SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[Person Man]

Pryor probably because many conservatives would like to appointed an unabashed pro-life justice to the court and Sykes while conservative is ambiguous on the issue

What has Sykes said to make us doubt her on abortion?  Trump has already promised that the nominee will be 100% pro-life, and I have no reason to doubt him.

I guess she has no pro-choice record but her case history has very little to no abortion rulings meaning that we have no history to base her position off of. This is how conservatives got screwed on Souter

I think this time will be inconsequential but if it is someone who is Souter-like, then you can forget about abortion being illegal. The next time, we will know whether Trump wants to make the next election a referendum on abortion.

[Person Man]

Schumer had better have a filibuster ready.

Then say goodbye to the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments.

Fair enough, it's bound to happen sooner or later. Still worth a try.

Yeah. If the filibuster is gone, guess what happens when we take the country back? And if they stacked the courts by tgen, we'll pack 'em.

[Person Man]

So after reading about Gorsuch I came across the "dormant commerce clause." How on earth is this a thing? Other states can sue a state claiming that a state law harms them? WTF??!?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Unless I understand this wrong...

This means Arizona can't limit the size of its fright trains.

[Person Man]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

Ginsberg will die before Nov. 2020. She might make it to Jan. 2020 though, which would make the appointment fall under the last year rule, which dems need to enforce.

How can you foretell her lifedates with such certainty?

Seriously. JPS was 90 when he left the Court. This is pretty much the same situation. If he checked out before Democrats had enough votes to at least to force a compromise with Bush, it would have been Game Over. Same here.

And if Trump nominates some nut obsessed with abortion or suicide, the Democrats have enough votes to block him for a few months a buy enough time for the ACA and to run on saving it in 2018.

[Person Man]

This just in: "Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

If they are nuked, they then can always deny quorum, right?

[Person Man]

Saw an estimate on Twitter that Hardiman would be right of Kennedy and left of Roberts

I will laugh if after all the "but SCOTUS!" protests from the GOP this guy turns out to be Souter 2.0

My guess is, aside from law and order boilerplate crap, he's gonna be worse than Souter for the GOP.

Would he be conservative enough to do a thorough disincorporation of civil rights and liberties? I am guessing he probably isn't conservative enough to reincorporate property rights into the 14th?

[Person Man]

Trump is and never has been a conservative. All of you are expecting him to do so in order to please the base when it's pretty clear he stopped caring about the concerns of those activists long ago.


Trump only cares about achieving two things:
1. A self sufficient America
2. A homogeneous America

Won't that eventually push us to the left?

[Person Man]

If they are nuked, they then can always deny quorum, right?

No.  Unlike some State legislatures, quorum is a simple majority.  All the Democrats could stay home and Congress in theory could continue to work.

But by slowing everything down to a crawl because they got nuked prevent or extremely delay action on Obamacare?

[Person Man]

Just remove the filibuster immediately without even trying, Mitch. This will be a waste of time otherwise. Democrats' votes shouldn't matter on this.

We should dissolve Congress!

[Person Man]

I hope McConnell gets stripped of his leadership if he doesn't have the stones to remove the filibuster on sc nominees. I would hope there are enough republican senators to have a vote of no confidence on McConnell

Don't count on it.

[Person Man]

Just remove the filibuster immediately without even trying, Mitch. This will be a waste of time otherwise. Democrats' votes shouldn't matter on this.

That is not right either and Republicans could well be in the minority eventually.

The GOP did not win the popular vote for Presidency and Obama should have picked the replacement for Scalia's seat not Trump.

But needless to say I do not think this would be worth filibustering because it is essentially replacing a conservative with a conservative. A fight to replace Gingsburg would be more worth it.

Are you just saying who ever is in the minority party should just have no voice?

A Kennedy vacancy would be worth it!

[Person Man]

I would guess all Republicans plus Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Tester, Warner, and Casey will support Gorsuch.  That's 59 votes for him.

LOL, McCaskill and Tester will not support him.

I'm sure they'll wait til the filibuster is nuked and then vote for him when it doesn't matter. Yes, I wrote "for." McCaskill and Tester are liberals, but they're not dumb and they know their states.

I think Tester will have an easier time that McCaskill.

[Person Man]

I really don't envision a post-election write-up that says something like: "Claire McCaskill came close to winning, but her No vote on Gorsuch did her in"

[Person Man]

4) Gorsuch wrote "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box."

5) Gorsuch wrote that, "American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide"

I would say he totally nailed it ;-)

Would he support democratic decisions on those things that he doesn't like?