Image 01 Image 03

Senate Republican’s exercise Nuclear Option on Gorsuch Nomination

Senate Republican’s exercise Nuclear Option on Gorsuch Nomination

Confirmation vote should take place on Friday around 7PM EST.

The Senate Republicans used the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster on Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Senate now has 30 hours to debate before the confirmation vote, which should take place on Friday at 7PM EST.

The Senate voted 55-45 to end the debate with three Democrats voting yes: Donnelly (IN), Heitkamp (ND), and Manchin (WV).

With this change, a Supreme Court nominee can receive confirmation with a simple majority instead of 60 votes.

PLEASE REMEMBER: As much as the left spins it, the nuclear option is NOT a rule change. All it does is provide a change in Senate PRECEDENT.

Also remember that former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) started this nuclear procedure in 2013 concerning lower court nominees.

12:50PM: The Senate breaks the filibuster on Gorsuch, 55-45. Three Democrats voted yes: Donnelly, Manchin, Heitkamp. This limits the debate to 30 hours. Confirmation vote will take place on Friday at 7PM EST.

12:27PM: Vote on nuclear option went down the party line 52-48. Sets new precedent. Now voting to end the debate. Just needs simple majority. If this happens the Senate can debate for 30 hours.

12:18PM: Nuclear option vote going on now. This would change the precedent and lower the bar to break filibusters for SCOTUS nominations:

12:00PM: McConnell takes the next steps for the nuclear option by raising point of order there should be simple majority to break the filibuster. Chair rules against him. Schumer asks for motion to adjourn until 5PM

11:50AM: Senate voting on Schumer’s request to move the revote to April 24 at 3PM

11:45AM: Senate needed 60 votes to end the filibuster. Only got 55 yeas.

Chad Pergram of Fox News explains the Nuclear Option:

11:35AM: Taking a vote to reconsider the cloture vote.

11:30AM: The Senate did not get 60 yeas. Now time for the nuclear option.

11:20AM: 41 no votes, which means the Democrats succeeded. The GOP will move to the nuclear option.

11AM: Senate now voting to end debate on Gorsuch.

Important to remember: These do not change the rules of the Senate:

They will be establishing a rules precedent under which the Senate will now operate. It’s a technical but important distinction. Changing the Senate rules requires a super majority while changing precedents only requires a simple majority.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed,
vs one for Gorsuch out of 2,700 opinions

So what is the definition of qualified?

    snopercod in reply to Joe-dallas. | April 6, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Definition of qualified? Oh, that would be “one of us” to the democrats.

    BillyHW in reply to Joe-dallas. | April 6, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    But is he a wise latina? Hmmmm?

      Ragspierre in reply to BillyHW. | April 6, 2017 at 2:18 pm

      Sure. According to the latest Collectivist meme on gender and race, he can be a wise Latina very Thursday, and a Chinese gay guy with transgender issues on every Saturday with an odd-numbered date.

      I mean…why the hell not? According to some, he’d be a better judge for it, too…!!!

Why call it the “nuclear option”?

Call it the “Reid Option.” That is more informative, and is historically accurate.

    I’m assuming you were being sarcastic, but I’ll do a brief response anyway:

    Calling it the “nuclear option” exists because it means that the parties have had the complete and total destruction of the supposed collegiality that was to exist in the US Senate. The idea was that in that deliberative body, the parties would be able to generate a consensus that was based on what was good for the entire state represented by the two Senators, and that those Senators would have natural alliances with states surrounding their enclaves.

    That has devolved as individual states have become more and more polarized politically (California and Illinois, Washington and Oregon being exclusively Democrat controlled states, Texas, Oklahoma, and the South East United States being almost exclusively Republican Controlled States).

    The idea was that these Senate individuals would be able to see what the parochial concerns of the US House were, and would be able to more fully explore if those actions were good for the United States as a whole.

    The Republicans considered doing this when the Democrat members decided to block President Bush’s Judicial nominees. It was called “the nuclear option” by then minority party member Democrats, because they threatened to filibuster ALL actions of the US Senate FOREVER, basically making every available item require 60 votes (meaning nothing would ever get done).

    Once Harry Reid was in the Majority Leader position, he decided that he no longer wanted to hear the minority party (now the Republicans) concerns on Judicial nominees, so he pulled the trigger (exposing his hypocrisy). The Republicans, being spineless, refused to hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire on it, but warned of DIRE consequences should the Republican party gain control of the Senate (as happened in the following election cycle, largely in part due to Reid’s removing the Judicial Filibuster as an available tool in moderating the nominees).

Since Gorsuch looks at the text of the law and doesn’t let feelings into the equation, it will be amusing when he goes with the Ds on some of the SCOTUS opinions. They will have squandered the nuclear option for nothing.

The Rs will squeal about these decisions, but here’s hoping that Congress will finally look at what they write as a law.

One consequence of the nuclear option, intended or not, is that we can no longer afford the luxury of sitting out an election or voting ‘PRESENT’. There is no longer any buffer. Every seat matters.

    UnCivilServant in reply to VaGentleman. | April 6, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    I vote against Schumer every time he’s on the ballot. Chuck refuses to go away.

    Same Same in reply to VaGentleman. | April 6, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    If this is another attempt to rally votes for candidates whose only qualification is that they are not as bad as the Democrat, well then, my response is the same. I won’t vote for a McCain, and neither should anyone else.

      VaGentleman in reply to Same Same. | April 6, 2017 at 9:34 pm

      The first democratic elections were held in Athens about 2,700 years ago. I defy you to find an election since then in which 2 perfect candidates competed against each other. Every election is about choosing the better qualified / less unqualified candidate. You say you wouldn’t vote for McCain. Then please tell me how letting Obama win was better for conservativism and the country. Please explain how Hillary would have been better than Trump. If you can’t do that, please explain what is to be gained by your choice.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | April 6, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    This is the same T=rump sucking idiot who calls people who won’t join his cult “cowards” and “traitors”, while equating principled Constitutional Conservatives with ISIS and the Taliban.

    The only thing that matters is the color of the jersey, forgetting that the Progressives Nixon, T. Roosevelt, and Hoover all wore the right colored jersey…while being solidly ANTI-conservative. Like Der Donald.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | April 6, 2017 at 10:45 pm

      You are the same extreme cultist who called on everyone to ‘vote your conscience’ in the election and now calls them names and condemns them for doing so. It’s obvious that your critics were right when we said that ‘vote your conscience’ was code for ‘don’t vote Trump’. It’s also obvious that you don’t respect, or allow, any opinion but your own. You’re right that I equate YOU with ISIS and the Taliban, not because of conservative principles, but because of the extremism you bring to them. Jefferson wrote, “for here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” A true conservative welcomes diverse opinions, but not you. You allow no one to deviate from the path you have chosen for us. When we do vote our conscience we hear: T-Rump sucker, collectivist thug, lying piece of shit and a host of other insults designed to kill debate and discussion and begin the process of ‘othering’ the opposition. This is how you express your love of free speech.

      Extremists try to hide behind some cloak of respectability. Westboro Baptist tries to hide behind Christianity as Christian Extremists. They are not. A Christian extremist takes the principles of Christianity to the extreme – like Mother Theresa did. WB are just extremists trying to hide their hatred behind the language of Christianity, and smearing Christianity in the process. You self proclaim as a ‘principled Constitutional Conservatives’, but it’s just talk. When it comes time to grant others the respect and freedom of thought the constitution and conservativism are built on, you call them names. You ‘other’ them as not worthy – collectivists, sack of shit, and so on. You talk the talk, but that’s all. You don’t have the courage to allow them to be different and deal with them respectfully. Your ‘principle’ is that you’re right and everyone else needs to fall in line. And as with WB, you smear that which you claim to represent.

buckeyeminuteman | April 6, 2017 at 12:08 pm

I understand the political victory in changing the rules right now. However, maybe that’s what wrong with American politics. You can just make up the rules as you go and don’t have to live with the consequences of your decisions.

Going nuclear was good for Reid then and it’s good for McConnell now, but Republicans aren’t going to be in power forever.

    There’s nothing that says McConnell (or some future Senate Majority Leader) can’t change ALL of this back following any future loss of the Senate during the “lame duck” period after a future election.

    Basically say “ok, we tried this non-filibuster of Judicial Nominations thing for a while, with Harry Reid starting it, and I made it applicable to all Judicial nominations. Now it’s time for us all to be statesmen again. We’re putting it back in place. If the incoming Democrat controlled Senate wants to remove it again, that is their CHOICE, but they should be reminded exactly how badly it ended for them when they removed it before.”

    It doesn’t really change things that much since Republicans never attempt to filibuster Democrat SCOTUS nominees in the first place.

    Since Democrats have already stated they would eliminate the filibuster altogether if they gained power, well, why not do what they announced they were going to do?


    Not big enough:


    There is nothing now stopping President Trump from nominating an ULTRA-Conservative when Kennedy retires, or Notorious RBG or Breyer drops dead on the bench.

Pleasant surprise, but McConnell seems to be holding his team together — unlike Ryan.

We could solve many problems by repealing the 17th Amendment.

Pelosi Schmelosi | April 6, 2017 at 2:02 pm

I’m going to need a bigger popcorn maker!


Theoretically I’d like to return to the days where the Senate’s function was effectively to confirm that the judge was qualified, but that’s not happening. Democratic zealotry stole Bork’s seat from us, and now we’re getting it back. I would also argue Souter got on the court because Bush was terrified of a failed nomination. With this, GOP presidents can be just as bold as the Democrats in their picks. Here’s hoping Trump gets to replace Kennedy and one of the liberals before leaving office.

    I’m actually hoping for Kennedy, and TWO liberals on the bench.

    Notorious RBG is in failing health: at 84 she is the oldest member of the Court, has had 2 known different forms of Cancer (Colon and Pancreatic), and a heart stent. She’s said that she want’s to remain on the bench as long as she remains mentally sharp, and has a goal of serving at least to the age that Justice Stevens did before he retired at age 90. My guess is that she’s not going to make it that long. If you look at the more recent pictures of her, she’s looking more and more worn around the edges, even compared to pictures from a few years ago.

    Justice Breyer is much less likely to have an issue with remaining throughout a full Trump Presidency, but it is possible. At age 78, he’s starting to get to the age where issues will begin to arise, but as of now he has no known health issues.

      [RGB]’s said that she want’s to remain on the bench as long as she remains mentally sharp….

      It’s pretty much a given that as a SCOTUS Justice, she shouldn’t be weighing in on partisan politics.

      But she publicly railed against Trump’s nomination and election.

      Since she let her raw emotions get the best of her, I’d say her mental control is dulling.

“Changing the Senate rules requires a super majority while changing precedents only requires a simple majority.”

For purposes of USSC judges, isn’t this just a difference without a distinction?

The Dems don’t seem to realize that their slanders against Gorsuch, who has tried to be extremely fair, are bound to hurt the guy. And they can’t keep him from becoming a member of SCOTUS. That’s what they did with Clarence Thomas. So once again, they have needlessly aroused animosity against themselves in one of the most powerful lawmakers (yes, that’s what SCOTUS has become) in the nation. Works for me, if that’s what they want.