Democrats Will Insist On 60 Votes For Trump's High Court Nominee

[Miles Archer]

Democrats Will Insist On 60 Votes For Trump’s High Court Nominee
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer laid down a threshold that suggests Democrats are ready to filibuster Neil Gorsuch.
01/31/2017 09:33 pm ET



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-60-votes-trump-neil-gorsuch_us_58913cc4e4b02772c4ea2adf?

WASHINGTON ― Few Democrats came out Tuesday night promising to block President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in a skeptical statement that his members would insist Neil Gorsuch secure 60 votes to be confirmed ― the number to needed break a filibuster.

Trump is able to make the nomination because Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s court choice, leaving the high court seat vacant for more than 11 months.

Progressives have demanded that Schumer and Democrats react in kind, and roadblock any Trump nominee.

Schumer has not been willing to go that far, saying repeatedly that he will consider any nominee whose views he finds to be in the mainstream. But he laid down a 60-vote marker Tuesday night, suggesting a Gorsuch filibuster is a strong possibility.

“The Senate must insist upon 60 votes for any Supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama’s nominees,” Schumer said in the statement. “The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the executive branch.”

[athena]

1. Democrats should insist on Garland.

If Trump renominates Garland, they should confirm him. Otherwise, they should filibuster. Waiting for your party to gain power, and then picking someone "in the mould" of the deceased justice is not the way the system is supposed to work. It is not just an abuse of the executive branch; it is an abuse of the Constitution by one rogue party.

[DesertFlower]

2. he won't. they should not endorse anyone like him.

we lived almost 1 year with only 8 on the court. we can still do it.

garland was a good choice even for repugs until obama nominated him.

[athena]

3. It doesn't matter. Democrats should still insist on Garland to make a point.

The point is that the Constitution does not say the nominee must be "in the mould of" the departing justice. And yet, that's all I hear on TV, the radio, and online.

The result may be that the court will be one justice short, but voting for anyone but Garland sets a horrible precedent of a minority party subverting the system. I went into more detail here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028575674

Just filibustering without pointing out the unconstitutionality of what the Republicans did will just get the Democrats branded as obstructionists. The Republicans are much louder than the Democrats, so the label would hurt the Democrats much more than it hurt them.

[MichMary]

7. Minority party??

The R's were in the majority when they refused to hold hearings on Garland. It was their Constitutional prerogative to do so.

They are still the majority party. We can use the filibuster against this nominee, and they WILL use the nuclear option, Gorsuch will be confirmed, and we could lose even more seats in 2018.

[athena]

8. I meant the party that didn't control the presidency.

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2017, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Senate can refuse to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee until a person from their party is elected president. If such a thing were allowed, the Supreme Court would stop being one of the three branches of government. Indeed, this is what is happening, and you are defending it.


If Democrats confirm Gorsuch now, the exact same argument about the filibuster will be made next time.. Nothing will have changed, except that the Supreme Court will have moved further right. But I'm sure you knew that.

[MichMary]

10. Rolling eyes aside,

I'm not defending any of this. I'm a realist.

The Senate's responsibility in regard to the President's nominees is "advise and consent." It is not to rubber stamp everything the executive branch wants. Unfortunately their advice in regard to Garland was along the lines of "pound sand."

The rules apply equally to BOTH sides, and when so many on our side were cheering on Harry Reid for killing the filibuster, I knew it could come back to bite us in the ass. Well, it has.

The same applies here. Our side can try to hold up this nomination in the same way the Rs did. The trouble is that being in the minority, there is a limit to what they can do. Filibustering this nomination won't work, and may make things worse for the Ds in vulnerable states. There are TEN of them in states that Trump won.

Imagine losing ten seats.

[athena]

11. They did not even meet with Garland.

They declared before President Obama even announced his pick that they would refuse to confirm him/her, no matter who s/he was. Only a Republican would call this "advise and consent". Only a Republican would call giving the nominee a hearing "rubber stamp[ing] everything the executive branch wants".

The rules indeed apply on both sides. If you consider what the Republicans did to Garland to be "advise and consent", then Democrats will be doing precisely that by blocking Garland.

[MichMary]

12. Great, and how are they going to block him?

There are at least ten Dem Senators who are going to be thinking about November 2018, and what their constituents, who voted for Trump, are going to think about what they do with this nomination.

Sure, if you are a Senator from California, New York, etc. you have nothing to worry about. If you are from Missouri or West Virginia, you do.

[athena]

13. Most people don't care about the Supreme Court.

If they did, the Republicans would have lost the election. This is only an issue for people who follow politics closely. Just as the Republicans got away with blocking Garland, Democrats will get away with, or even grow stronger as a result of, blocking Gorsuch.

[MichMary]

14. We'll have to agree to disagree

Most people DO care about the Supreme Court. I think a lot of conservatives who had been uncomfortable about Trump voted for him based on that list of potential SC nominees he put out months before the election, because they saw those on the list as espousing the same views as Scalia (whom they LOVED.)

Regardless, there will be no way to block him because of the nuclear option. Dems try to filibuster and it WILL happen.

This nomination will not change the balance of the court. It would be much better politically to accept that this nominee get approved, and save the filibuster for when a liberal justice dies or retires.

[WillowTree]

16. You can't be serious.

There were a lot of people who lean right but don't like Trump who voted for him solely because they knew his Supreme Court appointee(s) would be more conservative than anyone Hillary would nominate. I've talked to quite a few of them and this syndrome hasn't been a secret.

[Cosmocat]

17. Yeah

what republican senators paid for the bullshit over Garland?

[Snackshack]

4. From what I understand

It really does not matter what Dems "insist" on. Republicans control the chamber (52) they are not going to let that happen they will nuke it to 51.

If I am wrong and Dems can obstruct even half as effectively as repubs did for last 8 please correct me.

[greytdemocrat]

5. Most Likely n/t

[PoliticAverse]

6. Indeed they could always invoke the "nuclear option" like Harry Reid did. n/t

[a kennedy]

9. This is exactly what they'll do.......and then they'll only need 51 votes.

i ABSOLUTELY DESPISE THEM ALL......EVERY LAST MOTHER FAWKING ONE OF THEM. We are so fawked as a country. All nominee's will get in, all positions will be filled, they won't need Dems for ANYTHING, no input, no amendments, no stopping them.

[geek tragedy]

15. Prediction: he'll get more than 60 votes nt