# 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:** 22
### Author:  [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/421 "2017-04-04T01:49:57Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#):
>
> That’s a remarkably narrowly tailored amendment.
>
> IMO, if such an amendment had been in effect for Garland, the Republicans would have just voted Garland down, and any future such appointments.
>
> Democrats have made the lack of hearings and a vote into a big deal, but they didn’t matter in any substantive way. The Republicans controlled the Senate, and there’s nothing the Democrats could have done to force them to accept an Obama nominee if they wanted to run out the clock.
What’s a big deal is the Republicans’ selective memory…and how the only time they’re willing to ‘work together’ is when they’re in indisputable command. In other words, ‘work together with us when it’s what we want to do.’
Trivia question: Which President had more filibusters against his appointments than in the rest of American history _combined_?
Take a wild guess.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/422 "2017-04-04T02:16:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> I thought the objection was that Garland was a moderate pick (Hatch approved) who was rejected as a naked exercise of power so utterly untethered to qualifications that they didn’t even bother to provide the fig leaf of a hearing.
Yes, that’s exactly right.
How is that substantially worse than holding a vote that rejects him in a naked exercise of power equally utterly untethered to qualifications?
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/423 "2017-04-04T02:39:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Yes, that’s exactly right.
>
> How is that substantially worse than holding a vote that rejects him in a naked exercise of power equally utterly untethered to qualifications?
It’s more cowardly to refuse to put your name on a vote. I also think it is against the spirit of the advise and consent duty laid out in the Constitution.
Eta: maybe I’m misremembering but I thought you were for them holding a vote so I assumed you would agree with my second point.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/424 "2017-04-04T02:42:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Why, specifically, is rejecting a qualified nominee by voting after being sure the vote will go the way you want it so dramatically better than simply not voting?
>
> Specifically.
False premise: no voting results are “sure”.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/425 "2017-04-04T02:43:29Z")
> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> It’s more cowardly to refuse to put your name on a vote. I also think it is against the spirit of the advise and consent duty laid out in the Constitution.
I agree it’s more cowardly. But I don’t agree that that’s a substantial difference.
And I don’t agree it’s against the spirit of the Advise and Consent Clause. The Senate made clear it was refusing consent.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/426 "2017-04-04T02:44:49Z")
> [@bryan ekers](#):
>
> false premise: No voting results are “sure”.
100% - ε
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/427 "2017-04-04T02:47:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I agree it’s more cowardly. But I don’t agree that that’s a substantial difference.
>
> And I don’t agree it’s against the spirit of the Advise and Consent Clause. The Senate made clear it was refusing consent.
Seems obvious to me they are tasked with consenting to a specific nominee, not whether the President is allowed to make an appointment at all.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/428 "2017-04-04T02:56:03Z")
> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> Seems obvious to me they are tasked with consenting to a specific nominee, not whether the President is allowed to make an appointment at all.
They rejected the specific nominee.
If Obama had nominated Bill Pryor or Joan Larsen, you know as well as I that the Senate would have confirmed.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/429 "2017-04-04T02:59:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> They rejected the specific nominee.
>
> If Obama had nominated Bill Pryor or Joan Larsen, you know as well as I that the Senate would have confirmed.
You know, they used words. Those words were recorded. And what they said was that Obama shouldn’t get to appoint anyone in his last year.
---
### Author:  [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/430 "2017-04-04T03:02:58Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> [Lindsey Graham](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-democrats-now-have-the-votes-to-filibuster-gorsuch-and-provoke-gop-nuclear-option): "I find ironic and sad that we’re going to change the rules over somebody who has lived such a good life, who has been such a good judge for such a long time.”
>
> Sen. Graham, your praise for Judge Garland is duly and sarcastically noted. Maybe you should have demanded that the Senate act on his nomination last year, because then we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> 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.
Sen Graham is perhaps the one Republican who doesn’t merit these attacks. He voted in favor of giving Advice and Consent to the nominations of Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor on the full Senate floor. He also sat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and voted in committee [in favor of both](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme-court/committee-votes) Kagan and Sotomayor. He was the only Republican on the Judiciary Committee to have voted in this way.
> [@Okrahoma](#):
>
> Can you point out when was the last time 41 senators voted against cloture on a Supreme Court Justice confirmation? I mean, it’s “often used” - you should be able to find an instance, no?
That would be the Abe Fortas [nomination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas#Nomination_to_be_Chief_Justice) to elevate him from Associate Justice to Chief Justice in 1968.
> [@](#):
>
> …The 45 to 43 cloture vote to end the Fortas debate included 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture, and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other senators, all Democrats, were absent. The New York Times wrote of the 45 to 43 vote for cloture: "Because of the unusual crosscurrents underlying today’s vote, it was difficult to determine whether the pro-Fortas supporters would have been able to muster the same majority in a direct confirmation vote.
At the time of the Fortas nomination a two thirds vote (67 Senators) was required to invoke cloture.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/431 "2017-04-04T03:10:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> 100% - ε
If party membership is the key determining factor, then why not have a vote on Garland? By your argument, the result was a sure 54-46 against.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/432 "2017-04-04T03:58:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> They rejected the specific nominee.
>
> If Obama had nominated Bill Pryor or Joan Larsen, you know as well as I that the Senate would have confirmed.
Okay, do you not see the problem with this? “We will accept any nominee, as long as it is exactly this person who we know you would never normally nominate.”
Except they didn’t even say that. They said that Obama shouldn’t get to nominate anyone in his last year. They made their intentions and their words _very_ clear.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/433 "2017-04-04T04:03:58Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> “We will accept any nominee, as long as it is exactly this person who we know you would never normally nominate.”
Isn’t this exactly what Schumer and Co. are telling Trump now?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/434 "2017-04-04T04:12:21Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> Okay, do you not see the problem with this? “We will accept any nominee, as long as it is exactly this person who we know you would never normally nominate.”
>
> Except they didn’t even say that. They said that Obama shouldn’t get to nominate anyone in his last year. They made their intentions and their words _very_ clear.
Well, it’s in the Senate’s wheelhouse to reject any nominee for any reason. I’d personally like to see the vote made mandatory, i.e. the judiciary committee can _recommend_ an up or down, but the nomination must be put to the entire Senate within 30 days, and each Senator’s vote put on record. I’m okay with not allowing a lame-duck president to nominate, but beyond that, fuck this “final year” bullshit.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/435 "2017-04-04T04:46:44Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> Except they didn’t even say that. They said that Obama shouldn’t get to nominate anyone in his last year. They made their intentions and their words _very_ clear.
And that makes a difference how? Obama was able to nominate someone and nothing the senate could have done would have changed that. Opposition party can say that the other side shouldn’t do XYZ till the cows come home, but they have no ability to stop that from happening. Right now Republican senators are saying the senate Democrats shouldn’t filibuster - they can say that all they want but the senate Democrats don’t have to listen. And back when Reid nuked the nomination filibuster, Republicans were saying that the senate Democrats shouldn’t do that either. And so it goes.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/436 "2017-04-04T06:40:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> I saw an amusing poster, today:
>
> We must not confirm Gorsuch because we have the precedent that we cannot confirm a judge put forth by a president in his last year in office.
That was me, back in post #33! Glad to know I can still be amusing. 😉
> [@RTFirefly](#):
>
> Trump shouldn’t be allowed to pick a Supreme Court Justice in what may be the last year of his Presidency. 😃
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/437 "2017-04-04T08:27:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I can see the future:
>
> ME: What rule or rules did they avoid that mandate a hearing?
>
> JACK: Doesn’t matter, that’s not the point, they just suck. Don’t trick me with Ye Olde Law Bookf.
No doubt that’s how you’d see it. That’s how you see everything because you think you’re right about everything (annoyingly, I might add).
I say, “Democrats are employing the well worn rules, where the Republicans had to make up a reason to avoid the rules altogether and just not even hold hearings” - which is unequivocally true - and I only get gish-gallops full of your opinions and interpretation which cannot ever be challenged because you’re a lawyer.
I’m onto your tactics and I’m not rising to your bait. Go play superior with someone else.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/438 "2017-04-04T08:39:58Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> No doubt that’s how you’d see it. That’s how you see everything because you think you’re right about everything (annoyingly, I might add).
>
> I say, “Democrats are employing the well worn rules, where the Republicans had to make up a reason to avoid the rules altogether and just not even hold hearings” - which is unequivocally true - and I only get gish-gallops full of your opinions and interpretation which cannot ever be challenged because you’re a lawyer.
>
> I’m onto your tactics and I’m not rising to your bait. Go play superior with someone else.
LOL. Mean old Bricker, you’re confusing him with all your facts and such. :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/439 "2017-04-04T09:05:20Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> I say, “Democrats are employing the well worn rules, where the Republicans had to make up a reason to avoid the rules altogether and just not even hold hearings” - which is unequivocally true - and I only get gish-gallops full of your opinions and interpretation which cannot ever be challenged because you’re a lawyer.
What are these rules that you speak of, and where are they codified?
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/440 "2017-04-04T09:13:41Z")
Seriously? We’re doing this?
This is the situation:
> [@](#):
>
> Republicans - no hearing for your nominee, fuck you, we’re making up a reason and you’ll like it, no matter how unprecedented it is, we’re in charge, so once again, fuck you.
>
> Democrats - fine, we’ll employ the same rules that we’ve all used for years and filibuster (cloture, whatever).
And now I have to explain the difference to **Bricker, Bone** and **HDitka** , which they will never accept because I don’t know which page the cloture rules on in Roberts Rules of Order.
Like I said … I’m not rising to it.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=21)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=23)