Pages

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

How rare are Supreme Court nominee Filibusters?

Well to be blunt... there has never been a successful filibuster of any Supreme Court Nominee. If the Democrats were to muster the 41 votes necessary to block the up or down vote on Gorsuch, it would be literally the first time in American History that such a move was implemented.

There have been thirty unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees. One was eventually renominated and confirmed. Twelve have been rejected on their up and down vote. Seven have been withdrawn. Five saw "no action" on the nominations. Three others were postponed (and never confirmed). The final two were nullified.


While many bemoan the fact that "no action" was taken on Merrick Garland, this has precedent. Stanley Matthews was nominated in the final year of President Hayes, and the Senate never took action. Edward Bradford was another nominee who was nominated late in the term of President Fillmore, and not taken up by the Senate.

Quite literally there is little reason to oppose Neil Gorsuch on any test of competency, intelligence, distinguished service, or anything objective. Judge Gorsuch has consistently received the highest rating for his judicial career.

The only reason to oppose Gorsuch is political and ideological. As a fairly strict constitutionalist, Gorsuch will not likely be joining the liberal voting bloc very often (if at all). At a time where the American left is relying more and more on the courts to achieve political victories that they cannot achieve through referendums or governing actions... having a liberal Supreme court becomes more and more necessary.

The left saw the chance to replace Scalia with a fifth liberal Justice, likely changing the balance of power at the high court level. That chance evaporated when Garland was not given a hearing or vote. Now it looks inevitable that Gorsuch will replace Scalia, and that the next nomination likely changes the balance of the court even further right. The filibuster is an emotional political move that reeks of desperation and frustration. For all practical purposes, it's nothing more than a giant group temper tantrum.

12 comments:

Roger Amick said...

Although I differ with him, he is qualified. Better than most. I suspect that he won't be as conservative as you would expect.

opie said...

Let them vote!!!

rrb said...

The filibuster is an emotional political move that reeks of desperation and frustration. For all practical purposes, it's nothing more than a giant group temper tantrum.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


precisely, but as a method to deal with and placate the liberal base it is entirely necessary. emotionally and psychologically, liberals are children. mostly at the toddler level. so as with any toddler, you let them throw a tantrum and cry it out. this is what schumer is faced with. he has to appear to oppose gorsuch, and the only acceptable form of opposition to a liberal with the mind of a child is the filibuster - a perfect substitute for a temper tantrum.

KD said...

I want them to follow Cuckold Schmucker and that little indian dumb bitch from Mass and do it.

Make as big a stink and do as Hillary/Bill/Obama told you to do, resist.

Then when 52 Republican Senators Confirm him, your team of Radical wigged out liberals have no one to blame when the next USSC Nominee is made by President Trump and Confirmed with just 51.

I want this, please , do not grow up Liberals , not now , stay true to form, put on your baby diaper pins, you pussy hats, your ribbons and go for it.

wphamilton said...

The filibuster is just one of the parliamentary tools available to the minority party to implement their agenda, and is no more disreputable than any other. They have an obligation to their constituents to do everything possible to defeat unacceptable appointments.

Wasn't this your attitude when the Republicans were blocking Judicial nominations? Weren't you fully willing, at the time, to accept the same treatment when the shoe was, inevitably, on the other foot? As I recall, you were fine with it except that they should actually filibuster, old school speechifying, which is a reasonable requirement. What's changed now, to change your opinion?

Personally, I didn't like the filibustering then, and I don't now. Finish the discussion and debate, have a vote. On the other hand, if you nuke the filibuster now, don't even think about complaining post-Trump when you can't stop a nomination with 41 votes.

Loretta Russo said...

Nuke it.

Liberals have already set precedent...

Now that Trump has a pen and a phone, if Congress won't act he will.

Tough crap liberals - we're playing by your damn rules.

KD said...

Exactly

C.H. Truth said...

Where this eventually looks as if this is going, WP... is that a Party will have to control both the White House and the Senate to get a Supreme Court Justice confirmed. Or Presidents will have to nominate someone that actually can garner votes on both sides of the aisle. That would be a steep steep climb in this time.

Both Sotomayor and Kagan were voted through with support from both sides, in spite of not being what conservatives/Republicans wanted... But I have to wonder if those were the end of the line. (or if Republicans are just more apt to play along than Democrats).


I guess for me... if you look at those who saw this as an important issue, Donald Trump overwhelmingly won those voters. It seems to me that if you are to give any respect to the voters who voted Trump in, considering that nearly everyone believes Gorsuch is about as good as can be expected... that some latitude here would be good.

But I simply believe that things are becoming increasingly partisan. A bad future sign for Democrats imho - for no other reason than they need crossover voters who split their tickets to win a majority in the Senate. There are simply more red state Senate seats then blue seat Senate seats. By a significant margin.

Loretta Russo said...

"A bad future sign for Democrats imho - for no other reason than they need crossover voters who split their tickets to win a majority in the Senate."

Not going to happen.

Indy Voter said...

Garland.

Loretta Russo said...

Big deal.

KD, Winning is fun as hell over liberals said...

What is a Garland, it that the thing you use to loss elections?

IS that what was hung around Hillary's neck?

#INdyvoterNOMORE