Law The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v2: President Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch

[ShoelessRye]

eh, he would have made the SC unbalanced.

So if RBG dies than she should be replaced by a left of center Justice?

Explain your "balance" argument in the case of Thurgood Marshall being replaced by Clarence Thomas.

 

[Teppodama]

Kill the filibuster, confirm Gorsuch and vigorously work on retaining the Senate and House majorities while patiently waiting on the rest of the Liberal SCJ's to die off.

 

[Seano]

He was moderate.

Sure.

 

[Seano]

So if RBG dies than she should be replaced by a left of center Justice?

Probably. I think its a bad idea to have a SC that leans too far one way or the other.

Explain your "balance" argument in the case of Thurgood Marshall being replaced by Clarence Thomas.

I don't really have an opinion. It is what it is. Republicans will want a SC that leans right and the Democrats will want one the leans left.

 

[nac386]

Sure.

He was.

But of course, our opinion on what his political leanings were have nothing to do with the fact that when a President nominates a Supreme Court justice, congress should do their fucking job. Right? I mean, they get paid. I do my job, you do yours. We do our job to collect our paychecks.

This ties in well with that other thread about choosing political teams and cheering for them regardless of what they do. There is no excusing what they did with Garland.

 

[My Spot]

What choice? nothing happened, also Garland wasnt given a hearing after the election either.

And on top of that to add salt to the wound, they refuse to actually make it law.

So its basically "only counts when we will benefit from it" which at this point is normal republican governance, like how unemployment rate was fake until Trump got to power and the such.

Did they do something illegal?

 

[JadeOwl]

Did they do something illegal?

The very first thing my ethics professor in college told us in the very first class was that was is legal and was is ethical or moral are not necessarily the same thing.

What the Republicans did with Garland was unethical as hell and by any metric imaginable it violated the spirit of the law.

 

[Rod1]

Did they do something illegal?

These are the guys that make the law, so nothing they can do as the majority is actually illegal.

Is it dysfunctional? well yes, to the extreme.

 

[Diamond Jim]

Guess the Dems should've thought of that at the time, huh? Choices can have consequences.

I'm actually okay with the nuclear option. There is nothing the Dems can do regardless, but it's nice to know the next Democratic president won't need 60 senators to appoint progressive judges.

The issue I have is the hypocrisy McConnell uses to do it. Just come out and say I don't give a fuck, I'll do what I want. When asked if he'll make this a senate rule, don't beat around the question. Just say I'm ramming judges through whatever the day is.

 

[Arkain2K]

There is nothing wrong with Gorsuch at all as a nominee as far as I know.

I say Gorsuch is fine. When I heard the senators speaking against him, some were basically against him because he sides with the law. That's sort of a boggling thing to me.

As a judge, he's impartial and values the law over the individuals involved in the case. That's something that certain Democratic senators (such as CA's Kamala Harris) do not like:

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/128540489/

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

Democrats secure enough votes to block Gorsuch, setting stage for ‘nuclear option
By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung | Mon Apr 3, 2017

​

Democrats on Monday corralled enough support to hold up a Senate confirmation vote on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee but Republicans threatened to change the Senate rules to ensure conservative judge Neil Gorsuch gets the lifetime job.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-9 along party lines to send Gorsuch's nomination to the full Senate, setting up a political showdown this week between Trump's fellow Republicans and the opposition Democrats that appears likely to trigger a change in long-standing Senate rules to allow his confirmation.

Democrats, portraying Gorsuch as so conservative he is outside the judicial mainstream, have amassed 42 senators in support of a procedural hurdle called a filibuster requiring a super-majority of 60 votes in the Republican-led, 100-seat Senate to allow a confirmation vote. Even before the panel voted, committee member Christopher Coons put the Democrats over the threshold as the 41st senator backing the filibuster bid. (GRAPHIC - Where senators stand on bid to block Gorsuch vote tmsnrt.rs/2ov6ko0)

The Senate's Republican leaders insist Gorsuch will be confirmed on the Senate floor on Friday regardless of what the Democrats do. Republicans hold a 52-48 Senate majority.

In the face of the filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be expected to force a confirmation vote by having the Senate change its rules and allow for a simple majority vote for confirmation of Supreme Court justices, a move sometimes called the "nuclear option" that Trump favors.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, leading the filibuster effort, said McConnell should have the "vision and courage to see past this impasse" and not "go nuclear," suggesting that Trump replace Gorsuch with a new consensus nominee chosen after meeting with Democrats.

Senate confirmation of Gorsuch, 49, would restore the nine-seat high court's conservative majority, fulfilling one of Trump's top promises during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump in January nominated Gorsuch, a conservative appeals court judge from Colorado. He could be expected to serve for decades.

Judiciary Committee Republicans blasted Democrats for pursuing what they called the first "partisan filibuster" of a Supreme Court nominee - there was a successful bipartisan filibuster five decades ago against a Democratic president's nominee - and said it would come to naught because of the threatened rule change.

But it was Senate Republicans who last year refused to even consider Democratic former President Barack Obama's nomination of appellate judge Merrick Garland to fill the same high court vacancy that Trump has selected Gorsuch to fill.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gorsuch-idUSKBN1750CM

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Rod1]

As a judge, he's impartial and values the law over the individuals involved in the case. That's something that certain Democratic senators (such as CA's Kamala Harris) do not like:

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/128540489/

As opposed to Garland who wasnt one?

 

[My Spot]

The very first thing my ethics professor in college told us in the very first class was that was is legal and was is ethical or moral are not necessarily the same thing.

What the Republicans did with Garland was unethical as hell and by any metric imaginable it violated the spirit of the law.

These are the guys that make the law, so nothing they can do as the majority is actually illegal.

Is it dysfunctional? well yes, to the extreme.

So is that a yes or no?

 

[Arkain2K]

As opposed to Garland who wasnt one?

We've all already stated our opinions on judge Garland when he was nominated. If you want to see those again, feel free to scroll back to Page 14.

The Senate is now discussing Gorsuch's qualifications as a judge, and how he's "so conservative, he's far outside the judicial mainstream", so that's what I will be updating on.

 

[JadeOwl]

So is that a yes or no?

That is a "Your question is flawed".

 

[My Spot]

That is a "Your question is flawed".

I guess your beloved Democrats shouldn't have used the nuclear option just 4 years ago, huh?

 

[Rod1]

We've all already stated our opinions on judge Garland when he was nominated. If you want to see those again, feel free to scroll back to Page 14.

The Senate is now discussing Gorsuch's qualifications as a judge, and how he's "so conservative, he's far outside the judicial mainstream", so that's what I will be updating on.

Your claim is that certain Democrats are attacking him for being impartial on the law, which is not true.

He like Garland are just victims of a bipartisan war. Garland was not swore in because he was nominated by Obama and Gorsuch is facing opposition because he was a seat stolen from Obama.

Otherwise Democrats would swear Gorsuch and Republicans would had sworn Gorsuch.

 

[Rod1]

So is that a yes or no?

Yes or a no for what? i never said anything about legality, congress is after all the organ of government that makes the law, so congress can do whatever the fuck it wants given enough votes.