Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:20 AM Apr 2017

Democrats block Gorsuch consideration, paving way for Senate rules change

Source: The Washington Post

By Ed O'Keefe April 6 at 11:43 AM

Democrats successfully blocked Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court from advancing in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, sparking what is expected to be a bitter clash with Republicans over how the chamber confirms high court nominees.

Gorsuch failed to earn the 60 votes needed to end debate on his nomination. In response, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has vowed he will change Senate rules in order to confirm Gorsuch and all future Supreme Court nominees with a simple majority vote.

A final confirmation vote on Gorsuch is not scheduled until Friday, when 52 Republicans and at least three Democrats — from states won by Trump in last year’s election — are expected to vote to have him replace the late Antonin Scalia on the high court.

But the next 24 hours could be among the most bitter in recent Senate history.



Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-poised-for-historic-clash-over-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch/2017/04/06/40295376-1aba-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?pushid=58e65bd19de27e1d00000005&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.c7640

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democrats block Gorsuch consideration, paving way for Senate rules change (Original Post) DonViejo Apr 2017 OP
NYT article - vote still in progress BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #1
Wasn't it "fundamentally altered" already when Harry Reid used it to get around Republican refusal PoliticAverse Apr 2017 #7
They did it as a compromise BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #10
A compromise with whom? n/t FBaggins Apr 2017 #12
Harry Reid and Turtle BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #17
That was from January 2013 FBaggins Apr 2017 #18
The "nuclear option compromise" that Reid agreed to was NOT for ALL nominees. It excluded BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #20
That's not a compromise FBaggins Apr 2017 #23
What? BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #24
Sorry. You've confused two entirely different events FBaggins Apr 2017 #25
No I am not confusing items BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #27
You should re-read the thread. FBaggins Apr 2017 #28
"You can claim that Reid didn't go as far as he could have" BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #29
So, McConnell seems intent on using the Legitimacy Off-Switch ck4829 Apr 2017 #2
Of course BumRushDaShow Apr 2017 #4
Refusing to consider Judge Garland was not a filibuster unto itself? bucolic_frolic Apr 2017 #3
Like Congressman Schiff NewRedDawn Apr 2017 #6
Yep! mountain grammy Apr 2017 #9
Repugs better watch out! lark Apr 2017 #5
That call didn't work with Democrats... FBaggins Apr 2017 #13
I really doubt there's anything the world the Dems can do to stop this! lark Apr 2017 #19
The vote is wrapping up as we speak FBaggins Apr 2017 #22
And we probably won't get that Amishman Apr 2017 #30
You can bet MurrayDelph Apr 2017 #14
"paving way for rules change".... they make it sound like Democrats are the cause of the problem groundloop Apr 2017 #8
People need to SLAM GOP Senators phone lines - ask to change the nominee, NOT the rules CousinIT Apr 2017 #11
Republicans have a history of deception about the 'background' and quality of people they'support'. Sunlei Apr 2017 #15
The actual vote has begun FBaggins Apr 2017 #16
Now can we stop hearing the self righteous hypocrisy from all these GOPigs about blocking a SC world wide wally Apr 2017 #21
Short version? Red line crossed ... PsychoBabble Apr 2017 #26

BumRushDaShow

(127,260 posts)
1. NYT article - vote still in progress
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:23 AM
Apr 2017
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats on Thursday filibustered the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, holding the line with a precedent-busting partisan blockade of a selection for the high court and setting up a showdown over filibusters that could reshape the Senate for years.

The Democrats’ opposition is unlikely to stop Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation. Republicans were expected later on Thursday to pursue the so-called nuclear option: changing longstanding rules to bypass the filibuster and lift President Trump’s nominee with a simple majority vote. Judge Gorsuch’s final confirmation is expected on Friday.

Lawmakers convened late Thursday morning to decide whether to end debate and advance to a final vote on Judge Gorsuch. Republicans needed 60 votes — at least eight Democrats and independents joining the 52-seat majority — to end debate on the nomination and proceed to a final vote. Only a handful of Democrats defected, leaving Republicans to choose between allowing the president’s nominee to fail or bulldozing long-held Senate practice.

Deploying the nuclear option would fundamentally alter the way the Senate operates — a sign of the body’s creeping rancor in recent years after decades of at least relative bipartisanship on Supreme Court matters. Both parties have likewise warned of sweeping effects on the future of the court, predicting that the shift will lead to the elevation of more ideologically extreme judges if only a majority is required for confirmation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
7. Wasn't it "fundamentally altered" already when Harry Reid used it to get around Republican refusal
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:41 AM
Apr 2017

to approve Obama's judicial appointments?

BumRushDaShow

(127,260 posts)
10. They did it as a compromise
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:54 AM
Apr 2017

but kept the rules for the most critical appointees (SCOTUS & certain legislation involving the budget) intact (basically a higher standard to confirm/pass).... until most likely today.

Filibusters can still happen but if broken through cloture, the final vote would only need to be by majority vs by 60 votes.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
18. That was from January 2013
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:24 PM
Apr 2017

Reid "went nuclear" in November of that year.

It wasn't a compromise.

From your earlier post - Filibusters can still happen but if broken through cloture, the final vote would only need to be by majority vs by 60 votes.

That isn't a change. That's how filibusters have worked since the cloture rule was created.

BumRushDaShow

(127,260 posts)
20. The "nuclear option compromise" that Reid agreed to was NOT for ALL nominees. It excluded
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:26 PM
Apr 2017

the SCOTUS which is being up-ended now. It was just for all the minor cabinet positions and lower court judges at that time.

Edit to add this -

The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees, who are still subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, or to legislation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
23. That's not a compromise
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:31 PM
Apr 2017

You're implying that the Republicans agreed to let the rule change go through in exchange for it not applying to SCOTUS nominees.

That's simply not true.

BumRushDaShow

(127,260 posts)
24. What?
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:39 PM
Apr 2017

The problem here is that in 2014, the Democrats lost the Senate and that is when Turtle took over and shut down Garland in 2016. There's no "implying" here. The rule change went into effect with that stipulation, but it was in effect BEFORE Democrats became the Minority party and before Scalia bought the farm, his replacement being the first test. The vote was along party lines and the GOP voted against the change at the time, so it went into effect regardless of what they did (just like what just happened with the Democrats a few minutes ago).

Remember - the rules changes are applicable for that "session" of Congress and due to other obscure rules, stay in effect until the next Congress.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
25. Sorry. You've confused two entirely different events
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:07 PM
Apr 2017

At the start of the 2013-14 term, there was a minor compromise on the legislative filibuster. Reid had been "filling the tree" (keeping Republicans from being able to offer any amendments to certain legislation) and Republicans had been filibustering many of those laws. The compromise was that they would let more bills be voted on in exchange for getting a couple amendment slots that Democrats would allow a vote on.

That's entirely distinct from the filibuster rules for nominations. The only "compromise" there was the "gang of 14" from the prior decade. Reid's action in November 2013 was exactly like what just happened today. it was a unilateral exercise of power by the majority to change the rules. There was no compromise involved then or now.

BumRushDaShow

(127,260 posts)
27. No I am not confusing items
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:13 PM
Apr 2017

The legislative bill passage needing 60 votes applies to certain types of legislation and that is different from what I am explicitly talking about (although the issue was discussed on and off during that time but not really on the table).

What Reid did in 2013 was to compromise to NOT make the rule effective for SCOTUS appointees too (to "soften" the nuclear - i.e., make it "tactical" for specific groups of appointees while still maintaining the seriousness of the SCOTUS position and need for a higher standard for confirmation). What Turtle just did was go full nuclear.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
28. You should re-read the thread.
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:21 PM
Apr 2017
What Reid did in 2013 was to compromise to NOT make the rule effective for SCOTUS appointees too

Again I ask... compromise with whom? What did the Republicans get/give? Nothing at all. A "compromise" would have involved some Republicans actually... you know... voting for the change. That didn't happen.

that is different from what I am explicitly talking about

Then why was your only cited example explicitly related to the legislative filibuster (where there was a minor compromise) and not evidence of what you're actually claiming?

You can claim that Reid didn't go as far as he could have (though it could just as easily be claimed that he couldn't have gotten that at the time - at best that's a compromise with other Democrats that didn't want to entirely do away with it)... but you can't claim that it was a compromise with Republicans.

BumRushDaShow

(127,260 posts)
29. "You can claim that Reid didn't go as far as he could have"
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 01:41 PM
Apr 2017

That was my point with the consideration that there WERE discussions AND compromises that went on between both sides that year leading up to what happened with Reid taking more drastic measures. In fact, there were "bundles" of appointees who were allowed to proceed for a vote during a compromise that happened between parties. An earlier one was here.

You are arguing that there was basically nothing of the sort going on at the time but there were discussions. What Reid eventually did (with his compromise to go forward with going nuclear) was with the caveat that it wouldn't apply to the SCOTUS - i.e., a "word is bond" thing.

You are arguing a now-irrelevant strawman.

This entire system of government operates strictly on an "honor system". When that breaks down, which is pretty much what is happening now, then the system is destroyed save for anyone with the courage to be willing to go back to the honor system.

BumRushDaShow

(127,260 posts)
4. Of course
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:26 AM
Apr 2017

He could have been out of office if more people had voted for Grimes. But water under the bridge.

bucolic_frolic

(42,651 posts)
3. Refusing to consider Judge Garland was not a filibuster unto itself?
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:24 AM
Apr 2017

Moscow Mitch brought this on himself.

 

NewRedDawn

(790 posts)
6. Like Congressman Schiff
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:39 AM
Apr 2017

said." What they did with Garland was the nuclear option now is the radioactive fallout from that action" Fuck you Moscow Mitch & the rest of you Putin Publican pusbags!

lark

(22,993 posts)
5. Repugs better watch out!
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:28 AM
Apr 2017

Once they make this change, it will be sure to bite them. I'm hoping and praying that Dems will show some spine and stop the filibuster for any and everything if they ever get the majority. They will need this to undo all the bad that the R's are foisting off on us now. I really hate that Gorsuch will probably be on the SCOTUS, he's as big a slimeball as the rest of drumpfs nominees. Wonder how he's hooked in with Russia, bet there's some secret way that none of us know about.

FBI needs to complete this investigation and charge him with treasonous colluding and get it over with. We know he did it, everything that's happened has proven that. It's the reason he's so desperate to blame some black person for violating the law by spying on him and his campaign, it's more effective of a diversion for his racist hating base. He wants this red herring to be investigated so they aren't looking at his criminal collusion to taint the election and long involvement with money laundering for Russian Mafia.

lark

(22,993 posts)
19. I really doubt there's anything the world the Dems can do to stop this!
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:25 PM
Apr 2017

Possible revenge and undoing is the best thing I can think of to not feel suicidal with the damage the fucking Repugs are doing to us!

Amishman

(5,538 posts)
30. And we probably won't get that
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 04:03 PM
Apr 2017

If it looks like they might lose the senate, expect one more round of rules changes setting cloture to 60 (or even the original 67 vote level), and to set rules changes / interpretations to that threshold as well. They'll make sure payback isn't easy.

MurrayDelph

(5,278 posts)
14. You can bet
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:02 PM
Apr 2017

The next time the Dems are back in charge and try to apply the rules the Repubs have set up, the Repubs will go back into full pearl-clutching mode about the mean old Democrat party not willing to be bipartisan.

groundloop

(11,486 posts)
8. "paving way for rules change".... they make it sound like Democrats are the cause of the problem
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:42 AM
Apr 2017

Come out and say it... GOPers are trying to force an unqualified candidate down our throats and will stop at nothing to do it.

CousinIT

(9,151 posts)
11. People need to SLAM GOP Senators phone lines - ask to change the nominee, NOT the rules
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 11:54 AM
Apr 2017

202-224-3121

McCain, Graham and Collins may be easiest to sway against going nuclear. But really anyone with a Repub Senator should call NOW.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
15. Republicans have a history of deception about the 'background' and quality of people they'support'.
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:14 PM
Apr 2017

Republicans ignored Garland for a year, why the need to hurry and hide this mans history?

He's lied about the only book he wrote, refused to answer who his backers are and made legal errors in written court decisions. Even Republican backers? don't seem proud enough of him to stand with him.

FBaggins

(26,693 posts)
16. The actual vote has begun
Thu Apr 6, 2017, 12:18 PM
Apr 2017

CSPAN?Verified account @cspan 2m2 minutes ago
More
.@SenateMajLdr raises point of order to change Senate precedent for #SCOTUS nominations from 60 votes to a simple majority. #NuclearOption

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Democrats block Gorsuch c...