Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[7,052,770]

You reap what Harry Reid sows.

Probably worth it. How many lower judges did we get out of Harry Reid's change?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Awesome. Just hope Gorsuch is worth it.

if it was solely about Gorsuch he'd have well over 60 votes  to end debate and confirm him.  This is f[inks] Trump and the Pubs.  This isn't even about Garland, the person.  If Hillary was elected they wouldn't even care if she didn't re-submit Garland's name.

     Yeah, this was never about the people involved. The intellectual dishonesty of Schumer suggesting that it was disppointed me a little, but was not surprising. I would have had more respect if he could have just come out and maintained that they would be obstructing Gorsuch's nomination in protest over the obstruction of Garland's nomination.

[jamestroll]

Awesome. Just hope Gorsuch is worth it.

if it was solely about Gorsuch he'd have well over 60 votes  to end debate and confirm him.  This is f[inks] Trump and the Pubs.  This isn't even about Garland, the person.  If Hillary was elected they wouldn't even care if she didn't re-submit Garland's name.

     Yeah, this was never about the people involved. The intellectual dishonesty of Schumer suggesting that it was disppointed me a little, but was not surprising. I would have had more respect if he could have just come out and maintained that they would be obstructing Gorsuch's nomination in protest over the obstruction of Garland's nomination.

GOP did Garland wrong. No doubt on that. But I support confirmation of Gorsuch because I am not playing this game of attempting to keep vacancies vacant under the next Democratic president. And there is guarantee that justices will be ideologically stagnant throughout their tenue.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Awesome. Just hope Gorsuch is worth it.

if it was solely about Gorsuch he'd have well over 60 votes  to end debate and confirm him.  This is f[inks] Trump and the Pubs.  This isn't even about Garland, the person.  If Hillary was elected they wouldn't even care if she didn't re-submit Garland's name.

     Yeah, this was never about the people involved. The intellectual dishonesty of Schumer suggesting that it was disppointed me a little, but was not surprising. I would have had more respect if he could have just come out and maintained that they would be obstructing Gorsuch's nomination in protest over the obstruction of Garland's nomination.

Yeah it's laughably insulting every time that putz goes in front of a microphone claiming this is some ideological battle.  LOL.  I'd have more respect if he just said F*** YOU TRUMP.

[Devout Centrist]

Yay, Congress gets worse. It's gonna be a legislative sh*t show until a durable majority gains power now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"I have seen more than you guys because I watched it on TV. I saw the real thing while you had to actually do it" - Johnny Isakson.


Damn,  sarcasm!


He is making a lot of good points about the danger to the Senate being lost, and the road to majoritarian fiat. I agree with a lot of what he is saying.

The GOP under Mitch the Bitch McConnell filibustered 79 Obama court picks and block Garland for 7 months

The hypocrisy is insane

We can play this game all night and we have in this thread many times over. This has been a tit for tat game. One of the worst things about this whole process and I have a lot of respect for Coons acknowledging is that both sides have contributed to this problem. Perhaps worse than that is the fact that so many like to pretend it is only the other side. In doing so and in failing to own up to their own actions, it only contributes to the other side becoming more unreasonable.

There are so many part of this where you can say, "x did this, and that has never been done before, it is corrupting system". And we can carry that back decades.

It isn't going to get better unless both sides agree to same ground rules and that is impossible when both sides distrust the other and both sides deny or deflect culpability for the present situation to the other side.

[jamestroll]

And with Gorsuch certainly being confirmed Democratic Senators opposing Gorsuch's nomination will not be much of an issue in the 2018 if at all.

Most voters will not even remember his name off the top of their head by November 2018.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Or wait two more years. It's quite possible, especially if Trump messes up big time, that they'd reach 60 senators by 2022. That said, unless partisanship gets much worse, I think they'll need a fig leaf to do this. There's one readily available. Add four justices so as to restore the traditional value of one justice per circuit. This would restore things to how they were before the Republicans tried every trick in the book, plus some they added to the book to deny Andrew Johnson the ability to nominate justices. (Two justices if they only count the numbered circuits.)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Awesome. Just hope Gorsuch is worth it.

if it was solely about Gorsuch he'd have well over 60 votes  to end debate and confirm him.  This is f[inks] Trump and the Pubs.  This isn't even about Garland, the person.  If Hillary was elected they wouldn't even care if she didn't re-submit Garland's name.

     Yeah, this was never about the people involved. The intellectual dishonesty of Schumer suggesting that it was disppointed me a little, but was not surprising. I would have had more respect if he could have just come out and maintained that they would be obstructing Gorsuch's nomination in protest over the obstruction of Garland's nomination.

GOP did Garland wrong. No doubt on that. But I support confirmation of Gorsuch because I am not playing this game of attempting to keep vacancies vacant under the next Democratic president. And there is guarantee that justices will be ideologically stagnant throughout their tenue.

You mean, they did Garland right. The huge risk paid off boatloads.

[Angel of Death]

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

[Ebsy]

Amazing that people can be so sick that they are praising theft as some great, noteworthy accomplishment that us simple minded folk could only hope to dream of doing.

[publicunofficial]

Hatch apparently told reporters that killing the legislative filibuster would be a oneway ticket to socialism if Dems ever got congress.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

Court packing scheme.

[jamestroll]

Awesome. Just hope Gorsuch is worth it.

if it was solely about Gorsuch he'd have well over 60 votes  to end debate and confirm him.  This is f[inks] Trump and the Pubs.  This isn't even about Garland, the person.  If Hillary was elected they wouldn't even care if she didn't re-submit Garland's name.

     Yeah, this was never about the people involved. The intellectual dishonesty of Schumer suggesting that it was disppointed me a little, but was not surprising. I would have had more respect if he could have just come out and maintained that they would be obstructing Gorsuch's nomination in protest over the obstruction of Garland's nomination.

GOP did Garland wrong. No doubt on that. But I support confirmation of Gorsuch because I am not playing this game of attempting to keep vacancies vacant under the next Democratic president. And there is guarantee that justices will be ideologically stagnant throughout their tenue.

You mean, they did Garland right. The huge risk paid off boatloads.

Sir, what was done to Merrick Garland was wrong. This was not against Merrick Garland it was against Barack Obama.  

This was a vacancy that the last president was supposed to fill not some clown.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Awesome. Just hope Gorsuch is worth it.

if it was solely about Gorsuch he'd have well over 60 votes  to end debate and confirm him.  This is f[inks] Trump and the Pubs.  This isn't even about Garland, the person.  If Hillary was elected they wouldn't even care if she didn't re-submit Garland's name.

     Yeah, this was never about the people involved. The intellectual dishonesty of Schumer suggesting that it was disppointed me a little, but was not surprising. I would have had more respect if he could have just come out and maintained that they would be obstructing Gorsuch's nomination in protest over the obstruction of Garland's nomination.

GOP did Garland wrong. No doubt on that. But I support confirmation of Gorsuch because I am not playing this game of attempting to keep vacancies vacant under the next Democratic president. And there is guarantee that justices will be ideologically stagnant throughout their tenue.

You mean, they did Garland right. The huge risk paid off boatloads.

Sir, what was done to Merrick Garland was wrong. This was not against Merrick Garland it was against Barack Obama.  

This was a vacancy that the last president was supposed to fill not some clown.

It was not against anyone. It was for what is right. The seat was no more Obama's than Scalia's than Trump's than Garland's. If you have the power to do what is right and do not do anything to stop it in the name of respectability politics, that is cowardly. I dearly hope Mitch McConnell's simple majority helps guide us through many more losses on the Court.

I've reached the point where I am deeply ashamed of my McGinty vote. Thank goodness there another Plan in the works.

[ApatheticAustrian]

do you remember how some republicans called overriding a filibuster "court packing"?

btw we officially enter twilight land:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/850029210211147777

[jamestroll]

You have no guarantee on how Gorsuch or any other future Supreme Court nominee will vote on the issues facing us in five, ten, 15 or 20 years down the road either.

And this could come back to haunt the Republicans the next time the Democrats control the White House and Senate.

You know Gorsuch hates gays correct?

Plus I am 78% serious here. The fact that this gamble paid off does make me wonder if Senate Republicans knew Russia would interfere in the election...

[jamestroll]

Here is a great idea: Let's change the rules that mandates any Supreme Court nominee from the President receives a hearing.

[Wiz in Wis]

Hot Take:

The filibuster is stupid and I'm glad it's dead.

If the Dems win control of the Senate they should kill it for legislation as well.

[ApatheticAustrian]

538's take:


Nuking The Filibuster May Hurt Republicans In The Long Run
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nuking-the-filibuster-may-hurt-republicans-in-the-long-run/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fusionmunster]

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.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Alot of lefties on twitter and Reddit seem to really freaking out over this but im not sure why

mostly cause of garland-gate and the feeling of getting treated crappy by fate for being too nice and stuff like that.

since that was clear to a T since the election, i think we could have shielded us enough.

[jamestroll]

Want to save the Supreme Court for the left wing?

In 2020 nominate a Democratic candidate who is not under investigation by the FBI. Whether it was fair or not the press of it was bad.

Simple.

[ApatheticAustrian]

In 2020 nominate a Democratic candidate who is not under investigation by the FBI.

seemingly you win the mid-west by doing that.

other than HRC, trump WAS under investigation.

if left-wing voters aren't as motivated to vote for the SC than conservatives, it's their own problem.

[Fusionmunster]

Alot of lefties on twitter and Reddit seem to really freaking out over this but im not sure why

mostly cause of garland-gate and the feeling of getting treated crappy by fate for being too nice and stuff like that.

since that was clear to a T since the election, i think we could have shielded us enough.

I get the anger about Garland, but you can bet that if Hillary won and was able to squeak out a 51/49 majority in the senate, democrats would be seriously thinking of doing the same thing right about now. Its just better to get rid of the filibuster and be done with it.