# 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:** 25
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/481 "2017-04-04T15:57:38Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#):
>
> Because of strong disapproval, of course. But what does that have to do with futile gestures in Congress?
It shows that the Democrats are doing everything they can to oppose Trump’s agenda. That’s what the vast majority of Democrats that I know and speak to want them to do. And in the long run, they/we see the loss of the filibuster as both inevitable and a good thing.
---
### Author:  [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/482 "2017-04-04T16:02:22Z")
> [@Airbeck](#):
>
> 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.
(post shortened)
Are you referring to the passage of ACA/Obamacare?
---
### Author:  [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/483 "2017-04-04T16:11:12Z")
Or the “promise” to replace it?
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/484 "2017-04-04T16:28:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> (post shortened)
>
> Are you referring to the passage of ACA/Obamacare?
I was referring to the comment I quoted in my post that was right above my words. You do understand how the quote function works on this board right?
For instance this reply is referring to your comment which is quoted above.
Make sense?
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/485 "2017-04-04T16:35:46Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#):
>
> 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?
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t see how the answer could possibly matter. Once the Republicans nuke it, they won’t try to reset the rule back to 60, and once the Democrats are back in the majority, they won’t either. It’ll be 50 votes for SCOTUS nominations from here on out.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/486 "2017-04-04T16:37:54Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#):
>
> I don’t know for sure, but I don’t see how the answer could possibly matter. Once the Republicans nuke it, they won’t try to reset the rule back to 60, and once the Democrats are back in the majority, they won’t either. It’ll be 50 votes for SCOTUS nominations from here on out.
Soon it will be 51 for everything, I expect. Why would the legislative filibuster survive? And good riddance, IMO (at least until the political atmosphere changes substantively).
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/487 "2017-04-04T16:42:26Z")
Could a Senator submit the nomination to the Senate, or the Judiciary Committee, without McConnell’s consent?
If it was really all the Democrats and a few Republicans who wanted Garland, could they have done something to bring it about? I assume Biden was President of the Senate in 2016, and I doubt he would have ruled such a motion out of order, or whatever it would be.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/488 "2017-04-04T16:51:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> 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.
Nah, Graham’s a hypocrite too.
He signed onto [this.](https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-committee-republicans-mcconnell-no-hearings-supreme-court-nomination)
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/489 "2017-04-04T17:09:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> If it was really all the Democrats and a few Republicans who wanted Garland, could they have done something to bring it about?
I’m no expert on Senate rules, but here’s how I think that plays out. Let’s skip the committee since we’re imagining a world in which they change the rules anyway, so they can also avoid the rule that a nomination has to go through the committee.
Republican collaborator X, who we’ll call Schmusan Callins, makes a motion on the floor to confirm Judge Garland. This is ruled out of order by whatever Republican Senator is presiding over that session (not the VP), for any number of reasons, including that it’s not on the calendar, etc. Sen. Callins then makes a motion to appeal the ruling(s) of the chair. If that motion carries 50 votes, then it wins. Then they take the vote on Garland. They can follow the same procedure to kill the filibuster, if need be.
AFAIK, that’s _possible_. But it obviously requires a whole hell of a lot more than just having a few Republican Senators agree to vote for Garland. They also have to agree to wreck at least a few other rules of the Senate, and stick their thumbs in the eyes of their co-partisans.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/490 "2017-04-04T17:26:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Soon it will be 51 for everything, I expect. Why would the legislative filibuster survive? And good riddance, IMO (at least until the political atmosphere changes substantively).
I agree. That’s the way the things appear to be headed. Maybe it’ll be during Trump’s administration when Republicans have something they really want to pass (I suspect Democrats will filibuster most / all legislation during Trump’s administration) or in the next Dem president’s administration when the shoe is on the other foot and Republicans are filibustering most everything.
---
### Author:  [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/491 "2017-04-04T17:26:55Z")
Reid used the nuclear option after the GOP filibustered **79** Obama nominees. McConnell decides to go nuclear the first time the Democrats try it. But tell me again how the Republicans are the adults in the room.
---
### Author:  [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/492 "2017-04-04T18:19:33Z")
> [@Airbeck](#):
>
> I was referring to the comment I quoted in my post that was right above my words. You do understand how the quote function works on this board right?
>
> For instance this reply is referring to your comment which is quoted above.
>
> Make sense?
Originally Posted by **Airbeck**
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?
Still sounds like the passage of ACA/Obamacare.
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/493 "2017-04-04T18:20:55Z")
> [@doorhinge](#):
>
> Originally Posted by **Airbeck**
> 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?
>
> Still sounds like the passage of ACA/Obamacare.
Still sounds like you don’t understand how to figure out what a post is responding to.
Once again, its referring to what is in the quote above it.
Let me know if you are still unclear on this.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/494 "2017-04-04T18:31:17Z")
> [@Airbeck](#):
>
> Still sounds like you don’t understand how to figure out what a post is responding to.
>
> Once again, its referring to what is in the quote above it.
>
> Let me know if you are still unclear on this.
He’s being clever. Remember when Obama said “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” He is claiming that that was a brazen lie of the same sort that McConnell would be stuck in if he had to walk back his words that he would refuse to even meet with a candidate nominated by Obama.
It’s that whole both sides do it false equivalence that is pretty much the only argument I have seen that defends this sort of behavior. Not that it’s a good argument, or that it’s a strong argument, but it is pretty much the only argument left.
---
### Author:  [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/495 "2017-04-04T18:37:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> He’s being clever. Remember when Obama said “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” He is claiming that that was a brazen lie of the same sort that McConnell would be stuck in if he had to walk back his words that he would refuse to even meet with a candidate nominated by Obama.
>
> It’s that whole both sides do it false equivalence that is pretty much the only argument I have seen that defends this sort of behavior. Not that it’s a good argument, or that it’s a strong argument, but it is pretty much the only argument left.
I know what he’s doing. I’m just refusing to play his game.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/496 "2017-04-04T19:13:57Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> 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.
I made no error. You’re just unhappy that I don’t agree with every golden nugget that falls out of your head. That entire paragraph above is nothing more than what I said, tilting your head sideways and squinting just right to come up with some bullshit that we’re all supposed to respond to with obsequiousness because the “adult” Republicans are coming up with it.
The Republicans blowing off hearings altogether for anybody Obama would have nominated was a blatant, craven, political-show-pony move, pissing all over the spirit of the rules of the senate, that falls just short, morally, of “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you!” and in light of that, their bitching about filibustering now is entirely hypocritical. And no self-inflated Republican is going to convince me otherwise just because what their boys did wasn’t illegal.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/497 "2017-04-04T19:31:33Z")
Not to mention the weakness of, “there is no rule stating there must be hearings.” The forefathers put this shit together with the idea that the President would nominate a judge and the Senate would provide advice and consent and then vote him in or out … but, whoops, they forgot to mention that the best way of going about all that is done through hearings (although the congresses for the previous 200 or so years managed to figure it out easily enough without being micromanaged), so \*boing \*- loophole! Not holding hearings - perfectly acceptable because it isn’t explicitly laid out in the Constitution. We’ll just \*call \*that advice and consent and no one will be the wiser.
It’s nakedly craven. Anything to get their way, with no shame whatsoever.
---
### Author:  [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/498 "2017-04-04T19:33:32Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> I made no error. You’re just unhappy that I don’t agree with every golden nugget that falls out of your head. That entire paragraph above is nothing more than what I said, tilting your head sideways and squinting just right to come up with some bullshit that we’re all supposed to respond to with obsequiousness because the “adult” Republicans are coming up with it.
>
> The Republicans blowing off hearings altogether for anybody Obama would have nominated was a blatant, craven, political-show-pony move, pissing all over the spirit of the rules of the senate, that falls just short, morally, of “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you!” and in light of that, their bitching about filibustering now is entirely hypocritical. And no self-inflated Republican is going to convince me otherwise just because what their boys did wasn’t illegal.
I actually don’t see all that many Republicans “bitching about” the filibuster. They mostly seem resigned to it and resigned to what they’ll have to do to overcome it.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/499 "2017-04-04T19:49:08Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> Not to mention the weakness of, “there is no rule stating there must be hearings.” The forefathers put this shit together with the idea that the President would nominate a judge and the Senate would provide advice and consent and then vote him in or out … but, whoops, they forgot to mention that the best way of going about all that is done through hearings (although the congresses for the previous 200 or so years managed to figure it out easily enough without being micromanaged), so \*boing \*- loophole! Not holding hearings - perfectly acceptable because it isn’t explicitly laid out in the Constitution. We’ll just \*call \*that advice and consent and no one will be the wiser.
>
> It’s nakedly craven. Anything to get their way, with no shame whatsoever.
So you are an originalist now? OK, I’ll take your word for it - please produce the evidence that shows that the Founding Fathers thought holding hearings was the best way to provide advice and consent. And why they said explicitly that the Senate could set its own rules instead of spelling it out.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 4, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/500 "2017-04-04T20:05:17Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#):
>
> Not to mention the weakness of, “there is no rule stating there must be hearings.” The forefathers put this shit together with the idea that the President would nominate a judge and the Senate would provide advice and consent and then vote him in or out … but, whoops, they forgot to mention that the best way of going about all that is done through hearings (although the congresses for the previous 200 or so years managed to figure it out easily enough without being micromanaged), so \*boing \*- loophole! Not holding hearings - perfectly acceptable because it isn’t explicitly laid out in the Constitution. We’ll just \*call \*that advice and consent and no one will be the wiser.
>
> It’s nakedly craven. Anything to get their way, with no shame whatsoever.
Do you know what the Senate did after Johnson nominated Henry Stanbery to the Supreme Court? You’ll notice the Senate did not vote on him. How does that their tactic square with your vision of the “forefathers?”
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=24)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=26)