Page 1 of 8

Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:31 pm
by BoSoxGal
Normally I would watch, I've been watching SCOTUS confirmation hearings since I was a pre-teen and my mom called me in sick so I could stay home and watch the first televised SCOTUS confirmation hearings - for Sandra Day O'Connor.

I watched about an hour of this one and then had to turn it off. I can't get past being sick at heart over the terrible injustice done to Merrick Garland. Listening to Gorsuch say all the standard (and correct) things about the independence of the judiciary and the requirement for justices to put aside politics - well, it's just so awful knowing that a very good man and very good judge was denied his rightful appointment to the Court.

I for one am not in favor of the Democrats doing anything to block this nominee, as he is clearly qualified and capable - even if his leanings are unfavorable to me. (I recall listening to Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation hearings and being really in awe of his intellect, despite my differences with his political philosophy. Judge Gorsuch is nowhere near as well spoken.)

The politicizing of this process to the extent the Republicans took it last year in denying Garland a hearing and vote was the most disgusting thing I've seen in politics in my lifetime, and that stain should be on the Republican Party alone for all history. And every Republican should be ashamed - except a sense of what is shameful seems to be something far too many Republicans no longer possess.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:01 pm
by Big RR
I agree re moving this along BSG; we need a full compliment of judges on the SC, this guy seems like the best we could hope to get from this administration (of course I do want to see how the questioning proceeds before I make a final decisions). The Garland debacle is unforgiveable, but let's not cut off our collective noses to spite our faces.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:52 pm
by Guinevere
No on Gorsuch, no way, not ever. The time for reason and reasonableness is over. Look what it got us. I'm done playing that game. Filibuster time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... rsuch.html
It is an article of faith among Senate Republicans that everything liberals do is just goddamn awful, from the unelected left-wing justices who “legislate from the bench” to the blocking of Robert Bork in 1987 to the lame cries for equal treatment of everyone under the law. Indeed, Senate Republicans have so mastered the art of outsize umbrage that at Monday’s hearing for Judge Merrick Garland Neil Gorsuch,[In the original, Merrick Garland is stricken out, its sarcastic funny, angering funny, but still funny]to fill a Supreme Court seat they themselves blocked and obstructed for over a year, the one note of agreement they sounded was an angry one. They are angry that Democrats believe an Obama nominee should have been afforded the courtesy of a hearing and a vote. They are angry that their nominee—who was picked by the president with promises about how he would vote in abortion and gun cases—will surely be asked about how he will vote in abortion and gun cases. But mostly they are really just incredibly steamed that Senate Democrats are even a little bit mad. Because anger is sort of the Republicans’ thing.

Get your own thing, Democrats.


Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was furious that the cardinal principles of “separation of powers” and respect for an “independent” judicial branch are not being honored by Senate Democrats. This is the same Chuck Grassley who pre-emptively attacked the Supreme Court and its chief justice last spring for any attempts to politicize the court vacancy. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch lectured the Judiciary Committee about the fact that the Senate “owes the president deference over his judicial nominees.” Hearing this, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont about fell out of his chair. Hypocrisy, thy name is Grassley. Or Hatch. I read Leahy actually laughed at loud, at Hatch's comment

Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, mournfully warned the nominee that the “duplicity” of Monday’s politicized confirmation hearings would be unfair and unfamiliar to him. Evidently the duplicity and politicization to which Merrick Garland Neil Gorsuch will be subjected is altogether unparalleled in modern history. And Sen. Ted Cruz, who is doubtless capable of hacking up a hairball of outrage over hangnails and the existence of Velcro, was affronted that a Democratic president had the temerity to even attempt to fill the chair vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia on an “activist Supreme Court” that is dominated by “unelected lawyers.” [They elect judges in Texas, don't they]

The president’s audacity in seeking to fill that seat with a justice of his choosing was indeed so outrageous, Cruz argued in the fall, that if Hillary Clinton were to be elected the Senate should leave Scalia’s seat open indefinitely. After Trump’s victory, Cruz is still enraged, but now it’s because Democrats are ignoring the fact that since a Republican won, the election was actually a “referendum on the kind of justice that should replace Justice Scalia.” Cruz is beside himself with fury about questions regarding Merrick Garland Neil Gorsuch’s legitimacy. Don’t these Democrats know that only Ted Cruz gets to question a jurist’s legitimacy? To ensure that this is so, Cruz officially declares that effective, like right now, “Judge Gorsuch is no ordinary nominee. … His nomination carries with it a super legitimacy.” Super legitimacy, for the uninitiated, is the power to outrun your own speeding hypocrisy.[Can't improve on this one. She is so right]

One angry senator after another cautioned the nominee not to answer any question about anything ever. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is mainly just angry that everyone in the Senate isn’t Lindsey Graham, said he is post-anger. He isn’t even angry that Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan vote with the liberals 100 percent of the time (they don’t) because what else can you really expect from liberal judges. Senate Republicans took turns being angry that anything other than Scalia-era “originalism” be given voice in the jurisprudential universe, despite the fact that there is maybe only one “originalist” sitting on the Supreme Court. They were enraged that any nominee should have to sit and have his record scrutinized given that 10 years ago—before he was a judge—this Gorsuch fellow was confirmed with flying colors. It’s all too obscene to countenance.[Of course, so was Garland]

In the glare of all this furious umbrage, some of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee responded with the standard toolkit of those who have been lifelong victims of abusive rage disorder. They expressed some dismay. They promised to try harder. They occasionally invoked the words “Merrick Garland,” but because they have no words to express fury or betrayal, they quickly reverted to showy performances of temperate reasonableness at which Senate Democrats excel. Doctrine was reasonably invoked. Chevron was fussed at. Some of the Democratic senators actually managed a creditable display of genuine frustration about GOP hypocrisy. This reached its high point with the metaphorical unfreezing of the “frozen trucker”—a plaintiff in a case whose plight the nominee once cruelly dismissed. In an epic hurling of shade, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said, “It was 14 degrees below. So cold, but not as cold as your dissent, Judge Gorsuch.” [Ouch. Barely.]

A few of the Democrats appeared ready to rumble, if rumbling involves offering up many case citations.[I admit, I laughed at this one too. But laughing didn't temper my outrage] The Republicans’ fury, by contrast, was unbridled: How dare Democrats put their nice nominee through the indignity of a hearing on the merits when they could instead just lie down on the Senate floor and form a human red carpet for the judge to walk?

The nominee was very emotional and eloquent about his daughters, black robes, and farm animals. He is extremely likeable. He named “little guys” he has, in the past, supported. That seemed to make the GOP’s rage burn even hotter. Who would dare attack a guy who likes chickens and original public meaning?

If you’re keeping score after Day 1: Senate Democrats have now defrosted a trucker, name-checked Merrick Garland, and been lectured that Senate Republicans have no choice but to be mean because Democrats have no judicial theory, no coherent strategy, and no intellectual right to fill “Scalia’s seat.” On the other side of the aisle, the GOP has nothing but bottomless umbrage. It’s taken them this far. Why would they stop now?

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:21 pm
by Lord Jim
I'm sure that there will be some Democrats in the Senate that will adopt Guin's never-say-die-take-no-prisoners approach and attempt a filibuster, but after reading the reviews on his performance yesterday, and listening to him today I will be very surprised if he doesn't get at least the eight Democratic votes (probably more) needed to invoke cloture...

The fact is that while waving the bloody shirt of Merrick Garland is great for the base, on the average American's list of priorities, it doesn't make the top thousand... So they can't expect any great groundswell of popular pressure over this...

If I were a Democrat trying to work out the best strategy, I'd want to force the GOP to try to extend the Reid Rule to SC nominees over a nominee where I might have a chance to attract a couple of GOP votes ...

There have been some Republican Senators who have said they would not be inclined to vote to eliminate the filibuster vote threshold for SC nominees, but if the Dems decide to plant their flag on a nominee as self-evidently well qualified and within the boundaries of the judicial mainstream as this one, I doubt that they will attract a single Republican vote...

Which means they will fail, the threshold will be lowered to a simple majority, and Gorsuch will be confirmed anyway...

It seems to me that it would be better strategy to force the issue when you might have a chance of prevailing, rather than just running into a buzz saw...

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:27 pm
by Guinevere
Logic and reasonableness do not apply when trying to outmaneuver the Republicans. See, i.e., Garland, Merrick, Esq.

The only thing your party seems to understand these days is force. So if that's what it takes to get their attention, I'm all for it. Today, right now, I'd rather fall down taking a principled stand, than cede the point to be "reasonable" when I'll only lose anyway. Then let's see what tomorrow brings. There are no certainties in politics these days. I'm playing my hand one card at a time.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:39 pm
by Joe Guy
It's not a battle worth fighting. If not Gorsuch, then who? It can only get worse.

LIKE SHOVELLING SAND...

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:40 pm
by RayThom
... against the tide.

Yeah, I'm all for a partisan fight here but the eventual result will be Gorsuch's confirmation. It's inevitable. The Dems need to appear tough but I don't need to see them appearing delusional, either.

Keep in mind, The Notorious RBG will be next to go and she's surely not going to last for four (eight?) more years. With too much push-back now against Gorsuch, Lord Dampnut will be forced to counter with a more right leaning nomination next time... and probably for a third nomination.

I do, however, get a gut feeling that Gorsuch will become a bit more moderate once appointed.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:49 pm
by BoSoxGal
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 84, and quite healthy for a cancer survivor.

Oliver Wendell Holmes served until he was 90; don't count Ruth out.


I totally completely understand Guin's frustration - which is shared by many Democrats and members of the Bar. At the same time, I don't see what good it really does to go low in response to the GOP going low. We can't win, and we need to play the longer game - regaining as many seats as possible in 2018, and the WH in 2020. I think we have a better chance of doing that by not resorting to being the 'opposition to everything' party that the Republicons were under Obama.

Their hypocrisy is already evident to any who would see, including plenty of moderate Republicans who knew that blocking Garland with no reason just wasn't right.

The brainwashed, rabid alt right will never, ever see.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:52 pm
by Lord Jim
I'm playing my hand one card at a time.
Yeah, but...

If you play that card, on this particular hand, you're going to both lose the hand, and lose the card to ever have it to play again on a better hand, that you might be able to win...

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:14 am
by Guinevere
Rumors of the makings of a possible deal begin to leak out: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/g ... urt-236384

The only way I'd possibly support something like this is a West Wing type approach. A Justice retires, so that Gorsuch and Garland ultimately get confirmed. But I'm not sure I'm interested in trading Garland for Ginsburg.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:28 am
by Lord Jim
The lawmakers worry that Gorsuch could be confirmed whether Democrats try to block him or not — and Democrats would be left with nothing to show for it.
Image

Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:36 pm
by RayThom
It's inevitable.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:15 am
by wesw
mitch mc connel should grow a set and do away with the filibuster rules completely.

the gop won, they should have the courage to govern.

do or die.

he would probably not get Rubio, mc cain or graham..... that leaves 50 with pence to break the tie.

screw em,

your party has both houses and the presidency.

govern the damned country.

don t worry about Pelosi....,, the old grey mare ain t what she used to be.... she s from Baltimore, she ll get it....

screw shumer too, nobody is gonna cry for chuck...

geez, you guys are gonna snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.....

anyway, no deal...., and no filibuster...., yer screwed....

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:14 am
by BoSoxGal
Leave of absence? :shrug

Toxic place! :nana

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:03 am
by Guinevere
Filibuster it is!!

Schumer found *his* balls!

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:17 am
by Lord Jim
Image

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:06 am
by Guinevere
I disagree entirely LJ. Let Yertle the Turtle decide to change Senate rules from how the Founders made them, once and for all. I'm not afraid.

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:27 am
by Lord Jim
Let Yertle the Turtle decide to change Senate rules from how the Founders made them
Gee, I must have a defective copy of the Constitution, because I can't find any reference to the Filibuster Rule in it... ;)

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:27 pm
by wesw
geez , jim....

Robert byrd and Madison and Jefferson and hammurabi wrote it into the magna carta..., Solomon signed off on it too.....

how could you miss it?

(guin had to know that that was not true, right?)

#fake history

Re: Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:33 pm
by BoSoxGal
When exactly are you taking an actual leave of absence from this toxic place, wesw? :shrug