Democrats secure votes to block Gorsuch as Senate panel considers nominee

[iguanaman]

I think most people are unhappy with pointless wastes of time when there are things to be done. It's nice to think "a government that does nothing is best" but that's not reality.

This guy is as socially liberal as possible coming from Republicans.

Pleeese. He's a corporatist picked by the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Removable Mind]

Lame and unproductive. Dems could not have hoped for a better nominee. It's moronic to spend political capital fighting this nomination.

During the campaign, Trump told his supporters that he promised to appoint a Justice who would do what?

 

[ecofarm]

Pleeese. He's a corporatist picked by the Heritage Foundation.

His church accepts gays and has a female priest. It doesn't get more socially liberal in the republican party.

 

[ecofarm]

During the campaign, Trump told his supporters that he promised to appoint a Justice who would do what?

And he promised to end terrorism in what, a week? Let's not cloud reality with Trump's promises.

 

[chuckiechan]

I hope the Republicans have the balls to nuke'em.

Or replace him with an ultra conservative, then go nuclear.

 

[Absentglare]

Perhaps because everything you said here is BS? They should "flip" because its the right thing to do. I don't know about you but my mother never taught me to be so petty. In fact she taught me to be forgiven and kind and to always do what is right no matter how pissed off I was or how much of a jerk the other side was. So so what if Garland wasn't given a hearing? What has that got to do with Gorsuch? Did he hold up that hearing? Nope. In fact he was appointed to his current position by both parties showing that he is, without all this partisan BS, qualified for the job of SCOTUS Justice.

Also, Garland was anti-individual rights when it came to guns. Not a good pick for someone that is supposed to be in a position that protects individual Rights.

As for Roe v Wade...its not law. Never was law. All that it did was strike down law. SCOTUS cannot make laws. They can only strike them down. As such, there is no reason for Gorsuch to acknowledge that Roe V Wade is law. Because it isn't.

This is ironic because i consider much of your response here BS.

Consider the case that Garland is anti-gun, WaPo reports that Garlands stance on guns has actually never been tested:

In the first of two gun cases Garland handled as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — Parker v. District of Columbia, which became District of Columbia v. Heller when it was elevated to the Supreme Court — he was among four judges of his court who voted in 2007 for a rehearing of the case after a three-judge panel found that the Constitution includes an individual right to bear arms. The NRA and other gun rights supporters have interpreted that vote as evidence of Garland’s hostility, but the professors argue that conclusion is unfounded. Garland, they argue, was justified in seeking additional review for a case that overturned existing precedent and addressed a matter of exceptional importance. And, they note, a conservative judge joined Garland in seeking a rehearing.
...
In the other case, National Rifle Association v. Reno, Garland in 2000 joined an opinion written by a fellow judge that found that the Justice Department, in keeping certain background-check data for six months to conduct audits, had not violated the 1968 federal law barring the establishment of any national firearm registry. The professors write that the ruling was supported by the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. Bush and that the Supreme Court subsequently decided not to hear the NRA’s appeal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...istorted-by-nra-second-amendment-experts-say/

Grosuch is a predictable partisan on the issue of guns. That seems to be his qualifying requirement for you. Why do you expect democrats who i assume you didn't vote for to respect your interests here? They're just doing the same thing republicans did to them in this situation: obstructing. Those who live in the glass house constructed by supporting republicans shouldn't these throw stones, at least not for that reason.

 

[Kal'Stang]

This is ironic because i consider much of your response here BS.

Consider the case that Garland is anti-gun, WaPo reports that Garlands stance on guns has actually never been tested:



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...istorted-by-nra-second-amendment-experts-say/

Your own source admits to biasness. Funny how you excluded just tho those "experts" are....

A group of 10 law professors organized by the liberal American Constitution Society

The ACS is a progressive foundation (admitted by their own words) which is known to be anti-gun. Nothing that they say is worth even a slight peak much less actually reading.

Grosuch is a predictable partisan on the issue of guns. That seems to be his qualifying requirement for you. Why do you expect democrats who i assume you didn't vote for to respect your interests here? They're just doing the same thing republicans did to them in this situation: obstructing. Those who live in the glass house constructed by supporting republicans shouldn't these throw stones, at least not for that reason.

If by partisan you mean believes in the individual Right to keep and bear arms, then yeah, whatever. :shrug:

And yes, I have voted for democrats. In fact I voted for one to be placed on our state court. Funny that huh?

And I don't expect democrats to respect my interests. But I do think that they should do what is right instead of acting like little children throwing a temper tantrum. They're supposed to be adults. Act like it.

 

[Absentglare]

Your own source admits to biasness. Funny how you excluded just tho those "experts" are....



The ACS is a progressive foundation (admitted by their own words) which is known to be anti-gun. Nothing that they say is worth even a slight peak much less actually reading.



If by partisan you mean believes in the individual Right to keep and bear arms, then yeah, whatever. :shrug:

And yes, I have voted for democrats. In fact I voted for one to be placed on our state court. Funny that huh?

And I don't expect democrats to respect my interests. But I do think that they should do what is right instead of acting like little children throwing a temper tantrum. They're supposed to be adults. Act like it.

What?! Come on, you know better than that. If liberal, then lying; is that your logic here? That's some weak ****. Can you find any source for your narrative other than the NRA (which i would attack with this simple biasness accusation)?

Here i found another:

"The evidence that is being cited for the accusation that Judge Garland has some bias against Second Amendment rights is from thin to nonexistent," says Miguel Estrada, a conservative Republican lawyer whose own nomination to the D.C. Circuit was stalled by Democrats during the George W. Bush administration.

Estrada notes that the charge that Garland is hostile to gun rights stems from a case challenging the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. In 2007, a three-judge panel — not including Garland — ruled for the first time that there is a constitutional right to own guns for self-defense. Afterward, Garland was one of four judges, including a conservative Reagan appointee, who voted for the full court to rehear the case.

Why Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland's Judicial Record Slips Through Critics' Fingers : NPR

They even cited 'exceptional importance' in the case just like the WaPo claim. Garland is, at worst, generally undecided on how to rule with respect to guns. He never had a firm ruling either way. Must be scary to have a judge who would respect the law over the republican agenda!

And this context is democrats in the senate. Those democrats are the ones who are representing interests of the people who voted for them by filibustering, by reciprocating the obstruction of republicans who refused so much as a hearing for the center, non-partisan (that's really what disqualified him: he's not a republican hack) pick Garland.

 

[Kal'Stang]

What?! Come on, you know better than that. If liberal, then lying; is that your logic here? That's some weak ****. Can you find any source for your narrative other than the NRA (which i would attack with this simple biasness accusation)?

Actually their own website asserts that they are progressive in their thoughts on laws and Constitutionality. Nothing from the NRA there. Not to mention that they were founded specifically to counter the Federalist Society which is dedicated to original interpretation of the Constitution.

Here i found another:



Why Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland's Judicial Record Slips Through Critics' Fingers : NPR

They even cited 'exceptional importance' in the case just like the WaPo claim. Garland is, at worst, generally undecided on how to rule with respect to guns. He never had a firm ruling either way. Must be scary to have a judge who would respect the law over the republican agenda!

I may have been wrong on that point with Garland.

And this context is democrats in the senate. Those democrats are the ones who are representing interests of the people who voted for them by filibustering, by reciprocating the obstruction of republicans who refused so much as a hearing for the center, non-partisan (that's really what disqualified him: he's not a republican hack) pick Garland.

And what exactly are they accomplishing by filibustering Gorsuch? An eye for an eye mentality? Keep doing that and soon everyone will be blinded. The sole reason that the democrats are blocking Gorsuch is due to partisan politics. "The Republicans did this therefore we're going to do it too!" is not exactly a good way to govern. In fact its the WORST way possible to govern. What's the old saying? "Doing the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity" or something like that? According to many democrats they're better than republicans. So why not act like it? All I see is a temper tantrum that any 3 year old would conduct.

 

[holbritter]

That is specifically what I've been saying all along. The logic that Democrats should somehow use the filibuster for the next time they'll be nuked holds no water. This political climate will not tolerate a filibuster, and that's the end of that.

If the filibuster was used like it was meant to, the logic to save it would fit. They would have a hard time convincing anyone that Gorsuch shouldn't go through. However, if they did save it for a more questionable and objectional appointment later, they might have the chance to convince any Repubs who were on the fence.

 

[jmotivator]

that the republicans have a LOOOOOONG history of fillibustering

And again, what does that even mean? I seem to remember a certain bill in 1964 that the Democrats filibustered. Oh burn. :roll:

What does any of that have to do with the value of the filibuster as a whole?

 

[tres borrachos]

He attends a liberal, gay accepting church with a female pastor. As far as thumpers go, it doesn't get any more reasonable. It amazes me that dems could be such turds about this.

Exactly right. From a social perspective, Gorsuch is far more moderate than others who Trump could have nominated. I watched a lot of his hearings and he strikes me as a very principled, very intelligent jurist, and there is absolutely no reason to oppose this pick. Why the Dems are doing it is beyond me. Trump is replacing an uber conservative with a moderate right leaner. They need to save their angst and filibustering for when Trump has to replace the moderate Kennedy or even the liberal Bader-Ginsburg. The Dems have really surprised me with their opposition to Gorsuch because I've yet to see anything that makes him objectionable.

No matter what the theater, in the end the man will, and should, be confirmed.

 

[j-mac]

You missed my point. SCOTUS appointments shouldn't be political; but the right is making sure they are. Extremist partisans are eager to go nuclear, but they don't seem to understand the ramifications of doing so.

Only a democrat would operate in a fashion so as to be purely political, then blame their opponents of being political.

Please tell us how Soto, or Keagan were held up? And don't give me the Garland crap, repubs were following what "plugs" Biden, and "schmucky" Schumer were calling for in '92

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[fmw]

I watched a lot of his hearings and he strikes me as a very principled, very intelligent jurist, and there is absolutely no reason to oppose this pick. Why the Dems are doing it is beyond me.

Politics. What could be more obvious? It has nothing to do with the candidate.

 

[j-mac]

Pleeese. He's a corporatist picked by the Heritage Foundation.

You're not going to get Garland. Dems. Lost.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

Politics. What could be more obvious? It has nothing to do with the candidate.

Does it ever? Why do you think the Dems torpedoed Bork? Why do you think the Republicans refused to even grant Garland a hearing?

Sadly the confirmation process for SCOTUS has been nothing but political theater for decades. I hate it.

 

[fmw]

Does it ever? Why do you think the Dems torpedoed Bork? Why do you think the Republicans refused to even grant Garland a hearing?

Sadly the confirmation process for SCOTUS has been nothing but political theater for decades. I hate it.

I hate it as well. Bork and Garland were qualified candidates as well. Both of them should have been confirmed. Partisanship is very destructive.

 

[j-mac]

Does it ever? Why do you think the Dems torpedoed Bork? Why do you think the Republicans refused to even grant Garland a hearing?

Sadly the confirmation process for SCOTUS has been nothing but political theater for decades. I hate it.

Maybe Americans shouldn't allow 9 unelected judges to be a super legislature.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[prometeus]

I watched a lot of his hearings and he strikes me as a very principled, very intelligent jurist, and there is absolutely no reason to oppose this pick. Why the Dems are doing it is beyond me.

Beyond the obvious, which is politics and partisanship, there is philosophy, not ideology mind you but philosophy. While it is a fact that Gorsuch has impeccable credentials and is very intelligent, his approach to some issues is what troubles some people. The most obvious are the two cases that have been brought up and while they are only two out of over two thousand decisions, they clearly point to an approach to the law that puts the little guy at a disadvantage. Sometimes even the brightest and best educated can be wrong for certain positions.
It is not too hard to loose from sight that it is the law that is supposed to serve man and not man serve the law.

Just look at Justice Scalia, one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable persons anyone can ever meet, a wonderful private person with a wicked sense of humor, pleasant and kind, yet when he put on that robe he became the antithesis of all that.
Personally I believe that with the SCOTUS, it should take 66 votes to confirm. It is the only way to at least partially overcome partisanship and avoid naming justices that are not main stream.

 

[Common Sense 1]

"Let me assure you that Judge Gorsuch is going to be on the Supreme Court by midnight Friday night," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told host Martha MacCallum. "I can assure you that. One way or the other, he’s going to get the necessary votes to get there."

Grassley: 'Gorsuch is going to be on the Supreme Court by midnight Friday' | Fox News

 

[Master PO]

this action was responsive to the progressives who told their elected representatives not to roll over and play dead
especially after the way the GOP snubbed Obama's SC nominee

i believe you are correct, but democrats are wasting the filibuster on someone who going to be confirmed

 

[Mac77]

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.

McConnel is not to blame here

Democrats are determined to go down in a blase of glory and that leaves the repubs no choice

And I like it because when one of the libearal judges assumes room tempature trump can nominate a conservative to replace them and the libearals cannot stop him

 

[tres borrachos]

Beyond the obvious, which is politics and partisanship, there is philosophy, not ideology mind you but philosophy. While it is a fact that Gorsuch has impeccable credentials and is very intelligent, his approach to some issues is what troubles some people. The most obvious are the two cases that have been brought up and while they are only two out of over two thousand decisions, they clearly point to an approach to the law that puts the little guy at a disadvantage. Sometimes even the brightest and best educated can be wrong for certain positions.
It is not too hard to loose from sight that it is the law that is supposed to serve man and not man serve the law.

Just look at Justice Scalia, one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable persons anyone can ever meet, a wonderful private person with a wicked sense of humor, pleasant and kind, yet when he put on that robe he became the antithesis of all that.
Personally I believe that with the SCOTUS, it should take 66 votes to confirm. It is the only way to at least partially overcome partisanship and avoid naming justices that are not main stream.

You know, it wasn't until Scalia's unfortunate passing that I learned so much about the person inside the robe. He sounded like a guy I would love to hang out with in a social setting. When I heard about his personal and apparently really tight relationship with Bader-Ginsburg it reminded me how too often I view politicians and judges through a partisan lens of "what impact does their action have on me" and I forget that there are real people inside - some I would like, others not so much.

 

[j-mac]

Beyond the obvious, which is politics and partisanship, there is philosophy, not ideology mind you but philosophy. While it is a fact that Gorsuch has impeccable credentials and is very intelligent, his approach to some issues is what troubles some people. The most obvious are the two cases that have been brought up and while they are only two out of over two thousand decisions, they clearly point to an approach to the law that puts the little guy at a disadvantage. Sometimes even the brightest and best educated can be wrong for certain positions.
It is not too hard to loose from sight that it is the law that is supposed to serve man and not man serve the law.

Just look at Justice Scalia, one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable persons anyone can ever meet, a wonderful private person with a wicked sense of humor, pleasant and kind, yet when he put on that robe he became the antithesis of all that.
Personally I believe that with the SCOTUS, it should take 66 votes to confirm. It is the only way to at least partially overcome partisanship and avoid naming justices that are not main stream.

Problem is that when democrats use terms like "main stream" while in the minority, it's just code for 'choose who WE want'....Now, why should they get their desire while in power, and out of power?...Nope...elections have consequences.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[vesper]

this action was responsive to the progressives who told their elected representatives not to roll over and play dead
especially after the way the GOP snubbed Obama's SC nominee

It was the people that Republicans heard from that did not want Scalia's seat filled with a jurist that wasn't a Constitutional originalist. Polling showed later that it was the filling of the vacant seat on the SC to be the most important reason for voters to cast a vote for Trump. It wasn't that they were gleeful over Trump becoming the nominee but rather 58% of Republicans voted for him because of the SC.

So no doubt the Dems are hearing from their constituents as well with this movement within the Democratic party to resist Trump in all things being afoot. And it is rather ironic that the left are using the courts as a major part of this resistance movement to try and hinder his presidency. Since being sworn in Jan. 20, Trump has been named in 52 federal cases in 17 different states, according to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Comparatively, Barack Obama was named in three and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were each named in four cases between Jan. 20 and Feb. 1.

Another part of the resistance is to slow walk, personally trash every cabinet nominee of Trump's. Here it is April and they still haven't provided the president with a full cabinet.



So they are ready to filibuster Gorsuch, a first in our history for a SC nominee. Well, he will be confirmed one way or another this week and for that I am very pleased. I think he is a fine judge and a fine human being. It was really disgusting how the Democrats trashed him. I do believe this is going to come back and bite them.

What I find interesting are the previous votes for SC nominees in the recent past, none of them had to reach 60 votes. Clarence Thomas had something like 53 and Alito something like 55.
with the Dems strongly against both nominees over ideology. Yet Republicans joined the Democrats in confirming Kagan and Sotomayor both receiving vote counts in the 80's and 90's because Republican Senators in the majority don't use a litmus test on SC nominees in regard to ideology but rather focus on the nominee's qualifications. They have the mindset that a liberal president is going to nominate liberal jurists and that is part of the consequences of losing an election.