# 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:** 42
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/821 "2017-04-07T18:10:25Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > But your morality is no higher than their morality. Doubtful, but irrelevant. If I do something immoral, I can reasonably expect consequences. The current American political landscape is that you can count on your political base to vote for you no matter what, and enough others will buy into it if you slather the media with enough lies to placate their greed, hatred and fear. Combine that with half the population being indifferent and you’re golden. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/822 "2017-04-07T18:18:20Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 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**. You might want to read up on your US history…the nature of partisan politics never changes. Going back to the Roman senate. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/823 "2017-04-07T18:20:08Z")
> [@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? Nothing at all. However, the Dems could just change the rules to whatever they liked, the next time they had a Senate majority. All that keeps that from happening is, or has been, respect for Senate tradition. I expect the legislative filibuster will soon follow the filibusters on Executive and judicial appointments into the dustbin of history. ETA: ‘Soon’ as in a single-digit number of years. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/824 "2017-04-07T18:39:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. Yeah. Humbly, I would arbitrarily put the cut off at the preceding November election date. But if the president and the Senate agree, well, its up to them. Trump made a show of having a list of possible SCOTUS nominees prepared. The reality is _any_ president \*should \* have a list of sorts even if there is not a vacancy pending. I would imagine they have put some thought into it and come up with something of a list, even if they don’t make such a list public. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/825 "2017-04-07T18:51:28Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Indeed, the tree of liberty has been uprooted, and the tradition of bipartisan accommodation plunged further into a vegetative state, awaiting its final composting. ☹ Did you post a similar statement in 2013? ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/826 "2017-04-07T19:26:48Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Yeah. Humbly, I would arbitrarily put the cut off at the preceding November election date. But if the president and the Senate agree, well, its up to them. > > Trump made a show of having a list of possible SCOTUS nominees prepared. The reality is _any_ president \*should \* have a list of sorts even if there is not a vacancy pending. I would imagine they have put some thought into it and come up with something of a list, even if they don’t make such a list public. Yeah, if in November 2024, Trump loses to Elizabeth Warren and the Senate is about to change hands from Democrats to Republicans, I suspect they’d find a way to squeeze in hearings and a vote on any SCOTUS vacancy that opened up before January. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/827 "2017-04-07T19:45:05Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yeah, if in November 2024, Trump loses to Elizabeth Warren You mean, “_Pence_ loses,” I’m guessing, unless you figure we’ll ditch the 22nd Amendment before then. 😉 ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/828 "2017-04-07T19:54:07Z")
My bad, I was thinking about Trump leaving office then and incorrectly posited that he’d lose an election, when it would be his potential replacement. Thanks for the correction. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/829 "2017-04-07T20:09:56Z")
The reality is that the Republicans had nothing to lose in dumping the filibuster, because it was eminently clear that if the Democrats regain a majority and the Republicans tried to filibuster their nominee, they would kill it anyway. That’s the result of Reid’s attempt to ‘selectively’ eliminate the filibuster in 2013: Once one side has shown its willingness to abrogate what was esssentially a gentleman’s agreement when it suits them, they can’t be trusted to not do it again. In that case, unilaterally abiding by that agreement simply hurts your own side for no future advantage. The filibuster died in 2013, and the left and the media were totally okay with it. This last act simply threw a few more shovels of dirt on the corpse. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/830 "2017-04-07T21:00:48Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Once one side has shown its willingness to abrogate what was esssentially a gentleman’s agreement when it suits them, they can’t be trusted to not do it again. In that case, unilaterally abiding by that agreement simply hurts your own side for no future advantage. You’d have a better point if the Republicans hadn’t been pissing all over the “gentleman’s agreement” by blocking scores of Obama’s judicial nominees, not on the merits of the nominated, but the nominator. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/831 "2017-04-07T21:25:13Z")
That may also be true, but they can point to Democrats doing the same thing. Perhaps the lesson here is that agreements based on the honor system are worthless in a Washington where honor among politicians left a long time ago. On both sides of the aisle. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/832 "2017-04-07T22:17:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That may also be true, but they can point to Democrats doing the same thing. Give us your own favorite examples, then. Go ahead, take your time. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/833 "2017-04-08T03:55:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Give us your own favorite examples, then. Go ahead, take your time. :rolleyes: FDRs court packing. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/834 "2017-04-08T09:07:18Z")
Well, I certainly won’t be supporting any of the Democrats who were behind that skullduggery, believe you me. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/835 "2017-04-08T09:46:19Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s the result of Reid’s attempt to ‘selectively’ eliminate the filibuster in 2013: Once one side has shown its willingness to abrogate what was esssentially a gentleman’s agreement when it suits them, they can’t be trusted to not do it again. [Benen refreshes our recollection](http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-execute-nuclear-option-ending-supreme-court-filibusters#break) of who broke which ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in 2013: > [@](#): > > The easiest, almost laziest, argument today is that Democrats executed their own “nuclear option” in 2013, and today was an example of Republicans simply returning the favor. But let’s not brush past what actually happened four years ago. > > In case anyone’s forgotten, there were, at the time, multiple vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the nation’s most important benches, and President Obama nominated three qualified jurists, each of whom enjoyed majority support in the Senate. > > Senate Republicans blocked the trio, filibustering each of the nominations. > > GOP senators didn’t raise any specific objections to the jurists, but rather, said they didn’t want Obama to appoint anyone to the appellate court, ever. Republicans presented a demand never before heard in American history: the Senate must ignore the vacancies on one of the nation’s most important courts, indefinitely, because a minority of the chamber said so. > > When Democrats noted how insane that was, GOP senators effectively dared the majority to do something about it. So, left with no choice, the Democratic majority turned to the “nuclear option” – a strategy Republican senators themselves crafted during the Bush/Cheney era. There’s your ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that had been intact for my entire lifetime, up to the Obama presidency: that Presidents get to fill vacancies in the Federal courts that arise during their terms, regardless of which party controls the Senate. The Senate may reject particular nominees for specific reasons, but other than that, the President’s nominees become judges and Justices. From almost the beginning of Obama’s Presidency, the Republicans abandoned that agreement, first in subtle ways (e.g. by slow-walking every nomination, taking up the 30 hours of post-cloture debate even on nominees approved unanimously), then in more blatant ways, like wholesale filibustering. Saying that _Reid_ broke the gentleman’s agreement is being completely and totally disingenuous. It was already broken, spindled, mutilated, and eaten and upchucked by coyotes, before Reid gave up and exercised the ‘nuclear option’ in 2013. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/836 "2017-04-08T10:15:53Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [Benen refreshes our recollection](http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-execute-nuclear-option-ending-supreme-court-filibusters#break) of who broke which ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in 2013: > > > [@](#): > > > > GOP senators didn’t raise any specific objections to the jurists, but rather, said they didn’t want Obama to appoint anyone to the appellate court, ever. Cite for the truth of that quoted claim? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/837 "2017-04-08T12:03:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cite for the truth of that quoted claim? When is a cite not a cite? When **Bricker** says so. **Bricker** is the ultimate arbiter of all things. Speaking of cites, where’s your Pit thread backing up with cites the claims you made in post #549? I continue to await it with bated breath. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/838 "2017-04-08T12:35:17Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > FDRs court packing. :rolleyes: Which didn’t work, ftr. The both-sides-ism the GOP’s cheerleaders have had to engage in to justify their behavior has been breathtaking in its non-factuality. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/839 "2017-04-08T12:48:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Which didn’t work, ftr. Because even the members of his own party recognized it as reprehensible. I will give no apology for FDR for pursuing the scheme, but I will give credit to the congressional Democrats who opposed it even to their partisan disadvantage. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/840 "2017-04-08T13:27:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > When is a cite not a cite? > > When **Bricker** says so. **Bricker** is the ultimate arbiter of all things. > > Speaking of cites, where’s your Pit thread backing up with cites the claims you made in post #549? I continue to await it with bated breath. 1. Breathe. 2. I asked for a cite for the truth of the quoted claim. This means that I dispute the claim in the link, which simply states "said they didn’t want Obama to appoint anyone to the appellate court, ever, as a fact, with no citation to actual senators or actual quotes. I disagree that this statement is true. You appear to think that a cite is a cite – any link to any HTML page on the internet is a cite. Is that what you’re saying? If it is, then my cite to any claim I make will be very easy henceforth. If that’s the only standard I need, let me know, and I’ll happily cite anything you please. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=43)