Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Motion fails 48-52.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

NUCLEAR VOTE NOW BEGINNING

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

To clarify, as this is appealing a chair ruling, a NAY vote is a vote for the Nuclear option.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

NUCLEAR OPTION AGREED TO 52-48

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

CLOTURE VOTE now starting again.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Donnelly: AYE
Heitkamp: AYE
Manchin: AYE
Bennet: NAY


Vote is 49-40 in favor

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

Give me a break. Republicans didn't even try to nominate a consensus candidate.

And Democrats didnt even pretend to give Gorsuch a fair hearing, which they just spent an entire year whining about. Yes i know, "iz a stolez seat. Teh rules say the Democratic Party forever owns that seat."

Uh, they participated in the entire hearing. Their questions may have been tough, but they were all fair. They met with the nominee. Many kept an open mind, at least on the CLOTURE vote, throughout the entire process. Gorsuch was treated fairly. Just because you didn't like that the questions weren't sugar coated doesn't mean the process wasn't fair.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

CLOTURE VOTE passes 55-45

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, Dems, this is the consequence for changing the rules in 2013. Before then, the nuclear option was something no one was willing to touch with a 10 foot pole. Whenever the idea came up, a gang was quickly formed to prevent it, and always succeeded in doing so. That all changed in November 2013, when Harry Reid, who you supported for majority leader, decided to go through with the nuclear option, and whipped his caucus into going along with it. Yes, I understand the rationale for doing it, and don't need to hear it again. But that doesn't change the fact that it changed the nature under which the nuclear option was viewed. No longer was it something to be avoided at all costs, now it was an acceptable practice to ram things through. Had the rules not been changed in 2013, the nuclear option would still be viewed as unacceptable, and this would not have happened.

You were warned about this during the process of invoking the nuclear option in 2013. You were told that you would regret it when you were in the minority. But no, you decided to cover your ears and listen to the Lawrence O'Donnells of the world, who told you you had a permanent majority. But you can now see the consequences clearly. Yes, this is technically the result of denying Gorsuch, but it is also clearly the natural evolution of a change in the way the senate operates, that began with the action taken in November 2013. Had you simply refrained from changing long senate precedent then, it would still be viewed as unacceptable now, and this nomination, if it still occurred, would not have gone through. But since you did, Gorsuch will be sitting on the court as of tomorrow. A nominee who wanted a truck driver to commit defacto suicide. A nominee who wants minimal education for the disabled. A nominee who can't even say he supports Brown vs. Board. I hope you're happy.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

Give me a break. Republicans didn't even try to nominate a consensus candidate.

And Democrats didnt even pretend to give Gorsuch a fair hearing, which they just spent an entire year whining about. Yes i know, "iz a stolez seat. Teh rules say the Democratic Party forever owns that seat."

Uh, they participated in the entire hearing. Their questions may have been tough, but they were all fair. They met with the nominee. Many kept an open mind, at least on the CLOTURE vote, throughout the entire process. Gorsuch was treated fairly. Just because you didn't like that the questions weren't sugar coated doesn't mean the process wasn't fair.

Predetermining that you wont vote for anyone nominated by the president on the b.s. basis that somehow a political party owns a judgeship or that a federal judge should have violated ethical rules and rendered advisory opinions or that he relied on precedent, is unfair. I dont care about what questions they asked,  i care that there is no personal or ideological grounds for the vast majority of filibustering senators. Its frustrating.

When the nominee is someone who wanted a truck driver to commit defacto suicide, when the nominee wants minimal education for the disabled, when the nominee can't even say "I do" when asked if they support Brown vs. Board (Remember that Roberts and Alito could), the answer isn't to change the rules, it's to change the nominee.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

good to know that wulfric, blackraisin etc are still trash morons tbh

If telling the truth makes me a trash moron, then so be it.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

"I have seen more than you guys because I watched it on TV. I saw the real thing while you had to actually do it" - Johnny Isakson.


Damn,  sarcasm!


He is making a lot of good points about the danger to the Senate being lost, and the road to majoritarian fiat. I agree with a lot of what he is saying.

Yet he just voted for the Nuclear Option. Some principles he has.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Let's now put 10 20-something year-old judges on the Court who will be willing to not only overturn Roe v. Wade, but also say that all first-degree murder laws apply to the killing of babies nationwide.  Ending abortion is more important than our system of government itself.  I'm serious!

Trump plz drone

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

My condolences to Truck Drivers and Disabled students across the land.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

'A great day for the unborn'

Meanwhile, Gorsuch sides against a living truck driver who almost froze to death at his job

yes, screw the law "muh feels" are what should guide sc justices

The original position does not reflect reality and thus is not a good judicial philosophy.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn!  

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago.  

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Ohio's proposed heartbeat ban was vetoed though  I think the Republican leadership wants to make it extremely difficult to get an abortion and many rank-and-file Republicans probably want it banned, but I don't think the Republican party leadership really wants it to actually be illegal so much as very difficult to get.  On a somewhat related note, the bolded part of your post shows that you completely misunderstood what I was saying.  ApatheticAustrian has the right idea about what they [the party leadership] want:

*snip*

no total ban but more and more and more AND MOOOORE inconvenient, messy, difficult and embarassing.

As I said, the Ohio Ban was vetoed for sake of strategy. If Ginsburg was dead, it would have been signed.