Fact: Gorsuch gets a vote after Merrick Garland gets his hearings and a vote.

Fact: want bipartisan votes, nominate someone who isn't unpalatable to the other side.

For someone who claims to be scotus-fan, she seems to have ignored this...

"Neil Gorsuch's decisions about an autistic child's education was struck down unanimously by the Supreme Court Wednesday morning during his confirmation hearing."

Unanimous. Even Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

Gorsuch's victims?

Autistic children. Children with special needs.

"When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing (Gorsuch approved level of attention,) progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the unanimous decision. Web Link

Unanimous.

“The bottom line is very simple, and that is that Gorsuch did not acquit himself well at the hearings and did not impress our caucus,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer

Then this past Sunday night Schumer loses his cool at an Upper East Side Manhattan restaurant, Sette Mezzo. He was dining with friends when he encountered Joseph A. Califano, Jr., the former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under President Jimmy Carter, and domestic policy adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Califano was with his wife, Hilary, attempting to have a quiet dinner.

The witness stated, “They are a highly respected couple and Schumer made a scene yelling, ‘She voted for Trump!’ The Califanos left the restaurant, but Schumer followed them outside. On the sidewalk, Schumer carried on with his tirade yelling, ‘How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar!’ It was a horrific scene.”

One could say that Senator Schumer did not acquit himself very well and did not impress mainstream America. Although he probably impressed Robert DeNiro. And his criticizing Trump for being a liar is comical. Hillary is the biggest liar to ever run for President. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

So Donald -- is that you? Twitter not enough to keep you busy these days?

"Gorsuch's victims? Autistic children. Children with special needs."

Deflect to a democrat - nice 2nd grade debating technique.

Merrick Garland was nominated and never got a hearing because Mitch McConnell wouldn't give him one for purely partisan reasons, against Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the Constitution.

Who says the Putin Puppet isn't in the last year of his presidency?

Yes, Garland was treated badly. It happens, ask Justice Robert Bork. Many believe the non-hearing for Garland was McConnell's response to Reid going nuclear in the prior session. Touche.

In one week, Gorsuch will be confirmed as our next Supreme Court justice. He is mainstream and received the highest rating possible from the ABA. Yes, you can find a few problematic decisions in Gorsuch's nearly 3,000 decisions, but he has sided with the majority in his court 97% of the time - that's pretty mainstream. I can find cases where Ginsburg and liberal justices ruled badly against very sympathetic small litigants too (Kelo v New London, is perhaps the most well known). Small or big should never matter - the law should. Small litigants can be wrong, too.

If Republicans are forced to resort to the "nuclear option," every future Supreme Court nomination will be FAR more extreme because the party in power will have full control with a simple Senate majority. The Senate will become just as partisan as the House. Gee, thanks for that!

Some stubborn facts - Republicans currently control the White House and Senate. There are three justices over 78 years old, most are left-leaning. If Republicans go nuclear, look for a lot more nominations that look like Scalia and Thomas and a lot less that look like Gorsuch.

Be careful what you wish for.

Republicans refused to give Merrick Garland hearings and a vote for almost a year and "Yes, Garland was treated badly. It happens..."

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Unanimous - glad to be of help.

Garland gets a vote.
Then Gorsuch.

Trump should not get a nominee until after Michael Flinn cuts his deal and the FBI has his testimony.

Supreme Court justices do not need 60 votes for confirmation. They need 60 votes for cloture to avoid filibusters. The confirmation vote follows.

Alito was confirmed 58-42 and Thomas was confirmed 52-48.

Garland was nominated a year ago - how many votes did he get?

The hypocrisy is so evident it's hardly worth noting. All of the prior roles and comments are now reversed.

Yes, Garland was treated horribly and so far, so has Gorsuch - although Gorsuch differs because in a few days he will join the court. That's the advantage of having your party in power, you get stuff. As President Obama so gleefully noted, "elections have consequences."

As for vote counts, Garland will get the same number votes in the future as he received in the past.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has threatened to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination. We need to call out this filibuster for what it is: A naked Attempt to nullify the results of the last presidential election. To Force us to govern as though President Trump hadn’t won the 2016 election. Well President Trump did win the 2016 election by 74 Electoral Votes. And he has done what the Constitution requires him to do- Nominated a highly qualified person to fill an open vacancy on the Supreme Court.

If Democrats continue to filibuster this highly qualified nominee for no reason other than to nullify the president’s constitutional authority, then Senators not only have the right to change the filibuster rules; Senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules. They cannot turn their backs on the constitution. They cannot abdicate their oath of office. They have a responsibility to protect and defend our democracy and that includes protecting the neutrality of our courts and preserving the constitutional power of the president to nominate highly qualified people to court vacancies.

"A naked Attempt to nullify the results of the last presidential election."

Merrick Garland.

"They cannot abdicate their oath of office."

They are not. They are exercising their right to vote No on a nominee who is slightly to the right of Attila The Hun.

If Trump wants 70-90 votes, he should nominate someone in the mainstream. Instead, he chose to go extreme. Arguably, Trump hasn't a clue, he just listened to Heritage rather than think about it.

Re-phrase: Arguably, he just listened to Heritage rather than think about it. Trump hasn't a clue.

Yeah, that's better.

Today's New York Times, the darling of the left, whose words are as much revered as Moses' 10 commandments etched in stone said this:

"however, it is politically inevitable that Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed."

and

Judge Gorsuch appears to be very conservative, but so was Justice Scalia. Confirming Judge Gorsuch would merely preserve the ideological status quo on the closely divided Supreme Court. Should the confirmation move ahead, all 52 Republican senators will probably stick together, bolstered by a few Democrats from conservative-leaning states. Those are enough votes to easily clear the way for confirming Judge Gorsuch — and all future nominees — by a simple majority.

So I have these words for Chuck Schumer borrowed from the famed literary Scholar Brer Rabbit "Please don't throw me in the Briar Patch."

So SCOTUS 'fan': "Confirming Judge Gorsuch would merely preserve the ideological status quo on the closely divided Supreme Court."

Therefore when Notorious RBG retires, we should hue closely to what you said and preserve her seat as status quo?

Uh-huh. Whatever you say.

"If Democrats continue to filibuster this highly qualified nominee for no reason other than to nullify the president’s constitutional authority"

Oh, for the love of gawd, it's really in your best interest to stop spewing this tripe.

It is the height of hypocrisy to support the Republicans preventing the vote on Garland, which was a complete abdication of the Senate's role in our government and nullified "the president’s constitutional authority" (<<<YOUR WORDS), then bellyache when Democrats attempt to prevent the vote using a congressional tactic that has existed and been used by both sides for over 160 years. At least Democrats aren't abdicating their governmental role in the appointment of a supreme court nominee.

The way Republicans have conducted themselves over the last 15 months has made the following undeniably clear: Republicans are Republicans first, Americans second.

You, sir, are no American.

Someone said it today...

Garland was THE nuclear option, the rest of this is just the fallout.

It all started with Ted Kennedy's egregious lies about Robert Bork. The Democrats politicized the Supreme Court with their specious litmus tests- then engaged in fear mongering to turn the tide against Robert Bork- an eminently qualified Jurist who taught at the nations's second best law school Yale and even had Hillary Rodham and William Jefferson Clinton as students.

Ted Kennedy, who should have never served a day in the U.S. Senate due to his negligent homicide of Mary Joe Kopechne, then not going to the house closest to the scene of the accident to rescue the poor woman, but instead ran all the way back to the party house while the precious minutes and Mary Jo Kopechne's life slipped away. Then he swims across the sound to check in an Edgartown Motel and pretends nothing has happened and the next day tries to talk his cousin Joe Gagnon to take the blame for his criminal actions. That Ted Kennedy. This is what that scoundrel said:

“Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

What a load of Malarkey from the son of Adolf Hitler supporter Joseph Kennedy Sr.

"The Democrats politicized the Supreme Court...."


Merrick Garland.

In June 1992 when Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he spoke our passionately against President George H.W. Bush making any Supreme Court nominations should a vacancy occur until after the November election. Senator Biden said

"it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed".

"The Senate, too, Mr. President must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over".

So the Senate followed Joe Biden's erudite words. Then there's Chuck Schumer (D-NY). In July 2007 when George W. Bush was president, Senator Schumer advocated pursuing the same approach that Senate Majority Leader McConnell did in 2016. During a speech at the American Constitution Society , Senator Schumer said

"if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation."

So you have the former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the current Senate Minority Leader passionately imploring that no Supreme Court nominees should be considered by the Senate in the waning months of a presidential term and then expressing outrage when Senator Mitch McConnell does exactly what they said he should do. What a bunch of blowhard hypocrites. I can't wait until Gorsuch gets confirmed. And I hope Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg step down in the next couple of years too.

The more you bloviate...


Merrick Garland.

Until garland gets hearings and a vote as the concensus pick that he was, this is a corrupt event.

Until Garland gets a hearing...

Let me know how that works out for you.

>Until Garland gets a hearing...
>Let me know how that works out for you.

"Until garland gets a hearing... this is a corrupt event."

So you own it. And I own it. Corrupt. Glad you are okay just laughing it off.

It's sad. The dems scream bloody murder when the pugs do exactly the same thing they did before. And the pugs screamed bloody murder then. Neither one of them has the moral high ground.

False equivalence - 'do exactly the same thing'

Names of modern-day nominees that for almost a year NEVER RECEIVED A HEARING, let alone a vote:

1. Merrick Garland

I'll let you fill in the rest of the list. Won't take long.

(hint: Roberts was withdrawn before attending his hearing, Myers was a joke, and withdrawn before her own party would give her a hearing.)

This is what the Gray Lady said his morning

"Judge Gorsuch possesses the credentials typical of the modern Supreme Court justice. He is a graduate of Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, served as a Supreme Court law clerk and worked as a lawyer at a prestigious Washington law firm and at the Justice Department. He joined the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, in 2006, where he was widely admired as a fine judicial stylist."

I want to thank Harry Reid for making this all possible. We couldn't have done it without you Dirty Harry. Enjoy a wonderful retirement. And Chucky I hope President Trump invites you for dinner at Mar al Lago where you can enjoy a generous helping of crow for the main course. Democrats beaten in the House, the Senate, the White House, and now the Supreme Court- A Quadfecta! But take heart California and New York will be the last bastions of Democratic Party where I am sure it will thrive for years to come.

Komrade and ironically named "SCOTUS Fan" wrote:
"I want to thank Harry Reid for making this all possible."

More false equivalence. Democrats didn't kill a 160+ year tradition.

I think the Democrats have the right read on this: Republicans will do whatever is necessary...even abdicate their duties as Senators...to shove activist, right-wing judges on the supreme court; trying to "protect" cloture was un-protectable because the Republicans were going to bypass it regardless; they broke a 160+ year tradition with no remorse. I'm no fan of Harry Reid, but the Republicans were going to do whatever they could regardless of pass practices.

Obama should have made Garland a recess appointment, which he was completely empowered to do. But no, in the interest of tradition and bipartisanship, he didn't do so, which was a huge mistake. Yes, the senate can reverse that appointment later, but that would break yet another tradition, and expose the Republicans for what they are: Republicans first, Americans second. He and the Democrats still just don't grasp that the Republicans are playing by a different rulebook when it comes to supreme court appointments.


I've been a long-time voter with no party affiliation (neither Democrat nor Republican, and I voted Johnson in 2012 and Bush in '88) but the past 15 months has completely turned me off from the Republican party. Their actions make this undeniably certain: Republicans are Republicans first, Americans second.

Enjoy your borscht, Komrade scotus fan.

There has never been a partisan filibuster until the Democrats filibustered Gorsuch. There have been bipartisan filibusters in the past of Supreme Court nominees, such as LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas where both parties worked in concert to block a seriously flawed nominee. But the Democrats are having a meltdown. Harry Reid set the precedent; now the Democrats own it and the Republicans are just following precedent. The Democrats gambled and lost. What person in his or her right mind issues an ultimatum to the other person when the other person has the upper hand. Well the Democrats did and they made themselves look foolish in the process. Move on.

It is quite possible that President Trump will have more SCOTUS seats to fill. I hope he gets them. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the former General Counsel to the ACLU is about as far to the left as one can get. Joseph Breyer wrote a book on how the United States should use International law. So much for sovereignty. In my opinion Breyer is by far the worst jurist on the Supreme Court. Then you have Anthony Kennedy. He enjoys being the swing vote making him the most powerful jurist on the bench. But he has proved to be too inconsistent when following the Constitution.

President Trump has the opportunity to reshape the Court to follow the original intent of the Constitution and reject the seriously flawed argument put forth by Joseph Breyer that the Constitution is a living document-- which is code for the majority can ignore the Constitution and substitute their own judgment.

Sour Grapes, There has never been a refusal by the Senate to even give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing until the GOP denied Merrick Garland a hearing. Shameful, and utterly indefensible. GOP senators are indeed party loyalists first, American loyalists who respect the rule of law and their duty to uphold it -- last.

And you now want an insane person -- the Clown in Chief -- to reshape the court so that we are plagued for decades by a body of court jesters who flout the rule-of-law concept as well. Who are loyal to ideology first, the good of the commonweal last. "Democracy" and "public service" are looking more and more like sad, empty promises.

"There has never been a partisan filibuster until the Democrats... blah blah blah..."

Correct Answer: Merrick Garland

"Elections have consequences. And at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.” -- Barack Obama to Eric Cantor, former Republican House leader, in 2009.

McConnell deferred to the next president and Senate on filling the Supreme Court vacancy. It could have been Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate making that decision. In fact, almost everyone expected the Senate and presidency to be in Democratic hands after the 2016 election. Most Republicans thought McConnell was crazy.

But the people chose a Republican president and Republican Senate.

Trump and the Republicans told the people what they were going to do if they won. In fact, Trump made it clear during the campaign, Gorsuch was one of the jurists under consideration for a Supreme Court nomination. The people voted for them. Now, they are doing what they promised.

That's democracy. If the people wanted Merrick Garland, they could have voted Democratic.

"If the people wanted Merrick Garland, they could have voted Democratic."

They did - Obama for two terms. Obama nominated Garland and Garland went almost a year without a hearing or vote.

That's democracy?

@Elections Have Consequences:

1(a). Re: "But the people chose a Republican president and Republican Senate." No, the people chose a Democratic president in 2016; the Electoral College chose a Republican.
1(b). As for a Republican Senate? Let's debate the shameless gerrymandering and voter roll purging funded by the Koch brothers and their fellow diabolical billionaires on another thread.
1(c). And in 2015? The Democratic president whom the people chose overwhelmingly in two elections and who was still the president with the Constitutional duty to appoint a replacement after the devil called Scalia home was denied even a hearing on his appointment.

2. Re: "That's democracy. If the people wanted Merrick Garland, they could have voted Democratic."
The second part of that statement is correct, and following through on that logic: Because 3 million more people voted Democratic than Republican, there's your proof that the people DID want Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court. Your logic. An inadvertent truth.
And the first part of the statement: Patently false. What has transpired is antithetical to democracy. And now we know that that's exactly what the GOP wants.

The Court Jester is certainly living up to his/her reputation. Completely wrong about the Senate refusing hearings. But Liberals on't even bother to verify the facts. They bluff and hope than no one will uncover their mendacity.

In fact, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, John Tyler, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination.

"Completely wrong about the Senate refusing hearings."

What?

Please link to anything that shows Mitch McConnell or the Republican Chair for the Judiciary Committee set up hearings for Merrick Garland, as per the Constitutional and their mandated responsibility.

@SCOTUS Fan.

Re: Completely wrong about the Senate refusing hearings.

Show your evidence.

Re: In fact, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee.

A flat-out non sequitur. Holding a seat vacant by not confirming a nominee is quite different from refusing to even hold a hearing. What we've been talking about and you are so obviously trying to deflect attention from is the fact that Garland wasn't even granted a hearing.

And you accuse liberals of mendacity. Sheesh...

With regard to Federal Court nominations the Constitution established only two rules:

1. The president “shall nominate” justices, “and
2. By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint” them.

The Senate established a third rule: That it can’t vote on a nomination until debate has ended. But up until 1949 the Senate did not even debate nominations—Debate was limited to legislation.

Then in 1949 everything changed when the Democrat controlled Senate with Scott Lucas (D-IL) as majority leader expanded the cloture rule from legislative debates to cover nominations as well.

In 1975, again with the Democrats in control of the Senate and Jim Eastland (D-MS) at the helm the majority needed for cloture was dropped from two-thirds to three-fifths.

And in 2013, the infamous Harry Reid (D-NV) Senate, the filibuster was abolished for all judicial and executive nomination votes except for Supreme Court justices.

Yet, the power to stop a Supreme Court nomination by extending debate was used only once in 1968 for Lyndon Johnson’s nomination of Abe Fortas and that was bi-partisan with Richard Russell (D-GA) and Everett Dirkson (R-IL) leading a bi-partisan effort to defeat Johnson’s nominee. Now we have for the first time in the history of the U.S. Senate a partisan filibuster. Thankfully Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) put an end to this unprecedented obstructionism. It really was fun to watch Chuck Schumer (D-NY) throw a tantrum like a 3 year old spoiled brat.

Train Wreck got it wrong. It was not a 160 year old tradition. It was a 68 year old tradition. There was no debate on nominations before 1949. It was a straight up and down vote. So since 1789 we had a 160 year old tradition of straight up and down votes and after a 68 year hiatus (1949-2017) caused by the Democrats we are back on track. Sorry to derail you train wreck.

You used the word "debate" 6 times.

Link to the debate transcripts for Merrick Garland hearings?

Mitch McConnell just accepted the advice of his fellow Democrat Senate Colleagues Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. See, Democrats are sometimes right.

@Jesters

In actuality, more than 50% of the popular vote went to right of center candidates (i.e. Trump, Johnson, McMullin, and Castle). The people wanted a right of center president either way you slice it.

Nonetheless, Clinton and Trump ran their campaigns to maximize electoral votes, not popular votes. They both campaigned almost exclusively in battleground states. They bought lots of media ads there. They executed get out the vote efforts there. They pretty much ignored the general public in every other state.

Please note that it's not possible to gerrymander in the Senate. State lines do not change.

scotus fan: still waiting for your link...

"the debate transcripts for Merrick Garland hearings?"

Elimination of the Senate's super-majority requirement for Supreme Court nominees isn't the end of the world. When one party controls the White House and Senate, they'll simply pick more polarizing and extreme candidates.

That will always be to the dismay of the minority party. This time, it's the Democrats turn to be upset.

Ask Harry Reid how it feels to watch Garland cooling his heels for a year while Gorsuch is quickly sworn in. Soon, you'll be able to ask Mitch McConnell that same question.

Prior to November 2016, no one expected Republicans would control Congress and the White House. That will change soon enough.