60 vote super-majority

[rlvaughn]

The reporting on Neil Gorsuch, the Democratic filibuster and the Republican nuclear option seems to be saying that it requires a 60-vote super-majority to approve a judge. Yet in 1991 Clarence Thomas was confirmed with a 52-48 majority. Is this rule not as long-standing as it has been claimed? Is that misrepresented? Or is it maybe misrepresented in another way -- as in it takes a 60-vote super-majority to break the filibuster rather than confirm the judge? Hoping someone is up on this, as opposed to my having to wade through much muck in order to figure it out.

Thanks.

 

[carpro]

Democrats asked for it. They got it.

Democrats did not invoke the cloture rule (60 vote filibuster) with Thomas. They allowed it to go to a vote.

The reason: Likely because Thomas is black and they didn't want to be seen as blocking his confirmation.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks. That is what I thought, but many reporters report it as if the fact of having 60 votes in favor of nominee is what is at issue (rather than to stop the filibuster).

 

[777]

That other thread on this subject took a dive, but here is a little background on the filibuster for judicial nominees:

How 52 Senators Made 60 = 51

Gtg, but I still think was an unforced error on the part of the Democrats - they escalated it to this point by, when they thought Hillary would win and they'd get the Senate, trotted out Tim Kaine to say they WOULD go nuclear in a heartbeat:

"If these guys think guys think they are going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy, or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say we're not going to let you thwart the law," he told The Huffington Post.

The historic move would let Supreme Court nominees bypass a current 60-vote procedural requirement and be approved by a simple majority.

So what other choice did Mitch have? If he didn't go nuclear, he'd look like a chump and enrage the base, but if the Democrats had just confirmed Gorsach and held off for the next vacancy, they would have leverage in spades. Instead, they were going to try to stop any Trump appointee from all accounts and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Brent W]

Instead, they were going to try to stop any Trump appointee from all accounts and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

They had no delusions that this would stop his appointment. They did it to rally their base and to put Republicans in the spot to have to use the nuclear option. It is easy to roll with momentum when you have been handed decent victories like the Democrats have with Healthcare and the Travel ban. Especially on an unpopular President with multiple investigations over his administration currently.

I don't see how anyone who isn't completely biased can look at the Republican party and see this as a good thing for them going forward. I see the Democrats getting at least the White House back in 2020. 2018 is a bit iffy for the House. Now the Democrats don't have to change anything and the next time they get the White House, should a spot or two open up, they can almost push their will on the nation.

 

[777]

I still don't see your point here, Brent - if the Democrats knew they couldn't stop Gorsach, why didn't they cave anyways and approve him? Unless there is other vacancy while Trump is in office, it's a bad strategy because there are at least three judges that may not make it through Trump's first term. THAT nominee could have been filibustered and the Democrats could have pointed to approving Gorsach and said "but not this one".

There are no real victories with the travel ban and healthcare, they are going have to deal with Obamacare sooner rather than later and the travel ban now will be okayed by SCOTUS for sure, now.

I think it would have been ruled constitutional by the existing court NOW but with Gorsach there, I'm sure it will. And who do you think is on the bench to take out Trump in 2020? Sanders? Warren? No, they will be too old and they don't have what it would take to take out a sitting POTUS. Even if they do get the presidency that year, they were going to go nuclear on these nominations this year and they will then. Kaine should have NEVER said that.

 

[Brent W]

I still don't see your point here, Brent - if the Democrats knew they couldn't stop Gorsach, why didn't they cave anyways and approve him?

It is simple, because their base did not want them to. They wanted to force the Republicans to strip away a rule that they themselves more than likely wanted gone. Now they get to please their base by standing up to Trump's appointee and at the same time they only need 51 votes next time they regain the White House if a Supreme Court spot or two opens up. They don't even have to be the bad guys to go Nuclear either.

You seem to have everything figured out as far as what will happen in the future though, so I will leave you to it. I disagree completely about 2020. Time will tell.

 

[InTheLight]

Seems obvious to me that both sides wanted a simple majority for court appointments going forward.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

[Calminian]

It is simple, because their base did not want them to. They wanted to force the Republicans to strip away a rule that they themselves more than likely wanted gone. Now they get to please their base by standing up to Trump's appointee and at the same time they only need 51 votes next time they regain the White House if a Supreme Court spot or two opens up. They don't even have to be the bad guys to go Nuclear either.....

Actually, the Republicans could change the rules again in 2020 and reinstate the filibuster rule before a new Dem president takes office. If Republicans still hold a slight majority, they could block SC nominees for years if they choose.

Republicans did exactly the right thing and there's nothing wrong with confirming judges with a simple majority.

And hopefully, by 2020 you'll start supporting the pro-life cause and vote for pro-life candidates.