Sen. Coons: GOP Will 'Almost Certainly' Go Nuclear If Dems Filibuster Gorsuch

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo



By MATT SHUHAM Published MARCH 27, 2017, 10:43 AM EDT

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said Monday that he was worried that Democratic opposition to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch would lead Republicans to trigger a “nuclear option,” eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

“I doubt he’s going to get 60 votes,” Coons told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said that Gorsuch will need 60 votes to be confirmed, implying that Democrats will filibuster his nomination.

“And the question then, Joe, becomes, ‘What do we do?’” Coons continued. “There’s a lot of finger-pointing. There’s a lot of Democrats justifiably still very mad about the treatment of Merrick Garland.”

Senate Republicans have indicated that they are willing to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” – shorthand for changing the Senate’s rules with a simple majority vote – to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/coons-republican-nuclear-option-gorsuch

[kimbutgar]

1. If they do that the senate will effectively become a war zone of epic proportions

[exboyfil]

4. I don't think you have been keeping up

with current events, but it already is.

[Demsrule86]

13. The filibuster serves no useful purpose...anyway.

It is not in the constitution...the fact the Senate has six year terms is supposed to make them more thoughtful...we don't need a filibuster. And then every Senator is responsible for his and her vote...no voting for a filibuster and then voting for the nominee,bill...or vice versa.

[vlyons]

27. actually it is allowed in the constitution

Article I Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

[Demsrule86]

48. I didn't say it wasn't allowed...I said it uneccesary and not

explicitly part of the constitution. I think it is a waste of time and should be abolished...perfect time to do it. The nomination does not belong to the GOP,they stole it.

[SharonAnn]

18. They're going to go nuclear anyway, the first chance they have. I hate it, but it's true.

If we approve Gorsuch, then the next Supreme Court nominee will be worse and the GOP will go nuclear then.

So the choice is whether to make a statement now or later.

[JCanete]

43. exactly. It is total nonsense to say we need to keep our powder dry. If the Republicans can swing it

they'll get rid of it the first time we try to use it anyway. We might as well use the tool we have and prove that it's worth having, while making the Republicans own the decision to go nuclear.

[onenote]

64. I think that's the point of not forcing them this time

Rightly or wrongly, the case to the public that Gorsuch is an outrageous choice to follow Scalia hasn't been made. So why burn the filibuster on a nomination that the public isn't outraged about overall?

If, however, another spot opens up and the replacement is far to the right of his/her successor, standing one's ground and forcing the repubs to go nuclear to dramatically change the court might create more blow back for Republicans.

At least that's the theory as I understand it.

[exboyfil]

2. I'm okay with a filibuster

so long as it is a real filibuster. Not procedural or reading the phone book from the well. Use the time to go through Gorsuch's inadequacies and the unprecedented treatment of Garland.

Use the time. Maybe someone will be watching.

[tazkcmo]

3. GOPee-ers will do what GOPee-ers do

Regardless of what Democrats do.

Example 1: Gorsuch goes down in defeat w/o a filibuster and garners less than 60 votes. GOPee changes rules so they can confirm him with 51.

Example 2: Gorsuch goes down in defeat due to Democratic filibuster. GOPee changes rules so they can confirm him with 51.

[Demsrule86]

14. So we might as well stand on principle...and there is a chance down the road that this

might not be a legitimate nominee and we can get rid of him.

[former9thward]

44. In your example 1 Gorsuch would be confirmed.

If there was no filibuster he would only need 50 votes not 60.

[tazkcmo]

47. Wait

Are you saying if we do NOT filibuster it only requires 51 or 50 w/Pence? It's my understanding that the nuclear option means just that and they, the GOPee, supposedly won't use it unless we filibuster.

Regardless, my point is really no matter what we do, the GOPee will use the nuclear option if they don't have the 60 to pass or if we filibuster, imo. As the other respondent before you concluded, we should let our principles dictate our actions (imo that means filibuster) as opposed to letting GOPee reactions dictate our strategy. Hope that helps?

[former9thward]

58. Yes, agree with your second point.

What I am saying is that the only reason anything in the Senate needs more than 50-51 votes is when the other party says they are filibustering. If they don't say that 50 is enough. Most Senate votes (more than 90%) are conducted without a filibuster and only 50-51 is needed.

[haele]

63. In both cases Gorsuch will be confirmed. If the GOP goes nuke, they own totally him.

The stand on principle is what matters here. We have very little power, no numbers, and Turtle is determined that only GOP gets to pick what SC nominee gets on the court for at least the next couple of years. We won't get an inch until we get the Senate and/or the House back.

If the Dems don't filibuster, they're complicit with the GOP for putting another corporatist stooge (I'm looking straight at Alito) who cares more about party and power than some vestige of the Law on the Supreme Court.

Haele

[yallerdawg]

5. Good. Finish it.

Our biggest problem as Democrats in power has been the super-majority hurdle. We always look like we fail when we can't get 60 votes, and the Republicans never gave us 60 votes as a matter of their policy.

Let them burn it down.

We'll be back, we'll be more successful with policies that improve the lives of ALL Americans, and the Republicans will be exposed as the self-serving tools for the rich they have always been.

[Demsrule86]

11. and honestly.

elections have consequences...so the 60 vote majority just makes people think elected break their promises...it should go.

[dalton99a]

39. Yep.

[Egnever]

59. Agreed it has made a mockery of the senate

They don't have to make deals because the filibuster gives too much power to the minority party. I don't think filibuster votes are recorded either so they can kill the bill without being on record of having done so.

[Freethinker65]

6. Go for it

[mountain grammy]

7. Dear Senator Coons..

to the question "what do we do?"

My answer as a Democrat: STAND UP AND FILIBUSTER!

[Desert grandma]

8. Let them...

We will get the Senate back eventually and when we do, we will be glad that it will only take a simple majority to confirm our nominees. If we don't filibuster now, I believe we will only postpone the inevitable. GOP will threaten to use the nuclear option against ANY person that Trump nominates and the Dems don't like. I do not see a downside to filibustering this nominee. We must hope that our other judges will not retire before we take back Congress. The approval rating for Trump is low and continues to drop. That bodes well for 2018.

[still_one]

9. let em. What comes around, goes around. The filibuster has been used for good and

bad things, including by some to preserve slavery.

Let em get rid of the filibuster

[mwooldri]

15. Then when 2018 or 2020 comes and there's a D majority...

... in the Senate and House.... we can then effectively clean up the elephant dung that's been dropped. Without obstruction.

If Trump is still in the WH in 2019 and there's D's in charge in both houses, I just hope he becomes a useful idiot and signs legislation that makes him look good to the American people (massaging his ego) yet making him unelectable as a Republican. He could theoretically become a great Democratic President without being an actual Democrat. Theoretically of course... just can't trust Trump and he should be dumped.

[still_one]

17. If that is the case all the better, if not eventually it will happen

[Demsrule86]

10. So let them make them pay.

[dalton99a]

12. Just Do It.

[Sunlei]

16. keep him answering questions, until everything is covered. Including the decision he wrote where SC

where last week SC said he made mistakes. Go over every one of his court decisions, there aren't many at all.

He also has to name his shadow backers (he refused!) and name who put him on the list trump had. Why isn't he proud of who backs him?

Don't want to have someone rammed down Americas throat and find out next year he's been a regular for years at all the secret Koch/republican resorts and parties.

[not fooled]

40. Unfortunately

given that Gosuck is the golden boy of the Federalist Society, it's a pretty safe assumption that he's already in the inner circle of the kochroaches and their ilk.

[Sunlei]

49. keep asking him who his backers are, let him keep refusing to answer something he should be proud of

[Auntie Bush]

52. Plus 100

[padfun]

19. So, what good is a filibuster if

you can never use it without its elimination.

I say go ahead and let them get rid of it. If the Dems don't use it, then it is worthless anyway. It really seems that Repugs are the only party to use it, since Dems shrink from these threats and never use it.

And this will help the Dems next time they control the Senate, which could be 2018 but more likely 2020, only because the amount of Dem seats open compared to Repug seats open.

[Jonny Appleseed]

20. The GOP my not be able to muster the 51 votes needed to nuke

Lmao

[onenote]

65. Not a chance. If that's what it takes to confim Gorsuch, of course they'll go nuclear

What other option do they have?

[Odoreida]

21. Do it. Let it be on the record what they are. n/t

[yeoman6987]

22. We can say that since we lifted the filibuster rules on almost everything

[NewJeffCT]

24. I think they made a specific exception

for Supreme Court justices

[yeoman6987]

30. I know so after we lifted all but the supremes, we thing the repugs should feel bad about lifting on

Nope. In fact, I find it antidemocratic for anything in government needing more then 51 votes. Everything should only need 51 votes including all bills. I always thought that and thought harry Reid should have done more then he did but it was a start. Repugs can finish it off and finally make it fair and democratic in congress.

[Kingofalldems]

46. So you support the republicans, yeoman6987.

[NewJeffCT]

23. Go right ahead

will Orrin Hatch, John McCain and others go along with it? If so, fuck 'em when Democrats win the White House in 2020.

[yeoman6987]

32. Sounds good to me. Presidents should get who they want anyway

Before bork, whoever the president nominated got on the court. Time to return to the constitution and not some dumb rules somebody made up.

[Odoreida]

33. Before bork ... ? Nope.

Richard Nixon judicial appointment controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon_judicial_appointment_controversies

[NewJeffCT]

35. Not really

Nixon had two nominees rejected outright
LBJ had one withdraw over a controversy
Hoover had one rejected
Cleveland had two rejected

Between Washington and Cleveland, a whole bunch were rejected. Heck, even Washington had one rejected - John Rutledge was a recess appointment to be Chief Justice. Then, he made a controversial speech and he lost the vote to become the permanent Chief Justice...

[Kingofalldems]

36. Right wing talking points, yeoman6987.

Tiresome.

[MFM008]

57. Not when the president

Is a huge maggot.
If we were to return to the "constitution"
Maggot will be impeached for high crimes and
Misdemeanors.

[joeybee12]

25. Sounds like once more the Dems wil be the first to blink

Very disheartening

[Moostache]

26. The GOP is a honey badger, we are Winnie the freaking Pooh...

The filibuster as a tool to prevent things from happening is only effective when its a Democratic proposal and a GOP minority...I have seen nothing to dissuade me of that belief.

GOP don't give a fuck...Democrats? "Oh bother...", as the silly, willy, nilly old bear would say.

Put another way...what has being the "adult in the room" led us too already? If we are afraid to use the filibuster because the meanies in the GOP would take it away if we do, then why bother having it at all?

[bronxiteforever]

28. Make McConnell do it, he stole the seat. Let him own the fraud.

Remember his wife is in 45s cabinet. His wife is employed by 45.
McConnell and his hoods don't give a crap about compromise.

[LiberalFighter]

29. Wishy Washy - He needs a backbone.

Force them to go nuclear. Then that means Gorsuch receives less than 60 votes. Maybe only 52. Would not look good for Gursuch.

[Turbineguy]

31. The GOP going nulcear could result

in the impeachment of a Supreme Court Judge. A lengthy and expensive process.

Taking al Qaeda people prisoner turned out to be an astonishingly expensive proposition which in turn served Al Qaeda's larger purpose.

Those Who Stand and Cost, also Serve. To paraphrase John Milton.

[bekkilyn]

34. Can't win by being timid and afraid of everything

This is the type of fearful, wishy-washy attitude that causes people to lose faith in the party.

[MFM008]

37. knock yourself out clowns

we cant do anything anyway, whats the difference if we cant do it in a week or in 6 months?
Do it and you will get it back in spades when we get back the senate, and we will.
The pendulum always swings back.

[0rganism]

38. then make them go through with it

they would eventually do away with it to whatever extent they desire for whichever nominees or legislation they deem most desirable. let them own it. all of it. eventually they're going to burn it all down anyway, regardless. the more actions they're forced to take along the way to their large-scale arson, the better the midterms look.

the notion that there's still some kind of DC decorum worth preserving in this massive GOP shitshow is laughable at best.

[tenorly]

41. 'By Hook or By Crook' is Bitchy Mitchy's very philosophy of life.

With emphasis on the 'by crook': https://www.thenation.com/article/mitch-mcconnells-freighted-ties-shadowy-shipping-company/

[NewRedDawn]

42. Make Moscow Mitch

do it. Ball in your court you old confederate traitorous pusbag.

[Dawson Leery]

45. Earlier today, they said the votes to end the filibuster did not exist.

Now they do?

[onenote]

66. Who is "they" that said that?

Link please.

[roamer65]

50. Filibuster him.

Make them do it.

[underthematrix]

51. If the GOP wants to go nuclear

let them do it. They really haven't thought it thru. If he ends on the SCOTUS the GOP may get the surprise of their lives. So yeah, let them go nuclear.

[Lifelong Protester]

53. Do it.

Filibuster. Go down fighting on principle.

[California_Republic]

54. The senate is slowly becoming the house

[larwdem]

55. don't give a rats ass

The DEMS should have screamed bloody murder when the GOP fucks would not vote On OBAMA'S nominee!
Now get the fuck out their and filibuster your weak ass's off!

[BuddyCa]

56. they already stole a Supreme Court seat

that's pretty nuclear.

[Bradical79]

60. Obviously

Force them to own that shit entirely if we can't stop it. The treatment of Garland, and the support of a foreign power undermining our own government means no compromise to me, regardless of the odds of winning any individual fight.

[JCMach1]

61. Call their bluff and when we are in the majority

boom goes the dynamite...

[0rganism]

62. Make. Them. Do. It.

the great problem facing our nation is a minority-elected foreign agent in the presidency pushing policies and nominees harmful to our nation and the entire planet. questions of procedure and decorum in the senate don't even crack the top 20.

if they can dismantle the filibuster anytime they like, then the filibuster is essentially meaningless and you all are better off without the illusory protection it represents.

[Adrahil]

67. Well, what's the use of it if you can't use it?

I guarantee you the GrOPers would not hesitate to filibuster.