Democrats fuming over Gorsuch backed him in 2006

[Deleted]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...m-in-2006.html

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch easily won the support of top Democratic senators for a lifetime appointment to the bench ... in 2006.

What a difference a decade makes.

Several of the same senators who helped unanimously confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006 are now railing against his nomination by President Trump to the highest court in the land.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday he has "serious doubts" about Gorsuch. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., issued a scathing statement citing Gorsuch's stance on assisted suicide, and saying nobody who believes individual rights are "reserved to the people" can support his nomination.

But if they have long harbored concerns Gorsuch is extreme, they didn't much show it in 2006.

Schumer, Wyden and many others were in Congress at the time of the unanimous voice vote on July 20 of that year. The record does not reflect who specifically was on the floor for the 95-0 tally, but it would have included most, if not all, of the following Senate members that year:

Four former top Obama administration officials (President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) and 12 current Democratic senators (Sens. Schumer, Wyden, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Bill Nelson, Tom Carper, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell and Bob Menendez).

In 2006, Leahy was – as he is now – the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the group tasked with questioning Gorsuch prior to a full chamber vote. But Leahy was not present during the session with Gorsuch at the time. Indeed, the only senator to question him directly was Republican Lindsey Graham, during testimony that lasted just 20 minutes, according to official congressional documents and The Denver Post.

Leahy did, however, submit six written questions, ranging from queries on assisted suicide to consumer class-action lawsuits and congressional powers.

Wyden, D-Ore., was the only other member of the committee to submit questions, asking Gorsuch mainly about the legality of a physician aiding a patient in dying and Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Gorsuch wrote about those topics in his 2006 book “The Future Of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.”

Though Wyden ended up voting for Gorsuch after receiving the judge’s answers, Wyden cited that Oregon law Tuesday as one of the reasons he would now oppose Gorsuch being elevated to the high court.

“His opposition to legal death with dignity as successfully practiced in Oregon is couched in the sort of jurisprudence that justified the horrific oppression of one group after another in our first two centuries,” Wyden said in a statement. “No senator who believes that individual rights are reserved to the people, and not the government, can support this nomination.”

Schumer also has been a leading voice of the Gorsuch opposition.

“Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court,” Schumer said in a statement.

The change in tone today could reflect the overall hostility right now among Democratic lawmakers to numerous Trump appointees, as well as specific concerns about Gorsuch's judicial body of work since his confirmation to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Some of the senators now voicing skepticism also may still be smarting over majority Republicans blocking then-President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland last year. Leahy nodded at Garland in his statement on Gorsuch, saying: “From my initial review of his record, I question whether Judge Gorsuch meets the high standard set by Merrick Garland.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday noted the dozen sitting Democrats who once backed Trump's nominee.

“He’s a widely respected jurist who deserves the nomination to be voted upon,” Spicer said.

Astounding hypocrisy.

[Independent voter]

There's lots of hypocrisy on both sides.

[Wyrt]

I think they should treat him as well as the Republicans treated Garland.

[Aggrophobic]

And Trump used to be against assault weapons, wasn't religious and was for the war in Iraq.
Odd that you think this is "hypocrisy".

[jimboa24]

And Trump used to be against assault weapons, wasn't religious and was for the war in Iraq.
Odd that you think this is "hypocrisy".

John Kerry - I actually voted for funding the Iraq war, before I voted against it!

[Gestopft]

And Republicans voted for Garland in his previous appointment. What's your point?

Unless there are serious personal/ethical issues, most appointees to lower courts get through with bipartisan support no problem. Since Bush v. Gore, it's been getting harder and harder for Supreme Court nominees to get through, but lower courts were generally unaffected.

Then Mitch McConnell changed the rules when he started blocking Obama nominees to lower courts, and REALLY changed the game when he refused to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland.

I think they should treat him as well as the Republicans treated Garland.

Unfortunately I wouldn't put the nuclear option past McConnell. Also unfortunately, the last thing we need is another "corporations are people" judge on the SCOTUS. Trump voters that actually care about draining the swamp and getting the lobbyists and special interest influence out of Washington should not like this pick either.

[Deleted]

This is why these days I don't vote on any party or person.

It's all a big circus.

[Zoranon]

And Republicans voted for Garland in his previous appointment. What's your point?

Unless there are serious personal/ethical issues, most appointees to lower courts get through with bipartisan support no problem. Since Bush v. Gore, it's been getting harder and harder for Supreme Court nominees to get through, but lower courts were generally unaffected.

Then Mitch McConnell changed the rules when he started blocking Obama nominees to lower courts, and REALLY changed the game when he refused to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland.



Unfortunately I wouldn't put the nuclear option past McConnell. Also unfortunately, the last thing we need is another "corporations are people" judge on the SCOTUS. Trump voters that actually care about draining the swamp and getting the lobbyists and special interest influence out of Washington should not like this pick either.

Please inform yourself on matters before commenting. It was Dems who started large scale blockade of appeals courts nominees during Bush 43 second term. And it were also Dems who started this whole affair by blocking judges for purely ideological reasons during Reagans presidency.

Oh and as for Citizens united, the corporations are people quote is a star example of fake news, it does now appear anywhere in the decision.

[Gestopft]

Oh and as for Citizens united, the corporations are people quote is a star example of fake news, it does now appear anywhere in the decision.

I think you mean "misattribution." I was referring to Hobby Lobby, which technically was more specific to the RFRA, but in any case- do you not agree that his track record of consistently pro-corporate decisions should give pause to anyone that wants to limit the influence of corporate lobbyists and interests in our political process?

[Zoranon]

I think you mean "misattribution." I was referring to Hobby Lobby, which technically was more specific to the RFRA, but in any case- do you not agree that his track record of consistently pro-corporate decisions should give pause to anyone that wants to limit the influence of corporate lobbyists and interests in our political process?

What? Liberals have been whining about "SCOTUS said corporations are people" ever since Citizens united was decided. And since the court did not say that, it is by definition fake news.

I have never heard anyone say that about Hobby Lobby and anyway, the court did not say that corporations are people in Hobby lobby either.

As for your question, maybe, but Trump wont nominate anyone willing to allow government to ban books about politicians being published - which is what Obamas administration argued for in Citizens united.

[Blur4stuff]

If you hate hypocrisy you must be really angry at Trump and the republican party right now.

[Xandrigity]

It doesn't really matter thanks to Reed.

[Hiricine]

Context is really important, so the fact that he was supported for another post (before he made his decisions since then) does not necessarily reflect on how he should be seen for a Supreme Court spot.

That being said, I want Gorsuch to be confirmed as quickly as possible.

[Gestopft]

What? Liberals have been whining about "SCOTUS said corporations are people" ever since Citizens united was decided. And since the court did not say that, it is by definition fake news.

Did I ever tie corporate personhood to CU? No. Yes, lots of Liberals get it wrong.

I have never heard anyone say that about Hobby Lobby and anyway, the court did not say that corporations are people in Hobby lobby either.

They most certainly did.

In March 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted a hearing of the case. In June, the appeals court ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a person who has religious freedom. Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the five-judge en banc majority, over a three-judge dissent. Neil Gorsuch voted with the majority and also wrote an opinion on the case.

Granted, the "personhood" was in specific reference to the RFRA, but given the importance of precedent in case law, this case could be applied as a precedent to other situations where the law is nonspecific about the definition of personhood.

[Zoranon]

Did I ever tie corporate personhood to CU? No. Yes, lots of Liberals get it wrong.



They most certainly did.


Granted, the "personhood" was in specific reference to the RFRA, but given the importance of precedent in case law, this case could be applied as a precedent to other situations where the law is nonspecific about the definition of personhood.

Corporate person-hood as a concept has existed since early 19th century.

But as I said, Trump is not going to appoint anyone opposing CU or Hobby Lobby so I cannot see this as a relevant factor against Gorsuch.

[Flarelaine]

Context is really important, so the fact that he was supported for another post (before he made his decisions since then) does not necessarily reflect on how he should be seen for a Supreme Court spot.

That being said, I want Gorsuch to be confirmed as quickly as possible.

Yes, Fascism Forever clearly needs a seat on that bench.

[Gestopft]

But as I said, Trump is not going to appoint anyone opposing CU or Hobby Lobby so I cannot see this as a relevant factor against Gorsuch.

Nope.

All of those Trump voters that want to get the monied and corporate interests out of Washington backed the wrong horse and the wrong party.

[Zoranon]

Nope.

All of those Trump voters that want to get the monied and corporate interests out of Washington backed the wrong horse and the wrong party.

Yes it is terrible that government cannot censor books about politicians as Obamas administration wanted...

[Hiricine]

Yes, Fascism Forever clearly needs a seat on that bench.

The name of that group was satirical as far as anyone can tell. Of course, satire only seems to make sense when its pointed at the Right from the Left, instead of the other way around.

[Flarelaine]

The name of that group was satirical as far as anyone can tell. Of course, satire only seems to make sense when its pointed at the Right from the Left, instead of the other way around.

I would have never heard of this guy without the present administration and they do not strike me as fans of satire. On the other hand, several have been accused of being actual fascists. So when I hear they nominated a fascist I have more reason to take it at face value than to ascribe it to satire.