Advise and Consent?

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Advise and Consent?

Postby Corsair » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:27 pm

Dem senator: Party will filibuster Trump Supreme Court nominee

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday predicted that Democrats would launch a filibuster against whoever President Trump picks for the Supreme Court.

“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley told Politico. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this. ... I will definitely object to a simple majority.”

Though any senator can require a 60-vote threshold for a Supreme Court nominee, filibusters against picks for the top court remain rare. Democrats last tried to use the filibuster to block Justice Samuel Alito under President George W. Bush's administration and failed.

But Merkley's remarks reflect the heated tensions around the judicial branch ahead of Trump's announcement on Tuesday. Democrats are still quick to point out that Republicans refused to give Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick to replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, a hearing or a vote.

Republicans have also been gearing up for the looming court battle, urging Democrats to treat Trump's first nominee the same way as Supreme Court picks under President Obama's first term.

“Under [President Bill] Clinton, [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg and [Stephen] Breyer, no filibuster, no filibuster. In other words, no one required us to get 60 votes,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters last week. “Under Obama, [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan, no filibusters. That's apples and apples. First term, new president, Supreme Court vacancy.”

He added, “What we hope would be that our Democratic friends will treat President Trump's nominees in the same way that we treated Clinton and Obama.”

Trump said Monday that he would announce his pick to replace Scalia Tuesday night.

It’s not clear if Democrats would be able to support a filibuster on any Trump pick.

A number of Democrats in the Senate represent red states that voted for Trump — and many of them are up for reelection next year.

The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which has ties to McConnell, quickly sent out emails questioning whether the red-state Democrats would back Merkley’s filibuster.

Of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the group said: “Will he stand with the people of his state who overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump to be able to pick a Supreme Court nominee? Or will he stand with [Sens.] Elizabeth Warren [Mass.], Bernie Sanders [Vt.], and the rest of the Democratic caucus that only cares about its far left base of permanent protesters?”

The SLF sent out similar releases for Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Jon Tester (Mont.), who are each up for reelection in states carried by Trump.

Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate and would need eight Democrats to vote with them to break a filibuster.

The GOP also could opt for the “nuclear option” by changing Senate rules to get rid of the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees. McConnell has repeatedly signaled he does not want to take that step, most recently in an interview with The Hill on Friday.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) also sent out a release questioning if “eight is enough,” playing off Democrats slogan last year that the Supreme Court needed nine justices.

“National Democrats’ lurch to the left is quickly becoming a problem for Senate Democrats up for reelection in red states,” said NRSC spokesman Bob Salera. “It will be telling whether Senate Democrats honor the will of voters and listen to their own ‘We need nine’ rhetoric or side with Keith Ellison and the far left, and adopt a ‘take our ball and go home’ strategy with the Supreme Court.”

Senate Democratic leadership hasn't publicly signed on to Merkley's push, but Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pledged to fight “tooth and nail” if Trump's nominee isn't “mainstream.”

“If the nominee is not bipartisan and mainstream, we absolutely will keep the seat open,” Schumer told CNN’s “State of the Union” earlier this month.


Remember, the Senate is under no obligation to confirm any nominee. We were told many times by Mr McConnell that the words "advise and consent" do not require them to confirm an appointment. I think it's shameful that a SCOTUS seat was stolen from the last administration (a moderate nominee, no less) and now they appear poised to nominate someone who will fit the mold of Scalia (in Donald's words). I support the Dem's filibuster of any nominee. A Senate majority stole the seat from the previous administration and they should fight fire with fire. It would be an illegitimate Justice in a lifetime appointment. I don't see how the other Justices can even sit on the same bench. Whoever the nominee is to be (announced tomorrow) with have to live with that asterisk next to their name for the rest of time. It can't be an enviable position to be in.

Also:
How anyone can vote for a guy like McConnell is beyond my comprehension. Do Republicans even recognize their ideals anymore? Or is their only ideal to do exactly the opposite of their sworn eternal enemy (liberals)?
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5012
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:34 pm

Obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

Seen this strategy before.

Sorry, Corsair. I am all for a progressive justice on the court, but elections have consequences and giving the same bullshit tactics back to the Republicans because revenge is a **** strategy and does nothing to win back the voters the party lost.


I won't condone this. Progressives need to shift away from why Trump is wrong to why we are right. Stonewalling Trump is not the way.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 7432
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 433 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:38 pm

We can go from 8 to 7 to 6 to 5....

Last one alive dominates!!!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Corsair » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:43 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

Seen this strategy before.

Sorry, Corsair. I am all for a progressive justice on the court, but elections have consequences and giving the same bullshit tactics back to the Republicans because revenge is a **** strategy and does nothing to win back the voters the party lost.


I won't condone this. Progressives need to shift away from why Trump is wrong to why we are right. Stonewalling Trump is not the way.


I'm sorry, but if we aren't playing by the same rules than this whole charade comes crumbling down. Elections do have consequences, which is why Garland should be sitting on the bench. But Republicans get to change the rules and Democrats should "abide and be the better person"?

Nope, I'm not going to agree. This is not stonewalling for the sake of obstruction, it's an attempt to save the destruction he plans to do to our Republic.

If this were any other Republican President I might be more inclined to agree with you. But this is a desperate time.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5012
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Corsair » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:44 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:We can go from 8 to 7 to 6 to 5....

Last one alive dominates!!!

Remember when liberals said "it's a slippery slope"??
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5012
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:08 pm

Corsair wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:We can go from 8 to 7 to 6 to 5....

Last one alive dominates!!!

Remember when liberals said "it's a slippery slope"??



Can we just throw them in the Thunderdome to speed things up?

8 enter, 1 leaves
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:21 pm

Corsair wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

Seen this strategy before.

Sorry, Corsair. I am all for a progressive justice on the court, but elections have consequences and giving the same bullshit tactics back to the Republicans because revenge is a **** strategy and does nothing to win back the voters the party lost.


I won't condone this. Progressives need to shift away from why Trump is wrong to why we are right. Stonewalling Trump is not the way.


I'm sorry, but if we aren't playing by the same rules than this whole charade comes crumbling down. Elections do have consequences, which is why Garland should be sitting on the bench. But Republicans get to change the rules and Democrats should "abide and be the better person"?

Nope, I'm not going to agree. This is not stonewalling for the sake of obstruction, it's an attempt to save the destruction he plans to do to our Republic.

If this were any other Republican President I might be more inclined to agree with you. But this is a desperate time.

It is stonewalling for the sake of obstruction if you aren't going to support any nominee.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:03 am

Ken Carson wrote:
Corsair wrote:
I'm sorry, but if we aren't playing by the same rules than this whole charade comes crumbling down. Elections do have consequences, which is why Garland should be sitting on the bench. But Republicans get to change the rules and Democrats should "abide and be the better person"?

Nope, I'm not going to agree. This is not stonewalling for the sake of obstruction, it's an attempt to save the destruction he plans to do to our Republic.

If this were any other Republican President I might be more inclined to agree with you. But this is a desperate time.

It is stonewalling for the sake of obstruction if you aren't going to support any nominee.


So...just more of the same game that has been being played for the past year.

It's obviously retarded to continue the moronic game that the Republicans started last year. But, I guess liberals just can't help themselves.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:07 am

Republicans gambled on the election and won. We're replacing a conservative judge with a conservative judge. Doesn't really change the court leaning so just confirm (after normal vetting of course) and move on.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:12 am

I get why Democrats are upset. Obama should have had his nominee confirmed. But I'm pretty sure that Democrats would do the same thing Republicans did if they could, and Corsair would have applauded them protecting the court. I could be wrong, of course. But at the end of the day, this is politics as usual, and the people still stuck in the two party system will always call on the other side to take the high road, while adamantly defending their own refusal to do so by claiming 'they did it first/most recently.'
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:29 am

Ken Carson wrote:I get why Democrats are upset. Obama should have had his nominee confirmed. But I'm pretty sure that Democrats would do the same thing Republicans did if they could, and Corsair would have applauded them protecting the court. I could be wrong, of course. But at the end of the day, this is politics as usual, and the people still stuck in the two party system will always call on the other side to take the high road, while adamantly defending their own refusal to do so by claiming 'they did it first/most recently.'


If I remember correctly, the GOP said they were planning on blocking any nominee that Clinton would appoint. Basically, they were afraid the election was going to go the other way and they were already building their stone wall. But, all of the sudden, they're like "What? No. People should play nice."

Meanwhile, Libs were all like "That's insane! You have to confirm a new President's nomination." But...now they're all "Hey, can we borrow those stones?"

Comedy. Gold.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:58 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I get why Democrats are upset. Obama should have had his nominee confirmed. But I'm pretty sure that Democrats would do the same thing Republicans did if they could, and Corsair would have applauded them protecting the court. I could be wrong, of course. But at the end of the day, this is politics as usual, and the people still stuck in the two party system will always call on the other side to take the high road, while adamantly defending their own refusal to do so by claiming 'they did it first/most recently.'


If I remember correctly, the GOP said they were planning on blocking any nominee that Clinton would appoint. Basically, they were afraid the election was going to go the other way and they were already building their stone wall. But, all of the sudden, they're like "What? No. People should play nice."

Meanwhile, Libs were all like "That's insane! You have to confirm a new President's nomination." But...now they're all "Hey, can we borrow those stones?"

Comedy. Gold.


Bingo.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:19 am

Agree with Ken and Moon that this is politics as normal.

At the end of the day Republicans can use the tool that the Democrats (Harry Reid) provided and confirm the SC nominee w/ just a simple majority in the Senate.

If Dems are panicked now, wait until the 2018 mid-terms where 25 Democratic Senators are up for re-election compared to just 8 Republicans. Going back to 2010 Dems have been hemorrhaging seats (power) at all levels of government in this country. Eventually the pendulum will swing back left, but imho the Dems need to triangulate towards the center of the political spectrum to make that happen more expeditiously. Instead they seem to be moving further left and away from there base of moderates.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8064
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:39 am

DreadNaught wrote: but imho the Dems need to triangulate towards the center of the political spectrum to make that happen more expeditiously. Instead they seem to be moving further left and away from there base of moderates.



Luckily they don't seem to get this.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby acaton » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:02 am

Corsair wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

Seen this strategy before.

Sorry, Corsair. I am all for a progressive justice on the court, but elections have consequences and giving the same bullshit tactics back to the Republicans because revenge is a **** strategy and does nothing to win back the voters the party lost.


I won't condone this. Progressives need to shift away from why Trump is wrong to why we are right. Stonewalling Trump is not the way.


I'm sorry, but if we aren't playing by the same rules than this whole charade comes crumbling down. Elections do have consequences, which is why Garland should be sitting on the bench. But Republicans get to change the rules and Democrats should "abide and be the better person"?

Nope, I'm not going to agree. This is not stonewalling for the sake of obstruction, it's an attempt to save the destruction he plans to do to our Republic.

If this were any other Republican President I might be more inclined to agree with you. But this is a desperate time.




Sad.
Image

Short, fat and slow often does the trick...45ACP
User avatar
acaton
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:15 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
DreadNaught wrote: but imho the Dems need to triangulate towards the center of the political spectrum to make that happen more expeditiously. Instead they seem to be moving further left and away from there base of moderates.



Luckily they don't seem to get this.


It's cute if you think Republicans have it all figured out as they push further to the right and further alienate moderates. There is no moderation to be found. Anywhere. I guess that's cause for celebration for you. But, it's bad news for this country.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby acaton » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:30 am

What we need is Elizabeth Warren to bring us back to the middle?
Image

Short, fat and slow often does the trick...45ACP
User avatar
acaton
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:51 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

Luckily they don't seem to get this.


It's cute if you think Republicans have it all figured out as they push further to the right and further alienate moderates. There is no moderation to be found. Anywhere. I guess that's cause for celebration for you. But, it's bad news for this country.



That's funny, I don't remember writing that.



But as a fact of the matter -- the Republicans are much more centrist than the Democrats. Trump, barring a few issues, is quite the populist...if he is so far right, how did he win so many states and counties that have been going left?

On many issues, he and the rest of the psuedo conservatives are far too left for me. On a few others they aren't left enough.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1840
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:00 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

Luckily they don't seem to get this.


It's cute if you think Republicans have it all figured out as they push further to the right and further alienate moderates. There is no moderation to be found. Anywhere. I guess that's cause for celebration for you. But, it's bad news for this country.


That's a straw man argument b/c nobody stated Republicans have it all figured out. I certainly do not feel that way at all. Fwiw the political spectrum is not as black and white as you portray it. Just as the Democratic party is fractured, the same is true for Republicans where you have establishment (GOPe) folks like Paul Ryan, McCain, Rubio, and Graham that oppose Trump on everything that interferes w/ their globalist ideology. Same is true for Dems where Bernie is/was a threat to the establishment Dems that have sold out there base of moderates in the rust belt and other union workers nationwide. That is why (despite your opinion that Trump=Establishment) alot of BernieBros voted for Trump, myself included.

Globalism vs Populism dividing both parties here just as it did w/ Brexit. This divide is what helped allow for Bernie's movement to gain so much steam despite his own party sabotaging him at every turn, and it's what helped propel a person like Trump to get elected.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8064
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:10 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
It's cute if you think Republicans have it all figured out as they push further to the right and further alienate moderates. There is no moderation to be found. Anywhere. I guess that's cause for celebration for you. But, it's bad news for this country.



That's funny, I don't remember writing that.



But as a fact of the matter -- the Republicans are much more centrist than the Democrats. Trump, barring a few issues, is quite the populist...if he is so far right, how did he win so many states and counties that have been going left?

On many issues, he and the rest of the psuedo conservatives are far too left for me. On a few others they aren't left enough.


Unless everyone as been lying...very few people voted FOR Trump and, instead, voted against Hillary. His position on any political spectrum had nothing to do with it. All he had to be was "Not Hillary".
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mightyleemoon » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:13 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
It's cute if you think Republicans have it all figured out as they push further to the right and further alienate moderates. There is no moderation to be found. Anywhere. I guess that's cause for celebration for you. But, it's bad news for this country.


That's a straw man argument b/c nobody stated Republicans have it all figured out. I certainly do not feel that way at all. Fwiw the political spectrum is not as black and white as you portray it. Just as the Democratic party is fractured, the same is true for Republicans where you have establishment (GOPe) folks like Paul Ryan, McCain, Rubio, and Graham that oppose Trump on everything that interferes w/ their globalist ideology. Same is true for Dems where Bernie is/was a threat to the establishment Dems that have sold out there base of moderates in the rust belt and other union workers nationwide. That is why (despite your opinion that Trump=Establishment) alot of BernieBros voted for Trump, myself included.

Globalism vs Populism dividing both parties here just as it did w/ Brexit. This divide is what helped allow for Bernie's movement to gain so much steam despite his own party sabotaging him at every turn, and it's what helped propel a person like Trump to get elected.


Of course it's a straw man. That's the point. It's just a straw man dancing with a straw man. (If that sort of thing is still legal in this country...)
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:39 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
That's a straw man argument b/c nobody stated Republicans have it all figured out. I certainly do not feel that way at all. Fwiw the political spectrum is not as black and white as you portray it. Just as the Democratic party is fractured, the same is true for Republicans where you have establishment (GOPe) folks like Paul Ryan, McCain, Rubio, and Graham that oppose Trump on everything that interferes w/ their globalist ideology. Same is true for Dems where Bernie is/was a threat to the establishment Dems that have sold out there base of moderates in the rust belt and other union workers nationwide. That is why (despite your opinion that Trump=Establishment) alot of BernieBros voted for Trump, myself included.

Globalism vs Populism dividing both parties here just as it did w/ Brexit. This divide is what helped allow for Bernie's movement to gain so much steam despite his own party sabotaging him at every turn, and it's what helped propel a person like Trump to get elected.


Of course it's a straw man. That's the point. It's just a straw man dancing with a straw man. (If that sort of thing is still legal in this country...)

It's still legal until Trump bans it.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6704
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 688 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Corsair » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:59 pm

Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Denver, to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, elevating a jurist whose conservative bent and originalist philosophy fit the mold of the man he would succeed.

“Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support,” Mr. Trump said, standing beside the judge and his wife, Louise, in the East Room of the White House. “It is an extraordinary résumé — as good as it gets.”

If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would restore the 5-to-4 split between liberals and conservatives on the court, handing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 80, who votes with both blocs, the swing vote.

At 49, Judge Gorsuch is the youngest nominee to the Supreme Court in 25 years, underscoring his potential to shape major decisions for decades to come. In choosing him, Mr. Trump reached for a reliably conservative figure in the Scalia tradition but not someone known to be divisive.

Mr. Trump, who recognized Justice Scalia’s wife, Maureen, in the audience as he announced his choice, heaped praise on the “late, great” jurist, saying his “image and genius was in my mind throughout the decision-making process.”

Just because this nominee is more "congenial" doesn't make him more palatable to anyone who wants to see this nation move forward into the...
MSPWEHO 3 minutes ago

I hope that Americans will march in solidarity for Merrick Garland's denied nomination, which should be honored now. A validation of any...
just Robert 3 minutes ago

One of justice Scalia's worst traits was his constant tendency to legislate from the bench in a very partisan way. He always claimed that...

Judge Gorsuch said he was humbled by his “most solemn assignment.”

“I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great country,” he said. He also praised Justice Scalia as “a lion of the law.”

The announcement presaged a bitter political battle on Capitol Hill, where Democrats in the Senate, still stung by the Republican refusal to confirm President Barack Obama’s nominee for the seat, Judge Merrick B. Garland, have promised stiff resistance.

A Colorado native who was in the same class at Harvard Law School as Mr. Obama, Judge Gorsuch is known for his well-written, measured opinions that are normally, though not exclusively, conservative.

He holds a Ph.D. from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, and a pedigree as a law clerk at the Supreme Court to Justices Byron R. White and Kennedy. President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to the federal bench in 2006.

Judge Gorsuch’s personal connections to Justice Kennedy are no accident. By choosing a familiar figure, several officials said, the White House is sending a reassuring signal to Justice Kennedy, 80, who has been mulling retirement.

Choosing a more ideologically extreme candidate, the officials said, could tempt Justice Kennedy to hang on to his seat for several more years, depriving Mr. Trump of another seat to fill.

Still, Judge Gorsuch’s conservative credentials are not in doubt. He has voted in favor of employers, including Hobby Lobby, who invoked religious objections for refusing to provide some forms of contraception coverage to their female workers. And he has criticized liberals for turning to the courts rather than the legislature to achieve their policy goals.

There had been speculation that Mr. Trump would choose someone with a less elite background for the court. The other finalist for the post, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and helped pay for his education by driving a taxi.

The White House had stoked suspense over Mr. Trump’s court choice in the hours before announcing it. A senior Trump administration official said both Judge Gorsuch and Judge Hardiman, the apparent runner-up, were summoned to Washington for the nomination ceremony. But only Judge Gorsuch appeared at the ceremony shortly after 8 p.m.

In an allusion to the intense foreshadowing he and his team had done to build speculation over the pick, Mr. Trump interrupted his own announcement to marvel at his showmanship: “So was that a surprise?” the president said after announcing Judge Gorsuch’s name. “Was it?”

The East Room was filled with White House officials, Republican lawmakers and reporters as Mr. Trump revealed his choice.

The president, staring down what is likely to be a bitter partisan battle over Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation, expressed hope that he could avoid such a dispute.

“I only hope that both Democrats and Republicans can come together for once, for the good of the country,” Mr. Trump said.

Judge Gorsuch is the son of Anne Gorsuch Burford, who became the first female head of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan. He attended Georgetown Preparatory School, outside Washington, before going to Columbia University.

Democrats, who declined invitations from Mr. Trump to attend the White House announcement ceremony, seemed unlikely to be satisfied with Mr. Trump’s choice. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, has said he is ready to block any candidate he sees as outside the mainstream, a stance that could touch off a Senate showdown.

Judge Gorsuch will need to draw the support of eight Democrats to join the 52 Republicans in the Senate to surmount a filibuster and move forward with an up-or-down confirmation vote. But Mr. Trump is already urging Republicans to change longstanding rules and push through his nominee on a simple majority vote.

Liberal activists rallied in front of the Supreme Court building in a swift condemnation of Mr. Trump’s choice. They derided Judge Gorsuch as a right-wing ideologue who would lay waste to important judicial decisions in areas including civil rights and abortion rights as well as environmental and worker protections.

Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice called Judge Gorsuch “a disastrous choice,” adding that his record showed “no sign that he would offer an independent check on the dangerous impulses of this administration.” Ilyse Hogue of Naral Pro-Choice America said that Judge Gorsuch “represents an existential threat to legal abortion in the United States and must never wear the robes of a Supreme Court justice.”

Conservative groups started their own push in defending Mr. Trump’s nominee. Within minutes of the president’s announcement, organizers said, the Judicial Crisis Network was to begin the first phase of a $10 million television advertising campaign on the nominee’s behalf, along with a website promoting Mr. Trump’s pick. More than 50 groups were backing the effort, including gun rights and anti-abortion rights activists and the Tea Party.

Tom Fitton, president of the right-leaning group Judicial Watch, called Mr. Trump’s nomination “a major step in the right direction in defining his presidency and moving the Supreme Court away from dangerous and destructive judicial activism.”

“It is good to see the president nominate someone who will follow the rule of law rather than legislate from the bench,” Mr. Fitton said.

Juanita Duggan, the president of the National Federation of Independent Business, an organization representing small businesses, said she was also heartened by the choice, because of Judge Gorsuch’s willingness to challenge “regulatory overreach.”
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5012
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby Corsair » Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:00 am

In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nomination of Merrick Garland to the DC Court of Appeals writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated".
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5012
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 277 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby MJW » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:08 am

Corsair wrote:In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nomination of Merrick Garland to the DC Court of Appeals writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated".


Was that before or after Miguel Estrada?
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 5914
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 265 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mdb1958 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:30 am

malfeasance is angry --- bout time.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 6078
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby HamBone » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:33 am

Standby...all the experts on Judge Gorsuch will soon be posting here.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:54 am

Doesn't take an expert to know he's looking to seat a justice who will start the process of overturning Roe v Wade. And Gorsuch is the right pick for that job.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:15 am

mightyleemoon wrote:Doesn't take an expert to know he's looking to seat a justice who will start the process of overturning Roe v Wade. And Gorsuch is the right pick for that job.


You have zero evidence if this happening based on what the current Administration ran on or any of Gorsuch's prior rulings. Conservatives have had a majority in the SC for years and yet RoevWade is still the law of the land and has survived multiple Republican administrations.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 8064
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Advise and Consent?

Postby mightyleemoon » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:40 am

DreadNaught wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:Doesn't take an expert to know he's looking to seat a justice who will start the process of overturning Roe v Wade. And Gorsuch is the right pick for that job.


You have zero evidence if this happening based on what the current Administration ran on or any of Gorsuch's prior rulings. Conservatives have had a majority in the SC for years and yet RoevWade is still the law of the land and has survived multiple Republican administrations.


I only have Trump's words, that he thinks Roe v Wade should be challenged and he said he'll appoint pro-life judges. Then, when the time comes to make the appointment, he goes with a guy that errs on the side of religion.

Doesn't take much detective work to know that challenging Roe Wade is the end game here. And, you seem to think this is me being critical of Gorsuch. It isn't. I'm just calling it like I see it. If the issue gets sent back to the states, that doesn't sound unconstitutional to me. It also doesn't sound like a government looking to protect it's people. But, some don't see that as the government's job. So...it is what it is.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3248
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Next

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Corsair, Ken Carson, WalterGronkite and 2 guests