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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 next last
To: jeannineinsd

Guess what Chuckie? We Won.


81 posted on 02/01/2017 11:45:39 AM PST by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Murkowski other holdout... I think you’re thinking of retired Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.


82 posted on 02/01/2017 11:47:26 AM PST by txhurl (Break's over, kids, back to WAR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

Snowe is the one I am thinking about...


83 posted on 02/01/2017 11:48:48 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

It was from the beginning that the filibuster was for legislative matters only...


84 posted on 02/01/2017 11:51:26 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

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.
= = = = = = = = = = =

NO Upchuck-—

You and your minions have virtually said that if Jesus Christ or Martin L King or Al Sharpton were the (President) Trump nominee YOU ALL would fight it on principle alone.

Rs got to stand up and REMIND all of the statements these same idiots made when it was in their favor.

Start with HRC saying her and the others blasting W at every chance was the American way and the Constitution said they could and should do it.
Then play HRC calling ALL who said a ‘cross’ word about BO was not only UnAmerican but Racist as well.

Take all those quotes and repeat.....


85 posted on 02/01/2017 11:57:02 AM PST by xrmusn ((6/98)" "If you see a civilian in cammies -- bump into him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Whether mitch uses the nuclear option or not- the very next time a democrat takes office- they WILL use the nuclear option against the republicans- so the republicans might as well use the option now- preemptively- and get it out of the way- sure- the left will use it against us when they get the office, but we’ll at least have the supreme court for decades likely-


86 posted on 02/01/2017 11:58:19 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Oh yeah. What was her bet again? Does someone have a recording of what she said she would do?


87 posted on 02/01/2017 11:59:08 AM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Remember, a very small typo or a smidgen of dyslexia will turn

NUclear

to

UNclear in a heartbeat.


88 posted on 02/01/2017 11:59:35 AM PST by xrmusn ((6/98)" "If you see a civilian in cammies -- bump into him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Did he cry when he said it?


89 posted on 02/01/2017 12:01:09 PM PST by CityCenter (Why worry about Peak Oil when you have Peak Outrage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

Do we need a postcard campaign to McConnell?

#GoNuclear!!!!


90 posted on 02/01/2017 12:04:00 PM PST by Right-wing Librarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Here’s what the `rats were saying when Hillary was a shoe-in and everything was blue skies, but even if:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/merrick_garland_nomination/we_need_merrick_garland_hearings_now.html

“Oh, and by the way ... even if Clinton loses, if the Democrats somehow manage to retake the Senate, they would be free to confirm Garland when the new Senate convenes in early January after reforming the filibuster with one simple vote—the nuclear option. In fact, a Democrat-controlled Senate would even be free to confirm two more Obama nominees in the window between the start of the Congressional session on Jan. 3 and the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20 were, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Breyer to offer to step down as a rebuke to obstructionist Republicans. Just saying.”


91 posted on 02/01/2017 12:09:45 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers, all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs

I wouldn’t take his word that day is light and night is dark.


92 posted on 02/01/2017 12:19:21 PM PST by Midnitethecat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Trump to Schumer - “Are you begging us to go all Harry Reid on you?”


93 posted on 02/01/2017 12:21:49 PM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jeannineinsd

I would love to see the filibustdr killed. I’ve long been an opponent of it.

Let elections have consequences. Lousy legislation can quickly be gutted in future congresses, and lousy presidents be quickly identified.

The process will be more dynamic and better mirror what the founders envisioned.

Plus, after losing their connection to their state legislatures, senators are immune from scrutiny for 5 straight years. That’s absurd.


94 posted on 02/01/2017 12:37:31 PM PST by xzins (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Sorry Chuck. You’re going to be nuked...


95 posted on 02/01/2017 1:01:20 PM PST by clintonh8r (AMERICA! THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY SCREEN NAME OBSOLETE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Why is Amy saying that?


96 posted on 02/01/2017 1:22:43 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

While Dims will grandstand and insult etc. there will be 60 votes to confirm.

Dims are already running scared and telling Schumer to chill a notch.


97 posted on 02/01/2017 1:27:02 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation’s boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[68] where it has since remained


98 posted on 02/01/2017 1:28:09 PM PST by Therapsid (eagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jeannineinsd

Ginsburg the Ex ACLU Lawyer got 97 Votes.

Sotomayor the Wise Latina, another unqualified Liberal got 68.


99 posted on 02/01/2017 1:28:44 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (The way Liberals carry on about Deportation, you would think "Mexico" was Spanish for "Auschwitz".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Strong arming democrats up for reelection would be my preference to nuclear vote. We know that democrats are lying rule changers and will take any opportunity to change the rules and destroy this country when they are in charge again.

Pray it never happens, but the media hysteria and negativity will not let up. At least Trump is a fighter. Slime balls aren’t used to that.


100 posted on 02/01/2017 1:29:58 PM PST by Trumplican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-117 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