Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Beet]

You mean 2024😊

It's been a long time since we had a 1-termer, so I'd say we are overdue at this point. Not that it is ever sure to happen, but if Trump doesn't pull himself together and get back on the ride side of public opinion, he could be ousted in 2020, possibly in spectacular fashion.

Have we ever had four two-term Presidents in a row before? I don't think so but I may be wrong.

I don't think so, but many of the 19th century presidents either weren't able to seek reelection or decided not to because they were sick with diseases that can be cured today, so I would expect to see many more 2 term presidents in the modern era in general.

The only times we've had one-term presidents was when there was a recession in the middle of a presidency (1980, 1990-91). This has been happening less often since the business cycle has been getting longer, due to the shift of the economy away from industry as a total share (the industrial sector is notoriously volatile). That said, this is not normal times.

[Beet]

Alot of lefties on twitter and Reddit seem to be really freaking out over this but im not sure why. The filibuster has been abused to point that it lost its purpose. That means its best for the health of our representative republic to get rid of it. If the healthcare bill failing is proof of anything, even partisanship fails when a proposal is bad enough, and thats the way it should be. I hope the legislative filibuster goes next.

You have the luxury of assuming Congress will never pass anything you deem "bad enough", lucky you but not all of us are in that position.

[Beet]

Alot of lefties on twitter and Reddit seem to be really freaking out over this but im not sure why. The filibuster has been abused to point that it lost its purpose. That means its best for the health of our representative republic to get rid of it. If the healthcare bill failing is proof of anything, even partisanship fails when a proposal is bad enough, and thats the way it should be. I hope the legislative filibuster goes next.

You have the luxury of assuming Congress will never pass anything you deem "bad enough", lucky you but not all of us are in that position.

Well yeah, but I dont consider republicans to be evil cartoon villains so...

I hope your right, but I don't have the confidence you do. Again, lucky you.

[Beet]

to be totally honest, the US is becoming kind of a democracy instead of a republic and one totally controlled by the ruling party, even while that one can still be switched or knee-capped every 2 years.

A "democracy" where the candidate/party with the second most votes controls everything.

[Beet]

Let's now put 10 20-something year-old judges on the Court who will be willing to not only overturn Roe v. Wade, but also say that all first-degree murder laws apply to the killing of babies nationwide.  Ending abortion is more important than our system of government itself.  I'm serious!

Ten?  But there are only nine seats!

Sorry!  Your understanding of the Court is about as good as your understanding of chicken eggs.

Nothing says there has to be nine.  If we appoint ten more right now, those ten can be so conservative that they can overrule the other nine (Clarence Thomas would look like RBG next to these hypothetical ten).

You don't actually want this because the spate of theocratic and plutocratic rulings it would issue would cause backlash so severe that it would lead to a Democratic Supermajority in both Houses of Congress, and possibly to a new Constitutional Convention.

Altho to be fair, a constitutional convention would probably just engrave said theocratic and plutocratic rulings into a new constitution, given that Republicans are 1 state legislature short of being able to write a new constitution all by themselves, and Democrats don't seem to care about winning them back.

[Beet]

A disastrous day for women's rights. Fetuses are not people, they are clumps of cells. Not to mention Gorsuch is a plutocrat who will join a Court of plutocrats.

[Beet]

This second part isn't so much directed at you as some other blue-avatars, but it's been really gross to see how some of the folks here (you know who you are) are virtually cheering for Ginsberg to die.  I know some Democrats were dancing on Scalia's grave and that was pretty bad too, but can we try not to hope for people's deaths just because we disagree with them?

You are right on this. It is a disturbing situation that we have been witnessing. I recall conservatives doing it with Justice Stevens as well, ten years ago. It was wrong then, it was wrong last year and it is wrong now.

     It is a natural result of shifts in political power in the judiciary (itself a terrifying phrase) hinging on people dying, but I do agree that we should aim to be better than this.

If the Courts want to be treated differently, they should stop being so political. There is rightful anxiety over so much power in the hands of so unelected few.