Neil Grouch nominated (now confirmed) for SCOTUS

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

Whatever the dems do with Gorsuch the reps have it coming to them. I still cant understand why the reps wimped out on Merrick Garland. They should have simply treated him with the respect he deserved and then put on their big boy pants and voted. We would be where we are today anyway and they wouldn't have come off looking like petulant little brats.

Click to expand...

the problem is you are forgetting what started this...

1) Obama misjudged and misidentified mainstream republicans. Yeah the Tea Partiers tried to hold the budget hostage because of the ACA, but there is a key reason they werent successful and it had nothing to do with democrats. Mainstreamers feared reelection because they were holding VA and military pay hostage by doing that. Obama made the mistake of think the Paul Ryan's of the world are the Ted Cruz's.

2) Bowe Bergdahl rescue. Obama and Kerry basically said, "Screw the Republicans, we are doing this without them knowing". He traded 5 prisoners from Guantanamo for one traitor.

3) Iran Nuke Deal. He basically again said "screw Republicans, we are doing this and Im vetoing everything that says differently."

4) Cuba. Bill Clinton campaigned on how he was going to change relations with Cuba and get the Haitians out of Gitmo, but when he got in office and recieved the real reports he sang a different tune. Obama is a guy that believes in the theory that democracy could work everywhere. The problem with Cuba is that it is a historically chaotic country. The real reason we keep prisoners there is to have a reason to have a military force present. We have had to put down 2 political disputes and have come to the conclusion that Cuba is owned by the person who controls the streets. Raoul may be the last Castro to rule so its unknown where the country is going forward in the next 10 years.

Personally I see no difference between Gorsuch and Garland except the slight lean. The only joy i get out of the non hearing is seeing this regressive below cry about it


But I think the constant "Screw you" needs to stop on both sides,but the Dems need to tread lightly because if the nuclear option is implemented then they will have 0 to say in matters. What they need is to let this one pass and try to get Ryan on their side.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Tide1986 said:

Feel free to cite the constitutional provision that requires them to vote on every matter.

Article I, Section 5:

Click to expand...

No 'rules' were set, they simply decided to ignore their duty to treat someone with respect and at least give him a fair hearing. Thats not too much to ask but you are free to set the bar as low as you want.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

No 'rules' were set, they simply decided to ignore their duty to treat someone with respect and at least give him a fair hearing. Thats not too much to ask but you are free to set the bar as low as you want.

Click to expand...

Maybe you missed this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Or this

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/14408807/

Point is both parties have been acting like jackasses in regards of rules the past 2 years not just the republican senate.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

81usaf92 said:

Maybe you missed this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Or this

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/14408807/

Point is both parties have been acting like jackasses in regards of rules the past 2 years not just the republican senate.

Click to expand...

There seems to be no limit to how low congress can go and unfortunately I see no improvement anytime soon.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

There seems to be no limit to how low congress can go and unfortunately I see no improvement anytime soon.

Click to expand...

So trading 5 prisoners for 1 traitor without congressional approval isnt low. Especially when the search for that traitor led to the deaths of soldiers that didnt betray their country. Obama didnt tell congress because they wouldve said "NO and Hell no". so really this isnt just the republican senate abusing policy, its a democrat in the Oval office as well.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

81usaf92 said:

So trading 5 prisoners for 1 traitor without congressional approval isnt low. Especially when the search for that traitor led to the deaths of soldiers that didnt betray their country. Obama didnt tell congress because they wouldve said "NO and Hell no". so really this isnt just the republican senate abusing policy, its a democrat in the Oval office as well.

Click to expand...

Stay tuned. I think we will be seeing new lows.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

Stay tuned. I think we will be seeing new lows.

Click to expand...

Well the weather man said the lows to is 28 degrees. Not too out of the norm.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

No 'rules' were set, they simply decided to ignore their duty to treat someone with respect and at least give him a fair hearing. Thats not too much to ask but you are free to set the bar as low as you want.

Click to expand...

Guess you haven't been paying attention to what the tacit procedure has been, for the last year of a President's term, over the last 100 years or so.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

No 'rules' were set, they simply decided to ignore their duty to treat someone with respect and at least give him a fair hearing. Thats not too much to ask but you are free to set the bar as low as you want.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Senate has a detailed set of rules that govern their deliberations in committee and on the floor (developed under the authority that I cited). There is wide discretion in the rules for a committee to set its own agenda, and the rules specify how matters move from a committee to the Senate floor. Just because a committee doesn't consider something you want in a timeline to your liking doesn't mean the Senate isn't doing its job.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

Its their job!

Click to expand...

I'll buy that argument.


Now go make them do it. Good luck.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

81usaf92 said:

the problem is you are forgetting what started this...

1) Obama misjudged and misidentified mainstream republicans. Yeah the Tea Partiers tried to hold the budget hostage because of the ACA, but there is a key reason they werent successful and it had nothing to do with democrats. Mainstreamers feared reelection because they were holding VA and military pay hostage by doing that. Obama made the mistake of think the Paul Ryan's of the world are the Ted Cruz's.

2) Bowe Bergdahl rescue. Obama and Kerry basically said, "Screw the Republicans, we are doing this without them knowing". He traded 5 prisoners from Guantanamo for one traitor.

3) Iran Nuke Deal. He basically again said "screw Republicans, we are doing this and Im vetoing everything that says differently."

4) Cuba. Bill Clinton campaigned on how he was going to change relations with Cuba and get the Haitians out of Gitmo, but when he got in office and recieved the real reports he sang a different tune. Obama is a guy that believes in the theory that democracy could work everywhere. The problem with Cuba is that it is a historically chaotic country. The real reason we keep prisoners there is to have a reason to have a military force present. We have had to put down 2 political disputes and have come to the conclusion that Cuba is owned by the person who controls the streets. Raoul may be the last Castro to rule so its unknown where the country is going forward in the next 10 years.

Personally I see no difference between Gorsuch and Garland except the slight lean. The only joy i get out of the non hearing is seeing this regressive below cry about it

But I think the constant "Screw you" needs to stop on both sides,but the Dems need to tread lightly because if the nuclear option is implemented then they will have 0 to say in matters. What they need is to let this one pass and try to get Ryan on their side.

Click to expand...

Actually what STARTED this was the whole Bork fiasco in 1987 - led by the late Ted "Bridge Over Troubled Water" Kennedy and executed by (wait for it) Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and noted plagiarist (which is why in September 1987 he stepped aside from running for Prez - blowing Bork to pieces was at the top of their list as was duly noted by Jack Germond and Jules Witcover in "Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars").

Incidentally, the Senate does - and always to my knowledge had - the ability to 'advise and consent' on the issue of SCOTUS. In general as we came out of the New Deal, the Senate tended to defer to the President's judgment more often, although this may well have been more of a result of the fact that most of the time the same party controlled both branches of government.

And then Reagan came to town and having been a big state governor like FDR was, he understood the need for control of the judicial branch to accomplish his agenda better than most of the guys in between him (other than maybe Nixon, who was a lawyer). So he spelled out his desire to do this and the administration created a group called the Office of Legal Policy, headed by his first AG and personal lawyer, William French Smith. They did something novel for the Republican Party - rather than throwing up names known by the guys at the country club, they started searching out law professors and judges who weren't as liberal as the accepted norm of the time. Sorta like Saban would later do with the films on players, they got every piece of writing these folks wrote, did advanced interviews, and elicited judicial philosophy without ever asking 'litmus test' questions of how to rule on issues - particularly since any astute judge would know such pre-judgment would disqualify him or her.

He named O'Connor, a pro-choice conservative (and this was known at the time as Jerry Falwell snorted that every good Christian ought to be concerned about her prior senate record of endorsing the teaching of abortion as an alternative and Barry Goldwater replied that every good Christian ought to kick Falwell in his rump. Reagan then named Rhenquist as the Chief and selected Scalia to replace Rhenquist, who was replacing Warren Burger.

And had he chosen Bork in 1986.....when the GOP still had the Senate.......then in all probability BOTH Bork and Scalia would have made the Court because what worked against Bork would not have worked against Scalia, and (at least then) there had been no Italian on the court and there was a huge Italian immigrant vote in Massachusetts. They chose Scalia because he was eight years younger.


But the Democrats torpedoed Bork, knowing full well they were doing it and planning to do it. Bork made an easy enough target, but you also have to remember something that is no longer true: in 1987, there was still as such thing as conservative and moderate Democrats (and also liberal Republicans like H John Heinz and Lowell Weicker).

Go look at the votes.

Liberal Republican Bob Packwood and Moderate Republican John Warner Taylor (one of Liz's exes) voted AGAINST Bork.
Conservative Democrat Fritz Hollings voted for Bork

BOTH Alabama Democrats - Howell Heflin and Richard Shelby - voted against Bork. Both were conservative as the term was understood then. Shelby was told by Bennett Johnston of Louisiana that he was going to vote against Bork after Shelby said in private he would support it. Johnston basically pointed out to Shelby that he'd barely won election in 1986 and only the black vote put him over - and there was no way he was going to get re-elected if he voted for Bork (this is in Bronner's "Battle for Justice"). Johnston told him that the white conservatives who were a small part of his electoral support would forget by 1992 but the blacks he absolutely had to have would not. (For those not getting it: there were false rumors that Bork supported a return to the days of segregation and that he had criticized the Brown v Board of Education ruling even though he'd defended it).

BOTH Louisiana Democrats - mostly conservative again - went against Bork as well.

The only two Democrats to vote for Bork were Hollings and segregationist Strom Thurmond.


But the catch is this: that world does not exist anymore. Both parties - starting with the Democrats in the 1970s but mimicked by the Republicans in the 1990s and on into the more recent years - have purged any form of moderation from their party. You can be mostly conservative like Richard Lugar, Robert Bennett, Eric Cantor, or John Boehner - and if you're not radical enough you're gone, either by vote or by throwing up your hands in frustration and leaving.

And besides - Senator Joe Biden declared during the 1992 campaign that if any opening should arise.

You can read the man's own words here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

While I agree - again - it was a strident and stubborn move, it's the same thing the Democrats would have done in the same situation.

And note one more thing: Barack Obama was sure against a lot of stuff when he was in the Senate - like the debt ceiling - that he changed his mind about once he was elsewhere.

And one more thing: this looked like a colossally stupid move when the GOP nominated Trump - because he was going to get creamed. This is the equivalent of winning an NCAA b-ball title when the team's worst shooter throws the ball off of the opponent's head, it hits another opponent on the head and goes into the basket before the buzzer sounds.

The Republicans TRIED to give the Democrats the government - the fact they failed to capitalize shows serious problems with their approach.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Much better choice than Garland or any Obama or Clinton nominee.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Yes, he's a Foxnews commentator. But I believe he hits the nail squarely on the head:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...-have-been-so-partisan-about-trumps-pick.html

...while everyone is discussing the partisanship over Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, the real question is being ignored: what has caused this increased rancor?

Click to expand...

Fortunately, if you are anguished by the partisan rancor over judicial confirmations, there is a solution: shrink the role of government.

Click to expand...

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Bamaro said:

Whatever the dems do with Gorsuch the reps have it coming to them. I still cant understand why the reps wimped out on Merrick Garland. They should have simply treated him with the respect he deserved and then put on their big boy pants and voted. We would be where we are today anyway and they wouldn't have come off looking like petulant little brats.

Click to expand...

I am tired or hearing about Garland. Back when Obama nominated him for the empty seat, all you heard on the news was a bunch of condescending tripe about how the Republicans would be better off to just go ahead and nominate a moderate liberal like Garland because when Hilary Clinton won the election then a much more liberal judge would be nominated. And honestly once Trump won the nomination I thought that's how it would play out. Regardless, Obama knew the Senate was going to sit it out until the election regardless of the nominee and so he nominated a seemingly benign choice so he and the Democrats could pretend to be all noble and reasonable and paint Republicans as petty partisans. Meanwhile the Democrats wrote the rulebook on torpedoing nominations years ago and stated they would force it again with Clinton if necessary. Well turns out they lost and now they can sleep in the bed they made. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. I don't feel sorry for Garland one bit, he wasn't owed a vote, he was robbed of nothing, and Republicans have done absolutely nothing that isn't standard operating political procedure. The Democrat's bertha better than you act on this is beyond old.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

I think in a few months some of our fellow democrats, and anti-trumpers might be calling for Schrumer's head when a few republicans start to get Thomas to step down or the possible Ginsburg retirement happens. I can just see someone like Pryor or Cruz getting in just because the Dems wasted their filibuster on possibly the best nominee that Trump couldve thrown out.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

81usaf92 said:

I think in a few months some of our fellow democrats, and anti-trumpers might be calling for Schrumer's head when a few republicans start to get Thomas to step down or the possible Ginsburg retirement happens. I can just see someone like Pryor or Cruz getting in just because the Dems wasted their filibuster on possibly the best nominee that Trump couldve thrown out.

Click to expand...

Unlikely. Keep in mind that the two scenarios are

2. Filibuster Gorsuch. McConnell goes nuclear. Gorsuch gets confirmed. Ginsburg retires. Trump nominates Pryor (as an example). Pryor Gets confirmed.
1. Don't filibuster Gorsuch. Ginsburg retires. Trump nominates Pryor (as an example). Dems filibuster. McConnell goes nuclear. Pryor Gets confirmed.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

RammerJammer14 said:

Regardless, Obama knew the Senate was going to sit it out until the election regardless of the nominee and so he nominated a seemingly benign choice so he and the Democrats could pretend to be all noble and reasonable and paint Republicans as petty partisans.

Click to expand...

Why did Obama know that the Senate was going to sit it out? Because the Republicans declared that they wouldn't hold hearings on any nominations before Scalia's corpse was cold. They painted themselves as petty partisans.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

jthomas666 said:

Unlikely. Keep in mind that the two scenarios are

2. Filibuster Gorsuch. McConnell goes nuclear. Gorsuch gets confirmed. Ginsburg retires. Trump nominates Pryor (as an example). Pryor Gets confirmed.
1. Don't filibuster Gorsuch. Ginsburg retires. Trump nominates Pryor (as an example). Dems filibuster. McConnell goes nuclear. Pryor Gets confirmed.

Click to expand...

The politics are distinctly different between those two options. The Dems had the opportunity to take the high road and show that they support a reasonable nominee. They've now lost that ground so no one will hear their cries if a hard right judge is nominated. Their only hope is to win the Senate before the next seat opens up.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

jthomas666 said:

Why did Obama know that the Senate was going to sit it out? Because the Republicans declared that they wouldn't hold hearings on any nominations before Scalia's corpse was cold. They painted themselves as petty partisans.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the moment everything changed in Congress. McConnell essentially said you cannot nominate anyone for the SCOTUS unless you're the majority party in the Senate.

I'm not sure the filibuster is compatible with the current level of hyperpartisanship in Congress right now, honestly. Reid killed part of it because the GOP was obstructing literally everyone Obama nominated for literally every position in government. McConnell killed it further because Democrats decided his actions around Garland cannot simply be ignored. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats get back in power, the GOP filibusters every piece of legislation they try to pass, and Schumer or whoever just kills it entirely. Then we become a parliamentary system with only two parties, and I don't think we're designed to work that way.

Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC

Tide1986 said:

The politics are distinctly different between those two options. The Dems had the opportunity to take the high road and show that they support a reasonable nominee. They've now lost that ground so no one will hear their cries if a hard right judge is nominated. Their only hope is to win the Senate before the next seat opens up.

Click to expand...

If the GOP refuses the high road, it's bad strategy for the Democrats to take it alone.

Besides, the politics here were all about 2018. The base wanted them to filibuster Gorsuch. Had they just passively let him breeze through confirmation hearings, it would've demobilized a significant portion of the base.