Merged SCotUS nominee - Neil Gorsuch

[sunmaster14]

I thought that option was only available on the first day of a new Congress?

No. See here:

On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called "nuclear option", voting 52-48—with all Republicans and three Democrats voting against—to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.

 

[Random]

The idea has to do with the "nuclear option".

A filibuster is strong enough to stop a Supreme Court nomination, but that sets up a conflict. If the Democrats were to filibuster, the Republicans would have no choice under the current rules but to withdraw the nomination. However, that doesn't mean the Republicans have no choice. They can change the rules.

The filibuster isn't a constitutional thing. It's not a law. It's just a Senate rule. It's an agreement that has been in place for about 200 years. It sort of says that if you really, really, care about something, you can force a 60 vote majority for something. Well, it's not that simple, really, but that's basically it. For 200 years, it worked and served a purpose, specifically because it was used sparingly.

Recently, however, it has been used not so sparingly. Now, it has been used, by both parties, to block anything they don't like. If the Dems try to use it hear, the Republican majority might just say we don't need filibusters anymore, and just eliminate them from the rules. It doesn't require the president to do anything. It doesn't require the House, or the courts. All it requires is 51 senators to say that the filibuster is no longer a useful thing. That would mean no more filibusters, ever. That's the "nuclear option". You get what you want on the upcoming important vote, but if you ever find yourself in the minority, and you will, you give up the ability to block things later.

I am aware of the principle, but my point still stands. If the Filibuster is more powerful than the Nuclear Option, we should use it. If it is weaker, why bother "protecting" it?

There are three choices here.
1) The Dems do not use the Filibuster, saving it for something “Important” (Not sure what could be more important than Republicans stealing a Supreme Court seat, but whatever). Result, Republicans win.
2) The Dems use the Filibuster, but the GOP uses the Nuclear Option, eliminating the Filibuster, and push through their theft of the Supreme Court seat. Result, Republicans win.
3) The Dems use the Filibuster, and the GOP backs down. Result, Democrats win.
If the only path to victory is fighting, than fighting is what you should be doing. The GOP blocked everything that they could and they were rewarded by victory after victory. The Democratic leadership keeps their powder dry for something important and loses again and again…

 

[Random]

That's absurd. The Republicans controlled the Senate, so they were able to block Garland. End of story. If Democrats don't like that, maybe they shouldn't have rammed through Obamacare in 2010 and lost control of the Senate over the next two election cycles.

But why did they block Garland? What did he do that was so objectionable? Even the GOP leadership was not objecting to Garland per se, but to the questionable assumption that a President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office (and towards the end of the 2016 election, when it looked like Clinton would win, they were whispering that President Clinton should not be allowed to nominate one either...).

 

[Minoosh]

Per Wiki

In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.[22][23]

I like it!


ETA: Senators, please hold his feet to the fire re his statements about mistreatment of Garland in 2002

 

[sunmaster14]

I am aware of the principle, but my point still stands. If the Filibuster is more powerful than the Nuclear Option, we should use it. If it is weaker, why bother "protecting" it?

There are three choices here.
1) The Dems do not use the Filibuster, saving it for something “Important” (Not sure what could be more important than Republicans stealing a Supreme Court seat, but whatever). Result, Republicans win.
2) The Dems use the Filibuster, but the GOP uses the Nuclear Option, eliminating the Filibuster, and push through their theft of the Supreme Court seat. Result, Republicans win.
3) The Dems use the Filibuster, and the GOP backs down. Result, Democrats win.
If the only path to victory is fighting, than fighting is what you should be doing. The GOP blocked everything that they could and they were rewarded by victory after victory. The Democratic leadership keeps their powder dry for something important and loses again and again…

I answered your question already. Did you not understand it? If the Dems use the filibuster on the wrong person they'll invite the nuclear option and lose on all future Republican appointees. If they use it on the right person, they might be successful in blocking a future Republican appointee, provided that he is considered at least a little bit controversial. Gorsuch strikes me as uncontroversial.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But why did they block Garland? What did he do that was so objectionable? Even the GOP leadership was not objecting to Garland per se, but to the questionable assumption that a President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office (and towards the end of the 2016 election, when it looked like Clinton would win, they were whispering that President Clinton should not be allowed to nominate one either...).

The why doesn't matter. They could and they did.

 

[sunmaster14]

But why did they block Garland? What did he do that was so objectionable? Even the GOP leadership was not objecting to Garland per se, but to the questionable assumption that a President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office (and towards the end of the 2016 election, when it looked like Clinton would win, they were whispering that President Clinton should not be allowed to nominate one either...).

They blocked Garland because he was going to be a reliably liberal vote on the Supreme Court, and Republicans are against liberal justices (as am I). They succeeded in blocking him because they controlled the Senate. The Senate has just as much right to block a nominee as the President does to choose a nominee. I'm not really sure why this is so hard for people to understand.

I'll note also that the Republican strategy probably wasn't even a good one given how poor a candidate Trump was and how difficult an election year it was for Republicans in the Senate (lots of vulnerable Republican seats were up for grabs versus very few Democratic seats). I was actually against the strategy myself. But it was fair, and they were honest about what they were doing, and the voters knew what the consequences of their votes in November would be as far as the Supreme Court was concerned.

 

[Belz...]

They blocked Garland because he was going to be a reliably liberal vote on the Supreme Court, and Republicans are against liberal justices (as am I).

So it was entirely a partisan move, then. It had nothing to do with the good of the country or the rule of law or anything principled like that.

 

[sunmaster14]

So it was entirely a partisan move, then. It had nothing to do with the good of the country or the rule of law or anything principled like that.

Not partisan at all. In my sincere opinion (and I have no doubt other libertarians and conservatives feel the same way), liberal justices do not respect the rule of law, and their judicial activism hurts the country. It is a perfectly principled position. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, is an absolute travesty. She's a mockery of a sham of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. She is a politician, not unlike Nancy Pelosi, masquerading as a judge.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So it was entirely a partisan move, then. It had nothing to do with the good of the country or the rule of law or anything principled like that.

That is a stretch. People are partisans ostensibly because those are the policies good for the country.

If you can find a partisan that doesn't think their views are best for the country, please let me know.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not partisan at all. In my sincere opinion (and I have no doubt other libertarians and conservatives feel the same way), liberal justices do not respect the rule of law, and their judicial activism hurts the country. It is a perfectly principled position. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, is an absolute travesty. She's a mockery of a sham of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. She is a politician, not unlike Nancy Pelosi, masquerading as a judge.

By definition you are a partisan and have partisan positions. That is fine. Just as you argue that it is stupid for Americans to think blocking is not a right of the Senate, it is stupid in this country to say partisan=bad nonpartisan=good.

 

[sunmaster14]

That is a stretch. People are partisans ostensibly because those are the policies good for the country.

If you can find a partisan that doesn't think their views are best for the country, please let me know.

My definition of partisan is different. I've always thought of it as putting party interests over national interests, at least in the short-term. I suppose one could argue that being a partisan is putting long-term national interests over short-term national interests (which would make me a partisan in that respect), but many partisans see their party as a vehicle for personal career advancement and so wanting what's good for the party might be more aligned with their own personal interests rather than with what they think the national interests are.

 

[Random]

I answered your question already. Did you not understand it? If the Dems use the filibuster on the wrong person they'll invite the nuclear option and lose on all future Republican appointees. If they use it on the right person, they might be successful in blocking a future Republican appointee, provided that he is considered at least a little bit controversial. Gorsuch strikes me as uncontroversial.

I understand your answer, I just disagree with it. The GOP didn't block Garland because he was Garland, they blocked him because Obama nominated him. They deliberately kept the seat open for the better part of a year in the hopes that they could steal the nomination for the GOP. If you are not going to use the Filibuster to punish that kind of activity, what are you going to use it for? The Scalia seat should be filled by a Democratic President on sheer principle.

I'm arguing that the bank robber should go to jail. You are arguing about what tax rate he should pay on his "earnings".

 

[sunmaster14]

By definition you are a partisan and have partisan positions. That is fine. Just as you argue that it is stupid for Americans to think blocking is not a right of the Senate, it is stupid in this country to say partisan=bad nonpartisan=good.

As I wrote above, I agree to a certain extent. But not all the way. I would definitely buck my party over certain important issues. For example, I am against reducing the deficit. Not against reducing spending per se, but I am definitely against making debt reduction a goal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

My definition of partisan is different. I've always thought of it as putting party interests over national interests, at least in the short-term. I suppose one could argue that being a partisan is putting long-term national interests over short-term national interests (which would make me a partisan in that respect), but many partisans see their party as a vehicle for personal career advancement and so wanting what's good for the party might be more aligned with their own personal interests rather than with what they think the national interests are.

From Wikipedia

"In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents."

 

[sunmaster14]

I understand your answer, I just disagree with it. The GOP didn't block Garland because he was Garland, they blocked him because Obama nominated him. They deliberately kept the seat open for the better part of a year in the hopes that they could steal the nomination for the GOP. If you are not going to use the Filibuster to punish that kind of activity, what are you going to use it for? The Scalia seat should be filled by a Democratic President on sheer principle.

I'm arguing that the bank robber should go to jail. You are arguing about what tax rate he should pay on his "earnings".

No, you're arguing that somebody who put his money in the bank in order to get a free toaster and then took his money out the next day should go to jail. When all he did was take advantage of the rules as they exist. Democrats are welcome to cut off their nose to spite their face, but I think some of them are more rational than that.

Generally I agree with the tit for tat strategy to discourage bad behavior and encourage good behavior (which is one of the reasons I supported the Republican torture of Hillary Clinton over Benghazi), but the Republican behavior with respect to Garland was not extreme in the slightest. It wasn't even a terribly effective strategy, and Democrats weren't even particularly worried about it. They only got supremely (no pun intended) pissed off when Trump pulled off the political upset of the century.

 

[paulhutch]

I'm encouraged that Gorsuch is likely to be the best of the bunch that Trump considered due to the opinions expressed by the experts I respect at The Volokh Conspiracy. Eugene & Sasha know him personally from when he and Eugene clerked at SCOTUS. The others on this excellent group blog of expert constitutional lawyers have varying positions but none that make me think he is a bad choice.

The list of multiple articles on the this topic:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...reme-court-nomination/?utm_term=.106155c52083

 

[BobTheCoward]

They only got supremely (no pun intended) pissed off when Trump pulled off the political upset of the century.

Which he didn't do. He lost by 2.8 million votes. An upset would have been if he was actually popular.

 

[sunmaster14]

From Wikipedia

"In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents."

Well, that's certainly not me. Aside from giving $200 to Jim Thune in his Senate race against Tom Daschle, I have never given money to the Republican Party, a Republican candidate, or a Republican leaning PAC. And I've never lifted a finger otherwise except writing things few people read on the internet.

 

[sunmaster14]

Which he didn't do. He lost by 2.8 million votes. An upset would have been if he was actually popular.

Well, he certainly upset tens of millions of people, if not hundreds of millions. Including about 80% of the people I know.