Lot to give up for a couple of days of what they still think is good press for a lifetime appointment.
It all pointing to Schumer not being that bright.
We might see two more new chief justices while President Trump holds office...
>>I must say I’m surprised the dem0crats are making such a huge tactical error. There will be several more vacancies Trump will fill and now they can be whoever he thinks will get 51.
You’re assuming the Pubbies won’t just back down. Given their history of folding when they hold the winning hand, you can understand the Dhimmi’s choice.
Gillibrand is a force to be reckoned with and she recommended an up or down.
And remember, there are 11 sitting Dem Senators who voted for Gorsuch for his Federal Judgeship...and not so long ago.
I think they might tell Schumer to stick it.
They must see it as some sort of reverse tit-for-tat. Now both sides have "nuked" a dysfunctional part of Senate procedure, so any future "nuking" is less likely. Certainly by the GOP. This was inevitable, might as well get it out of the way, and they can use the "bullies in the GOP are responsible for this" narrative starting today.
Let's hope that number is higher after the 2018 mid-term elections.
-PJ
You presume there are 51 votes to change the rules (Pence does not vote on rules).
In 1967, Hubert Humphrey (VP and therefore President of the Senate) made a ruling from the chair that requiring a supermajority to close debate was unconstitutional, and that debate could be closed with 51 votes.
This ruling was appealed to the floor.
At the time, the Democrats had 68 Senators and the GOP had 32.
Humphrey's ruling was overturned 46-54. The power to block legislation while a Senator is a member of the minority is one of the most awesome powers given to a legislator anywhere in the world. It's not at all clear that all 52 Republican Senators want to give that up.