Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Klartext89]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

[Shadows]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

If that was the case, it would have costed many moderate Republicans their seats in swing states in 2016 when Republicans didn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing. You are living in your own world if you believe that Swing voters in the rust belt have a Conservative Supreme Court as their top priority - Remember many of these voters are 2 time Obama voters. Citizens United for one is deeply unpopular among even Republican/Conservative voters. The people for whom the Supreme Court is absolutely key will 100% anyways vote Republican always & are not Swing voters.

Poll after Poll, including the Fox one, shows even among Trump voters, Supreme Court is a very VERY low priority

2018 will be fought on Trump's performance & the economy under a Republican Congress !

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Let's just say if my #1 goal re: SCOTUS was appointing a pro-life nominee (it's clearly not given that I wholeheartedly supported Garland, but that's besides the point), I wouldn't choose the guy who says in his hearing, and I quote: "Senator, it's the law of the land" in reference to Roe, in the context of being questioned on the case, after lines where he says the precedent it provides must be seriously considered, and in a tone that didn't suggest he was bothered by it being the law of the land. That string just invites too many questions of whether he can be trusted to overturn Roe if he is the deciding vote to do so at some point.

[Shadows]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Absolutely - Even if Scalia was there, he would say he respects the precedent. There is considerable chance that Gorsuch may vote to over-turn Roe vs Wade but is it really possible. I can't see even Roberts going against Roe v Wade (Kennedy will be with the 4 Liberal judges). Full over-turn is very hard, maybe they will put some restrictions - Will even Alito vote against Roe vs Wade full overturn?

While Rode vs Wade looks very hard, gay marriage isn't. It was 5-4 right? If Kennedy goes & Trump appoints a conservative judge or it something bad happens to 84 year old RBG, then surely it is possible that gay marriage is over-turned. But then Trump is privately possibly for gay marriage - So would he appoint when he is in the company of Pence, Cruz & crazy Republicans?

There will be an open war for the next Supreme Court seat !

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Trump's next nominee will probably be like Gorsuch on gay marriage - never ruled on it, frequently associates with gays, doesn't seem super likely to want to overturn it.

Oh, and I didn't mean to say that there isn't a considerable chance that Gorsuch would vote against Roe, I'm just saying that there is also a considerable chance that he would vote for Roe.

[Shadows]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

If that was the case, it would have costed many moderate Republicans their seats in swing states in 2016 when Republicans didn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing. You are living in your own world if you believe that Swing voters in the rust belt have a Conservative Supreme Court as their top priority - Remember many of these voters are 2 time Obama voters. Citizens United for one is deeply unpopular among even Republican/Conservative voters. The people for whom the Supreme Court is absolutely key will 100% anyways vote Republican always & are not Swing voters.

Poll after Poll, including the Fox one, shows even among Trump voters, Supreme Court is a very VERY low priority

2018 will be fought on Trump's performance & the economy under a Republican Congress !

I'm curious... what in your mind is causing these voters to vote Republican then?

a) you think it's not the Supreme Court... so it must not be social policy...

b) you think they generally support progressive fiscal policies... i.e., socialism...  so it must not be fiscal policy...

then WHY are they voting for Trump? 

I am not capable on perfectly saying this. But elections are not fought on 2 way course with Social & Economic issues.They are fought on the legacy of the incumbent president, the success or failures of him & the opposition party, the anti-incumbent mood, the state of the economy & a variety of factors.

It has a lot to do with the candidates - There are people who vote for Bernie who don't agree with many of his economic policies but because they belief he is a good man who will look out for the common man. Not everyone liked Trump who voted for him (some hated Hillary more). A candidates personal charm affects too - Bill Clinton & Obama were charismatic fabulous speakers. Certainly, turnout was not upto the mark among strong progressives & some even voted green - But that is not the only reason.

Similarly, they are people who are tired of the establishment & want changed in a Broken-Washington - You agree that there is tremendous anti-establishment yearning of change right? Hillary had a lot of flaws - She is a VERY poor campaigner & speaker, very dull & inspiring, a perceived lack of "honesty" & "authenticity" in most polls. Plus the FBI & Clinton Foundation didn't help. The economy is not great, it has stagnated & most of the workers below the median are struggling. They certainly have no obligation to put social issues about their own lives.

Look if Bernie ran, he would have his own set of issues etc - I am not saying he wouldn't but elections are more than What if your Economic & Social score or policies & how close I am to that.

Can we stick to the topic now which is about Gorsuch & not the 2016 election ?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Absolutely - Even if Scalia was there, he would say he respects the precedent. There is considerable chance that Gorsuch may vote to over-turn Roe vs Wade but is it really possible. I can't see even Roberts going against Roe v Wade (Kennedy will be with the 4 Liberal judges). Full over-turn is very hard, maybe they will put some restrictions - Will even Alito vote against Roe vs Wade full overturn?

While Rode vs Wade looks very hard, gay marriage isn't. It was 5-4 right? If Kennedy goes & Trump appoints a conservative judge or it something bad happens to 84 year old RBG, then surely it is possible that gay marriage is over-turned. But then Trump is privately possibly for gay marriage - So would he appoint when he is in the company of Pence, Cruz & crazy Republicans?

There will be an open war for the next Supreme Court seat !

Except that Obergefell has that reliance interest that Gorsuch talked about. Overturn it and you have people's established relationships put in a precarious position.  I don't see it overturned in any way that would allow banning of gay marriage, though the language of the decision might be scaled back for the sake of its implications on other issues related to sexuality.

Roe v Wade is more likely to be chipped away through a series of decisions than overturned all at once, though I wouldn't put anything out of the question on the issue.

[Shadows]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Absolutely - Even if Scalia was there, he would say he respects the precedent. There is considerable chance that Gorsuch may vote to over-turn Roe vs Wade but is it really possible. I can't see even Roberts going against Roe v Wade (Kennedy will be with the 4 Liberal judges). Full over-turn is very hard, maybe they will put some restrictions - Will even Alito vote against Roe vs Wade full overturn?

While Rode vs Wade looks very hard, gay marriage isn't. It was 5-4 right? If Kennedy goes & Trump appoints a conservative judge or it something bad happens to 84 year old RBG, then surely it is possible that gay marriage is over-turned. But then Trump is privately possibly for gay marriage - So would he appoint when he is in the company of Pence, Cruz & crazy Republicans?

There will be an open war for the next Supreme Court seat !

Except that Obergefell has that reliance interest that Gorsuch talked about. Overturn it and you have people's established relationships put in a precarious position.  I don't see it overturned in any way that would allow banning of gay marriage, though the language of the decision might be scaled back for the sake of its implications on other issues related to sexuality.

Roe v Wade is more likely to be chipped away through a series of decisions than overturned all at once, though I wouldn't put anything out of the question on the issue.

I agree, Rode Vs Wage will likely be chipped away but due to the long precedence, I see it very hard to be repealed. With gay marriage, they can reason they support civil unions & states are free to allow or disallow it & what is explicitly not mentioned, should be left to the states.

I just see it more easily to be overturned than Roe vs Wade? Wasn't Roe vs Wade 7-2 such a long time back vs a 5-4 decision much more recently?

Chipping away at both laws could certainly happen. I don't know if conservatives believe that they can fully over-turn Roe vs Wade !

[Klartext89]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

If that was the case, it would have costed many moderate Republicans their seats in swing states in 2016 when Republicans didn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing. You are living in your own world if you believe that Swing voters in the rust belt have a Conservative Supreme Court as their top priority - Remember many of these voters are 2 time Obama voters. Citizens United for one is deeply unpopular among even Republican/Conservative voters. The people for whom the Supreme Court is absolutely key will 100% anyways vote Republican always & are not Swing voters.

Poll after Poll, including the Fox one, shows even among Trump voters, Supreme Court is a very VERY low priority

2018 will be fought on Trump's performance & the economy under a Republican Congress !

Will again be a hard awakening for you, Buddy!

2016 National Exit poll:

"In your vote, were Supreme Court appointments:"
The most important factor (21%) - Trump 56%, Clinton 41%.

But keep on dreaming.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Absolutely - Even if Scalia was there, he would say he respects the precedent. There is considerable chance that Gorsuch may vote to over-turn Roe vs Wade but is it really possible. I can't see even Roberts going against Roe v Wade (Kennedy will be with the 4 Liberal judges). Full over-turn is very hard, maybe they will put some restrictions - Will even Alito vote against Roe vs Wade full overturn?

While Rode vs Wade looks very hard, gay marriage isn't. It was 5-4 right? If Kennedy goes & Trump appoints a conservative judge or it something bad happens to 84 year old RBG, then surely it is possible that gay marriage is over-turned. But then Trump is privately possibly for gay marriage - So would he appoint when he is in the company of Pence, Cruz & crazy Republicans?

There will be an open war for the next Supreme Court seat !

Except that Obergefell has that reliance interest that Gorsuch talked about. Overturn it and you have people's established relationships put in a precarious position.  I don't see it overturned in any way that would allow banning of gay marriage, though the language of the decision might be scaled back for the sake of its implications on other issues related to sexuality.

Roe v Wade is more likely to be chipped away through a series of decisions than overturned all at once, though I wouldn't put anything out of the question on the issue.

I agree, Rode Vs Wage will likely be chipped away but due to the long precedence, I see it very hard to be repealed. With gay marriage, they can reason they support civil unions & states are free to allow or disallow it & what is explicitly not mentioned, should be left to the states.

I just see it more easily to be overturned than Roe vs Wade? Wasn't Roe vs Wade 7-2 such a long time back vs a 5-4 decision much more recently?

Chipping away at both laws could certainly happen. I don't know if conservatives believe that they can fully over-turn Roe vs Wade !

How long ago it was and whether it was closely decided are not necessarily very influential.  There have been plenty of unanimous or lopsided decisions that were reversed some years later. Social disruption and confusion about the status of individuals and relationships are more likely to be critical factors.  The Court is almost certain to take up more abortion cases, but less likely to take up a direct challenge to gay marriage I would think.  Obergefell provided a more straightforward decision, as opposed to abortion jurisprudence which has always been murky about what restrictions are allowed and what aren't under Roe and especially Casey. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

Schumer says he has enough Democrats to prevent 60 votes on Gorsuch (meaning fewer than 8 Democratic defections). However, Politico's count has 13 Democrats that are either undecided or have not announced their intentions:

Tim Kaine (Up for reelection in 2018)
Joe Manchin (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Jon Tester (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Michael Bennett
Amy Klobuchar (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Angus King (Up for reelection in 2018)
Claire McCaskill (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Mark Warner
Chris Coons
Maggie Hassan
Joe Donnelly (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Bill Nelson (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)
Heidi Heitkamp (Trump state, up for reelection in 2018)

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-democrats-supreme-court-236384

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/24/1647085/-Schumer-says-he-has-votes-to-filibuster-Gorsuch-but-at-least-13-Dem-senators-remain-on-the-fence

Quick correction: Trump lost Minnesota, but it was close, and I think will be more competitive in the future. (I don't really think Klobuchar is an any danger, as much as I think she's overrated.)

Does MN even have state wide Republicans?

Nelson & McCaskill are gone, so that is 11. Hassan is up in re-election in 2024 in NH, Coons is totally safe. Klobuchar will also come along so that makes it 8.

So Dems need 1 of Kaine, Warner (both in Likely D seats atleast w/o a major threat) or Bennet. Schumer is a tough cookie, he will surely let 2 or 3 of the votes & let Manchin, Donnely, Heitkamp etc vote the other way.

Does GOP have the required votes for a Nuclear?

Susan Collins could be  NO. Murkowski could be a NO. McCain could be a NO. Rand Paul could be a No. Flake/Portman/Toomey etc try & seem moderates but they are little boys who will bullied by Trump in 1 minute.

I find it very hard to see Susan Collins opting to go for Nuclear. Either way That turtle has to convince everyone, get the votes & then go for it which will drag it out more, hopefully through this term.

Win, Win for the Dems especially because No1 gives damn about the SC (Lowest priority among Trump voters even in the Fox Poll).

The delusion is scary.

The longer the Dems obstruct, the more the voters (these who decide elections, not the butthurt activists who riot on the streets or comment on social media) will be angry and will shake their heads about it. There will be a point coming that it is more popular to go nuclear than to keep the Filibuster in place. Collins, Mukowski, McCain, Graham etc. will not be the reason why the GOP can't get Gorsuch confirmed. Also, there's still very much Anger about Harry Reids move in 2013. And the GOP can't trust the Dems to stick to the Filibuster when the majorities have swung back. But they won't swing back before 2024 if the GOP can pick up 3 or more seats in 2018 thanks to the SCOTUS Topic which worked very well for the GOP in November. 

All in all, the Dems have to lose a hell lot, the GOP has enough time. They have 52 Seats now, they will almost certainly have more Seats in two years.

If that was the case, it would have costed many moderate Republicans their seats in swing states in 2016 when Republicans didn't allow Obama's nominee to even get a hearing. You are living in your own world if you believe that Swing voters in the rust belt have a Conservative Supreme Court as their top priority - Remember many of these voters are 2 time Obama voters. Citizens United for one is deeply unpopular among even Republican/Conservative voters. The people for whom the Supreme Court is absolutely key will 100% anyways vote Republican always & are not Swing voters.

Poll after Poll, including the Fox one, shows even among Trump voters, Supreme Court is a very VERY low priority

2018 will be fought on Trump's performance & the economy under a Republican Congress !

Will again be a hard awakening for you, Buddy!

2016 National Exit poll:

"In your vote, were Supreme Court appointments:"
The most important factor (21%) - Trump 56%, Clinton 41%.

But keep on dreaming.

Yeah a big % are republicans who hated Trump but stayed with him for that reason

[emailking]

Question: if Garland doesn't have 60 votes, and the Mitch decides to use nuclear option, will he need 50+Pence or 51 votes? When Reid did it, he had 52 votes so this wasn't in question.

50+ Pence. They'd potentially also get Pence to preside over the Senate during the nuclear option vote. At least that's how Republicans planned it when they first invented the concept.

They need 51 or 50 + Pence to change the Senate rules to invoke the nuclear option, but cloture would still require 51 senators. There's no tie to break. Cloture requires a certain fraction of the full number of senators voting to cut off debate.

[moderatevoter]

In news that MT Treasurer would appreciate, both NH Senators will vote NO.

[Cashew]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-236604

[100% pro-life no matter what]

It's kind of funny that the republican senate leadership is willing to go nuclear to confirm a guy that essentially said he might vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade. That is supposed to be the #1 court case republicans want to overturn, and yet the guy they're about to confirm is someone who at times in his hearing seemed close to endorsing the verdict as is.

That's a misunderstanding of what he said.  He said it was a precedent, and so is due the respect of precedent.  But precedents can be overturned.

Absolutely - Even if Scalia was there, he would say he respects the precedent. There is considerable chance that Gorsuch may vote to over-turn Roe vs Wade but is it really possible. I can't see even Roberts going against Roe v Wade (Kennedy will be with the 4 Liberal judges). Full over-turn is very hard, maybe they will put some restrictions - Will even Alito vote against Roe vs Wade full overturn?

While Rode vs Wade looks very hard, gay marriage isn't. It was 5-4 right? If Kennedy goes & Trump appoints a conservative judge or it something bad happens to 84 year old RBG, then surely it is possible that gay marriage is over-turned. But then Trump is privately possibly for gay marriage - So would he appoint when he is in the company of Pence, Cruz & crazy Republicans?

There will be an open war for the next Supreme Court seat !

I think it is the opposite.  I am resigned to the fact that Obergefell is going nowhere anytime soon, as much as I believe in marriage being between a man and a woman, but, I am optimistic about the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade, perhaps even within 3-5 years.

[Klartext89]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/poll-americans-want-gorsuch-confirmed-by-17-point-margin/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Americans say by large margin that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch should be confirmed, a new Huffington Post/YouGov poll shows.

The poll says that 40 percent to 23 percent believe that Gorsuch should be confirmed and another 37 percent are not sure.

Additionally, fewer than 25 percent of the public say that the Senate should vote against Gorsuch.

The poll shows that Trump voters are mainly in favor of Gorsuch and 87 percent want the Senate to confirm him. Only three percent of Trump voters say otherwise.

However, the majority of Clinton voters oppose the Gorsuch nomination, but their opposition is not as firm. Fifty-four percent of Clinton voters do not want the Senate to vote to confirm Gorsuch, but 17 percent believe the upper chamber should do so, and 29 percent say that they are not sure.

The Huffington Post reports the poll “consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted March 22-23 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.”

If even the HuffPosts is publishing such crushing numbers for Democrats, the more they have to decide whether they want to be the tool of a radical, loud but small minority or if they want to come back to sanity.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

And the 3 stooges are inviting the nuclear option -

Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Senator Richard Blumenthal hold a news conference to discuss what they call "dark money" funding to support President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

[ApatheticAustrian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/847152430299168769


mimimi schumer is such a DINO mimimi

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/847152430299168769


mimimi schumer is such a DINO mimimi

     I wonder if Schumer is trolling there. Any nominee would get this kind of treatment.

[ApatheticAustrian]

     I wonder if Schumer is trolling there. Any nominee would get this kind of treatment.

schumer is giving his base what it wants (after merrick-gate there was nothing to be done about that....the democrats are never going to forget this act imho) and i guess he suspects anyway that the filibuster is a thing of the past.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I wonder if Schumer is trolling there. Any nominee would get this kind of treatment.

schumer is giving his base what it wants (after merrick-gate there was nothing to be done about that....the democrats are never going to forget this act imho) and i guess he suspects anyway that the filibuster is a thing of the past.

     I certainly understand why Schumer is doing this, which is what makes it strange to me. It is clear that his stonewalling is retaliation for Merrick Garland and not an actual criticism of Gorsuch's qualifications. Considering that, Trump proposing a different nominee wouldn't change anything.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     I wonder if Schumer is trolling there. Any nominee would get this kind of treatment.

schumer is giving his base what it wants (after merrick-gate there was nothing to be done about that....the democrats are never going to forget this act imho) and i guess he suspects anyway that the filibuster is a thing of the past.

     I certainly understand why Schumer is doing this, which is what makes it strange to me. It is clear that his stonewalling is retaliation for Merrick Garland and not an actual criticism of Gorsuch's qualifications. Considering that, Trump proposing a different nominee wouldn't change anything.

Right.  But if Trump had to nominate a new justice the new guy would make Scalia look like Ginsburg (forcing the nuke button).  They should be doing backflips down the hallway that Gorsuch is the guy.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Right.  But if Trump had to nominate a new justice the new guy would make Scalia look like Ginsburg (forcing the nuke button).  They should be doing backflips down the hallway that Gorsuch is the guy.

what makes you think, trump is the type who would go for ideological vengeance when he has the alternative of making a deal?

won't happyn anyway but i am pretty sure, trump would love a deal with democrats on healthcare now.