Democrats secure votes to block Gorsuch as Senate panel considers nominee

[prometeus]

...is he controversial?

He certainly is not main stream.

Gorsuch is a textualist constitutionalist.

People who believe that forget that it is the law, even the supreme law, that is supposed to serve man and man serve the law.

he was confirmed to lower courts almost unanimously.

Which is entirely irrelevant. On a lower court the decision in which he would participate is NOT the last word. On SCOTUS it is.

Why is he to far right now?

His record stands for that.

 

[Absentglare]

I said garland should have had an up or down vote, so should gorsuch. in this case, the blame is apt. the democrats are filibustering a nominee who is more than qualified, who they all voted for when appointed to lower courts. There is nothing partisan in my position.

The fact that you claim to be unaware of your partisanship isn't terribly convincing to an outside observer.

Republicans claimed the SCOTUS was fine with 8. If they add someone, they should first have a hearing for Garland. He's the best qualified SCOTUS pick in two centuries.

 

[prometeus]

I said garland should have had an up or down vote, so should gorsuch.

But a up and down vote is not enough unless the rules are changed.

 

[Absentglare]

You're still wrong no matter how many times you repeat.

You seem to be stuck on the fear thing. Fear doesn't enter the picture. The political right was not about to let Obama pack the court. It was an exercise in political power for a specific end, and that end is about to be achieved. You only view it as unfair because you weren't the ones doing it, and history demonstrates the truth in that.

I see you have no interest in discussion, just repeating partisan rhetoric and ignorance is pointless.

 

[Jack Hays]

I see you have no interest in discussion, just repeating partisan rhetoric and ignorance is pointless.

It's not partisan rhetoric to observe that a poster who has made no point has, well, made no point.

 

[humbolt]

I see you have no interest in discussion, just repeating partisan rhetoric and ignorance is pointless.

Feel free to refute any of it.

 

[EnigmaO01]

I wish we could elect adults, instead of children pretending to be adults. Let's see if I can sum this up:

McConnell should not trigger the so-called nuclear option.
Democrats shouldn't filibuster Gorsuch for no good reason.
Republicans shouldn't have refused to hold a hearing for Garland for no good reason.
Democrats shouldn't have triggered the so-called nuclear option years back for other appointees (2013?).
Republicans shouldn't have engaged in record filibustering tactics.


All in all, if we insisted on more adults, rather than children, our country could run more smoothly. But that doesn't seem to be the direction we're headed anytime soon.

I believe it will have to get really bad first to get better. Like a drug addict that needs to hit rock bottom before he finally accepts he needs to stop his destructive behavior.

 

[prometeus]

The political right was not about to let Obama pack the court.

So now the political left should let Trump pack it? Hypocrisy much?

 

[j-mac]

So now the political left should let Trump pack it? Hypocrisy much?

Who says he'd do that? Seems your argument is more fear based than rational...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[humbolt]

So now the political left should let Trump pack it? Hypocrisy much?

No, there's no hypocrisy except with the left here. Trump is replacing a conservative with a conservative. He's not replacing Ginsburg with a conservative. Hyperbole much?

 

[Absentglare]

It's not partisan rhetoric to observe that a poster who has made no point has, well, made no point.

I am well aware that my decimation of your lack of an argument does not qualify as "partisan rhetoric".

 

[prometeus]

No, there's no hypocrisy except with the left here. Trump is replacing a conservative with a conservative. He's not replacing Ginsburg with a conservative. Hyperbole much?

That is a load of crap. You believe that if Ginsburg retired tomorrow he would nominate a liberal?

 

[prometeus]

Who says he'd do that?

Is the nominee a moderate?

Seems your argument is more fear based than rational...

I did not make an argument. I raised the question in light of an assertion by another poster.

 

[humbolt]

That is a load of crap. You believe that if Ginsburg retired tomorrow he would nominate a liberal?

The fact is that Trump is replacing a conservative Justice with another. That this pisses you off is telling and exposes where the crap actually resides.

 

[humbolt]

I am well aware that my decimation of your lack of an argument does not qualify as "partisan rhetoric".

Trump could win a second term with you leading the decimation.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It perfectly addressed what you both said.

Nota said that obstructionism is counterproductive. I agree, that's why republicans should accept the olive branch that democrats extended with Garland. Instead, they are going with a "particularly outlandish" appointment of a known polarized candidate on the SCOTUS, bypassing the non-polarized, better-qualified Garland.

You both seem to refuse to acknowledge what an amazing pick Garland was. President Obama trapped republicans with their own partisanship, but you seem deliberately blind to it.

Only reason that he's "polarized" is because he was appointed by Trump and they're throwing temper tantrums that Garland didn't receive a hearing. And saying that he's a polarized candidate strikes full in the face of the fact that Gorsuch was in fact unanimously voted into his current office by BOTH sides of the fence. IE: Its a lie to say that he is a polarized candidate. Out of curiosity...did Garland ever receive such a unanimous appointment across both party lines?

And don't even talk to me about partisanship. Neither me or Nota have ever said that Garland shouldn't have received a hearing. In fact as far as I can tell Nota thinks that it was wrong for the Republicans to do what they did with Garland and I have said the same thing. You on the other hand only want Gorsuch to be denied because of "OMG TEH REPUBLICANS DIDN'T GIVE GARLAND A HEARING!!!" and "OMG IT'S TEH TRUMP!!!" Neither of which is a valid reason to deny Gorsuch. But they are good indicators of someone throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[Absentglare]

Trump could win a second term with you leading the decimation.

How many more years are you planning to gloat about that?

 

[Absentglare]

Only reason that he's "polarized" is because he was appointed by Trump and they're throwing temper tantrums that Garland didn't receive a hearing. And saying that he's a polarized candidate strikes full in the face of the fact that Gorsuch was in fact unanimously voted into his current office by BOTH sides of the fence. IE: Its a lie to say that he is a polarized candidate. Out of curiosity...did Garland ever receive such a unanimous appointment across both party lines?

And don't even talk to me about partisanship. Neither me or Nota have ever said that Garland shouldn't have received a hearing. In fact as far as I can tell Nota thinks that it was wrong for the Republicans to do what they did with Garland and I have said the same thing. You on the other hand only want Gorsuch to be denied because of "OMG TEH REPUBLICANS DIDN'T GIVE GARLAND A HEARING!!!" and "OMG IT'S TEH TRUMP!!!" Neither of which is a valid reason to deny Gorsuch. But they are good indicators of someone throwing a temper tantrum.

Lol no you're wrong. It was polarized for Garland to be refused a hearing, but not for democrats to vote against the partisan pick shamefully given a hearing in his place.

 

[humbolt]

How many more years are you planning to gloat about that?

Considering my age, it could last for the rest of my life. I'm likewise wondering how long you're gonna whine about losing. I get the impression that could last considerably longer. The facts, politically speaking, surrounding the current SC nominee indicate that historically the behavior we are witnessing is a pretty fair representation of events that have happened many times before with the shifting fortunes of politics.

 

[Absentglare]

Considering my age, it could last for the rest of my life. I'm likewise wondering how long you're gonna whine about losing. I get the impression that could last considerably longer. The facts, politically speaking, surrounding the current SC nominee indicate that historically the behavior we are witnessing is a pretty fair representation of events that have happened many times before with the shifting fortunes of politics.

LOL, i didn't whine about losing. You're the one who was desperate to bring up the election after losing your argument. I was just wondering how long until you're done beating that dead horse.

 

[humbolt]

LOL, i didn't whine about losing. You're the one who was desperate to bring up the election after losing your argument. I was just wondering how long until you're done beating that dead horse.

Heh. I didn't make any argument. I merely presented the facts. You're still whining about Garland, who truly is a dead horse. The election established who the winners and losers are, and I know it comes as a shock to you, but the winners get to establish policy and do things like nominate prospective SC justices. Check with Obama. I think he stated the current view of such situations accurately.

 

[Jack Hays]

I am well aware that my decimation of your lack of an argument does not qualify as "partisan rhetoric".

:bs:naughty

 

[Kal'Stang]

Lol no you're wrong. It was polarized for Garland to be refused a hearing, but not for democrats to vote against the partisan pick shamefully given a hearing in his place.

If that is what you were attempting to say in your previous post then you probably should have chosen your words more carefully.

In either case, what's actually partisan is refusing to vote for someone that had previously had unanimous support for his current position by both sides of the aisle just because Trump appointed him.

What's stupid is to refuse to vote for him because of the stupidity that Republicans displayed towards Garland. Especially when your side always attempts to claim that they're the rational ones and the other side is filled with nothing but haters.

 

[prometeus]

The fact is that Trump is replacing a conservative Justice with another.

Yes that is true but not the point of our exchange.

That this pisses you off is telling and exposes where the crap actually resides.

It does not piss me off in the least. Unlike you I can accept reality even if I do not like it and unlike you I favor something better than partisanship and partisan extremism, for the benefit of all of us.

 

[prometeus]

someone that had previously had unanimous support for his current position by both sides of the aisle just because Trump appointed him.

You are either missing an important point or are just wrong. Unanimous support for one appointment does not translate to the same unanimity for an other appointment. While in his current position he is not the last or ultimate word on the matters before him (as part of the court) as a justice on SCOTUS there is no higher power to which an appeal can be made. Fact is that his judicial philosophy is not main stream and what we need as a nation does not call for leaning to either or any extreme.