Gorsuch confirmation hearings

yawn

lets just stipulate

ALL R's HATE WOMEN AND BLACKS AND GAZE AND TRANZ

lets move on
 
What the republicans did was nothing short of a partisan power play travesty. It's absolutely ridiculous that they were rewarded for this bit of shenanigans. Party over country right.

Gorsuch should not be even in the running. However he most likely will be confirmed. Regardless of his legitimacy.
 
What the republicans did was nothing short of a partisan power play travesty. It's absolutely ridiculous that they were rewarded for this bit of shenanigans. Party over country right.

Gorsuch should not be even in the running. However he most likely will be confirmed. Regardless of his legitimacy.

"Legitimacy"? Ah, yes, the old "L"-word again.

The American Bar Association declared Judge Neil Gorsuch “well-qualified” to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, giving President Donald Trump’s pick to succeed the late Antonin Scalia the group’s highest rating.


***************

“The ABA’s ringing endorsement is no surprise given Judge Gorsuch’s sterling credentials and his distinguished decade-long record on the Tenth Circuit,” Grassley said. “Former Chairman [Patrick] Leahy and Minority Leader [Chuck] Schumer have called the ABA’s assessment the ‘gold standard’ in evaluating federal judicial nominations. In light of Judge Gorsuch's impeccable record, it’s hard to imagine any other result from the ABA's consideration.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-american-bar-association-rating-235924

It's the same rating that the ABA gave to the equally "legitimate" former nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

And the Senate will confirm or reject Gorsuch's nomination under the very same governing rules that it followed in failing to schedule hearings for Garland. Partisan politics is ALWAYS at play in legislative bodies. Why is it only a travesty in the exceedingly rare occasion when Republicans have had the necessary number of votes to exert their will over the direction of the country?

Not to mention that there is never a guarantee about how a Supreme Court justice is going to vote on future cases once he is on the Court. Presidents of BOTH parties have been subsequently disappointed in the judicial decisions rendered and the philosophies displayed by their nominees after their confirmation.
 
And the Senate will confirm or reject Gorsuch's nomination under the very same governing rules that it followed in failing to schedule hearings for Garland. Partisan politics is ALWAYS at play in legislative bodies. Why is it only a travesty in the exceedingly rare occasion when Republicans have had the necessary number of votes to exert their will over the direction of the country?

In this case it is a travesty because of the Pubs' historically unprecedented dick move in refusing to set confirmation hearings for Garland.
 
Ignoramus. :rose:

704_1000.gif
 
In this case it is a travesty because of the Pubs' historically unprecedented dick move in refusing to set confirmation hearings for Garland.

You're starting to be my favorite perpetually dumb ass poster. You're as dependable as catching starving fish from a barrel. :D:D:D

In this case, you are as fundamentally ignorant of historical precedent as you are about the law generally.

The Longest Supreme Court Nomination Delay in History

The current controversy over Merrick Garland’s nomination has nothing on the longest Supreme Court delay of all time during John Tyler’s rocky presidential term. Currently, it has been 256 days since the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016. If Scalia’s replacement is confirmed after January 2, 2017, the delay would be 324 days at a minimum.

According to a Pew Research report, that would put the delay as the eighth-longest period for a Justice to be replaced on the court. Next on the list would be the 391-day period it took for Abe Fortas to be replaced by Harry Blackmun between May 1969 and June 1970.

With the exception of the Fortas replacement, the longest replacement periods took place in the 19th century, and the longest of them all was the 841-day period to replace Justice Henry Baldwin, who died on April 21, 1844 while visiting Philadelphia. Baldwin was known as a maverick on the Court who also help to start the practice of writing dissents. (He also offended Justice Joseph Story to the point where Story wrote that Baldwin was “partially deranged.”)

Robert C. Grier finally took the oath to replace Baldwin on August 10, 1846, after more than two years of nomination drama and a change of administrations. At the time of Baldwin’s death, President Tyler was estranged from most of the Washington political structure. In fact, the Whig Party, which Tyler represented as a vice presidential candidate in the 1840 election, expelled Tyler as a member in 1841.

Without congressional support, Tyler still sought to fill two Supreme Court vacancies. In all, Tyler made nine attempts to get a nominee confirmed, and he succeeded once.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-longest-supreme-court-nomination-delay-in-history/
 
The Republican Congress was disgraceful in not giving Garland a hearing, but that doesn't justify tit for tat either. Gorsuch is a first rate nominee.

The Dems shouldn't overplay their hand. Coupla days protest then wave him through - but I doubt they have that much sense. The Dems strategy should be to split the Pubs in Congress from the WhiteHouse. Protesting Gorsuch excessively will unite the Republicans
 
Gorsuch will be confirmed.

Schumer's ineffective.

It's Bernie's turn.
 
Last edited:
The Republican Congress was disgraceful in not giving Garland a hearing, but that doesn't justify tit for tat either. Gorsuch is a first rate nominee.

The Dems shouldn't overplay their hand. Coupla days protest then wave him through - but I doubt they have that much sense. The Dems strategy should be to split the Pubs in Congress from the WhiteHouse. Protesting Gorsuch excessively will unite the Republicans

Specious point.

Remember, at the time all that was being reported was that Hillary was a lock, I mean the polls were devastating and it looked like Republicans were in trouble down ballot because of that. They rolled the dice and said, no, we will not let a Liberal President stack the court, we will let the American people determine the direction of the court.

It was a gamble, but it was a successful gamble. If the American people wanted a Liberal to make sure that Merrick was eventually seated on the court, then they would have given Hillary the victory. As we were admonished by the Democrats in 2009 and they were steamrolling the ACA right through the House and Senate, elections have consequences; we won.

To the victor goes the spoils.
 
"Legitimacy"? Ah, yes, the old "L"-word again.



It's the same rating that the ABA gave to the equally "legitimate" former nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

And the Senate will confirm or reject Gorsuch's nomination under the very same governing rules that it followed in failing to schedule hearings for Garland. Partisan politics is ALWAYS at play in legislative bodies. Why is it only a travesty in the exceedingly rare occasion when Republicans have had the necessary number of votes to exert their will over the direction of the country?

Not to mention that there is never a guarantee about how a Supreme Court justice is going to vote on future cases once he is on the Court. Presidents of BOTH parties have been subsequently disappointed in the judicial decisions rendered and the philosophies displayed by their nominees after their confirmation.

Please cite the governing rules that supported and allowed the stonewalling of Garland.
 
Why the Senate doesn't have to act on Merrick Garland's nomination

Does the Senate have to hold hearings and a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court? The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/
 
Please cite the governing rules that supported and allowed the stonewalling of Garland.

It's a Senate rule called the filibuster.

If they held hearings, if they put it up for a vote, the Whips of both parties knew they could not get him confirmed. That's simply how the sausage is made.

Now the Democrats will obstruct in retaliation. This is their privilege according to the rules. They will do that. But there is a new President and he is replacing an originalist with an originalist which does nothing more than maintain the balance that has existed for some time now and which both parties have supported in the past. The Democrats will come out looking small. They just lost a decisive election. It's sour grapes.

My advice, which will go unheeded because of the first stage of grief, anger, and somewhat the bargaining stage, but keep your powder dry for when Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg finally goes down for the count and you want to replace a die-hard SJW Liberal with a red-diaper doper baby replacement to maintain the balance of the court.

If you wanted to change the balance, then you should have run an energetic and un-hated candidate who would not take the white Union vote as a given and did not have so many ethical issues.

And be warned...,

When Harry Reid didn't like the rules, he simply changed them.

If y'all decide to "box" the Republicans in, they just might point to Reid and say, hey, fuck you, the rules didn't come down from the mountaintop carved in stone...
 
It's a Senate rule called the filibuster.

If they held hearings, if they put it up for a vote, the Whips of both parties knew they could not get him confirmed. That's simply how the sausage is made.

Now the Democrats will obstruct in retaliation. This is their privilege according to the rules. They will do that. But there is a new President and he is replacing an originalist with an originalist which does nothing more than maintain the balance that has existed for some time now and which both parties have supported in the past. The Democrats will come out looking small. They just lost a decisive election. It's sour grapes.

My advice, which will go unheeded because of the first stage of grief, anger, and somewhat the bargaining stage, but keep your powder dry for when Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg finally goes down for the count and you want to replace a die-hard SJW Liberal with a red-diaper doper baby replacement to maintain the balance of the court.

If you wanted to change the balance, then you should have run an energetic and un-hated candidate who would not take the white Union vote as a given and did not have so many ethical issues.

And be warned...,

When Harry Reid didn't like the rules, he simply changed them.

If y'all decide to "box" the Republicans in, they just might point to Reid and say, hey, fuck you, the rules didn't come down from the mountaintop carved in stone...

He didn't even make it to committee hearings.

Try again.

What governing law/rule did they use justify/allow to not convene committee hearings?
 
It's a Senate rule called the filibuster.

If they held hearings, if they put it up for a vote, the Whips of both parties knew they could not get him confirmed. That's simply how the sausage is made.

Now the Democrats will obstruct in retaliation. This is their privilege according to the rules. They will do that. But there is a new President and he is replacing an originalist with an originalist which does nothing more than maintain the balance that has existed for some time now and which both parties have supported in the past. The Democrats will come out looking small. They just lost a decisive election. It's sour grapes.

My advice, which will go unheeded because of the first stage of grief, anger, and somewhat the bargaining stage, but keep your powder dry for when Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg finally goes down for the count and you want to replace a die-hard SJW Liberal with a red-diaper doper baby replacement to maintain the balance of the court.

If you wanted to change the balance, then you should have run an energetic and un-hated candidate who would not take the white Union vote as a given and did not have so many ethical issues.

And be warned...,

When Harry Reid didn't like the rules, he simply changed them.

If y'all decide to "box" the Republicans in, they just might point to Reid and say, hey, fuck you, the rules didn't come down from the mountaintop carved in stone...


And all of that ignores over 200 years of legal history and precedent.

It's an extrapolation at best.

What they did was a travesty and to try to justify it makes it so that you put party over country. Regardless of how you - or even the liberal leaning Atlantic - try to spin it.

It's like the five year old who says "well you didn't tell me I couldn't shave the cat".

Don't you expect better from your government than partisan temper tantrums?
 
‘Can she eat more kale?’ Hordes of people want reassurance RBG’s health is good.

On Tuesday evening, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-empty seat. On Wednesday morning, liberals woke up, did the math and realized it was time to be concerned about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fiber intake. Also bone density. Also exposure to airborne viruses (Madame Justice, what is your flu shot status?), and salmonella, and slippery ice, and also: Has anyone heard how scientists are coming along with a Zika vaccine?

“I’m very interested in this.” says Jeanette Bavwidinski, a community organizer in Pennsylvania. “I’m interested in what her daily regimen is. Like, what are you all feeding RBG? Is she getting enough fresh air? Is she walking? Is she staying low-stress? What is she reading? Is she reading low-stress things?”

“Can she eat more kale?” asks Kim Landsbergen, a forest ecologist in Ohio. “Eat more kale, that’s all I can say. We love you. Eat more kale.”

The facts in play: Ginsburg is 83 years old, the oldest justice by more than three years. She is one of the four reliably liberal jurists on the Supreme Court, and a mascot and hero to the left. There is one swing vote on the court, Anthony M. Kennedy, and there are three staunch conservatives. Adding Gorsuch would maintain the balance that existed when Scalia was alive: conservative replacing conservative.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...01b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.2ac0ba89253d
 
Back
Top