Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     How right you are. I associate that all with the '60s more, but 1954 is a very important year as far as that goes. I would definitely agree that there was more real division then. The silliness that people divide over today is still quite vicious, but also quite unimportant in many cases.

[Klartext89]

Jeff Merkey might be starting a talking filibuster right now against Gorsuch.

Funny, isn't that the "Filibuster must be abolished" guy?

Again, unbelieveable Democratic hypocrisy...

[Klartext89]

Not even close as Dems who started it all and are now whining about the other side doing the same. Well, there's an old German saying: What you don't want anyone to do with you, don't do it to someone else.

The only thing I'm wondering is how all these Dem Senators or people like Joe Biden can lie without any shame - while knowing that they created the problem and are the only ones to blame for.

Oh really? Did you know that Stephen Breyer was nominated to the 1st circuit in November 1980, and confirmed in December 1980? Very Nice!

This was after Jimmy Carter was thrashed in the 1980 elections. Ted Kennedy and company did not return the favor.

Look, it's obvious that we're never going to come to an agreement here, but I find it a bit disconcerting that you can't see how your party is just as hypocritical as mine when it comes to this issue.

At least I can admit as much.

You can point to your examples of when Democrats obstructed Republican judicial appointments, and I can point to my examples of when Republicans obstructed Democratic judicial appointments. Where exactly does it get us?

This is just the natural escalation of things.

I can fully accept your position. It's way more than the vast majority of Democrats aknowledge, what is utterly shameful.

The problem is that like I said before and others pointed out, the Dems started it all, they used it way more than the GOP and now they are talking like it was invented by the GOP and the Dems always are the victims. Do you really expect us to be calm and reasonable when confronted with such an incredible amount of hypocrisy???

And, to make it clear: I absoluetly know that the GOP is very close of being as obstructionist.

[emailking]

Jeff Merkey might be starting a talking filibuster right now against Gorsuch.

Funny, isn't that the "Filibuster must be abolished" guy?

Again, unbelieveable Democratic hypocrisy...

He's only ever advocated for abolishing the procedural filibuster. He supports the talking filibuster and made a point of that in all of the interviews he gave on filibuster reform. So no, it's not hypocrisy.

[Confused Democrat]

Not even close as Dems who started it all and are now whining about the other side doing the same. Well, there's an old German saying: What you don't want anyone to do with you, don't do it to someone else.

The only thing I'm wondering is how all these Dem Senators or people like Joe Biden can lie without any shame - while knowing that they created the problem and are the only ones to blame for.

Oh really? Did you know that Stephen Breyer was nominated to the 1st circuit in November 1980, and confirmed in December 1980? Very Nice!

This was after Jimmy Carter was thrashed in the 1980 elections. Ted Kennedy and company did not return the favor.

Look, it's obvious that we're never going to come to an agreement here, but I find it a bit disconcerting that you can't see how your party is just as hypocritical as mine when it comes to this issue.

At least I can admit as much.

You can point to your examples of when Democrats obstructed Republican judicial appointments, and I can point to my examples of when Republicans obstructed Democratic judicial appointments. Where exactly does it get us?

This is just the natural escalation of things.

I can fully accept your position. It's way more than the vast majority of Democrats aknowledge, what is utterly shameful.

The problem is that like I said before and others pointed out, the Dems started it all, they used it way more than the GOP and now they are talking like it was invented by the GOP and the Dems always are the victims. Do you really expect us to be calm and reasonable when confronted with such an incredible amount of hypocrisy???

And, to make it clear: I absoluetly know that the GOP is very close of being as obstructionist.

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

[Klartext89]

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

Cause Dems like to lie...

But yeah, today it's totally irrelevant. The only funny thing is that there are millions of butthurt Liberals out there who really think that the Republicans started it with Garland lmao.

Just listened a few minutes to Senator Merkley. At least he's not low energy and I applaude him for standing up to his opinion and take action. But it's again simply troubling for me that this guy is denying reality in so many ways, e.g. the topic we recently discussed.

[Confused Democrat]

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

Cause Dems like to lie...

But yeah, today it's totally irrelevant. The only funny thing is that there are millions of butthurt Liberals out there who really think that the Republicans started it with Garland lmao.

Just listened a few minutes to Senator Merkley. At least he's not low energy and I applaude him for standing up to his opinion and take action. But it's again simply troubling for me that this guy is denying reality in so many ways, e.g. the topic we recently discussed.

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

[Virginiá]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

[136or142]

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

Cause Dems like to lie...

Says the guy who supports a party whose President of the United States is a pathological liar.

[Pericles]

The Democrats want to continue debate and ensure the right nominee is picked, not an extreme right-wing choice. What the Republicans did to Garland was worse-they did not even give him a hearing, in defiance of all precedent.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

Cause Dems like to lie...

Says the guy who supports a party whose President of the United States is a pathological liar.

klartext herself is, too, don't bother

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Cloture Vote at 11 AM EST TOMORROW

[Calthrina950]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dubya and Trump don't want to pick a consensus nominee a woman or a Latino. There are plenty of them to chose from. It would be much harder for the Democrats to yell about a nonconsensus candidate when you select one of those. This is what they are trying to tell the GOP.

[krazen1211]

Dubya and Trump don't want to pick a consensus nominee a woman or a Latino. There are plenty of them to chose from. It would be much harder for the Democrats to yell about a nonconsensus candidate when you select one of those. This is what they are trying to tell the GOP.

Lol. Did you know that when clown Chuck schumer started filibustering circuit nominees in 2003, he specifically targeted women and latinos like miguel estrada?

[Confused Democrat]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I will reiterate.

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

People are quick to hand-wave away what the Republicans did to Garland and eager to lambast Democrats for mounting a filibuster. It's quite infuriating. If Trump withdrew Gorsuch for a slightly more moderate nominee and the Democrats continued to obstruct, Republicans would have a better justification for nuking the filibuster.

Right now, I don't see nuking the filibuster as justified.

[Pericles]

Dubya and Trump don't want to pick a consensus nominee a woman or a Latino. There are plenty of them to chose from. It would be much harder for the Democrats to yell about a nonconsensus candidate when you select one of those. This is what they are trying to tell the GOP.

Lol. Did you know that when clown Chuck schumer started filibustering circuit nominees in 2003, he specifically targeted women and latinos like miguel estrada?

Someone with Gorsuch's extreme views should be filibustered, regardless of their gender or race.

[Virginiá]

However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified.The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

Ftr, a "consensus nominee" could also include a Gorsuch-type person who is about 10-15 years older. And I for one am not open to supporting a SC nominee who I pretty sure will sit on the bench for ~30 years ruling in favor of voter suppression and ripping up any attempts to regulate campaign financing.

But, for Garland, well, I don't pretend to be hide my feelings about that. I'm not supportive of the idea of letting Republicans freely block the rightful nomination of a Democratic president just so they can fill the seat with a young conservative like Gorsuch. This isn't purely about qualifications, and it hasn't been for a long time or they would have been just fine with Garland.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Legacy of Hilary Clinton was she lost to Trump which allowed SCOTUS to stay in GOP hands.

Which every liberal will always remember her by, the Dems had more tools in the minority when Obama was president than they do now, and they can't do anything about it.

[SteveRogers]

It shouldn't matter what happened to judges under Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan. Yes, both parties have screwed over the other's nominees in the past and played partisan games that undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary, and both parties should be ashamed of those practices. But "someone was mean to Bork decades ago" isn't a justification for refusing to govern responsibly in the present. When it comes to this particular SCOTUS vacancy, it was Republicans who walked away from the negotiating table by refusing to even consider any Obama nominee. To then turn around and criticize democrats for refusing to play ball now is preposterous. It doesn't matter how qualified Gorsuch is. Why should it if it didn't matter how qualified Garland was? Democrats should filibuster any and all Trump nominations to fill this vacancy, not forever, but until such time as Republicans are willing to negotiate a compromise. If Republicans would rather go nuclear than negotiate, then that is their prerogative, and they will have to live with the consequences.

[Virginiá]

But "someone was mean to Bork decades ago" isn't a justification for refusing to govern responsibly in the present.

Not only that, but Bork isn't even a good excuse for this. Reagan still filled that seat, just not with his original pick. Obama cut to the chase and just put up his Kennedy (and older at that), knowing full well a younger, more liberal nominee was even more DOA than Garland. The Senate is not obligated to accept literally any nominee, or else it wouldn't even have a say, but for some to keep trotting out that excuse is kind of stupid in this regard. If Republicans wanted to be picky, so be it, just as long as they confirmed someone Obama puts up in the end. Obviously that didn't happen. They went too far.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not sure what Bork has to do with this really.

[moderatevoter]

For all the discussion about how Merrick Garland is a "moderate" candidate, I have yet to hear precisely how. He certainly would rule with the liberal wing on the vast majority of hot-button cases. If I recall, some of the several analyses I read last spring had Garland 'ranked' in the middle of the liberal wing -- to the left of Justice Kagan and Justice Breyer. Was Garland a mainstream pick? Yes. Was he a 'moderate' pick? That I'm not nearly as convinced of.

The only divergence he seemed to have, really, was his tendency to give police/authority the benefit of the doubt on criminal justice issues. His age (63 as opposed to in his 40s) was clearly a compromise for Republicans.

I am just wary of the 'moderate' label here. Democrats suggested Bush pick Sonia Sotomayor instead of Alito, arguing she was a moderate, centrist choice. That hasn't exactly held up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For all the discussion about how Merrick Garland is a "moderate" candidate, I have yet to hear precisely how. He certainly would rule with the liberal wing on the vast majority of hot-button cases. If I recall, some of the several analyses I read last spring had Garland 'ranked' in the middle of the liberal wing -- to the left of Justice Kagan and Justice Breyer. Was Garland a mainstream pick? Yes. Was he a 'moderate' pick? That I'm not nearly as convinced of.

The only divergence he seemed to have, really, was his tendency to give police/authority the benefit of the doubt on criminal justice issues. His age (63 as opposed to in his 40s) was clearly a compromise for Republicans.

I am just wary of the 'moderate' label here. Democrats suggested Bush pick Sonia Sotomayor instead of Alito, arguing she was a moderate, centrist choice. That hasn't exactly held up.

The ranking of him in the middle of the 4 "liberals" was bogus.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/16/11250100/merrick-garland-judicial-ideology

[136or142]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.