Merged SCotUS nominee - Neil Gorsuch

[theprestige]

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.

Sounds about right to me. Where's the problem?

 

[theprestige]

"Energized" for progressives mainly means that conservatives will be shouted down, attacked (both verbally and physically), and harassed in other ways as well.

Eight more years of Occupy?

 

[sunmaster14]

Sounds about right to me. Where's the problem?

I agree. All the Democrats have to do to block Trump's future nominees is to take back the Senate in 2018. Here's a map of the seats up for grabs. Looks like they have some heavy lifting to do:

 

[BobTheCoward]

No legal mind at all? I doubt that very much. It certainly could be the case that the Supreme Court would have upheld anti-miscegenation laws in the late 19th century, just as they upheld "separate but equal" in Plessy v. Ferguson. That doesn't mean they were interpreting the Constitution correctly. There were probably several members of the Supreme Court who disagreed with the 14th Amendment on policy grounds and let that inform their legal decisions.

I have read several originalist defenses of loving. There is some good stuff. But the minute you start needing to work that hard at finding evidence for the position, I think it shows the other side is the stronger position.

I accept the majority consensus of originalism and loving on its face.

 

[newyorkguy]

Gorsuch sounds horrible. A right winger with an agenda in a robe. Another Scalia.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

I always took it that the senate democrats didn't think anyone but Hillary had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the presidency, so they didn't put up much of a fight on the delay. I mean really. She was running against a reality TV star with a sketchy ethical and moral past. How could she possibly lose? Why even campaign? Just have a few rallies with the base, and call it a show!

People already seem to be losing sight of the fact that it wasn't until after the polls started closing on election day when it finally started to sink in that the result wasn't a foregone conclusion.

Whatever. Delay the hearings all you want. We'll just confirm the nomination when Hillary is in office. No worries.

Wait... WTF!?!

 

[sunmaster14]

I have read several originalist defenses of loving. There is some good stuff. But the minute you start needing to work that hard at finding evidence for the position, I think it shows the other side is the stronger position.

I accept the majority consensus of originalism and loving on TS face.

Even if an honest originalist position is that Loving was decided incorrectly, there is no question that a relevant amendment to the Constitution to ban anti-miscegenation laws would now pass (and likely would have 50 years ago given that many states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws in the decades prior). Just because an originalist position leads to a result you don't like or are uncomfortable with, it doesn't mean that it's the wrong legal doctrine. The Constitution is meant to be amended from time to time as circumstances and changing social mores require.

 

[logger]

Gorsuch sounds horrible. A right winger with an agenda in a robe. Another Scalia.

Yesss!

I suppose you'd be happier with another Breyer?

Are at least beginning to understand where your party is?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Whatever. Delay the hearings all you want. We'll just confirm the nomination when Hillary is in office. No worries.

Wait... WTF!?!

The most plausible explanation, I think.

 

[NoahFence]

Since the only way humanly possible he made it past the gauntlet of Bannon and Trump is to promise to do as he's told, I'm not a fan.

 

[sunmaster14]

Very interesting article about how Republicans can defeat a Democratic filibuster without using the nuclear option. I never head about this before:

Specifically, a majority may use Rule XIX (the two-speech rule) to shorten the amount of time members are able to filibuster. This rule prohibits any senator from giving more than two speeches on any one question during the same legislative day.

In the Senate’s rules, the terms “legislative day” and “calendar day” do not mean the same thing. A legislative day ends only when the Senate adjourns and therefore may last much longer than the 24 hours that define a calendar day. Indeed, one particularly long legislative day in 1980 lasted 162 calendar days, spanning a period from Jan. 3 until June 12.

Once a senator has given two speeches during the same legislative day, he or she may not speak again. The Senate votes when there are no members remaining on the floor who wish to and are allowed to speak. At that point, the support of a simple majority of the senators present and voting is sufficient for confirmation.

Using the two-speech rule to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court pick is straightforward.

First, the Senate would proceed to consider the nomination. The Republican majority would then keep the Senate in the same legislative day and would strictly enforce the two-speech rule on any filibustering senators.

While Democrats could make procedural motions in protest, doing so in almost all cases would terminate the filibustering senator’s speech, thus hastening the moment at which the minority would have exhausted its ability to delay confirmation by filibustering via debate.

Strictly enforcing the two-speech rule is likely to break the filibuster before every Democrat uses the maximum number of speeches allotted under the rules. This is because continuing to filibuster in this context imposes significant costs on rank-and-file Democrats. To have even the chance of success requires each Democrat to hold the Senate floor for a prolonged period in an effort to wait out the Republicans.

 

[Belz...]

"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.

You highlighted the wrong part.

 

[Random]

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).

I see this idea all over the place from both Republicans and Democrats and on all the talking head shows and it just makes no sense. Either the Judicial Filibuster is strong enough to stop a Supreme Court nomination or it isn't. If it is, why not use it against the Republican nominee? If it isn't, then saving it for future use is pointless.

 

[sunmaster14]

I see this idea all over the place from both Republicans and Democrats and on all the talking head shows and it just makes no sense. Either the Judicial Filibuster is strong enough to stop a Supreme Court nomination or it isn't. If it is, why not use it against the Republican nominee? If it isn't, then saving it for future use is pointless.

The nuclear option requires 50+ votes in the Senate (50 Republicans if VP Pence, as expected, votes with them). That means Republicans can only lose 2 votes on the nuclear question and still succeed. If Democrats are filibustering a candidate that doesn't look extreme to the likes of a McCain or a Susan Collins, then those moderate Republicans will go along with the nuclear option. On a more controversial nominee than Gorsuch (assuming Gorsuch doesn't have any skeletons in his closet that come out during confirmation hearings), the Democrats have a chance of peeling off some moderate Republican votes to prevent Mitch McConnell from going nuclear. I do not believe that they can do this in the case of Gorsuch. They might have been able to do this in the case of Pryor (who apparently had a contentious confirmation process for the Circuit court).

 

[Random]

The nuclear option requires 50+ votes in the Senate (50 Republicans if VP Pence, as expected, votes with them). That means Republicans can only lose 2 votes on the nuclear question and still succeed. If Democrats are filibustering a candidate that doesn't look extreme to the likes of a McCain or a Susan Collins, then those moderate Republicans will go along with the nuclear option. On a more controversial nominee than Gorsuch (assuming Gorsuch doesn't have any skeletons in his closet that come out during confirmation hearings), the Democrats have a chance of peeling off some moderate Republican votes to prevent Mitch McConnell from going nuclear. I do not believe that they can do this in the case of Gorsuch. They might have been able to do this in the case of Pryor (who apparently had a contentious confirmation process for the Circuit court).

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.

 

[Minoosh]

Green as in an environmentalist?
As in inexperienced?
?

Environmental. Plus just living in Boulder (if it's within city limits) encourages a few other liberal values.

 

[Meadmaker]

I see this idea all over the place from both Republicans and Democrats and on all the talking head shows and it just makes no sense. Either the Judicial Filibuster is strong enough to stop a Supreme Court nomination or it isn't. If it is, why not use it against the Republican nominee? If it isn't, then saving it for future use is pointless.

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.

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

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.

And if you look at my post above regarding the prospects for Democrats in 2018, I think you can see that there's very little chance that Democrats will make gains in the Senate. In fact, there are only two Republican Senators up for reelection who could reasonably be considered vulnerable, and there are 10 Democratic Senators in the same boat. Even if Democrats win all 12 of those competitive elections, the Republicans will still control the Senate.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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

 

[Belz...]

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.

That might come back and bite them in the ass down the road, considering how much they've been using it as well.