Support NeoGAF

[Geist-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

As the Senate Judiciary Committee was hearing from witnesses for and against Judge Neil Gorsuch, his Supreme Court nomination was delivered a critical blow: Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would join with other Democrats in filibustering Gorsuch — a move that would require at least 60 senators to vote to end debate on the nomination.

Republicans have vowed to change Senate procedures if Democrats do so to quickly confirm Gorsuch — but Schumer suggested they should focus instead on Trump’s nominee.

“If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said.

Gorsuch “was unable to sufficiently convince me that he’d be an independent check” on Trump, Schumer said in a Senate floor speech.

Gorsuch is “not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology,” Schumer added. “He was groomed by the Federalist Society and has shown not one inch of difference between his views and theirs.”

Gorsuch “declined to answer question after question after question with any substance. … All we have to judge the judge on in his record,” Schumer said.

Filibuster me if old.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

good

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

Good.

 

[Khansolo1]

Good

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Obstruct everything. There's clearly no repercussions for doing so.

 

[Davide]

I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.

 

[Omegasquash]

I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.

Wolf in sheep's clothing, just like Jeff Sessions.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Better fucking follow through.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

They have the cover, Trump's political capital is going up in flames.....No reason not to.

 

[dave is ok]

Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.

 

[Haloid1177]

Wish they gave this much of a shit about trying during the election.

 

[jmdajr]

So how long before the GOP gets rid of Fillibuster? And then get it back when DEMS take control again.

 

[Vectorman]

With momentum on the Dems' side with the LOLGOP healthcare plan on life support in the House and Nunes being an idiot yesterday, there's no reason not to.

 

[rekameohs]

Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.

When Trump's in power, that's the best action to take.

 

[EPaul]

block EVERYTHING!

 

[Lambtron]

I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.

I guess David Duke would have been worse, sure.

 

[shintoki]

Do it.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Game on. They are going to lose here, but they have to fight.

 

[EmptyCanO'wupass]

Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.

Not moving is better than moving backwards.

 

[Veritigo_X]

No reason not to. GOP is fighting itself over their ACA repeal and the Trump administration is under fire with the Russia investigation. Fight this shit.

 

[Dhx]

I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

 

[Omegasquash]

Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.

I"m not either, but right now it might not be a bad idea. The heat is getting turned up on this administration, so holding things back as much as they can would be of benefit, if in fact there IS fire making all that smoke.

 

[Realyst]

What's the calculus behind this? Are they thinking that the GOP will lose all of their leverage fairly soon?

 

[Davide]

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

Definitely.

I guess David Duke would have been worse, sure.

I was thinking somebody like Ted Cruz.

Wolf in sheep's clothing, just like Jeff Sessions.

Sessions never appeared good or intelligent.

 

[Barzul]

Good, if they're going to kill the filibuster, they should go ahead and do it now.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Good. If you have a tool, use it. Just called both of my Senators today, asking them not to confirm him.

I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.

Doesn't matter--it's a seat that should be Merrick Garland's. Not opposing it just sends the message that Republicans only need 50 seats when they have a nominee, but Democrats need 60. Fuck that. Even if he weren't terrible, it should be opposed on that principle alone so send the message that a complete double standard like that is by no means alright.

 

[shnurgleton]

Wolf in sheep's clothing, just like Jeff Sessions.

Sessions was a wolf in wolf's clothing. Anybody who said or thought otherwise was probably also a wolf.

 

[Chococat]

Good. Listen to a day of hearings on Gorsuch. This guy is terrible. Why is it impossible for him to answer straight?

Never mind the fact Garland should have gotten a fair hearing.

 

[slit]

I don't know about this, it could have been a way worse nomination.

That's exactly how Trump wants you to feel. I don't think just because you get Ivan the Terrible instead of Genghis Khan you don't put up a fight.

 

[kirblar]

They have been signalling for weeks, if not months, that this was the plan. These random garbo sourced Politico articles claiming a deal "might be made" made no sense if you compared them to statements the Dems were making and what was coming out of the Dem's email messaging.

 

[cooljeanius]

Given what Republicans did to Merrick Garland I'd say this is fair game

 

[guek]

Wolf in sheep's clothing, just like Jeff Sessions.

Nah, Sessions was a wolf in racist clothing. I don't like Gorsuch much but Sessions was worse.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Is it safe to assume they are doing this because there's something in the near future that the Russian hacking scandal will be further proven to be right?

 

[benicillin]

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

Except that's not what has happened with any of Trump's nominees so far, and if you can't use a filibuster because you're afraid that they'll blow it up when there's nothing to stop them from blowing it up then the threat of a filibuster for a hypothetical future nominee doesn't mean shit anyway.

They needed to do this.

 

[Resident_UA]

Before anyone starts freaking out you need to remember that THIS STRATEGY WORKED FOR GOP. I don't agree with the way current politics work, but it won't change until the election system is revised (never).

 

[Culex]

Garland should be the sitting judge right now. He was literally delayed an entire year because of "reasons".

 

[djplaeskool]

Given what Republicans did to Merrick Garland I'd say this is fair game

Yep. No qualms with this.

 

[Realyst]

Nah, Sessions was a wolf in racist clothing. I don't like Gorsuch much but Sessions was worse.

Nah, he wasn't wearing any racist clothes. That's pretty much him in the flesh.

 

[aeolist]

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

then they'd get rid of the filibuster then. if conservatives want to force a judge through then he's getting through, no reason not to go for it now.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Wolf in sheep's clothing, just like Jeff Sessions.

Lol wut? Over my black ass.

Dude is a wolf in tiger clothing.

And even though he's not the worst pick, its best to try to hold out as long as possible.

Is it safe to assume they are doing this because there's something in the near future that the Russian hacking scandal will be further proven to be right?

Hopefully.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Honestly, Gorsuch is a perfectly competent judge, from what I can tell, and was prob the best case scenario for Dems. This is a risk.

 

[Slacker]

Honestly not a fan of gridlock everything but I guess its par for the course.

Repubs wouldn't fill a seat in the last year of Obama's presidency. Why would the Democrats fill a seat in the last year of Trump's?

 

[ahoyhoy]

Before anyone starts freaking out you need to remember that THIS STRATEGY WORKED FOR GOP. I don't agree with the way current politics work, but it won't change until the election system is revised (never).

Yeah. It's the way the game is played now and we're the only ones who can actually change the rules (as hard as that might be)

 

[shawnbuddy]

Finally, some backbone. I was afraid they were just going to let the outrageousness surrounding Garland pass.

 

[plagiarize]

Good, if they're going to kill the filibuster, they should go ahead and do it now.

Yup. If the GOP are going to do it the first time the Dems use it, why vote to confirm this guy and potentially have that come back to hurt you down the line?

Filibuster this. It's not about Gorsuch, it's about what the GOP did to Garland and Obama. If that isn't a line in the sand type of scenario I don't know what is.

Repubs wouldn't fill a seat in the last year of Obama's presidency. Why would the Democrats fill a seat in the last year of Trump's?

Hah!

 

[Ultryx]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that Scalia has been gone for over a year and Republicans just straight-up denied even having hearings while Obama was president.

How is this acceptable?

 

[ShironRedshift]

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

Nah, that's stupid. If they're going to kill the filibuster now over this, they would have killed it then, whenever that would be, as either Republicans in the Senate plan to get rid of the thing either way or they don't. Either call their bluff or force them to get rid of it. No point having that cloud hanging over our heads, especially since we have no clue if Trump will actually get to pick another judge or not, so just holding onto it for something that might never happen to begin with is completely counterproductive. If you have it, use it.

 

[Macam]

Good.

Calling my Senators to thank them and show support. Everyone here should do the same.

 

[slit]

Honestly, Gorsuch is a perfectly competent judge, from what I can tell, and was prob the best case scenario for Dems. This is a risk.

No it isn't. If they are going to nuke the filibuster, they will nuke it anyway no matter who the nominee is.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It certainly guarantees the next nominee will be much more unpalatable to Democrats. I think I'd have saved the filibuster for the second eventual nominee given the near certainty that Trump will get at least two.

Historically not the case; when Trump's other nominees failed or backed out or had to be replaced, the replacement was almost always a significant step up.