Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Senate Dems Have the Votes to Filibuster, Nuclear Option Imminent?

    Senate Dems Have the Votes to Filibuster, Nuclear Option Imminent?

    Senate Dems have the votes to filibuster, but will Republicans go nuclear?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M#action=share

    Friday, the Senate will hold a confirmation vote fo Trump Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch. Senate Democrats are feverishly working to whip up enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch’s confirmation.

    As it stands, Senate Democrats are still short the votes need to block Gorsuch’s ascension to the Supreme Court.

    Ranking Senate Judiciary Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, said Monday she will not vote for Judge Gorsuch:

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, announced she will oppose President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, Monday.

    “Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch’s record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate and his written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination,” she told colleagues before a scheduled committee vote on his nomination.

    A spokesman also said that she will support a Democratic filibuster.

    Sen. Warner is also a no:

    Michael Bennet (D-CO) however, won’t support the filibuster. In a statement, he said, “using the filibuster and nuclear option at this moment takes us in the wrong direction.”

    Coons also a ‘no’.

    With Coons voting no, that gives Senate Dems the 41 needed to filibuster.

    Republicans could still invoke the nuclear option, requiring only a simple majority to confirm Gorsuch.

    Updates:

    With Senate Democrats cobbling together enough votes to filibuster the confirmation vote, Senate Republicans are left with the “nuclear option.”

    It wasn’t so long ago the former Senate Majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, invoked the nuclear option, saying, “it had to be done.”

    From the WaPo:

    This week’s anticipated change in Senate procedure dates to 2013, when Democrats, angered by Republican opposition to President Barack Obama’s nominees, used the “nuclear option” to end filibusters of executive branch and lower-court nominees, prompting Republicans to warn that there might one day be retribution.

    “Changing the rules is almost inevitable; it’s only a question of when,” said Norm Ornstein, a longtime congressional expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Ornstein warned that with Republicans set to extend the filibuster ban to Supreme Court nominees, they may soon face pressure to end filibusters of legislation to keep major health-care and tax reform bills passed by the GOP-led House from stalling in the more closely-divided Senate.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “will resist the change in some cases because it’s in his interest not only when he’s in the minority again but also to be able to rely on Democrats when the House sends you crazy things,” Ornstein said. “And because it’s not clear they have the 51 votes necessary to change the rules for filibusters on legislation.”

    Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     1
    blacksburger | April 3, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    “It should be a census of citizens and not just bodies in a particular area. And it should be an actual count and no statistical extrapolation of data.

    Or, if you count bodies, then only citizen info should be used to calculate the distribution of electoral college votes.”

    The Constitution says that electoral college votes are to be distributed by actual population count, not by the number of citizens.


       
       2 
       
       2
      Barry in reply to blacksburger. | April 3, 2017 at 6:07 pm

      “… by actual population count, not by the number of citizens.”

      The case can be made that “population count” in the constitution is a count of citizens.


         
         0 
         
         1
        Milhouse in reply to Barry. | April 4, 2017 at 3:20 am

        No, it cannot. You can just lie, but that’s not making a case. The constitution is crystal clear on this. The census must count every person, including babes in arms, aliens (whether legal or not), felons, even diplomats and invading foreign troops (if it were possible to hold a census at such a time). If the Personhood Amendment ever passes, then the census will have to include known fœtuses as well, and they will have to be reflected in the state’s representation.


     
     0 
     
     2
    Dejectedhead | April 3, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    For a SCOTUS nomination, couldn’t the rule be reinvoked that a filibuster needs to be a spoken thing?

    Then just force each Democrat to give a traditional filibuster until they run out of time.

    Is that a viable option? (I’m just curious, I expect the nuclear option to drop considering the DNC grandstanding)


     
     0 
     
     1
    mathewsjw | April 3, 2017 at 7:41 pm

    the nuke rule was PASSED by the Democrats and it was noted @ the time it applied to ALL nominations including SCotUS.

    that said the ONLY question is are there 51 votes for Judge Gorsuch. the answer is Yes because RINO defections are balanced with Democrat Senators in Red States up 4 election have already said they will vote to confirm.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to mathewsjw. | April 4, 2017 at 3:24 am

      and it was noted @ the time it applied to ALL nominations including SCotUS.

      No, it wasn’t. SCotUS nominations were explicitly excluded. Lying does not help our cause.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Dimsdale | April 4, 2017 at 10:15 am

    Call it what it is: the Reid Rule. Make them eat it. And now the way is cleared for Trump to nominate and get any good conservative judge to replace other judges, particularly Ginsberg, which (witch?) would be priceless.

    The utter shortsightedness and stupidity of the Dems is on full display and defies explanation. I mean, really, was the Garland delay such a big deal since everyone, including Trump, probably believed that Hillary would win the election and the Garland nomination would proceed?


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend