# 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:** 23
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/441 "2017-04-04T09:55:53Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> Like I said … I’m not rising to it.
That’s your prerogative, however you made a statement that’s false. If you decline to defend it it’s your choice.
The error you made is one that many have made so you’re not treading new ground at least. When you say that there are well worn rules, etc. it’s not about the rules of cloture or what page they may be on. You are describing the Republican senate declining to hold hearings at all, no? That’s why you say, _“…and just not even hold hearings”_ That isn’t about cloture so the lack of page reference is a red herring. No, the error you made is believing that there is a rule that there must be hearings. You accuse Republicans of _“making up a reason”_ to avoid the rules - but there is no rule they were avoiding.
The Republican senate may very well have made up a reason, for political cover, as a rationalization, etc. - but it was not to avoid “_ **the rules** _” because there were not avoiding any rule. That is, unless you can cite these rule(s)? The problem for your position is that you can’t.
---
### Author:  [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/442 "2017-04-04T10:32:59Z")
The problem, **Jack Batty** , is that you’re arguing from the spirit of the rules, and from common sense.
**Bricker** and the others, knowing that the actions of the Republican Senators are indefensible from any rational standpoint, are choosing to argue from the most specific letter of their interpretation of the law.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/443 "2017-04-04T10:49:07Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> What are these rules that you speak of, and where are they codified?
To my knowledge, there is no rule codified _anywhere_ saying that the president cannot decide to nuke Moscow in a unilateral first strike. I suppose you have no real problem with the president taking that course of action, then?
As I keep going on and on and on, _norms matter_. Unwritten rules that help make a system that doesn’t work very well in theory work better in practice. For example, the filibuster is a _terrible_ idea if it becomes the go-to tool for any form of governance, a way to ensure that government grinds to a halt. However, there was a _norm_ in place that made it politically unwelcome to filibuster everything, which meant that the filibuster still served far more reasonable purposes - a check on potentially extreme policies the majority tried to push through along partisan lines. That’s a good idea, and you know what? For a long-ass time, _it worked_. The US constitutional system is horribly broken in a lot of ways that are incompatible with hardline party discipline, and a system of norms helps ensure that those cracks and breaks don’t get to the point where they utterly destroy the system. They also have the substantial advantage over laws that there can _be_ grey areas, that they can be a little unclear. A norm against watching porn in congress would not have to “define” pornography in the way a law does, and any law trying to limit how often a party could filibuster would not serve the same purpose as a norm, as such a hard line could easily be abused.
The only reason to ignore these norms, or pretend they don’t matter, is because you know that within the framework of those norms, what your party has done is indefensible. In other words, I totally cosign **galen ubal** ’s post.
---
### Author:  [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/444 "2017-04-04T12:27:31Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> 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.
The only rule that matters can be found in the Constitution Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, which states:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, \*\*punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Robert’s Rules of Order, cloture, and page numbers not relevant.
It’s the same reason it was silly for some Democrats to insist that the Republicans were somehow “breaking the rules” by not holding a hearing for Judge Garland.
---
### Author:  [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/445 "2017-04-04T12:57:52Z")
I for one never accused congressional Republicans of breaking the rules, but being obstructionist bastards.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/446 "2017-04-04T13:08:18Z")
> [@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.
There are liberal lawyers on the board, and I’m sure one of them could step in and list the rule you mention.
If it existed.
And of course I think I’m right about everything. If I thought I were wrong, I’d change my belief. In fact, the purpose of these discussions is for others to advance reasons that show me where I’m wrong, as they did when I defended the idea that there was a War on Christmas. Turns out I was wrong, and I changed my mind. Now I’m right: there is no fair reason to characterize events as a war on Christmas.
Admitting error and changing beliefs as a result is an approach I recommend to everyone. Especially you.
---
### Author:  [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/447 "2017-04-04T13:19:29Z")
> [@bobot](#):
>
> I for one never accused congressional Republicans of breaking the rules, but being obstructionist bastards.
That’s why I said “some”, not all. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/448 "2017-04-04T13:25:24Z")
Sorry if this is a hijack, but what is the process for reinstating the filibuster for Supreme Court justices if the GOP does go nuclear? Is it another simple majority rule change to go back?
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/449 "2017-04-04T13:29:17Z")
> [@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.”
No, I don’t see the problem with that. Or rather, the only problem I see is if the person that I want doesn’t get confirmed.
Do you see any problem apart from that?
> [@](#):
>
> They said that Obama shouldn’t get to nominate anyone in his last year. They made their intentions and their words very clear.
So you are saying that Republicans never have, and never would, lie, flip-flop, or change their minds?
Hmm.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/450 "2017-04-04T13:46:52Z")
> [@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.”
Yes. It’s a problem for a President that wants to be able to appoint the justice he wants.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
Their words were clear; I am arguing that their actual intentions didn’t match those words, illustrated by my hypothetical about the nomination of Pryor.
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/451 "2017-04-04T14:07:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Their words were clear; I am arguing that their actual intentions didn’t match those words, illustrated by my hypothetical about the nomination of Pryor.
So you support a party that brazenly lies about its intentions because it will help you get what you want? End justifies the means then? Just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
Somehow I thought America was founded on better ideals than that, but maybe I’m wrong and it really is just about fucking everyone else over to get what you want.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/452 "2017-04-04T14:08:55Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> Back-assward thinking. The Republicans wouldn’t even allow Garland a hearing. That was the tantrum.
That didn’t seem like a tantrum to me. It seemed like a cynical, partisan departure from norms in order to prevent a sitting President his power to nominate justices in order to prevent a shift in the balance of the Supreme Court.
What the Democrats are doing is somewhere between justice and revenge. And its about time.
> [@](#):
>
> It was unprecedented - don’t even say the word “Bork” to me.
Why not?
> [@](#):
>
> 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?
When was the last time has a supreme court nominee been successfully filibustered? I’m not talking about Ted Cruz or Rand Paul getting up there and reading the phone book for 2 hours for a CSPAN photo op while everyone goes to lunch. I mean a nominee being denied an up or down vote by 41 senators? I think the Democrats should absolutely filibuster and The Republicans should absolutely abolish the 41 vote rule, however I think they should preserve the talking filibuster so that as long as Democrats are willing to man the floor 24 hours/day; seven days/week; 52 weeks/year, then sure, they can hold things up for as long as their stamina or political capital carries them.
> [@](#):
>
> Nah, nah, nah … that dog won’t hunt. It is bullshit. With hairs in it and flies all over.
I get the feeling that there is nothing the Republicans would say that would make you say “well, gee, you make a lot of sense, I agree with you now” Right now the Democrats probably have a slim moral advantage on their side but its not as one sided as you make out. If the Republicans nuke the filibuster, the moral advantage widens. If they nuke the silent filibuster but maintain the talking filibuster, they might regain moral high ground. YMMV
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
Gorsuch is confirmable nominee, almost as confirmable as Garland but Garland was a compromise nominee. I don’t know any lawyers or serious legal scholars who disagree unless they are extremely partisan.
---
### Author:  [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/453 "2017-04-04T14:24:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> What the Democrats are doing is somewhere between justice and revenge.
It would be, if it had any chance of success. It doesn’t. Thus it is just a tantrum.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/454 "2017-04-04T14:43:58Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#):
>
> It would be, if it had any chance of success. It doesn’t. Thus it is just a tantrum.
If it motivates and energizes Democratic voters (which would be required for Democrats to have a chance to win Congress in 2018), then it will have been successful. And, IMO, the loss of the filibuster in the long term greatly helps Democratic priorities.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/455 "2017-04-04T14:49:01Z")
> [@Airbeck](#):
>
> So you support a party that brazenly lies about its intentions because it will help you get what you want?
Wait, so if I like my plan, I can keep it?
Oh, I seem to have wandered into the wrong thread; a thousand pardons.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/456 "2017-04-04T14:51:45Z")
> [@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.
The reason they bring Lindsay Graham up there is because he has in fact always voted for cloture on every qualified nominee regardless of who nominated them and vote to confirm every qualified nominee regardless of who nominated them. The Republican leadership may not be able to say these things without being hypocrites but Lindsay Graham can. So we can an should point out how hypocritical Republicans are but not Lindsay Graham specifically. He met with Garland and would have voted for cloture and he would have voted to confirm Merrick Garland. In my view, he is less of a hypocrite on this particular issue than most.
---
### Author:  [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/457 "2017-04-04T14:56:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> If it motivates and energizes Democratic voters
Apparently failures motivate and energize Democratic voters 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/458 "2017-04-04T14:57:44Z")
> [@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.
Wait. You don’t think there was an abuse of the filibuster during the Obama administration? Sure the Democrats are abusing the filibuster now but that I in response to the merrick garland nomination. What was the justification of the Republican filibusters other than partisanship?
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
Yes but Merrick garland is plenty of moral justification for blocking Gorsuch. What was the moral justification for blocking merrick garland? The only real justification was that Republicans didn’t want to let Obama shift the balance of the court and they were willing to do whatever the fuck it took to prevent Obama from shifting the balance of the court.
2013 was morally justified by the abuse of the filibuster by Republicans. What was the moral justification for all those filibusters? Wasn’t it almost pure partisanship?
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/459 "2017-04-04T14:59:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> To my knowledge, there is no rule codified _anywhere_ saying that the president cannot decide to nuke Moscow in a unilateral first strike. I suppose you have no real problem with the president taking that course of action, then?
I’d be opposed to a unilateral first strike. I am also opposed to errors of fact. That is a norm of this board, if I am not mistaken. Will you join me in calling out the error that Jack made?
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/460 "2017-04-04T15:06:15Z")
> [@tim314](#):
>
> 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.
I don’t really pass for a liberal around here but I play one in real life. I would be willing to see the balance of the court shift from time to time, sometimes for me and sometimes against me to preserve rule of law and insulate the judiciary from politics as much as possible. We have seen more civil rights advancement from an independent judiciary than any country has ever seen from a politicized one.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=22)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=24)