Democrats secure votes to block Gorsuch as Senate panel considers nominee

[Absentglare]

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.



I may have been wrong on that point with 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.

The republicans insisted that an 8 justice court is sufficient, did they not? We don't require a specific number of justices.

I don't think democrats want someone who will continue to place business interests above those of the people like Gorsuch. His ruling that the trucker should have risked hypothermia and frostbite is asinine.

I get the feeling that you are convinced that the SCOTUS will be enhanced by Gorsuch's presence, yet it seems that democrats disagree. I would argue that Garland was a moderate, non-partisan candidate. He should have had a hearing. The SCOTUS should not have become another partisan tool, but now republicans have insisted by refusing to even consider any semblance of bipartisanship with respect to Garland. Now McConnell vows ahead of time to use the nuclear option, and they whine that it's democrats fault that we can't be bipartisan: nope, McConnell said that out of partisanship, for the same reason he refused Garland a hearing.

Face the facts here. The right is trying to transform the SCOTUS, where judges are historically bipartisan, into another partisan vehicle. And judging by which direction President Trump is turning the country, it's a really bad move on their part.

 

[iguanaman]

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

The fillibuster is dead regardless of what happens with Gorsuch so why not make the stand now? This will come back to bite the GOP later.

 

[Mac77]

The fillibuster is dead regardless of what happens with Gorsuch so why not make the stand now? This will come back to bite the GOP later.

When that day comes it will hurt less if trump can pack the courts with conservatives before the balance of power shifts back to the dems

 

[TurtleDude]

What goes around comes around. The appointment belonged to Obama. Besides the last thing we need is another corporatist on the bench . Hand picked by the Heritage Foundation no less. Obama's pick was much more moderate.

how does it now belong to a president who no longer has any relevance.

Obama's picks are hard core bannerrhoids who don't think the constitution has any real relevance

 

[TurtleDude]

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

the best way to pay the dems back is to put a real far right radical on the court. Maybe Cruz next time around

 

[Mac77]

the best way to pay the dems back is to put a real far right radical on the court. Maybe Cruz next time around

Needing only 51 votes to confirm the next judge trump can search for a robert bork clone and get him confirmed to relace the next liberal judge who leaves the court

 

[j-mac]

The republicans insisted that an 8 justice court is sufficient, did they not? We don't require a specific number of justices.

I don't think democrats want someone who will continue to place business interests above those of the people like Gorsuch. His ruling that the trucker should have risked hypothermia and frostbite is asinine.

I get the feeling that you are convinced that the SCOTUS will be enhanced by Gorsuch's presence, yet it seems that democrats disagree. I would argue that Garland was a moderate, non-partisan candidate. He should have had a hearing. The SCOTUS should not have become another partisan tool, but now republicans have insisted by refusing to even consider any semblance of bipartisanship with respect to Garland. Now McConnell vows ahead of time to use the nuclear option, and they whine that it's democrats fault that we can't be bipartisan: nope, McConnell said that out of partisanship, for the same reason he refused Garland a hearing.

Face the facts here. The right is trying to transform the SCOTUS, where judges are historically bipartisan, into another partisan vehicle. And judging by which direction President Trump is turning the country, it's a really bad move on their part.

The show of "bipartisanship" would be for Schumcky Schumer to call for an up or down vote, and quit playing Brinkman ship games with the courts.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

It is a shame that Republicans will feel the need to go nuclear. Senate worked better when they tried to get 60 votes but at this point their is little reason for Republicans to just let Democrats win this one.
Perhaps the best possibility now is to reinstate the old filibuster rules about actually talking for a long time. It should be hard to filibuster.

This right here is an excellent statement. It should not be easy to filibuster. And at this point? We as a nation are now going to be crippled from a locked senate. While I believe that this would be a GOOD thing...for a lot of things...I don't know.

This is the major problem in SCOTUS legislating from the bench and essentially rewriting the law. The stakes are now far higher and the pick isn't about the candidate who is qualified and will rule fairly. It is about the candidate who voted republican or democrat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mac77]

The show of "bipartisanship" would be for Schumcky Schumer to call for an up or down vote, and quit playing Brinkman ship games with the courts.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

The democrats are pouring gasoline and setting THEMSELVES on fire

 

[justabubba]

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.



I may have been wrong on that point with 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.

the RNC/GOP often points to the actions of someone who effected policy detrimental to democratic interests as a person with bi-partisan support
once gosuck is added to the supreme count via the nuclear option, that cannot be said about him

 

[Absentglare]

how does it now belong to a president who no longer has any relevance.

Obama's picks are hard core bannerrhoids who don't think the constitution has any real relevance

That is such a gross mischaracterization of Garland.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is such a gross mischaracterization of Garland.

he's anti gun. Everything about him suggests an anti gun type. He wanted a rehearing on the pro second amendment decision before his circuit
what does that tell you? do you really think that Obama was going to pick a pro-heller justice?

 

[justabubba]

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?

it was a reply to this portion of your following post:

That bolded part there isn't really true, or at the very least very misleading. Reid called a record number of cloture votes. The rate the cloture votes that failed was at or below the usual average.

Both Bush and Obama had the same number of federal appointments confirmed during their tenure (325), and the rate they were appointed was almost identical. At the same point in the Bush administration he has 11 more judge confirmations than Obama (218 to 207 respectively), hardly evidence of an out-of-control, filibuster-happy minority.

In the Congressional session before the Nuclear option was used by Reid there were a total of three judge selections that failed due to a filibuster. I don't know if that is a record or not, but definitely a narrow record if it is.

jesse helms frequently employed the filibuster
to avoid such actions as renewal of the civil rights act
opposition to the MLK national holiday
against the implementation of sanctions on apartheid south africa

the point is, you want to paint this as a unique and recent weapon of the democrats when jesse was history's filibuster 'king'


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms
Jesse Helms' Shameful Legacy Can't Be Whitewashed | The Huffington Post

 

[justabubba]

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

"wasted" the filibuster
how was responding to their progressive constituency found to be a bad thing

 

[justabubba]

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.

here you are faulting the democras for tRump's incompetence
his appointees were not timely submitting their paperwork
tRump was not timely submitting their names
in fact, most of the remaining appointments are not filled because tRump has made no effort to fill them. that was his choice

 

[justabubba]

The fillibuster is dead regardless of what happens with Gorsuch so why not make the stand now? This will come back to bite the GOP later.

truth be told, it was reid who opened pandora's box with his revision of the senate rules in 2013
it was as if he realized he would not be around to deal with the situation when the republicans reciprocated that partisan 'favor'
revenge is not a tasty dish served hot or cold

 

[jmotivator]

it was a reply to this portion of your following post:

jesse helms frequently employed the filibuster
to avoid such actions as renewal of the civil rights act
opposition to the MLK national holiday
against the implementation of sanctions on apartheid south africa

the point is, you want to paint this as a unique and recent weapon of the democrats when jesse was history's filibuster 'king'


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms
Jesse Helms' Shameful Legacy Can't Be Whitewashed | The Huffington Post

I understand the reference, and again, what is your point here? Do you oppose the filibuster? Are you arguing that filibuster is bad because a dead guy used it? Ted Kennedy used the filibuster a lot and he killed a woman. :roll:

 

[justabubba]

I understand the reference, and again, what is your point here? Do you oppose the filibuster? Are you arguing that filibuster is bad because a dead guy used it? Ted Kennedy used the filibuster a lot and he killed a woman. :roll:

i was pointing out the double standard

the republicans point and say how dare the democrats impose a filibuster to hamstring the supreme court nominee, while having as a former republican leader someone who often adopted the filibuster to thwart any effort to advance civil rights

i did not want to miss the opportunity to focus on the hypocrisy of the GOP and its proponents

 

[Absentglare]

he's anti gun. Everything about him suggests an anti gun type. He wanted a rehearing on the pro second amendment decision before his circuit
what does that tell you? do you really think that Obama was going to pick a pro-heller justice?

He didn't give an opinion, he simply wanted the entire circuit to hear the case. Further, even if he did intend to provide an opinion you have no evidence for, he would have simply been following pre-Heller precedent.

His major failing for you seems to be that his stance on guns is not well-established and predictably partisan.

 

[Absentglare]

That bolded part there isn't really true, or at the very least very misleading. Reid called a record number of cloture votes. The rate the cloture votes that failed was at or below the usual average.

Both Bush and Obama had the same number of federal appointments confirmed during their tenure (325), and the rate they were appointed was almost identical. At the same point in the Bush administration he has 11 more judge confirmations than Obama (218 to 207 respectively), hardly evidence of an out-of-control, filibuster-happy minority.

In the Congressional session before the Nuclear option was used by Reid there were a total of three judge selections that failed due to a filibuster. I don't know if that is a record or not, but definitely a narrow record if it is.

I call bull****.

 

[Samhain]

truth be told, it was reid who opened pandora's box with his revision of the senate rules in 2013
it was as if he realized he would not be around to deal with the situation when the republicans reciprocated that partisan 'favor'
revenge is not a tasty dish served hot or cold

 

[Samhain]

I call bull****.

They used to not bother to call for cloture if they didn't have the votes, but now that everyone has ample access to information( like your graph ), its easier to paint your opponent as obstructionist by calling for end to debate prematurely.

 

[TurtleDude]

He didn't give an opinion, he simply wanted the entire circuit to hear the case. Further, even if he did intend to provide an opinion you have no evidence for, he would have simply been following pre-Heller precedent.

His major failing for you seems to be that his stance on guns is not well-established and predictably partisan.

well lets see if you can answer an easy question

if you had to guess-based on who nominated him, his desire to have the Circuit court decision reheard, and his demographical background =how do you think he would rule on a second amendment issue?

 

[jmotivator]

i was pointing out the double standard

the republicans point and say how dare the democrats impose a filibuster to hamstring the supreme court nominee, while having as a former republican leader someone who often adopted the filibuster to thwart any effort to advance civil rights

Who is saying "how dare they"? I am a clear supporter of the filibuster, so it really isn't me. I want to get the filibuster added as a constitutional amendment so that the majority party can never threaten to kill the filibuster again.

The DEMOCRATS used a utterly phony alarm about Republican filibustering to justify killing the judicial filibuster... now they are howling at the moon on the idea that they may be denied the filibuster on a SCOTUS appointment. Neither side walks with the angels on this, but RIGHT NOW it is the Democrats being hypocrites.

i did not want to miss the opportunity to focus on the hypocrisy of the GOP and its proponents

And it is a truly impressing straw man diorama, but utterly pointless.

 

[Absentglare]

well lets see if you can answer an easy question

if you had to guess-based on who nominated him, his desire to have the Circuit court decision reheard, and his demographical background =how do you think he would rule on a second amendment issue?

I would argue that justices Kennedy, Roberts, and [hypothetical] Garland votes would all come down to the details of the case.

I don't see a big push to overturn Heller. I don't envision the SCOTUS changing positions with respect to the second amendment anytime soon.

The pro-gun side has been overwhelmingly successful from the legislative angle. The judiciary isn't really doing much because gun laws aren't slated for change. Liberals have bigger fish to fry for the foreseeable future. I suppose i can understand why you'd want to play the long game and secure someone you have confidence in, but i don't think it's fair for you to speculate on Garland being predictably anti-gun.