# 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:** 17
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/321 "2017-03-31T17:38:15Z")
Aren’t O’Reilly’s opinions occasionally used as the basis for Fox’s news reporting in a quite-obviously coordinated effort? O’Reilly says “Trump should challenge Democrats on excessive wheelchair-ramp spending”, the pundits present this as “people are saying Trump should challenge Democrats on excessive wheelchair-ramp spending”, and the news reporters eventually say “Democrats have so far failed to comment on challenges to excessive wheelchair-ramp spending”.
In other words, the “opinion” parts of Fox and the “news” parts of Fox are not operating independently, so if the former is based on lies and exaggeration, the latter will also be affected.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/322 "2017-03-31T18:06:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> If anyone believes that O’Reilly is a trustworthy source of facts, they’re hottibly mistaken.
You just described nearly every Fox News viewer.
> [@](#):
>
> Fox does care if O’Reilly is seen as a trustworthy source of facts; they hire him for his opinions.
Assuming you meant “doesn’t” there, you may be correct in what he presents, he does not present facts, but opinions, but Fox does care that the viewership takes his opinions as fact.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/323 "2017-03-31T18:16:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> 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.
Thanks for the primer on the SDMB. I’ve only been around for a year or so now. :rolleyes:
When I quote general knowledge (with which even **Bricker** agrees), you can come up with all the straw men you want about how I’m not properly supporting a point. It doesn’t matter.
Tellyawhat. When **Shodan** actually substantiates his knowledge about ‘the base,’ I’ll give you a cite. Until then, point your straw men somewhere else.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/324 "2017-03-31T18:26:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> 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.
Since they wont be accepted or the goalposts will be moved, I hardly see the point of posting “cites” in a thread which is all about opinions.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/325 "2017-03-31T18:27:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 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.
Philosophical (or legal) burden of proof have nothing to do with the rules of debate.
But fine. Then I say that **Shodan** ’s implication that he knows the ‘base’s’ attitude concerning Garland is wrong. Now I’ve said ‘no,’ so he has a burden of proof.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/326 "2017-03-31T18:40:43Z")
Funny how it’s the conservative voices arguing for _not_ providing evidence.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/327 "2017-03-31T18:42:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Why is it goalpost moving? Was the original comment about “the base?” Are senators “the base?”
If you dont think that the “Base” isnt reasonably represented by their own elected representatives, then I cant help you. Perfect example of goalpost moving.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/328 "2017-03-31T19:57:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> If you dont think that the “Base” isnt reasonably represented by their own elected representatives, then I cant help you. Perfect example of goalpost moving.
That’s ridiculously overly simplistic. “The base” is generally meant to mean the folks solidly in support of the party. But it’s not just “the base” that votes in elections, so our elected officials may or may not be representative of “the base”, depending on the particular circumstances of that election. Even if a given elected official is pretty well aligned with “the base”, there is no guarantee that he or she will be perfectly align with “the base”-- that is aligned on all issues. And then further, you are looking at a handful of Senators. “The base” in one state may not align with “the base” in another state.
I can understand why a short-cut is attractive, but in the debate game you don’t get to use them. If you can’t back up your claim, then don’t make it.
---
### Author:  [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/329 "2017-03-31T20:27:12Z")
Worth noting, too, that the elected officials most likely to support nominees from the other party tend to be those with the most crossover appeal and least aligned with “the base”.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/330 "2017-03-31T20:39:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> I can understand why a short-cut is attractive, but in the debate game you don’t get to use them. If you can’t back up your claim, then don’t make it.
If you know that the only cites that are possible are other opinions, then dont ask for a factual one.
But by definition, the Republican _representatives_\* represent\* their base. To say otherwise is to move goalposts.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/331 "2017-03-31T21:41:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> But by definition, the Republican _representatives_\* represent\* their base. To say otherwise is to move goalposts.
And where, exactly, do you get that definition from? My definition is different. How shall we decide which is the correct one?
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/332 "2017-03-31T21:48:34Z")
Yeah, I’m sorry but Garland was a “compromise nominee”. That means he’s more or less acceptable to Republican politicians but not necessarily to the “base”. 95% of the base probably never heard of him before last year let alone found him acceptable.
---
### Author:  [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/333 "2017-03-31T21:58:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Since the RFRA’s text indicates that it is intended to modify the standard of review that applies to First Amendment claims, Hobby Lobby _is_ a First Amendment case. The RFRA by itself does not grant or deny any right.
RFRA didn’t amend the First Amendment, and you know it. It interprets federal statutory and administrative law. It does not apply, for example, to the states.
> [@](#):
>
> And it’s not that the right to free exercise gives extra rights. It’s that according to Alito, only a closely held corporation can _have_ religious beliefs.
I don’t see your point. You said that some corporations have _rights_ that others don’t, namely the right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. To support that, you point to language that suggests that publicly traded corporations are unlikely to have religious beliefs. That is (I gather you’re saying), “persons” with religious beliefs have extra rights in the free exercise thereof.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/334 "2017-03-31T22:01:24Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> If you dont think that the “Base” isnt reasonably represented by their own elected representatives, then I cant help you. Perfect example of goalpost moving.
Then you can’t help me.
Politicians often need to establish more moderate personas than the more hardline base would support. Elected officials will often trend towards more centrist positions than their base would prefer.
But that, still, is not goalpost moving, although it does suggest that you never understood the initial claim.
---
### Author:  [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/335 "2017-03-31T22:01:48Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> But by definition, the Republican _representatives_\* represent\* their base. To say otherwise is to move goalposts.
I’m on record in one of these threads agreeing that Garland was a consensus nominee designed to put pressure on the GOP.
But, this is the first time I’ve ever seen the party’s “based” as defined by its elected officials.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/336 "2017-03-31T22:04:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> But by definition, the Republican _representatives_\* represent\* their base. To say otherwise is to move goalposts.
By definition, you say?
Excellent. We have only to look at that definition, and then your point is proved! Well done, sir.
Now… where is that definition?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/337 "2017-03-31T22:05:50Z")
> [@Falchion](#):
>
> I’m on record in one of these threads agreeing that Garland was a consensus nominee designed to put pressure on the GOP.
>
> But, this is the first time I’ve ever seen the party’s “based” as defined by its elected officials.
Shhh. Let him keep digging. This combination of blatant error plus inability to admit error is bound to create more fascinating claims.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/338 "2017-03-31T22:16:06Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#):
>
> Philosophical (or legal) burden of proof have nothing to do with the rules of debate.
>
> But fine. Then I say that **Shodan** ’s implication that he knows the ‘base’s’ attitude concerning Garland is wrong. Now I’ve said ‘no,’ so he has a burden of proof.
What rules of debate are you thinking of?
And of course, your second paragraph ignores the fact that **Shodan** ’s comment did not arise as original argument, but in response to a claim that the base’s attitude was favorable towards Garland.
You cannot transform the burden of proof by denying his denial.
Can you explain where, and how, you studied debate?
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/339 "2017-03-31T22:56:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> By definition, you say?
>
> Excellent. We have only to look at that definition, and then your point is proved! Well done, sir.
>
> Now… where is that definition?
_representatives represent_
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2017, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/340 "2017-03-31T23:13:48Z")
The First Rule of Holes: When you find yourself in one, the first thing to do is STOP DIGGING!
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=16)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=18)