# 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:** 19
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/361 "2017-04-03T19:41:51Z")
And won’t the Republicans be proud for having further pissed on the American experiment, cementing a tantrum into a rule.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/362 "2017-04-03T19:44:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> If it helps, it looks like the norm going forward is going to be that Presidents only get SCOTUS confirmations when their own party controls the Senate, so soon Obama’s Garland nomination won’t be a unique exception so much as just the first nomination under the new norms.
Yep. This is why, IMO, we need a constitutional amendment that will de-escalate (and partially de-politicize) the stakes for SCOTUS vacancies. Minimum age of 70 years, or term limits that are relatively short (I’ve proposed 9 years). This way, vacancies are much more common, and therefore much less significant.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/363 "2017-04-03T19:48:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Yep. This is why, IMO, we need a constitutional amendment that will de-escalate (and partially de-politicize) the stakes for SCOTUS vacancies. Minimum age of 70 years, or term limits that are relatively short (I’ve proposed 9 years). This way, vacancies are much more common, and therefore much less significant.
Great idea. As things stand, a tiny handful of people have power that’s surely disproportionate to that intended by the nation’s founders, and they have it for far too long. The situation creates distortions of democracy for which there is no good reason.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/364 "2017-04-03T19:54:24Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> And won’t the Republicans be proud for having further pissed on the American experiment, cementing a tantrum into a rule.
From their perspective, the Democrats are the ones throwing the tantrum by filibustering a well-qualified nominee.
ETA: you might think of the nuclear option as the adults in the room (Republicans) spanking them (the Democrats) and sending them to their room without any supper.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/365 "2017-04-03T20:08:40Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> From their perspective, the Democrats are the ones throwing the tantrum by filibustering a well-qualified nominee.
>
> ETA: you might think of the nuclear option as the adults in the room (Republicans) spanking them (the Democrats) and sending them to their room without any supper.
Back-assward thinking. The Republicans wouldn’t even allow Garland a hearing. That was the tantrum. It was unprecedented - don’t even say the word “Bork” to me. It was bullshit. And now that the Democrats are utilizing a perfectly normal and often used option, well within the rules, the Republicans are going to whine and bitch and pretend the be the grown ups? Pretend to be the victims of a wrong?
Nah, nah, nah … that dog won’t hunt. It is bullshit. With hairs in it and flies all over.
Notwithstanding the fact that Gorsuch is only as qualified as the Democrats claim he is. That’s in the rules too. But the Republicans will just freak out take their ball and go home because they don’t like the motivations they’ve decided to assign the opposition.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/366 "2017-04-03T20:11:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> From their perspective, the Democrats are the ones throwing the tantrum by filibustering a well-qualified nominee.
>
> ETA: you might think of the nuclear option as the adults in the room (Republicans) spanking them (the Democrats) and sending them to their room without any supper.
By this “lesson” (and that of Garland), politicization gets worse, not better. If the Republicans wanted to de-escalate and reduce politicization, they would have acted differently.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/367 "2017-04-03T20:13:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> If the Republicans wanted to de-escalate and reduce politicization, they would have acted differently.
And the same is true of the Democrats. If they want to de-escalate and reduce politicization, they would have acted (and will act) differently. Nobody seems to want this, or at least not enough people want this for it to matter.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/368 "2017-04-03T20:14:11Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> It was unprecedented
It was _not_ unprecedented, at least not by the normal definition of that word (and I’m not talking about Bork). This is something we’ve discussed here in quite a lot of detail.
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> And now that the Democrats are utilizing a perfectly normal and often used option, well within the rules …
And the Republicans were “utilizing a perfectly normal and often used option, well within the rules” when Reid went nuclear. How, in your mind, is this situation different from 2013?
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/369 "2017-04-03T20:29:08Z")
Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Fucking Garland. Which is the only thing any reporter should shout over any bullshit answer that any partisan decides to spew regarding this subject. I’m not gish-galloping down another make-believe path the Republicans built to try to convince me that this whole situation isn’t the height of hypocritical, partisan bullshit. With aforementioned hairs and flies.
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/370 "2017-04-03T20:34:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> It was _not_ unprecedented, at least not by the normal definition of that word (and I’m not talking about Bork). This is something we’ve discussed here in quite a lot of detail.
Indeed we have. And I quoted a article by legal scholars that said it was unprecedented.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/371 "2017-04-03T20:36:36Z")
Besides, I think you’re missing my point a little. Fine, Republicans, nuke it. It doesn’t matter anyway. If it can just be done away with at a whim it isn’t really a thing to begin with. No different than what Reid did in 2013. But own it. Don’t give me this, “oh those mean old Democrats made us do it.”
And don’t pretend that the Democrats don’t have every right to laugh in Lindsey Graham’s face when he says shit like, “I’m not going to be part of a Senate where Democrats get their judges but Republicans don’t get theirs.”
That is literally spit-take-worthy.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/372 "2017-04-03T20:40:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> And the same is true of the Democrats. If they want to de-escalate and reduce politicization, they would have acted (and will act) differently. Nobody seems to want this, or at least not enough people want this for it to matter.
How could they have acted differently during the Garland fight?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/373 "2017-04-03T20:44:03Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Fucking Garland. Which is the only thing any reporter should shout over any bullshit answer that any partisan decides to spew regarding this subject. I’m not gish-galloping down another make-believe path the Republicans built to try to convince me that this whole situation isn’t the height of hypocritical, partisan bullshit. With aforementioned hairs and flies.
It seems you’d rather forget 2013, reset all the counters, and then start the grievance clock again the moment Obama uttered the name “Merrick?”
I don’t blame you; that’s a great method for claiming the win. But . . .
I’m reminded of a scene in “The Lion King,” where Simba is suggesting the past can be forgotten, and Rafiki smacks him hard in the head.
“Ow, what’dja do that for?” complains Simba.
“It doesn’t matter,” replies Rafiki scornfully. “It’s in the past!”
The lesson, of course, is that you can’t erase 2013 and the Democrats’ use of their majority to kill nomination filibusters any more than I can erase the shameful treatment Garland’s nomination suffered. But Garland’s shabby treatment arose from 2013’s shabby tactics.
And of course 2013’s shabby tactics arose from the GOP majority during the Bush years, and that in turn arose from . . . well, in my honest opinion, it was Bork that can be said to have fairly started something new. But maybe I’m blinding myself to ABe Fortas’ rejection, and it was more political than merited. Maybe this goes back to Thomas Jefferson framing Aaron Burr for treason.
But wherever it started, pal, I got news for you: it wasn’t Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Fucking Garland.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/374 "2017-04-03T20:49:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> It seems you’d rather forget 2013, reset all the counters, and then start the grievance clock again the moment Obama uttered the name “Merrick?”
>
> I don’t blame you; that’s a great method for claiming the win. But . . .
>
> I’m reminded of a scene in “The Lion King,” where Simba is suggesting the past can be forgotten, and Rafiki smacks him hard in the head.
>
> “Ow, what’dja do that for?” complains Simba.
>
> “It doesn’t matter,” replies Rafiki scornfully. “It’s in the past!”
>
> The lesson, of course, is that you can’t erase 2013 and the Democrats’ use of their majority to kill nomination filibusters any more than I can erase the shameful treatment Garland’s nomination suffered. But Garland’s shabby treatment arose from 2013’s shabby tactics.
>
> And of course 2013’s shabby tactics arose from the GOP majority during the Bush years, and that in turn arose from . . . well, in my honest opinion, it was Bork that can be said to have fairly started something new. But maybe I’m blinding myself to ABe Fortas’ rejection, and it was more political than merited. Maybe this goes back to Thomas Jefferson framing Aaron Burr for treason.
>
> But wherever it started, pal, I got news for you: it wasn’t Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Fucking Garland.
To me, this sounds like me slapping you, you slapping me back, me slapping you again, and then you burning down my house. It’s reasonable to characterize these actions as quite different.
Since we’ll never agree on this, we need a way to de-escalate, like the age limit I’ve suggested, or one of these days someone’s going to use SCOTUS assassination (when their preferred party is in power) as a way to advance their cause’s interests.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/375 "2017-04-03T20:53:19Z")
Did I complain about Reid in 2013? No. In fact I just said it’s no different. What is different is the bullshit that the Republicans pulled with Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Fucking Garland no matter how much Republicans tap-dance around it and no matter how many electrons you will now waste digging up obscure cites from Ye Olde English Lawe or something, that I’m just going to ignore anyway.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/376 "2017-04-03T21:01:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> To me, this sounds like me slapping you, you slapping me back, me slapping you again, and then you burning down my house. It’s reasonable to characterize these actions as quite different.
>
> Since we’ll never agree on this, we need a way to de-escalate, like the age limit I’ve suggested, or one of these days someone’s going to use SCOTUS assassination (when their preferred party is in power) as a way to advance their cause’s interests.
Grisham’s “The Pelican Brief” contemplated something slightly similar.
But I have no problem with the age limit plan.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/377 "2017-04-03T21:02:32Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> Did I complain about Reid in 2013? No. In fact I just said it’s no different. What is different is the bullshit that the Republicans pulled with Merrick Garland, Merrick Garland, Merrick Fucking Garland no matter how much Republicans tap-dance around it and no matter how many electrons you will now waste digging up obscure cites from Ye Olde English Lawe or something, that I’m just going to ignore anyway.
“Don’t bother me with facts; my mind is made up?”
---
### Author:  [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/378 "2017-04-03T21:13:27Z")
If a liberal Justice died when a Republican President was in the last year of his term, perhaps the Democrats wouldn’t have done what the Republicans did with Garland. But if you had given them a crystal ball and _showed that it would work_, I suspect they would have done it. What are they going to say, “We care more about maintaining the traditional confirmation process than we do about issues like same-sex marriage, a woman’s right to choose, etc.”? As a liberal, I don’t really think _I_ can say that.
If it’s really about not wanting to take the risk, or not having the audacity to think of it, then that’s not much of a moral high ground.
---
### Author:  [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/379 "2017-04-03T21:18:53Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Since we’ll never agree on this, we need a way to de-escalate, like the age limit I’ve suggested
Out of curiousity, do you have a reason to prefer an age limit to, say, a fixed 20-year term?
> [@](#):
>
> or one of these days someone’s going to use SCOTUS assassination (when their preferred party is in power) as a way to advance their cause’s interests.
Supreme Court Justices really ought to get Secret Service Protection comparable to what the President and Vice President get. A quick web search turned up an article from 5 years ago saying they don’t – not sure if that’s changed at all since then.
---
### Author:  [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)
#### Post date: [April 3, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/380 "2017-04-03T21:26:49Z")
I don’t like limits on service. I prefer to have an amendment that states “Presidential appointments requiring Senate approval shall be voted on by the full Senate within 45 days of nomination, and if such vote does not occur within 45 days the nomination shall become effective on the 45th day.”
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=18)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=20)