Help me understand what happened in the US Senate today

[Jersey mike]

Ok, so politics aside I am respectively asking those who have a better understanding of policy and procedures in the Senate to explain what happened regarding the Neil Gorsuch nomination.

I've been trying to follow along, I watched (most of) the hearings but have not been able to see the debates.

The Senators keep pointing fingers saying it's the fault of either party going back many years but today it seems a door has been opened which we may regret.

What I'm trying to grasp is what exactly happened by "going nuclear" and what repercussions it may cause in the years to come.

I'm hoping this won't turn into political finger pointing, we had enough of that for the election, I'm just looking for a clear understanding of the events so I can come to my own conclusion which may impact how the Senate will operate from now on.

Thanks,

Mike

[Serk]

From my understanding:

It takes 60 votes out of the 100 in the senate to stop a filibuster.

During the Obama regime the Democrats in the senate had a simple majority, but not the 60 vote super majority to override a veto, and the Republicans were stopping many of Obama's appointments using this, so the Democrats used their simple majority to change the senate rules allowing non-SCOTUS appointments to be voted on with a simple majority, not needing the 60 vote super majority threshold, and them proceeded to pack the courts with Obama appointed judges.

Now the Republicans have a simple majority but not a super majority, and because they didn't get their way with the SCOTUS appointee Merrick Garland the Democrats filibustered Justice Gorsuch's nomination, so the Republicans used the same maneuver that the Democrats used last time, but this time made it include SCOTUS appointees so that they can install Justice Gorsuch to the SCOTUS using a simple majority vote.

The Democrats, I'm sure are regretting invoking the "nuclear option" during Obama, just as the Republicans will regret invoking it the next time there is a Democrat occupying the White House and they use it against the Republicans.

Clear as mud?

[Alpha Dog]

What happened is in  effect the Senate has now went back to the same rules they had in 2003 before Harry Reid had them changed.

[old2soon]

In simple terms "they"  they being our elected officials-still Do NOT have the best interest of those that elected them-US-at heart!   The term DUMB ASSES comes immediately to mind.   RIDE SAFE.

[RainMaker]

In simple terms "they"  they being our elected officials-still Do NOT have the best interest of those that elected them-US-at heart!   The term DUMB ASSES comes immediately to mind.   RIDE SAFE.

You got that right.  Time for these fat bastards to stop being Democrats and Republicans and start being Americans, doing their jobs for their constituents, not their party, PACs and super donors.

[The emperor has no clothes]

What happened is in  effect the Senate has now went back to the same rules they had in 2003 before Harry Reid had them changed.

Not so. Serk explained it pretty well.

[Moonshot_1]

Got this off of the Fox News site. Very good explanation of the process that just occurred and is still on going at this time. A bit long but really easy to understand. Kind of anyway.

So what exactly is the nuclear option?

In short, it’s an extreme parliamentary maneuver to change the Senate precedent and lower the bar to break a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee from 60 votes to 51 votes.

Here’s how this will likely go down over the course of Thursday and Friday:

McConnell filed cloture to end debate on Gorsuch’s nomination Tuesday. By rule, a cloture petition to break a filibuster “ripens” two days later. The Senate then automatically takes a vote to halt debate (known as “invoking cloture”) one hour after the Senate meets.

This will happen Thursday.

It is the current precedent of the Senate to require 60 yeas to stop debate. The problem for Senate Republicans is they only have 52 members. Four Democrats will vote with the GOP to end debate: Sens. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Joe Donnelly, D-Ind. The latter three will also vote to confirm Gorsuch. However, Bennet, who co-introduced Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing, has not said if he will vote to confirm Gorsuch. Bennet has only said he will vote to break the filibuster.

So, Republicans are four votes shy of ending the filibuster. This is where the nuclear option comes in.

The cloture vote itself will likely fail, ostensibly blocking Gorsuch’s nomination from going to confirmation. But this is the key place for McConnell to attempt to change the precedent. Expect McConnell to switch his vote on the cloture tally from yea to nay so he can be on the “prevailing side” (in this case, the nays). That gives McConnell the right to ask for a revote.

That only needs 51 yeas. Then McConnell can make a motion for the Senate to revote the failed cloture vote. Again, this just needs a majority vote.

Now the Senate is back on the cloture vote. Nothing is debatable at this point. In other words, the Senate can’t extend matters by talking.

This is where McConnell drops the bomb.

McConnell will likely raise a point of order that “the vote on cloture under Rule 22 for all nominations to the Supreme Court is by a majority vote.”

The presiding officer, upon advice from the parliamentarian, will likely rule against McConnell. The officer will cite the Senate’s established precedent of 60 votes, not 51, to break a filibuster. The officer will then declare that the “point of order is not sustained.”

But this is where the Senate can establish a new precedent. McConnell will then ask the Senate to vote to overrule the presiding officer. Expect some fancy language like “Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?”

Another roll call vote starts. In this case, Republicans will vote nay, as they don’t want the chair’s ruling to stand. They are voting to establish a new precedent. In other words, the noes must prevail to set a new standard.

And that’s the nuclear option. There’s a new precedent.

Then, at some point later Thursday the Senate will take a new vote to invoke cloture and finish debate on the Gorsuch nomination. They’ll just need a simple majority to invoke cloture under the new precedent.

By rule, opponents of an issue get 30 hours of debate following cloture. That means the Senate likely has to wait until Friday night to get to a final confirmation vote.

[Robert]

It would normally take 51 to pass but because of filibuster the rules change to 60 that is the reason the Dems had to notify that they were going to filibuster. Repubs have enough votes to pass on a majority but not when filibuster rules are in play. This is the first and last time this can be used. The real reason is little people upset that Obama was not allowed to pick instead of Trump.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It would normally take 51 to pass but because of filibuster the rules change to 60 that is the reason the Dems had to notify that they were going to filibuster. Repubs have enough votes to pass on a majority but not when filibuster rules are in play. This is the first and last time this can be used. The real reason is little people upset that Obama was not allowed to pick instead of Trump.

Little people ?  ???

[Alpha Dog]

What happened is in  effect the Senate has now went back to the same rules they had in 2003 before Harry Reid had them changed.

Not so. Serk explained it pretty well.

What Serk talked about is true.  I am talking about something completely different.  It was the time honored non filibustering of any court appointment in the entire history of our country up until Chucky and Harry in 2003.

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=652

[fudgie]

It would normally take 51 to pass but because of filibuster the rules change to 60 that is the reason the Dems had to notify that they were going to filibuster. Repubs have enough votes to pass on a majority but not when filibuster rules are in play. This is the first and last time this can be used. The real reason is little people upset that Obama was not allowed to pick instead of Trump.

Little people ?  ???

The ones under 5'2" 

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

It would normally take 51 to pass but because of filibuster the rules change to 60 that is the reason the Dems had to notify that they were going to filibuster. Repubs have enough votes to pass on a majority but not when filibuster rules are in play. This is the first and last time this can be used. The real reason is little people upset that Obama was not allowed to pick instead of Trump.

Little people ?  ???

The ones under 5'2" 

LOL   

[Jess from VA]

It may turn bad for conservatives in the future, but I want Gorsuch on the Court now (or any good constitutionalist non-radical leftist judge will do).  He will likely serve from 20 to 30 years, so his good and rational judicial temperament could easily outlast a conservative majority in our G.  

Now we need Ginsburg to leave or die as soon as possible.  So we can do it again.

SCOTUS appointments may be more important than anything else we get out of our G, short or long term.

If the Democrats had anything of value other than obstructionism against a good solid honest judge, I would be happy to hear any actual merits of their argument or filibuster.  But they don't.    

This is America, today.  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield

[The emperor has no clothes]

It would normally take 51 to pass but because of filibuster the rules change to 60 that is the reason the Dems had to notify that they were going to filibuster. Repubs have enough votes to pass on a majority but not when filibuster rules are in play. This is the first and last time this can be used. The real reason is little people upset that Obama was not allowed to pick instead of Trump.

Little people ?  ???

The ones under 5'2" 

got it 

[The emperor has no clothes]

It may turn bad for conservatives in the future, but I want Gorsuch on the Court now (or any good constitutionalist non-radical leftist judge).  He will likely serve from 20 to 30 years, so his good and rational judicial temperament could easily outlast a conservative majority in our G.  

Now we need Ginsburg to leave or die as soon as possible.  So we can do it again.

SCOTUS appointments may be more important than anything else we get out of our G, short or long term.

This is America, today.  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield

Damn Jess. I understand you don't like her politics. But wishing for her quick death. 

[Jess from VA]

It may turn bad for conservatives in the future, but I want Gorsuch on the Court now (or any good constitutionalist non-radical leftist judge).  He will likely serve from 20 to 30 years, so his good and rational judicial temperament could easily outlast a conservative majority in our G.  

Now we need Ginsburg to leave or die as soon as possible.  So we can do it again.

SCOTUS appointments may be more important than anything else we get out of our G, short or long term.

This is America, today.  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield

Damn Jess. I understand you don't like her politics. But wishing for her quick death. 

Her, and any Judge like her.

[Serk]

The ones under 5'2" 

Don't you mean under 6'2"?

Damn Jess. I understand you don't like her politics. But wishing for her quick death. 

Her, and any Judge like her.

And when their time comes they should have "Sic semper tyrannis" engraved on their tombstones.

[Pappy!]

A Supreme Court Justice is not supposed to practice politics.....at all.  
Politics are not what they are on the Court for.  

[3fan4life]

The ones under 5'2" 

Don't you mean under 6'2"?

Damn Jess. I understand you don't like her politics. But wishing for her quick death. 

Her, and any Judge like her.

And when their time comes they should have "Sic semper tyrannis" engraved on their tombstones.

Why do you want to drag us Virginian's into this?

[baldo]

It may turn bad for conservatives in the future, but I want Gorsuch on the Court now (or any good constitutionalist non-radical leftist judge will do).  He will likely serve from 20 to 30 years, so his good and rational judicial temperament could easily outlast a conservative majority in our G.  

Now we need Ginsburg to leave or die as soon as possible.  So we can do it again.

SCOTUS appointments may be more important than anything else we get out of our G, short or long term.

If the Democrats had anything of value other than obstructionism against a good solid honest judge, I would be happy to hear any actual merits of their argument or filibuster.  But they don't.    

This is America, today.  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield

Jess,

I may not always have agreed with your positions on different topics, but I've always respected your views as intelligent and well-thought out.

But to make a statement like that about Ginsberg.....WAY OVER THE LINE!

I don't know what to think about Gorsuch, but based on how they got him in, I'm not enthused.

After what McConnell pulled with Garland, then to pull this??!! I hope the day comes when we can shove that nuclear option right up his ass and detonate it.

[Cyclejohn]

Now we need Ginsburg to leave or die as soon as possible.
  

But to make a statement like that about Ginsberg.....WAY OVER THE LINE!

 I hope the day comes when we can shove that nuclear option right up his ass and detonate it.

A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet?   

John

[Gavin_Sons]

It would normally take 51 to pass but because of filibuster the rules change to 60 that is the reason the Dems had to notify that they were going to filibuster. Repubs have enough votes to pass on a majority but not when filibuster rules are in play. This is the first and last time this can be used. The real reason is little people upset that Obama was not allowed to pick instead of Trump.

Little people ?  ???

The ones under 5'2" 

Don't talk about our little friend Gordon like that. 

[Gavin_Sons]

It may turn bad for conservatives in the future, but I want Gorsuch on the Court now (or any good constitutionalist non-radical leftist judge will do).  He will likely serve from 20 to 30 years, so his good and rational judicial temperament could easily outlast a conservative majority in our G.  

Now we need Ginsburg to leave or die as soon as possible.  So we can do it again.

SCOTUS appointments may be more important than anything else we get out of our G, short or long term.

If the Democrats had anything of value other than obstructionism against a good solid honest judge, I would be happy to hear any actual merits of their argument or filibuster.  But they don't.    

This is America, today.  http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield

Jess,

I may not always have agreed with your positions on different topics, but I've always respected your views as intelligent and well-thought out.

But to make a statement like that about Ginsberg.....WAY OVER THE LINE!

I don't know what to think about Gorsuch, but based on how they got him in, I'm not enthused.

After what McConnell pulled with Garland, then to pull this??!! I hope the day comes when we can shove that nuclear option right up his ass and detonate it.

You are not enthused about someone upholding the constitution the way it was written? You're not enthused about someone protecting your rights instead of stomping on them? I guess you would rather have someone take all of your rights away and tell you how to live your life?

[Serk]

You are not enthused about someone upholding the constitution the way it was written? You're not enthused about someone protecting your rights instead of stomping on them? I guess you would rather have someone take all of your rights away and tell you how to live your life?

No, you misunderstand. Liberals want THEIR rights protected, they want "That other guy"'s rights taken away. They want to decide how to live their own lives, but they want to tell "That other guy" how to live THEIR life.

Subtle difference...

[baldo]

Here we go.........

[Serk]

Here we go.........

Don't worry, modern conservatives want the same thing, just different people and different rights...

That's why I like Judge Gorsuch, he has a history of protecting BOTH sides from each other...

[baldo]

Here we go.........

Don't worry, modern conservatives want the same thing, just different people and different rights...

That's why I like Judge Gorsuch, he has a history of protecting BOTH sides from each other...

I hope you're right, Serk. The last thing we need is another Scalia or Thomas. I've got absolutely no problem with someone that works both sides equally. We don't need another fiercely pro-corporation judge on the bench, for instance.

[Serk]

Here we go.........

Don't worry, modern conservatives want the same thing, just different people and different rights...

That's why I like Judge Gorsuch, he has a history of protecting BOTH sides from each other...

I hope you're right, Serk. The last thing we need is another Scalia or Thomas. I've got absolutely no problem with someone that works both sides equally. We don't need another fiercely pro-corporation judge on the bench, for instance.

We need someone who fiercely protects the constitution.

Then we need 8 more that fiercely protect the constitution.

Period.

The end.

[MP]

Saw the perfect post, explaining liberals view of the Court. He was upset about Gorsuch, because

"He won't give women equal rights".

It is not the job of judges, to "give" anyone, anything. Libs think it is.

It is their job to decide what the law or Constitution says.

If you want something, go to Congress to get the law changed, not judges.

Liberal, and their judges, want judges to make law.