Congressional Hearings

[Ivytalk]

Gorsuch nomination reported out of Senate Judiciary Committee on 11-9 party-line vote. Delaware's shrimp Senator Coons voted no. Pint-sized Chris and that doddering old fvck Carper will filibuster. Delaware is truly hopeless.

Fear not. NJ'ers are moving there to get things straightened out.

Coons reminds me of that little bald guy that Benny Hill used to pat on the head. But for that bitch Christine O'Donnell, he'd be laboring in deserved obscurity on the New Castle County Council today. His stepfather owned/ran W. L. Gore and gave him a cushy in-house legal job. Pompous little prick -- never tried a case
in his life, and he thinks he's the second coming of Learned Hand.

[BDKJMU]

They're going nuclear...

[Ibanez]

They're going nuclear...

What a failure...

[GannonFan]

The cloture vote that failed was 55-45 (needed 60). For reference, Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the SCOTUS by a 52-48 vote. Again, if you didn't filibuster Thomas, why would you ever filibuster Gorsuch?

In reality, though, while people say this really creates a huge deal in the Senate, just that past example shows why it doesn't change things. Since no party had ever used the filibuster as a tool to block an otherwise confirmable candidate to join the SCOTUS before (for reference, Abe Fortas was already on the Court when the potential of a filibuster stopped his possibility of becoming the Chief Justice), the filibuster wasn't even part of the discussion in past confirmations. It always went to the Senate for confirmation, and as Alito and Thomas saw, there was never a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation anyway. The Democrats may have changed the game here by invoking a filibuster, but majority rule was always the rule of the day anyway for SCOTUS confirmations. This just formalizes it.

[GannonFan]

Sorry to double post, but to be more pithy than my last post - if a filibuster is never used to block SCOTUS confirmations, then it was also a majority vote anyway. We went 230 years without filibustering so clearly it was never really a tool considered anyway. A lot of angst and handwringing and at the end of the day not really much as changed.

[Ibanez]

The cloture vote that failed was 55-45 (needed 60). For reference, Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the SCOTUS by a 52-48 vote. Again, if you didn't filibuster Thomas, why would you ever filibuster Gorsuch?

In reality, though, while people say this really creates a huge deal in the Senate, just that past example shows why it doesn't change things. Since no party had ever used the filibuster as a tool to block an otherwise confirmable candidate to join the SCOTUS before (for reference, Abe Fortas was already on the Court when the potential of a filibuster stopped his possibility of becoming the Chief Justice), the filibuster wasn't even part of the discussion in past confirmations. It always went to the Senate for confirmation, and as Alito and Thomas saw, there was never a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation anyway. The Democrats may have changed the game here by invoking a filibuster, but majority rule was always the rule of the day anyway for SCOTUS confirmations. This just formalizes it.

52-48......say isn't that the SAME NUMBER OR REPS/DEMS in the Senate today?!?!?!?!!?!
Republicans (wrongly) ignored Garlands nomination. In our shitty, partisan legislature they participate in tit for tat instead of statesmanship.

[GannonFan]

The cloture vote that failed was 55-45 (needed 60). For reference, Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the SCOTUS by a 52-48 vote. Again, if you didn't filibuster Thomas, why would you ever filibuster Gorsuch?

In reality, though, while people say this really creates a huge deal in the Senate, just that past example shows why it doesn't change things. Since no party had ever used the filibuster as a tool to block an otherwise confirmable candidate to join the SCOTUS before (for reference, Abe Fortas was already on the Court when the potential of a filibuster stopped his possibility of becoming the Chief Justice), the filibuster wasn't even part of the discussion in past confirmations. It always went to the Senate for confirmation, and as Alito and Thomas saw, there was never a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation anyway. The Democrats may have changed the game here by invoking a filibuster, but majority rule was always the rule of the day anyway for SCOTUS confirmations. This just formalizes it.

52-48......say isn't that the SAME NUMBER OR REPS/DEMS in the Senate today?!?!?!?!!?!
Republicans (wrongly) ignored Garlands nomination. In our shitty, partisan legislature they participate in tit for tat instead of statesmanship.

Again, what difference does it make? Even if the GOP had given Garland a hearing or even a vote, he wouldn't have been confirmed (SCOTUS's have been rejected before, so that's nothing new). Not giving him a hearing and a vote was the wrongly partisan part, but he was never going to be confirmed - in this case the GOP actually followed through on once on one of their central tenets and didn't waste government resources on what was an inevitable outcome anyway.

What's really changed here? Since filibusters were never on the table anyway until this vote, we've always had it that you either needed 50 votes and the VP breaking a tie or 51 votes to be confirmed (or back in the day just a hearty chorus of "yeas" since they normally did a simple voice vote).

[HI54UNI]

The Dem base is so crazed right now they didn't have any other choice. Sen. Leahy sounded soft on the cloture vote a week or two ago and he got crucified.

The really stupid thing is that Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to the Court of Appeals in 2006. So he's unanimously considered good enough for the 2nd highest court in the nation but not the highest?

[CAA Flagship]

They're going nuclear...

What a failure...

You got a better option?

[HI54UNI]

Just heard someone suggest that Reps stop calling it the nuclear option and start calling it the Reid option.

[Skjellyfetti]

The really stupid thing is that Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to the Court of Appeals in 2006. So he's unanimously considered good enough for the 2nd highest court in the nation but not the highest?

It's not so much about Gorsuch.

Just like Garland never getting a hearing wasn't really about Garland.

phpBB [video]

[houndawg]

The cloture vote that failed was 55-45 (needed 60). For reference, Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the SCOTUS by a 52-48 vote. Again, if you didn't filibuster Thomas, why would you ever filibuster Gorsuch?

In reality, though, while people say this really creates a huge deal in the Senate, just that past example shows why it doesn't change things. Since no party had ever used the filibuster as a tool to block an otherwise confirmable candidate to join the SCOTUS before (for reference, Abe Fortas was already on the Court when the potential of a filibuster stopped his possibility of becoming the Chief Justice), the filibuster wasn't even part of the discussion in past confirmations. It always went to the Senate for confirmation, and as Alito and Thomas saw, there was never a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation anyway. The Democrats may have changed the game here by invoking a filibuster, but majority rule was always the rule of the day anyway for SCOTUS confirmations. This just formalizes it.

Maybe they're thinking about the '18 election.

[89Hen]

Just heard someone suggest that Reps stop calling it the nuclear option and start calling it the Reid option.

[Chizzang]

What's Reid got to do with it..?
"Short Memory Span" is what the Republicans should call it

[Ibanez]

What a failure...

You got a better option?

If only there was a way people with opposing ideas can come together, act like adults for the greater good and get the job done with civility and integrity.

You don't always get what you want. This "my way or the highway" mentality is futile and will only lead us to ruin.

[BDKJMU]

The cloture vote that failed was 55-45 (needed 60). For reference, Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the SCOTUS by a 52-48 vote. Again, if you didn't filibuster Thomas, why would you ever filibuster Gorsuch?

In reality, though, while people say this really creates a huge deal in the Senate, just that past example shows why it doesn't change things. Since no party had ever used the filibuster as a tool to block an otherwise confirmable candidate to join the SCOTUS before (for reference, Abe Fortas was already on the Court when the potential of a filibuster stopped his possibility of becoming the Chief Justice), the filibuster wasn't even part of the discussion in past confirmations. It always went to the Senate for confirmation, and as Alito and Thomas saw, there was never a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation anyway. The Democrats may have changed the game here by invoking a filibuster, but majority rule was always the rule of the day anyway for SCOTUS confirmations. This just formalizes it.

52-48......say isn't that the SAME NUMBER OR REPS/DEMS in the Senate today?!?!?!?!!?!
Republicans (wrongly) ignored Garlands nomination. In our shitty, partisan legislature they participate in tit for tat instead of statesmanship.

No they didn't.

[andy7171]

Fear not. NJ'ers are moving there to get things straightened out.

Coons reminds me of that little bald guy that Benny Hill used to pat on the head. But for that bitch Christine O'Donnell, he'd be laboring in deserved obscurity on the New Castle County Council today. His stepfather owned/ran W. L. Gore and gave him a cushy in-house legal job. Pompous little prick -- never tried a case
in his life, and he thinks he's the second coming of Learned Hand.

phpBB [video]

[GannonFan]

What's Reid got to do with it..?
"Short Memory Span" is what the Republicans should call it

Come on, even if you are partisan, you do have to recognize that Reid played a big part in driving the partisan fervor in the Senate today. Reid was there when Bork was rejected (not saying that was a bad thing, but it was certainly done with partisan zeal), he was there through the Clarence Thomas stuff, he was central when Estrada ran into a filibuster (a seldom used tactic until that time), he was the guy who made cloture votes a way of routing business even in the absence of any filibuster threat, and obviously he was the guy who pulled the trigger on abolishing filibusters on other nominee just a few years ago. Like him or hate him, Reid earned ire from the GOP as well as his own party by the way he operated and twisted procedural precedents. Today was just another step on the road that Reid paved a long time ago.

[GannonFan]

The cloture vote that failed was 55-45 (needed 60). For reference, Clarence Thomas was confirmed for the SCOTUS by a 52-48 vote. Again, if you didn't filibuster Thomas, why would you ever filibuster Gorsuch?

In reality, though, while people say this really creates a huge deal in the Senate, just that past example shows why it doesn't change things. Since no party had ever used the filibuster as a tool to block an otherwise confirmable candidate to join the SCOTUS before (for reference, Abe Fortas was already on the Court when the potential of a filibuster stopped his possibility of becoming the Chief Justice), the filibuster wasn't even part of the discussion in past confirmations. It always went to the Senate for confirmation, and as Alito and Thomas saw, there was never a 60 vote threshold needed for confirmation anyway. The Democrats may have changed the game here by invoking a filibuster, but majority rule was always the rule of the day anyway for SCOTUS confirmations. This just formalizes it.

Maybe they're thinking about the '18 election.

Of course they were thinking about the 2018 election, and more importantly, their own primary elections. The Dems had to respond to the Resistance and they had to show opposition to anything Trump does/did. And in this case, like I said, since filibusters and the idea of 60 votes needed was never real anyway, this was a far easier thing to do than what the media is making this out to be. Declarations that the Senate is now changed forever are overblown hype. The Senate, in terms of confirmation, has always been this way.

[Ivytalk]

You got a better option?

If only there was a way people with opposing ideas can come together, act like adults for the greater good and get the job done with civility and integrity.

You don't always get what you want. This "my way or the highway" mentality is futile and will only lead us to ruin.

Politics ain't beanbag, Church Lady!

[Ibanez]

52-48......say isn't that the SAME NUMBER OR REPS/DEMS in the Senate today?!?!?!?!!?!
Republicans (wrongly) ignored Garlands nomination. In our shitty, partisan legislature they participate in tit for tat instead of statesmanship.

No they didn't.

Yes, they did. Obama had every right to nominate somebody. Republicans, wrongly, blocked him b/c it was an election year. It's my opinion, but that was wrong.

[Ibanez]

If only there was a way people with opposing ideas can come together, act like adults for the greater good and get the job done with civility and integrity.

You don't always get what you want. This "my way or the highway" mentality is futile and will only lead us to ruin.

Politics ain't beanbag, Church Lady!

I know...but there's something to be said for civility and working with people.

[GannonFan]

No they didn't.

Yes, they did. Obama had every right to nominate somebody. Republicans, wrongly, blocked him b/c it was an election year. It's my opinion, but that was wrong.

But that at least wasn't without precedent. Something like 10 SCOTUS nominations have been ignored or not acted on before, and obviously there was plenty of statements by current and former Senators that similar tactics would've been employed in other election years (1992 with the Biden Rule, and 2008 with the Reid Rule namely). The difference is that it actually happened in 2016 as opposed to threatened but never realized in other years (of course, no actual vacancy happened in the other years). Whereas as a straight out filibuster of a person not already on the Court had never happened before today.

I still think that the GOP should've given Garland his hearings and had a straight floor vote. They still could've rejected him, which they probably would've. That would have allowed Obama to make a nomination and for the Senate to formally reject him. In the end, the same result would've happened - Garland was never going to take a seat on the SCOTUS under the last Congress anyway. But the formalities would've been followed.

[Ibanez]

Yes, they did. Obama had every right to nominate somebody. Republicans, wrongly, blocked him b/c it was an election year. It's my opinion, but that was wrong.

But that at least wasn't without precedent. Something like 10 SCOTUS nominations have been ignored or not acted on before, and obviously there was plenty of statements by current and former Senators that similar tactics would've been employed in other election years (1992 with the Biden Rule, and 2008 with the Reid Rule namely). The difference is that it actually happened in 2016 as opposed to threatened but never realized in other years (of course, no actual vacancy happened in the other years). Whereas as a straight out filibuster of a person not already on the Court had never happened before today.

I still think that the GOP should've given Garland his hearings and had a straight floor vote. They still could've rejected him, which they probably would've. That would have allowed Obama to make a nomination and for the Senate to formally reject him. In the end, the same result would've happened - Garland was never going to take a seat on the SCOTUS under the last Congress anyway. But the formalities would've been followed.

I know. But it's how you do it. Put him to a vote and strike him down. Don't play games with the court and our institutions. It's bullshit like that frustrates voters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

But that at least wasn't without precedent. Something like 10 SCOTUS nominations have been ignored or not acted on before

This is crap

We haven't always had hearings for SCOTUS nominees. It's a somewhat recent phenomenon.

Is the chair aware of any instance in the years between the 1949 advent of routine public Supreme Court confirmation hearings and 2016 that a nominee who was not withdrawn did not receive a hearing and vote?

The Presiding Officer: The Secretary of the Senate's office confirms that since 1949, Supreme Court nominees have routinely received public hearings. Harriet Myers, whose nomination was withdrawn, and Merrick Garland did not.

To try to play it off as something similar to Merrick Garland happened 10 times before is just dishonest and bullshit. And, I think you know it.