Senate Democrats block confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Neil Grosuch

[Kujako]

Ahh. Yeah, the ruling for that one will be interesting to see. I am for ruling against Lexmark.

Well the odd thing is that Lexmark sells two versions of their ink, one with the patent warning, and one without. The without one is more expensive. So the argument is that the one people actually buy, has a reduced price in exchange for a single use license. But of course, they could do the same thing with (for example) cars and kill the used car market.

[Ivanstone]

The most worrisome part of your post is that you actually seem to believe the nonsense you wrote.

Obama nominated a reliable liberal, Trump nominated a reliable conservative.

All this bullshit about stolen seat, Biden rule, etc. are just simple partisan politics, I cannot understand how people like you cannot see the obvious.

Whilst Garland would be a mostly reliable liberal there are a few differences that are important.

Most importantly Garland is older and would likely spend a much shorter time on the bench. This is Obama being pretty generous to the GOP. He could've chosen someone younger. He's probably a little more centrist then other choices as well.

The other thing is that numerous sitting Republicans had voted to confirm him in the past and had spoken highly of him. Admittedly, this is Obama being a dick because the GOP would have to openly demonstrate their usual hypocrisy more than normal.

[Osmeric]

Lot of truth in that statement. I am sure now they are still shell shocked at the results they thought were impossible. They have failed because they thought their agenda extended to all parts of the US. When in fact, it was mainly concentrated in select, heavy populated areas, like California, New York, New Jersey, etc. They forgot about the heartland.

But but but but arc of herstory.

[Canpinter]

So question for conservatives, if a siting justice dies how much time dose a president need to have left in their term in order to nominate someone and have it voted on?

[Kujako]

So question for conservatives, if a siting justice dies how much time dose a president need to have left in their term in order to nominate someone and have it voted on?

Depends on the color of the President of course!

[Zoranon]

Whilst Garland would be a mostly reliable liberal there are a few differences that are important.

Most importantly Garland is older and would likely spend a much shorter time on the bench. This is Obama being pretty generous to the GOP. He could've chosen someone younger. He's probably a little more centrist then other choices as well.

The other thing is that numerous sitting Republicans had voted to confirm him in the past and had spoken highly of him. Admittedly, this is Obama being a dick because the GOP would have to openly demonstrate their usual hypocrisy more than normal.

Yes, you are correct. Garland was blocked for purely partisan reasons, just as Gorsuch would have been were Dems in majority now. Yes Garland is older, but would probably last at least 15 years on the bench, which is like eternity in politics.

And I dont buy the Garland was a centrist talk. I saw legal experts putting him next to Breyer and Breyer is not a centrist.

Garland was chosen by Obama simply because Obama though there was a chance of getting him approved, if he had nominated someone like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, there would have been no chance at all. I dont think that from now on, to get someone on the court, your party will need both the presidency and the Senate.

- - - Updated - - -

So question for conservatives, if a siting justice dies how much time dose a president need to have left in their term in order to nominate someone and have it voted on?

I am not a conservative, but I will answer nonetheless. If senate majority is of the same party as president, then even one day will suffice, if not, then even 4 years will not be long enough.

[I Push Buttons]

I don't really see the Democrats as having much choice in all of this anymore. Their desire for bipartisanship, compromising attitude, desire for the government to actually run, etc., is never reciprocated anymore. Any cooperation they give is just ground forever lost because the GOP, at this point, will never do the same, so why bother?

[Canpinter]

I am not a conservative, but I will answer nonetheless. If senate majority is of the same party as president, then even one day will suffice, if not, then even 4 years will not be long enough.

i was referring more to the Republicans that claimed it was wrong for Obama to try and nominate someone when he still had a year to go in his term.

[Zoranon]

i was referring more to the Republicans that claimed it was wrong for Obama to try and nominate someone when he still had a year to go in his term.

Yes I am aware of that sad excuse for what was a very successful partisan power play.

Ultimately, it is simple. One party and its voters want judges that are anti-gun rights and pro-abortion, the other pro-gun rights and anti-abortion amongst other things. There is no possible compromise nominee.

[Macaquerie]

I am not a conservative, but I will answer nonetheless. If senate majority is of the same party as president, then even one day will suffice, if not, then even 4 years will not be long enough.

The thing is, this is not how politics usually works in America. Nominating partisan hacks to the Supreme Court generally tends to backfire, because the justices end up far outlasting their political patrons in office, so appointing someone purely for political expediency can lead to disastrous consequences decades down the line. In 20 years, Gorsuch's views will almost certainly be completely out of touch with those of mainstream America, but he and like-minded colleagues will still have the power to set an agenda for the country that few future Americans would agree with. The Democrats understand this, which is why they typically don't nominate justices from the lunatic fringe, but the Republicans simply don't give a fuck because, by 2037 they'll all be dead anyway so who cares?

Yes I am aware of that sad excuse for what was a very successful partisan power play.

Ultimately, it is simple. One party and its voters want judges that are anti-gun rights and pro-abortion, the other pro-gun rights and anti-abortion amongst other things. There is no possible compromise nominee.

Seriously? You could, for example, nominate someone who was both pro-gun and pro-abortion...

[Zoranon]

The thing is, this is not how politics usually works in America. Nominating partisan hacks to the Supreme Court generally tends to backfire, because the justices end up far outlasting their political patrons in office, so appointing someone purely for political expediency can lead to disastrous consequences decades down the line. In 20 years, Gorsuch's views will almost certainly be completely out of touch with those of mainstream America, but he and like-minded colleagues will still have the power to set an agenda for the country that few future Americans would agree with. The Democrats understand this, which is why they typically don't nominate justices from the lunatic fringe, but the Republicans simply don't give a fuck because, by 2037 they'll all be dead anyway so who cares?



Seriously? You could, for example, nominate someone who was both pro-gun and pro-abortion...

You are hilarious. Gorsuch is about as conservative as Ginsburg and Sotomayor are liberal, so either all three are partisan hacks, or none of them is.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...e-court-trump/

And judges are supposed to follow the constitution, not the wishes of the majority or their views.

No you couldn't, since then you would be savaged from both left and right.

[Macaquerie]

You are hilarious. Gorsuch is about as conservative as Ginsburg and Sotomayor are liberal, so either all three are partisan hacks, or none of them is.

And judges are supposed to follow the constitution, not the wishes of the majority.

No you couldn't, since then you would be savaged from both left and right.

Sotomayor's confirmation vote was 67-29, Ginsburg's was 96-3. Even with all the controversy surrounding Sotomayor and her comments about knowing better as a "wise Latina," she still went through with an easy supermajority, no nuclear option required.

[Joni85]

My guess is at this point with the filibuster dead, no president will have any justices confirmed going forward unless his party holds both the senate and the presidency, republicans will nominate judges as far to the right as they possibly can and democrats as far to the left. It'll just be a coin toss to see who's controlling what when (assuming one side doesn't just decide to increase the size of the court until they control it).

[Zoranon]

Sotomayor's confirmation vote was 67-29, Ginsburg's was 96-3. Even with all the controversy surrounding Sotomayor and her comments about knowing better as a "wise Latina," she still went through with an easy supermajority, no nuclear option required.

And that is relevant because? Scalia was confirmed 97-0 and yet was often called a hack.

Gorsuch was filibustered because of political reasons, just as Garland was blocked because of the same.

[Macaquerie]

And that is relevant because? Scalia was confirmed 97-0 and yet was often called a hack.

Gorsuch was filibustered because of political reasons, just as Garland was blocked because of the same.

The Democrats were not going to spend four years filibustering every nominee that Trump put forth, their stance was purely symbolic and meant to force the GOP to use the nuclear option. On the other hand, the Republicans announced that they weren't even going to consider anyone that Obama nominated, regardless of who it was, and even hinted that they would block all of Hillary's nominees as well.

[Kujako]

The Democrats were not going to spend four years filibustering every nominee that Trump put forth, their stance was purely symbolic and meant to force the GOP to use the nuclear option. On the other hand, the Republicans announced that they weren't even going to consider anyone that Obama nominated, regardless of who it was, and even hinted that they would block all of Hillary's nominees as well.

The Republicans literally didn't answer the door when Garland knocked on it. Was the most childish nonsense I had seen in awhile, and then 2016 happened.

[Zoranon]

The Democrats were not going to spend four years filibustering every nominee that Trump put forth, their stance was purely symbolic and meant to force the GOP to use the nuclear option. On the other hand, the Republicans announced that they weren't even going to consider anyone that Obama nominated, regardless of who it was, and even hinted that they would block all of Hillary's nominees as well.

Yes because it is only evil Reps who are obstructionists, right? Among Trumps list, Gorsuch was certainly amongst the best choices for Dems.

[Kujako]

Yes because it is only evil Reps who are obstructionists, right? Among Trumps list, Gorsuch was certainly amongst the best choices for Dems.

If you can't see the difference between reviewing a candidate, and voting against them VS refusing to even meet them, there's no hope for you to be anything but partisan.

[Macaquerie]

Yes because it is only evil Reps who are obstructionists, right? Among Trumps list, Gorsuch was certainly amongst the best choices for Dems.

Pretty much, Democrats are always trying to strike grand bargains and get steamrolled as a result. If the roles had been reversed here, the Republicans would already be talking about impeachment rather than just accepting it as a fait accompli. And really, if Democrats were serious about representing their constituents they should be promising to do just that for every single of Trump's appointees if they are in the majority come 2018, but this would be the kind of move that they'd never dare make.

[Zoranon]

If you can't see the difference between reviewing a candidate, and voting against them VS refusing to even meet them, there's no hope for you to be anything but partisan.

If you cant see through the ridiculously poor excuses for filibustering Gorsuch and the fact that they would be used against any Trump nominee, you are the one who is hopelessly partisan.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much, Democrats are always trying to strike grand bargains and get steamrolled as a result. If the roles had been reversed here, the Republicans would already be talking about impeachment rather than just accepting it as a fait accompli. And really, if Democrats were serious about representing their constituents they should be promising to do just that for every single of Trump's appointees if they are in the majority come 2018, but this would be the kind of move that they'd never dare make.

More blind partisanship. Do you even know how many votes you need to actually remove someone from office by impeachment procedure?