# Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845
**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:** 15
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/281 "2017-03-30T22:00:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> “Recognized” by who, precisely?
Everyone except the right wing, who appear to buy Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly’s propaganda (not by any stretch of the imagination the only ones promoting it on Fox, but they’re the most prominent examples) hook, line, and sinker.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/282 "2017-03-30T22:10:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> You seem to be misremembering what you posted. The statement that you know nothing about the Republican base was in response to your allegation that Garland was acceptable to the Republican base, and it is that claim that needs a cite.
Which I provided. And STILL you have provided ZERO evidence of your position. All you’ve done is evade, finding excuses for NOT providing evidence.
I really don’t understand why it’s so difficult, if you’re right, to cite that Garland was not acceptable to the Republican base. It sure as hell would have saved time for both of us if you had.
But until you do, I’m finished. Making unsubstantiated assertions does no service to perceptions of you. Believe you me, my perception of you is shot to shit, whether or not I agree with what you say. Your ‘debate’ procedure is no better than those Trumpies spouting off about how evil liberals are.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/283 "2017-03-30T22:15:15Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> Everyone except the right wing, who appear to buy Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly’s propaganda (not by any stretch of the imagination the only ones promoting it on Fox, but they’re the most prominent examples) hook, line, and sinker.
Point being that you have simply declared that the sources you like are to be the authorities and the contrary sources are to be be dismissed as propaganda.
If that were an acceptable technique in debate, it would give you an easy win. But it’s not; I decline to agree that Fox News strays significantly farther from facts than the New York Times does. The Times chooses headlines deceptively and you’re willing to ignore from it behavior that would draw howls of indignation if it came from Fox.
Just recently there was a thread about a Times headline that suggested that due to Trump worries, 39% of colleges were seeing declining foreign enrollment.
But then it turns out that the study shows 36% showed rising foreign enrollment. A fact the Times didn’t mention. They didn’t lie. They deceived.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/284 "2017-03-30T22:17:34Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> Which I provided. And STILL you have provided ZERO evidence of your position. All you’ve done is evade, finding excuses for NOT providing evidence.
>
> I really don’t understand why it’s so difficult, if you’re right, to cite that Garland was not acceptable to the Republican base. It sure as hell would have saved time for both of us if you had.
Because he doesn’t bear the burden of proof. The guy who claimed Garland WAS acceptable to the base has to prove his claim.
It’s a very simple rule. The one who makes the claim has the burden; the one who denies the unproven claim is entitled to do so without proof.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/285 "2017-03-30T22:33:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Point being that you have simply declared that the sources you like are to be the authorities and the contrary sources are to be be dismissed as propaganda.
>
> If that were an acceptable technique in debate, it would give you an easy win. But it’s not; I decline to agree that Fox News strays significantly farther from facts than the New York Times does. The Times chooses headlines deceptively and you’re willing to ignore from it behavior that would draw howls of indignation if it came from Fox.
>
> Just recently there was a thread about a Times headline that suggested that due to Trump worries, 39% of colleges were seeing declining foreign enrollment.
>
> But then it turns out that the study shows 36% showed rising foreign enrollment. A fact the Times didn’t mention. They didn’t lie. They deceived.
You may believe that Fox News is the paragon of journalistic integrity, but that doesn’t mean that those who can see three feet in front of their faces don’t recognize that Fox peddles the worst kind of propagandist ‘theories’ in service of furthering the right’s agenda. "Fair and balanced,’ indeed. If your perception of balanced begins and ends at the right side of the political spectrum (and even some of those that are honest with themselves see what purveyors of bullshit Fox is).
Are you seriously trying to compare one article in the Times to a preponderance of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories disseminated practically daily by Fox? One might be able to ascribe an article to an editorial error in printing the story in that form. Fox is a continuous and systematized peddling of conservative fairy tales.
You may return to your regularly-scheduled Fox programming now.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/286 "2017-03-30T22:42:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Because he doesn’t bear the burden of proof. The guy who claimed Garland WAS acceptable to the base has to prove his claim.
>
> It’s a very simple rule. The one who makes the claim has the burden; the one who denies the unproven claim is entitled to do so without proof.
Simple it may be, but applicable it is not. Not in any form of reasonable and reasoned debate. You don’t just get to say “no.” You must show why not, and you must support it with evidence.
Unsubstantiated denial is just another tactic to avoid debate, an attempt to throw the opponent on the defensive without any form of proof. And, not surprisingly, a common one used by Trump supporters.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/287 "2017-03-30T22:42:38Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> Making unsubstantiated assertions does no service to perceptions of you. Believe you me, my perception of you is shot to shit, whether or not I agree with what you say.
Do not personalize arguments in this fashion. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/288 "2017-03-30T22:47:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Because he doesn’t bear the burden of proof. The guy who claimed Garland WAS acceptable to the base has to prove his claim.
>
> It’s a very simple rule. The one who makes the claim has the burden; the one who denies the unproven claim is entitled to do so without proof.
Except that’s not all the “rule”. Once a cite is provided the other side has to provide a better cite or refute that cite, not simple ignore it.
However, this cite does show that Garland was at one time acceptable to some part of the GOP, and none actually raised objections to his qualifications.
[https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-03-22/7-gop-senators-once-moved-in-favor-of-man-obama-nominated](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-03-22/7-gop-senators-once-moved-in-favor-of-man-obama-nominated)
\*"Republicans who once praised Garland — and voted for him — say it’s not the person, it’s the principle.
“He may very well be a very good nominee, I voted for him earlier,” said Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas. “But it’s not about the nominee, it’s about the process.”
\*
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/289 "2017-03-30T22:51:01Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> You may believe that Fox News is the paragon of journalistic integrity, but that doesn’t mean that those who can see three feet in front of their faces don’t recognize that Fox peddles the worst kind of propagandist ‘theories’ in service of furthering the right’s agenda. "Fair and balanced,’ indeed. If your perception of balanced begins and ends at the right side of the political spectrum (and even some of those that are honest with themselves see what purveyors of bullshit Fox is).
>
> Are you seriously trying to compare one article in the Times to a preponderance of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories disseminated practically daily by Fox? One might be able to ascribe an article to an editorial error in printing the story in that form. Fox is a continuous and systematized peddling of conservative fairy tales.
>
> You may return to your regularly-scheduled Fox programming now.
Just curious, what % of Fox News’ content are you personally familiar with? You’ve alleged that they have “a preponderance of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories disseminated practically daily” and they engage in “a continuous and systematized peddling of conservative fairy tales”. What’s the basis for these claims? Have you personally fact-checked Fox’s stories daily? Did someone else do it and you read their summary? Where are you getting your information?
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/290 "2017-03-30T22:59:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> Just curious, what % of Fox News’ content are you personally familiar with? You’ve alleged that they have “a preponderance of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories disseminated practically daily” and they engage in “a continuous and systematized peddling of conservative fairy tales”. What’s the basis for these claims? Have you personally fact-checked Fox’s stories daily? Did someone else do it and you read their summary? Where are you getting your information?
I don’t have to watch them to see the large amount of questionable journalism reported of them by other sources, over and over again. And I’m not anywhere near the only one, nor do I fit into the standard ‘liberal’ or ‘Democratic’ camp, so you don’t get to claim that I dislike Fox because of my political views. I’m allergic to bullshit, and Fox is the biggest pile in the media universe.
So are you claiming that Fox is a reliable source for unbiased news as well?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/291 "2017-03-30T23:05:41Z")
So, no cite then?
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/292 "2017-03-30T23:12:11Z")
First, you aren’t asking for a cite, you’re asking for a full study. Sorry, but it’s really not that important to me to debate over the bias of Fox News. If you really want to know, I suggest you do so yourself. Or convince yourself that I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that Fox is the nadir of responsible journalism.
At this point, I really don’t care. It has literally nothing to do with the original point nor the theme of this thread.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/293 "2017-03-30T23:16:54Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> First, you aren’t asking for a cite, you’re asking for a full study. Sorry, but it’s really not that important to me to debate over the bias of Fox News. If you really want to know, I suggest you do so yourself. Or convince yourself that I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that Fox is the nadir of responsible journalism.
>
> At this point, I really don’t care. It has literally nothing to do with the original point nor the theme of this thread.
If you want to be taken seriously around here, it’s customary to provide cites for claims. I thought that “What’s the basis for these claims?” and “Where are you getting your information?” were clear-enough requests for a cite, but if that wasn’t clear enough for you, I’d like you to consider the entirety of my writing in post #289 substituted with the single word “cite?”
Anyways, it’s sounds like giving (perhaps even having?) cites isn’t really your thing, so carry on as you see fit.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/294 "2017-03-30T23:36:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> Except that’s not all the “rule”. Once a cite is provided the other side has to provide a better cite or refute that cite, not simple ignore it.
> However, this cite does show that Garland was at one time acceptable to some part of the GOP, and none actually raised objections to his qualifications.
>
> [https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-03-22/7-gop-senators-once-moved-in-favor-of-man-obama-nominated](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-03-22/7-gop-senators-once-moved-in-favor-of-man-obama-nominated)
> \*"Republicans who once praised Garland — and voted for him — say it’s not the person, it’s the principle.
>
> “He may very well be a very good nominee, I voted for him earlier,” said Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas. “But it’s not about the nominee, it’s about the process.”
> \*
If Pat Roberts were “the base” then this would be true. I don’t think anyone disputes that some GOP senators found him acceptable.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/295 "2017-03-30T23:37:36Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> You may believe that Fox News is the paragon of journalistic integrity, but that doesn’t mean that those who can see three feet in front of their faces don’t recognize that Fox peddles the worst kind of propagandist ‘theories’ in service of furthering the right’s agenda. "Fair and balanced,’ indeed. If your perception of balanced begins and ends at the right side of the political spectrum (and even some of those that are honest with themselves see what purveyors of bullshit Fox is).
>
> Are you seriously trying to compare one article in the Times to a preponderance of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories disseminated practically daily by Fox? One might be able to ascribe an article to an editorial error in printing the story in that form. Fox is a continuous and systematized peddling of conservative fairy tales.
>
> You may return to your regularly-scheduled Fox programming now.
I agree, and have never denied, that Fox is biased.
I say that the New York Times is biased also, although admittedly not to the degree that Fox is.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/296 "2017-03-30T23:40:53Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> Simple it may be, but applicable it is not. Not in any form of reasonable and reasoned debate. You don’t just get to say “no.” You must show why not, and you must support it with evidence.
Nope.
Not true. You may say “no” to someone else’s claim. They have the burden of proof, not you.
Cite: Cargile, James (January 1997). “On the Burden of Proof”. Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 72 (279): 59–83.
---
### Author:  [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/297 "2017-03-31T00:55:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> Once a cite is provided the other side has to provide a better cite or refute that cite, not simple ignore it.
Only once an actual cite is provided. A link to another person saying they agree with you is not a cite. She’s a pundit, not some sort of authority. And the pundit provided no actual evidence to support the claim that the poster made.
> [@](#):
>
> “He may very well be a very good nominee, I voted for him earlier,” said Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas. “But it’s not about the nominee, it’s about the process.”
Do you see how that article is quoting the actual source (Sen. Roberts), which is some evidence, and not someone else’s speculation about what might have motivated President Obama, which is not?
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/298 "2017-03-31T00:55:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I decline to agree that Fox News strays significantly farther from facts than the New York Times does.
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I say that the New York Times is biased also, although admittedly not to the degree that Fox is.
Huh? Are they less biased, but insignificantly so?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/299 "2017-03-31T01:28:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#):
>
> Huh? Are they less biased, but insignificantly so?
Right. They are less biased, but I don’t agree the difference is significant.
In this judgement, I include blatant examples like the editorial positions taken about the filibuster over the years (“Now is the perfect moment for them to unite with like-minded Democrats to get rid of an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose,” when Clinton was President and Republicans were the minority Senate party; “The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out,” when Bush was President and the Democrats were the minority Senate party; and then right back to “From now on, if any senator tries to filibuster a presidential nominee, that filibuster can be stopped with a simple majority, not the 60-vote requirement of the past. That means a return to the democratic process of giving nominees an up-or-down vote, allowing them to be either confirmed or rejected by a simple majority. . . . This vote was long overdue,” when Obama was President and the GOP once again in the minority.)
Eloquent defenses of each position, tailored to fit the needs of the Democrats. Yes, they are less biased than Fox, but not significantly so.
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/300 "2017-03-31T01:32:01Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> I suppose Senate Democrats could, when the time to vote on Gorsuch arrives, just get up and walk out of the chamber, i.e. “We decided we would offer the same degree of participation in the consideration for nominee Gorsuch as the Republicans did for nominee Garland.” If walking out isn’t an option, let them sit silently and Gorsuch might get approved 52-0.
They cannot walk out unless excused by the presiding officer. If they do, they can be arrested upon a Call of the House.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=14)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=16)