Merged SCotUS nominee - Neil Gorsuch

[Ziggurat]

Doesn't change the fact that waiting for the next president is a stupid idea and voters that agreed with it are stupid people.

Perhaps. But it does refute the claim that was made: what the Democrats are threatening to do is not what the Republicans did. And furthermore, if we accept your perspective, then logically what the Democrats are doing now is even dumber.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Lol

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mitch McConnell. He litterally stole this nomination from the weakling left and the bumbling boob Obama. It was a masterful performance to watch with a little luck thrown in.

Cheering un-American, anti-American piracy. My surprise meter just went to negative numbers.

 

[zorro99]

The republicans stole this seat.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

That's exactly what Joe Biden said to do in an election year.......

Chris B.

You are 100% wrong. Surprise meter remains <0.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Chris B.

No, you don't get to hilite a portion, suggesting it rises above context.

 

[eeyore1954]

Copycat!

Not my biggest plagiarism.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You are 100% wrong. Surprise meter remains <0.

Biden did say that. Check for yourself. It was in response to a hypothetical opening on the SC if one became available.

No, you don't get to hilite a portion, suggesting it rises above context.

The SCOTUS would seem to agree with me on this one. If you have an argument more compelling to the contrary, I'm sure you'd make millions presenting it.

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Gorsuch will make a good addition. I look forward to his swift approval, after all, he's already been approved previously for a similar position by those who would now oppose his nomination.

Genius! Trump does it again. Since Gorsuch has already been approved previously by many of the same people, any attempt to block his nomination will be seen as obstructive and partisan! Results, the Democrats lose several of the 10 seats coming up for grab.


Chris B.

 

[theprestige]

The republicans stole this seat.

In the same way that a runner steals a base in baseball, sure: They took it according to the rules, because their opponents were unable to effectively contest them.

 

[Belz...]

He doesn't sound too extreme from the little I've read about him.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The republicans stole this seat.

Do you figure Republicans are simply more clever?

Still, it's hard to say that lawfully acquiring something is ever "stealing".

 

[Dr. Keith]

Gorsuch will make a good addition. I look forward to his swift approval, after all, he's already been approved previously for a similar position by those who would now oppose his nomination.

Like Garland?

Genius! Trump does it again. Since Gorsuch has already been approved previously by many of the same people, any attempt to block his nomination will be seen as obstructive and partisan! Results, the Democrats lose several of the 10 seats coming up for grab.

No, it appears that the public likes obstructionist. See, the Republicans.

Chris B.

Do you also sign your texts?

The Democrats tried to make hay out of it, but largely failed because the idea that a President is "entitled" to get his nominee confirmed didn't resonate with the public. It doesn't resonate with me. If the President wants to get his nominee on the court, then he has to persuade the Senate to confirm him. One way of doing that is to persuade the public to elect Senators willing to vote to do that. The Republicans controlled the Senate, and they had a perfect right to block any and all of Obama's nominees until the end of his Presidency. There is no reason why the Supreme Court has to have nine justices anyway, or even an odd number for that matter. It works just fine with eight. There is nothing magical about the number 9.

I'd say they failed because everyone assumed Hillary would win. They looked whiny demanding that Obama make the pick instead of Hillary.

But I agree the Republicans have set a precedent and the Dems should follow it. Eventually the court will die off and we can just do without. There is nothing magical about a Supreme Court.

 

[sunmaster14]

Like Garland?



No, it appears that the public likes obstructionist. See, the Republicans.




Do you also sign your texts?



I'd say they failed because everyone assumed Hillary would win. They looked whiny demanding that Obama make the pick instead of Hillary.

But I agree the Republicans have set a precedent and the Dems should follow it. Eventually the court will die off and we can just do without. There is nothing magical about a Supreme Court.

Well, the judicial system in the US sucks bigly, and it's in large part due to having woefully inadequate resources. We probably should have 10 times the number of judges at the District and Appeals Court levels, and perhaps even many more Supreme Court justices with only a subset (like the panels at the Appeals Court level) of justices ruling on any one case. If you ramp up the Supreme Court to 25 justices, and have 5 randomly assigned to any one case, then it can work through 5 times as many cases (maybe more actually, since you have fewer justices gumming up the works on a case).

For super-important Constitutional issues, you can appeal en banc.

On top of that, federal judges should serve for 20 years, and then they're either kicked upstairs to a higher court, or they're kicked out. No lifetime appointments (of course we need a Constitutional amendment for that). One upside of this is that the importance of any single judge or justice is greatly diminished and there will be less political fighting over each one.

 

[SezMe]

Not indefinitely. The period of time was quite definite.

Not at the time, it wasn't.

No. The time period was until the next president, whoever that was, including Hillary.

You have to be willfully ignorant of Republican practice to believe that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Genius! Trump does it again. Since Gorsuch has already been approved previously by many of the same people, any attempt to block his nomination will be seen as obstructive and partisan! Results, the Democrats lose several of the 10 seats coming up for grab.


Chris B.

You are assuming that the electorate objects to obstructive and partisan.

As best I can tell, voters kind of like obstructive and partisan.

Oh, I know, hardly any of them say they like it, but who do they vote for? The congressional Republicans have been pretty darned obstructive and partisan lately, and they got reelected. In fact, the big complaint about them, from their supporters, was that they were insufficiently obstructive and partisan.

When your party is the opposition party, you're supposed to be obstructive and partisan.

you can carry it a little too far, if you are seen as being obstructive just for the sake of being obstructive, but for the most part, your base will love you and the swing voters won't mind.

 

[SezMe]

The Democrats tried to make hay out of it, but largely failed because the idea that a President is "entitled" to get his nominee confirmed considered didn't resonate with the public.

Better statement.

 

[Minoosh]

Lol

This is hilarious. I just want make sure of what you're saying before I rebut such a ridiculous post. Care to explain?

I think of you as an "evangelical" vote which defines you in my eyes. I avoid labeling people for the most part but I have some definite impressions about your beliefs. If I'm wrong, sorry. But I want policymakers who believe this world is the one we need to protect.

 

[sunmaster14]

Better statement.

Would you rather the Senate had gone through the motions and then rejected him? That was my recommended strategy.

 

[SezMe]

Opposing Gorsuch wouldn’t be about Gorsuch, it would be about Garland. It is vital that the GOP is not rewarded for blocking the Garland nomination, or else it will only serve to encourage such actions in the future. Regardless of what happens to the other seats on the SC, I believe that the Scalia seat should remain open for the next four years.

Nonsense. The GOP has already been highly rewarded for the blockage by gaining the capability to appoint the next Justice. That is all the encouragement they need, if that. Nothing - I mean NOTHING - the Dems could do would have the potential to diminish that reward and incentive.

 

[Beerina]

It would be, but I don't imagine they would convince him. Kennedy will resign when he wants to. He is pretty independent. He is also in excellent health for his age and very busy outside of the court.




Ginsburg was asked in 2013 why she was not resigning when she could be replaced at a time when democrats had solid control. She said she had zero interest in resigning before she was ready (and she was, and is, far from ready). She said that she wasn't worried about a Republican replacing her as she was confident that if a Republican won the presidency that Republican would be a good person. She was about as wrong as someone could be on that last point.

Replacing a left-leaning justice with a like-minded one is small potatoes. She was probably right.

Replacing a right-leaning justice with a left-leaning one, shifting the 5-4 splits the other way is something completely different.

This was all, keep in mind, in a context of the Tea Party, an insurrection in the Republican party against Republicans...for going along with the Democrats too much.

Turning over the Supreme Court would be a death knell for half of them, and mostly in the primaries.


The opposite cannot be said for Democrats trying to block this replacement. A number of Democrats are in iffy districts where following the deep blue concrete canyon dwellers' rage is by no means in their best interest.