

Though Merkley has said he will filibuster Trump's pick, Schumer is publicly staying on the fence and hasn't explicitly backed a filibuster.

But Schumer is defending his party's push for Gorsuch to get 60 votes, noting that previous Supreme Court nominees have been able to win bipartisan support.

"It was a bar met by each of President Obama's nominations," he said. "In my mind 60 votes is the appropriate way to go whether there is a Democratic president or a Republican president, a Democratic Senate or a Republican Senate."

The back-and-forth over Trump's nominee comes as the president endorsed going "nuclear" and lowering the requirement to a simple majority if Democrats block his nominee.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has repeatedly indicated that he does not want to take what would be a historic step and change Senate rules.

Schumer appeared to push against Trump on Wednesday, arguing that if Gorsuch can't get 60 votes, then the "problem" is with the president's pick.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: delusional; gorsuch; nuclearoption; reidrule; schmuckschemer; schumer; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: jeannineinsd

After two years Schumer will be reduced to a hollow, shattered figure who will pathetically whine to anyone who will listen that although he lost every major battle, he did all he could. Then the tears will be real.


41 posted on 02/01/2017 11:28:00 AM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd


42 posted on 02/01/2017 11:28:10 AM PST by Iron Munro (If Illegals voted Rebublican 66 Million Democrats Would Be Screaming "Build The Wall!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd
Sorry jackass Schumer, only takes 51 shortly
43 posted on 02/01/2017 11:28:25 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

And it’s utterly pointless. They’ll accomplish nothing. We’ll get our Justice, the composition of the court won’t change and everyone will hate the Dems more than they already do when it comes time for President Trump to appoint a replacement for Ginsberg or another idiot liberal Justice.


44 posted on 02/01/2017 11:29:14 AM PST by jazminerose (Adorable Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JudyinCanada

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the upper-chamber’s outgoing Democratic leader, is unmoved by Republican posturing surrounding judicial nominees, vowing Senate Democrats will change the body’s rules to require only 51 votes for confirmation.


45 posted on 02/01/2017 11:29:34 AM PST by scooby321 (o even lower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

In 2013 Dems used the “nuclear option” under Harry Reid to approve 3 of Obama’s Justices to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

As Obama likes to say...elections have consequences.


46 posted on 02/01/2017 11:29:42 AM PST by SENTINEL (Kneel down to God. Stand up to tyrants. STICK TO YOUR GUNS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Ginsburg.. The gall of that woman. She was SO SURE Hillary was going to win. LOL


47 posted on 02/01/2017 11:30:03 AM PST by CivilWarBrewing (Females DESTROYED America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya

Does that include the VP?


48 posted on 02/01/2017 11:30:16 AM PST by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

First, there is only one odd vote to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. A 60 vote threshold has never held been a requirement.

Second, there are quite a few endangered Democrats. It is possible we will pick up 8 from them to get to 60 votes.

Third, if we can’t get to 60, but there is a majority favoring the nominee, President Trump state that if the nominee isn’t given a straight up or down vote, he will make a recess appointment.

The recess appointment would undermine the design of the judiciary. The founders desired that justices be removed from politics. Appointing them by recess appointments would keep them dangling. Hopefully, the dimwits in the Senate would realize the gravity of the situation, and allow an up-or down, simple majority vote.

But, if they don’t, and Trump recess-appoints his nominee, the Supreme Court could then rule that the nominee met the Constitutional requirement for confirmation (which is a simple majority vote), and that the Senate cannot, by its rules, undermine the framework of our government.


49 posted on 02/01/2017 11:30:40 AM PST by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd
This is really infuriating:

But Schumer is defending his party's push for Gorsuch to get 60 votes, noting that previous Supreme Court nominees have been able to win bipartisan support.
"It was a bar met by each of President Obama's nominations," he said.

IOW, Republicans should mind their manners and continue supporting our nominees while we're free to deny them theirs. It was expected that Republicans approve the socialists and degenerates Obama put up but to have a constitutionalist presented by Trump is intolerable and outside the main stream so we feel justified in rejecting him.

50 posted on 02/01/2017 11:30:57 AM PST by stormhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Nuke em Danno!


51 posted on 02/01/2017 11:31:06 AM PST by TruthWillWin (The problem with socialists is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Schumer can insist all he wants. He and Harry Reid set the precedent to steamroller the minority party, time to use it against them and teach them why it’s a bad idea.


52 posted on 02/01/2017 11:31:14 AM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Collins forcing the nuke option. What’d she get for that?


53 posted on 02/01/2017 11:32:56 AM PST by txhurl (Break's over, kids, back to WAR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dforest

54 posted on 02/01/2017 11:33:33 AM PST by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

55 posted on 02/01/2017 11:33:46 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Not tired of winning yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Chuckie blinked. He will the next time also.


56 posted on 02/01/2017 11:34:01 AM PST by Wizdum (Buckle up! It's going to be one hell of a ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

The other Dem senators are going to be all over him. They’d be wasting their time...and everyone knows he’s going to be confirmed.


57 posted on 02/01/2017 11:34:44 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

It is all for show. They will bare their fangs for real for the next appointment. It will be insanity unleashed. Never before seen. Then it will get even worse for the third nomination.


58 posted on 02/01/2017 11:34:49 AM PST by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

agreed , there are still some Dems in vulnerable seats in two years who can be persuaded to vote yes.


59 posted on 02/01/2017 11:34:52 AM PST by manc ( If they want so called marriage equality then they should support polygamy too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Has an explanation surfaced for Judge Gorsuch’s unanimous approval by the Senate to his current judgeship?


60 posted on 02/01/2017 11:36:29 AM PST by John W (Under Two Months And Counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson