Trump picks Colo. appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

All I know is. . . if the Demos get the majority back . . . . .
They should simply ram their agenda through with out nary a thought of crossing the aisle

If they don't . .. then they are the spineless p***ies we all think they are

Rocket River

 

Why do you think they are spineless p*****s? They won't get the majority back until 2020 in the Senate. It might be 2022-2024 before they take the house.

 

They need to change the Constitution. The judges are too political. Maybe they get 10 year terms. 80 year people shouldn't be ruling on ****.

 

You don't agree with rational behavior?

Democrats need to - and did - punish Republicans for violating norms. Every bit of game theory analysis as applied to real life vindicates tats in response to a tit as beneficial in the long run.

 

I don't agree its rational behavior. What was the benefit? The Republicans invoked the nuclear option and got what they wanted anyway. It made things worse, because now both parties have essentially decided it's fair game to appoint or reject Supreme Court nominees on purely cynical, political grounds.

 

Then you're just wrong.

In a prisoners dilemma, where you have full knowledge that the other party will ALWAYS act in its own interest and NEVER cooperate - it's entirely irrational to compromise and worse for the system to do so.

This is the situation the Democratic Party finds itself in - the Republicans *never* compromise on Supreme court judges and *always* escalate, and Democratic attempts to compromise by nominating centrists like Garland are always met with the other party cheating.

Punishing the cheaters is the only way to restore stability and make them pay the cost for escalation, and maybe not do it next time. The next blue judge should be a 30 year old who is in the tank for team blue the way Alito and gore suck are for team red.

 

The only true moderate on the bench was nominated by a Republican....so yeah, history doesn't exactly agree with you. Obama put what are currently the 2 most liberal justices on the bench and then his idea of compromise was nominating a left of Breyer justice despite having no leverage to get that nominee confirmed and despite the fact that he knew that would swing the court from conservative to liberal. It would have taken true compromise meaning Obama actually nominating a legitimate moderate (and by "moderate" I don't mean someone who is a middle of the road Democrat) to get that nominee considered at all..

 

So in other words, go back to doing EXACTLY what they tried to do the last time they had the majority and the presidency.....

 

Much like the colossal failure called Obamacare?

Maybe people should stop blindly following their parties and stop electing the radicals of their respective party.

 

ACA... a "colossal failure". Don't agree... and I suspect the millions that now have health care coverage that didn't before may also. Fixes needed... yes, but the controlling party chooses not to consider that approach. So ACA continues.

But lets agree its a "colossal failure". What better plan has been suggested? I think even you have landed on some form of universal coverage approach. Which party do you believe will be more to bring universal coverage, republicans, most who simply want to repeal ACA and go back to some form of private delivered free market system, or Democrats, many of which see ACA as a stepping stone to universal coverage?

 

Its a colossal failure because its unsustainable. This has been discussed many times. This is the liberal logic; Take care of everyone today at any cost, claim victory for the people while ignoring the future and sustainability.

You either go completely free market or you go universal. Making the insurance companies (or any corporation) the 'single payer' is the most r****ded solution of them all ... unless its designed to fail. We can not go completely free market because of government regulation and the medicine cartel.

The party is irrelevant. They are both bought and paid for by the medicine cartel (which is obvious with the Democrats considering how we ended up with Obamacare and not universal). It was often said Obamacare was designed to fail to the point where the masses would embrace universal. Universal is not the best solution, but as we are blinded by ineptness and greed, its what we are going to get.

 

Gee, "party is irrelevant" yet you point the finger of blame at "liberal logic" and "obvious with the Democrats..." . Yet republicans control the executive and legislative branches... odd no mention of them. But what is mentioned... lots of moaning about how things are, but no solutions. Not even solutions from those "radicals" you mentioned earlier (oh wait, I think some "radicals" favor universal coverage).

So in the mean time... ACA is the law of the land. And people are being "taken care of." Which doesn't seem that bad a thing.

 

People were being "taken care of" before the ACA as well. Really the ACA did nothing other than force some people to buy health insurance they can't afford to use while rates continue to rise just like before the law.

It did very little if anything positive and cost a lot while setting the entire system up to fail on it's own unless someone steps in and completely overhauls the system. I mean, how is that not the definition of an ill conceived program destined to fail?

 

To paraphrase Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, if your Supreme Court nominee cannot get a hearing, then the answer is to change the nominee.

 

Well exactly. There's no way Garland would have gotten the support of 60 senators which was the standard Schumer wanted to hold Gorsuch to.....hell he couldn't have even gotten 50 to vote for him. Clearly the answer would have been for Obama to nominate someone different, but he refused to do that so he didn't get to put another justice on the bench. IMO it's not really much of a controversy. When you don't do the things needed to get what you want, you don't get what you want. If Trump had nominated Garland, he wouldn't have gotten him put on the bench either.

 

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens if a Supreme Court spot opens up in 2020. Unlike the "Biden Rule," an actual precedent has been set to not consider a SCOTUS nominee in the final year of a presidency which I hope will be called the "Garland Rule". However, I don't think anyone expects the GOP Senate to respect that precedent but it'll be interesting to hear their reasoning.

As I've said, I think Trump could get up to 4 more nominees. Three of them (Breyer, Kennedy, RBG) are 78 or older. Thomas is only 68 but I could see him retiring in order to ensure he will be replaced by a conservative justice. I don't know how Kennedy would feel. He has traditionally been a "conservative" judge but has found himself as a swing vote after Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced by Alito.

I really don't think it matters either way that the Democrats can no longer filibuster. There aren't any circumstances in which the GOP would not change the rules based on who Trump wants to pick.

 

They already did that when they had a majority. I agree with your thoughts but not with the same anger. The elected government should implement the manifesto they were elected on. Then decisions in elections would be more clear and consequences more thought out. When people vote in elections as it is, they think it won't have an effect either way. Therefore the left and right can campaign on whatever they want without consequences.

 

Wow, you're not very bright. Either that or you're evil and can't stand the concept of sick people with pre-existing conditions actually getting healthcare.

 

If I'm president and I'm nominating a judge for SC, I would pick the youngest candidate legally possible that aligns with my party's values considering there's no term limit. Trump's pick was pretty good for conservatives since he could be a judge for 30+ years. Pretty dumb rule.

 

outstanding, sadly a dissent

Kennedy can't retire soon enough