Close Overlay SIGN UP

NO FILIBUSTER? Sen. Udall Is Opposed To Filibustering SCOTUS Nominations

As Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) wraps up his meeting today with Judge Gorsuch, it is worth taking a look back at what he has previously said about filibustering Supreme Court nominees. Here is Senator Udall talking to Jake Tapper in 2013 about filibustering Supreme Court nominees:
SEN. UDALL: And I think what our role is, is to step out there, advise and consent, and if we don’t believe the person’s qualified, if there’s some real serious problem, vote against them. You remember Bork. He wasn’t filibustered. He was voted down, 58 votes against him.
 
People like Scalia, everybody says, oh, well, there are going to be more Scalias. Scalia passed unanimously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court passed with just three votes against her, 96-3. So the issue really is advice and consent, not with supermajorities. Right now, we have the tyranny of the minority. And that’s what we have taken care of.”
 

NO FILIBUSTER? Sen. Udall Is Opposed To Filibustering SCOTUS Nominations 

While Schumer and other Senate Democrats continue to call for a 60 vote filibuster of Judge Gorsuch, many are continuing to defy leadership by calling for an up-or-down vote. Unless Sen. Udall has flip-flopped since 2013, it would be fair to assume he, too, is in favor of an up-or-down vote for Judge Gorsuch.
Full Transcript:
TAPPER: Let’s just talk philosophy now, when it comes to minority rights. Do you think that the minority should ever be able to block a nominee unless there is some huge problem with that nominee?
 
Generally speaking, unless there is like with the Tower, the John Tower nomination way back when, when there was allegations of malfeasance and the like, do you think the Senate, it’s their job to basically just rubber-stamp and let the administration have whoever they want unless there’s a glaring, horrific error?
SEN. UDALL: Not at all.
 
And I think what our role is, is to step out there, advise and consent, and if we don’t believe the person’s qualified, if there’s some real serious problem, vote against them. You remember Bork. He wasn’t filibustered. He was voted down, 58 votes against him.
People like Scalia, everybody says, oh, well, there are going to be more Scalias. Scalia passed unanimously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court passed with just three votes against her, 96-3. So the issue really is advice and consent, not with supermajorities. Right now, we have the tyranny of the minority. And that’s what we have taken care of.
America Rising Squared - Twitter America Rising Squared - Facebook

Take Action!
Stand up to greedy trial lawyers
killing Missouri jobs

Contact Your Legislator Here!