From the WashingtonPost.com:

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

by Robert Barnes, Ed O’Keefe and Ann E. Marimow

Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch ended Thursday on a confrontational note, with the body’s top Democrat vowing a filibuster that could complicate Gorsuch’s expected confirmation and ultimately upend the traditional approach to approving justices.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.

In terms of the Senate, what does this mean for the nominee?

Under Senate rules, it requires 60 votes to overcome such an obstacle. Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch before their Easter recess — and before the court concludes hearing the current term of cases next month — have only 52 senators.

As we well know, there are 100 members in the Senate, two from each state. Having 52 Senators is a technical majority and, of course, the vote is splitting entirely by party lines. You’ve of course heard of the term “nuclear option.” Here is its application.

Republicans have vowed Gorsuch will be confirmed even if it means overhauling the way justices have long been approved. Traditionally, senators can force the Senate to muster a supermajority just to bring up the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. If that is reached, the confirmation requires a simple majority.

It’s a strategic question for the Demorats. What tactics to use and, more importantly, when?

There are also competing views among Democrats about whether to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination — which could provoke the Republican majority to rewrite the rules — or instead avoid confrontation and preserve the filibuster threat for the future. Retaining the filibuster could force Trump to select a relatively moderate nominee if in the coming years he gets a chance to replace a second Supreme Court justice.

Then comes the specious argument from the Washington Post, showing its bias by not telling the full truth.

Among recent Supreme Court nominees the 60-vote threshold has not caused a problem. President Barack Obama’s choices of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan each received more than 60 votes. Samuel A. Alito Jr., chosen by President George W. Bush, was confirmed 58-42 in 2006, but 72 senators voted to defeat a possible filibuster and allow his confirmation vote to go forward. Indeed, only Alito — among the last 16 Supreme Court nominees — was forced to clear the supermajority hurdle to break a filibuster.

Historically, the Republicans have proven they lack the balls, the testosterone, the cajones, to do what needs to be done. But, in truth, what are the overarching objections Demorats have to Judge Neil Gorsuch?

First and foremost, Demorats are butt-hurt that they lacked the power to ram through Obama SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland last year, at the end of Obama’s second term. They wanted lame-duck input into a SCOTUS appointment. Apparently they forgot the Joe Biden Rule:

The downplaying of the significance of the Democratic obstructionism exposes just whose side the media are on. They previously flipped out when Republicans used the Joe Biden Rule to put off the hearing of Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. The Joe Biden Rule states that: If a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court during a presidential election season, then the incoming President gets to fill the seat.

Then there was this question from the AMM in reference to the above video, at the latter portion of Barack Hussein Obama’s imperial presidency with regard to SCOTUS appointments.

The American Media Maggots would have you believe that a situation such as that of Garland had never occurred before in history. Historical Alzheimers? Purposeful? Intentional? I say yes.

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a president’s final year in office have been rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Then there are the words of Barack Hussein Obama himself.

We now know that the Biden Rule is acceptable for Demorats, unacceptable for Republicans (as utilized by Mitch McConnell).

I repeat: what are the major objections by the Demorats of Neil Gorsuch?

Because the left sees its power ebbing. Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, complained that “Judge Gorsuch’s record reveals [that] he holds radical views far outside the mainstream of American legal thought.” And ABC News reported that Obama’s former secretary of Labor, Tony Perez, said, “[s]imply put, a Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is intolerable and it’s up to Democrats to block his nomination.”

Good to know. ABC = signing off on whatever Pelosi says. But again, specifically, what are the so-called “radical” views?

They state the obvious:

Trump’s nominee, despite a Columbia, Harvard Law and Oxford pedigree, is committed to deferring to the wisdom of our Constitution. That 1787 document clearly spells out a short list of what government may do, and concludes with a broad list of what government may not do. The original U.S. Constitution chains down and forbids governmental action not included in its list of 17 enumerated powers. If an action is not authorized by the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, then the government may not do it. Period. Such a view reflects deference to the accumulated wisdom of the founders of our republic.

Sounds bad to you? Sounds good to me. Like a feature, not a bug.

Judge Gorsuch’s view is that judges should only interpret law, not make it. Making law is reserved for elected officials, who can be held accountable. If politicians make a mistake, they can correct it by a later vote. Judicial self-restraint also vindicates the principle of prudence. A judge going rogue, ecstatically inventing a new “positive right,” causes societal upheaval. Conservatives view innovation with great skepticism.

Even worse, from the leftist view, Judge Gorsuch implicitly recognizes the natural law. The natural law says that some things are not up for deciding. Euthanasia, for example, is evil because of the intrinsic worth of each person. A positive law inventing a new right to euthanasia may not be made. This is a recognition that an objective right and wrong exists, and has existed, across all times and cultures. It was the basis for convicting Nazis after World War II, as their state-approved acts were inherently evil.

Judge Gorsuch’s views that judges should only judge, and Congress should legislate, is entirely mainstream despite what Demorats and Leftists say. Judicial restraint was followed in England and the United States for 700 years. The alternative view that whatever a judge thinks is best is no standard at all. It is the very definition of tyranny.

A far-sighted anti-federalist judge, writing under the pen name “Brutus,” noted: “there is no power above them that can control their decisions, or correct their errors.” Let that sink for a moment and rattle around your wheelhouse.

He correctly predicted in 1788 that we would gradually lose our liberties due to Supreme Court justices’ temptation to extend government power.

There are positive vs negative rights with regard to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Please click on the link.

Our current Constitution frames government in terms of what it cannot do.

– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures;
– The government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various circumstances applied by the government.

Our current Constitution does not “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place onus upon the federal government to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE ONUS UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

Not by concession or acquiescence but by force.

Too many judges, federal and otherwise, believe it’s not about what the Constitution or various laws actually mean, it’s about what they mean.

The most recent egregious example is that of Hawaii’s Judge Watson who predicated his ruling on the Trump refugee stay not via the documents submitted and appearing before him, but instead upon words said outside the court by means of hearsay and of no pertinence at all to the very specific issue at hand before his court.

The documents. The words. The law.

Federal judges take and wield power not meant for them in order to impose their personal political views of how we all should conduct our lives. States cannot be independent or tailor their own changes. Oh no; one size must fit all and in all circumstances.

This is the bottom line:

Make no mitsake; the Demorats’ decision to filibuster is nothing more than political payback or revenge for McConnell daring to have an actual memory. Further, Schumer — the new Harry Reid for the Demorats — has to put on his Game Face in every national event now whether he believes in it or not because failure to do so will result in his immediate excommunication and loss of power. The DC Triumvirate:

• Power
• Control
• Money

Filibuster? Nuclear option?

BZ