Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm for nuking the filibuster on non-consequentialist grounds.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Gorsuch has always been an original judge who isn't willing to commit to political ideologies.

However, we must remember the left has, since FDR, viewed the SCOTUS as an appendage of political power. We cannot allow litmus tests to exist.

[Heisenberg]

So that's 35 Democrats supporting a filibuster, and 2 against. That leaves 11 Undecided/Unknown on cloture, 6 of whom would be needed to get to 60 votes. These 11 (including King) are:

Michael Bennet (CO)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Angus King (ME)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)

Path of least resistance here is probably King, Tester, Donnelly, Warner, Bennet, and a wildcard (Feintstein, Leahy, no idea).

My prediction is that King, Donnelly, and Bennet also vote for cloture, with an overall vote of 57-43.

Err...Brown was one of the first to call for a filibuster of Gorsuch and McCaskill is on record as supporting one.

Oh yeah I made the post after saying McCaskill was a NO, but forgot to take out her name from the list I copied. Has Brown specifically called for a fillibuster? He's still on undecided list at The Washington Post.

Well, Brown tweeted his opposition to Gorsuch within 15 minutes of his nomination, so I'd assume he'll vote against cloture. Plus, Brown is of the more progressive wing, and is solidly pro-abortion and anti-gun. So why would he support Gorsuch?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So that's 35 Democrats supporting a filibuster, and 2 against. That leaves 11 Undecided/Unknown on cloture, 6 of whom would be needed to get to 60 votes. These 11 (including King) are:

Michael Bennet (CO)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Benjamin Cardin (MD)
Christopher Coons (DE)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Angus King (ME)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Robert Menendez (NJ)
Jon Tester (MT)
Mark Warner (VA)

Path of least resistance here is probably King, Tester, Donnelly, Warner, Bennet, and a wildcard (Feintstein, Leahy, no idea).

My prediction is that King, Donnelly, and Bennet also vote for cloture, with an overall vote of 57-43.

Err...Brown was one of the first to call for a filibuster of Gorsuch and McCaskill is on record as supporting one.

Oh yeah I made the post after saying McCaskill was a NO, but forgot to take out her name from the list I copied. Has Brown specifically called for a fillibuster? He's still on undecided list at The Washington Post.

Brown called for a filibuster very early on, yes.  McCaskill said Gorsuch should be filibustered unless he can get the votes of 60 Senators, IIRC.

[EnglishPete]

A sign of the direction of later Federal judicial appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/white_house_tells_aba_it_wont_be_asked_to_review_lower_court_judicial_candi/

[Hindsight was 2020]

A sign of the direction of later Federal judicial appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/white_house_tells_aba_it_wont_be_asked_to_review_lower_court_judicial_candi/

That's f**king horrifying

[GlobeSoc]

A sign of the direction of later Federal judicial appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/white_house_tells_aba_it_wont_be_asked_to_review_lower_court_judicial_candi/

That's f**king horrifying

[EnglishPete]

A sign of the direction of later Federal judicial appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/white_house_tells_aba_it_wont_be_asked_to_review_lower_court_judicial_candi/

That's f**king horrifying

Trump asked the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation help him prepare the list for possible SCOTUS nominees. If the ABA isn't helping Trump prepare lists of nominees for the lower Federal courts then can't the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation do the same job for the lower federal courts that they did for the Supreme Court?

After all they may give him better advice than the ABA which probably has lots of SJW types in it ready to give Trump bad advice. Given all the trouble Trump is getting from left wing activist judges wouldn't that be the sensible course for him?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The ABA is a mess of regulatory capture that has less to do with practicing law and more to do with screwing over the legal profession for the benefit of a plutocratic elite (something liberals should be against). I am not going to lose any sleep over them not reviewing judicial nominees.

[krazen1211]

A sign of the direction of later Federal judicial appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/white_house_tells_aba_it_wont_be_asked_to_review_lower_court_judicial_candi/

That's f**king horrifying

Trump asked the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation help him prepare the list for possible SCOTUS nominees. If the ABA isn't helping Trump prepare lists of nominees for the lower Federal courts then can't the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation do the same job for the lower federal courts that they did for the Supreme Court?

After all they may give him better advice than the ABA which probably has lots of SJW types in it ready to give Trump bad advice. Given all the trouble Trump is getting from left wing activist judges wouldn't that be the sensible course for him?

The ABA is known to have a bunch of looney toons libs in it, which resulted in them giving lesser ratings for R nominees.

Link

Link


There's a reason W ditched these clowns in 2001.

[TJ in Oregon]

How about as a truce to permanently end judicial wars, we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding the judiciary from striking down a law on any basis other than the literal text of the constitution and/or relevant law taking precedence? Seriously, as long as it's an art contest to see who can draw a more imaginative implied or evolving right, judicial nominations will perpetually be as close to an all-out war as the rules of our political system will allow. If you want judges to stop being partisan hacks, take away their power to be kings.

[Mr. Reactionary]

     The ABA is a mess of regulatory capture that has less to do with practicing law and more to do with screwing over the legal profession for the benefit of a plutocratic elite (something liberals should be against). I am not going to lose any sleep over them not reviewing judicial nominees.

This.

[MarkD]

How about as a truce to permanently end judicial wars, we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding the judiciary from striking down a law on any basis other than the literal text of the constitution and/or relevant law taking precedence? Seriously, as long as it's an art contest to see who can draw a more imaginative implied or evolving right, judicial nominations will perpetually be as close to an all-out war as the rules of our political system will allow. If you want judges to stop being partisan hacks, take away their power to be kings.

Taking the text of the Constitution and every statute passed by Congress literally could lead to some very foolish conclusions.
http://mtweb.mtsu.edu/cewillis/Hermeneutics/Hand%20How%20Free%20is%20a%20Judge.pdf

The intent of the lawmakers is what should guide judges' decisions.
I agree with the rest of what you said, though.

[Person Man]

How about as a truce to permanently end judicial wars, we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding the judiciary from striking down a law on any basis other than the literal text of the constitution and/or relevant law taking precedence? Seriously, as long as it's an art contest to see who can draw a more imaginative implied or evolving right, judicial nominations will perpetually be as close to an all-out war as the rules of our political system will allow. If you want judges to stop being partisan hacks, take away their power to be kings.

Taking the text of the Constitution and every statute passed by Congress literally could lead to some very foolish conclusions.
http://mtweb.mtsu.edu/cewillis/Hermeneutics/Hand%20How%20Free%20is%20a%20Judge.pdf

The intent of the lawmakers is what should guide judges' decisions.
I agree with the rest of what you said, though.

Exactly. Why do we ever have Judges and Legislatures if one can just do what they want and another nothing?

[The Dowager Mod]

Schumer wants them to go nuclear, If there is a Dem wave in 2018 it will backfire on the Reps.

[Matty]

Using a nuclear option to push through a justice supported by 60% of Americans is not something that will backfire.

Why the hell are liberals afraid of someone like gorsuch? He's one of the most tame conservatives to ever be appointed.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Using a nuclear option to push through a justice supported by 60% of Americans is not something that will backfire.

Why the hell are liberals afraid of someone like gorsuch? He's one of the most tame conservatives to ever be appointed.

It's not about him it's about giving Mitch an Trump the finger over Garland

[ApatheticAustrian]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Just in: Donnelly supporty Gorsuch.

Not surprising

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Using a nuclear option to push through a justice supported by 60% of Americans is not something that will backfire.

Why the hell are liberals afraid of someone like gorsuch? He's one of the most tame conservatives to ever be appointed.

1. Gorsuch is far right hacktivist judge.  Being polite and having a non-threatening demeanor doesn't make someone any less of an extremist (see Pence, Mike).  

2. Any nominee by Trump is unacceptable because Hillary Clinton received a greater share of the popular vote.  The American people clearly voted for a Democratic majority on the Supreme Court and since Trump is not going to nominate Goodwin Liu (or even a moderate like Garland) to fill Scalia's former seat, it should remain vacant until after the winner of the 2020 Presidential election has been sworn in.  The American people will have another chance to make their voice heard on this issue in 2020, but until then, filling Scalia's seat with anyone to the right of Garland is unacceptable regardless of said nominees hypothetical qualifications.  

If after Scalia's seat has been filled by a young, liberal justice Republicans want to de-escalate the judicial wars, that's fine.  Until then, I'd rather see the entire Supreme Court indefinitely vacant than even consider any sort of compromise or de-escalation on this or any other judicial appointment.  Your party had a chance to de-escalate when Scalia died and blew it.  And appointing Garland to fill Ginsberg's seat if she dies is not an acceptable "compromise."  Appointing Goodwin Liu or Pamela Karlan to her seat and Garlan to Scalia's seat is an acceptable compromise (as opposed to filling both seats with relatively young staunch liberals) and anything short of that should be rejected by Senate Democrats.

3. You claim 60% of Americans support Gorsuch, but even if that is true (which I'm a bit skeptical of, to say the least) far more Americans supported Manchin-Toomey and Republicans blocked that all the same.  I really don't think congressional Republicans quite realized hard it is to govern once you've made at least half the country hate your guts, but they're sure going to learn.  What goes around comes around and as far as I'm concerned, the constant democratic obstruction on every issue is payback for all the sh!t Republicans pulled during Obama's Presidency.  Republicans made their bed and now they're gonna have to sleep in it.  Enjoy

How about as a truce to permanently end judicial wars, we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding the judiciary from striking down a law on any basis other than the literal text of the constitution and/or relevant law taking precedence? Seriously, as long as it's an art contest to see who can draw a more imaginative implied or evolving right, judicial nominations will perpetually be as close to an all-out war as the rules of our political system will allow. If you want judges to stop being partisan hacks, take away their power to be kings.

I'm sorry, but no.  Ignoring the fact that such a Constitutional amendment would be a terrible idea which would produce many awful rulings, I think I speak for many Democrats when I say I have literally no interest in a truce and would happily escalate the judicial wars after what happened with Garland.  Once Democrats have screwed over Republicans regarding a Supreme Court seat in a manner on par with Republican efforts to steal Scalia's vacant seat, then and only then, can we talk about a truce.  Obama tried de-escalating by nominating Garland and Republicans chose scorched earth warfare instead.  As far as I'm concerned, what goes around comes around.  If we manage to keep the seat vacant until a Democratic President has been sworn in and a young liberal justice is confirmed, then we can talk about a truce (and that's assuming Ginsberg hasn't died yet, if she has forget it).  Until then, y'all wanted scorched earth warfare and now you're gonna get it for the foreseeable future, period.

[Skill and Chance]

Anyone who thinks there is still a path to get the 60 votes is kidding themselves. In fact, there was never a path. The nuclear option will obviously be used, but I think McConnell should wait until 2019 to do it.

So you would just leave the seat open for another 18 months and with a small but non-zero chance that a new Dem senate majority says "no more Trump judges until 2021"?  That seems like bad strategy to me.

[MT Treasurer]

Anyone who thinks there is still a path to get the 60 votes is kidding themselves. In fact, there was never a path. The nuclear option will obviously be used, but I think McConnell should wait until 2019 to do it.

So you would just leave the seat open for another 18 months and with a small but non-zero chance that a new Dem senate majority says "no more Trump judges until 2021"?  That seems like bad strategy to me.

Nah, if it's clear in September 2018 that Democrats are going to retake the Senate (which isn't going to happen anyway, but okay), McConnell should confirm him before the election. Republicans need to turn out their base, which could prove to be a lot more difficult without a Democratic president in the White House. A Supreme Court seat being obstructed by Democrats would give them at least some ammunition. It's not as if the Supreme Court will be dramatically different with Gorsuch seated anyway, so why not simply delay the whole thing.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Anyone who thinks there is still a path to get the 60 votes is kidding themselves. In fact, there was never a path. The nuclear option will obviously be used, but I think McConnell should wait until 2019 to do it.

So you would just leave the seat open for another 18 months and with a small but non-zero chance that a new Dem senate majority says "no more Trump judges until 2021"?  That seems like bad strategy to me.

Nah, if it's clear in September 2018 that Democrats are going to retake the Senate (which isn't going to happen anyway, but okay), McConnell should confirm him before the election. Republicans need to turn out their base, which could prove to be a lot more difficult without a Democratic president in the White House. A Supreme Court seat being obstructed by Democrats would give them at least some ammunition. It's not as if the Supreme Court will be dramatically different with Gorsuch seated anyway, so why not simply delay the whole thing.

Actually Gorsuch would move it dramatically to the right of where it currently is

[Gass3268]

Tester is a no and he will filibuster

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

Another spineless democrat who has just confirmed a primary race. Bad politics on his part.