News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Monday, March 27, 2017
There Is No 60 Vote ‘Standard’ for Approval od SCOTUS Nominee
Washington Post Fact-Checker: Senate Democrats’ Are ‘Being Slippery With Their Language,’ ‘Misleading,’ There Is No 60 Vote ‘Standard’ For Supreme Court Nominees
Sen. Pat “Leahy … does not support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination, which would effectively block a full Senate vote. ‘I am not inclined to filibuster…’”(VTDigger, 3/27/17)
Other ‘Democrats Are Being Slippery With Their Language’
SCHUMER:“First, it's 60 votes, which we've required of every – it's called a filibuster, but it simply says you need 60 votes – I've always believed that's the right amount of votes… I was open-minded and waited for the hearings.” (WABC-NY, 3/26/17)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) Before The Hearings:“The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama’s nominees.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Release, 1/31/17)
SCHUMER: “If this nominee cannot meet the same standard that Republicans insisted upon for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees—60 votes in the Senate—then the problem lies not with the Senate but with the nominee… I am coming back to the floor to correct the record on my earlier comments, where I said Republicans ‘insisted’ on 60 votes for each of President Obama’s nominees. Sixty votes is a bar that was met by each of President Obama’s nominees…” (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.542 & S.545, 2/1/17)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…Neil Gorsuch. He should have a hearing and he should meet the voting standard that Supreme Court nominees are held to of 60 votes. A standard that was met by Elena Kagan as well as Sonya Sotomayor, President Obama's choices.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 2/1/2017)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT) Is Just Plain Confused: “Requiring 60 votes in the Senate to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is not a filibuster, Bernie Sanders argued Sunday ahead of a Democratic effort to block President Trump's nominee to the high court. ‘It's not a question of filibustering,’ Sanders said on CNN's State of the Union. … In fact, the vote that Sanders referred to, which requires 60 votes in Senate rules, is not a vote on confirmation but rather a vote to limit debate, which wouldn't be necessary if Democrats didn't threaten to filibuster. In the past, when Republicans were in the minority, Sanders has called requiring that 60-vote threshold a filibuster, even if no actual talking filibuster took place.” (“Sanders: Requiring 60 Votes For Gorsuch Is Not A Filibuster,” Washington Examiner, 3/26/17)
FACT:Neither Sonia Sotomayor Nor Elena Kagan Required Any Sort Of ‘60-Vote’ Threshold
No Democrats now serving in the Senate have EVER insisted that a Democrat President’s SCOTUS nominee meet a 60-vote standard.
FactCheck.org: “…that was not the case for the two Supreme Court justices nominated by Obama and approved by the Senate. Both were confirmed in the 111th Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Senate: Sonia Sotomayor on Aug. 6, 2009, and Elena Kagan on Aug. 5, 2010.” (“Sanders On SCOTUS Filibuster, Factcheck.org, 2/6/2017)
“Mr. REID: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow, Thursday, August 6, at 10 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 309, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and that the time until 2 p.m. be divided equally in alternating 1-hour blocks with the Republicans controlling the first hour; that at 2 p.m. the time be divided 15 minutes each as follows: Senator SESSIONS, Senator LEAHY, Senator MCCONNELL and Senator REID, in that order; that at 3 p.m., without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action, and the Senate then resume legislative session. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.” (U.S. Senate, Congressional Record, S.8887, 8/5/2009)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Elena Kagan, of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court? The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll.” (U.S. Senate, Congressional Record, S.6830, 8/5/2010) Tags:US Supreme Court, nominee, confirmation No 60 vote standardTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50+yrs #MAGA
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.