Merged SCotUS nominee - Neil Gorsuch

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Like the 2nd amendment, which taken literally, only aims to arm citizens in a well-regulated militia?

"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.

 

[Wayward son]

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

Chris B.

Yeah, except it is not at all. Biden said that such a nomination should not be made during the late summer/fall of an election year. If one is made the committee should consider not scheduling confirmation hearing until after the election. He had zero issue with a nomination before that time period - ie when Obama nominated Garland, or with hearings occurring in November, December or January after the election campaign had ceased.

 

[willim]

Like the Republicans accepted we had Obama at the end of January 2009?

As a then Republican, I accepted Obama as the next POTUS on the evening of November 4th 2008. He won fair and square and there was no reason to believe otherwise either then, or now.

 

[SezMe]

I predict it will energize Progressives.

I predict it will not.

Who will be the next Kreskin?

 

[SezMe]

His life in Boulder, Colorado suggests maybe he's somewhat "green."

Green as in an environmentalist?
As in inexperienced?
?

 

[Noztradamus]

"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.

In A Peoples Democracy, the people doesn't mean the people

 

[SezMe]

Judicial activism is nothing except what's in the eye of the beholder.

Not really. A reasonable definition of judicial activism is that it is the overturning of precedent. With that definition one can almost objectively measure activism. By such a measure, Thomas turns out to be the most activist judge.

 

[SezMe]

Apparently Gorsuch is an impeccable choice, from the conservative perspective. He certainly seems reasonable enough that he'll get 100% support from Senate Republicans, and probably a few Democrats, at a minimum.

I predict that Schumer will not let the Senate filibuster die on this hill. He'll eventually cave, and the Democrats will continue to eat their own because of it. It will still be the right decision, though. Schumer has to keep the filibuster alive to be able to stop a more extreme nominee in the future (and one that would be replacing a Ginsburg or a Breyer).

Yep to both paragraphs, especially the latter. Schumer has been around long enough that he should "...know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em".

 

[SezMe]

As to the other two, my dad is 88 and still compus mentus. With health care that is available to people in that SC justices' financial means, I expect that they'll be able as long as they are willing. Justice O'Connor retired, maybe one day you just wake up and decide "OK, it's not worth it anymore."

My (crappy) memory is that O'Connor retired to take care of her ailing husband, not because of her own frailty.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Not really. A reasonable definition of judicial activism is that it is the overturning of precedent. With that definition one can almost objectively measure activism. By such a measure, Thomas turns out to be the most activist judge.

But even with this definition, I'm unable to conclude that is a bad thing (or a good thing). If it's a terrible precedent being overturned, yay activism (and vice-versa). Then there's also the times when there's a brand new precedent (under a brand new Precedent (sic)). Which is an overturning of the precedent of not having had a precedent...

I'm getting dizzy.

 

[SezMe]

That's the whole point of amendments: if don't like the original text, you amend it. You don't pretend it means something else.

It's exactly because I am an originalist, that I propose to improve the constitution by amending it.

If the Constitution has to be amended to keep up with changes in culture, technology and world affairs, it would be an unreadable document with hundreds - if not thousands - of amendments.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Yep to both paragraphs, especially the latter. Schumer has been around long enough that he should "...know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em".

I hope not. Folding on this issue would be precisely the most imbecilic thing Schumer could possibly do in this instance. Caving on this issue would validate the conservative movement's despicable squelching of a democratically elected president's right to appoint a supreme court justice with a full quarter of his term remaining, would validate the McConnell's depraved historical revisionism, would demonstrate before the entire world the Democratic party's spinelessness, would validate the minority conservative constituency's choice to elect Trump in spite of his disgusting ethical shortcomings.

The Republican party just used the filibuster an unprecedented number of times to obstruct governance during the last administration. If they want to hypocritically take that power away mere weeks later to squelch dissent on behalf of a hugely unpopular and tenuously elected president, let them. Doing so would clearly demonstrate their scorn for the concept of democracy and would hurt them politically.

If the Democrats cave as - let's be honest here - is likely to be the case, they will set the party back for years to come.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If the Democrats cave as - let's be honest here - is likely to be the case, they will set the party back for years to come.

I agree. The Republicans will only become more emboldened and make sure that the new rule is "only Republicans can appoint SCOTUS nominees" and "only Republican bills can pass."

 

[Aepervius]

Like the Republicans accepted we had Obama at the end of January 2009?

Oh they accepted him, loudly and whinny and birth certificaty for 8 years. A long and gruel and very obvious acceptance.
/sarcasm

 

[Aepervius]

I don't understand, it's not the current president's job to nominate anyone to the SC, that's the job of the next president. Because democracy or something.

Basically repblican do not want any social progress whatsoever and want textual application if the law, not the spirit, because they are more likely to abuse loopholes from what i can see. They would be mostly fine if slavery or segregation was still a thing, if the constitution or law text loopholes allowed it. They are also mostly the one abusing those loopholes to discreminate against classes of peoples.

That is why they do not want anybody else than textualist basicaly, to be able to maintain those sweet sweet abusive loopholes and continue discremination at will, or impose their own vision of morality onto other (abortion is a good example as well as gay mariage , they oppose both because they do not want OTHER people to get either, and they want to be able to discreminate against gay trans or lgbt, or heck people of other colors).

Basically they are "YOU will follow our way or no ways", and before a reps protest that the dems ir jydicial activist imposed the gay mariage , if you do not want gay mariage do not get gay married, but there is no reason whatsoever to oppose others then yourself the choice and tax advantages.

At this point in time, reps are trully mostky about imposing their way if life.

That is why they need the supreme court to be originalist AND textualist. Otherwise loophole and opressoon coukd disappear in favor of ethical and spirit if the laws beung applied.

 

[Aepervius]

And before anyone protest that gay mariage way if life was imposed onto all, that is untrue.

If you want laws which affect others but not yourself, your are the one which is at fault. Oppositoion to gay mariage or wanting to restrict abortion, or favor discremination are of that type, because you want to stop OTHER to enjoy the benefit if those actions.

Anti discremination on the other hand, restrict some people, yes, but they restrict them in a way they have to treatt everybody on the same footing, which is of high interrest for all.

There is a vast difference. But i expect sone right wing folk to protest and have the difference fly high over their head, they see it as a loss of power for WASP.

 

[Ziggurat]

Republicans showed the public that it is okay to completely block a SCOTUS nominee indefinitely.

Not indefinitely. The period of time was quite definite.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not indefinitely. The period of time was quite definite.

Yes, the time period for them was until a Republican is in office. I say that Democrats play that game too. They need to block the nomination for as long as they can.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes, the time period for them was until a Republican is in office. I say that Democrats play that game too. They need to block the nomination for as long as they can.

I agree: Democrats can't always turn the other cheek.
Just like with the Filibuster, making it clear that both sides can use the option is the only way to keep it somewhat in check.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not indefinitely. The period of time was quite definite.

But in the end it's a political thing, isn't it? They can block a nomination as long as they have to. As long as the electorate doesn't get antsy about it, or the remaining justices don't decide that they have abused their "advice and consent" powers, they can do it. Definite? Indefinite? Who cares?

It seems to me that there ought to be a time limit on such things, and that time limit should be no more than a couple of months, and that time limit shouldn't change just because an election is coming up. However, the founding fathers didn't write that part into the constitution, and the Supreme Court has never filled in that particular blank, so the Republicans decided they had the power to force a delay, and they used it.

If the Democrats really though the Republicans were abusing their power, they could have sued, and the eight current justices could have made a decision about it. As it was, everyone in power sat back and let the voters decide.

What ought to make Democrats a tiny bit nervous is that the existence of the Supreme Court vacancy helped propel Donald Trump into the White House.