Gillibrand Breaks Away From Schumer, Calls for ‘Up-or-Down’ Vote on SCOTUS Nominee

freebeacon.com ^ | February 22, 2017

[Helicondelta]

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) broke away from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Tuesday night when she was asked about the Democratic strategy for handling President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

"What is the Democratic strategy on this? There has been a lot made of this. Do you try to filibuster Gorsuch and risk the Republicans going for the so-called nuclear option, which would basically eliminate the filibuster now and forever?" NY1 reporter Bobby Cuza asked Gillibrand. "That seems like an equally bad outcome from the Democrats' perspective."

Gillibrand said she hopes her Democratic colleagues in the Senate will vote their "conscience" and that there will be an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.

"I hope we do vote him down, but make no mistake, if we do hold the line with 60 votes, Mitch McConnell will change the rules the next day, so it will be Mitch McConnell's decision," Gillibrand said. "I do not have any hope that he will not change the rules the minute he doesn't get his way."

"It will likely be 51 votes regardless at any given time that any nominee is blocked, but I expect our colleagues to vote their conscience and to really look at his record and see if he's the kind of nominee that's worthy of our support," the New York Democrat added.

Gillibrand's position differs from that of Schumer, who has said Gorsuch should only be confirmed with a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority

[Deo volente]

Clock is ticking on the 2018 mid-terms. The Democrats need to get their act together by the end of this year.

The Republicans also need to get moving on replacing Obamacare and getting the tax cuts passed. They cannot afford to drag this out over the next year or two. There's a time lag of a couple years before the good economic results will be evident from these actions. Reagan got his tax cuts in place quickly, but the economy took until early 1984 to really begin to recover. He thought, midway through his first term, that he might not be reelected because things were not improving.

Voters will not be patient with the GOP, Ryan, McConnell, etc. if they drag their heels on this. They may also take out their frustrations on the president in 2020 if things don't get better.

[catnipman]

“She’s in fear of her seat in NEW YORK STATE???”

i seriously doubt that. OTOH, it’s remotely possible she’s taking a longer view of the general health of the Dem party and realizes anarchy in the streets and continuous 24x7 hateful, lying attacks by the enemedia on President Trump and his supporters isn’t exactly gonna convert independent, unaffiliated or thoughtful voters to the Dem cause.

[FreeReign]

Might want to work on your reading comprehension skillz there sparky.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/are_you_concerned_that_neil_gorsuch_belongs_to_a_farleft_church.html

LOL. The American Thinker's source is the WaPo.

As I said to you dumb-dumb, do you have a source that isn't Fake News?

[HLPhat]

What does this mean?

“He belongs to St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colo., the Episcopal diocese of Colorado confirmed on Wednesday.

Church bulletins show that the judge has been an usher three times in recent months.”

Or this?

"Rev. Susan Springer has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4196096/Trump-s-Supreme-Court-pick-belongs-liberal-church.html

 

EXCLUSIVE: A rector who marched against Trump, gay blessings, gun control, Muslim outreach and 'climate crisis' solar panels on the roof: Meet Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's ultra-liberal church

By Ruth Styles In Boulder, Colorado, For Dailymail.com - February 6th 2017, 1:36:49 pm

St. John's Episcopal in Boulder, Colorado, is a hotbed of liberal thinking and is led by a pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women's March the day after the President's inauguration.

 

 

[HLPhat]

>>As I said to you dumb-dumb, do you have a source that isn't Fake News?

"St. John's Episcopal in Boulder, Colorado, is a hotbed of liberal thinking and is led by a pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women's March the day after the President's inauguration."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Ruth+Styles+In+Boulder,+Colorado,+For+Dailymail.com

 

Was it Gorsuch's "pastor" who -

"proudly attended the anti-Trump Women's March the day after the President's inauguration."

--or NOT?

[FreeReign]

"Church bulletins show that the judge has been an usher three times in recent months. His wife Louise frequently leads the intercessory prayer and reads the weekly Scripture at Sunday services, and his daughters assist in ceremonial duties during church services as acolytes."

I specifically highlighted the above quote from your "source".

This is now the third time I'm pointing out to you that the American Thinker's source, about what's in the Church Bulletin, is the WaPo. So it's the Washington Post who has supposedly seen what's in the bulletin.

And this is now the third time I'm asking you, do you have a source that isn't Fake News??

[FreeReign]

Was it Gorsuch's "pastor" who - "proudly attended the anti-Trump Women's March the day after the President's inauguration." --or NOT?

Shall I recap for you what my leftist Pope does? Does that make me not a Constitutional Conservative??

[HLPhat]

Church leader Rev. Susan Springer, 58, (above presiding over Christmas mass in 2013) has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4196096/Trump-s-Supreme-Court-pick-belongs-liberal-church.html

 

[Stopthethreat]

Hi. I am a concerned noob. (2 strikes, I know) But it really bothers me if he has any affiliation with this church. The last thing we need is another John Roberts.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

It is hugh and series!

[itsahoot]

Trying to push the vote before "conservative" sheeple have time to observe what the spiritual foundation for Gorsuch's worldview is, and isn't.

Hey, lighten, he only goes there to take naps.

[itsahoot]

But you can’t point to a single liberal decision.

Yet.

Professional politicians always have a long game plan.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Not this s#!t again.

Let me explain this ONCE AGAIN, slowly, so people can understand...

Gorsuch lives in the beautiful college town of Boulder, Colorado. Boulder is as liberal as Berkeley, California. A conservative in Boulder is going to be surrounded by commie libs, and any church you attend in Boulder is going to be liberal. That does not mean the man is liberal.

We have a solid history of his rulings. I cant make the fringe here accept that he is not a closet liberal. I can only speak to the reasonable here and demonstrate that his liberal Episcopalian Church is a product of the beautiful, high amenities college town where he lives, which is overwhelmingly liberal.

I would not choose to live there, but I can understand why any Colorado couple would be attracted to living in Boulder.

Beyond that, when has President Trump ever failed to uphold his promises so far? If Gorsuch was liberal, he would not have the history of interpreting the Constitution originally as he has done to date.

Some of you need to do better analysis and thing a little deeper, and not just fall for the obvious, which is often wrong.

I had a chemistry teacher drive that point into my head.

He cited 4 items that burn — a log, a baseball bat, a Telephone poll, and an arrow. Then he asked, why do these all burn, and he answered, because they are all cylindrical-shaped. That is the first obvious thing you see. Now try to burn a rifle barrel, an aluminum bat, or a steel drum. Oh, it is not that they are cylindrical, it is because they are all composed of wood.

That drove home the point that you can see an obvious answer that is a wrong answer. You are seeing a wbrong obvious answer and not doing the deeper required analysis.

[Grampa Dave]

Wow 3 liberal losers:

Kirsten’s got to get some visibility. Either Chelsea Clinton or Caroline Kennedy might go after her seat in 2018.

[Buckeye McFrog]

The Republicans MUST invoke the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster, because whether they do or don’t, the Democrats most certainly will do so when they next have control of the Senate.

You are spot-on 100% right about that. Didn't we learn our lesson when the Gang of Eight put the breaks on killing it to approve Bush judicial nominees, only to have Harry Reid adopt it to approve Obama's? That history will surely repeat itself.

[xzins]

This will go to the nuclear option.

[sanjuanbob]

So why the hold up?

[Sal]

No offense to you, Mase.

But! Where in hell is this crap coming from that is being spewed by both ‘rats and alleged Republicans that an opening in the SC who was a Republican gets filled by a good guy and a scum sucking commie gets replaced by a scum sucking commie?

I’ve read and reread my Constitution and I can’t find anything in there about this XXXX.

[Pearls Before Swine]

One of those 3 losers has to win, though.

A sad state of affairs—NYC governs the whole state of New York, even the rural good parts.

[Sal]

Or she sees a massive weakness in Schmucky. He’s apparently (I don’t have any inside info) exposed by xxxxxgate and allegedly due to be arrested. (I do hope so.) It MIGHT just be looking to replace the little schmuck. Maybe.