PDA

View Full Version : Senate Republicans Threaten "Nuclear Option"


Porpoise101
March 27th, 2017, 09:21 PM
Delaware Sen. Chris Coons said he doubts Neil Gorsuch will get the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, and that he is bracing for Republicans to go for the so-called nuclear option to push the Trump administration’s pick through without any support from Democrats.

“I think this is tragic,” Coons said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about the nuclear option that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he may employ to get Gorsuch on the bench. “And on talking to friends on both sides of the aisle, we’ve got a lot of senators concerned about where we’re headed. There’s Republicans still very mad at us over the 2013 change to the filibuster rule, we’re mad at them for shutting down the government, they’re mad at us for Gorsuch, and we’re not headed in a good direction.”

Gorsuch, who enjoys widespread support from Republican lawmakers, is expected to come up short, as he needs eight Democratic lawmakers to support him in a confirmation vote unless Republicans pursue the nuclear option that would allow Gorsuch to be approved by a simple majority. The Supreme Court pick, who was grilled by Democrats last week during four days of hearings, is unpopular among Democrats who think he is far too conservative for the bench. Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly signaled that Democrats will vigorously oppose Gorsuch’s confirmation.

Coons said Democratic lawmakers are still bitter about obstruction from Republican lawmakers last year to prevent the confirmation of former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland.
Read more at Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/chris-coons-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236533)

I fear that this Gorsuch thing will be the end of candor and respectability in the Senate. Ideally, the Republicans would just pick a slightly more moderate person than Gorsuch; in other words a normal conservative. I don't know if the Republicans are playing a smart game here, but the implications of the nuclear option could be widespread, especially considering the fact that two more Supreme Court Justices could retire during the Trump term. With only a simple majority in the Senate, the Supreme Court selection process will become less bipartisan and more radicalized. This is a bad thing for our democracy in the long run.

On the other hand, I also understand why the Republicans push for Gorsuch. Many people turned out to vote for the conservatives because they had faith that a conservative justice would ascend to the Supreme Court. The Republicans are really just fulfilling this obligation set out before them by their base.

If worse comes to worse, and the Rs aren't bluffing, I believe it will actually be better if the Democrats don't oppose the confirmation. That way they will be able to play the victim card and have the moral superiority the next time around.

maddogmj77
April 1st, 2017, 05:23 AM
I'm not going to attempt to make any comment on the current Senate situation, the party-politics are getting out of hand.


As for Gorsuch, I've only had time to watch one video where he explains his reasoning behind his conclusion for Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

[I personally think that no organization should be able to deny healthcare options for their employees based on "religious objections".
Religious freedoms give you the right to practice 'your' religion, not to force it upon others.]

But he explains exactly why he came to the decision that he did; he went by the books. He didn't bring his own opinion into it, he went by the current laws and regulations. That's what the judicial branch is for, to interpret the law, not write it.

If you would care to present any evidence as to why he might be a bad choice, I'd be open to it, this is all I have to go on right now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-hearings-updates-and-analysis-on-the-supreme-court-nominee/durbin-gorsuch-spar-over-hobby-lobby-ruling/?utm_term=.8259c2dd55c7

PlasmaHam
April 1st, 2017, 10:09 AM
...He didn't bring his own opinion into it, he went by the current laws and regulations. That's what the judicial branch is for, to interpret the law, not write it.
I think is the main problem the Dems have with him, whether or not they want to admit it. Gorsuch is traditional in the sense that he doesn't support a pro-active, legislative court. Contrasts that with the more liberal judges on the court, which believe the court system should be creator and morphers of laws, not just interpreters. That's the real difference I see here, the Dems don't want someone who "limits" the court.

I think it would be a mistake for the Dems to oppose Gorsuch. Right now they have the moral highground, and whining about Gorsuch is just going to make them look like children. They ought to vote in Gorsuch and save the moral highground for future SCOTUS nominations. It would also be a mistake for the Republicans to go "nuclear." A large part of the GOP stance is not abusing government power, and the nuclear option is just that. I think it would be difficult to get the Republicans to agree to go nuclear because of that, and it will hurt their image.