Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

[Lord Jim]

I certainly hope LJ isn't defending the theft of the seat rightfully belonging to Obama to fill

Look, I've already said that I believe Garland's nomination should have gotten a hearing and consideration for confirmation, (And unlike Chuck Schumer, had there been a vacancy in the last year of 43's Presidency, I would have also supported the same for his nominee.)

The lowest point in modern American politics. Period.

Well, I wouldn't go that far...

Modern American politics have had some pretty low points...

The Kennedy assassination, Watergate, the election of Donald Trump...

[Econoline]

(And unlike Chuck Schumer, had there been a vacancy in the last year of 43's Presidency, I would have also supported the same for his nominee.)

As I've already pointed out, according to the source YOU quoted, Senator (NOT Majority Leader) Schumer only opposed confirmation of a (HYPOTHETICAL) Bush nominee, rather than opposing hearings and a vote.

[Lord Jim]

P.S. Schumer wasn't Senate Majority Leader in 2007.

No, you're right...

The far more fair-minded and ethical Harry Reid was...Harry would certainly never have considered such a thing...

P.P.S. The Senate had already confirmed three Bush SC nominees in 2007.

Well that would be a neat trick, since W only filled two vacancies on the SC...

On September 5, two days after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Bush renominated Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 29, 2005.[1]

On October 31, Bush nominated another federal appellate judge, Samuel Alito, as his new choice to replace O'Connor. Alito was confirmed as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court on January 31, 2006. [Nearly 3 years before his term ended][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W. ... candidates

So two SC Justices not three, and none in 2007, but other then that you make an excellent point...

[BoSoxGal]

JFK assassination = lone nutjob

Watergate = unstable criminal President brought to account by Congress

Trump election = irresponsible media coverage, influence of outside actors (Russians), stupid voters

NOT equivalent to Garland nomination blocked by Republican controlled Senate - lowest point in modern politics as function of 'mainstream' political actors; equaled only by Japanese internment camps.

[Guinevere]

Econo, why bother. LJ has already shown his willingness to ignore the actual facts, and try to "alternate fact" his way out of the reprehensible behavior of his party.

He's been shown that the Republicans are the ones who started this battle by obstructing Obama's judicial nominees at an unprecedented level. He's been shown that Gorsuch is in no way a "Centrist" judge, and given pages of legal reasoning to support that position. He's been shown that some Democrats, not the majority leader, expressed an interest in defeating a full Senate vote on a Bush supreme court nominee - but didn't, and never blocked any nominee from a hearing, ever. In fact in no way have the Democrats done anything close to what the Republicans have done in terms of obstruction, disrespect, and failing to fulfil their constitutional duties. And yet, his response continues to be, the Republican Party line, "blah blah blah it's all the Democrats fault blah blah blah the Democrats are blowing things up blah blah blah blame the Democrats."

I'm done here. I refuse to indulge his ridiculousness any further. It's pathetic, and shameful.

[Lord Jim]

LJ has already shown his willingness to ignore the actual facts,...He's been shown that Gorsuch is in no way a "Centrist" judge,

I posted earlier this morning a boatload of "actual facts" about Gorsuch's performance as an appellate judge and the broad support he received from top tier legal experts, ( including six former Solicitors General under four different Presidents who described him as “highly respected and admired by his colleagues appointed by Presidents of both parties and law clerks of all political stripes.”) that show Gorsuch conclusively to be within the judicial mainstream...

This whole filibuster deal was all about Merrick Garland, and the "actual facts" show it to be pure pretense to claim otherwise.

And yet, his response continues to be, the Republican Party line, "blah blah blah it's all the Democrats fault blah blah blah the Democrats are blowing things up blah blah blah blame the Democrats."

Actually, this was my bottom line response:

There's more than enough hypocrisy and faux self-righteousness to go around...

And I stand by it...

[Bicycle Bill]

From "1776":

"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about.  Hell yeah!  I'm for debating anything.  Rhode Island says yea!"
(line delivered by 'Steven Hopkins', representative from Rhode Island, about whether or not to debate the proposal for independence)

Too bad the Republicans didn't share that sentiment with regard to Merrick Garland's nomination but instead, like an eight-year-old spoiled brat, decided to pick up their ball and bat and break up the game.

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

"... and Kneel Gorsuck is STILL an Associate Justice..."

[Econoline]

P.P.S. The Senate had already confirmed three Bush SC nominees in 2007.

Well that would be a neat trick, since W only filled two vacancies on the SC...So two SC Justices not three, and none in 2007, but other then that you make an excellent point...

You're right; it was only two. I don't know what I was thinking (maybe I was thinking of Harriet Miers, who withdrew?). But it's ridiculous to speculate about what *MIGHT HAVE* happened in 2007 (or '08) because down here in the real world no SC vacancy occurred then.

[rubato]

The important thing is that Democrats voted to approve both of them and did not engage in the rabid partisanship which the Republlicans have demonstrated yet again in refusing to bring Garland to a vote and then changed the rules to get Gorsuch approved. Two acts which shame them.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

BTW...Two years ago, McConnell said he would only abolish filibusters of Supreme Court justices if there were 67 votes for such a change.

[Long Run]

D's filibustered Bush 43 nominations to the Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005-06. Then as the majority Senate party they stalled acting on his judicial nominations in 2007-08, leaving 11 vacancies which never had a vote to consider the nominees. Those seats were quickly filled by Obama in his first few months. I clearly remember all the judicial purists here now complaining about the Garland/Gorsuch situation were also equally appalled at the naked political actions of their party then . . .

Brings to mind the famous Capt. Renauld line: I am shocked! shocked that there are politics going on in here (Congress).

[BoSoxGal]

[Econoline]

Total of 68 appointees filibustered since the beginning of the United States, during the terms of all 43 Presidents who preceded Obama.

79 appointees filibustered during the first 4 years 10 months of Obama's Presidency.

[Long Run]

This statistic only has meaning in a historical context. If the same filibuster rules were in place today, I am sure the D's would break the records, and the graph line would continue its upward trajectory. Once they changed the rules to make the filibuster easier to utilize, it was only a matter of time before the minority party politicians started using it more, then over-used it, then over-used it some more, and some more, leading to the end of the filibuster on nominations.

[rubato]

Total of 68 appointees filibustered since the beginning of the United States, during the terms of all 43 Presidents who preceded Obama.

79 appointees filibustered during the first 4 years 10 months of Obama's Presidency.

Any resident GOP supporters willing to try to spin this as a symmetrical act? Or re you all singing "nah nah nah" with your hand over your ears until you can pretend it never happened?

The GOP have been hurting us for decades. Wake up.

They drove us into the worst economic collapse in 80 years and followed that debacle by defeating any attempts to prevent it from happening again.


Longrun chimed in with a weak and wholly fictional attempt! "If thing were different I could make up all kinds of bullshit theories"




yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

This statistic only has meaning in a historical context. If the same filibuster rules were in place today, I am sure the D's would break the records, and the graph line would continue its upward trajectory. Once they changed the rules to make the filibuster easier to utilize, it was only a matter of time before the minority party politicians started using it more, then over-used it, then over-used it some more, and some more, leading to the end of the filibuster on nominations.

The Democrats were forced to change the rules by the GOPs (proven above) misuse because the GOPs historically unmatched partisanship was preventing the government from governing.

Sorry, fail.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

This statistic only has meaning in a historical context. If the same filibuster rules were in place today, I am sure the D's would break the records, and the graph line would continue its upward trajectory. Once they changed the rules to make the filibuster easier to utilize, it was only a matter of time before the minority party politicians started using it more, then over-used it, then over-used it some more, and some more, leading to the end of the filibuster on nominations.

Are you fucking kidding me? I guess Republicans can no longer do the math.

68 appointees filibustered from 1789-2010, that's 221 years, works out to 0.31/appointees per year (rounding up), so less than 2 per term. And multiple parties involved.

79 appointees filibustered in 4 years and 10 months, by ONE party (4.83 years) works out to 16.34/year, or 65+ per term.

Yeah, that's absolutely the Democrat's fault.



Go back to school boys, not only do you need remedial history and government, you need remedial math as well.

[liberty]

No Marshal was not a tyrant, but there is big difference between interpreting where there is room to interpret and changing the meaning.

In what case has the Supreme Court "chang[ed] the meaning" of the Constitution?

I don’t have the time to look it up so here is the best I can do: I recent years a democrat congress pass two laws that had unconstitutional provisions that both Bill Clinton and Obama should have been aware of being that they were constitutional scholars. The first was the Brady bill that required sheriffs to do background checks. Sheriffs are not agents of the federal government. The national government has no right to set their work priories. The other was the ACA that required the states to set up exchanges. The same principle applies; the states are not subjects of the feds but the people of their states.

If the SC had been all liberal both of those challenges would have failed.

[Burning Petard]

The senate is supposed to provide 'advice and consent.' like many constitutional responsibilities for the legislature, the Senate has shifted this and come to ignore the advice part and only deal with consent. Hard to say what the result would be if the short list for a SC nominee was discussed behind closed doors with senate leaders of both parties, and the president, before the nomination was made public.

snailgate