Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Torie]

Senator Durbin didn't do very well against Gorsuch (basically Gorsuch crewed him up and spit him out). But then I consider Durbin a rather dim bulb.

[Torie]

This is an interesting theory. Quite illogical of course. I have no idea what obstructed means, other than that your political party was routed in the 2010 elections and the power of the House of Representatives was given to the Republican Party.

Not sure who the 2nd Republican administration is either?

the democrats could have obstructed the shoot out of the GWB administration - and they ofc did not and it was the right call.

the republicans made it necessary to pulverize the old rules.... i like politeness but if it doesn't work, it must go. better 8 years of hardcore republicanism than 16 years without even being able to do anything, cause we are meant to be the "mature" party...most overrated political category ever.

Your lies are becoming highly naughty.

The Dems blocked Bushs judicial nominations until the Gang of 14 Deal in 2005. There was an amount of blockade never seen before. Maybe you should Google for e.g. Miguel Estrada.

Also the Dems started the SCOTUS fights back in 1987. Killing a highly qualified nominee because of political reasons but now whining when it backfires. Childish.

I doubt that you don't know that, so let me ask clearly: Why are you lying?

Let's tone this down. Characterizing another poster's content as "lies" when it is really just your opinion, is inflammatory, and can lead to flame wars. Even though flame wars can be entertaining, the purpose of this site is for calm and civil discussion. Please try to remember that. Thanks.

[Torie]

Looking at that list, it reads like 57-43 to me, with Manchin, Tester, King, Donnelly, and Heitkamp going for cloture. Followed five minutes later by the nuclear option.

add Warner, Bennett, and Coons, and that's 60.

A) I think its more 56-44 I don't see King going over heck I can see Tester as well also B) Warner, Bennett, and Coons are not likely yes

They may not vote for him, but they will support allowing a vote and save the filibuster for another day.

Except on Politico it says (well more than says, it has up a video of Coons actually saying it) that Coons thinks there is not 60 votes, and the "tragedy" of the nuke button being successfully pushed is "almost a certainty."  So Coons has trouble getting to the number 60.

[Torie]

Good, the filibuster needs to be repealed anyway.

It most certainly does. It is a disaster, all of it. The problem is that it tends to cause the parties to have no accountability. If a party has a majority (the trifecta) and is cohesive, let it pass its agenda, and be held accountable. If the agenda which becomes law sucks, the party will be thrown out, and their junk repealed. No instead, we have the situation, where once in a blue moon, a party has the trifecta, and the 60 votes, and can unilaterally pass Obamacare, and then the darn thing cannot be repealed or revised when the other party gets in, without 60 votes, and the only way to deal with it, is play the reconciliation game, and have a flawed cf bill (requiring also that it be passed in three increments, with no guarantee all three will be passed to boot), so the darn line is the kissing cousin to a freaking Constitutional Amendment.

Not good. It's totally toxic to a healthy robust democratic process. Kill it!

[Torie]

Pence presiding was interesting.  It must have been for ceremony only.  There wasn't going to be a tie.

Correct. Other than base pressure, I am still wondering just what animated the Dem strategy here. They have managed to make SCOTuS picks an even more salient issue, and that is one issue, where Trump is not particularly weak, unlike so many other issues. And given that the Pubs seemingly have an advantage in the Senate over the long term, given the Dem troubles in fly over country, and that their numbers are mostly packed into but a few highly populated states, the Pubs will be even more unleashed to stonewall any future Dem President's nominees. It just does not make much sense to me.