General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere are 36 Senate Dems against Gorsuch. We need 41.
CALL YOUR SENATORS BEFORE THURSDAY & ask them to OPPOSE Gorsuch: 1-888-877-2040
AFTER we get 41 Senators opposed to Gorsuch, then call and demand that your GOP senators NOT change the 60-vote rule. Change the NOMINEE, not the rule.
Gorsuch was chosen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation - Trump allowed them to choose the nominee THEY wanted. He's dangerous, FAR too extreme and his being seated on the USSC will all but ENSURE that Trump gets away with EVERYTHING.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Gorsuch is pro-big business and anti-middle class.
Old white rich guys will do great under him.
And he's very likely to increase the flow of money into politics giving the rich and corporations an even bigger advantage over average Americans.
If Heritage likes a judge you know that judge will help the rich and hurt the middle class.
CousinIT
(9,355 posts)And that just can't happen!
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)still_one
(92,697 posts)trump and the Russians period.
spooky3
(34,680 posts)Please contact Kaine to express your support and contact warner to urge him to vote against Gorsuch.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,204 posts)spooky3
(34,680 posts)Nuclear option to change the rule to a simple majority rather than 60 votes. This will enable them to nominate and confirm even worse judges.
However, I'm not sure this is a good argument. First, Gorsuch is hardly moderate so how much worse can they get? Second, if the Dems give in on Gorsuch, the Repubs will simply make the same threat on the next nominee. Third, once the rule is changed, the Repubs know that the Dems can use it once they have returned to power. Fourth, if Repubs do nominate more baby Scalias, then there is a chance that eventually enough voters will become aware of and incensed by these nominees and throw Repubs out of office.
WoonTars
(694 posts)No thanks. Make them go nuclear. Enough with the threats, let's make them actually pull the trigger. Enough caving to a simple bluff.
spooky3
(34,680 posts)still_one
(92,697 posts)are NOT going to have the majority forever, and frankly it may occur in a shorter time than they can imagine
spooky3
(34,680 posts)that eventuality.
still_one
(92,697 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Cha
(299,034 posts)zentrum
(9,866 posts)tenorly
(2,037 posts)Besides which, Trump has no future anyway - and they know it.
My guess is that corporate lobbyists have been working overtime to cajole and twist arms among some Dems in order to get their toadie Goresuck into the Supreme Court.
diva77
(7,746 posts)Here's how senators plan to vote on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/neil-gorsuch-whip-list/
snip...
Democrats who are unclear on both the filibuster and confirmation
1. Sen. Mark Warner (Virginia) -- He told reporters on 3/28/2017 that he was still reading up on Gorsuch but was concerned about his "evasive answers."
2. Sen. Chris Coons (Delaware) -- "He will get an up or down vote. Senator Schumer, our minority leader, has said it's going to be a 60-vote margin. I doubt he's going to get 60 votes. The question then becomes what do we do? There's a lot of finger pointing; a lot of Democrats justifiably still very mad about the treatment of Merrick Garland....I don't think he's going to get 60 votes." -- Interview on MSNBC on 3/27/2017
3. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (California) -- "Well let's wait for next week, OK? And then I'll make myself very clear." -- To reporters on 3/27/2017
4. Sen. Bob Menendez (New Jersey) -- "Still deciding...I've said all along that when I come to a conclusion on how I'm voting on Gorsuch, I'll decide on how I'm voting in the whole process." -- To reporters on 3/28/2017
5. Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine) -- He told CNN on 3/30/2017 that he still hasn't decided.
6. Sen. Michael Bennet (Colorado) -- He has not announced his decision.
This story has been and will be updated as CNN receives updated information...snip
Wounded Bear
(58,957 posts)One less
diva77
(7,746 posts)Benjamin L. Cardin Md.
Angus King Me.
Robert Menendez N.J.
Michael Bennet Colo.
Chris Coons Del.
I hope people call these holdouts!!!
CousinIT
(9,355 posts)...they care most about their own constituents. So if these are your senators, CALL NOW!
BigmanPigman
(51,795 posts)for posting this. It saved me time.
diva77
(7,746 posts)spooky3
(34,680 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)Heitcamp, Manchin and the 3rd one.
It's about the man himself, his poor judgements in the past 10 years and his troubling history of voting against basic rights of women, of employees etc. His judgements are overturned, he's a terrible candidate, on his own merits.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Still on the fence about it and you can get through to his DC office.
202-224-4744
CousinIT
(9,355 posts)eleny
(46,166 posts)We've told him that if he doesn't vote with the majority of Dems on this then we'll throw all our support of contributions and elbow grease into anyone who opposes him in the next primary should he decide to run again.
Who knows if it'll help. All I do know is he's a dirty rotten louse if he votes for Gorsuch.
FBaggins
(26,947 posts)Is that really what we want?
eleny
(46,166 posts)Since you asked, what I want is a progressive Dem senator who isn't afraid of being true blue and a Party loyalist in a state with a Dem governor and whose majority voted for Clinton.
Get real, please. What will help us lose elections is having Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.
I'm done. Please take the last word.
still_one
(92,697 posts)Just like the last nuclear option... We're going to regret this one.
still_one
(92,697 posts)a matter of time anyway. The filibuster has been used for a lot of bad things, including preserving slavery for far too long.
Time is on our side, not their side.
spanone
(136,174 posts)mitch is gonna invoke the nuclear option and blame it on the democrats...
The procedural vote known as cloture has long set the Senate apart from the House of Representatives - and it has long been hailed by members of the upper chamber for requiring bipartisan cooperation, and forcing consensus, on major legislation or confirmation votes.
If that step is eliminated, the Senate is "headed to a world where you don't need one person from the other side to pick a judge," warned Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "And what does that mean? That means the judges are going to be more ideological, not less. It means that every Senate seat is going to be a referendum on the Supreme Court The damage done to the Senate is going to be real."
McConnell won't be the first to go nuclear, however. Now-retired Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., first invoked the option in 2013 when he was majority leader, allowing non-Supreme Court presidential appointments to be confirmed with a simple majority.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-gorsuch-senate-committee-vote-20170403-story.html
still_one
(92,697 posts)should not be able to appoint a SC justice, the Democrats need to make it clear that a President and his administration who are under investigation for possible involvement with a foreign power to interfere in our election, shouldn't be allowed to nominate a SC justice until the full detail of the investigation our known.