Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

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

Indiana doesn't exactly have a YUGE bench of Sanders-esque Democrats though.

[Skill and Chance]

Tester is a no and he will filibuster

That is surprising.

[MT Treasurer]

Tester is a no and he will filibuster

That is surprising.

Not really. Tester has always been very liberal. He doesn't want to disappoint his progressive base, which he needs to win reelection in 2018. It's probably the right decision.

[politicallefty]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

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

It's fine actually, so long as you understand catch-and-release. Democrats hold 48 seats in the Senate, so we can theoretically lose up to seven and maintain a filibuster. There's no evidence right now that we're going to lose that many. At that point, it's up to Republicans alone to go full nuclear with their own votes. Even Democrats willing to vote for Gorsuch aren't going to vote to go nuclear on SCOTUS nominations.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Tester is a no and he will filibuster

That is surprising.

Not really. Tester has always been very liberal. He doesn't want to disappoint his progressive base, which he needs to win reelection in 2018. It's probably the right decision.

LOL, Tester is not "very liberal". Sorry, but Gorsuch is not a moderate nominee. Yeah, he hedged on Roe so much that I'm scared he'll actually uphold it, but on other issues, he's a clear across the board conservative.


---------------------------


Proceedings Update: Committee vote is tomorrow. Committee will be called to order at 10 AM ET. I don't know if this will be televised.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Tester is a no and he will filibuster

That is surprising.

Not really. Tester has always been very liberal. He doesn't want to disappoint his progressive base, which he needs to win reelection in 2018. It's probably the right decision.

LOL, Tester is not "very liberal". Sorry, but Gorsuch is not a moderate nominee. Yeah, he hedged on Roe so much that I'm scared he'll actually uphold it, but on other issues, he's a clear across the board conservative.


---------------------------


Proceedings Update: Committee vote is tomorrow. Committee will be called to order at 10 AM ET. I don't know if this will be televised.

     Were you expecting Kennedy? Presidents who have the opportunity try to appoint someone more devoted to their cause than that. Of course Gorsuch isn't terribly moderate.

[Klartext89]

I'm starting to worry that Dems finally understand that the nuclear option would hurt them way more than the GOP as I clarified multiple times. Seems that different than the Leftists here, they aren't that illusional.

Still hoping they won't deliver 8 votes, the GOP needs to change the Filibuster rule to get a real Conservative Justice when RBG/Breyer/Kennedy retire, what will surely happen until 2020.

I'm also loving the butthut liberal Twitter Replies to the Dems coming back to sanity and supporting that outstanding nominee. Please donate as much as possible to liberal challengers, please defeat them in the Primary or at least don't vote for them in the General election. Nothing is better for the GOP and makes the pickups more possible than that ^^

[Klartext89]

as if clare's decision on this matter would change even 1 vote.

if she is gone in 2018 then she would have been gone anyway.

and after 8 years of obama, nuking the filibuster isn't at all scary for me...on the contrary. republicans should be much more afraid of it, since democrats always have been the nice party and too timid.

Given the fact that the Dems once obstructed and voted down a SCOTUS nominee and the GOP always accepted liberal choices, I highly doubt that ;-)

What delusional world do you rwers live in that you are under the impression you guys always cave to dems? Seriously Obama was historically obstructed since 2010 to the point where Trump has hundreds of federal court seats to fill along with a SC seat that has been vacant for a year but you guys think we always get our way?

He's saying that every Democratic appointee to SCOTUS winds up a reliable liberal, but we have been burned on Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, etc.

Maybe because they don't judge as liberals but libertarians? Seriously most court case you guys loss is over some dumb culture war issue like gay marriage or abortion that con judges like Kennedy know conflict with existing laws

Cause non-liberal Judges and Justices care about the law and don't think that they are the law?

The only one living in a total bubble and delusional world is you, mate. The reality is that the GOP never blocked a Dem SCOTUS nominee. And e.g. RBG or Sotomajor are way more left-wing than Bork could even be right-wing. Meanwhile the Dems voted Bork down and began with the obstructionism of lower Court in the first Bush term. They simply got payback under Obama but like always you can't handle the truth and it's different if your side does it ;-) Childish.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm starting to worry that Dems finally understand that the nuclear option would hurt them way more than the GOP as I clarified multiple times. Seems that different than the Leftists here, they aren't that illusional.

Still hoping they won't deliver 8 votes, the GOP needs to change the Filibuster rule to get a real Conservative Justice when RBG/Breyer/Kennedy retire, what will surely happen until 2020.

I'm also loving the butthut liberal Twitter Replies to the Dems coming back to sanity and supporting that outstanding nominee. Please donate as much as possible to liberal challengers, please defeat them in the Primary or at least don't vote for them in the General election. Nothing is better for the GOP and makes the pickups more possible than that ^^

Garland was a moderate hero who likely would have sided with the right-wing on Citizens United, and the Republicans blocked him from any hearings. Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. It's the least that every single Senator who calls themselves a Democrat can do to vote against cloture.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

My kind of Democrat.  FF.

[Klartext89]

I'm starting to worry that Dems finally understand that the nuclear option would hurt them way more than the GOP as I clarified multiple times. Seems that different than the Leftists here, they aren't that illusional.

Still hoping they won't deliver 8 votes, the GOP needs to change the Filibuster rule to get a real Conservative Justice when RBG/Breyer/Kennedy retire, what will surely happen until 2020.

I'm also loving the butthut liberal Twitter Replies to the Dems coming back to sanity and supporting that outstanding nominee. Please donate as much as possible to liberal challengers, please defeat them in the Primary or at least don't vote for them in the General election. Nothing is better for the GOP and makes the pickups more possible than that ^^

Garland was a moderate hero who likely would have sided with the right-wing on Citizens United, and the Republicans blocked him from any hearings. Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. It's the least that every single Senator who calls themselves a Democrat can do to vote against cloture.

Garland, Garland, Garland, I can't read that name anymore. It's so hypocritical, unbelieveable! The Dems voted Bork down, obstructed lower Court nominees like Miguel Estrada cause he was Hispanic and they didn't want to have a conservative Hispanic Justice and so on. Just stop the whining, you're not better. Period.

Also, if Garland was that masterclass, why didn't nominate Obama him when he had the opportunity to get him confirmed? He rather went with low energy and less qualified liberal partisan hecks. Again totally hypocrite.

But I see where the wind Comes. You're that left-wing that liberal Garland is "moderate" and Gorsuch is "right-wing of the right-wing". Honestly, you're a joke. Gorsuch is something between Kennedy and Scalia. Like Alito, but not even close to Thomas.

Whatever, we both agree what Dems should do ;-)

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

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

Indiana doesn't exactly have a YUGE bench of Sanders-esque Democrats though.

Democratic turnout will be high in 2018 even with it being an off year election. There will be no one dying to support him if he's weak sause this year. Weak Democrats lose weither in the primary or the general, at least moving forward it will be.

[Klartext89]

Terrific text by Senator Grassley about Dems hypocrisy regarding Gorsuch and SCOTUS:

It was just a year ago when we first began hearing chants of “we need nine,” from former President Obama and Vice President Biden, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups.

To many of us, it appeared to be a simple case of amnesia. They obviously had simply forgotten that both Senator Reid and Senator Schumer had declared that George W. Bush would get no Supreme Court nominees through the Democratic Senate more than 18 months before the end of his term.

Or, even in 1992 when then-Senator Biden made clear his intentions in a long, detailed speech on the Senate floor outlining the reasons why the Senate wouldn’t consider a Supreme Court nominee of George H.W. Bush in his final year.

Despite this precedent, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups continued to demand—even after the election—that “we need nine.”  

Over the course of the past year I said that if I remained chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2017, we’d move forward with a hearing for the Supreme Court nominee regardless of who was elected president.

To the surprise of many Senate Democrats, in November the American people elected Donald Trump.  Suddenly we need nine became a hypocritical eight is enough, just like it was in 1992 and 2007.

Now, nearly nine months after candidate Trump publicly released the first of two lists of very capable possible Supreme Court nominees, the full Senate begins consideration of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be the 113th justice of the United States Supreme Court, starting with Monday’s vote in the Judiciary Committee which I chair.

Anybody watching the nomination hearing for Judge Gorsuch before the Senate Judiciary Committee witnessed a brilliant presentation showcasing his command of the law, his record of independence, his strong sense of humility, and his focus on following the Constitution instead of prejudging cases or promising results.

From beginning to end, partisans and non-partisans alike sang his praises. It started the first day of the hearing when President Obama’s former Solicitor General introduced Judge Gorsuch.  For anybody questioning this nominee’s credentials, Democrat or Republican, I’d invite them to read General Neal Katyal’s introduction. It showed genuine appreciation for Judge Gorsuch himself and his approach to the law.

Judge Gorsuch’s testimony, and the testimony of witnesses who actually know him, creates a dilemma for anybody desperately searching for a reason to vote oppose his nomination.  Because if you’re voting on qualifications and not politics, it’s an easy yes.

Despite the “we need nine” mantra from last year, we’ve already heard that Senator Schumer will lead a Democratic filibuster apparently based on hollow reasons that Judge Gorsuch has already answered. He’s not mainstream. He’s not independent.  He’s not telling us how he’ll vote. And, now, because none of those accusations will stick, the Democrats have resorted to attacking his supporters. These same senators don’t like talking about the groups on the left who are attacking the nominee, misrepresenting his record and threatening to primary any Democrat who makes an independent decision.

It’s become abundantly clear that if the Democrats are willing to filibuster somebody with the credentials, judicial temperament and independence of Judge Gorsuch, it’s obvious they would filibuster anybody.

If we’re ever going to get past the well Senator Schumer poisoned when he led the Democrats to “change the ground rules” in 2001 and systematically filibuster circuit court nominees for the first time in our nation’s history, we’re going to need to dig a new well. With or without Senate Democrats.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/03/sen-chuck-grassley-truth-about-schumer-democrats-and-gorsuch.html

[Shadows]

I'm starting to worry that Dems finally understand that the nuclear option would hurt them way more than the GOP as I clarified multiple times. Seems that different than the Leftists here, they aren't that illusional.

Still hoping they won't deliver 8 votes, the GOP needs to change the Filibuster rule to get a real Conservative Justice when RBG/Breyer/Kennedy retire, what will surely happen until 2020.

I'm also loving the butthut liberal Twitter Replies to the Dems coming back to sanity and supporting that outstanding nominee. Please donate as much as possible to liberal challengers, please defeat them in the Primary or at least don't vote for them in the General election. Nothing is better for the GOP and makes the pickups more possible than that ^^

Garland was a moderate hero who likely would have sided with the right-wing on Citizens United, and the Republicans blocked him from any hearings. Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. It's the least that every single Senator who calls themselves a Democrat can do to vote against cloture.

Garland, Garland, Garland, I can't read that name anymore. It's so hypocritical, unbelieveable! The Dems voted Bork down, obstructed lower Court nominees like Miguel Estrada cause he was Hispanic and they didn't want to have a conservative Hispanic Justice and so on. Just stop the whining, you're not better. Period.

Also, if Garland was that masterclass, why didn't nominate Obama him when he had the opportunity to get him confirmed? He rather went with low energy and less qualified liberal partisan hecks. Again totally hypocrite.

But I see where the wind Comes. You're that left-wing that liberal Garland is "moderate" and Gorsuch is "right-wing of the right-wing". Honestly, you're a joke. Gorsuch is something between Kennedy and Scalia. Like Alito, but not even close to Thomas.

Whatever, we both agree what Dems should do ;-)

You continue to make ridiculous statements. I understand you have no integrity but this seems like some joke or pure trolling. The Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down. But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years in a Trump Presidency. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination process is not how hostage about the Whims of the Majority party & when Dems get the majority, they will do as they please & will hold the nominee as long as they want.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & a radical partisan hack, but surely you can't be this delusional ?

[Klartext89]

You continue to make stupid statements. Republicans are free to vote people down, stretch hearings & do whatever they want to stop the nominee. But they can't take a constitutional power of a President to nominate someone -  the Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down.

But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years saying in a Presidency the primary debate process has already begun & let the new President chose. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination is over - If the Dems get the Senate, they will be stopping GOP nominee, as & when they wish & same goes for the Republicans.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & radical partisan hack, but surely you are not this stupid?

Translated: I continue to write the truth that you don't want to hear ;-)

I always advocated to vote Garland down not to deny hearings. Would have been better but we all know that Garland was the backup plan to confirm if Hillary would have won to prevent a more left Justice.

The only thing that you constantly don't want to get is that Dems already did multiple times what you are critizising. And we all know that Dems would never have allowed Bush to pick a successor for a liberal Justice in 2007 or 2008. So: Stop being a hypocrite!

And, to clarify: YOU, my friend, are the partisan heck, you want the one standard for Republicans and another standard for Democrats. I only advocate for equal treatment!

Also, I don't want the Dems to vote for Gorsuch. I want McConnell to go nuclear to give Trump the opportunity to get a second (or third) reliable conservative choice if he has the chance to.

[Shadows]

Just in: Donnelly supports Gorsuch.

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

Indiana doesn't exactly have a YUGE bench of Sanders-esque Democrats though.

Sanders won the primary vs Clinton in Indiana when he was losing overall & since then his base in the Dem party is more active & has grown. So technically, if everything is fine, Donnelly could lose a primary. But even in a GE, if turnout from progressives is low Donnelly would lose to the GOP. Sanders's supporters are more than half of Dem Indiana !

[Shadows]

You continue to make stupid statements. Republicans are free to vote people down, stretch hearings & do whatever they want to stop the nominee. But they can't take a constitutional power of a President to nominate someone -  the Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down.

But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years saying in a Presidency the primary debate process has already begun & let the new President chose. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination is over - If the Dems get the Senate, they will be stopping GOP nominee, as & when they wish & same goes for the Republicans.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & radical partisan hack, but surely you are not this stupid?

Translated: I continue to write the truth that you don't want to hear ;-)

I always advocated to vote Garland down not to deny hearings. Would have been better but we all know that Garland was the backup plan to confirm if Hillary would have won to prevent a more left Justice.

The only thing that you constantly don't want to get is that Dems already did multiple times what you are critizising. And we all know that Dems would never have allowed Bush to pick a successor for a liberal Justice in 2007 or 2008. So: Stop being a hypocrite!

Alito was confirmed in 2006 (ultra conservative judge replaced a swing moderate judge). The question of Dems not allowing - Why do you make false stuff up? At worst, Dems said they could filibuster Alito which was stopped by the bipartisan Gang of 14. GOP can filibuster Garland if they want. Never had anyone dreamed of not even allowing hearings & voting No for Cloture was considered the most extreme option. No nominee was ever treated this way !

Garland was nominated 1 year in advance, was a centrist or slight conservative. There would be no nomination from Hillary if Garland was confirmed & he would have been with bipartisan votes. Hillary had no power to do anything about that vacancy if the Senate did their duty

This has nothing to do with Left or Right. Clarence Thomas, the most radical conservative judge in recent history replaced Marshall, a liberal judge. Sotomayer & RBG, uber liberals replaced conservative judges but moderate one's (close to centrists).

[Klartext89]

You continue to make stupid statements. Republicans are free to vote people down, stretch hearings & do whatever they want to stop the nominee. But they can't take a constitutional power of a President to nominate someone -  the Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down.

But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years saying in a Presidency the primary debate process has already begun & let the new President chose. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination is over - If the Dems get the Senate, they will be stopping GOP nominee, as & when they wish & same goes for the Republicans.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & radical partisan hack, but surely you are not this stupid?

Translated: I continue to write the truth that you don't want to hear ;-)

I always advocated to vote Garland down not to deny hearings. Would have been better but we all know that Garland was the backup plan to confirm if Hillary would have won to prevent a more left Justice.

The only thing that you constantly don't want to get is that Dems already did multiple times what you are critizising. And we all know that Dems would never have allowed Bush to pick a successor for a liberal Justice in 2007 or 2008. So: Stop being a hypocrite!

Alito was confirmed in 2006 (ultra conservative judge replaced a swing moderate judge). The question of Dems not allowing - Why do you make false stuff up? At worst, Dems said they could filibuster Alito which was stopped by the bipartisan Gang of 14. GOP can filibuster Garland if they want. Never had anyone dreamed of not even allowing hearings & voting No for Cloture was considered the most extreme option. No nominee was ever treated this way !

Garland was nominated 1 year in advance, was a centrist or slight conservative. There would be no nomination from Hillary if Garland was confirmed & he would have been with bipartisan votes. Hillary had no power to do anything about that vacancy if the Senate did their duty

This has nothing to do with Left or Right. Clarence Thomas, the most radical conservative judge in recent history replaced Marshall, a liberal judge. Sotomayer & RBG, uber liberals replaced conservative judges but moderate one's (close to centrists).

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Garland is by far not even close of being (slightly) conservative. Souter and Stevens weren't either. It's simply amusing that a hardcore Leftis wants to tell a Conservative what/who a Conservative is. 

LMAO, you are the one making false stuff up. And you simply don't get the facts!

Alito (Ultra conservative :-D OMG) as a reliable conservative Justice was the replacement for a moderate conservative Justice in a still not majority conservative Court. It was part of the Gang of 14 deal and it was before the Dems had control of the Senate. You're simply comparing apples with pears!

I think you should ask Bork whether he would have prefered the way he was assassinated by Democrats or the way Garland was treated. I doubt that having hearings to mainly even questioning whether you are a human being is better than not getting a hearing.

Again: I would have given Garland hearings and an up-or-down-vote (to vote him down).

Let's stop this sh**t, you would even deny 1+1=2 if you would have to aknowledge that Dems made mistakes before. Sad. Very sad. Such a behaviour is killing every discussion.

[MT Treasurer]

LOL, Tester is not "very liberal".

You're one of those "swing voters" who believes everything a politician tells you, right? Take a look at Tester's voting record.

[Confused Democrat]

Again: I would have given Garland hearings and an up-or-down-vote (to vote him down).

^^^^Every blue avatars go to defense when this subject comes up.^^^^

NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE. YOU'RE NOT AN EFFING SENATOR!

You're effectively admitting that what the Republicans did to Garland was dead wrong, and yet you somehow expect Democrats to take this Gorsuch nomination sitting down.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Bennet is a Yes on CLOTURE, still undecided on final confirmation

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/colorado-sen-michael-bennet-opposes-filibuster-of-neil-gorsuch-use-of-nuclear-option

Per Politico, the CLOTURE vote is now 56-40. King, Coons, Menendez, and Cardin remain Undecided. Gorsuch needs all 4 to pass CLOTURE.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/gorsuch-senate-democrats-236797

[EnglishPete]

Chris Coons confirms he'll vote No to Gorsuch, not yet said about his vote on Cloture

Edit: Chris Coons confirms he'll vote No for Cloture. That makes the magic number 41

[The Other Castro]

Coons says he will oppose Gorsuch, on nomination and cloture. That's 41, bring out the nukes.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Chris Coons confirms he'll vote No to Gorsuch, not yet said about his vote on Cloture

decision desk disagrees.


Senator Chris Coons will NOT vote for Neil Gorsuch and will not vote to advance his nomination
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/848945915620610048

[The Other Castro]