More Democratic senators oppose Gorsuch for Supreme Court
Source: Bangor Daily News
WASHINGTON Senate Democrats on Friday stepped closer to having enough votes to block a confirmation vote on President Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee, with three more Democratic senators coming out against Neil Gorsuch for the lifetime job as a justice.
Democrats are attempting use a procedural hurdle called a filibuster that requires 60 votes to allow a confirmation vote in the 100-seat Senate. Senate Republicans are hoping to vote on April 7 to confirm the conservative appeals court judge nominated by the Republican president in January.
Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Brian Schatz of Hawaii came out against Gorsuch on Friday and backed a filibuster.
Republicans control the Senate 52-48. But if Democrats can muster 41 votes, they would be able to sustain the filibuster. As of Friday afternoon, 36 Democrats had indicated their support for such a move. Two Democrats have said they support Gorsuch. Another two have voiced opposition to Gorsuch but have not made clear whether they would support a filibuster to block a confirmation vote.
<more>
Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2017/04/01/news/nation/more-democratic-senators-oppose-gorsuch-for-supreme-court/
bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)A major problem. If they limited terms to 18 years, gave every
elected President 1 but no more than 2 or 3 picks, and required
timely hearings within a few months, a lot of rancor could be avoided.
But of course Mitch McConnell stalled everything for a year.
Democrats should make noise, block this dude, and let the chips fall.
The next one will be worse? How so?
still_one
(92,136 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 1, 2017, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)
involvement and collusion is known
If that means waiting until 2020, so be it
Anyone who potentionally colluded with the Russians should not be afforded any lifetime appointments, until that is cleared up
The republican have already said that no president should be allowed to pick a SC appointment in a Presidents last year, it is time for the Democrats to say no President under investigation should be allowed to pick a SC nominee until that is cleared up
bucolic_frolic
(43,128 posts)Your enemies should not choose your leaders
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)Posting Anonymously
(32 posts)When speaking of Trump there is now no such thing as "worst". Trump IS the bottom of the barrel and at this point can't outdo himself. Once you get past a certain lower bound insofar as moral depravity that's basically it, you have arrived at the nadir. It would be totally irrational to support Gorsuch given the slate of facts that exist with regard to the Merrick Garland incident. Gorsuch is a totally illegitimate candidate and "worse", he believes it's OK to freeze people to death "cause that what the Constitution requires". The guy is frankly a blithering idiot and shows little capacity for INDEPENDENT thought outside of a narrow frame of reference.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Gorsuch is a bad choice, but the very legitimacy of the Trump presidency is eroding quickly too.
ananda
(28,858 posts)Yes, I mean you!
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Anything less than a filibuster will reward the GOP's theft of that seat from Obama.
The GOP knows it could very well be in the Senate majority shortly. It's very risky to them to go nuclear and get rid of the filibuster rule for SCOTUS nominees. Whereas for Dems, the filibuster rule has hurt us a lot more than it has helped us. I say good riddance to the filibuster.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)No D should accept this coup of our government, this scam by the Republican party.
Republicans fucked with our Democracy, fucked with our election and now Gorsuchs "shadow backers" (who he refused to name!) cram him into SC.
sprinkleeninow
(20,237 posts)Just off with Sen. Blumenthal's staff in B'port. Thanked the senator for blocking gorsuck*.
As a native Nutmegger, I stated that his decision is correct and appreciated.
I was thanked for my input. 👍