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

The Republicans reply to that was to sit on their assess and park the presidents nominees by not even holding a vote.

I think I was pretty clear both parties do this by mentioning Bush.

I'm just saying Dems are equally justified to do the same, enable this toxic atmosphere for the republicans to own their ****.

 

There is no downside.

The Republicans threatened to do the same if Hillary won.

 

Well all they are doing is proving that they never had a moral high ground when they whined about it for years. It'll be them proving that the accusations of them being nothing but hypocrites were accurate.

It's possible that enough of the country already knows that they were always liars so maybe it won't hurt them, but it could. There are a lot of vulnerable Democrat senators up for election in the next cycle, it could end up adding to the Republican majority.

 

One plan they had was to park the seat until one of the other justices kick the bucket. Presumably it would be a liberal seat, thus breaking the tie.

We're beyond the point of accusing each other of shamelessness. There's no reason for either side to fix the system especially when the crazies want to blow it up like a modern day Leninist.

 

I didn't say you said it either, just that some posters seem to think they are more in the center than on the right and all they do is fall right in line with whatever the GOP throws at them. As for the Democratic party, no, it is not far left at all right now. Not at all. Bernie Sanders was considered too far left for the party, when you compare it to liberal presidents of the past it's not even close.

Well, if I can think Obama is a good president and you can think FDR was a bad one, seems like it really is all about perception then. As for he achieved almost nothing, he achieved healthcare. Sure it has its flaws but he did it and now the GOP is terrified of repealing the thing because the public opinion on it is high.

It really doesn't make sense for Obama to nominate a guy he knew would be rejected. Honestly, you have to do a ton of mently gymnastics for this excuse and have no proof to back up what you claim (That Obama nominated him to be rejected).

It would be much more easier and simpler to just go "Yeah, the GOP was wrong on that one. They should have just had the hearings." but you can't. Your bias won't allow you to.

They will, the pendulum always swings back because the public actually doesn't want one party to hold all the power. In fact they did polling in Trump won states and people actually expected/hope that the Democrats would keep Trump in check. Problem is when people vote, they do not have the end result in mind.

As people see the GOP has 3 branches of government, they will vote away that power as they always do whether the president is doing great or terrible, it always swings back to the party out of power because of pessimism and it's a lot easier to just say "The country sucks, things need to change."

Also, DUH Obama was going to push for more liberal justices. I'm not sure why you expected him to nominate anything other than someone left of center. Just because the GOP held a bit of power didn't mean he had to concede the executive branch of power to them.

 

More than even Trump expected. I mean, the guy founded a fascism club at his prep school.

 

So speak up. Who is here for fascism? ! Talking about an extremist pick.

 

Meh. Look at his adult record, not what he did in school. Seriously, I'd hate to be judged for my high school behavior and political beliefs.

 

He is pretty far to the Right.

 

I know, in the halcyon days of our youth, how many of us *didn't* found and preside over a "Fascism Forever" club?

I'm not being serious and agree with you, I just found that tidbit to be sadly, appropriately, hilarious.

 

A pick that Hillary, Obama, and Biden all voted for.....

 

sounds like he couldn't control his feelings...homeboy needed to create his own safespace

 

I'm sure he could find crazier people.

IMO We need term limits for the supreme court. maybe something like 12-18 years. No more than that.

Appointing someone who is just over 50 to a life time appointment. Crazy

 

Gorsuch "disheartened" by Tweetmeister Trump:

 

Interesting that this topic hasn't risen to the top of the list. Certainly the newsworthiness of the prospects of a filibuster and "nuclear option" should be top of mind.

My quick takes. First, republicans were wrong to not consider Garland's nomination. The BS about "election year" is just that... a number of USSC justices were nominated during election years. Some by presidents that ultimately won, some by presidents that didn't. The republicans blocked Garland just because they could.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/

That said (and this will betray my partisan leanings) I think Gorsuch deserves the same up or down consideration that Garland was denied. And while I believe Gorsuch is too right wing to warrant my support, I also believe that short of qualifications grounds, a president's choice should be approved.

So while I don't favor the filibuster nor the application of "nuclear", I also don't believe the republicans would have any more sense of ethics should Gorusch get approved "for the Scalia seat" if a liberal judge's seat were to become open. Trump would continue to nominate from his wingnut list of justice candidates regardless. Democrats would filibuster that candidate, and senate republicans led by McConnell would pull the same nuclear stunt. So while in theory, the idea of "saving" the filibuster would not be any better applied in the future... suspect you'd hear republicans claim "there are no liberal or conservative seats."

 

Agreed. This "Biden Rule" suggests that Senators don't know what the definitions of "rule" and "precedent" are. He also specifically said that nominating in the summer should wait until after the election and specifically said that the hearings should not be pushed to the next president. He also said that he thinks an exception should be made if the nominee is moderate which Garland was. Here is a good summary in context:

Mostly Agree. It's important to note that Sandra Day O'Connor who was known as a moderate pick was replaced by Alito who is an extremely conservative judge. Thurgood Marshall was replaced by a very conservative and unqualified Clearance Thomas. I don't buy the idea that you have to replace a judge with someone who has the political leanings since there isn't much of a precedent.

I don't think there is a harm in using the filibuster now and face the nuclear option since I don't think it hurts you in the future. Republicans are going to change the rules if Democrats oppose future nominees as well. It's good to make a point about the questionable decision for the GOP to ignore Merrick for almost a year and make the opposite known now. The GOP will still be able to pass through any nominee since they'll have the majority in the Senate until 2020.

My problem with Gorsuch was his unwillingness to answer questions during the judicial hearing (comparing to previous nominees). It defeats the purpose of having that review process to begin with and I agree with a senator using that reason to filibuster but we all know the real reason.


Trump and this Senate will be able to drastically shape this country for the next 30 years. I think it's likely you'll see a total of 5 (including Gorsuch) Supreme Court nominations come in the next 4 years.

 

I don't believe republicans expected O'Conner to be as moderate as she was, and I think she actually moderated her views even more while on the court. You are completely correct on Thomas.

My only hope is that Gorsuch isn't out and out dishonest about his views and approach to ruling on the court. Trump could have chosen someone even farther to the right and incompetent... so perhaps Gorsuch won't be as bad as many fear. Its the second judge I worry more about.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next judge Trump puts on the bench isn't a pretty far right wing guy as punishment for the senate being forced to use the nuclear option to put his first nominee on the bench. IMO Senate Democrats didn't pick their battles very well in this instance.

 

This may have been mentioned already, but why is it acceptable for republicans to refuse to have a vote on Garland in Obama's last year -- then they demand democrats not filibuster Gorsuch and allow a vote in Trump's final year?