Neil Gorsuch - Nominee to the Supreme Court

[row_33]

 

I'm so happy to see someone finally call it the Reid Option instead of the "nuclear option."

 

If the Republicans pull this, it absolutely should be hung around his neck like a stinking trout.

 

hopefully used very sparely, hard to argue it shouldn't be used for this SC nominee if it has to go to the mat.

[B-Man]

Politico poll: Americans support Gorsuch confirmation by 21-point margin, fewer than one-in-four are opposed:

 

 

Someone alert, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS

[B-Man]

“…I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court Justice.”

 

 

Senators Manchin and Heitkamp announce they will vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch

 

Today, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia became the first Democrat to announce he plans to vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Shortly after his announcement, Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota also announced she would vote to confirm Gorsuch.

 

[sNIP}

 

Manchin and Heitkamp are two of ten Democratic Senators who are up for reelection in 2018 in states which Trump won last year. It was expected that some of those vulnerable Democrats would peel off from the progressives in order to avoid creating a campaign issue that can be used against them next year.

Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he would not be voting for Gorsuch and called for a filibuster to block his confirmation. So far, 33 Senate Democrats have said they will vote against him. According to polls, a plurality of Americans and a solid majority of Republicans want to see Gorsuch confirmed.

[Azalin]

Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he would not be voting for Gorsuch and called for a filibuster to block his confirmation. So far, 33 Senate Democrats have said they will vote against him. According to polls, a plurality of Americans and a solid majority of Republicans want to see Gorsuch confirmed.

 

To be fair to Schumer, he pretty much has no choice - as head of the democrat opposition in the senate, he's the new Harry Reid, but with smaller balls than Pelosi has.

[B-Man]

McConnell vows Gorsuch confirmation this week, says nuclear option 'in hands of Democrats'

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday that Judge Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week to the Supreme Court but acknowledged Republicans still might not have enough support from Senate Democrats to avoid their attempts to slow or try to stop the nomination process with a filibuster.

“We’re going to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed this week,” McConnell, R-Ky., told “Fox News Sunday.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick to fill the high court seat of conservative Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, will almost certainly have enough votes early this week in the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee but will struggle to get 60 votes for final confirmation by Friday. (Scalia died in February 2016.)

Republicans have 52 senators in the chamber and will need the support of eight Democrats to get Gorsuch confirmed in a straight floor vote.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Edited April 2, 2017 by B-Man

[B-Man]

Another Democratic senator says YES to Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS

 

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) is the latest Democrat to announce that he will vote to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia.

 

Senator Joe Donnelly

✔@SenDonnelly

Joe will support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. https://www.donnelly.senate.gov/newsroom/press/donnelly-announces-support-for-gorsuch …

1:32 PM - 2 Apr 2017

 

 

Donnelly becomes the third Democrat to publicly announce support of Gorsuch. Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota have also made public declarations of their intention to vote for Gorsuch. All three of these Democrats are in states that President Trump carried in November.

[B-Man]

MARC THIESSEN: Do Democrats really want to provoke an unprecedented showdown over Gorsuch?

 

 

Something unprecedented could happen this week when the Senate votes on Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court — but

it won’t be Republicans triggering

the so-called nuclear option to confirm him a by simple-majority vote.

No, what would be historically unprecedented would be for Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch.

There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic — and the idea that Gorsuch should be the first is patently absurd.

 

 

 

 

 

Kill the filibuster, not just for Supreme Court nominations but for everything.

 

Just a few years ago, I was reliably informed that the filibuster was horrible, and racist. ...........What changed dems ?

 

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/261595/

[row_33]

MARC THIESSEN: Do Democrats really want to provoke an unprecedented showdown over Gorsuch?

 

 

Something unprecedented could happen this week when the Senate votes on Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court — but

it won’t be Republicans triggering

the so-called nuclear option to confirm him a by simple-majority vote.

No, what would be historically unprecedented would be for Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch.

There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic — and the idea that Gorsuch should be the first is patently absurd.

 

 

 

 

 

Kill the filibuster, not just for Supreme Court nominations but for everything.

 

Just a few years ago, I was reliably informed that the filibuster was horrible, and racist. ...........What changed dems ?

 

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/261595/

 

 

 

Can't kill the possibility of a filibuster, it has good purposes when used wisely.

[Nanker]

 

 

 

Can't kill the possibility of a filibuster, it has good purposes when used wisely.

Not really. You know they changed the filibuster rule for Hillary when she was a Senator?

It used to be that Senators had to keep talking to keep the filibuster going.

She didn't like that. She didn't like to talk. So they changed the rule so that a Senator just has to invoke a filibuster and it remains in effect - with or without speeches of any sort - until cloture is ruled by a vote of 60.

 

In this polarized political time the Reid Rule should prevail on everything in the Senate otherwise nothing will get done.

It's a stupid remnant that was a hallmark of a more gentile time when political opposition wasn't synonymous with blood sport.

 

Senator Bum!@#$ addresses the Senate: "Mr. Vice President, I rise to filibuster on the bill."

Senator Bum!@#$ then sits down, collects his papers, and walks out of the chamber and the Senate comes to a halt.

[DC Tom]

Not really. You know they changed the filibuster rule for Hillary when she was a Senator?

It used to be that Senators had to keep talking to keep the filibuster going.

She didn't like that. She didn't like to talk. So they changed the rule so that a Senator just has to invoke a filibuster and it remains in effect - with or without speeches of any sort - until cloture is ruled by a vote of 60.

 

In this polarized political time the Reid Rule should prevail on everything in the Senate otherwise nothing will get done.

It's a stupid remnant that was a hallmark of a more gentile time when political opposition wasn't synonymous with blood sport.

 

Senator Bum!@#$ addresses the Senate: "Mr. Vice President, I rise to filibuster on the bill."

Senator Bum!@#$ then sits down, collects his papers, and walks out of the chamber and the Senate comes to a halt.

 

It has nothing to do with Hillary. They changed it in 1975, when they implemented a "two-track" system to continue Senate business during a filibuster, at which point the filibuster ceased to be about "blocking all Senate business," and hence it became useless to try to monopolize the floor on a specific issue.

[row_33]

Taking the whole history of the US into account, the filibuster has been a good thing at times. Jimmy Stewart was the best use of it.

[Doc Brown]

I was laughing at the Republican Senators saying there was no reason besides partisanship that Democrats shouldn't confirm Gorsich. All I was thinking is you could substitute Garland for Gorsich who the GOP Senators wouldn't even give a trial to you hypocrites. I also remember Cruz and McCain saying they would consider not letting any selection by Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS get through the Senate for four years if she won. Now, the Dems are acting just like the Republicans. Bipartisanship in DC is dead.

[row_33]

I was laughing at the Republican Senators saying there was no reason besides partisanship that Democrats shouldn't confirm Gorsich. All I was thinking is you could substitute Garland for Gorsich who the GOP Senators wouldn't even give a trial to you hypocrites. I also remember Cruz and McCain saying they would consider not letting any selection by Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS get through the Senate for four years if she won. Now, the Dems are acting just like the Republicans. Bipartisanship in DC is dead.

 

there is nothing on Gorsuch to prevent him from taking his place on the Supreme Court, not a thing...

 

the question is "who won" the November 2016 election, and it was the GOP on EVERY COUNT... they write the rules and history now...

[Tiberius]

I was laughing at the Republican Senators saying there was no reason besides partisanship that Democrats shouldn't confirm Gorsich. All I was thinking is you could substitute Garland for Gorsich who the GOP Senators wouldn't even give a trial to you hypocrites. I also remember Cruz and McCain saying they would consider not letting any selection by Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS get through the Senate for four years if she won. Now, the Dems are acting just like the Republicans. Bipartisanship in DC is dead.

Republicans use the masses to further the interests of the oligarchs and Dems use the Oligarchs to further the interests of the people. No common ground really

[DC Tom]

Republicans use the masses to further the interests of the oligarchs and Dems use the Oligarchs to further the interests of the people. No common ground really

 

 

Neither party has anything but their own interests at heart. "The people." That's funny.

[Deranged Rhino]

Republicans use the masses to further the interests of the oligarchs and Dems use the Oligarchs to further the interests of the people. No common ground really

 

The partisan hackery runs deep in you.

[Azalin]

 

The partisan hackery runs deep in you.

 

The hills are alive......

[Tiberius]

The Dems giveth health care, the Republicans try and take them away and pass the tax cuts along to the wealthy. To say otherwise reveals right wing partisanship

[Doc Brown]

 

there is nothing on Gorsuch to prevent him from taking his place on the Supreme Court, not a thing...

 

the question is "who won" the November 2016 election, and it was the GOP on EVERY COUNT... they write the rules and history now...

Yes, that's what's going to happen. Obviously. I'm just laughing at the fake outrage and hypocrisy by both sides. No wonder Congress's approval rating is below 15% in almost every poll.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Doc Brown

[Tiberius]

Will Repubs go nuclear?

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/327014-dems-reach-magic-number-to-block-supreme-court-nominee