Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Klartext89]

I'm starting to worry that Dems finally understand that the nuclear option would hurt them way more than the GOP as I clarified multiple times. Seems that different than the Leftists here, they aren't that illusional.

Still hoping they won't deliver 8 votes, the GOP needs to change the Filibuster rule to get a real Conservative Justice when RBG/Breyer/Kennedy retire, what will surely happen until 2020.

I'm also loving the butthut liberal Twitter Replies to the Dems coming back to sanity and supporting that outstanding nominee. Please donate as much as possible to liberal challengers, please defeat them in the Primary or at least don't vote for them in the General election. Nothing is better for the GOP and makes the pickups more possible than that ^^

Garland was a moderate hero who likely would have sided with the right-wing on Citizens United, and the Republicans blocked him from any hearings. Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia. It's the least that every single Senator who calls themselves a Democrat can do to vote against cloture.

Garland, Garland, Garland, I can't read that name anymore. It's so hypocritical, unbelieveable! The Dems voted Bork down, obstructed lower Court nominees like Miguel Estrada cause he was Hispanic and they didn't want to have a conservative Hispanic Justice and so on. Just stop the whining, you're not better. Period.

Also, if Garland was that masterclass, why didn't nominate Obama him when he had the opportunity to get him confirmed? He rather went with low energy and less qualified liberal partisan hecks. Again totally hypocrite.

But I see where the wind Comes. You're that left-wing that liberal Garland is "moderate" and Gorsuch is "right-wing of the right-wing". Honestly, you're a joke. Gorsuch is something between Kennedy and Scalia. Like Alito, but not even close to Thomas.

Whatever, we both agree what Dems should do ;-)

[Klartext89]

Terrific text by Senator Grassley about Dems hypocrisy regarding Gorsuch and SCOTUS:

It was just a year ago when we first began hearing chants of “we need nine,” from former President Obama and Vice President Biden, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups.

To many of us, it appeared to be a simple case of amnesia. They obviously had simply forgotten that both Senator Reid and Senator Schumer had declared that George W. Bush would get no Supreme Court nominees through the Democratic Senate more than 18 months before the end of his term.

Or, even in 1992 when then-Senator Biden made clear his intentions in a long, detailed speech on the Senate floor outlining the reasons why the Senate wouldn’t consider a Supreme Court nominee of George H.W. Bush in his final year.

Despite this precedent, Senate Democrats and their special interest groups continued to demand—even after the election—that “we need nine.”  

Over the course of the past year I said that if I remained chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2017, we’d move forward with a hearing for the Supreme Court nominee regardless of who was elected president.

To the surprise of many Senate Democrats, in November the American people elected Donald Trump.  Suddenly we need nine became a hypocritical eight is enough, just like it was in 1992 and 2007.

Now, nearly nine months after candidate Trump publicly released the first of two lists of very capable possible Supreme Court nominees, the full Senate begins consideration of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be the 113th justice of the United States Supreme Court, starting with Monday’s vote in the Judiciary Committee which I chair.

Anybody watching the nomination hearing for Judge Gorsuch before the Senate Judiciary Committee witnessed a brilliant presentation showcasing his command of the law, his record of independence, his strong sense of humility, and his focus on following the Constitution instead of prejudging cases or promising results.

From beginning to end, partisans and non-partisans alike sang his praises. It started the first day of the hearing when President Obama’s former Solicitor General introduced Judge Gorsuch.  For anybody questioning this nominee’s credentials, Democrat or Republican, I’d invite them to read General Neal Katyal’s introduction. It showed genuine appreciation for Judge Gorsuch himself and his approach to the law.

Judge Gorsuch’s testimony, and the testimony of witnesses who actually know him, creates a dilemma for anybody desperately searching for a reason to vote oppose his nomination.  Because if you’re voting on qualifications and not politics, it’s an easy yes.

Despite the “we need nine” mantra from last year, we’ve already heard that Senator Schumer will lead a Democratic filibuster apparently based on hollow reasons that Judge Gorsuch has already answered. He’s not mainstream. He’s not independent.  He’s not telling us how he’ll vote. And, now, because none of those accusations will stick, the Democrats have resorted to attacking his supporters. These same senators don’t like talking about the groups on the left who are attacking the nominee, misrepresenting his record and threatening to primary any Democrat who makes an independent decision.

It’s become abundantly clear that if the Democrats are willing to filibuster somebody with the credentials, judicial temperament and independence of Judge Gorsuch, it’s obvious they would filibuster anybody.

If we’re ever going to get past the well Senator Schumer poisoned when he led the Democrats to “change the ground rules” in 2001 and systematically filibuster circuit court nominees for the first time in our nation’s history, we’re going to need to dig a new well. With or without Senate Democrats.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/03/sen-chuck-grassley-truth-about-schumer-democrats-and-gorsuch.html

[Klartext89]

You continue to make stupid statements. Republicans are free to vote people down, stretch hearings & do whatever they want to stop the nominee. But they can't take a constitutional power of a President to nominate someone -  the Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down.

But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years saying in a Presidency the primary debate process has already begun & let the new President chose. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination is over - If the Dems get the Senate, they will be stopping GOP nominee, as & when they wish & same goes for the Republicans.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & radical partisan hack, but surely you are not this stupid?

Translated: I continue to write the truth that you don't want to hear ;-)

I always advocated to vote Garland down not to deny hearings. Would have been better but we all know that Garland was the backup plan to confirm if Hillary would have won to prevent a more left Justice.

The only thing that you constantly don't want to get is that Dems already did multiple times what you are critizising. And we all know that Dems would never have allowed Bush to pick a successor for a liberal Justice in 2007 or 2008. So: Stop being a hypocrite!

And, to clarify: YOU, my friend, are the partisan heck, you want the one standard for Republicans and another standard for Democrats. I only advocate for equal treatment!

Also, I don't want the Dems to vote for Gorsuch. I want McConnell to go nuclear to give Trump the opportunity to get a second (or third) reliable conservative choice if he has the chance to.

[Klartext89]

You continue to make stupid statements. Republicans are free to vote people down, stretch hearings & do whatever they want to stop the nominee. But they can't take a constitutional power of a President to nominate someone -  the Senate has a duty to hold hearings & vote up/down a nominee. If they don't like, vote him down.

But under no case, can you stop a nominee from getting a hearing & a vote for 1 full year. That has tainted the entire SC due to a stolen seat. Let us say Dems get the Senate in 2020 & Trump wins the Presidency! If McConnell didn't allow Garland for 1 year, why on earth would Democrats allow a SC nominee for the last 2 years saying in a Presidency the primary debate process has already begun & let the new President chose. Maybe they will keep it open for 4 years !

The entire Supreme Court nomination is over - If the Dems get the Senate, they will be stopping GOP nominee, as & when they wish & same goes for the Republicans.

Why on earth do you even expect Dems to vote for a stolen SC Seat? I understand you are a fringe extremist & radical partisan hack, but surely you are not this stupid?

Translated: I continue to write the truth that you don't want to hear ;-)

I always advocated to vote Garland down not to deny hearings. Would have been better but we all know that Garland was the backup plan to confirm if Hillary would have won to prevent a more left Justice.

The only thing that you constantly don't want to get is that Dems already did multiple times what you are critizising. And we all know that Dems would never have allowed Bush to pick a successor for a liberal Justice in 2007 or 2008. So: Stop being a hypocrite!

Alito was confirmed in 2006 (ultra conservative judge replaced a swing moderate judge). The question of Dems not allowing - Why do you make false stuff up? At worst, Dems said they could filibuster Alito which was stopped by the bipartisan Gang of 14. GOP can filibuster Garland if they want. Never had anyone dreamed of not even allowing hearings & voting No for Cloture was considered the most extreme option. No nominee was ever treated this way !

Garland was nominated 1 year in advance, was a centrist or slight conservative. There would be no nomination from Hillary if Garland was confirmed & he would have been with bipartisan votes. Hillary had no power to do anything about that vacancy if the Senate did their duty

This has nothing to do with Left or Right. Clarence Thomas, the most radical conservative judge in recent history replaced Marshall, a liberal judge. Sotomayer & RBG, uber liberals replaced conservative judges but moderate one's (close to centrists).

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Garland is by far not even close of being (slightly) conservative. Souter and Stevens weren't either. It's simply amusing that a hardcore Leftis wants to tell a Conservative what/who a Conservative is. 

LMAO, you are the one making false stuff up. And you simply don't get the facts!

Alito (Ultra conservative :-D OMG) as a reliable conservative Justice was the replacement for a moderate conservative Justice in a still not majority conservative Court. It was part of the Gang of 14 deal and it was before the Dems had control of the Senate. You're simply comparing apples with pears!

I think you should ask Bork whether he would have prefered the way he was assassinated by Democrats or the way Garland was treated. I doubt that having hearings to mainly even questioning whether you are a human being is better than not getting a hearing.

Again: I would have given Garland hearings and an up-or-down-vote (to vote him down).

Let's stop this sh**t, you would even deny 1+1=2 if you would have to aknowledge that Dems made mistakes before. Sad. Very sad. Such a behaviour is killing every discussion.

[Klartext89]

I'm still worrying that there will be a Deal reached before Deadline. The nuclear Option would only damage and harm the Democrats, that why I still can't believe that they are risking it at the end.

It would be so silly for them - even for them...

[Klartext89]

Lol.

Joe Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee did exactly this to John Roberts in 1992.

The Senate, imo, isn't obligated to accept anyone the president nominates for a judicial position, but they are obligated to accept someone and not be unreasonable about it. If it is a Republican president, the Senate should accept it's going to be some sort of conservative nominee, and if it is a Democrat, they should accept it is going to be some sort of liberal.

But of course you'll disagree with that in some way, because you're basically a partisan troll-hack destined to haunt Atlas forever.

Let's test this theory.

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

One wonders!

Thank you. Always a pleasure reading about the unbelieveable amout of Democrats hypocrisy.

[Klartext89]

Lol.

Joe Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee did exactly this to John Roberts in 1992.

The Senate, imo, isn't obligated to accept anyone the president nominates for a judicial position, but they are obligated to accept someone and not be unreasonable about it. If it is a Republican president, the Senate should accept it's going to be some sort of conservative nominee, and if it is a Democrat, they should accept it is going to be some sort of liberal.

But of course you'll disagree with that in some way, because you're basically a partisan troll-hack destined to haunt Atlas forever.

Let's test this theory.

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

One wonders!

Thank you. Always a pleasure reading about the unbelieveable amout of Democrats hypocrisy.

Republicans are just as hypocritical, so I really don't see how that helps your case.

Not even close as Dems who started it all and are now whining about the other side doing the same. Well, there's an old German saying: What you don't want anyone to do with you, don't do it to someone else.

The only thing I'm wondering is how all these Dem Senators or people like Joe Biden can lie without any shame - while knowing that they created the problem and are the only ones to blame for.

[Klartext89]

Jeff Merkey might be starting a talking filibuster right now against Gorsuch.

Funny, isn't that the "Filibuster must be abolished" guy?

Again, unbelieveable Democratic hypocrisy...

[Klartext89]

Not even close as Dems who started it all and are now whining about the other side doing the same. Well, there's an old German saying: What you don't want anyone to do with you, don't do it to someone else.

The only thing I'm wondering is how all these Dem Senators or people like Joe Biden can lie without any shame - while knowing that they created the problem and are the only ones to blame for.

Oh really? Did you know that Stephen Breyer was nominated to the 1st circuit in November 1980, and confirmed in December 1980? Very Nice!

This was after Jimmy Carter was thrashed in the 1980 elections. Ted Kennedy and company did not return the favor.

Look, it's obvious that we're never going to come to an agreement here, but I find it a bit disconcerting that you can't see how your party is just as hypocritical as mine when it comes to this issue.

At least I can admit as much.

You can point to your examples of when Democrats obstructed Republican judicial appointments, and I can point to my examples of when Republicans obstructed Democratic judicial appointments. Where exactly does it get us?

This is just the natural escalation of things.

I can fully accept your position. It's way more than the vast majority of Democrats aknowledge, what is utterly shameful.

The problem is that like I said before and others pointed out, the Dems started it all, they used it way more than the GOP and now they are talking like it was invented by the GOP and the Dems always are the victims. Do you really expect us to be calm and reasonable when confronted with such an incredible amount of hypocrisy???

And, to make it clear: I absoluetly know that the GOP is very close of being as obstructionist.

[Klartext89]

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

Cause Dems like to lie...

But yeah, today it's totally irrelevant. The only funny thing is that there are millions of butthurt Liberals out there who really think that the Republicans started it with Garland lmao.

Just listened a few minutes to Senator Merkley. At least he's not low energy and I applaude him for standing up to his opinion and take action. But it's again simply troubling for me that this guy is denying reality in so many ways, e.g. the topic we recently discussed.

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.

It's more about imagining what COULD stand in the Constitution (or what you want to stand there) that is rejected by origentalists. There's símply nothing regarding abortion, same-sex marriage or affirmative Action in the Constitution cause in 1789 the people didn't know about that. So, like Scalia once said in an interview I watched yesterday on YouTube, pass a law but don't try to invent something in the Constitution that isn't in it.

But I'm very sure that your either a troll or you simply have no clue of the law. So, whatever.

[Klartext89]

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

Cause Dems like to lie...

Says the guy who supports a party whose President of the United States is a pathological liar.

klartext herself is, too, don't bother

Herself?
You both are simply victims of left-wing mass media propaganda, so it's not new and I'm not mad at you for really thinking that the ones telling you the truth (Trump and mine e.g.) are the ones lying to you. But it's a real tragedy that you are defending the ones really lying to you.

[Klartext89]

Dubya and Trump don't want to pick a consensus nominee a woman or a Latino. There are plenty of them to chose from. It would be much harder for the Democrats to yell about a nonconsensus candidate when you select one of those. This is what they are trying to tell the GOP.

Just Google Miguel Estrada. Little hint: Again it was the hypocrite Dem Party who filibustered a qualified nominee cause liberal Groups feared he could become a future SCOTUS nominee who they couldn't oppose - cause he's Latino. How racist!

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

There have certainly been nominees with a more impressive resume before, like Robert Taft.

I don't know what qualifications every past Justice had but Gorsuch with Harvard, Columbus, Oxford, clerking for two SCOTUS Justices (one Democrat, one Republican, both moderates to conservatives in the mainstream), 10 years at the Appeals Courts is simply hard to overcome - at Age 49.

What else should he have? Okay, maybe something from Germany :-D

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

There have certainly been nominees with a more impressive resume before, like Robert Taft.

I don't know what qualifications every past Justice had but Gorsuch with Harvard, Columbus, Oxford, clerking for two SCOTUS Justices (one Democrat, one Republican, both moderates to conservatives in the mainstream), 10 years at the Appeals Courts is simply hard to overcome - at Age 49.

What else should he have? Okay, maybe something from Germany :-D

Well, Taft had been both a Court of appeals judge and a President, so that kind of wins.

Ok, I concede that.

[Klartext89]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925

I bet that there will be a second vacancy soon ;-)

[Klartext89]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925

I bet that there will be a second vacancy soon ;-)

The interesting thing will be how the loss of the filibuster affects Kennedy's thinking. Perhaps he will wait until after the 2018 elections in the hopes that the Dems take a majority and then retire.

I doubt that.

1. There will be no Dem majority after 2018. Just look at the landscape.
2. With a bigger GOP majority, Collins, Heller and Murkowski won't matter.

I bet he is very comfortable with the soon-to-be situation because he knows that his successor will be confirmed - and he doesn't create a Long vacancy because President and Senate can't make a deal because of party divide.

[Klartext89]

Reading the thread this morning was a big pleasure. I fully expected the Dems not to like a doze of their own medicine, but the meltdown and denial that ist the Dems fault is simply glorious.

[Klartext89]

Craig Caplan‏ @CraigCaplan · Vor 4 Minuten  (4 min ago)

Vice President Pence will preside in US Senate during Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation vote at approx 11:30am @cspan 2