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

Let me make sure I got this straight. The taxpayers' money is going to the senators. You're telling me that they get paid to skip meetings, skip votes, and ramble on for hours?

Sounds like a dream job to me.

 

Gorsuch seems like an upstanding and qualified judge. Glad that Trump did not do anything crazy this time. I get why Dems might filibuster though, given the injustice of the Garland nomination. If they do or don't, I'm fine with that.

 

Saying "injustice" is laying it on a bit thick don't you think? He didn't have the support, there was nothing that would have gotten him confirmed.....Obama knew that when he nominated him and only did it to try and score political points.

 

Obama was a pretty centrist dude, if you ask a liberal we all think Garland too was center left. The problem is perception. Anyone to the left of you is a flaming liberal. You were shown that Conservatives liked Garland until Obama nominated him and to expect Obama to nominate anyone right of center is being a bit hopeful. Ask any progressive or at least most would tell you Garland was too close to the center.

They should have held hearings, period. Just as the democrats should and they should confirm him if you ask me but I realize they will take the stage of political theater for as long as they think the can without getting the nuclear option thrown at them.

Politics today


But people defend it when it is their side doing it and in the end you have what we have today.

 

LOL, sure he was. I think this is why there has been so much insanity from the left since Hillary lost, they had convinced themselves that Obama was a centrist and moved even further to the left which made them incredibly out of touch with where the majority of Americans were and they aren't quite ready to come back to reality.

Now sure, to some left wing radicals, Obama might look like a moderate or even a centrist given that to them a sign of Obama working with the opposition or the right wing was when he negotiated with actual moderate Democrats in order to pass Obamacare.....but it's just divorced from the reality of American politics.

When it comes to the SCOTUS nomination, Obama had to actually work with the opposition party who he helped put in power due to his years of failure as a president and he showed that he either couldn't or was unwilling to do what it took. To most people, this was completely unsurprising given his track record......but to people so far out on the left that they think Obama is a centrist, it probably shocked them.

 

Yeah, and I'm sure to any hard right-wing people such as yourself Obama seems like a liberal nut, it is all about perspective.

Obama DID work with the opposition party, he nominated someone many said they'd actually vote for. A fact you've just ignored and claimed irrelevant because it destroys your argument. But you are so hard to the right that you can't help but make excuses for when the GOP refuses to work with the president and then not make the same excuses for the DNC as they try to do the same thing.

 

Dems have to obstruct and force the republicans hand. Trump has shown zero willingness to reach across the aisle, so it's fitting theater for the republicans to shove this pick down everyone's throats.

Despite the acidic partisanship at work here, it's also the dems right to frame this as a stolen seat

There's hundreds of unfilled federal judge appointments that have been open since Obama's first term that trump and the Republican Congress can now rubber stamp. The illusion of decorum died during the Bush era.

It's par the course.

 

LOL, I don't expect you to understand that you are wrong here, you've proven to be such an Obama fanboy that you are incapable of seeing the truth.

Also, I'm really not "hard to the right", sure I'm a right leaning Libertarian but in no way does that make me far to the right. In fact, given that I'm a Libertarian, nearly all of my social views are considered to be from the left.

Also, I'm fine with Democrat obstructionism, it's how they did things in the past when Republicans were in control, it's how the Republicans were when the Democrats were in control......I just find it funny that some of the same people whining about obstructionism in the past and even going so far as to call it "racist" would now be supporting it because a different party is in power. I've said all along that the two parties are essentially the same and Democrat fanboys are the same as Republican fanboys. You pretend to hate each other, but it's only due to being exactly the same.

 

This, just do it but shut up when Democrats do it in the future.

 

Dude, you're more than right leaning. I don't understand what it is with conservative posters on this forum that continue to act like they harbor no bias or that even they are in the center...all the while taking every single position on the right, your for abortion and LGBT rights, that doesn't put you in the center, that just makes you a conservative that are for those things but from every discussion I've had with you, you are decidely and definitely a strong right winger. There is nothing wrong with that, but this game of "I'm not even a republican really." is a bit tiring. Being a libertarian is still being decidedly on the right.

I'm not an Obama fanboy, but see...that's where perspective comes from. Unlike you I can tell you I'm a liberal, I'm a progressive, I supported Sanders. As such I have MANY problems with Obama. Unlike you though I can see that he actually did plenty of good things for the country and have no problem saying that. I realize why someone to the right would think Obama was terrible. I think during Trump terms people will learn what a terrible president looks like but that's another subject.

People to the right look at job numbers under Obama and then twist and slide them around, instead of just saying "Ah yeah, good job." they do what you do.

When presented with the FACT that many conservatives didn't mind Garland UNTIL Obama nominated, someone not controlled by their biases would have realized that he did make an effort to appease them. At the same time, who did you expect him to nominate? You don't even have to give me any names here but the general idea of the kind of judge you expect?
I think the problem is, you don't recognize your bias, even if you make good arguments sometimes you still don't recognize it.

I've already said the democrats should confirm him. The bias side of me would wish they could hold out for as long as possible, 4 years if necessary just for political payback. The logical side of me realizes that really does nothing, it may fire up more hard left fragments of the base but you can't be assured to ride that to victory in 2018-2020. But looking at this as unbiasedly as I can I realize that Gorsuch has the qualifications, the people voted in a conservative Senate, and as such the Democrats should let the GOP have their victory here and save their fight for when Ginsburg is no longer on the court.

 

But moooooom, the Dems did it FIRST!

 

I never said I was in the center, I said that I was a right leaning Libertarian. I have views that are considered on both sides, but overall I lean right....but not that far right. I think the issue here is that where the Democrat party is currently at has moved so far to the left that they believe that anyone who isn't a left winger is an extreme right winger.....or rather that's what their comments would imply.

I would disagree, you are still making excuses for Obama and trying to pretend like he was a good president when it's pretty obvious that he wasn't. He accomplished almost nothing that was his doing that was a positive for the country and failed in many many ways....how that can be spun as a good thing is beyond me.

Now sure, Trump could end up being worse, but he's got his work cut out for him.....and even then it wouldn't make Obama a good president.

Sure, some people just look at the job numbers and ignore those who are out of the workforce entirely now and the fact that wages are stagnant meaning that the jobs added aren't good jobs.....those are usually Obama apologists. They want to try to spin anything they can to make it seem like he did something good and they have basically nothing to go on.

Not minding a justice at a lower court does not mean that they approve of him as a SCOTUS justice....you know, like how Gorsuch was unanimously approved for a spot on a lower court but will now have some of the same Democrats who put him on the bench come out against him as a SCOTUS justice.

My point was always that given that Obama didn't control the Senate, he had to get their blessing, which means nominating either a true moderate like Kennedy, or nominating someone who leaned right. That was the ONLY way he was going to get a justice approved. Instead of doing something like that, he nominated someone who had about the same track record as Sotomayor did when she was at the district court level.....who is now the 2nd most liberal justice on the bench behind only Kagan who is a total left wing nutjob. That's not the kind of justice that is going to be confirmed by a conservative Senate in the last year of a president's term. Ever.

In fact, Obama knew this ahead of time, he never expected Garland to have any shot at being confirmed he just wanted to use it for political purposes......and it worked, in Trump's favor.

The people voted in a conservative Senate well before Garland's name came up too, they were voted in to block any more liberal justices after Kagan and Sotomayor were put on the bench and that's exactly what they did. Hell, like I said above, I know tons of people that voted for Trump solely due to the SCOTUS issue. They didn't want any more liberal justices on the bench and Obama made it clear that he was going to push for that and Hillary might even go further with it if she had won.

Now if the people gave the Democrats the majority in the Senate and they were blocking conservative SCOTUS justices, it would be totally different. They would just be doing their job, what the people put them in office to do. That's not the case here though.

 

Obviously, Trump would like a bi-partisan win here and Dems hold the key to that. If Dems were smart, there would be a deal to be made on something the Dems want that Trump could back rather than pushing us towards the nuclear option.

Win/Win vs. Win/Lose

 

Gorsuch seems like an appropriate pick - fighting his nomination would be a mistake in my opinion.

 

Not saying Gorsuch is not a good pick, but was Garland not a good pick? This is not about the nominee but about how Democrats want to deal with GOP.

 

What a crock. Yeah, Obama decided to be unable to appoint someone to the supreme court . . . just to score political points for his upcoming retirement.

 

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election."

To paraphrase Mr. Obama: Republicans won, Democrats lost, now deal with it.

 

You really think he's planning on retiring? I'm pretty sure he's not going to, either way though, he's always been an ideologue and his decision to pick a SCOTUS nominee that he knew had no chance of being confirmed is just another example of that. I mean, the alternative is to suggest that he's a moron, and I don't personally believe that at all so if we assume he's mentally competent we have to assume that he picked someone he knew had no chance of confirmation.

 

You're talking out your ass so hard. You're saying Obama consciously decided not to make a Supreme Court appointment. Just shut up. So full of ****.

 

So you're claiming that he's just a moron and didn't know any better? I mean, that's one theory I guess, but I think it's MUCH more likely that he knew what he was doing.