Gorsuch confirmation hearings

[4est_4est_Gump]

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?

Because of the opposition.

There's a lot of things the Congress does not take up based upon a myriad of reasons. If you want to control the sausage making, then you have to win elections. The problem is, that when it comes to Congressional districts you are in the minority. Your failure is that instead of reaching out to the majority and trying to rationally and reasonably make your case, you simply call them names, impugn their integrity and declare them stupid. The other failure is that your team will not show up in off-year elections.

I told you what rule(s). The rules of the Senate.

Colonel Hogan will tell you the same fucking thing. The Senate Majority Leader sets the agenda. PERIOD!

It's exactly what Harry Reid did when he held the gavel.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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?

What they did was not a travesty. It's called politics. It was Democracy in action. Did you not believe that Hillary should be the President because she got more votes than Trump? There were more Republicans than Democrats and all they did was engage in Democracy and did what the majority thought was right.

If you don't like it, then get out of your isolated enclaves, lose the hubris, show some respect, go win back some of the hearts and minds that you lost, and most of us submit, that you lost on purpose because they are the type of little people your type doesn't like very much: working class whites...

 

[KingOrfeo]

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.

Gorsuch is not a first rate nominee. He is, like Scalia, who never should have been on any state or federal bench at all, a knowledgeable jurist but an insane RW ideologue.

 

[adrina]

I find it ironic that you want to discuss hubris and name calling amidst your postings.

I don't disagree with some of what you say. Especially those lovely midterm nonvoters.

We are not talking about a clerk positions or any other matter of procedural government drudgery. This is the supreme court being used as a political football. The fact that you - and so many others - are going to such lengths to rationalized this behavior tells me just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone.

Your baselines have diminished.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Look, in 2009, your team was flush with victory because the Republicans had so badly tarnished their brand (and keep in mind that I mostly vote for Libertarians) that the people rejected them, so the Republicans did do some soul searching and internal analysis in order to rebrand.

Now you are in the catbird's seat. Y'all tarnished your brand and you're not bothering to get out the Brasso™ and put some shine of the brass, your tactic is just to get meaner, nastier and more accusatory rather than to contemplate, rebrand and re-message.

Fighting and endlessly re-litigating the battles of the past is not moving on into the future.

 

[Rightguide]

Because of the opposition.

There's a lot of things the Congress does not take up based upon a myriad of reasons. If you want to control the sausage making, then you have to win elections. The problem is, that when it comes to Congressional districts you are in the minority. Your failure is that instead of reaching out to the majority and trying to rationally and reasonably make your case, you simply call them names, impugn their integrity and declare them stupid. The other failure is that your team will not show up in off-year elections.

I told you what rule(s). The rules of the Senate.

Colonel Hogan will tell you the same fucking thing. The Senate Majority Leader sets the agenda. PERIOD!

It's exactly what Harry Reid did when he held the gavel.

There's an unspoken rule, used by Schumer a few years back, that a supreme court candidate nominated in a President's last would not be considered.

 

[Wrong Element]

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

"Shouldn't overplay their hand," or what? The Republicans will be mean to them in retaliation?

 

[Rightguide]

Gorsuch is not a first rate nominee. He is, like Scalia, who never should have been on any state or federal bench at all, a knowledgeable jurist but an insane RW ideologue.

Shut up with the exaggerated claims coming from space aliens.

 

[Rightguide]

I find it ironic that you want to discuss hubris and name calling amidst your postings.

I don't disagree with some of what you say. Especially those lovely midterm nonvoters.

We are not talking about a clerk positions or any other matter of procedural government drudgery. This is the supreme court being used as a political football. The fact that you - and so many others - are going to such lengths to rationalized this behavior tells me just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone.

Your baselines have diminished.

The Democrats are experts at using SC nominees as political footballs. Let's not forget Bork, and Thomas.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There's an unspoken rule, used by Schumer a few years back, that a supreme court candidate nominated in a President's last would not be considered.

Yes. Those upset by the Merrick Affair just have not spent a lot of time studying political history or are being disingenuous in the name of making political points.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Democrats are experts at using SC nominees as political footballs. Let's not forget Bork, and Thomas.

Indeed. Scorched earth.

 

[adrina]

Look, in 2009, your team was flush with victory because the Republicans had so badly tarnished their brand (and keep in mind that I mostly vote for Libertarians) that the people rejected them, so the Republicans did do some soul searching and internal analysis in order to rebrand.

Now you are in the catbird's seat. Y'all tarnished your brand and you're not bothering to get out the Brasso™ and put some shine of the brass, your tactic is just to get meaner, nastier and more accusatory rather than to contemplate, rebrand and re-message.

Fighting and endlessly re-litigating the battles of the past is not moving on into the future.

Yes, there was arrogance in 2009. On both sides. You act like McConnell never swore to make Obama a one term president or that the memo specifically instructing lockstep obstructionism regardless of issue is not part of documented history.

The republicans didn't rebrand. They gerrymandered, took control of state legislatures (which are still being worked through the courts) and then went into chaos as the Tea Party took over. What brand of revisionist history do you study?

The republicans got lucky in this cycle with a couple factors helping them. The American voter's propensity to take turns, a laissez faire electorate more concerned with Kardashians than real issues, racism/sexism (don't even try to deny those did not play a role as I witnessed them both first hand on myriad platforms and venues) and some serious media fuckery. Comey and his unprecedented handling of the overblown email issue was another factor.

Trump didn't win. He just didn't lose by default chaos.

And frankly, I'm real tired of all this hurt feelings bullshit. If people don't want to be called a spade, then they should indeed, not act like a spade. If a person doesn't like being called a bigot, or racist, or sexist or any of the other bits of behavior they'd like to engage in without being labeled as such... I can't help that.

You see, my belief is that frankly the democrats have been too nice. Tried to compromise, excuse, make allowances for. I'm done with that. I find no need to reward hypocrisy or people that care more about power than governance.

 

[adrina]

Indeed. Scorched earth.

Oh spare me.

Supreme court nominees were heard in committee and not just stonewalled for partisan purposes.

You'll notice that they actually did their job and confirmed a nominee.

 

[adrina]

Yes. Those upset by the Merrick Affair just have not spent a lot of time studying political history or are being disingenuous in the name of making political points.

Please list an instance where that was applied, where a SCOTUS nominee didn't make it to committee and a seat went unfilled prior to the republicans in 2016 with Garland.

Ridiculous.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Is not the theme now of the Democrat Party that not only are they going to make Trump a one-termer, but that they are actually going to impeach him over the high crimes and misdemeanors of colluding with Russia to deny Hillary and the Democrat majority that which was rightfully theirs?






If you want to say, it was really bad when the Republicans did it, that does not give you any high ground in doing the same thing in the name of spite and revenge.

PS - McConnell lost that battle with the American People, now didn't he? You should learn from history. Political resistance is not the honey that draws the bees. Demand that the party you support start offering ideas and alternative visions rather than being the party of, OH HELL NO!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Please list an instance where that was applied, where a SCOTUS nominee didn't make it to committee and a seat went unfilled prior to the republicans in 2016 with Garland.

Ridiculous.

Doesn't matter. There's always a first time for everything under the sin.

At least they didn't Bork a perfectly good man or hold hearings that were focused on porn and pubic hairs....

 

[adrina]

Is not the theme now of the Democrat Party that not only are they going to make Trump a one-termer, but that they are actually going to impeach him over the high crimes and misdemeanors of colluding with Russia to deny Hillary and the Democrat majority that which was rightfully theirs?






If you want to say, it was really bad when the Republicans did it, that does not give you any high ground in doing the same thing in the name of spite and revenge.

PS - McConnell lost that battle with the American People, now didn't he? You should learn from history. Political resistance is not the honey that draws the bees. Demand that the party you support start offering ideas and alternative visions rather than being the party of, OH HELL NO!!!

Be careful of the paint you brush with.

So you support the republican agenda of privatizing social security, deregulating the banking and financial industries, gutting environmental regulations, decimating medicaid/medicare, further building up the military industrial complex, tax cuts for the rich and repealing the ACA?

You think you're being cute, but there are real issues at play. The democrats aren't perfect but at least they actually care about governance. The republicans just want power, to line their pockets and to line the pockets of their owners.

So yes, I'll say no to all of those things. If the republicans start acting on behalf of the American people and reality suddenly inverts, I'll reconsider.

But hey, you can call it obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"The republicans got lucky in this cycle with a couple factors helping them. The American voter's propensity to take turns, a laissez faire electorate more concerned with Kardashians than real issues, racism/sexism (don't even try to deny those did not play a role as I witnessed them both first hand on myriad platforms and venues) and some serious media fuckery. Comey and his unprecedented handling of the overblown email issue was another factor."

No, it was people paying attention. It was people seeing that Trump was paying attention to them, listening to them and telling them that he understood their problems and that he had solutions to their problems. It was also people seeing that the Party of their forefathers had rejected them, labeled them as Xenophobes clinging to their God, guns and Bibles, the deplorables, many of who were engaged in industries that the Democrats vowed to wreck and in economic opportunities that were given to illegal imported labor.

Stop blaming Comey. Stop blaming the Russian. Stop inventing fables that not only do not mirror the truth, but make you look like you are above reproach.

Y'all kicked your own fucking ass...

You went from being the party of the inclusive, to being an exclusionary private club in which the working whites need not apply. So they went to Trump. I didn't do that. You did it. You turned my wife into a Trump voter.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Be careful of the paint you brush with.

So you support the republican agenda of privatizing social security, deregulating the banking and financial industries, gutting environmental regulations, decimating medicaid/medicare, further building up the military industrial complex, tax cuts for the rich and repealing the ACA?

You think you're being cute, but there are real issues at play. The democrats aren't perfect but at least they actually care about governance. The republicans just want power, to line their pockets and to line the pockets of their owners.

So yes, I'll say no to all of those things. If the republicans start acting on behalf of the American people and reality suddenly inverts, I'll reconsider.

But hey, you can call it obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

Yes, but because those are, somewhat Libertarian principles with the exceptions of the slanderous shots at the military, Medicare and Medicaid. You are painting with true broad a brush in this instance. But seriously, some of this over-regulation is out of control and are economy killers.

 

[Wrong Element]

I probably could have written Gorsuch's answers. They all say they're going to go strictly by the law, and then a few years later you see them ruling that a business can have a religious belief.

Any Republican Court nominee is assumed to be a hack until he proves he isn't.

There's an unspoken rule, used by Schumer a few years back, that a supreme court candidate nominated in a President's last would not be considered.

What Schumer was talking about -- and this was obvious at the time -- was something along the lines of what happened in the summer of 1968, when Earl Warren announced his retirement because it looked like a sure thing Nixon would be elected, and having someone he hated pick his replacement was the last thing Warren wanted. The nomination of Abe Fortas to replace Warren was filibustered by a Republican/Dixiecrat coalition, an incident typically forgotten by those who insist Robert Bork was the first Court nominee who was ever rejected.

Schumer was firing a warning shot against an unpopular president getting to make end-of-term nominations because someone like Scalia or Kennedy might feel like retiring, but not if a Democrat would replace them. The way Scalia's opening came about was obviously unplanned.

Enjoy your majority while you have it. People have long memories. And as Ted Cruz (among others) reminded us all last year when it looked like Clinton would win, there's nothing requiring the Court to have nine members.

 

[adrina]

"The republicans got lucky in this cycle with a couple factors helping them. The American voter's propensity to take turns, a laissez faire electorate more concerned with Kardashians than real issues, racism/sexism (don't even try to deny those did not play a role as I witnessed them both first hand on myriad platforms and venues) and some serious media fuckery. Comey and his unprecedented handling of the overblown email issue was another factor."

No, it was people paying attention. It was people seeing that Trump was paying attention to them, listening to them and telling them that he understood their problems and that he had solutions to their problems. It was also people seeing that the Party of their forefathers had rejected them, labeled them as Xenophobes clinging to their God, guns and Bibles, the deplorables, many of who were engaged in industries that the Democrats vowed to wreck and in economic opportunities that were given to illegal imported labor.

Stop blaming Comey. Stop blaming the Russian. Stop inventing fables that not only do not mirror the truth, but make you look like you are above reproach.

Y'all kicked your own fucking ass...

You went from being the party of the inclusive, to being an exclusionary private club in which the working whites need not apply. So they went to Trump. I didn't do that. You did it. You turned my wife into a Trump voter.

Yes, but because those are, somewhat Libertarian principles with the exceptions of the slanderous shots at the military, Medicare and Medicaid. You are painting with true broad a brush in this instance. But seriously, some of this over-regulation is out of control and are economy killers.

Thank you for clarifying. How you say what you say makes much more sense now. I see what I've got in front of me.

Sorry darlin' I don't have time for you right now. Or really probably any time.

Wow.

Go be a Gary Johnson libertarian and perhaps you'll find Aleppo some day. It's crazy enough that you don't recognize the problem caused by financial deregulation, but you support what little control has been re-exerted on the markets for our well being and safety...

Apparently you think power does not corrupt. I don't think I can really work with that mindset.

 

[Rightguide]

I probably could have written Gorsuch's answers. They all say they're going to go strictly by the law, and then a few years later you see them ruling that a business can have a religious belief.

Any Republican Court nominee is assumed to be a hack until he proves he isn't.







What Schumer was talking about -- and this was obvious at the time -- was something along the lines of what happened in the summer of 1968, when Earl Warren announced his retirement because it looked like a sure thing Nixon would be elected, and having someone he hated pick his replacement was the last thing Warren wanted. The nomination of Abe Fortas to replace Warren was filibustered by a Republican/Dixiecrat coalition, an incident typically forgotten by those who insist Robert Bork was the first Court nominee who was ever rejected.

Schumer was firing a warning shot against an unpopular president getting to make end-of-term nominations because someone like Scalia or Kennedy might feel like retiring, but not if a Democrat would replace them. The way Scalia's opening came about was obviously unplanned.

Enjoy your majority while you have it. People have long memories. And as Ted Cruz (among others) reminded us all last year when it looked like Clinton would win, there's nothing requiring the Court to have nine members.

I'm talking about what he said in 2007:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/f...-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

 

[james_1957]

I probably could have written Gorsuch's answers. They all say they're going to go strictly by the law, and then a few years later you see them ruling that a business can have a religious belief.

Any Republican Court nominee is assumed to be a hack until he proves he isn't.







What Schumer was talking about -- and this was obvious at the time -- was something along the lines of what happened in the summer of 1968, when Earl Warren announced his retirement because it looked like a sure thing Nixon would be elected, and having someone he hated pick his replacement was the last thing Warren wanted. The nomination of Abe Fortas to replace Warren was filibustered by a Republican/Dixiecrat coalition, an incident typically forgotten by those who insist Robert Bork was the first Court nominee who was ever rejected.

Schumer was firing a warning shot against an unpopular president getting to make end-of-term nominations because someone like Scalia or Kennedy might feel like retiring, but not if a Democrat would replace them. The way Scalia's opening came about was obviously unplanned.

Enjoy your majority while you have it. People have long memories. And as Ted Cruz (among others) reminded us all last year when it looked like Clinton would win, there's nothing requiring the Court to have nine members.

People do have long memories.

Thanks for Ohio's 18 electoral votes.

 

[Wrong Element]

My advice to Gorsuch: in the future, when you're trying to show everyone how fair and nonpartisan you intend to be, you might want to say "Democratic judges" instead of "Democrat judges."

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nine best Democratic attacks on Gorsuch (and one defense).