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 Gorsuchs 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 years 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
BumRushDaShow
(127,260 posts)The Democrats opposition is unlikely to stop Judge Gorsuchs confirmation. Republicans were expected later on Thursday to pursue the so-called nuclear option: changing longstanding rules to bypass the filibuster and lift President Trumps nominee with a simple majority vote. Judge Gorsuchs 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 presidents 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 bodys 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)to approve Obama's judicial appointments?
BumRushDaShow
(127,260 posts)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)BumRushDaShow
(127,260 posts)A good summary at this link - http://billmoyers.com/2013/01/25/harry-reids-filibuster-compromise/
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)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)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 -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.
ck4829
(34,966 posts)(Don't call it the nuclear option)
BumRushDaShow
(127,260 posts)He could have been out of office if more people had voted for Grimes. But water under the bridge.
bucolic_frolic
(42,651 posts)Moscow Mitch brought this on himself.
NewRedDawn
(790 posts)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!
mountain grammy
(26,568 posts)You took the word right out of my head.
lark
(22,993 posts)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.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)... it sure isn't going to convince Republicans.
lark
(22,993 posts)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!
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)So yes... there's nothing left to do.
Amishman
(5,538 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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
world wide wally
(21,718 posts)nominee?