Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

[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.

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:

Having to do with an appointment of a federal official. M (can’t remember spelling) verses Madison.

[Guinevere]

Scrapped my earlier comments. Not worth it.


Checking my super-secret, libral-elite, version of the Constitution. Yup. Article III, it says "tyrants" not "judges." Shhhhhhhhh. Don't tell anyone else.

[Sue U]

Having to do with an appointment of a federal official. M (can’t remember spelling) verses Madison.

Marbury v. Madison. And while an appointment to federal office (justice of the peace for the District of Columbia) was the matter at issue, the decision is important not because of that, but because it declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional to the extent it broadened the jurisdiction of federal courts beyond what was set out under Article III.

Was John Marshall a tyrant? Were Madison, Jefferson and Adams ignorant of constitutional function?

[BoSoxGal]

I've changed my mind. I admit I was wrong. I'm proud of the Democrats for filibustering and forcing the Republicunts to go nuclear.

Gorsuch is obviously the desired nominee of serious dark money interests, the ads are nonstop now on my TV. And he's an academic cheat. A puke. I will loathe him almost as much as I loathe Thomas.

And I'm still so fucking sad for Merrick Garland.

[Econoline]

Gorsuch is obviously the desired nominee of serious dark money interests, the ads are nonstop now on my TV.

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...

None of us is the intended audience for the ads. They are meant for Gorsuch himself, to remind him of just who he owes his job to.

[Lord Jim]

to remind him of just who he owes his job to.

Oh brother...

Yeah, because lord knows without those commercials, his nomination would be going down in flames...

ETA:

As Charlie Pierce pointed out the other day, by now the Democrats must have a rather large warehouse full of dry powder

This fantasy narrative of the Saintly Democrats being abused by the Evil Republicans really hands me a laugh...

They didn't have any problem using their powder when they set the up the predicate for the fix they find themselves in when they used the "nuclear option" option to blow up the "60 vote standard" for appellate judges...

And please don't bother with the usual shine about how, "Oh, that was justified because of all the nominees the Evil Republicans were blocking"...

The Dems did exactly the same thing to George W Bush's nominees...(Miguel Estrada, anyone?)

I'm sorry but the, "The filibuster is A Bad Thing when The Evil Republicans use it to block Saintly Democratic nominees but A Good Thing when The Saintly Democrats use it to block Evil Republican nominees," argument doesn't work for me...

[Econoline]

to remind him of just who he owes his job to.

Oh brother...

Yeah, because lord knows without those commercials, his nomination would be going down in flames...

You misunderstood me. Of course the commercials have nothing to do with the success of his confirmation. As you (and everyone else) has already pointed out, that's in the bag, and unstoppable. But as an ostentatious and unnecessary display of wealth and power, it certainly shows everyone that those who have been promoting Gorsuch's rise for years have money to burn and confidence in their "investment".

Does Gorsuch know who these people are? Really, if someone had spent $7 million to make sure someone else didn't get the job you wanted and another $10 million plus to make sure you did get that job, I suspect you probably would have some idea who your bashful but generous friends were, and that they would want you to know, even if they didn't want it to become public knowledge. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

[Guinevere]

This fantasy narrative of the Saintly Democrats being abused by the Evil Republicans really hands me a laugh...

They didn't have any problem using their powder when they set the up the predicate for the fix they find themselves in when they used the "nuclear option" option to blow up the "60 vote standard" for appellate judges...

And please don't bother with the usual shine about how, "Oh, that was justified because of all the nominees the Evil Republicans were blocking"...

The Dems did exactly the same thing to George W Bush's nominees...(Miguel Estrada, anyone?)

How quickly we forget. Your party blocked and obstructed Obama judicial nominees to an unprecedented level. The poor beat upon Republicans lit the match, as the link below demonstrates.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... have-been/

By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.

Get over it LJ, stop whining and stop throwing shade. Miguel Estrada, my ass. He at least got a hearing befor the Judiciary Committee, the chance to present himself before the Senate, the opportunity for debate on the Senate floor. And there were real objections to his appointment and a significant attempt to railroad his appointment without full and complete information. Unlike Garland, for which no one could articulate a single solitary objection.

The road to perdition has been paved by the party of unprecedented obstruction. The party that won't act reasonably. The party that doesn't give a crap about governing, only about holding power and control for their elites. The party that together blocked a President from fulfilling his Constitutional duties and refused to do theirs. That's your party, LJ, the Republicans.

I'm sure it's entirely disappointing to you that the Democrats have found something of a backbone. Finally. But too fucking bad. Welcome to the post-Trumpanzee/post-Tea Party Democratic Party. We've been watching and learning how you all do things when you're in the minority, and are giving the same right back to you. Stay tuned, there is more coming.

[Crackpot]

Actually it's just this type of failing to rise above that makes people feel "they're all the same". If there's one thing Republicans know is that Demoats are both shit at playing tit for tat and unable to resist it.

[Lord Jim]

I'm sure it's entirely disappointing to you that the Democrats have found something of a backbone.

As a Republican, I'm not at all unhappy by the decision they've made to cut off their noses to spite their faces...

I would be be unhappy about it if I were a Democrat...

And I would certainly never characterize what's going on here as "finding a backbone"...

Caving into the emotional anger of your hardcore base when you know better, (something that politicians in my party have certainly been guilty of) isn't a display of "backbone"...

Exactly the opposite...

Genuine "backbone" would be shown by standing up to these pressures and explaining to the torch and pitch fork crowd why taking this stand at this time was the wrong thing to do to advance their interests and shared philosophy...

It doesn't take a lot of "backbone" to give-in to an angry mob...

They're playing right into Mitch McConnel's hands and giving great credence to his assertion that, "If they wont vote to confirm this nominee, they wont vote to confirm any Republican nominated nominee"...

If they let this one go and took this stand instead on a nomination that would genuinely change the complexion of the court, he could never make that argument...

I saw some Democratic pundit in the past few days saying that the Senate Democrats by taking this doomed-to- fail position are "showing that they will not be rolled"...

On the contrary, they are insisting on being rolled...

[Guinevere]

McConnell's hypocrisy is right there, for all the world to see. His party is the one that wouldn't even CONSIDER OR HOLD A HEARING on a centrist nominee. And there is not even a colorable argument that Gorsuch, who didn't do all that wwell in his hearings, is a centrist. He is a right-wing ACTIVIST judge.

[Guinevere]

The call to block Gorsuch is coming from a far wider group of Dems than just the so-called angry base, too. But by all means, continue your alt-fact spin.

At the end of the day, the only judicial nominating process at the average American even begins to pay attention to is for the Supreme Court. And at the end of the day, the world will know that the Republicans went nuclear, and cut out the minority voice on these most important appointments.

[Big RR]

there is not even a colorable argument that Gorsuch, who didn't do all that wwell in his hearings, is a centrist. He is a right-wing ACTIVIST judge.

Guin--if I felt that way, I would agree with the filibuster, but I have not seen any evidence of that. right leaning? Certainly. Probably going to side with the court's right wing justices on many issues? Likely. Indeed, what else wouldyou expect from a republican executive?

But a right wing activiist? I don't see it. If you have some analysis of his opinions or answers to the judiciary committee questions that show this, perhaps you could PM them. I'd like to keep an open mind. But lately all I've seen coming from the dems is a lockstep to block the actions of Trump, much as the repubs did to Obama, and IMHO that sort of gridlock is not such a good idea, especially when some of the repubs are becoming disgusted with Trump and might join with the dems to form a coalition if both sides honestly try to work together; that makes more sense IMHO.

[Sue U]

I really don't get all the histrionics over the so-called filibuster/cloture rule. A rule isn't a rule if it can be summarily discarded when things don't go your way; under these circumstances it's ridiculous to say to the Dems "save it for next time," because "next time" will be exactly the same. It's either a good idea to have 60-vote requirement for nominees or it's not, but to pretend it's a good idea only when "we" have the votes, and it can be done away with when "we" don't, just invites everyone to be a hypocrite at every occasion.

It is a science fact that, as a whole, the American electorate has approximately zero fucks to give about Senate procedural rules. There is nothing wrong with objecting to a nominee when there are objections to make, whether those objections are as to the qualifications of the individual nominee or the process that led to the nomination. These are all legitimate political questions. That the governmental system we have is so ill-equipped to deal with them in any but the most polarized and adversarial way is an indictment of the system itself.

[Sue U]

But a right wing activiist? I don't see it. If you have some analysis of his opinions or answers to the judiciary committee questions that show this, perhaps you could PM them.

Here ya go: http://www.afj.org/reports/the-gorsuch-record

[Big RR]

Sue--I agree that the 60 vote cloture rul4 is doomed, but I still think it's preferable for the dems to take the high road because I honestly think the republican party ids being fractured by Trump and the chances for a bipartisan coalition have not been better in quite some time. Furhter, while the average member of the public doesn't really care about senate rules, I do think the dems come off a bit petty and silly about opposing Gorsuch for the sake of opposing him (although I will review the link you sent and see if it changes my opinion on this) because I maintain he is the best nominee we will get out of this administration. Indeed, few dems have pointed to any reason for the opposition (other than "siding with corporations against the little guy", which I think many other even moderate judges could be accused of), and they are coming off as petulant brats (just like the repubs did with Obama).

IMHO, I think the 60 vote rule is good for SC justices because it assures nomination will have to have a borad appeal to the senate, which prevents extremists from either side of getting in, but thenk we can live without it. But 4 (or even 2) more years ofr partisan bickering and gridlock will be disastrous in the long run.

[Guinevere]

BigRR, why is it the Democrat's fault? See my link about how and why this all got started. Also, why are the Dem' constantly criticized for using a procedural rule available to the entire Senate? Why do the Republicans get to skate free for being ever more difficult and more obstructionist?

As for Gorsuch's right-wing activism, I commend to you Senator Merkley's excellent discussion on this during his filibuster. Look for what he calls the "twin peaks" chart he had available. I'm sure you can find it on his web site.

Also, please see this link for more on Gorsuch as a "selective" originalist:http://theusconstitution.org/sites/defa ... dation.pdf

[Sue U]

Sue--I agree that the 60 vote cloture rul4 is doomed, but I still think it's preferable for the dems to take the high road because I honestly think the republican party ids being fractured by Trump and the chances for a bipartisan coalition have not been better in quite some time. Furhter, while the average member of the public doesn't really care about senate rules, I do think the dems come off a bit petty and silly about opposing Gorsuch for the sake of opposing him (although I will review the link you sent and see if it changes my opinion on this) because I maintain he is the best nominee we will get out of this administration. Indeed, few dems have pointed to any reason for the opposition (other than "siding with corporations against the little guy", which I think many other even moderate judges could be accused of), and they are coming off as petulant brats (just like the repubs did with Obama).

I don't think there is anything that is not "the high road" in opposing a Supreme Court nominee whose political philosophy and judicial predilections are antithetical to the societal goals the Democrats supposedly stand for in representing their constituents. For all the pretense to the contrary, the Supreme Court is fundamentally a political body making decisions that affect social policy as enacted by legislatures and and implemented by executives. The Court has an extremely important role in deciding what kind of country this will be; any justice appointed will likely be making those decisions for the next 40 years or more, and through stare decisis their opinions will shape American society for generations to come. It is not too much to ask that a Supreme Court nominee actually represent the aspirations of the American people in developing a just society through the operation of law.

If the Democrats can learn anything from the Republicans, it is precisely that there is actually no political price to pay for being "petulant" or "obstructionist." There is a time for bipartisanship and there is a time for bare-knuckled brawls. Where each is to be applied is the very essence of the political process.

IMHO, I think the 60 vote rule is good for SC justices because it assures nomination will have to have a borad appeal to the senate, which prevents extremists from either side of getting in, but thenk we can live without it. But 4 (or even 2) more years ofr partisan bickering and gridlock will be disastrous in the long run.

Yes, requiring a super-majority ensures a less-objectionable candidate. But why 60 votes? Why not require 67, or 75, or unanimous consent? And what good is a rule that can be so readily discarded? As I noted above, we are talking about a lifetime appointment that can literally affect the course of history for the next 100 years or more. As for 4 more years of political bickering, that is exactly what the country voted for. It might change its mind in 2018, but given the gerrymandered congressional districts and the general state of American politics, I highly doubt it.

[Big RR]

BigRR, why is it the Democrat's fault? See my link about how and why this all got started. Also, why are the Dem' constantly criticized for using a procedural rule available to the entire Senate? Why do the Republicans get to skate free for being ever more difficult and more obstructionist?

As for Gorsuch's right-wing activism, I commend to you Senator Merkley's excellent discussion on this during his filibuster. Look for what he calls the "twin peaks" chart he had available. I'm sure you can find it on his web site.

Also, please see this link for more on Gorsuch as a "selective" originalist:http://theusconstitution.org/sites/defa ... dation.pdf

guin--re your first question, the procedural rule is (well was available) but it is a rule that IMHO should be used judiciously (nopun intended) and only when a candidate is seriously objectionable. Face it, there is no real chance that Trump et al will nominate someone more in line with the dems views--like it or not 9and I don't) they won. But blocking every nominee for the next 4 years is not a viable option (unless a 5 or 6 member court is something we're willing to tolerate).

As for the republicans skating free, feel free to criticize them all you want; but IMHO the criticism carries a lot more eight when your party isn't doing the same thing because the tables have turned.

I'll look at Merkley's chart and your and Sue's links a chance, but so far I see Gorsuch as qualified jurist who, wile I disagree with some positions he has taken, I think can be expected to consider all sides before ruling. I don't see him as another Thomas who will vote lockstep with the conservative wing.

Sue--

there is actually no political price to pay for being "petulant" or "obstructionist." There is a time for bipartisanship and there is a time for bare-knuckled brawls. Where each is to be applied is the very essence of the political process.

What I see now is a time for bipartisanship when Trump has split the repubs and some are ready to talk with the dems. We can miss it and push them back over to Trump's side, but we can also put together a coalition with the will to govern. And it's worth a chance to try and do so IMHO.

It is not too much to ask that a Supreme Court nominee actually represent the aspirations of the American people in developing a just society through the operation of law.

So you are of the opinion that Gorsuch is not in favor of this? I will review your link when I get a chance, but from all the answers he gave and the opinions of his I have read, I am not of the same mind here. By all means I would strenuously oppose a candidate, whoever nominated him that was not dedicate to " developing a just society through the operation of law."

[Guinevere]

It's all a moot point now anyway, McConnell went nuclear. SCOTUS nominations can be confirmed with a simple majority vote.