Schumer: 'Virtually impossible' to reach deal on Gorsuch

[mystery-ak]

Schumer: 'Virtually impossible' to reach deal on Gorsuch
By Olivia Beavers - 03/30/17 07:32 PM EDT

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday it is "virtually impossible" for Democrats and Republicans to reach an agreement on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch before the upper chamber casts its votes.

“I don’t think they’ll be able to come to any kind of agreement,” Schumer told The Washington Post about the two parties striking a deal by next week to avoid a bitter showdown. “It’s virtually impossible.”

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326645-schumer-virtually-impossible-to-reach-deal-on-gorsuch

[Fishrrman]

You're settin' yourself up for a fall, lil' Chucky.
Do you and the rest of the democrat senators really want to risk the nuke option on Gorsuch?

Lose that option now, and you won't have it in your pocket any longer when Ginsburg's replacement gets nominated.

But.. the dems always overplay their hands.

Having said that, I'll reserve my worst vitriol for McConnell and the Senate Republicans, if they permit Schumer and his crowd to win on this.

If I was Trump, with the Gorsuch nomination stalled by filibuster and with the Pubbie Senate unwilling to do anything about it, I'd "recess appoint" Gorsuch at the first opportunity.

Recess appoint, without hearings, or ANY ability for the dems to stop it.
Let the 'rats and the media scream about that one.

If Judge Gorsuch was unwilling to accept such recess appointment, I'd be on the phone to the next name on the list. And the next, and so on.

Somewhere, there's to be found one or more conservative judges who'd be willing to accept a 2-year seat on the Supreme Court. Sure would look good on their resumes!

[Jazzhead]

McConnell did something unprecedented,  Fishrrman -  he kept the Senate from considering a SCOTUS candidate for nearly a year.    I doubt he'll allow a filibuster to stop this nominee.   

[Free Vulcan]

Schmucky Chucky is bluffing with a pair of 6's. If he wins it's all but pyrrhic, if he gets called he opens the door to a rash of losses.

[Hondo69]

Schmucky Chucky is bluffing with a pair of 6's. If he wins it's all but pyrrhic, if he gets called he opens the door to a rash of losses.

Sometimes nothing is a pretty cool hand.

It's pretty easy to bluff if you have 90% of the media in your back pocket.  Besides, I doubt winning is the point anyway.  The point seems to be to resist anything and everything.  When your fighting a revolution against The Man even a moral victory is still a victory.  Doesn't matter if your cutting the heads off parking meters or dropping to the ground and throwing a temper tantrum on the floor of the Senate.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sometimes nothing is a pretty cool hand.

It's pretty easy to bluff if you have 90% of the media in your back pocket.  Besides, I doubt winning is the point anyway.  The point seems to be to resist anything and everything.  When your fighting a revolution against The Man even a moral victory is still a victory.  Doesn't matter if your cutting the heads off parking meters or dropping to the ground and throwing a temper tantrum on the floor of the Senate.

The great thing about this for us is that while "resist" heavily motivates the base of the Democratic party, Schumer also knows that it is ultimately a losing strategy in the Senate.  But he's forced into it because the base demands no less.

A great deal of the power of the Senate is in its rules, such as the "holds" Senators can place on nominees, and bills, etc..  Those things have been respected by both parties because they haven't been generally abused.  But if the Dems decide to pull out all the stops and resists everything, the GOP may start getting rid of a bunch of those tools, and may be able to pass a lot of things that never could have been passed before.  So for the Democrats, they have to choose between appeasing their base, and trying to be effective.

[Doug Loss]

McConnell did something unprecedented,  Fishrrman -  he kept the Senate from considering a SCOTUS candidate for nearly a year.    I doubt he'll allow a filibuster to stop this nominee.

You don't know history, I guess.  Far from being unprecedented, refraining from accepting supreme court nominations during a president's final year in office has been the standard through the years, starting with John Quincy Adams.

[Jazzhead]

You don't know history, I guess.  Far from being unprecedented, refraining from accepting supreme court nominations during a president's final year in office has been the standard through the years, starting with John Quincy Adams.

That's interesting to know.  You don't happen to have a link, do you?   (It's OK if you don't, I take you at your word, but I'd be interested to read about it.)   

[Doug Loss]

That's interesting to know.  You don't happen to have a link, do you?   (It's OK if you don't, I take you at your word, but I'd be interested to read about it.)

No problem.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0214/SCOTUS-nominations-in-election-years-What-does-history-tell-us

[starstruck]

I hope the Senate Republicans have to use the "Nuclear Option". If the Dems retake the Senate and a Dem wins the presidency what difference does it make? The Republicans didn't use the filibuster on Ginsburg, Kagan or Sotomayor. Could they really put anyone more liberal than those three on SCOTUS?
Democrats established the cloture rule at 2/3 in 1917 and then changed it in 1975 to 60. It's time for Republicans to get in on the rule changing and make it a simple majority.

[don-o]

What is this deal blather?

You lost Chuckie.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What is this deal blather?

You lost Chuckie.

 

[Free Vulcan]

The great thing about this for us is that while "resist" heavily motivates the base of the Democratic party, Schumer also knows that it is ultimately a losing strategy in the Senate.  But he's forced into it because the base demands no less.

A great deal of the power of the Senate is in its rules, such as the "holds" Senators can place on nominees, and bills, etc..  Those things have been respected by both parties because they haven't been generally abused.  But if the Dems decide to pull out all the stops and resists everything, the GOP may start getting rid of a bunch of those tools, and may be able to pass a lot of things that never could have been passed before.  So for the Democrats, they have to choose between appeasing their base, and trying to be effective.

And I really hope Chucky tries to please the base.

[Jazzhead]

No problem.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0214/SCOTUS-nominations-in-election-years-What-does-history-tell-us

Thanks, DL!