Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

[Long Run]

What I've read indicates Schumer himself didn't want this fight...he understands the logic in play here...

But he (and other Senate Democrats) have been driven to acting like the Freedom "Saviors Of Obamacare" Caucus by the Democratic base...

Which it is why it is worth noting that even though the R's are mostly correctly portrayed as not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, they are the ones that have dominated the other party across the country -- and what does that say about the other party . . . And, it is also worth noting, that there are plenty of things to not like about Schumer, grand-stander and all that he is, but there is no nasty nickname for a pol that is within the norm for political behavior (Reid was widely disliked on a bipartisan basis, but for the D's, he was their a-hole, scumball, so they cut him slack).

[Econoline]

Please don't slander turtles. Turtles are nice. He looks more like a lizard. A repulsive one like a Komodo dragon.

It's not insulting turtles in general—just Yertle. And Yertle was a bit of a dick, anyway; in the end he not only wound up NOT being King of the Turtles (and not even Senate Majority Leader of the Turtles) but just King of the Mud.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Mud Turtles are reptiles too.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm with LJ on this. It makes little sense to filibuster Gorsuch who, for all his faults and they are many, is not a Bork. Like most of the Dems in the Senate, I seethe at the stolen Garland seat. But that in itself is not a reason to send Gorsuch away. Let's face it - he will be approved and if McConnell has to go for cloture, he will. Dems: keep your powder dry and make the all out assault on the next one (when with luck the filibuster will still be alive and kicking and Trump will be so much weaker) because the painful likelihood is that one of the oldie but goodie rational SCJs will retire. Choose your battles.

[Big RR]

I agree; while I understand the opposition of the democrats, I still maintain that Gorsuch is probably the best candidate we're going to get from this administration, and I do think we need to have a full complement on the court. Save the opposition (and hopefully the filibuster) for the next nominee 9and hopefully there won't be any).

[Econoline]

I think some of Gorsuch's past opinions do seem pretty borkish (to coin a term), and his attitude, evasiveness, lack of substance under questioning, and massive dark-money support just made things worse. So, yes, I've changed my mind and now think that even if he's the best we can expect from Trump, he's a bad enough choice that the Dems should use the filibuster. Of course, it's a futile gesture and the Republicans will confirm Gorsuch regardless...but we oughta know by now that if we roll over and play nice we're still never ever gonna get a treat.

And why wait for the next nomination? If the Dems roll over now (as they did during the Cabinet confirmation voting) the Republicans will expect the submissiveness to continue indefinitely...and if they don't filibuster now and someone even worse is appointed later, Yertle will just use his nuclear option then, regardless of what the Dems do or don't do now. As Charlie Pierce pointed out the other day, by now the Democrats must have a rather large warehouse full of dry powder. Why keep it if you're never going to use it?

[Big RR]

Econo--I am no fan of Gorsuch, and while I agree he has been evasive during questioning, that has been the pattern of most recent nominees for the judiciary. As for dark money support, I am not certain what you are referring to specifically, but if it is just who helped support him, I'm not sure I'd tar him with the same brush.

As for the filibuster, true, the republicans can change the rules, but in this case I think it would seem like the democrats are being small and just exacting payback for Garland, which might give the repubs some sympathy among moderate voters. At a later time with a different nominee, the dems may be able to make a pretty good case for blacking the nomination, leaving the repubs to look at as the "bad guys". and even if there are good reasons to block the nominations, the party leadership and rank and file haven't discussed these much, and that's a problem for them; I recall when Bork was voted down that there was a lot of discussion of his qualifications, something sorely lacking now.

It seems that for many the idea is that the dems must black Trump at every step, whether or not there are good reasons to do so (much as the tea party and repubs did to Obama); I personally think that's a mistake, but then I thought that Trump couldn't be elected. But if this is what politics has become--if it is opposition just for the sake of opposition, I sincerely fear for the future of our country. We have so much we need to do that we can't endure this much longer IMHO. But time will tell.

[rubato]

Bork was voted down in substantial part because of his spineless and self-serving actions in the Saturday night massacre.


He had a serious moral deficit.

Yrs,
Rubato

[Burning Petard]

Bork also had a serious candor problem. He actually answered questions during his confirmation hearing. That has been a big lesson for every judicial nominee since Bork. They say nothing; they dodge and claim it would not be appropriate to speculate on whether the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. They can only apply the law as it fits each particular case. Never mind that Gorsuch is NOT nominated to be a judge. The job is JUSTICE of the supreme court and it is precisely the nominee's fundamental definition of justice that they so carefully avoid.

snailgate

[Econoline]

• As for dark money support, I am not certain what you are referring to specifically, but if it is just who helped support him, I'm not sure I'd tar him with the same brush.

Can you say "501(c)(4)" kiddies? That's right! I knew you could!

• Backed by $10 million in ‘Dark Money,’ Gorsuch Claims He’s Apolitical
  [ ... ]
  Helping lead this effort is a little-known group, the Judicial Crisis Network, which pledged to spend at least $10 million to back Gorsuch’s nomination.
  
  This ‘dark money’ group doesn’t list its donors, but appears to be tied into the network led by oil barons Charles and David Koch.
  
  Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, asked Gorsuch if he knew who was behind the effort.
  
  “Senator,” he replied, “I could speculate based on what I’ve read and what I’ve heard, but I don’t know individuals who are contributing. I don’t know that.”
  
  “He probably knows who he owes the favor to,” The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer told Democracy Now.
  
  “The thing about dark money is, often the person who it’s benefiting knows; it’s just the public that’s not allowed to know,” said Mayer, who wrote the must-read book Dark Money.
  
  Once on the divided Supreme Court, Gorsuch could be the deciding vote in decisions effecting the wealthy interests who supported his nomination. But with his backers’ identity hidden, the public will be in the dark about his potential conflicts of interest.
  
  Prior to backing Gorsuch, the Judicial Crisis Network spent $7 million in 2016 to (successfully) thwart President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, from even getting a confirmation hearing.
  
  Now Trump has tapped Gorsuch for the seat Garland was nominated to fill, which has been vacant since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year.
  
  Curious what the Judicial Crisis Network saw in Gorsuch that it didn’t see in Garland, Whitehouse put the question to Gorsuch.
  
  “You’d have to ask them,” said Gorsuch.
  
  “I can’t because I don’t know who they are,” replied Whitehouse. “It’s just a front group.”
  [ ... ]

HuffPo article continues here.




ETA: (BTW...let me reiterate: this is not *THE* reason I'm in favor of the filibuster, it's just one of a number of contributing factors.)

[BoSoxGal]

It's the first time ever that advertising for a SCOTUS nominee has been run, right? I don't remember ever seeing such a thing before - another Citizens United monstrosity.

The ads have been running on MSNBC very frequently for weeks now. I guess I'm supposed to call my Senators and tell them to vote him in? Fuck no.

[Big RR]

I wouldn't waste the energy to tell my senators to vote for him, and you are right, this is the first time I have seen such ads, but then, that is where polarization and Citizen's United has led us. I'm sure they think he represents their position, but then so did the repubs when they supported Blackmun as Nixon's nominee, and he frequently wound up on the left side of the debates, so who knows (I don't think this will happen here, but then I didn't give Blackmun that much hope either, so who knows). These guys would financially back whoever Trump nominates so I have no reason to think Gorsuch is beholden to him; hopefully he's as bad a judge of people as he is a president and they've wasted their money. And if the only reason to oppose Gorsuch is because Trump nominated him and the dems are successful, then we could wind up with only 4 or 5 on the court in short order, and that's not a pretty thought.

[Lord Jim]

“He probably knows who he owes the favor to,” The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer told Democracy Now.[Democracy Now...now there's a reputable source for objective journalism.. .]

“The thing about dark money is, often the person who it’s benefiting knows; it’s just the public that’s not allowed to know,” said Mayer, who wrote the must-read book Dark Money.

"He probably knows" ..."often the person knows"...

Gee, they forgot, "many people are saying,.."

What a complete horseshit excuse for journalism...

With nothing at all to tie Gorsuch to any involvement with these groups, that article is nothing but a smearing hit piece...

I've also seen and heard a lot of these ads, and frankly I believe these folks are completely wasting their money; I don't believe their 10 million dollars has moved one single vote in the Senate either way...

[Guinevere]

Merkley (D-OR) holding the Senate floor. He's been talking for almost 15 hours now!

Go find him live on Facebook (or C-SPAN), and watch a bit, to show your support.

(He is pretty coherent, but looks and sounds tired. I sure would be after standing for 15 hours, with no food, no bathroom breaks, and only water allowed).

[Guinevere]

And he wrapped it up at 10:15.

Nice job, Senator!

[Lord Jim]

[Guinevere]

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

--A.Ham

[RayThom]

The good ship Democrat see sunlight on the horizon. "Keep a steady and even keel and all will be well," proclaims the Skipper.

[liberty]

It is a shame that the political philosophy of a SC justice should be such a big deal. All judges should be control by the constitution. But when the constitution lives and breathes it has the ability to change its mind. And then it Says what the SC says it says and the people no longer rule but unelected judges do. It should be that when the constitution changes it mind it should be because the people changed it not unelected tyrants.

[Sue U]

It is a shame that the political philosophy of a SC justice should be such a big deal. All judges should be control by the constitution. But when the constitution lives and breathes it has the ability to change its mind. And then it Says what the SC says it says and the people no longer rule but unelected judges do. It should be that when the constitution changes it mind it should be because the people changed it not unelected tyrants.

Judicial interpretation of the Constitution and its application to legislation has been the mechanism of American government since 1803. That case involved a fellow, name of Madison -- short guy, with a doll of a wife, maybe you've heard of him? -- who I assume had some sort of basic idea about how the Constitution actually works.

ETA: