Advertisement

Democrats secure enough votes to block Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch, for the moment

 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, flanked by the Committee's Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, left, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., speaks in opposition of the nomination of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Monday, April 3, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington. [Associated Press]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, flanked by the Committee's Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, left, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., speaks in opposition of the nomination of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Monday, April 3, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington. [Associated Press]
Published April 3, 2017

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats secured enough votes to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, increasing the likelihood that Republicans will change the rules of the U.S. Senate to ensure his confirmation later this week.

Democratic opposition to Gorsuch has been building for days, and four more senators announced on Monday that they would vote against him and support a filibuster of his nomination. That gave Democrats the requisite 41 votes to put up a roadblock and compel President Trump and Senate Republicans to either withdraw Gorsuch's nomination or change Senate procedure.

"This is a new low," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in response to the Democratic opposition.

McConnell vowed again that Gorsuch will be confirmed by Friday despite any filibuster, so a change in how the Senate does business — referred to by most senators as the "nuclear option" — is expected by Friday.

When that happens, the Senate is "headed to a world where you don't need one person from the other side to pick a judge," warned Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "And what does that mean? That means the judges are going to be more ideological, not less. It means that every Senate seat is going to be a referendum on the Supreme Court. … The damage done to the Senate is going to be real."

Graham's comments came as the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to refer Gorsuch's nomination to the full Senate, which is expected to begin debating the pick on Tuesday.

The outcome of the panel's vote was never in doubt - Republicans hold a majority of seats on the committee and Gorsuch was approved on a party-line vote. But the testy hearing foreshadowed what is likely to be a combative week over the merits of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee and the way both parties have behaved during years of feuding over the makeup of the federal court system.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Patrick Leahy , D-Vt., Christopher Coons D-Del., and Mark Warner, D-Va., indicated on Monday that they would oppose Gorsuch and vote against cloture — or the motion to end a filibuster that is required to hold a final up-or-down confirmation vote.

During an hours-long committee hearing, Leahy, the longest-serving member on the panel, criticized Gorsuch's answers during his marathon confirmation hearing as "excruciatingly evasive." He said that a GOP move to end filibusters of Supreme Court nominees would damage the Senate but argued that he had to vote his conscience, even if it pushes Republicans to change the rules.

"I cannot vote solely to protect an institution when the rights of hard-working Americans are at risk," he said, "because I fear that the Senate I would be defending no longer exists."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, shot back, blaming Democrats for years of partisan bickering over judicial nominees that they say started when President George W. Bush made several nominations for federal court vacancies earlier this century.

"I disagree with those who somehow say this is the end of the Senate as we know it," Cornyn said. "This is a restoration of the status quo ante before our Democratic colleagues directed this artificial 60-vote requirement."

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., dismissed Republican attempts to blame Democrats for the change.

"I'm sure we could trace it all the way back to the Hamilton-Burr duel," he said.

"The answer isn't to change the rules," he added. "The answer is to change the nominee."

Meanwhile, Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., became the fourth Democrat to say he would join Republicans in trying to end the filibuster. But in a sign of the incredible political pressure he faces as he votes on a nominee from his home state, Bennet did not state whether he plans to support or oppose Gorsuch.

So far, Bennet is the only Democratic senator who is not up for reelection in 2018 that opposes the filibuster.

Republicans are vowing to confirm Gorsuch by Friday, when a two-week recess is set to begin, meaning the process will consume the Senate's floor schedule this week.

Gorsuch was nominated by Trump on Jan. 31 and spent weeks privately meeting with senators and preparing for his confirmation hearing. He was questioned by the Judiciary Committee last month for almost 20 hours over three days, answering nearly 1,200 questions and later sending about 70 pages of answers to written follow-up questions, according to a team of White House officials assisting with his nomination.

As of Friday, Gorsuch had met with 78 senators - all but some of the most conservative and liberal lawmakers whose votes are likely to be along party lines. But three first-term Democratic senators, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Tammy Duckworth, Ill., and Kamala Harris, Calif., complained that they were unable to get a face-to-face meeting with the nominee or offered the opportunity.

The fact that the three senators are women, with one Hispanic, one Asian and one African American, was not lost on some progressive groups that highlighted the perceived snub over the weekend. But Gorsuch aides insisted privately that difficulties scheduling time with the senators was the only reason they never met.

This week's anticipated change in Senate procedure dates to 2013, when Democrats, angered by Republican opposition to President Barack Obama's nominees, used the "nuclear option" to end filibusters of executive branch and lower-court nominees, prompting Republicans to warn that there might one day be retribution.

"Changing the rules is almost inevitable; it's only a question of when," said Norm Ornstein, a longtime congressional expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Ornstein warned that with Republicans set to extend the filibuster ban to Supreme Court nominees, they may soon face pressure to end filibusters of legislation to keep major health-care and tax reform bills passed by the GOP-led House from stalling in the more closely-divided Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., "will resist the change in some cases because it's in his interest not only when he's in the minority again but also to be able to rely on Democrats when the House sends you crazy things," Ornstein said. "And because it's not clear they have the 51 votes necessary to change the rules for filibusters on legislation."

McConnell said on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, "I don't think the legislative filibuster is in danger."

Appearing on the same program, Schumer agreed: "I don't think there's any thirst to change the legislative rules. Most Democrats and most Republicans have served in both the minority and majority and know what it means."