Trump picks Colo. appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

I guess the difference is that the Republicans held the power to withhold a vote on Garland and they hold the power to go around a Democrat filibuster.

Also a difference is that with Garland you'd be replacing a conservative justice with a liberal justice which would completely shift the balance of power in the SCOUTS and with Gorsuch you are replacing a conservative with another conservative.

 

This has been discussed a lot. I don't know how you are using the word "acceptable." The ethics of it seems to be a partisan issue but no rules were broken. Ironically, the Supreme Court would be needed to clarify the action needed to satisfy an ambiguous part of the constitution concerning Supreme Court hearings. I don't know how a lawsuit could bring that to the court though.

I don't think we really know what those views are. He refused to answer so many questions in the senate hearings.

I feel like he'll keep sending very conservative picks because it's the easiest way to appease his party and supporters.

I don't think that Supreme Court filibuster would be worth anything during this administration and these 4 years could fill 100 years of decisions. The GOP will pull the nuclear options if the democrats use it now or next time or the time after that. They don't have any more leverage now than they will later. Doing it now is like the old GOP congress passing the Obamacare repeal knowing Obama would veto it. It's symbolic and helped energize their base in the next election. They didn't lose anything like the filibuster but that ability is useless now.

O'Connor was not replaced with a moderate (Alito) and Thurgood Marshall was not replaced with a liberal judge. Has anyone seen Clearance Thomas's experience before the Supreme Court? It's a joke.

 

The Democrats' filibuster has started.

It would take 3 republican senators to vote against changing the rules eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees assuming all the democrats also vote against it. There have been few Democrats who have said they would vote for Gorsuch in a final vote but they (to my knowledge) have not said if they would vote to change the rules.

Many Democrat senators face dangerous elections in 2018 and as oppose to republicans who only have a Nevada senator to worry about.

 

I don't think there's any chance that enough Republicans vote against the rule change but IMO they are making the wrong rule change. Instead of essentially eliminating the filibuster they should just go back to the previous rules forcing senators to actually filibuster instead of just announcing intent and counting that as a filibuster. Make them spend their days and nights standing up and talking if they want to delay a vote rather than easily preventing one altogether without having to do much of anything at all.

Sadly though, that's not the direction they'll go.

 

I know that Democrats were saying the same thing when this came up during the blocking of Obama's lower court appointments. I think its a fantastic idea and makes the minority have more skin in the game if they truly want to hold up debate.

 

I agree that republicans will be able to change the rules. Even the most moderates have said they will most likely vote to do it. I certainly see your point about making them actually filibuster. The nice thing about the current system is that the entire senate doesn't get derailed by filibusters so they can't do anything else. However, if you want to filibuster then filibuster.

I'm ok with getting rid of the rule because if it doesn't work now then I don't know when it will ever work if the nuclear option is always on the table for the GOP. The only way Democrats can stop a nominee is to get control of the Senate which they won't do during Trump's presidency. They might be able to block someone as it gets close to 2020 when lots of GOP senators are up for re-election.

 

Yup, due to the current rules, people filibuster frivolously (this is a good example of a frivolous filibuster) because it costs them nothing really to do so. If you have to do it the old school way, you aren't going to filibuster just to be a dick most likely.

I hate rule changes that people propose that they'd hate if the shoe was on the other foot. I think going back to the traditional filibuster would be something that both the majority party and the minority party could live with. No filibuster at all will kind of screw over the minority party no matter who they are.

 

It just leads to the filibuster being abused though. IMO it should only be used in the most serious of situations, not in instances where people are upset that a different SCOTUS nominee didn't get confirmed. I think if it's something serious enough for a filibuster then it should derail everything else. If something is that serious then everyone should dedicate all attention to that issue.

If you go back just 50 years there were almost never filibusters, it's only been the last decade or so that there are literally hundreds of filibusters to deal with every year. If they changed the rules back, IMO that would be staying in line with how the Senate was intended to operate while getting rid of some of the gridlock.

 

I hate agreeing with you but when you're right, you're right. The end game weakens our checks and balances as the Senate will no longer be the saucer where heated partisan legislation is left to cool. The majority will run rough-shod and if you are a progressive like myself, you have to brace for a generational shift in the court as its very likely Drumpf gets two more nominations before the end of his term. Why should the GOP care about finding a consensus appointment when they will be able to confirm with a simple majority?

 

'

Yea I see your point.

 

The GOP smacks down the Democrats' partisan filibuster attempt....and here comes Gorsuch! A great day in America!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...through-democratic-filibuster-on-gorsuch.html

 

I am for the rule change, unless you are voting in Hitler, most justices from the right or the left should be confirmed. The only thing is stop whining when it is Democrats doing the same thing down the line, as it inevitably will happen.

 

As I posted previously, I think a President is entitled to his USSC nominee unless there is a clear indication of incompetence. Gorsuch is clearly competent (despite the embarrassing plagiarism) and so he should have had a up/down vote (as did Garland, btw). The only hope is Gorsuch doesn't contradict his story going into the seat on the court and doesn't just rubber stamp right wing political extremism.

That said, its unclear whether "holding" the filibuster for the next opening (assuming it would be a "liberal" seat) would not have mattered since I believe (1) Trump will nominate an extreme conservative regardless and I would expect the republicans would all support that candidate anyway, with the same filibuster/nuclear option happening then anyway. Those that believe they wouldn't as long as Democrats approved Gorsuch or based on "replacing a liberal judge" are giving republicans credit for integrity that republicans have not demonstrated.

Of course, if and when the pendulum swings back to Democrats controlling the Presidency and/or Congress, the same advantage will swing to back as well. And Democrats will be able to point to Gorsuch's rulings as a campaign story.

 

Happy to see the filibuster is dead for nominations. Senate can't be grown-ups about advise and consent, so filibuster is a waste of time.

 

I think you could see the 2021-2025 president get 0 nominations while Trump gets 5: Gorsuch, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer and the notorious RBG.

Maybe Democrats can flee to Brazil so the senate doesn't have a quorum.

 

Thanks, Harry Reid.

 

Sucks, but when a political party will argue that the sky is green simply because of Obama then you need a means to put forth legislation.

Frankly, I don't have a negative opinion on Gorsuch as he seems to be a Jeffersonian Conservative, not a Reagan, family values conservative.

 

Basically my thoughts as well, certainly more moderate than Scalia.

 

I'm not really down on Gorsuch either. I think he ought to be confirmed. I understand that the Democrats are using a dose of the Republican's own medicine, but I'm not sure it's best to do that. It's understandable, but not really the best way to govern.

 

I'm still kind of torn on this issue though. It's pretty clear that the Democrats in this instance were abusing the filibuster for reasons that it was not intended for so it's a good thing it didn't work, but I still don't like eroding the filibuster in the Senate overall. I just wish that both sides could pretend to be grownups so that things like this wouldn't be necessary.

So long as they don't ditch the filibuster completely this shouldn't be too big of a deal, IMO SCOTUS nominees isn't something that should be filibustered anyway.