Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

what makes you think, trump is the type who would go for ideological vengeance when he has the alternative of making a deal?

won't happyn anyway but i am pretty sure, trump would love a deal with democrats on healthcare now.

Trump's too unpredictable and revenge isn't off the table, ever.

[Virginiá]

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

I don't know - maybe. Liberals are foaming at the mouth right now, after all. I still think a more moderate, possibly older nominee could get the votes necessary as I'm sure there are enough Democrats in the Senate that understand that would be their best option. It's the liberal base that can't come to grips that they aren't getting the seat, and that long-term, once the anger over Trump is gone, it's better to have someone less conservative in that seat than more so.

But let's be real here - it's highly unlikely Republicans would ever offer up a "consensus" candidate. Senate Leadership threw integrity out the window with Garland, and Trump hit the ground running with a young Scalia-level conservative, which only serves to convey the message, "Yea, we stole this seat, go **** yourself." Given the thread I posted before about Trump looking for federal judge nominees in their late 30s, regardless of proper experience, the consensus among Republicans/Trump with the federal judiciary now is to stack it with far-right partisan conservatives who will stay on the bench for generations and provide the rulings Republicans want. While one might argue Democrats would behave similar, looking at Obama, I don't think that is so much the case.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

     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.

[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

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

Lol

Yeah that was my thought, to be honest.

[ApatheticAustrian]

besides gorsuch seems much better at showing his decent character (which scalia also had according to many sources but tend to hide behide his dry humour and brash attitude) unveiled.....in which ways would he be more moderate?

[Klartext89]

The more I'm thinking about it, the more I'm praying for the Dems to stay that stupid and get the GOP Moderates the motivation they need to change the rules.

With Gorsuch confirmed, there will be 3 Conservative Judges who will - under normal circumstances - not be out in the next 20 years.

There's one more (Thomas) who will normally not be out in the next 15 years.

The next three Justices to be replaced will be (with 99% certainty) RBG, Breyer and Kennedy.

With the Filibuster in place, getting a fifth reliable conservative Justice will be impossible. Having a 51 votes threshold, Trump could easily nominated Pryor or Sykes for one of them.

The GOP can only win, the Dems have a lot more to lose. Nuke them!

[Klartext89]

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

I don't know - maybe. Liberals are foaming at the mouth right now, after all. I still think a more moderate, possibly older nominee could get the votes necessary as I'm sure there are enough Democrats in the Senate that understand that would be their best option. It's the liberal base that can't come to grips that they aren't getting the seat, and that long-term, once the anger over Trump is gone, it's better to have someone less conservative in that seat than more so.

But let's be real here - it's highly unlikely Republicans would ever offer up a "consensus" candidate. Senate Leadership threw integrity out the window with Garland, and Trump hit the ground running with a young Scalia-level conservative, which only serves to convey the message, "Yea, we stole this seat, go **** yourself." Given the thread I posted before about Trump looking for federal judge nominees in their late 30s, regardless of proper experience, the consensus among Republicans/Trump with the federal judiciary now is to stack it with far-right partisan conservatives who will stay on the bench for generations and provide the rulings Republicans want. While one might argue Democrats would behave similar, looking at Obama, I don't think that is so much the case.

Ruling unanimously in 97% of the time, being in the majority in 98% of rulings and that on an 7-5 Dem Court isn't moderate?

We both know that Trump could nominate everyone and liberal activists would paint him as "extreme". There's simply no consens candidate, cause the Dems don't want any Deal. They wanted to have the big chance to change a 5-4 liberal Court in social issues and 4-5 Court in economical measures into a 6-3 and 5-4 liberal Court. They got denied and are in danger of even losing the 5-4 majority on social issues. That makes them furious cause after one or two (or more?) Trump appointments, there could be a conservative Court for at least one generation. I know it hurts, but you lost.

[Shadows]

In the New Fox poll. I think 3% of 4% or something like that give the SC the top pick.And the people for whom this is a big issue - let's say 10% or 15% - Those people who vote based on abortion, gay rights, Citizens United are never going to be Swing Voters. They are strongly opposed to 1 party.

And the SC thing is not going to change anything - You may as well live under a rock & think it will impact - No1 gives a sh** !

Screw Gorsuch & let the GOP take the Nuclear option - You know they will take it for the next one anyways - They are not pu**ies like the Dems ! Do they even have the votes for the Nuclear - Would Collins & many others support it? Let them work it out & drag the process !

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

Lol

Yeah that was my thought, to be honest.

I know Gorsuch comes across as a much more likable, polished, and non-threatening "coffeeshop conservative" than Scalia, but I'd be genuinely curious to hear your basis for claiming he's not a radically right-wing justice who would likely be to the right of Scalia on a number of issues (such as cases revolving around questions of free speech).  People have this idea that it's impossible to be to the right of Scalia and while he was pretty right-wing and extremely partisan, he also usually* displayed an actual judicial philosophy and it is simply inaccurate to claim someone can't be significantly to the right of him.  Saying Gorsuch would make Scalia look like Ginsberg was obviously hyperbole in response to your own hyperbole, but it seems pretty clear to me that Gorsuch would move the court significantly to the right in several major areas while moving it to the left in none. 

Regarding the threat of a worse nominee, here's the thing: a man can trade yellow pus for green pus, but the infection will still kill him all the same.  Gorsuch would be unacceptable even without the Garland mess.  And besides, it's far from clear that Republicans have the votes to use the nuclear option.  Given Graham's firm public opposition, you guys can't do it if there are as few as two more defections (Collins.

*The majority opinion in D.C. v Heller and his vote in Bush v Gore were naked examples of the worst kind of judicial activism, particularly the former which should be a real black mark on Scalia's record due to the reasoning that was used regardless of one's views on gun control.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

By more right-wing on free speech than Scalia you mean he would be more consistent in defense of it?   Okay, possibly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

By more right-wing on free speech than Scalia you mean he would be more consistent in defense of it?   Okay, possibly.

     The mere notion of categorizing free speech as a left v. right issue in the United States today (not in other places and times where this divide is more relevant to understanding the issue) is a very odd one.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

By more right-wing on free speech than Scalia you mean he would be more consistent in defense of it?   Okay, possibly.

That article is referring very specifically to libel laws and nothing in it suggests that Gorsuch wouldn't move the court to the right (or more accurately, in a more restrictive direction) overall on cases concerning freedom of speech, but you knew that already.

[The Other Castro]

[The Other Castro]

Jesse Rodriguez‏ @JesseRodriguez  2m2 minutes ago
Sen Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) to vote YES on Gorsuch

[Maxwell]

Both not surprising.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If a few more come around this might not be necessary:

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If a few more come around this might not be necessary:

You keep telling yourself that

[Associate Justice PiT]

If a few more come around this might not be necessary:

You keep telling yourself that

     Well he is right: six more Dem ayes and Gorsuch can beat the filibuster. Whether those votes will ever materialize is a different question altogether.

[KingSweden]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

[Hindsight was 2020]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe
[/quotes] I call bs on that cause when Kennedy or RBG has to be replaced Mitch would just kill the FB then so might as well fight the battle now an keep the base happy

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe
[/quotes] I call bs on that cause when Kennedy or RBG has to be replaced Mitch would just kill the FB then so might as well fight the battle now an keep the base happy

This

[Klartext89]

Big but totally true article:

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/03/30/nuke-em-til-they-glow-n2305926

The Democrats must learn through pain, specifically the agony of watching Neil Gorsuch take the seat that they stompy-feet insist belongs to Merrick Garland. For too long, they’ve packed the bench with liberal partisans committed to exercising raw power as an end-run around democracy and the Constitution. Well, if raw power is the rule, then they need to choke on it. And we should laugh at their pain even as we amplify it via the Nuclear Option.

Thank you, Harry Reid! You'll never know how much we appreciate you taking time away from your bizarre relationship with your NordicTrack dominatrix to instigate the glorious Reid Rule and thereby surrender the one tool Chuck Schumer and his band of merry losers had to derail the oncoming train that is a yugely conservative SCOTUS. Oh Harry, your corruption and general unpleasantness make it so much sweeter knowing that you will only be remembered, if at all, for allowing Republicans to repopulate the Supreme Court with right-wing justices. Thanks to you, the liberals have squandered their best chance to fundamentally transform America from a constitutional republic into a huggy, libfascist dictatorship.

Oh yes, the Republicans must use the Nuclear Option. Nuke the site from orbit – it’s the only way to be sure that we have at least a couple decades before Chelsea, or whichever other quarter-wit dynastic Democrat cheats its way into the Oval Office, and can eliminate our First, Second, and probably Third Amendment rights. With Democrats, the only Constitutional rights that are safe are the ones that appear nowhere in the text, and it is open season on the ones that do. Except for the Fifth Amendment – Democrats love that one.

But, but, but Merrick Garland! But, but, but Neil Gorsuch won’t play favorites by ruling for designated little guys over designated second class litigants! But, but, but RUSSIANS!

Super whatev. Chuck Schumer has a never-ending supply of dubious reasons to try to iceberg the S.S. Gorsuchtanic. But he also faces a never-ending supply of bad choices because his genital-beanied base is dumb enough to force him to push the Big Red Button on someone everyone looks at and thinks, “That Gorsuch guy looks like a judge. He’s practically a Morgan Freeman of pallor.”

The problem with too many conservatives is that some of them, mostly the ones with unironic bow ties who have never known the loving touch of a live human being, get fussy and bothered when the liberals change the rules and those terrible, unwashed conservative voters start demanding that conservatives play by the new rules too. But that's no longer a problem for us. The Senate GOP is still going to confirm Gorsuch no matter what. Even the weak sisters of the Republican Party are falling into line, like Susan Collins, Linda Murkowski, and Lindsey Graham.

That's how obnoxious the Democrats have been – they’ve even gotten the RINOs riled, and at liberals for once.

But this is more than just about the filibuster getting filibusted. If we had a political culture that respected and expected a judge’s proper role, then we wouldn't care so much what a nominee to the Supreme Court personally thought because we could be confident his rulings would follow the law and not the DNC talking points. But we don’t, and therefore we can’t.

Somewhere along the line, the left decided that judges were a convenient shortcut to avoid the unpleasant hassle of actually passing laws through the legislative process. To them, the Constitution is not a glorious barrier to government overreach – or, rather, the fact that it is one is a bug, not a feature. To them, our Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, and any given law should be applied, if at all, only in the manner most conducive to what liberals want right this minute. Tell me what Democrat appointed a given judge in a political case and I will tell you how he will vote with 99% accuracy. No, I don't have some sort of psychic ability. I just pay attention.

If you don't believe me, read the Ninth Circuit’s decision interpreting the president’s powers to exclude aliens under the applicable statute. You'll find something missing, something significant: any mention of the applicable statute. You aren’t interpreting the law if you neglect to ever mention the law you’re allegedly interpreting. What you're really doing is exercising raw power in the service of your whims.




 
It is a sad fact that judges today are simply another caste of political actors, except they don’t have to deal with the hassle of reelection and thereby the inconvenience of accountability. It's not about justice, it's about raw power – power that they shouldn’t have, but do. If the courts wish not to be treated like just another hack partisan actor, then perhaps they shouldn't act like just another hack partisan actor. We're done with these double standards. You can't expect the honor and respect due a neutral who merely seeks to do justice without being a neutral who merely seeks to do justice. This is something the news media is finding out. Journalists are stunned that people no longer respect them or their position. But of course, that respect derives from service as objective, non-partisan actors. You can’t eagerly take dictation from Hillary Clinton and then expect to be treated like some take-no-prisoners muckraker. It’s like being a radical feminist who trashes men and their role in society who is shocked to find that none of the dudes abandoning ship are willing to give her their seat in the lifeboat just because she’s phallo-challenged.




 
Republicans need to ram Neil Gorsuch and every other nominee for every other open seat on the federal bench right down the Democrats’ collective craw. Perhaps some suffering will change the Democrats’ perspective and encourage them to walk back from the abyss of a politicized judiciary. But if not, that's fine too. Our first choice is a neutral judiciary; our second choice is an explicitly conservative one. Option three, an expressly liberal judiciary, is no option at all.

Time to be ruthless. Time to win. If it’s all about raw power, then let them know what raw power feels like. We have it. They don’t. Too bad.

A neutral judiciary would be nice, but this is the new reality until judges decide to follow the law instead of following their bleeding hearts. We will know the judiciary has chosen judging over imposing personal preferences when RBG – whose imminent replacement needs to be so conservative he dwells in a cave – opines “Gosh, the Second Amendment says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ so AR-15s with silencers and 30 round mags are cool in New York City!” But don’t hold your breath. The libs need to suffer some more, so the GOP must move aggressively and without mercy to place as many reliable conservatives on the bench as we can. Let the battle cry sound fourth across this land!

Hiroshima!

Nagasaki!

Gorsuch!

[Klartext89]

I'm skeptical of the strategy to filibuster Gorsuch since I think Dems need to keep the powder dry for Kennedy or RBG, but after Garland there's no way the base wouldn't demand it.

I honestly think Gorsuch is the least bad out of him, Pryor and Hardiman, but that's just me. Pryor is a partisan hack  in a robe

Like RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan? Or the Ninth Circuit clowns forgetting to even mention the applicable statute when ruling about? Or the Hawaii guy who is declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

On the remaining points, I'm with you.

[moderatevoter]

I don't necessarily agree that the filibuster is definitely dead with the next appointment. The context matters too.

Gorsuch, truthfully, is a mainstream pick you could expect from any Republican, and he's a very well-qualified and relatively inoffensive one at that. Trump could have picked someone much more polarizing -- think Bill Pryor.

The balance of the court also matters. Gorsuch will replace Scalia. It's a conservative replacing a conservative, and the original balance will not change. If Gorsuch was replacing Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Breyer, however, the calculus would be much different. If he was changing the balance of the court (potentially making Roe vs Wade vulnerable), Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins would have a very tough decision on their hands. As is, however, this is not difficult for them. They are validly asking: if not Gorsuch, could any realistic Republican choice get 60 votes for cloture?

Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins would not support nuking the filibuster for Bill Pryor. On this note, actually, Bill Pryor was one of the few Bush judicial appointees that Collins voted against.