Gorsuch confirmation hearings

[Conager]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnU5TOBE-bg

 

[james_1957]

The Democratic resistance sat on a blue wall
Manchin and Heitkamp busted that wall
All the Justice Democrats and all the unhinged Left
Couldn't put the wall back together again

Senate's blue wall begins to crumble as two Democrats say they'll support Trump's Supreme Court pick
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4366152/Senate-s-blue-wall-begins-crumble-Gorsuch-vote.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

[voice=William "Chucky" Wallace] Hold! HOLD! HOLD!!! [/voice]


I hope he holds the line, gets nuked for it and then stands haplessly by as Trump picks off another "Liberal" seat...




... or two.

 

[phrodeau]

Donald Trump just delivered his Weekly Address. Two and a half minutes about Judge Gorsuch, and not one word about Atlanta.

 

[Wrong Element]

"We can keep the filibuster as long as it's never used." Someone needs to explain to me why the Democrats should find this argument persuasive.

 

[RobDownSouth]

[voice=William "Chucky" Wallace] Hold! HOLD! HOLD!!! [/voice]


I hope he holds the line, gets nuked for it and then stands haplessly by as Trump picks off another "Liberal" seat...




... or two.

Notice how Lit's Situational Red Man Speaks With Forked Tongue....now that there is a white man in the White House again ("as Skyfather intended!"), he's now allllll in favor of Republicans invokin' the Nuclear Option, something that Sensei Senseless used to get the vapors about when #ThatNegroPresident was in office.

 

[Rightguide]

Notice how Lit's Situational Red Man Speaks With Forked Tongue....now that there is a white man in the White House again ("as Skyfather intended!"), he's now allllll in favor of Republicans invokin' the Nuclear Option, something that Sensei Senseless used to get the vapors about when #ThatNegroPresident was in office.

Probably just a sense of political quid pro quo in that Democrats should feel the pain they inflict on others when they lose.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Undeniably so, but my point in bringing those percentages to light was to illustrate that the highest arguable devotees to law and justice in the land who might otherwise criticize their colleagues' approach to adjudicating Constitutional conflicts (i.e originalism vs. living Constitution) are not so encumbered by those philosophies that it compels them to be at each other's throats the vast majority of the time.

Not so for the rest of us, it would appear.

The rest of us ain't professional jurists.

 

[Conager]

"We can keep the filibuster as long as it's never used." Someone needs to explain to me why the Democrats should find this argument persuasive.

Harry Reid seemed to think that is how it works.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is surprising that, throughout the convolutions of the Gorsuch hearings, no mention has been made of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose nomination and confirmation were – with one important difference – a mirror image of the present proceedings.

Back in 2009, the Democrats had a substantial majority in the Senate but not quite enough to prevent a filibuster. Although it's retrospectively hard to believe, POTUS Obama nominated Sotomayor claiming she was a moderate liberal. The Republicans grumbled, pointing out that she "thinks her own personal agenda is more important than the law as written" and citing several highly biased and embarrassingly irrational statements. With regard to her competence, Senator Mitch McConnell noted that nine out of her ten decisions that reached the Supreme Court had been reversed.


Although a strict party vote would have enabled a filibuster, Republican senators chose not to do so. Perhaps they feared Hispanic backlash in future elections. Or perhaps they feared that Democrats would invoke the "nuclear" option of killing the 60-vote rule for confirmations – which they later did for federal judgeships. Instead, Republicans bit the bullet and accepted the inevitability of Sotomayor's confirmation. Nine Republicans actually voted for her.

The results have been embarrassing, even for many Democrats. Sonia's emotive outbursts of racist decisions and crude remarks have earned her the distinction (in a recent evaluation published in the New York Times) of being the most extreme leftist in the current Court – even more liberal that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a feat worthy of the Guinness Book of Records.

Now, when the tables are turned, the Democrats have decided to take off their gloves and fight dirty. On the one hand, they threaten a filibuster; on the other, they waffle about how it was OK when they abolished filibusters for confirmations but would be wrong if the Republicans did it. Their excuse, as exemplified by a recent NYT editorial, is that Democratic intransigence is payback for the stonewalling that Merrick Garland's nomination received from the Republicans. The obvious answer is that the Garland affair was payback for Obama's outrageous insertion of an irrationally biased second-rate judge into the hallowed chambers of our Supreme Court.

The best strategy for the Republican senators might be to let the Democrats filibuster for a week or two, until the American public is thoroughly disgusted with their tantrums, and then reluctantly invoke the nuclear option "in order to get back to more urgent matters." Hopefully, voters will remember Democratic partisanship and Republican moderation during the next senatorial elections.

It is surprising that, throughout the convolutions of the Gorsuch hearings, no mention has been made of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose nomination and confirmation were – with one important difference – a mirror image of the present proceedings.

Back in 2009, the Democrats had a substantial majority in the Senate but not quite enough to prevent a filibuster. Although it's retrospectively hard to believe, POTUS Obama nominated Sotomayor claiming she was a moderate liberal. The Republicans grumbled, pointing out that she "thinks her own personal agenda is more important than the law as written" and citing several highly biased and embarrassingly irrational statements. With regard to her competence, Senator Mitch McConnell noted that nine out of her ten decisions that reached the Supreme Court had been reversed.

Although a strict party vote would have enabled a filibuster, Republican senators chose not to do so. Perhaps they feared Hispanic backlash in future elections. Or perhaps they feared that Democrats would invoke the "nuclear" option of killing the 60-vote rule for confirmations – which they later did for federal judgeships. Instead, Republicans bit the bullet and accepted the inevitability of Sotomayor's confirmation. Nine Republicans actually voted for her.

The results have been embarrassing, even for many Democrats. Sonia's emotive outbursts of racist decisions and crude remarks have earned her the distinction (in a recent evaluation published in the New York Times) of being the most extreme leftist in the current Court – even more liberal that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a feat worthy of the Guinness Book of Records.

Now, when the tables are turned, the Democrats have decided to take off their gloves and fight dirty. On the one hand, they threaten a filibuster; on the other, they waffle about how it was OK when they abolished filibusters for confirmations but would be wrong if the Republicans did it. Their excuse, as exemplified by a recent NYT editorial, is that Democratic intransigence is payback for the stonewalling that Merrick Garland's nomination received from the Republicans. The obvious answer is that the Garland affair was payback for Obama's outrageous insertion of an irrationally biased second-rate judge into the hallowed chambers of our Supreme Court.

Paul Shlichta

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/gorsuch_vs_sotomayor.html#ixzz4dTOdWd84

 

[Rightguide]

Paul Shlichta

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/gorsuch_vs_sotomayor.html#ixzz4dTOdWd84

And though nowhere near as qualified as Gorsuch, she got every Democrat and Independent vote.

 

[SyKoKo]

And though nowhere near as qualified as Gorsuch, she got every Democrat and Independent vote.

had a 50% rating from the ABA

and said WISE LATINA.....imagine a WHITE GUY saying that.....Public execution for him

Sonia Soda Meyer is a HISPANIC CUNT, nothing else....should be cleaning teh SCOTUS toilets

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And though nowhere near as qualified as Gorsuch, she got every Democrat and Independent vote.

had a 50% rating from the ABA

and said WISE LATINA.....imagine a WHITE GUY saying that.....Public execution for him

Sonia Soda Meyer is a HISPANIC CUNT, nothing else....should be cleaning teh SCOTUS toilets

Yeah, funny how being out of power, by your own efforts, changes your world view...


And now, under the heading of it just keeps getting funnier, they are about to nuke themselves. The better hope that Buzzy is in better health than she appears to be.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, funny how being out of power, by your own efforts, changes your world view...


And now, under the heading of it just keeps getting funnier, they are about to nuke themselves. The better hope that Buzzy is in better health than she appears to be.

I predict Schumer will have to be strapped to a toilet, stuck on flush, if Buzzy retires and the nuclear option looms for the another conservative nominee.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Time for the rules to be changed. Should be applied for legislative matters as well.

Elections have consequences.

ETA: The Democrats should have had the balls to do away with the filibuster several years ago when the Republicans caused Congress to be the least effective legislative body on the planet.

 

[Rightguide]

Time for the rules to be changed. Should be applied for legislative matters as well.

Elections have consequences.

ETA: The Democrats should have had the balls to do away with the filibuster several years ago when the Republicans caused Congress to be the least effective legislative body on the planet.

Here's an education for you by somebody who knows:

https://journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-law-policy-review/online/how-52-senators-made-60-51

 

[KingOrfeo]

What good is the filibuster anyway? It's a bug, not a feature. They should abolish it for all purposes, not just judicial confirmations.

 

[Wrong Element]

Paul Shlichta

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/04/gorsuch_vs_sotomayor.html#ixzz4dTOdWd84

This piece makes no sense. The GOP didn't have the votes to filibuster, because obviously she was not filibustered. That's like saying "the Republicans had the votes to pass Trumpcare" simply because there's a Republican majority in Congress. You don't vote to filibuster a nomination and THEN for a nominee to be confirmed; that would make no sense. But the opposite happens all the time.

How do I know that? Because there are two current members of the Court who were confirmed with between 50 and 60 votes. In both cases there were senators who didn't want the nominee on the Court but would not support a filibuster either. Of course, the two justices in question were Republican nominees, a pertinent fact usually left out of all "the Democrats started it!" rationalizations.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Here's an education for you by somebody who knows:

https://journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-law-policy-review/online/how-52-senators-made-60-51

Interesting read, nothing more than one point of view and interpretation of events.

Let me ask you - how do you think Hatch voted today? Was he noble enough to vote against the rules change?

Also, I am talking about eliminating the procedure not for judicial nominations but all business before the Senate. The process was basically to let the Senate agree that all meaningful debate on the matter at hand was concluded but that has been perverted.

Also, the Senate rules that were once needed to protect and give balance to the minority are no longer meaningful. Today they permit the tyranny of the minority. Small States are massively over represented in this Republic. They no longer need protection.

 

[Rightguide]

Interesting read, nothing more than one point of view and interpretation of events.

Let me ask you - how do you think Hatch voted today? Was he noble enough to vote against the rules change?

Also, I am talking about eliminating the procedure not for judicial nominations but all business before the Senate. The process was basically to let the Senate agree that all meaningful debate on the matter at hand was concluded but that has been perverted.

Also, the Senate rules that were once needed to protect and give balance to the minority are no longer meaningful. Today they permit the tyranny of the minority. Small States are massively over represented in this Republic. They no longer need protection.

I don't know how he voted, haven't read. Generally speaking, the Fillibuster rule is simply a method to give the minority an advantage over the majority which to my mind thwarts the will of the majority and the results of elections.

Most Americans believe in majority rule and the notion that elections should have consequences, after all, it's why they voted the way they did in the first place, to effect change.

The idea that states, no matter their population, have two Senators is not a bad idea. However, the Rule 22 isn't in the Constitution. It's simply a rule made by the Senate as allowed by the Constitution and therefore subject to change without the hysterics we see today. Nor does its absence change the deliberative nature of the Senate. It's really a stupid rule.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Generally speaking, the Fillibuster rule is simply a method to give the minority an advantage over the majority which to my mind thwarts the will of the majority and the results of elections.

The filibuster is simply a rule allowing "unlimited debate," which sounds innocuous enough until you explore the possibilities. It was part of both houses' rules from the beginning, but the HoR dropped it early in the 19th Century when it grew large enough that unlimited debate proved problematic. The Senate should have done the same long ago.

 

[Rightguide]

The filibuster is simply a rule allowing "unlimited debate," which sounds innocuous enough until you explore the possibilities. It was part of both houses' rules from the beginning, but the HoR dropped it early in the 19th Century when it grew large enough that unlimited debate proved problematic. The Senate should have done the same long ago.

And as we know, unlimited debate gets nothing done.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And as we know, unlimited debate gets nothing done.

Which is usually the point. The filibuster is an obstruction tactic, a liberum veto.

 

[Rightguide]

Which is usually the point. The filibuster is an obstruction tactic, a liberum veto.

Precisely.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I don't know how he voted, haven't read. Generally speaking, the Fillibuster rule is simply a method to give the minority an advantage over the majority which to my mind thwarts the will of the majority and the results of elections.

Most Americans believe in majority rule and the notion that elections should have consequences, after all, it's why they voted the way they did in the first place, to effect change.

The idea that states, no matter their population, have two Senators is not a bad idea. However, the Rule 22 isn't in the Constitution. It's simply a rule made by the Senate as allowed by the Constitution and therefore subject to change without the hysterics we see today. Nor does its absence change the deliberative nature of the Senate. It's really a stupid rule.

I'd have a lot more respect for the intellectual purity of his essay had he voted against the rules change, which he did not.

I understand what Rule 22 is and its origin and it is the imbalance of the artificial capping of the House at 435 members and the Founders understandable inability to predict a California with 38M people and a Wyoming with less than 600K people. That is a massive imbalance for a Republic. A contradiction that needs correction. The fights over the filibuster are one symptom.