U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' ends Democrats' blockade of Trump court pick

[webfact]

U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' ends Democrats' blockade of Trump court pick

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

REUTERS

 

Republicans fail to end a Democratic bid to block a U.S. Senate confirmation vote on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nomination. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans on Thursday crushed a Democratic blockade of President Donald Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee in a fierce partisan brawl, approving a rule change dubbed the "nuclear option" to allow for conservative judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation by Friday.

 

With ideological control of the nation's highest court at stake, the Republican-led Senate voted 52-48 along party lines to change its long-standing rules in order to prohibit a procedural tactic called a filibuster against Supreme Court nominees. That came after Republicans failed by a 55-45 tally to muster the 60-vote super-majority needed to end the Democratic filibuster that had sought to deny Gorsuch confirmation to the lifetime post.

 

The Senate's action cleared the way to confirm Gorsuch by simple majority on Friday. Republicans control the Senate 52-48. The rule change was called the "nuclear option" because it was considered an extreme break with Senate tradition.

 

Trump had encouraged Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "go nuclear." Confirmation of Gorsuch would represent Trump's first major victory since taking office on Jan. 20, after setbacks on healthcare legislation and blocking of his order to prevent people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

 

Senate confirmation of Gorsuch, a Colorado-based federal appeals could judge, would restore the nine-seat court's 5-4 conservative majority, enable Trump to leave an indelible mark on America's highest judicial body and fulfil a top campaign promise by the Republican president. Gorsuch, 49, could be expected to serve for decades.

 

"This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court," McConnell said on the Senate floor, accusing Democrats of trying to inflict political damage on Trump and to keep more conservatives from joining the high court.

 

"In 20 or 30 or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court, a day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation and consensus," Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.

 

Schumer ridiculed McConnell's contention that the Democratic action was unprecedented. He noted the Republican-led Senate refused last year to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama's nomination of appellate judge Merrick Garland for the same seat that Trump selected Gorsuch to fill following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

 

With three of the court's justices 78 or older, Trump told reporters he hoped to appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices, a move likely to make it overwhelmingly conservative.

 

"In fact, under a certain scenario there could even be more than that," Trump said aboard Air Force One en route to a meeting with China's president in Florida, adding that the Senate rule change would not alter how he picks court nominees.

 

Gorsuch could be sworn in as early as Friday, with a formal ceremony expected at the White House next week, a White House official said. That would allow him to begin preparing for the court's next session of oral arguments, starting on April 17.

 

CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE

 

A conservative-majority court is more likely to support broad gun rights, an expansive view of religious liberty, abortion regulations and Republican-backed voting restrictions, while opposing curbs on political spending. The court also is likely to tackle transgender rights and union funding in coming years.

 

A 60-vote threshold giving the minority party power to hold up the majority party has forced the Senate over the decades to try to achieve bipartisanship in legislation and presidential appointments.

 

In the final procedural vote that paved the way for confirmation, three Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 in states won by Trump last year - Indiana's Joe Donnelly, West Virginia's Joe Manchin and North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp - broke with their party and voted with Republicans to bring about a confirmation vote, although they opposed the rule change.

 

A fourth Democrat, Michael Bennet, who represents Gorsuch's home state of Colorado, voted with Republicans on Thursday's first procedural vote to bring debate to a close. But he stuck with fellow Democrats in opposing the final vote to end the filibuster, the one that succeeded following the rule change.

 

Republicans have called Gorsuch superbly qualified and one of the nation's most distinguished appellate judges.

 

Democrats accused him of being so conservative as to be outside the judicial mainstream, favouring corporate interests over ordinary Americans in legal opinions, and displaying insufficient independence from Trump.

 

What Republicans did to Obama's nominee Garland was worse than a filibuster, Schumer said. Schumer said Republicans denied "the constitutional prerogative of a president with 11 months left in his term."

 

"The nuclear option was used by Senator McConnell when he stopped Merrick Garland," Democratic Senator Richard Durbin added on the Senate floor. "What we face today is the fallout."

 

McConnell blamed the escalation of fights over judicial nominees on the Democrats and their opposition starting three decades ago to nominees made by Republican former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

 

Experts said eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments could make it more likely that presidents, with little incentive to choose centrist justices who could attract support from the other party, will pick ideologically extreme nominees in the future.

 

Ending the filibuster also would make it easier for future Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed when the president and Senate leadership belong to the same party.

 

The filibuster in one form or another dates back to the 19th century but assumed its current form in the 1970s.

 

While Democrats opposed the rule change and accused Republicans of a power grab, it was their party that first resorted to the nuclear option when they controlled the Senate in 2013. In the face of Republican filibusters of Obama appointments, they barred filibusters for executive branch nominees and federal judges aside from Supreme Court justices but still allowed it for Supreme Court nominees and legislation.

 

The Republican-backed rule change maintains the ability to filibuster legislation.

 

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Steve Holland aboard Air Force One; Editing by Will Dunham and Bill Trott)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-07

[thaibeachlovers]

About time they grew some and stopped messing about. The best thing about it though- the Dems used the "nuclear" option in 2013, so can't complain now.

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

About time they grew some and stopped messing about. The best thing about it though- the Dems used the "nuclear" option in 2013, so can't complain now.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

About time they grew some and stopped messing about. The best thing about it though- the Dems used the "nuclear" option in 2013, so can't complain now.

Sorry, had to quote you twice to let it sink in.

 

" . . .grew some and stopped messing around . . ." Your bias is showing; what part of being the majority amounts to growing some?

 

"Dems used the "nuclear" option in 2013, so can't complain now." You seemed to be the usual Trumpeter and missed the fact that the Dems did not include the Supreme Court nominees.

 

However, all of that aside; why couldn't Obama's SCOTUS nominee been given the chance? If he was that bad, the Reps have the majority, they could have just voted against him. 

 

Were the Reps growing some or just spouting "Fake" information when they refused to allow Obama's Supreme Court appointee to go through the process and tried to justify it with the fairy tale that it was tradition that no Supreme Court appointees were handled in an election year?  At least, Rubio and McConnell made that statement.  

 

Absolute horse manure; as is so much of what this administration spouts.  Do some research, if you can, and note that  Taft, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Ike and LBJ all nominated   supreme court justices in an election year. 

 

Don't you see, all politicians (Reps in this case, but Dems in others), and especially the Trumpet,are trying to feed us horse manure and so many Americans are just gulping it right up.  Grow some yourself. 

[hawker9000]

Oh boo-hoo.  Crazy Harry lit the fuse in 2013 and dems pour gasoline on it now by staging a filibuster, and the wingnuts lose it when Republicans take up the gauntlet and finally follow-through.  Reap it, wingnuts.  The final vote on the guy will include at least 3 dem yeas - who'll be doing so 'cause they want to be re-elected - so it'll be bipartisan in a true grassroots sense. Suck on it.

 

 An extremely childish and petulant move by Schumer to force McConnell's hand with the filibuster as Trump is almost sure to get the chance to submit more SC nominations during his term.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by hawker9000

[RPCVguy]

ONLY 68 Judicial Nominees were filibustered over 60 years of US Presidencies from Truman through Bush  1949 - 2009.

Republicans filibustered Obama's judicial nominees 79 times in 3 years, before Reid nuked the filibuster for them
(so 1/20th the time frame and more filibusters... literally 23¼ times the rate of filibusters as over those prior 60 years)

Dems filibustered only ONCE over a nomination before McConnell nuked the filibuster for a lifetime appointment

From a friend of a friend: "The Republicans, marching in lockstep, have taken their win-at-all-costs, norm-destroying approach to its logical conclusion. And expectedly, they are trying to blame Democrats using the language of abusers: "You made us do this". No. NO. The Republicans have been the one breaking precedent for political gain at every step of the way. This is on their hands. I will not be gas-lit into thinking otherwise."

[Andaman Al]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,'

I just fear under the current climate that soon we will see a mixing up of words from this headline to other headlines involving Trump in the Middle East. God help us all.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

Oh boo-hoo.  Crazy Harry lit the fuse in 2013 and dems pour gasoline on it now by staging a filibuster, and the wingnuts lose it when Republicans take up the gauntlet and finally follow-through.  Reap it, wingnuts.  The final vote on the guy will include at least 3 dem yeas - who'll be doing so 'cause they want to be re-elected - so it'll be bipartisan in a true grassroots sense. Suck on it.

 

 An extremely childish and petulant move by Schumer to force McConnell's hand with the filibuster as Trump is almost sure to get the chance to submit more SC nominations during his term.

 

See a sensible factual post on the subject below.

 

 

43 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

ONLY 68 Judicial Nominees were filibustered over 60 years of US Presidencies from Truman through Bush  1949 - 2009.

Republicans filibustered Obama's judicial nominees 79 times in 3 years, before Reid nuked the filibuster for them
(so 1/20th the time frame and more filibusters... literally 23¼ times the rate of filibusters as over those prior 60 years)

Dems filibustered only ONCE over a nomination before McConnell nuked the filibuster for a lifetime appointment

From a friend of a friend: "The Republicans, marching in lockstep, have taken their win-at-all-costs, norm-destroying approach to its logical conclusion. And expectedly, they are trying to blame Democrats using the language of abusers: "You made us do this". No. NO. The Republicans have been the one breaking precedent for political gain at every step of the way. This is on their hands. I will not be gas-lit into thinking otherwise."

The funny thing is hawker 9000 thinks the Dems are going boo hoo. The Republicans have just played straight into the Dems hands. Reid was ending the worst ever period of Republican obstruction when they had actioned so many filibusters in 3 years over judicial appointments it was stopping the Government from Governing. But Reps seem to forget or choose to ignore that. Now you better hope that some of the SCOTUS members pop their mortal coil in the next 18 months so that the vacancies can be filled quickly, because the Dems will take both houses soon and then they will be able to vote anyone they like into any forthcoming SCOTUS vacancy. McConnell has been very foolish. Trump has been given Gorsuch at a VERY high price.

[smotherb]

10 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Oh boo-hoo.  Crazy Harry lit the fuse in 2013 and dems pour gasoline on it now by staging a filibuster, and the wingnuts lose it when Republicans take up the gauntlet and finally follow-through.  Reap it, wingnuts.  The final vote on the guy will include at least 3 dem yeas - who'll be doing so 'cause they want to be re-elected - so it'll be bipartisan in a true grassroots sense. Suck on it.

 

 An extremely childish and petulant move by Schumer to force McConnell's hand with the filibuster as Trump is almost sure to get the chance to submit more SC nominations during his term.

 

You really have no idea, don't you?

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, smotherb said:

 

Sorry, had to quote you twice to let it sink in.

 

" . . .grew some and stopped messing around . . ." Your bias is showing; what part of being the majority amounts to growing some?

 

"Dems used the "nuclear" option in 2013, so can't complain now." You seemed to be the usual Trumpeter and missed the fact that the Dems did not include the Supreme Court nominees.

 

However, all of that aside; why couldn't Obama's SCOTUS nominee been given the chance? If he was that bad, the Reps have the majority, they could have just voted against him. 

 

Were the Reps growing some or just spouting "Fake" information when they refused to allow Obama's Supreme Court appointee to go through the process and tried to justify it with the fairy tale that it was tradition that no Supreme Court appointees were handled in an election year?  At least, Rubio and McConnell made that statement.  

 

Absolute horse manure; as is so much of what this administration spouts.  Do some research, if you can, and note that  Taft, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Ike and LBJ all nominated   supreme court justices in an election year. 

 

Don't you see, all politicians (Reps in this case, but Dems in others), and especially the Trumpet,are trying to feed us horse manure and so many Americans are just gulping it right up.  Grow some yourself. 

Seeing as you have made this personal, see post # 4.

 

[ilostmypassword]

So Trump has appointed to the Supreme Court a judge who  ruled in favor of a company that fired a trucker because he chose not to risk freezing to death.  I guess in Trump's book truckers don't count as working class Americans.

[smotherb]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seeing as you have made this personal, see post # 4.

 

Personal? You stated your opinion, I countered it with mine and supported it with fact. Apparently, you have no rebuttal except to point me to an even more uninformed post than yours. So, see my post #8 in response to post #4. Your serve.  

[Andaman Al]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seeing as you have made this personal, see post # 4.

 

Boy your sensitivity tolerance level is about 1/10. Have you had a bad week?

[USPatriot]

The dems will be eating their own soon. Hahahahah

It's was all sunshine and lollypop for 8 years.

[ilostmypassword]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seeing as you have made this personal, see post # 4.

 

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Boy your sensitivity tolerance level is about 1/10. Have you had a bad week?

It's just something he invokes when he doesn't have a cogent response. Which is often.

 

 

[Scott]

If you are looking for a suspension, then continue with the personal, baiting remarks, because you will get one.  

 

 

[sirineou]

On 4/6/2017 at 10:14 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

About time they grew some and stopped messing about. The best thing about it though- the Dems used the "nuclear" option in 2013, so can't complain now.

The Democrats used the nuclear option  (wrongly IMO) to expedite the appointment of federal judges, and fill the positions.

I think we can both agree that there is a big difference between a federal judge and a Supreme court judge.

Both the Democrats then and more so the Republicans now,  are both wrong for eliminating the super-majority rule that was there for a very good reason.   

We can all agree that  Partisanship is a big contributor to  the dysfunction of government. The removal of the super-majority requirement will allow any party with a simple majority to steamroll over the  opposition further   alienating the other party.

I think it is an other nail in the coffin of american politics.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

The Democrats used the nuclear option  (wrongly IMO) to expedite the appointment of federal judges, and fill the positions.

I think we can both agree that there is a big difference between a federal judge and a Supreme court judge.

I am not a Democrat. However reference your statement above, you do realise that the Republicans filibustered over 70 times during the attempted appointment of federal judges. Please tell me/us what option Harry Reid had left open to him when over 70 filibusters had been carried out by the republicans. Judges needed appointing and no matter WHO was nominated the Republicans filibustered. Now the Republicans have used the nuclear option after 1 filibuster. I hope Grouch turns out to be the Judge they really want on the Supreme Court, because he will come at a very high price to the Republicans - and to US politics in general.

[sirineou]

40 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I am not a Democrat. However reference your statement above, you do realise that the Republicans filibustered over 70 times during the attempted appointment of federal judges. Please tell me/us what option Harry Reid had left open to him when over 70 filibusters had been carried out by the republicans. Judges needed appointing and no matter WHO was nominated the Republicans filibustered. Now the Republicans have used the nuclear option after 1 filibuster. I hope Grouch turns out to be the Judge they really want on the Supreme Court, because he will come at a very high price to the Republicans - and to US politics in general.

I agree with you. Big difference between the two.

But  Reid had the same options politicians had for two hundred years, unfortunately he chose the option that open Pandora's box and gave Republicans the cover they needed to do the nasty

.An other option would had being to let these seats unfilled, a third would had being to compromise.Though little surprises me about them, I must say , I am surprised by the republicans, I cant believe the confirmation of Gorsuch was so important as to abandon 200 years of tradition that even though not perfect has served us well. 

 

PS: There many federal judges appointed  hence many filibusters but only one Supreme court nominee..... 

[hawker9000]

5 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I am not a Democrat. However reference your statement above, you do realise that the Republicans filibustered over 70 times during the attempted appointment of federal judges. Please tell me/us what option Harry Reid had left open to him when over 70 filibusters had been carried out by the republicans. Judges needed appointing and no matter WHO was nominated the Republicans filibustered. Now the Republicans have used the nuclear option after 1 filibuster. I hope Grouch turns out to be the Judge they really want on the Supreme Court, because he will come at a very high price to the Republicans - and to US politics in general.

He had the option to tell Obama to quit trying to pack the courts with juducial activists with anti-constitutional agendas who would take an oath to support & defend the Constitution and then immeduately set about undermining it.

 

Ok, now go ahead and tell us the Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed...

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

He had the option to tell Obama to quit trying to pack the courts with juducial activists with anti-constitutional agendas who would take an oath to support & defend the Constitution and then immeduately set about undermining it.

 

Ok, now go ahead and tell us the Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed...

 

Tell that to working Americans who Gorsuch continually votes against and in favor of corporate interests.

[Andaman Al]

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

He had the option to tell Obama to quit trying to pack the courts with juducial activists with anti-constitutional agendas who would take an oath to support & defend the Constitution and then immeduately set about undermining it.

 

Ok, now go ahead and tell us the Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed...

 

 

 

Quote

 juducial activists with anti-constitutional agendas who would take an oath to support & defend the Constitution and then immeduately set about undermining it.

Are you talking about Gorsuch here? It sounds like it. 79 filibusters. It sounds like the USA is simply overflowing with Judicial Activists. How did they get appointed in the first place?

 

Quote

Ok, now go ahead and tell us the Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed...

The Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed.

 

[USPatriot]

4 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

 

 

Are you talking about Gorsuch here? It sounds like it. 79 filibusters. It sounds like the USA is simply overflowing with Judicial Activists. How did they get appointed in the first place?

 

The Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed.

 

So let's get rid of the constitution and the amendments? Or just parts you don't like.

 

The us constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, USPatriot said:

So let's get rid of the constitution and the amendments? Or just parts you don't like.

 

The us constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written.

That has made me laugh too much. Did you actually READ the post/quotes I was replying to? Trump clown disease is catching.

[USPatriot]

5 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

That has made me laugh too much. Did you actually READ the post/quotes I was replying to? Trump clown disease is catching.

I hope you are not an American. 

And the costitution can be changed through amendments 

Edited April 9, 2017 by USPatriot

[Andaman Al]

16 minutes ago, USPatriot said:

I hope you are not an American. 

And the costitution can be changed through amendments 

You really did not read what I was replying to did you. It's pathetic. You are making a fool of yourself.

 

Hawker 9000 said

Quote

Ok, now go ahead and tell us the Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed...

So in response, I said:

Quote

The Constitution is an archaic document that was never meant to last this along and can't be changed.

Do you GET IT NOW?  

[Ramen087]

An excellent decision from Pres. Trump.  Hopefully the CiC will get another chance to nominate an individual with similarities to Justice Gorsuch before this term concludes. 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

An excellent decision from Pres. Trump.  Hopefully the CiC will get another chance to nominate an individual with similarities to Justice Gorsuch before this term concludes. 

And make sure American workers get even more screwed over by the Supreme Court.