Pence: Senate will confirm Gorsuch 'one way or the other'

[SueEllenRules!]

Pence: Senate will confirm Gorsuch 'one way or the other'

Vice President Pence said Saturday that President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed by the Senate "one way or the other" ahead of a likely Senate showdown next week.

• Pence's vow echoed remarks from other top Republicans who have signaled support for potentially invoking the so-called nuclear option, changing Senate rules to confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority vote.
• "For the sake of our Supreme Court, for the sake of our country, for the sake of our Constitution, we will overcome the obstructionists and the United States Senate will confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch one way or the other," Pence said at a speech in Columbus, Ohio.
• Pence's comments come ahead of a potentially bitter fight in the Senate likely to take place in the coming week over Gorsuch's nomination.
• Vice President Pence said Saturday that President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed by the Senate "one way or the other" ahead of a likely Senate showdown next week.
• Pence's vow echoed remarks from other top Republicans who have signaled support for potentially invoking the so-called nuclear option, changing Senate rules to confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority vote.
• "For the sake of our Supreme Court, for the sake of our country, for the sake of our Constitution, we will overcome the obstructionists and the United States Senate will confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch one way or the other," Pence said at a speech in Columbus, Ohio.
• Pence's comments come ahead of a potentially bitter fight in the Senate likely to take place in the coming week over Gorsuch's nomination.
• Republicans, who hold 52 seats, have scrambled to secure the support of eight Democratic senators to reach the 60 votes required under current Senate rules to confirm the Supreme Court nominee.
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) on Friday became the latest Democrat to say they will vote to support a filibuster of Gorsuch, shrinking the number of Democrats who have undecided or unclear positions on Gorsuch to nine, according to The Hill's Whip List.
• So far, 38 Democrats have vowed to filibuster Gorsuch while only two Democrats - Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) - have said they will support Gorsuch. Both Democrats are up for reelection next year and hail from states that Trump won by big margins in November.
• Republicans have threatened to change Senate rules if Democrats try to block the nomination by eliminating their ability to filibuster and confirming Gorsuch with a simple majority vote.
• Pence's comments weren't the first time the vice president threw his support behind the so-called nuclear option. In February, he said Gorsuch would join the Supreme Court "one way or the other." Trump has also urged Senate Republicans to "go nuclear" if Democrats attempt to block the nomination.
• The speech on Saturday marked the vice president's third consecutive weekend trip to promote Trump's agenda. The president's young administration has faced turmoil in recent weeks amid the failure of the GOP plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare and a series controversies and revelations surrounding congressional investigations into Russian election meddling.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....will-confirm-gorsuch-one-way-or-the-other?amp

 

[SueEllenRules!]

So the Republicans weren't "obstructionists" when they refused to even give Obama's perfectly moderate nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing? And I suppose Democrats should be just thrilled that seat on the Supreme Court was stolen?

 

[Frank Underwood]

So the Republicans weren't "obstructionists" when they refused to even give Obama's perfectly moderate nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing? And I suppose Democrats should be just thrilled that seat on the Supreme Court was stolen?

Republicans always bash Democrats for using their tactics against them. Unfortunately, there are people dumb enough to believe eight years of Republican obstruction was somehow more honorable.

That said, I found this part interesting: "So far, 38 Democrats have vowed to filibuster Gorsuch while only two Democrats - Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) - have said they will support Gorsuch. Both Democrats are up for reelection next year and hail from states that Trump won by big margins in November."

In other words, holding on to elected office is more important to Democrats like Manchin and Heitkamp than standing on principle.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

McConnell says "going nuclear" will ultimately be good for the Senate. McCain says whoever said that is a stupid idiot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...d73aec-1a1a-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Republicans always bash Democrats for using their tactics against them. Unfortunately, there are people dumb enough to believe eight years of Republican obstruction was somehow more honorable.

True, but I still say Democrats should continue giving them a dose of their own medicine. They want to go nuclear to confirm Gorsuch? Fine. We'll keep that in mind when we regain control of the Senate. What goes around comes around.

In other words, holding on to elected office is more important to Democrats like Manchin and Heitkamp

Of course it is. What the hell good is principle without power? Manchin and Heitkamp are both from deep red states. Frankly, I don't see how they were elected in the first place. Will supporting Gorsuch help them get re-elected? Who knows? But would I rather have the two of them return to the Senate than two Republicans, especially when the Democrats can filibuster Gorsuch without them? Well, duh.

than standing on principle.

Standing on principle gets you a Trump presidency. What was the difference between Hillary Clinton winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (and, therefore, the presidency)? The ballots cast for Jill Stein in those states "on principle." Standing on principle also brought us the disastrous Bush presidency. What was the difference between Al Gore winning Florida and the presidency (besides the Supreme Court stopping the recount)? The ballots cast for Ralph Nader "on principle." In fact, even without Florida, Gore would still have won if not for the ballots cast for Nader in New Hampshire "on principle." Would Green Party voters just as soon have a Republican in office as a Democrat? Somehow I doubt it, but that's effectively what they achieved.

 

[Frank Underwood]

True, but I still say Democrats should continue giving them a dose of their own medicine. They want to go nuclear to confirm Gorsuch? Fine. We'll keep that in mind when we regain control of the Senate. What goes around comes around.

Democrats could keep the simple majority rule in place, but obstruction should still only be used as a means to oppose a harmful policy or a terrible nominee.

For example, a few Republicans supported the amendment to allow the importation of prescription drugs from Canada. That's an issue Democrats should get behind, and the fact that over a dozen didn't is disappointing.

Of course it is. What the hell good is principle without power? Manchin and Heitkamp are both from deep red states. Frankly, I don't see how they were elected in the first place. Will supporting Gorsuch help them get re-elected? Who knows? But would I rather have the two of them return to the Senate than two Republicans, especially when the Democrats can filibuster Gorsuch without them? Well, duh.

But then we're talking about power for power's sake. Manchin and Heitkamp have confirmed the majority of Trump's nominees. Not being a Republican is meaningless if you ultimately do their bidding.

Standing on principle gets you a Trump presidency. What was the difference between Hillary Clinton winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (and, therefore, the presidency)? The ballots cast for Jill Stein in those states "on principle." Standing on principle also brought us the disastrous Bush presidency. What was the difference between Al Gore winning Florida and the presidency (besides the Supreme Court stopping the recount)? The ballots cast for Ralph Nader "on principle." In fact, even without Florida, Gore would still have won if not for the ballots cast for Nader in New Hampshire "on principle." Would Green Party voters just as soon have a Republican in office as a Democrat? Somehow I doubt it, but that's effectively what they achieved.

The thing people are forgetting about principled voters is that they would vote Democrat if the Democratic candidates were also principled. Back in 2008, my enthusiasm for Obama was just as strong as my enthusiasm for Sanders. Obama didn't win by running as an incrementalist war monger who would implement a watered down conservative agenda, even though that's how much of his presidency ended up. He won on hope and change.

People are tired of voting for neoliberals who don't have their best interests at heart. Being "less bad" than someone doesn't mean you're good. And keeping them in power doesn't give them any incentive to change.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Democrats could keep the simple majority rule in place, but obstruction should still only be used as a means to oppose a harmful policy or a terrible nominee.

Of course. And I hope the next Supreme Court Justice the Democrats confirm is whomever we damn well please. With absolutely zero input and consensus from the thugs who call themselves 'Republicans.'

But then we're talking about power for power's sake. Manchin and Heitkamp have confirmed the majority of Trump's nominees. Not being a Republican is meaningless if you ultimately do their bidding.

It's even more meaningless when you're replaced by a Republican who'll do all their bidding. As a realist, sometimes you have to pick your battles. And I can think of smarter moves than choosing Custer's Last Stand purely on principle.

The thing people are forgetting about principled voters is that they would vote Democrat if the Democratic candidates were also principled. Back in 2008, my enthusiasm for Obama was just as strong as my enthusiasm for Sanders. Obama didn't win by running as an incrementalist war monger who would implement a watered down conservative agenda, even though that's how much of his presidency ended up. He won on hope and change.

People are tired of voting for neoliberals who don't have their best interests at heart. Being "less bad" than someone doesn't mean you're good. And keeping them in power doesn't give them any incentive to change.

So how are you enjoying the Trump presidency so far?

 

[Frank Underwood]

Of course. And I hope the next Supreme Court Justice the Democrats confirm is whomever we damn well please. With absolutely zero input and consensus from the thugs who call themselves 'Republicans.'

Considering they wouldn't even hold hearings on Obama's nominee, I completely agree.

It's even more meaningless when you're replaced by a Republican who'll do all their bidding. As a realist, sometimes you have to pick your battles. And I can think of smarter moves than choosing Custer's Last Stand purely on principle.

They're not just picking their battles, they're rolling over and playing dead. If that's what red state Democrats feel they have to do to stay in power, so be it. Just keep the blue dogs away from the presidency.

So how are you enjoying the Trump presidency so far?

Billions spent on a wall, families broken up, a raid in Yemen, bombing in Syria, travel bans, a cabinet full of corrupt, unqualified billionaires, a proposed health care plan that would leave over 50 million people uninsured, roll back of climate change initiatives, cuts to meals on wheels and other programs that help the needy, etc. To answer your question, I'm not enjoying the presidency of this evil, fascist scum one damn bit.

At worse, a Clinton presidency would have kept the status quo. Not exactly ideal, but still better than the fascism of Trump. I just think it's sad that all the Democratic Party has to offer these days is that they're not as bad as Trump. They're supposed to be the party of workers, the downtrodden, and diplomacy. Unfortunately, they've become the party of TPP, Goldman Sachs, and war. They tout their social values, but the Clintons were bad on gay rights in the 90s. Hillary didn't even support gay marriage until four years ago. We talk about how awful Bush and Trump's presidencies are, but they also had support from many Congressional Dems.

So I can either vote for a party whose platform I agree with that can't win, or I can vote for the least awful mainstream candidate. Regardless of my choice, this scenario reminds me why we badly need a revolution.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

They're not just picking their battles, they're rolling over and playing dead. If that's what red state Democrats feel they have to do to stay in power, so be it.

However you characterize it, I fail to see a Republican as the preferable option.

Just keep the blue dogs away from the presidency.

The problem with that is you actually believe Democrats like Clinton and Obama are blue dogs.

Billions spent on a wall, families broken up, a raid in Yemen, bombing in Syria, travel bans, a cabinet full of corrupt, unqualified billionaires, a proposed health care plan that would leave over 50 million people uninsured, roll back of climate change initiatives, cuts to meals on wheels and other programs that help the needy, etc. To answer your question, I'm not enjoying the presidency of this evil, fascist scum one damn bit.

It almost makes you wish...dare I say it...that the only other viable candidate had won the election instead.

At worse, a Clinton presidency would have kept the status quo. Not exactly ideal, but still better than the fascism of Trump. I just think it's sad that all the Democratic Party has to offer these days is that they're not as bad as Trump.

Not as bad as Trump is sounding better and better every day.

So I can either vote for a party whose platform I agree with that can't win, or I can vote for the least awful mainstream candidate.

Now you're beginning to catch on. But cheer up...nothing is ever, ever as bad as ending up with a Republican in office.

Regardless of my choice, this scenario reminds me why we badly need a revolution.

Revolution is how we ended up with Trump.

 

[Frank Underwood]

However you characterize it, I fail to see a Republican as the preferable option.

A Democrat that acts like a Democrat is the preferable option, but they're becoming in short supply.

The problem with that is you actually believe Democrats like Clinton and Obama are blue dogs.

The Bill Clinton era exploded the prison population, gutted welfare, and implemented anti-gay legislation. Sounds consistent with a conservative blue dog agenda to me. And who was right by his side supporting him?

With Obama, we got a health care plan originally drafted by Republicans, more wars, increased NSA surveillance, a crackdown on whistle blowers when we were promised transparency, etc. Again, a bit on the neocon side.

It almost makes you wish...dare I say it...that the only other viable candidate had won the election instead.

Not as bad as Trump is sounding better and better every day.

Now you're beginning to catch on. But cheer up...nothing is ever, ever as bad as ending up with a Republican in office.

Hillary would have been the better option, sure. But just like Trump and third party voters are accused of making the wrong choice, I could just as easily say that Democrats backed the wrong pony during the primaries.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist because I expect my politicians to be more than corporate sell out shills whose policies are based on political expediency rather than principle. But it's what I think they should aspire to.

Revolution is how we ended up with Trump.

Because the Republicans were so tired of the establishment that they chose a faux populist demagogue instead. And traditionally blue swing states went to Trump because they felt ignored by Hillary.

Had Democrats chose Bernie as their nominee, the revolution would have likely went in the other direction. He is the most popular politician in the country right now, and has inspired movements to push the Democratic Party back towards the left. We shouldn't be afraid of a revolution because of Trump. If anything, that's why we need one more than ever. Democrats stand a better chance of winning with principled populists.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Trump team already strategizing for the next Supreme Court vacancy
As White House pushes to confirm Neil Gorsuch, Trump readies lower court picks as they await the next high court vacancy.

• After Donald Trump wrapped up his first speech to Congress and worked his way through the crowd, he lingered on his handshake with Anthony Kennedy, the 80-year-old Supreme Court justice.
• The boom mics picked up their seemingly private conversation.
• “Say hello to your boy,” Trump said, “Special guy.” “Your kids have been very nice to him,” Kennedy replied. “Well,” Trump said, “they love him, and they love him in New York.”
• While the White House is focused this week on shepherding Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, through the Senate confirmation process, the president and his team are obsessed with the next possible vacancy.
• The likeliest candidate is Kennedy, who has sat at the decisive fulcrum of the most important Supreme Court cases for more than a decade. Replacing him with a reliable conservative would tip the court to the right, even if no other seat comes open under Trump — whose team has taken to exploring every imaginable line of communication to keep tabs on the justice and to make him comfortable as he ponders a potential retirement.
• One back channel is the fact that Kennedy’s son, Justin, knows Donald Trump, Jr. through New York real estate circles. Another is through Kennedy’s other son, Gregory, and Trump’s Silicon Valley adviser Peter Thiel. They went to Stanford Law School together and served as president of the Federalist Society in back-to-back years, according to school records. More recently, Kennedy’s firm, Disruptive Technology Advisers, has worked with Thiel’s company Palantir Technologies.
• In fact, during the early months of the Trump administration, Gregory Kennedy has worked at NASA as a senior financial adviser as part of the so-called “beachhead” team. Both Kennedy boys were spotted at the White House last month for the administration’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration (Justice Kennedy is Irish Catholic). In February, Ivanka Trump attended oral arguments of the Supreme Court with her daughter. She was a guest of Justice Kennedy.
• The White House has also closely monitored retirement chatter by tapping into the network of former Kennedy clerks, a group which includes Gorsuch himself. Some in the legal world viewed Gorsuch’s selection — he would be the first Supreme Court clerk to serve alongside a former boss — as an olive branch to Kennedy that, should he retire next, his seat would be in reliable presidential hands.
• Those close to Trump’s judicial-selection process stress that they’re not pressuring Kennedy to hang up his robe, only seeking to put him at ease.
• But as they wait for a decision they cannot control, White House officials have already set in motion plans to fill the more than 100 lower court vacancies, including more than 10 percent of the crucial seats on various U.S. Courts of Appeals, in a bid to tug America’s courts in a more conservative direction for decades to come.
• The Trump playbook for those lower court picks is hidden in plain sight.
• Trump took the unusual step on the campaign of producing a public list of 21 possible candidates for the Supreme Court. That pool of judicial talent — in particular younger judges serving on state Supreme Courts — are now the front-runners to fill top federal court vacancies, according to three people involved in Trump’s judge-selection process.
• “Funny how that happened,” said a person involved in Trump’s judicial selection process. “If they’re on a list of prospects for the Supreme Court, they’re sure as hell eligible for the Court of Appeals.”
• Beyond Gorsuch, Trump has so far made one other court selection and it fits the mold of promoting young judges from his campaign list. Trump elevated Amul Thapar, one of the four finalists whom he personally interviewed for the Supreme Court seat, from a federal district court judgeship to the Court of Appeals. Thapar is only 47.
• “There’s a method to the list,” said a senior White House official.
• While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems prepared to invoke the “nuclear option” this week to eliminate the filibuster in order to confirm Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Trump advisers are still wary of the coming fight over Kennedy’s seat. Gorsuch is replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a mainstay of the conservative bloc. Kennedy’s retirement would dramatically shift the political center of gravity on the court.
• Putting state-level judges on federal courts can make eventual elevation to the Supreme Court smoother, one of the Trump advisers noted. For highly regarded state Supreme Court justices, it puts them through the ringer of Senate confirmation once, including a thorough review of all the paperwork that could trip them up as a potential high court nominee.
• “It’s smart to push them through a Senate confirmation once,” the adviser said.
• More such court picks are already in the pipeline. “Some of those are in FBI background checks,” a second top-ranked White House aide said on Friday, a final step before getting nominated.
• While appellate court appointments get only a fraction of the attention given to Supreme Court nominees, they are the final arbiter for the vast majority of federal cases.
• “The Supreme Court only hears about 80 cases a year,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, himself a former state Supreme Court justice in Texas. “So where all the action is — is at the trial court and circuit court level. So it’s very important and we’re working hard with the administration to vet nominees for those courts right now.”
• Among those who could be in line for promotions are David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court, who could be headed to the 8th Circuit, Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court, who could fill one of the open seats on the 5th Circuit and Allison Eid of the Colorado Supreme Court, who is a top contender to take Gorsuch’s seat on the 10th Circuit, should he be confirmed.
• Two other judges that are particularly well-regarded by Trump’s advisers are Joan Larsen of the Michigan Supreme Court and Thomas Lee of the Utah Supreme Court, the brother of Sen. Mike Lee. There are no vacancies at the federal appellate courts in their states. But Trump advisers are tracking closely two Republican-appointed judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who could declare senior status this year, and thus open up slots on what is widely seen as the second most powerful court in the country.
• While picks are not yet final, a third person close to the selection process said of campaign’s list, “These are people partially vetted by the Trump campaign so there’s a certain degree of comfort. And if there’s vacancies in those seats, those would be the natural folks.”
• Officials involved in the court selections say that age is a huge factor is age for the lifetime appointments; the five judges above are all under 55. Neil Gorsuch is only 49.
• “He has a chance to put younger people that are going to be on there for 20 or 30 years,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.
• Two people involved in the search process said Trump’s team is especially interested in state-level legal talent, particularly solicitors general.
• One young potential judge is Scott Kellar, the solicitor general of Texas and a former adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz. He graduated from college in 2004 and clerked for Justice Kennedy in the term that ended in 2010. Another Texas former solicitor general in the running for an appointment is James Ho, a Gibson-Dunn attorney who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, served as chief counsel to Cornyn and is Asian-American.
• Democrats in the Senate seem intent on slowing Trump’s influence on the courts, including filibustering Gorsuch. President Obama, they note, had only 22 confirmed judges in the last two years of his term, including only two circuit-court judges. When Obama left office, he had more than 50 judges still pending in the Senate.
• While Democrats do not have the votes to block Trump nominees, they can withhold so-called “blue slips,” the century-old tradition of home-state senators approving judges representing their states. One Trump official said it’s possible that the White House could use holdover Obama appointees as bargaining chips for more speedily confirming Trump picks.
• Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike are readying for the biggest fight if and when Kennedy retires.
• Trump officials say the president does not feel constrained to pick a second Supreme Court justice from his campaign list, despite a September press release in which Trump said, “This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future Justices of the United States Supreme Court.”
• One new name percolating at the highest levels of Trump administration is Brett Kavanaugh, a 52-year old who has already served a decade on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
• That may not be an accident. He, too, is a former clerk of Justice Kennedy.

https://apple.news/Ar5ZtjS_XTqSZu8rMGTDIOw