Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Cashew]

NEWS: MCCAIN tells @LauraLitvan he's giving up on idea of a deal to forestall nuclear option
https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/849006254743834625

The title of his article is so telling though. "Democrats Choose Path on Gorsuch That Could Change Washington"

What is it with the media making it look like Dems are the ones taking some radical step, last time I checked it was McConnell's choice.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i know that every argument of this type always comes back to bork (something like the Godwin Law for politicos) but....first of all, bork never got filibustered but...DOWN-VOTED...just like it should be.

since i am also a democratic hack, i am absolutely convinced, republicans during orbama's time in office, just wanted to prevent dems for filling ANY position at all at the height of the tea party fever and kind of forced reid's hand if he wanted to accomplish anything at all but i am pretty sure, republicans remember that period differently.

so we are all going to be unhappy in the future.

[krazen1211]

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.

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 !

Lol.

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

[Virginiá]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

Having the GOP majority nuke the SCOTUS filibuster seems beneficial to the Dems in the long run IMHO.  Given the Senate map for 2018, the Dems probably won't make up much (if any) ground in the Senate for the second half of Trump's first term.  So at least for the next four years, Trump will probably have a majority in the Senate willing to nuke the filibuster if necessary.  Thus it's not really an impediment to him getting his nominees confirmed at all.

But let's say a Democrat is elected president in 2020.  The Dems might have a very narrow Senate majority or maybe even no majority at all.  Thus, not clear if there'll be a majority in favor of going nuclear if necessary for that Democratic president's SCOTUS picks, and so it sure would be more convenient for them if such a nominee can be confirmed with just 50 votes (plus VP tiebreaker) rather than 60 votes.

[krazen1211]

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!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

I simply stated my personal philosophy on the matter. The only period of time where I think it might be fair game to refuse to confirm a president's nominees is post-election if in a presidential election year.

As for Roberts, well, Republicans had no problem trading tit for tat with Obama, giving Trump over a hundred judicial vacancies to fill with conservatives. Point is, if one wants to escalate that to a Supreme Court seat in March of any year, then expect sh*t to hit the fan. It's ludicrous for either party to do that. Instead of inventing new rules or being partisan hacks, everyone on the losing side of that seat should accept that the timing was just unfavorable to them.

But, we're past that now. We're now entering an era (one you'd probably like a lot) where partisanship is all that matters, and whatever can be done to steal seats and save them for yourselves is not only ok, but expected.

[krazen1211]

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.

I simply stated my personal philosophy on the matter. The only period of time where I think it might be fair game to refuse to confirm a president's nominees is post-election if in a presidential election year.

As for Roberts, well, Republicans had no problem trading tit for tat with Obama, giving Trump over a hundred judicial vacancies to fill with conservatives. Point is, if one wants to escalate that to a Supreme Court seat in March of any year, then expect sh*t to hit the fan. It's ludicrous for either party to do that. Instead of inventing new rules or being partisan hacks, everyone on the losing side of that seat should accept that the timing was just unfavorable to them.

But, we're past that now. We're now entering an era (one you'd probably like a lot) where partisanship is all that matters, and whatever can be done to steal seats and save them for yourselves is not only ok, but expected.

Well, you didn't answer, so I will. 37 year old John Roberts was nominated in January 1992 to the DC Circuit to the seat vacated by Clarence Thomas in 1991. He did not get a hearing in Joe Biden's judiciary committee, the nomination died, Slick Bill won the 1992 election, and filled the seat with Judith Rogers.

After Francis Murnaghan's death in August 2000, Slick nominated a replacement in October 2000 after the Thurmond rule had started. The Senate didn't act on any of W's replacement nominees for 8 years.

A future Vice President successfully steals a DC Circuit seat from a future Chief Justice! Here the left is rambling about how such things are unthinkable, given the amazing future that Biden secured for himself after this successful heist? What a joke!

Not sure what this has to do with Barry. I think he was smoking dope at Columbia at the time? Tit for tat is wonderful and all but usually the tit has to come before the tat. Or maybe its the other way around.

[SteveRogers]

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.

I simply stated my personal philosophy on the matter. The only period of time where I think it might be fair game to refuse to confirm a president's nominees is post-election if in a presidential election year.

As for Roberts, well, Republicans had no problem trading tit for tat with Obama, giving Trump over a hundred judicial vacancies to fill with conservatives. Point is, if one wants to escalate that to a Supreme Court seat in March of any year, then expect sh*t to hit the fan. It's ludicrous for either party to do that. Instead of inventing new rules or being partisan hacks, everyone on the losing side of that seat should accept that the timing was just unfavorable to them.

But, we're past that now. We're now entering an era (one you'd probably like a lot) where partisanship is all that matters, and whatever can be done to steal seats and save them for yourselves is not only ok, but expected.

Well, you didn't answer, so I will. 37 year old John Roberts was nominated in January 1992 to the DC Circuit to the seat vacated by Clarence Thomas in 1991. He did not get a hearing in Joe Biden's judiciary committee, the nomination died, Slick Bill won the 1992 election, and filled the seat with Judith Rogers.

After Francis Murnaghan's death in August 2000, Slick nominated a replacement in October 2000 after the Thurmond rule had started. The Senate didn't act on any of W's replacement nominees for 8 years.

A future Vice President successfully steals a DC Circuit seat from a future Chief Justice! Here the left is rambling about how such things are unthinkable, given the amazing future that Biden secured for himself after this successful heist? What a joke!

Not sure what this has to do with Barry. I think he was smoking dope at Columbia at the time? Tit for tat is wonderful and all but usually the tit has to come before the tat. Or maybe its the other way around.

The Supreme Court was supposed to be above the kind of petty gamesmanship you're talking about (not that it isn't toxic to our system of government when it happens to lower court vacancies).

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Republicans are huge hypocrites and only care about power.

[krazen1211]

Hmm. I guess Timmy was onto something......he just forgot to win the election.

Link

Hillary Clinton's running mate is predicting Democrats will go "nuclear" if Republicans try to stonewall a potential Supreme Court nominee by Clinton.

"If these guys think guys think they are going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy, or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say we're not going to let you thwart the law," he told The Huffington Post.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Tit for tat is wonderful and all

No it isn't.

[DC Al Fine]

     Judicial filibuster is a dumb idea anyway, alongside the politicization of the judiciary. Also this:

tbh non-talking filibusters should be abolished for everything.

Agreed. Make em work for their filibuster.

[Skill and Chance]

     Judicial filibuster is a dumb idea anyway, alongside the politicization of the judiciary. Also this:

tbh non-talking filibusters should be abolished for everything.

Agreed. Make em work for their filibuster.

It gets more politicized with each new vacancy and at this point, I don't think further escalation is avoidable.  It is probably time to explicitly elect federal judges.  Absent a constitutional amendment, the closest we can get to that is having a norm where, upon taking office, each incoming one-party government packs SCOTUS and the federal circuits so that they control them by a wide margin.  If court nominations are going to be inherently political, this is the best way to reflect the will of the voters.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As long as Ginnsberg holds out until 2020, we can live with this, a 5-4 changes nothing. But a 6-3 Crt does.

[Pandaguineapig]

As long as Ginnsberg holds out until 2020, we can live with this, a 5-4 changes nothing. But a 6-3 Crt does.

You mean 2024😊

[Virginiá]

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.

[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.

[Skill and Chance]

As long as Ginnsberg holds out until 2020, we can live with this, a 5-4 changes nothing. But a 6-3 Crt does.

You mean 2024😊

How about 2023?  I think Trump will be reelected, but if he is, a Dem senate win is almost assured in 2022.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As long as Ginnsberg holds out until 2020, we can live with this, a 5-4 changes nothing. But a 6-3 Crt does.

You mean 2024😊

No, I support Cory Booker/Steve Bullock for Prez and they will regain 266 and win VA for 279 electors.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

[Shadows]

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.

Did you even what stupid stuff you wrote here when you say I am embarrassing myself?

Not only are you one of the most unintelligent posters in this forum, but you are an extremist partisan hack with no integrity & you make some of the ridiculous posts in this forum.

Done replying to you !

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

     Judicial filibuster is a dumb idea anyway, alongside the politicization of the judiciary. Also this:

tbh non-talking filibusters should be abolished for everything.

Agreed. Make em work for their filibuster.

It gets more politicized with each new vacancy and at this point, I don't think further escalation is avoidable.  It is probably time to explicitly elect federal judges.  Absent a constitutional amendment, the closest we can get to that is having a norm where, upon taking office, each incoming one-party government packs SCOTUS and the federal circuits so that they control them by a wide margin.  If court nominations are going to be inherently political, this is the best way to reflect the will of the voters.

I'm beginning to think the best thing would be for the country to just start over.  Get rid of the president, get rid of the Congress, get rid of the Supreme Court.  Get rid of the goddamn states for all I care and redraw them or something.  Write up a new Constitution for a new government and ban everyone in the current government from reentering it.  Keep the civil rights and social programs obviously but do a total reset on everything else.  We've reached the point of no return at this chapter.
 Things are not going to get better by themselves.

[Shadows]

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.

How good would it be it was something kid pulling a kid's hair. But the comparison is incorrect because Democrats are not denying a Gorsuch a hearing & a vote (they don't have that power) they are voting no on cloture which has happened before too when a large share of Dems went against Alito & only the Gang of 14 saved Alito from being filibustered successfully. This isn't a "I give you back" tactic, when Dems have a Senate majority & they stop a nominee from getting a hearing, that will be giving it back & it will come 1 day.

If Dems roll over & don't even over, it is done, this party is a joke. The Republicans will steal a seat when they want, they will do it again with a Democratic President & maybe they will steal RBG's vacated seat too if she hangs on till 2024 & Democrats will play nice & not even use existing Senate rules to Vote No on Cloture. That is just pure dumbness !