News Reporter: Fact Checker: Senate Democrats' repeated, false talking point to delay the confirmation of President Trump's Supreme Court pick

Friday 31 March 2017

Fact Checker: Senate Democrats' repeated, false talking point to delay the confirmation of President Trump's Supreme Court pick

Democracy Dies in Darkness

The truth behind the rhetoric

Senate Democrats’ repeated, false talking point to delay the confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court pick

Fact Checker gets a serious case of deja vu sometimes. Next week, the Senate is expected to vote on the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. So of course this week, Senate Democrats ramped up their case against Gorsuch, using one of their favorite — but inaccurate — claim that there is a “standard,” “tradition,” or “rule” that a Supreme Court nominee must receive 60 votes.

Of course, there is no such standard. In fact, two of the current justices on the court did not receive 60 votes. Just a simple majority of votes (51 of 100 Senators) are required to confirm Gorsuch. But insisting on this supposed “standard” is a tactic Democrats are using in an attempt to filibuster and delay Gorsuch’s vote.

This week, we saw various iterations of this claim from Senate Democrats. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, even went further to declare Democrats are not engaging in a filibuster when they demand 60 votes from the Senate.

Sanders used technical language of arcane Senate procedures to make his case, but we don’t buy it. A filibuster generally refers to extended debate that delays a vote on a pending matter, while cloture is a device to end debate. Filibusters are used by opponents of a nominee or legislation, while cloture is filed by supporters. Under current Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to end debate.

When Republicans were in the minority, Sanders was perfectly happy to call GOP demands for 60 votes "filibusters." He should admit that's what's happening now, rather than engaging in verbal gymnastics to obscure the truth. We awarded Three Pinocchios.

Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this e-mail was forwarded to you, sign up here for the weekly newsletter. Hear something fact-checkable? Send it here, we’ll check it out.

Trump administration’s policy decisions based on shaky factual grounds (…a continuing series)

This week, the White House announced two major changes in policy: a crackdown on “sanctuary” cities and a reversal of Obama-era rules to reduce carbon emissions. But both announcements were rooted in a set of facts that start to fall apart once you actually look into it.

There’s no definition of “sanctuary,” but it generally refers to rules restricting state and local governments from alerting federal authorities about people who may be in the country illegally. In describing plans to make it harder for sanctuary cities to receive federal grant money, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Attorney General Jeff Sessions cited a poll that found 80 percent of Americans don’t support sanctuary practices.

But the poll used wording that may have elicited stronger responses against sanctuary policies. It asked whether cities that arrest undocumented people for crimes should turn them over to immigration authorities. Criminality is a major factor in the public’s opinion about immigration, so words like “crime” and “arrests” can trigger negative response. Other polls with differently worded questions show less opposition to sanctuary cities. We dug into it here.

Trump also signed an executive order rolling back Obama-era environmental protections, including directing federal regulators to rewrite federal rules to reduce carbon emissions. A fact sheet about the executive order estimated the cost of the current carbon emissions rule, the Clean Power Plan, at up to $39 billion a year.

But that figure is based on a series of assumptions that may have inflated the cost of the rule. Moreover, the study the White House cites was commissioned by the coal industry, which should immediately raise red flags. Credible, rigorous studies done by federal agencies estimated that electricity prices would rise slightly at first but fall later, for a long-term savings in costs. We awarded Two Pinocchios.

(giphy.com)

Wanted: Non-Trump fact-check suggestions

We’re committed to holding the powerful accountable, regardless of their party. Our focus lately has been falsehoods by the new Trump White House, but we’re always on the lookout for claims by politicians of all party affiliations. We’re eager to inject more diversity into our coverage. What other policy areas are you curious about? What suspicious claim have you read or heard lately that deserves scrutiny? About half of our fact-checks come from reader inquiries, so send us your fact-check suggestions.

If you hear something fact-checkable, fill out this form, e-mail us or tweet us: @myhlee, @GlennKesslerWP or using #FactCheckThis. Read about our rating scale here, and sign up here for our weekly Fact Checker newsletter.

Scroll down for this week’s Pinocchio roundup.

— Michelle Ye Hee Lee