Democrats Delay Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

Why are tactics like this permitted by the Constitution ? The GOP did it by delaying Obama's SC nominee until Trump was elected. Now the Dems are sandbagging Trump's pick.

 

Hobby Lobby offered contraceptives but did not want to offer certain ones which I believe the main one they didn't like was the day after pill so your "Sensible" comment is garbage. Anything you libs want you call sensible no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

They swore trump would never be elected, Britain would never leave the EU, and that we could not drill our way out of high fuel prices, so thins that "can not happen" are having a pretty good run.

It started with Hillary's extraordinarily negative policy free, vapid campaign, most of which she spent either drunk, absent, or falling over:

 

For those that forgot. I'll remind you. No charge.

 

Humm...guess the obvious question for the media, if they'd ask, is what changed, him or them.

 

Um.... well, as they say in court, facts yet to be demonstrated.... I would suggest this. I don't feel you have a grasp on the concept of the legal rights of incorporated ventures. It is pretty obvious. There also seems to be some fairly disingenuous postulation on your part about what liberal legal theory on the subject warrants. The concept of personhood is linked now, irrevocably to the 14th amendment and the distribution rights to persons, not citizens, as the the SCOTUS ruled in Pacific railroad 1886. Obviously, you don't know this, and frankly why would you. Perhaps all those episodes of Colbert tainted you. At any rate, there is actually a set of volumes of law, precedent, and concurring legislation that both describe and regulate corporate personhood.

 

I hope you are right. Getting rid of the filibuster has never been done in the history of this country. The backlash would be overwhelming

 

Hmm.. Well seems mr Reid already started down this road. The rules are pretty arbitrary when it comes down to it. How about this. The Senate will remove the filibuster. And then, if it ever seems like there might be a change of political wind, they can actually pass legislation and have a president sign the filibuster for the Senate into actual federal law. Making it impossible to ever remove again. Win, then more wins

 

Then do it. Nothing would make me happier. But the riots might actually burn down the white house

 

Always with the violence. Mob mentality. What's up with that? And buildings can always be rebuilt. You seem unfamiliar with history. The most amazing part of your comment is that you seem both willing to fight for both the removal and then the return of the filibuster. Your logic seems bipolar.

 

You seem unfamiliar with history. We are talking about removing the filibuster for ALL legislation. That has never been done. That filibuster is called The Soul Of the Senate. People would riot over it

 

LOL... Sure they would, just like they did when Reid killed it initially..... Of course, I suggested that Republicans could actually codify it, as in, actually writing it into the law once they feel the need. So, riots to object, and then riots to restoration... Bipolar at best...

 

Holy cow....you don't even know what we are talking about. Reid NEVER killed the filibuster for all legislation. DUH

 

Ending a sentence with the term "Duh" seems to provide the necessary insight into the conversation posture one should take when engaging you. Obviously, the comment I made was about the precedent Harry set. Expedience, and ego killed the filibuster. That you're just now recognizing the ramifications of his stupidity seems insular. His act was like a gateway, it's open. And now you don't like the results. Call Harry and express your displeasure directly to him for breaking the soul of the institution you seem so enamored with.

 

Please do it already. The fires from the riots will keep me warm

 

It's a simple extension of the Reid Rule. Democrats are the ones that weaponized the Judicial confirmations. Gorsuch is perfectly acceptable, if we can't seat a judge like that because of Democrat obstructionism, then we need to end it. Certainly they have demonstrated that they will the moment it gets in their way.

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to simply move the previous question, which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. There was no filibuster at that time.

But in 1806, former Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.The Senate agreed and modified its rules.Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became possible. It wasn't even the intention of the previous rule change.

Until the late 1830s, however, the filibuster remained a solely theoretical option, never actually exercised. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via majority vote, and Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.

20th century and the emergence of cloture
In 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of a debate was adopted by the Democratic-majority Senate, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare. From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of senators voting. Despite that formal requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could be sustained against majority opposition.

During the 1930s, Senator Huey Long of Louisiana used the filibuster to promote his populist policies. He recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, which occupied 15 hours of debate.

In 1946, Southern senators blocked a vote on a bill (S. 101) proposed by Democrat Dennis Chávez of New Mexico that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chávez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote, even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. Anticipating more civil rights legislation, the Senate revised its rules in 1949 to permit the invocation of cloture only if two-thirds of the entire Senate membership voted in favor of a cloture motion.

In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. In 1959, the Senate restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of those voting.

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when Southern Democrats attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The filibuster failed when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.

After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.

In 1975, the Democratic-controlled Senate revised the cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators could limit debate, except on votes to change Senate rules, which required a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture. The Senate also experimented with a rule that removed the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster (a "talking filibuster"), thus allowing for "virtual filibusters".

So what we are really talking about is the threshold for cloture. At one time it was 67% threshold. The Democrats lowered it to 60%. We could probably get Gorsuch by simply lowering to 55%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

 

No democrat leaders - all poor losers. The grandstanding and obstruction only hurts them more. Gorsuch WILL be confirmed. If a simple majority is used to confirm Gorsuch, when Ginsberg or Kennedy steps down (highly probable during Trumps first term) you can bet that any replacement will be much more conservative. Democrat politicians don't seem to get it.

 

Good luck. I would love it. Lol

 

GARLAND?!?!?!

Seriously - blatant hypocrisy or rank stupidity?!?!?

 

Doesn't Count, Biden Rule:

Besides, John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden on December 18, 1828. The Senate refused to vote on his confirmation, until after the next election. President Andrew Jackson won, and filled the position with John McLean. The Same!

Andrew Jackson nominated Roger B. Taney on January 15, 1835, to be an Associate Justice. The Senate refused to hold a vote until after the election, Jackson's Party did very well in the next election and Taney was confirmed as Chief Justice by the new Senate. Real Bumer that Hillary stored her State Department emails on Anthony Weiner's computer that he was using to send pictures of his dork to young girls!

John Tyler nominated Reuben H. Walworth and the Senate refused to vote on it. He then nominated Edward King and the Senate refused to vote on that one too! Tyler renominated Walworth and the Senate ignored the nomination. Walworth and King were re-nominated and the Senate ignored them both. Precedented!

Millard Fillmore made three nominations to replace John McKinley, nominating Edward A. Bradford, George Edmund Badger, and William C. Micou, the Senate did not take action on any of the nominees and waited for an intervening election. After President Franklin Pierce took over, the Senate filled the vacancy with the new president's nominee, John Archibald Campbell. The same!

Andrew Johnson wanted to fill two vacant seats, but instead, Congress reduced the number of seats from 9 to 7, eliminating the seats!

Grant nominated Edwin M. Stanton but by the time the Senate got around to acting on it, he died!

President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Thomas Stanley Matthews for Justice, but it was too close to the end of Hayes' term, so the nomination was not acted on until elections were held. The President's party did well, unlike the Hapless Obama, and Matthews was confirmed after the election.

President Warren G. Harding nominated Pierce Butler to the Supreme Court in 1922, but the Senate refused to even consider his nomination. Harding mended fences with the Senate, re-submitted the nomination later in the year, and Butler was confirmed.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan II in 1954, but his nomination was even not reported out of the judiciary committee. Eisenhower mended fences with the Senate, unlike Obama's endless tantruming, and re-nominated Harlan the year, and he was confirmed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

I suspect that Gorsuch will be confirmed and likely has the 60 votes necessary.

Pat Leahy says he’s not inclined to filibuster Gorsuch.

A not-so-crazy conspiracy theory for you: What if Schumer put Leahy up to this? No minority leader likes to see his authority undermined, but Schumer’s in a terrible bind here. If he doesn’t show the left that he’s willing to avenge Merrick Garland by using every obstructionist trick at his disposal, progressives will scapegoat him and turn him into a lightning rod for their anger over Trump. In fact, they already have. If, on the other hand, the caucus follows his lead and successfully filibusters Gorsuch, it’ll be a fiasco — McConnell will nuke it, Gorsuch will be confirmed anyway, and the left will have lost their last bit of procedural leverage over an eventual Trump nominee for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s or Stephen Breyer’s seat. A filibuster now would be the purest strategic idiocy and Schumer knows it.

Solution, then: Endorse the filibuster in his role as minority leader while nudging Leahy, a Senate institution and Judiciary Committee veteran who almost certainly can’t be defeated in Vermont, to lead the rebellion instead. Now, when Manchin and Bennet and McCaskill et al. need to justify their votes in favor of cloture, they can point to Leahy and say, “Sen. Leahy’s judgment carries such heavy weight with me, especially in terms of getting politics out of judicial nominations, that I feel obliged to join him in this vote.” Leahy then becomes the lightning rod. But so what? He’s immune from this sort of political lightning.

But, if Democrats smell blood in the water, that could change.

 

Kind of hysterical, no?

 

So you'd be happy with riots that burn down the White House? Nice. I regret to inform you millions of people in the country don't even know what a filibuster is. Good luck with that.

 

They soon will. This would be the most radical change in power this government has gone thru in decades. But please....go for it. But notice....you don't even hear talk of this now. Please....this is a joke.

 

That is what America voted for, 30 states to 20.