# 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:** 6
**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:** [March 28, 2017, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/101 "2017-03-28T13:16:42Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Here’s the thing. Democrats may think they know that someone is “acceptable” to Republicans. But that doesn’t mean that he is actually acceptable. Each side’s perception of the other side’s motivations and desires is very, very flawed. > > If you judge it by Garland’s skating through on his previous nomination, as I pointed out, Gorsuch was confirmed before with not one Democratic objection. Does that mean that he should be “acceptable” to Democrats now? But for the previous obstruction of merrick garland, I believe he would be. I don’t think Democrats can derail Gorsuch on qualifications any more than the Republicans could have disqualified Garland on his qualifications. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2017, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/102 "2017-03-28T13:18:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think that using the word “bipartisan” when one only commands single-digit support from one party is not a useful descriptor. In the senate, 6 senators breaking with the party is pretty bipartisan, neh? ---
**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:** [March 28, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/103 "2017-03-28T13:22:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Near-party-line result.” Bork still got a vote. That is qualitatively different than how Merrick Garland was treated. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/104 "2017-03-28T13:22:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In the senate, 6 senators breaking with the party is pretty bipartisan, neh? No. Not in my view. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/105 "2017-03-28T13:24:44Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Bork still got a vote. That is qualitatively different than how Merrick Garland was treated. Why? The Senate rejected them both. Why is the holding of a vote such a huge deal? Does it have to be a roll call vote? Could it be a voice vote? A show of hands? ---
**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:** [March 28, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/106 "2017-03-28T13:27:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly correct. > > But as I have previously pointed out, Bork got a vote, and Garland got a decision; there is only a small difference there between a pre-ordained rejection vote such as was given to Bork and a pre-ordained refusal to vote at all. There is a difference in kind between a pre-ordained refusal to consider and a pre-ordained loss on the vote. First of all, there was nothing pre-ordained about the loss on the vote. Second of all, rejecting garland would have had political consequences that not holding hearings at all would not have had. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/107 "2017-03-28T13:29:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Not in my view. OK, maybe YMMV. Can you point to another judicial nomination where more than 13% of Republicans broke with their party to reject a Republican nominee? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/108 "2017-03-28T13:30:19Z")
Personally, I think a vote is important because that is the Senate making a decision. The majority party leadership refusing to allow a vote isn’t. Yes, I’m perfectly aware there’s no rule requiring it. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/109 "2017-03-28T13:31:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why? The Senate rejected them both. Why is the holding of a vote such a huge deal? > > Does it have to be a roll call vote? Could it be a voice vote? A show of hands? The senate rejected Bork. Mitch McConnell rejected Garland. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/110 "2017-03-28T13:49:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think that using the word “bipartisan” when one only commands single-digit support from one party is not a useful descriptor. 13% of the Republican Senators voted against him. More than one in eight. This wasn’t a case of picking off one or two members for a fig leaf of bipartisanship. And two Democrats voted for him. Words have meaning. This was bipartisan, no matter how desperate you are to defend your Republican senators from charges of cowardice or political hackery. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/111 "2017-03-28T15:05:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly correct. > > But as I have previously pointed out, Bork got a vote, and Garland got a decision; there is only a small difference there between a pre-ordained rejection vote such as was given to Bork and a pre-ordained refusal to vote at all. The first was a decision done correctly on the merits and the second was knee-jerk partisan horsehockey. :dubious: Not a small difference at all. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/112 "2017-03-28T15:37:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does it have to be a roll call vote? Could it be a voice vote? A show of hands? Under Senate Rules it is always a roll-call vote. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/113 "2017-03-28T16:32:41Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Links to opinion articles are NOT citations. They most certainly are. Now sure there are better cites, like say a page torn out of Obama’s diary for that day.:rolleyes: Where is _your_ cite about why he nominated Garland?:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/114 "2017-03-28T16:58:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > OK, maybe YMMV. Can you point to another judicial nomination where more than 13% of Republicans broke with their party to reject a Republican nominee? Harriet Miers? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/115 "2017-03-28T17:06:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Harriet Miers? Also bi-partisan ---
**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:** [March 28, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/116 "2017-03-28T17:21:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly correct. > > But as I have previously pointed out, Bork got a vote, and Garland got a decision; there is only a small difference there between a pre-ordained rejection vote such as was given to Bork and a pre-ordained refusal to vote at all. Yes, votes are pre-ordained. President Dewey said as much. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/117 "2017-03-28T18:20:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, votes are pre-ordained. President Dewey said as much. I believe what **Bricker** was talking about is the absurdity of the idea that Schumer was in any doubt on how he would vote before the Gorsuch hearings. If you watched any of the Bork hearings, Ted Kennedy simply read off a script his aides had prepared for him, waited for Bork to give a detailed and thoughtful answer to a loaded question, and then went on to the next question without any reference to what Bork said. Same attitude with Gorsuch from Schumer. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/118 "2017-03-28T18:33:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I believe what **Bricker** was talking about is the absurdity of the idea that Schumer was in any doubt on how he would vote before the Gorsuch hearings. > > If you watched any of the Bork hearings, Ted Kennedy simply read off a script his aides had prepared for him, waited for Bork to give a detailed and thoughtful answer to a loaded question, and then went on to the next question without any reference to what Bork said. Same attitude with Gorsuch from Schumer. > > Regards, > Shodan And this charade convinced 6 Republicans to vote against Bork too? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/119 "2017-03-28T19:08:54Z")
In one case (Bork), hearings were held and enough Senators did not like what came out in the hearings that they voted to reject the nomination of this particular candidate. That is how the process is supposed to work. In the other case (Garland) one party decided that presidents of the other party are not entitled to make Supreme Court nominations so they refused to even consider ANY nominee that president might offer up. If these appear the same to you I suggest an eye exam. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845/120 "2017-03-28T19:13:32Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > In one case (Bork), hearings were held and enough Senators did not like what came out in the hearings that they voted to reject the nomination of this particular candidate. That is how the process is supposed to work. > > In the other case (Garland) one party decided that presidents of the other party are not entitled to make Supreme Court nominations so they refused to even consider ANY nominee that president might offer up. > > If these appear the same to you I suggest an eye exam. I agree. In one case it was: We don’t like this particular nominee, but if you nominate someone else, we will consider him. In the other case it was: We don’t like the nominator, and will not accept any nominee. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/schumer-urges-filibuster-to-block-gorsuch-confirmation/782845.md?page=7)