# Schumer Urges Filibuster to Block Gorsuch Confirmation **URL:** \ **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:** 41
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/801 "2017-04-07T15:24:06Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Republicans better confirm Garland while they can, else Hillary might put up a true blue liberal. Why, she might even nominate Obama! Haha, wouldn’t that be– > > Oops. QFT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/802 "2017-04-07T15:32:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You have no basis for this assumption. The Republicans blocked Garland because they gambled (successfully) that they could gain a seat by holding out for one year. If they lost the election they would have rushed to confirm him. (I wouldn’t have been surprised if Obama would have withdrawn the nomination in favor of a more liberal justice.) I would urge you to take a course in reading comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/803 "2017-04-07T15:42:40Z")
Drum roll, please… ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/804 "2017-04-07T15:44:11Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I would urge you to take a course in reading comprehension. Pretty harsh, but in this case justified. :o My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/805 "2017-04-07T15:59:57Z")
It’s done. 54-45. Senate grants Advice and Consent to Gorsuch’s nomination. Just a tiny bit fo paperwork and he’ll take his seat at the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/806 "2017-04-07T16:05:50Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The Republican Senators have grabbed the low-hanging fruit. But the whole branch is now falling on them. Indeed, the tree of liberty has been uprooted, and the tradition of bipartisan accommodation plunged further into a vegetative state, awaiting its final composting. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/807 "2017-04-07T16:09:21Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > It’s done. 54-45. > > Senate grants Advice and Consent to Gorsuch’s nomination. > > Just a tiny bit fo paperwork and he’ll take his seat at the Supreme Court. Just in time to hear Trinty! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/808 "2017-04-07T16:09:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Pretty harsh, but in this case justified. :o > > My apologies. Yeah, “you might want to re-read my post” (which you did, so we’re good) would have sufficed; sorry about being heavy-handed there. I have to learn to resist the temptation of the cutting remark when it really isn’t called for. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/809 "2017-04-07T16:25:22Z")
Pardon a dumb question, but if the Republicans can nuke-change the rules to 51 Senators = confirmation, what prevents them from simply changing the rules up to “100 votes required for SCOTUS confirmation” shortly before a Democratic majority/POTUS takes power, to prevent a liberal SCOTUS justice from getting in? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/810 "2017-04-07T16:29:07Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Pardon a dumb question, but if the Republicans can nuke-change the rules to 51 Senators = confirmation, what prevents them from simply changing the rules up to “100 votes required for SCOTUS confirmation” shortly before a Democratic majority/POTUS takes power, to prevent a liberal SCOTUS justice from getting in? If a Democratic majority takes power, they can change the rules back to 51 as soon as they take power. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/811 "2017-04-07T16:31:12Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Pardon a dumb question, but if the Republicans can nuke-change the rules to 51 Senators = confirmation, what prevents them from simply changing the rules up to “100 votes required for SCOTUS confirmation” shortly before a Democratic majority/POTUS takes power, to prevent a liberal SCOTUS justice from getting in? It seems to me, nothing. The rules are whatever they say they are. For example, we now have a new rule that presidents cannot nominate justices in the final year of their term (or, more accurately, they can nominate, but the nominee will not be confirmed). I would like for senators to inform the public what other powers vested in the president expire prior to the end of his/her term. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/812 "2017-04-07T17:07:05Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > It’s done. 54-45. > > Senate grants Advice and Consent to Gorsuch’s nomination. > > Just a tiny bit fo paperwork and he’ll take his seat at the Supreme Court. Who was absent? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/813 "2017-04-07T17:09:53Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > I would like for senators to inform the public what other powers vested in the president expire prior to the end of his/her term. Well, it’s a little fuzzy, so I doubt you’ll get a specific list, but have you heard the term “lame duck” before? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/814 "2017-04-07T17:13:09Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > It seems to me, nothing. The rules are whatever they say they are. For example, we now have a new rule that presidents cannot nominate justices in the final year of their term (or, more accurately, they can nominate, but the nominee will not be confirmed). I would like for senators to inform the public what other powers vested in the president expire prior to the end of his/her term. Your own words show the flaw: _or, more accurately, they can nominate, but the nominee will not be confirmed_. The President’s power to nominate is unchanged. The President’s power to confirm never existed. That was always the Senate’s, and still is. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/815 "2017-04-07T17:17:00Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Who was absent? A Republican senator from Georgia, Johnny Isakson, did not vote. No idea why. Heitkamp (D-ND), Manchin (D-WV), and Donolley (D-IN) crossed the aisle to vote in favor of the nomination. Otherwise it was straight party line. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/816 "2017-04-07T17:18:42Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > A Republican senator from Georgia, Johnny Isakson, did not vote. No idea why. > > Heitkamp (D-ND), Manchin (D-WV), and Donolley (D-IN) crossed the aisle to vote in favor of the nomination. Otherwise it was straight party line. Thanks. Isakson has been recovering from back surgery. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/817 "2017-04-07T17:19:50Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Oh, FFS, I’ve already been doing that. > > First, some context, including Garland context: > > 1. The bully taking your lunch money. You’ve got to fight back, even if your scrawny little fists can’t do jack shit, or he’ll keep taking your lunch money. The newly energized Dem base cares about this. I specifically said without using what happened to Judge Garland as a basis. Fail. > [@](#): > > 1. The value of reasonableness: zero. Garland proved that. He was the reasonable pick. But nobody cared about him personally, and he got lost in the shuffle. We got bupkus for being reasonable. Which is usually the case. This is not an argument in favor of doing something. And contrary to your assertion, reasonableness does have potential value. The Republicans almost lost control of the Senate, and in some cases, the way Judge Garland was treated was part of why a Republican incumbent was fighting for his/her life. > [@](#): > > 1. Though the GOP doesn’t care what the editorial writers of the WaPo and NYT think, the Dems do. The GOP is pretty much willing to do whatever they legally can if it furthers their interests, but the Dems are leery of breaking longstanding rules and norms and traditions, even when the benefit of doing so is obvious, e.g. killing the filibuster entirely in January 2009. This will matter in 2021. Amazingly, the Democrats didn’t care bupkis about what editorial writers thought in 2013, nor were they “leery of breaking longstanding rules and norms and traditions.” Your viewpoint here is tainted by your politics. You view Republicans as unprincipled, and Democrats as much more principled. There is little actual evidence that either is true. > [@](#): > > 1. What happens after a successful (un-nuked) filibuster? A different nominee is put forward. If that nominee is filibustered, another. Do the Dems filibuster a long string of nominees? You haven’t addressed that. I say no, they don’t; by the third nominee if not the second, they throw in the towel. Not sure what your point here is. When is this filibuster taking place? In the future? While we don’t know for certain what happens with a successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee (since it’s never been done before), we do have close analogies. Abe Fortas, for example. Robert Bork, for another. We currently have a middle-of-the-road Justice who is the swing vote on most cases precisely because the Democrats successfully blocked two more conservative justices from being approved. Other examples abound. > [@](#): > > OK, given that context, let’s look at the game. There are two possibilities over which neither party has any control: _there’s another SCOTUS death/retirement this term, or there isn’t._ > > _If there isn’t_, and the Dems didn’t filibuster now, it would have been a total loss. They wouldn’t have stood up to the bully, and thereby they would have lost a great deal of the grassroots support that’s been happening this year, and the filibuster would still be waiting for President Gillibrand (or whoever) in 2021. > > But they did filibuster now, so they get the grassroots props for having stood up and fought, and President Gillibrand and 50 Dem Senators will be able to put a Dem nominee of her choice on the Court, should the opportunity arise, which it almost certainly will. “Stand up to the bully.” I keep trying to point out that this plays only to the most ardent Democratic base. And what’s the point of doing so in April of 2017, when elections won’t be happening for another almost two years? Do you really think that people going to the voting booth in Nov. 2018 are going to be making decisions based upon the fact that the Democrats were wiling to “stand up to the bully”? If so, you’ve got some very skewed thinking, I believe. As for 2021, the Democrats would have been quite willing to dump the filibuster regardless of what they did here, if Republicans were willing to employ it to block a moderate nominee. And they would have had some better reasoning even than the Republicans did yesterday: “We didn’t filibuster in 2017, because we didn’t think that was responsible use of the tactic, and we didn’t want to force you to remove it. So why are you now being the jerks?” > [@](#): > > _If there is_, say in 2019: > > 1. If things happened as they did yesterday: then the GOP gets another Justice on the Court in 2019. No way to stop it. But they carry forward the wins from 2017. > > 2. If the Dems hadn’t filibustered this week: the Dems start from behind, having lost a good bit of grassroots enthusiasm and support in April 2017. This is amazingly poor reasoning. How are the Democrats going to lose “a good bit of grassroots enthusiasm and support” if they didn’t filibuster? Do you really believe that? With Donald Trump on the throne??? With almost daily reasons to be politically (if not morally) outraged? Get real. > [@](#): > > But from there, there are two differences, cutting in opposite directions, assuming a Dem filibuster of the 2019 nominee: > > a) The GOP nukes the 2019 filibuster, so no filibuster waiting in 2021. > > b) The GOP honors the filibuster, in which case it’s still there in 2021. > > Then they put another nominee forward, and then another if need be. The second or third doesn’t get 51 votes sustaining a filibuster. Dealt with this above. And I will point out that the likelihood of peeling off enough Republicans to block removal of the filibuster is much greater if the President nominates someone down the road who is more conservative than Judge Gorsuch, a possibility I consider **very** likely now that the filibuster is gone. There are some scarily reactionary judges out there. Worse, there’s always the possibility of a Trump crony being nominated. > [@](#): > > _Scoring:_ In all cases, the Dems are ultimately unsuccessful in blocking the one or two nominees that Trump/Pence gets. Maybe they block a particular nominee in 2019, but they’re all Federalist Society-approved; they’re all just as bad from a Dem perspective. So no difference there. > > In some cases, the filibuster is still there in 2021, and in some cases it’s not. +1 for the cases where it’s gone. > > In some cases, the Dems kept the faith by fighting the Gorsuch nomination in 2017, and in some cases they didn’t. +1 for the cases they did. > > So as things played out, the Dems get +2. In the ‘keep the powder dry’ cases, they get either +1 or 0. Your scoring is, of course, incorrect, unless we accept your viewpoints on things like “kept the faith”, etc. In all your looking at the scenarios, you’ve failed to identify any advantage to doing what they did yesterday other than “stand up to the bully” and putative rallying of the base from that (which, as you will notice, I said you needed to ignore if you were to convince me to change my mind). You’ve also failed to identify any downsides to letting the filibuster survive, other than the possibility of losing a chance to “stand up to the bully” (again, the same stuff). And let’s point out that you totally avoided the possibility of a second nomination in 2018, which is not an unlikely scenario, and one in which MY point about WHEN to “rally the base” becomes much more accurate. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/818 "2017-04-07T17:28:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your own words show the flaw: _or, more accurately, they can nominate, but the nominee will not be confirmed_. The President’s power to nominate is unchanged. The President’s power to confirm never existed. That was always the Senate’s, and still is. While it is the sitting president’s prerogative to make nominations right up to the last minute of his/her term, realistically any nominee for any office will not be acted upon at some point simply due to time constraints. If a SCOTUS justice had died at 11:59am on January 20th then Obama would have been well within his right to nominate someone. Expecting the Senate to act in the one minute remaining in Obama’s term at that point would not have been realistic. How far before the end of a president’s term this line of practical impossibility might be drawn is certainly debatable. In the early days of the United States there were instances where a confirmation vote was taken in the Senate the very day the president made a nomination. But as a practical matter such has not been the common practice of the Senate in many years. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/819 "2017-04-07T17:44:15Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Lets not forget that SCOTUS battles can occur intraparty. > > [https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/new-deal/essays/fdr’s-court-packing-plan-study-irony](https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/new-deal/essays/fdr%E2%80%99s-court-packing-plan-study-irony) > > [Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937) Is it my imagination, or are the stories you cite 80 years old? Do you think the nature of America’s partisan politics has changed little over even one or two decades, let alone eight? You might want to ask the Mods to change your username to **Rip Van Winkle**. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/820 "2017-04-07T17:54:43Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > How far before the end of a president’s term this line of practical impossibility might be drawn is certainly debatable. In the early days of the United States there were instances where a confirmation vote was taken in the Senate the very day the president made a nomination. But as a practical matter such has not been the common practice of the Senate in many years. Gorsuch was nominated on January 31 confirmed on April 7 Kagan was nominated on May 10 and confirmed on August 5 Sotomayor was nominated on May 26 and confirmed on August 6 Alito was nominated on October 31 and confirmed on January 31 Roberts was gooofy because he first got nominated for Associate Justice and then Chief Justice The recent norm seems to be ~2-3 months. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=42)