Senate GOP Warns It May Go Nuclear If Dems Stand In Gorsuch’s Way

In this Friday, Jan. 27, 2017, photograph, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch makes a point while delivering prepared remarks before a group of attorneys at a luncheon in a legal firm in lower down... In this Friday, Jan. 27, 2017, photograph, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch makes a point while delivering prepared remarks before a group of attorneys at a luncheon in a legal firm in lower downtown Denver. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Even before Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch began to make the rounds to Capitol Offices on Wednesday afternoon in an attempt to win confirmation from the U.S. Senate, Democratic efforts to hold the line against him were underway.

Just after Gorsuch’s nomination was announced Tuesday night, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement that Democrats would demand 60 votes to confirm Gorsuch, a rare move on Supreme Court nominees and one that could set into motion the eradication of the filibuster for the Supreme Court.

Many Republicans on Wednesday chummily held the line that Gorsuch was so qualified that they weren’t sure Democrats would object to him. But others were candid about what may transpire if Democrats really do stand in the way of Gorsuch.

“Democrats have no problem voting against a conservative in any shape or form unless they are up for re-election in a red state,” said Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID). “We’ll get more than just the Republicans, I believe, but you’ll never get to 60.”

Risch said he thought Democrats would let a few of their rank-and-file who are up for re-election in red states vote “yes” on Gorsuch, but he was pretty convinced Democrats would try to hold the line.

“They can do 59 votes so they got the 10 that are in red states and they say ‘Okay, we can six of you off the hook. Who are the heroes.'” Risch said. “We’re going to do what we have to do. Just like they did, we’re going to do what we have to do to get him confirmed.”

Republicans’ option to “go nuclear” is shorthand for changing the rules on Supreme Court nominations so that nominees would only need 51 votes to be confirmed. Many Republicans seemed to hint that if Democrats played hardball or blocked Gorsuch, they’d go there.

When former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was in power in 2014, he invoked the so-called nuclear option to lower the vote threshold on other judicial nominees and Cabinet officials in order to push Obama’s nominees through—but not on Supreme Court nominees.

“I think it’s something that we have to consider. Harry Reid is the guy who broke the dam,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), long a defender of Senate rules, said. “We have to consider all things and I’ll look a lot to our leadership and our conference depending on what Democrats do.”

Democrats, meanwhile, feel the seat has been robbed from them. Former President Barack Obama tried to fill it last year, only to be rebuffed by Republicans who wouldn’t even hold a nomination hearing for his pick, Merrick Garland.

A handful of Democrats, including Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, already have said they will vote against Gorsuch. But Republicans warn that is a dangerous game to play.

President Donald Trump was already pressuring McConnell, a long time Senate rules traditionalists, to go for it.

“If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,’” Trump said on Wednesday.

The Senate’s No. 2, John Cornyn (R-TX), said he was going to withhold any judgements on what to do until the process began to unfold.

“I’m interested in Democrats voting up or down on the nominee,” Cornyn said. “I don’t think [the nuclear option] is going to be necessary.”

Latest DC
131
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Let them own it.

  2. Oh for Pete’s sake of course they would use the nuclear option. Who is not paying attention?

  3. Good. I can think of few better outcomes than an invocation of the “nuclear option.” That way, the odious filibuster rule is killed, but the republicans take the blame for its death. What is not to like?

  4. The only reason to maneuver to retain the filibuster rule is a belief that at some point in the future a filibuster would be successful against a Republican nomination. So, “we better let them have Gorsuch because something much worse might come down the pike later and we’ll want to be able to filibuster that.”

    We are way past that now. Republicans have zero interest in following any rules, or allowing any rule to stand in the way of their power grabs.

    THE FILIBUSTER IS A MYTH WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE IN POWER

    Let them “go nuclear”, let the press go nuts reporting on how Republicans “went nuclear” and “killed the filibuster”, and hope that sinks in a little bit before the time comes when Democrats are in power and Republicans can’t filibuster shit.

  5. Force them to go nuclear. Count the days that Obama’s pick sat without even committee hearings and publicize it everywhere. Slow walk the hearings and interviews until the candidate is exhausted. It’s a long time to the midterms so to heck with the “red state” consideration. Change the countdown days that the Republicans refused even committee hearings to justify your opposition. That is the reason for resistance–not conservative vs. liberal or GOP vs. Democrats. Play their game the hard way and not the easy way.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

125 more replies

Participants

Avatar for fgs Avatar for charliee Avatar for clunkertruck Avatar for mymy Avatar for mames5 Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for trnc Avatar for becca656 Avatar for inversion Avatar for mantan Avatar for taters Avatar for mike_in_houston Avatar for maxaroo Avatar for neal_anderthal Avatar for new10 Avatar for jeffrey Avatar for califdemdreamer Avatar for bd2999 Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for tena Avatar for clauscph Avatar for tiowally Avatar for polisong Avatar for katscherger

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: