Assuming that all 52 votes were pubbies, what happened to the three Dumbs, I mean Dems who said they are voting for Gorsuch? Does this mean that they think he’s worthy of their vote, but not worthy of going against the filibuster? That makes no sense (logically speaking). I can see the other way around, voting for cloture, but voting against Gorsuch. I guess only in the moonbat world of leftist politics does it make sense. That’s fine, we’ll be running strong candidates against them in 2018...
“Assuming that all 52 votes were pubbies, what happened to the three Dumbs, I mean Dems who said they are voting for Gorsuch?”
^^^^^
They still voted to end debate in the next vote. The revote to end debate and move on was 55 - 45.
In 2018 they can say to the left” See I tried to stop Go such” and to the moderates “ See, I voted for him” Both ways.
I suspect that some of the RATS will vote for Gorsuch with an eye towards 2018.
It seems weird, but it makes sense. As the majority party, it should be able to make the rules as to how a bill will be debated, when a bill will come up for a vote, the order, etc. So, Susan will always vote with the party on all these procedural votes and then vote against the issue when it actually comes to a vote. A majority party should be able to dictate terms and these RINOs oblige in this area, as they should.
Most all procedural votes generally garner little or no news coverage, but are very important. I'm sure you have noticed in some campaigns a challenger will have an ad claiming the rep or senator voted for or against an issue based on this vote on this date. The incumbent will balk saying it was only a procedural vote.
While RINOs and DINOs on the other side are painful, their value is in the procedural votes.