# Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845 "2017-03-23T16:45:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/181 "2017-03-29T20:26:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Irrelevant to my current line of inquiry Well, I know it’s not quite relevant. It’s more of a cross question. Maybe it would be tipping your hand but I’m asking you what you think the legal basis for permitting ageism is. Because as I believe you are alluding, the actual text of the 14th is at least as against ageism as it is for equal marriage rights. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/182 "2017-03-29T21:23:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea. Why can’t you just say it, instead of exhorting me to connect the dots? Perhaps my dots are flawed. I wish to understand what you say the dots are. I didn’t say “dots”. How can I answer your question if you misquote me, repeatedly? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/183 "2017-03-29T22:13:17Z")
The political world is full of _Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them_. But there’s no sense trying to blame one side more than the other; that just leads to _Tu quoque_ — didn’t George Washington make up a story about a cherry tree? :smack: One thing we can be pretty sure of is that Anita Hill did not lie. There was no motive for her to lie. The right-wing hack David Brock wrote a nasty book about that woman trying to convince America she was a lying liar, but it turned out _Brock himself was the liar_: he got so disgusted with himself and the right-wing liars and their approach to politics (tell lies; if that doesn’t work, tell bigger lies) that he confessed: _The Real Anita Hill_ was just lies from beginning to end, commissioned by Brock’s right-wing masters. > [@Bricker](#): > > Did Juanita Broaderick lie? I don’t know. Probably she did — when the Koch Brothers drag a paper bag full of cash through a suburb, a lot of trash will turn up. But what’s with the rhetorical questions, **Socrates**? Did she lie or not? Post a cite please, and not just a cite to someone else’s opinion. 😛 If instead all you got is an irrelevant attempt at _Tu quoque_, don’t make us Google Juanita, just write _Tu quoque_. In fact, _you_ can abbreviate it _T.Q._ — we’ll know what you mean. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/184 "2017-03-29T22:16:06Z")
Y’know, I expected something better than the tired old “Dogs and cats living together” slippery-slope meme. How disappointing. > [@](#): > > Did Juanita Broaderick lie? Which time? She recanted her story, then recanted her recantation, etc etc. ad nauseum, so many times even Ken Starr had issue with her. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/185 "2017-03-29T22:27:58Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > One thing we can be pretty sure of is that Anita Hill did not lie. There was no motive for her to lie. p But those were\* ten year old \*memories, uncorroborated. And there were witnesses that claimed otherwise: > **[Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination)** > > On July 1, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court of the United States to replace Thurgood Marshall, who had announced his retirement. At the time of his nomination, Thomas was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; President Bush had appointed him to that position in March 1990. > The nomination proceedings were contentious from the start, especially over the issue of abortion. Many women's groups and civil ... So, even if not lying, perhaps little or nothing she claimed actually happened. Memories, especially ten year old memories, are a odd thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/186 "2017-03-29T23:56:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, I know it’s not quite relevant. It’s more of a cross question. Maybe it would be tipping your hand but I’m asking you what you think the legal basis for permitting ageism is. Because as I believe you are alluding, the actual text of the 14th is at least as against ageism as it is for equal marriage rights. Yes, it is. I have an answer, but I’m not the one claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly mandates same-sex marriage recognition. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/187 "2017-03-29T23:57:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I didn’t say “dots”. How can I answer your question if you misquote me, repeatedly? You said “dot,” singular. I don’t know what it means to “connect the dot.” ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2017, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/188 "2017-03-29T23:58:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > I would, had I made any false assertions. Sorry, you can’t rewrite history when it’s there in black and white. You claimed that there were no House votes within 16 in order to minimize the importance of gerrymandering, and I stuffed that line by citing 17 such votes just since Jan. 1 of last year. > [@](#): > > It seems that someone isn’t clear on how debates and citations work. The person making the (initial) claim has the responsibility to provide fact-based evidence in support of his assertion; it’s not up to others to disprove the assertion(s) that you make. You mean like **Shodan** claiming that I know nothing about the Republican base and implying that he does? Yeah, somebody wake me when he actually supports that claim. (He won’t, of course, he’s _still_ making excuses not to.) ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/189 "2017-03-30T00:11:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have an answer, but I’m not the one claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly mandates same-sex marriage recognition. No, but you are fairly obviously in favour of ageism and ageism is quite clearly in violation of the 14th amendment. So you are in favor of having text reinterpreted in an unobvious way in certain circumstances. I’m curious how you circle your squares. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/190 "2017-03-30T00:18:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you think a cite is? > > The cite offered doesn’t address the accuracy of the claim; it merely shows another person has the same opinion. > > If, for example, I claimed that water contains hydrogen, oxygen, and potassium, and then provided a cite to a post on a “hilarious answers kids give on tests,” page in which the same information appears, that’s not a cite. A cite should not be simply a link to another opinion; it should be a citation to an authority. So, in other words, no analysis of someone’s actions carries any weight but that person’s actual words explaining them. We should expect Obama to explain everything he did during his Presidency, and we can’t trust the political analysis of the NYT. Uh…yehrite. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/191 "2017-03-30T00:31:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You said “dot,” singular. Well, I’m glad we cleared _that_ up, at last, by you doing your homework and finding your error. In any case, this round of hilarity now effectively played out, the gist was always pretty straightforward: 1. Shodan is essentially arguing that what the Senate Republican leadership did in 2016 was okay, since Democrats are manipulating the judiciary to get changes in national policy that they can’t get through legislation. 2. One of these changes (indeed, the first he mentioned) was SSM. It’s fair to ask (though the topic has been hashed out in multiple threads and is probably beyond the scope of this one) why he feels SCOTUS overreached in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (which he didn’t name but I gather he was implying). Barring some argument that gender restrictions were necessary and serve a public interest (an argument I’m not sure actually exists, or at least I’ve never seen one that was based on anything more than religion and/or homophobia), I’m not sure why a same-sex couple should be barred from forming a legal marriage, any more than they should be barred from forming a corporation or other legal structure. Anyway, arguments along the lines of “show me where it specifically says in the Constitution that…” are inherently weak. The U.S. Constitution is a broad-stroke document, rarely delving into fine detail. The prevailing court rulings were leaning in the direction of striking down the gender restrictions in marriage, no negative outcome has become apparent, so where in the process is the liberal artificiality Shodan laments and I gather is being forced down his throat? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/192 "2017-03-30T00:50:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How do you determine the length of the Emperor’s nose? Measuring the nose would be best, of course, but if you cannot, should you interview everyone, and take the average of their guesses? Or should you interview people close to the man who see him every day? Because analyzing the motivation behind an action is the same thing as measuring a length. Ohhhkaaaay… ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/193 "2017-03-30T00:56:02Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > . . . Anyway, arguments along the lines of “show me where it specifically says in the Constitution that…” are inherently weak. The U.S. Constitution is a broad-stroke document, rarely delving into fine detail . . . . Also, the constitution works on the principle of maximizing rights, not maximizing restrictions. For a ban on SSM to be meaningful, it needs to serve some real purpose; otherwise it’s just bigotry. The courts should strike down arbitrary regulations that serve no actual purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/194 "2017-03-30T01:25:47Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Because analyzing the motivation behind an action is the same thing as measuring a length. Ohhhkaaaay… Because analogy is used to draw attention to similarities in things, even though ithers aspects of those things are different. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/195 "2017-03-30T01:27:56Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Also, the constitution works on the principle of maximizing rights, not maximizing restrictions. For a ban on SSM to be meaningful, it needs to serve some real purpose; otherwise it’s just bigotry. > > The courts should strike down arbitrary regulations that serve no actual purpose. Who gets to decide what’s arbitrary? The courts, again? Is this a principle you agree to always, or only when it delivers preferred results? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/196 "2017-03-30T01:29:40Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > So, in other words, no analysis of someone’s actions carries any weight but that person’s actual words explaining them. We should expect Obama to explain everything he did during his Presidency, and we can’t trust the political analysis of the NYT. > > Uh…yehrite. Why don’t we trust the political analysts of Fox News, instead? No, the principle I’m advancing is that we are entitled to ask for evidence in support of a claim. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/197 "2017-03-30T01:32:47Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > You mean like **Shodan** claiming that I know nothing about the Republican base and implying that he does? Yeah, somebody wake me when he actually supports that claim. (He won’t, of course, he’s _still_ making excuses not to.) Sorry, **Johnny**. The proponent of the original claim is the one with the burden ro provide the support. The guy who comes along and says, “You’re wrong,” doesn’t have to prove his claim. He’s allowed to gratuitously deny an assertion that is gratuitously made. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/198 "2017-03-30T01:36:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Also, the constitution works on the principle of maximizing rights, not maximizing restrictions. For a ban on SSM to be meaningful, it needs to serve some real purpose; otherwise it’s just bigotry. > > The courts should strike down arbitrary regulations that serve no actual purpose. I gather there are two common mindsets regarding government and law: 1. Every human activity is forbidden, unless the government specifically permits it. 2. Every human activity is allowed, unless the government specifically forbids it. If you favour the second (and not everyone on this board does), I suppose as an ideal it would be best if government had a minimalist approach to legislation, only banning activities that were provably harmful and doing so in a way that would never trip up someone who was doing a similar activity that was harmless, or had performed the activity in a way that wasn’t harmful, or had performed the activity in an effort to prevent a greater harm, i.e. the law wasn’t going to end up punishing people who didn’t deserve it. In practice, though, legislators can’t craft perfect laws. They don’t have infinite time and resources to investigate all angles before legislating. They can’t possibly add infinitely minute clarifications to the laws to cover all circumstances. They feel public pressure ranging from sober economists testifying to the causes of the most recent bank failure to Fox News pundilouts clamoring that “there oughtta be a law” against… whatever. Fortunately, there is forward progress in getting rid of useless prejudices. Within living memory were laws that restricted women from doing certain things a man could do casually, based on nothing but assumptions that women were incapable of handling the consequences. There were similar laws restricting blacks, on the assumption they were inferior, and laws restricting homosexuals on the assumption they were evil/perverse/sinful. Western civilization isn’t just about discovering what is new, but discarding what has become useless. Sure, it’s not always smooth process, and the system should have inertia by design. Shodan seems to be maintaining that same-sex marriage is a shortcut taken by SCOTUS, imposing its (liberal?) will over the choices of the legislatures. I personally don’t get the impression he particularly cares about the sanctity of legislative process - he just doesn’t like the result. And if we ask him \*why \*he doesn’t, we’re not likely to get a good answer any time soon. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/199 "2017-03-30T01:46:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > In any case, this round of hilarity now effectively played out, the gist was always pretty straightforward: > > 1. Shodan is essentially arguing that what the Senate Republican leadership did in 2016 was okay, since Democrats are manipulating the judiciary to get changes in national policy that they can’t get through legislation. > > 2. One of these changes (indeed, the first he mentioned) was SSM. With you so far. > [@](#): > > It’s fair to ask (though the topic has been hashed out in multiple threads and is probably beyond the scope of this one) why he feels SCOTUS overreached in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (which he didn’t name but I gather he was implying). Barring some argument that gender restrictions were necessary and serve a public interest (an argument I’m not sure actually exists, or at least I’ve never seen one that was based on anything more than religion and/or homophobia), I’m not sure why a same-sex couple should be barred from forming a legal marriage, any more than they should be barred from forming a corporation or other legal structure. That’s certainly interesting, but since the text of the Fourteenth Amendment hasn’t changed since 1868, when did it forbid states from requiring that marriage be between a man and a woman only? I hope you agree that in 1869, no significant percentage of the populace or the legislators believed that the language they adopted mandated same-sex marriage recognition. My position is that the correct authority to make that change is not the judiciary. You may argue that there’s just no good reason to forbid such marriages. But if self-governance means anything, surely it means that people should assent to the laws they pass. In our case, we give our elected legislators power to pass laws. This means that we should not later decide that the law we passed means something completely different unless the legislators ratify that view. > [@](#): > > Anyway, arguments along the lines of “show me where it specifically says in the Constitution that…” are inherently weak. The U.S. Constitution is a broad-stroke document, rarely delving into fine detail. The prevailing court rulings were leaning in the direction of striking down the gender restrictions in marriage, no negative outcome has become apparent, so where in the process is the liberal artificiality Shodan laments and I gather is being forced down his throat? The very fact it was prevailing court rulings is the issue. It should not be unelected judges prevailing their way to a new substantive law. And what was the significance of the singular dot? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2017, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/200 "2017-03-30T02:08:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because analogy is used to draw attention to similarities in things, even though ithers aspects of those things are different. And painted with the most extreme brush possible, as if they’re both ridiculous positions. I swear, I’ve never seen so many people do everything they can to _avoid_ supporting cases in my life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=11)