Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Mr. Reactionary]

I cannot believe we're actually going to give him the time of day. There should be precisely zero Democrats at these hearings and zero Democratic votes in favor of him. Never thought I'd support the #WeWillReplaceYou movement, but it's time to start purging pro-Trump Democrats.

You're seeing the forest for the trees. Yeah, it sucks he's here, but what exactly do you think happens if none of the Democrats show up? Get angry when Manchin votes to confirm, don't be mad at Franken for going into work.

The whole point is to give absolutely no signs of legitimacy to this so-called president and his nominations. He is the definition of illegitimate and he should be treated as such.

What are you? 5 years old?

[Mr. Reactionary]

if even manchin is not totally behind him, dems must feel pretty good about this.

About what? It is totally irrelevant whether zero or 7 Dem Senators support him. Either there will be a Deal (keep the Filibuster for the next vacancies to come) or the nuclear option.

OMG, this level of self-betraying is astonishing...

Hacks with inconsistent views gonna hack with inconsistent views.

[Mr. Reactionary]

     I wonder if Schumer is trolling there. Any nominee would get this kind of treatment.

schumer is giving his base what it wants (after merrick-gate there was nothing to be done about that....the democrats are never going to forget this act imho) and i guess he suspects anyway that the filibuster is a thing of the past.

     I certainly understand why Schumer is doing this, which is what makes it strange to me. It is clear that his stonewalling is retaliation for Merrick Garland and not an actual criticism of Gorsuch's qualifications. Considering that, Trump proposing a different nominee wouldn't change anything.

Right.  But if Trump had to nominate a new justice the new guy would make Scalia look like Ginsburg (forcing the nuke button).  They should be doing backflips down the hallway that Gorsuch is the guy.

Err...Gorsuch does make Scalia look like Ginsberg.

Lol

[Mr. Reactionary]

     The ABA is a mess of regulatory capture that has less to do with practicing law and more to do with screwing over the legal profession for the benefit of a plutocratic elite (something liberals should be against). I am not going to lose any sleep over them not reviewing judicial nominees.

This.

[Mr. Reactionary]

 Disgraceful by Dems if true.

[Mr. Reactionary]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

[Mr. Reactionary]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

[Mr. Reactionary]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

[Mr. Reactionary]

May I ask a question?

Why do you hate your political opponents so much? It really doesn't seem healthy or normal in a country at peace, even one as polarized as America.

There are a number of Democratic hack posters I could ask this of as well, but they tend not to be as blatant or deliberate about it as you are.

This is basically the norm today. I don't think the country has ever been as polarized before.

1800. 1860. 1954.

[Mr. Reactionary]

May I ask a question?

Why do you hate your political opponents so much? It really doesn't seem healthy or normal in a country at peace, even one as polarized as America.

There are a number of Democratic hack posters I could ask this of as well, but they tend not to be as blatant or deliberate about it as you are.

This is basically the norm today. I don't think the country has ever been as polarized before.

1800. 1860. 1954.

     1954 was on the heels of a landslide Republican victory ending 20 years of Democratic Presidencies, with many states flipping. I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to with 1800 (I can think of a few things that happened then, none of which really point to such vicious division). In strictly geographical terms, the polarization of today may only be matched by 1860, which is a troubling thought.

Brown v Board. Eisenhower had to send goddamn soldiers to an elementary school to prevent mobs from lynching innocent little children. Montgomery was exploding over the bus boycott.  Redline race riots in chicago. A few years later They bombed fricken choirgirls at church on sunday morning in Alabama. My dad remembers the impeach earl warren billboards (along with the occasional hang earl earren). The 50s and 60s were more divisive than now.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Next time the Democrats have total control they should stack the court by adding like 6 liberal justices at once. It would only be fair.

That would require the Dems to eliminate the legislative filibuster.

Also, you seem to be using a very loose definition of "fair" here.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

Give me a break. Republicans didn't even try to nominate a consensus candidate.

And Democrats didnt even pretend to give Gorsuch a fair hearing, which they just spent an entire year whining about. Yes i know, "iz a stolez seat. Teh rules say the Democratic Party forever owns that seat."

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

Did you also send an angry email to every Republican senator a year ago when they actually decided to treat a good judge like garbage?

I certainly complained about the Republicans and agreed with Democrats that not holding a vote was douchey , but its not like I have a Republican Senator to write, and something tells me Susan Collins could care less if a Virginian wrote her to complain.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Gutless cowards, every one.

Agreed. I sent an angry email to Sen Warner today calling him a hypocrite, a coward, a dissapointment, and informing him that he wouldn't get any more of my votes since he's decided to become a hack without principles and treat a good judge like garbage. Sent a similar email to Sen. Kaine, but i never voted for him so it was less preachy and indignant.

Give me a break. Republicans didn't even try to nominate a consensus candidate.

And Democrats didnt even pretend to give Gorsuch a fair hearing, which they just spent an entire year whining about. Yes i know, "iz a stolez seat. Teh rules say the Democratic Party forever owns that seat."

Uh, they participated in the entire hearing. Their questions may have been tough, but they were all fair. They met with the nominee. Many kept an open mind, at least on the CLOTURE vote, throughout the entire process. Gorsuch was treated fairly. Just because you didn't like that the questions weren't sugar coated doesn't mean the process wasn't fair.

Predetermining that you wont vote for anyone nominated by the president on the b.s. basis that somehow a political party owns a judgeship or that a federal judge should have violated ethical rules and rendered advisory opinions or that he relied on precedent, is unfair. I dont care about what questions they asked,  i care that there is no personal or ideological grounds for the vast majority of filibustering senators. Its frustrating.

Especially when i say 500 goddamn times that the republicans were also wrong last year and that im not a goddamn Republican, and the only justification the dem hacks can muster is "but what about what YOUR GUYS did. You arent allowed to complain". Its just like with flippin Hillary, where the party hacks cant fathom someone opposing them unless they are supporters of team red. Republicans were wrong last year, democrats are wrong now.  The fact that someone did something wrong previously has no bearing on the ethics of someone else doing wrong.There is no reason someone cant think both things.

[Mr. Reactionary]

"I'm NOT a Republican" says biggest GOP hack on the forum.

Lol. I wasn't aware how frequently republican hacks split there ticket ... unlike what 90% of self identified partisans on here. Smoke some more weed and chill out, I sure as hell am.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So what should adding seats to the Supreme Court be called? The "antimatter" option?

Court packing scheme.

[Mr. Reactionary]

What a great day for the unborn!  

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

there are rumors that Kennedy could retire in the fall, and RBG has been in poor health for years

Kennedy needs to go ASAP. He is literally the worst - or one of the worst - types to be on the court. This is the least he could do.

Yeah. Kennedy and Breyer are the only scotus justices I dislike too.