Democrats should vote No even though the republicans will no doubt change the rules to get their way. They have no respect for the institution as they've amply demonstrated with respect to Judge Garland and other matters during the Obama years. Democrats have no obligation to play nice now.
From the moment of Justice Scalia's death the Republicans and media claimed that this was a "Conservative" seat on the Court. The Republicans never claimed it was a seat on the Court for the most qualified justice nor even a justice that had served in lower courts but Republicans slapped a political label on a seat on the highest Court. It was and is a totally irrational claim for Justice job description that Republicans stood by and even blocked the President of the United States nominee. The Republicans stood by this claim and used it for political ends. This always was an open admission and definition by the Republicans that this nomination was about politics not justice nor qualifications.
4
It seems that it's only wrong if the Democrats do it. Gorsuch will be approved, but in the meantime, let the Democrats do all they can to remind the Republicans of how disruptive and contrary to established tradition their actions were in regard to Garland last year. And let them hypocritically cry foul until they burst. Childish tantrums will avail them nothing.
2
The Republicans shirked their Constitutional Responsibility and cheated the acting President (and his supporters) out of a Supreme Court seat.
Now they nominate a self-proclaimed "originalist" to the seat they stole through their traitorous conduct.
If Gorsuch has the audacity to accept this seat, he can NEVER seriously define himself as an "originalist" ever again...
"Opportunist" would be the more accurate definition.
Now they nominate a self-proclaimed "originalist" to the seat they stole through their traitorous conduct.
If Gorsuch has the audacity to accept this seat, he can NEVER seriously define himself as an "originalist" ever again...
"Opportunist" would be the more accurate definition.
5
This is not a schoolyard brawl. Gorusch's answer to Franken's question in the case of the truck driver of what he would have done showed he had no heart. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the autistic child -- a case that hit close to home -- shows that his peers don't agree with his judgment. He would make campaign finance reform *much* harder. Given the GOP's continuing obstruction of justice in the case of President Trump, I have no doubt that they would trash the filibuster for any future nominee if needed. So let's dispense with the facade. They, not the Democrats, are the ones making the decision on the filibuster and will own the consequences.
If a Republican president had put forth a SPOTUS nominee last year, a Democrat-controlled Senate would have done the same thing. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. I re-read the NYT account of the Clarence Thomas hearings from 1991. Even in those extraordinarily divisive proceedings, Senate Democrats and Republicans moved forward with a vote without the threat of a filibuster. Washington politics appears beyond repair. Americans are exhausted by the hostility and lack of respect and decorum. It's painful to watch.
McConnell should think long and hard before he scuttles the filibuster rule over Gorsuch. Many a politician have had their careers ended or completely undermined after carrying Trump's water.
If the Democrats filibuster and even more so if the Republican invoke the nuclear option, not only will the Republicans win but getting rid of the filibuster will hurt the Democrats when future and maybe candidates they hate more.
Republicans are probably almost hoping the Democrats cut off their head to spite their face.
The public will also see how petty the Democrats are.
Republicans are probably almost hoping the Democrats cut off their head to spite their face.
The public will also see how petty the Democrats are.
Democrats must filibuster. We must become the party of NO. Republicans hounded President Obama for eight long years. Republicans hounded President Clinton for eight long years. If Democrats want to amount to anything they must fight the Republicans at every corner.
Nice guys finish last and Democrats are testimony to that.
So filibuster and force the nuclear option. The President threatens that if the Democrats filibuster he demands that the Senate change the rules to a simple majority for confirmation. What the heck is the difference. In other words, the Democrats either allow the nominee to be confirmed or filibuster and is confirmed. Besides, the change in the rules will come back to haunt the Republicans in the future.
Nice guys finish last and Democrats are testimony to that.
So filibuster and force the nuclear option. The President threatens that if the Democrats filibuster he demands that the Senate change the rules to a simple majority for confirmation. What the heck is the difference. In other words, the Democrats either allow the nominee to be confirmed or filibuster and is confirmed. Besides, the change in the rules will come back to haunt the Republicans in the future.
1
To be fair even John McCain said he would not approve a nominee for four years if Hillary was elected. I think you need to condemn Mitch McCon for obstructing Garland. These are plain transgressions of ethics. Don't try to configure them any other way.
The Republicans torched the 200-year-old tradition of the Constitution of the United States with their refusal to vote on Garland's nomination. They effectively burned up the American Constitution because they were upset about the death of Scalia, one of "their" guys protecting big money interests at the expense of the little guy.
Let's be honest. There is no middle ground here. The Democrats should not pretend that we have a functional government and play along with the Gorsuch charade. The Republicans destroyed the government and destroyed the constitution with their refusal to have a hearing on Garland. Play time is over. Their party must go.
Let's be honest. There is no middle ground here. The Democrats should not pretend that we have a functional government and play along with the Gorsuch charade. The Republicans destroyed the government and destroyed the constitution with their refusal to have a hearing on Garland. Play time is over. Their party must go.
1
Hey, a corporate, religiously fundamentalist Congress puts up a corporate, religiously fundamentalist ideologue for the court! And so narrow-minded corporate Theocracy is pushed into place, and democratic principles of the Constitution become words on paper.
I don't think a president who didn't win the popular vote should have his nominee considered. The reasons we voted against Trump are magnified more as each day passes.
1
If all governmental "voting" decisions are now only going to need a simple majority, get rid of the electoral college.
2
How can a man who found nothing wrong or unAmerican with torture, kidnapping & rendition, having US Government employees enact these explicitly illegal activities and denying people in the custody of the US the rights our nation is founded on starting by stating those rights belong to every person, honestly interpret the Constitution when similar political pressure is on for a ruling that clearly goes against the Constitution?
If, as has been suggested elsewhere, Judge Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia, then perhaps the only difference between Scalia and Gorsuch is the size of the square peg that must be driven through round holes on behalf of right wing ideology.
Gorsuch is trying to fill a seat that was stolen by a congress out to undermine the democratic system of checks and balances. He shouldn't even receive a hearing until Garland gets one.
1
This is one of those cases where the attempt at even-handedness ends up providing a distorted picture of events. There is simply no comparison between what happened with Fortas (who got a hearing and a vote), Bork (who got a hearing and a vote), and Thomas (who got a hearing and a vote) and what happened with Merrick Garland.
The requirement that Presidential nominations require the "advice and consent" of the Senate ensures the independence of the judiciary from an all-powerful executive. But by enacting a strategy in 2011 of filibustering virtually every judicial appointment, Senate Republicans made judicial appointments pawns in their political game, far beyond what Democrats had done under the prior administration.
But the refusal to even have courtesy meetings with a person duly nominated by the President was not merely an escalation. It was a radical step unprecedented in the history of the Senate and abrogation of their Constitutional duty.
Last year, Republicans created a constitutional crisis that will have long-term ramifications. We may be witnessing the beginning of a long process of the breakdown of our political institutions. The Senate will not recover easily from this. Our judicial system may not, either.
The requirement that Presidential nominations require the "advice and consent" of the Senate ensures the independence of the judiciary from an all-powerful executive. But by enacting a strategy in 2011 of filibustering virtually every judicial appointment, Senate Republicans made judicial appointments pawns in their political game, far beyond what Democrats had done under the prior administration.
But the refusal to even have courtesy meetings with a person duly nominated by the President was not merely an escalation. It was a radical step unprecedented in the history of the Senate and abrogation of their Constitutional duty.
Last year, Republicans created a constitutional crisis that will have long-term ramifications. We may be witnessing the beginning of a long process of the breakdown of our political institutions. The Senate will not recover easily from this. Our judicial system may not, either.
2
The Constitution imposes no qualifications for Supreme Court justices. For example, they don’t have to be jurists or lawyers. Presidents can nominate anyone they choose, but can only appoint justices with the consent of the Senate. The Senate Judicial Committee declined to grant Judge Merrick B. Garland a hearing rather than pretending the confirmation process is non-ideological or nonpartisan. The only rule that counts is the consent rule.
If politics is to be the determining factor in the selection of Justices, term limits will be the only solution. Garland would have been an excellent choice as I see it, but then I am a liberal democrat. Frankly, I have lost faith in the SCOTUS and giving it a periodic new start would help.
1
Once and for all can we bury that boast about 'three coequal branches of government.'
Denying Garland a hearing and then declaring that Obama's nominees would not be considered was an escalation to a new low. The only way to save the institution would have been for Obama to ask SCOTUS to rule on whether he had the right to send nominees no matter how long it took. For whatever reason, he didn't do it, and now it will take a generation for the Supreme Court to recover its credibility. If another liberal justice leaves and Trump gets to appoint another, the damage will be compounded.
1
Perhaps we, the people, need to institute some kind of blind voting system. All the senate confirmation committee receives is the legal qualifications of the nominee, the report from the ABA, and recommendations from other members of federal courts. No analysis of how the nominee has voted in the past. You either except independent judiciary or you don't. You can't have an independent judiciary when you specifically ask them how they would vote on specific issues BEFORE they have even heard the cases brought before them or the evidence presented. Blind voting of nominees based on judicial qualifications, not past voting record will bring stability and independence to the judiciary.
Really, the Supreme Court has only itself to blame for the contretemps regarding any new nominee to the court. Once the court became enmeshed in the social & political issues of the day, it was natural that the politicians in the Senate would begin to treat SCOTUS nominees the same as any other political appointment by the President. After all, they were making political decisions as justices.
It would be hard to imagine that any other appointee of President Trump would satisfy the Democratic Senators any more than Judge Gorshuch. If this nominee is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, than no other nominee of a Republican President would likely be confirmed.
The Democratic Senators' excuses for not confirming the Gorsuch nomination smacks of hypocrisy when they claim that Gorsuch does not support the "little guy" in his rulings. They should simply state the obvious that they disagree with the judicial philosophy of the nominee and therefore will not vote to confirm. At least, that would be refreshingly candid.
It would be hard to imagine that any other appointee of President Trump would satisfy the Democratic Senators any more than Judge Gorshuch. If this nominee is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, than no other nominee of a Republican President would likely be confirmed.
The Democratic Senators' excuses for not confirming the Gorsuch nomination smacks of hypocrisy when they claim that Gorsuch does not support the "little guy" in his rulings. They should simply state the obvious that they disagree with the judicial philosophy of the nominee and therefore will not vote to confirm. At least, that would be refreshingly candid.
2
Before "They started it" you must first have us and them, two separate self-identified groups. In the most real way, it is political parties themselves, the very idea of political parties, that is at the root of what has happened in the Senate with Supreme Court nominees.
So what is the idea of political parties and why is it pernicious? Political parties are basically permanent or at least durable alliances based on some presumed common interest or philosophy. The key is the permanence. If alliances are only temporary and only based upon specific issues that come up, there is little danger from the kind of thing we are seeing. Senators would individually examine and vote on specific matters before them without considering permanent unchanging affiliations. Instead they would consider the merits of legislation or of candidates for appointment.
Although I'm under no illusion that political parties will vanish or that the desire to form permanent alliances will disappear, I think it is vital that we recognize the roots of our present and ongoing problem. We all need to consider whether we are sacrificing our very abilities to form independent judgements on the alter of our political parties.
So what is the idea of political parties and why is it pernicious? Political parties are basically permanent or at least durable alliances based on some presumed common interest or philosophy. The key is the permanence. If alliances are only temporary and only based upon specific issues that come up, there is little danger from the kind of thing we are seeing. Senators would individually examine and vote on specific matters before them without considering permanent unchanging affiliations. Instead they would consider the merits of legislation or of candidates for appointment.
Although I'm under no illusion that political parties will vanish or that the desire to form permanent alliances will disappear, I think it is vital that we recognize the roots of our present and ongoing problem. We all need to consider whether we are sacrificing our very abilities to form independent judgements on the alter of our political parties.
Two wrongs don't make a right. But one right can right one wrong. Merrick Garland is a moderate senior citizen judge on the second most important federal court in the country. Gorsuch does not get enough votes to invoke cloture. Gorsuch requests that his nomination be withdrawn. Trump nominates Merrick Garland who gets a hearing followed by a committee vote and a vote in the Senate.
1
California, not surprisingly, was the first to mount a campaign based on a jurist's temperament, as well as her rulings. The brutal campaign to oust Rose Bird, the first woman to sit atop the state's vaunted supreme court, acted as a precedent for everything that came after.
In fact, the Bork defeat came directly on the heels of the Bird debacle. Conservatives at the national level leapt into the battle against Bird; the following year came pay back, as liberals used the same arguments and tactics.
Both Bird and Bork understood this, and a couple of years after their defeats, the pair toured California universities together, bemoaning the state of the judiciary. It's only gotten worse.
In fact, the Bork defeat came directly on the heels of the Bird debacle. Conservatives at the national level leapt into the battle against Bird; the following year came pay back, as liberals used the same arguments and tactics.
Both Bird and Bork understood this, and a couple of years after their defeats, the pair toured California universities together, bemoaning the state of the judiciary. It's only gotten worse.
Reading the "talking point" about the President under investigation for Treason, confirms that those writing are blinded by their emotion, ideology, disbelief over their election loss and most regrettably are resorting to sedition as a reaction.
Perhaps the left should experience a few investigations of sedition against their leaders (BO, Sen CS, Nancy Pelosi) to bring back some reasonableness to Washington.
Perhaps the left should experience a few investigations of sedition against their leaders (BO, Sen CS, Nancy Pelosi) to bring back some reasonableness to Washington.
"The Senate’s rejection in 1987 of Judge Robert H. Bork signaled a newfound focus on judicial philosophy and temperament, not merely a nominee’s qualifications, as grounds for credible opposition."
-------
If "temperament" includes firing the special prosecutor during the Saturday Night Massacre of Watergate, then this is an adequate explanation, but I don't think most readers would see that. Bork had tainted himself long before he was nominated. Reagan should have realized that and never nominated him in the first place.
-------
If "temperament" includes firing the special prosecutor during the Saturday Night Massacre of Watergate, then this is an adequate explanation, but I don't think most readers would see that. Bork had tainted himself long before he was nominated. Reagan should have realized that and never nominated him in the first place.
All of our partisan issues come down to one fundamental problem: gerrymandering. If politicians in the Senate and House felt that they would be held accountable in the ballot box, they wouldn't stand so rigidly on partisan positions. If they were a little more worried about the votes at home, they'd be a little more careful with their votes in office.
14
This country has more ways to make votes not count than it has states.
Until American voters become smart enough to see through the billionaire's con in elections, the ultra-rich will own this country - its pols, its presidents, its courts.
Merrick Garland was a moderate whose ruling reveal a thoughtful approach to the law. Gosuch, evading direct answers a lot of the time, is an almost alt right judge. We're stuck with him, but still there are five and possible six reasonable justices including Kennedy and, sometimes Roberts.
3
If "liberal activists" on the left and Tea Partiers on the right continue to dictate the actions of the parties the decline of the US will be accelerated. To me this prospect is scarier than that of Judge Gorsich (an arrogant automaton in my view) on the Court.
The Constitution does not call for the need for 60 votes to confirm a Presidential appointment. Time to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS.
6
The problem with eliminating the filibuster is that it is the only thing keeping either party from nominating candidates that are off-the-scale partisan.
The current position of the Senate GOP is simply that they must have everything they want by any means necessary and Democarts may never have anythting they want by any means at all. Attempts to "balance" that sorry situation with the Bork story (yet again) misses the shift to that position of eternal one party rule. It is as much a threat to the Constitution as the authoritarian tendencies of the current occupant of the White House.
One of the principles that senators enunciate in voting against a nominee is that "he is not in the mainstream." This cashes out in the nominee not receiving at least 60 votes. In modern times, only Justices Thomas and Alito fit that category. Scholars of the bench agree that both have records well to the right of Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a body of liberal opinions on the rights of criminal defendants and of free-speech (the flag-burning case).
Should Judge Gorsuch be confirmed with fewer than 60 votes, it is likely that his future opinions would be similar to those of Thomas and Alito: in favor of freedom of contract, money as speech, against delegation of power to agencies (Chevron). against environmental and climate-control regulations.
Should Judge Gorsuch be confirmed with fewer than 60 votes, it is likely that his future opinions would be similar to those of Thomas and Alito: in favor of freedom of contract, money as speech, against delegation of power to agencies (Chevron). against environmental and climate-control regulations.
5
What do they not understand about "Congress shall make no law..."?
The only difference in us and what's going on in Venezuela right now is our independent judiciary. It's all we have left to contain this imperious executive branch and non-functional legislature. Gorsuch is an ideologue of the highest degree and should not be confirmed, especially while the entire 45 crew is under investigation.
12
I wish all of them would grow up and think about us - ordinary, everyday citizens and our needs and wants. We need 9 justices on the Supreme Court. Isn't it time to get rid of all of them.
2
The Democrats are thinking about the country. We don't need just any nine judges on the Supreme Court. They are opposed to a right wing judge who sides with corporations over citizens and has the potential to take away women's rights. Democracy is messy. Sometimes looking out for the American people requires arguments and conflict.
The Democrats grounds for opposing the eminently suitable and qualified Judge Gorsuch are naught but partisan rubbish brought about, in part, by the Republicans equally disgraceful treatment of Judge Garland.
Senator Schumer seems like such a mealy mouthed hypocrite when he asserts otherwise, as did Mitch McConnell in his turn.
Senator Schumer seems like such a mealy mouthed hypocrite when he asserts otherwise, as did Mitch McConnell in his turn.
2
Don't voters understand that all US politicians consider them dupes?
No they're not the guy is pro corporation anti environment in my analysis of his record. He seems to skirt many questions with the every case is different answer or non answer.
So what if the Republicans "started it" ( they didn't, if you go back enough). It's in the Dems control to end it, and that would be a statesmanlike outcome that would cause many, many disillusioned voters to take notice. In a good way, which is very much needed for the Democrats, whose control by simple majority is on the wane. Blocking Gorsuch for payback - and that's all it is - will not slow that trend.
3
It is not the Senate or the Supreme court that is broken, it is the two Parties that are both irredeemably corrupt and led by people who put our country and the plain truth behind their own partisan advantage. It is far past the point where new parties, representative of the social and economic interests of the people of this country need to form and supplant the two that we have that represent the self perpetuating interests of elites that would burn down our hard won democratic institutions in service of their own narrow survival on top.
10
We get the political system a collection of robber-baron plutocrats buys for us, and nothing more.
How is Democrats opposition to a judge who sides with corporate interests, doesn't protect women's rights and who always backs law enforcement instead of citizens demonstrate that the Democratic Party needs to be "burned down" so that you can create a party that fights for people? It seems to me the Dems are trying their best to do just that. Why do you insist on fact-free false equivalence between the parties?
Will they ever (both democrats and republicans) stop acting like they are in elementary school?
11
Only if there is a viable third party rising up.
This story misses the point. I grew up surrounded by billboards saying "Impeach Earl Warren", whom right wing Democrats and Republicans hated for leading the Court to strike down Jim Crow and the residuals of slavery, America's original sin. Those right wing (mainly Southern) Democrats today are Republicans bent on restoring Jim Crow. That is the source of this conflict. The rest is commentary.
16
"Careering"? Don't you mean "careening"?
4
webster says both are correct
2
The republican failure to process President Obama's nominee is an outrage.
Republicans deserve whatever ills befall them.
INVESTIGATE RUSSIAGATE NOW! We don't need a Russian approve supreme court justice.
Republicans deserve whatever ills befall them.
INVESTIGATE RUSSIAGATE NOW! We don't need a Russian approve supreme court justice.
16
You cannot put the hearings of Bork and Thomas in the same category. Thomas was a man who sexually harassed an underling and was confirmed to the Supreme Court because both Republicans and Deomcrats in the Judiciary committee did not treat that evidence or Anita Hill with the respect required (Arlen Spector, Joe Biden, we didn't forget).
You can't compare then unprecedented actions of Republicans vis-a-vis Garland with either the Bork or the Thomas hearings. They got a vote. Many Americans will forever consider Gorsuch a "so-called" Supreme Court Justice, should Republicans gather enough votes.
We also have the sitting president under investigation for what is essentially treason. That alone should have the Senate putting the brakes on a Supreme Court nomination until the FBI, Senate and House conclude their investigations and whatever actions arise from that.
That the Republicans held up Garland's nomination, promised to similarly hold up any Supreme Court nominations should be elected, and are rushing foreword with Gorsuch's nomination while Trump is under a serious cloud, coupled with fact that after they took control of the Senate in 2015 they slowed all of Obama's judicial nominations to a crawl so that he left office with almost twice as many open seats as Bush before him, means that the Republicans win the award for most obstructionist political manoueverings. The Democrats are not even in the ball park.
You can't compare then unprecedented actions of Republicans vis-a-vis Garland with either the Bork or the Thomas hearings. They got a vote. Many Americans will forever consider Gorsuch a "so-called" Supreme Court Justice, should Republicans gather enough votes.
We also have the sitting president under investigation for what is essentially treason. That alone should have the Senate putting the brakes on a Supreme Court nomination until the FBI, Senate and House conclude their investigations and whatever actions arise from that.
That the Republicans held up Garland's nomination, promised to similarly hold up any Supreme Court nominations should be elected, and are rushing foreword with Gorsuch's nomination while Trump is under a serious cloud, coupled with fact that after they took control of the Senate in 2015 they slowed all of Obama's judicial nominations to a crawl so that he left office with almost twice as many open seats as Bush before him, means that the Republicans win the award for most obstructionist political manoueverings. The Democrats are not even in the ball park.
22
Thank you for this. I am sick to death of the press's insistence on manufacturing a false equivalency between the parties. You'd think by now they would have figured out that when it comes to obstruction and complete disregard for norms and institutions that make our government work, the GOP are in a class by themselves.
A surge in spending from outside groups, particularly on the right, has also increasingly lent the proceedings a campaign-style feel.
But when the left did/does this, we don't hear a word from the NYT's or other left wing media. Not much different than the current flap about Obama's ex employee coming out about disseminating and exposing the eavesdropping ordered by Obama. What we do hear from the MSM is who went in gate "A" or was gate "B" open bla bla bla.
Thank you Harry Reid, at least you left the Senate in as much shambles as you could. In this case you allow the GOP to employ your tactics without impunity, well maybe a lot of squealing from Schummer, but thats OK.
But when the left did/does this, we don't hear a word from the NYT's or other left wing media. Not much different than the current flap about Obama's ex employee coming out about disseminating and exposing the eavesdropping ordered by Obama. What we do hear from the MSM is who went in gate "A" or was gate "B" open bla bla bla.
Thank you Harry Reid, at least you left the Senate in as much shambles as you could. In this case you allow the GOP to employ your tactics without impunity, well maybe a lot of squealing from Schummer, but thats OK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0
The hyperventilating over Garland is laughable. Do you really think that if they had the chance to do the same to GW Bush that the Democrats wouldn't have done exactly what Joe Biden said they were going to do?
Each side is equally guilty for the escalation. When the Democrats were blocking Bush nominees, they begged and pleaded with the republicans not to invoke the so called nuclear option. Their was a bipartisan solution and the Repubs did not push the button.
what did the democrats do when the roles were reversed and the repubs were blocking Obama nominees? Yup, that's right, they pushed the button.
From a strategic political standpoint, I think it would be best to not filibuster Gorsuch. Wait until it is a "liberal seat" (the fact that I am even using that term is sad indeed!) that Trump is trying to replace. In all likelihood, the Republicans would go nuclear then, but at least the democrats can make their points when it really counts.
The hyperventilating over Garland is laughable. Do you really think that if they had the chance to do the same to GW Bush that the Democrats wouldn't have done exactly what Joe Biden said they were going to do?
Each side is equally guilty for the escalation. When the Democrats were blocking Bush nominees, they begged and pleaded with the republicans not to invoke the so called nuclear option. Their was a bipartisan solution and the Repubs did not push the button.
what did the democrats do when the roles were reversed and the repubs were blocking Obama nominees? Yup, that's right, they pushed the button.
From a strategic political standpoint, I think it would be best to not filibuster Gorsuch. Wait until it is a "liberal seat" (the fact that I am even using that term is sad indeed!) that Trump is trying to replace. In all likelihood, the Republicans would go nuclear then, but at least the democrats can make their points when it really counts.
7
The core dishonesty in all of this is the Republican determination to nullify the first amendment denial of power to Congress to enact, respect, or enforce faith-based beliefs under law.
It is just more cheating by redefining words.
It is just more cheating by redefining words.
2
No, I don't think the Democrats would have done the same thing. Biden's was only one voice, at a much later point in the election cycle than Scalia's death occurred. The fact is, the Democrats--or the Republicans, for that matter--have never before held a Supreme Court seat hostage for an entire year. Sorry, but the Republicans own this one, and all the serious consequences down the road that are likely to spring from it. For example, why stop at blocking a nominee during an election year? Why not all four years of the opposition party's presidency, as Republicans threatened to do if Hillary Clinton won? (so much for "letting the people speak"!)
Now if the Democrats really wanted to make a statement, they would confirm Gorsuch, while making it clear, again and again, that they were only doing so to preserve the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court. That would take away the "tit for tat" argument from future confrontations--and nobody's said Gorsuch isn't qualified. But I'm not holding my breath.
Now if the Democrats really wanted to make a statement, they would confirm Gorsuch, while making it clear, again and again, that they were only doing so to preserve the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court. That would take away the "tit for tat" argument from future confrontations--and nobody's said Gorsuch isn't qualified. But I'm not holding my breath.
The Democrats did have a chance to do toBush what the GOP did to Obama. Instead, they confirmed both Alito and Roberts. Please don't pretend there is any parity between the parties. When it comes to outrageous behavior and complete disrespect and disregard for the norms that keep our government functioning, there is no close second to the GOP.
1
What the Republicans did to Garland was reprehensible. Anyone arguing that Democrats should treat Gorsuch in a similar reprehensible manner, is, for lack a better term, reprehensible too.
We teach our kids that 2 wrongs do not make a right. Perhaps the NYT and its readers need that lesson too.
Readers should go read Jesus's sermon on the mount again. It provides a good foundation of ethics, and it is fundamentally the foundation of western civilization.
We teach our kids that 2 wrongs do not make a right. Perhaps the NYT and its readers need that lesson too.
Readers should go read Jesus's sermon on the mount again. It provides a good foundation of ethics, and it is fundamentally the foundation of western civilization.
"Mr. Schumer said his party’s efforts were about more than protesting the treatment of Judge Garland."
Garland is and was of no consequence. Gorsuch is not either. What is important is that we were a justice short for a year in a peevish maneuver by the GOP. Is that a reason to keep us a justice short? No. What makes since is an arrangement that curtails a result such as with Garland permanently from Senate lore and anybody else's for that matter.
Garland is and was of no consequence. Gorsuch is not either. What is important is that we were a justice short for a year in a peevish maneuver by the GOP. Is that a reason to keep us a justice short? No. What makes since is an arrangement that curtails a result such as with Garland permanently from Senate lore and anybody else's for that matter.
3
Filibuster won't accomplish anything, but a nuclear option. Apparently the Democrats are waging a war and they want the Republicans to look like they are they stronger country. That will be the outcome, by their own design. But no one ever said that the Democrats are strategically smart, savvy or sound. Instead of Schumer repeating over and over that the Democrats are going to filibuster. Get on with the filibuster. Do it!! Make fools out of yourselves. Get on with it. Make a good long show of it, delaying the inevitable that you will once again lose with a seemingly smaller number. You lost the presidency based on the Constitutional EC and will again lose, this time it's a SCOTUS nomination and it will take less votes to garner a win. If you look at the Obamacare issue, you lose everyday, because Obama left his Obamacare a complete disaster. Making a payment for the "Affordable Care Act" each month creates a catastrophic event for millions that have the plan. There are many that had healthcare coverage prior to ACA aka: Obamacare, were forced into Obamacare, couldn't afford ACA, now have nothing! The fact that Obamacare still exists is a great loss to the Democrats. You can't divorce Democrats from Obamacare, ever, despite your efforts to do so by dumping it on the GOP! No one has forgotten when Nancy Pelosi urged the nation and legislating body to go with the Affordable Care Act, sight unseen. You have to make it law, then read it!
7
every word the Republicans have uttered praising Judge Gorsuch was also said about Judge Garland, but the hypocritical Republicans did not even give him a hearing; most of them even refused to meet with him. Their words now are quite empty. They have no principles left especially when turning their eyes and ignoring the stink of corruption arising from the Trump White House. They do that so they can decimate the social safety net, consign women to back alley abortions, and deny millions of women, children and elderly access to preventive medical services which are of the utmost importance.
What a pathetic bunch ! Americans are finally waking up. Let's hope its not too late.
What a pathetic bunch ! Americans are finally waking up. Let's hope its not too late.
13
Gorsuch in playing not to lose, did not engage, and lost.
His obfuscation defined his personality, and his happy, jovial comments on sheep something or other with T. Cruz was just stupid.
During the confirmation hearings the Supreme Court rebuke of his decision in the autistic child case nailed him for what he is.
His obfuscation defined his personality, and his happy, jovial comments on sheep something or other with T. Cruz was just stupid.
During the confirmation hearings the Supreme Court rebuke of his decision in the autistic child case nailed him for what he is.
7
It really seems like the Republican party just went frothing insane when Obama was elected. If Obama had said he liked penguins Trump would currently be ordering an invasion of Antarctica.
Clearly though something needs to be done to make Supreme Court appointments less politically valuable. Limited terms or something. You can only see things getting more acrimonious. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, for instance, all currently sitting conservative judges announced their retirements in order to be replaced by younger conservative judges. Imagine the impact that would have, and what would stop it? Decency? Please!
Clearly though something needs to be done to make Supreme Court appointments less politically valuable. Limited terms or something. You can only see things getting more acrimonious. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, for instance, all currently sitting conservative judges announced their retirements in order to be replaced by younger conservative judges. Imagine the impact that would have, and what would stop it? Decency? Please!
3
A cry for decency in this day and age? I fear it is too late.
Reality sets in.
From the time [1801] of John Adam's "midnight appointments" calculated to advance Federalist interests through the judiciary, there has rarely if ever a time when judicial appointments have not been crassly political.
https://www.reference.com/history/were-john-adams-s-midnight-appointment...
From the time [1801] of John Adam's "midnight appointments" calculated to advance Federalist interests through the judiciary, there has rarely if ever a time when judicial appointments have not been crassly political.
https://www.reference.com/history/were-john-adams-s-midnight-appointment...
2
End the filibuster. GOP won the election. They should put their nominees on the bench.
5
The greatest irony is that president Obama was naive enough to believe that nominating a centrist like Garland would earn brownie points with the Repubs controlling the senate. Not only was he wrong, but Garland was too moderate, too old, too unexciting to excite the Democratic base and help Hillary Clinton in the election. If Obama had nominated a young, charismatic liberal, especially a black woman or gay man, at least Hillary might have totted up some votes from the democrats who sat out the election.
2
Judge Grouch didn't win over all the Democratic senators, because of his attitude and performance during the confirmation hearing.
He was not forthcoming in his answering of some challenging questions, which gave an impression his is arrogant--he thinks he knows better, he is superior and above all these politicians.
Also, he was the only judge ruling against a truck driver who was being fired in a very unfair and inhuman manner. One can ask where was Judge Grouch's compassion. I actually agreed with many who have concluded--Judge Grouch is not standing for the small guys. Such is against the values of Democratic Party.
Thus, Democratic senators' opposition to Judge Grouch's confirmation is a principled stand and in line with the beliefs of their base.
He was not forthcoming in his answering of some challenging questions, which gave an impression his is arrogant--he thinks he knows better, he is superior and above all these politicians.
Also, he was the only judge ruling against a truck driver who was being fired in a very unfair and inhuman manner. One can ask where was Judge Grouch's compassion. I actually agreed with many who have concluded--Judge Grouch is not standing for the small guys. Such is against the values of Democratic Party.
Thus, Democratic senators' opposition to Judge Grouch's confirmation is a principled stand and in line with the beliefs of their base.
10
"Judge Grouch is not standing for the small guys."
No, he is standing up for the laws as written by the duly elected representatives of the small guys. It is not the place of judges to make law, that is reserved for the legislature. If they write laws that the people do not like, or if they write poorly written laws that do not accomplish what they intend, blame them and not the judges who enforce them.
No, he is standing up for the laws as written by the duly elected representatives of the small guys. It is not the place of judges to make law, that is reserved for the legislature. If they write laws that the people do not like, or if they write poorly written laws that do not accomplish what they intend, blame them and not the judges who enforce them.
Here's the bottom line. McConnell made a purely political calculation--a gamble--when he opted not to act on Judge Garland's nomination. McConnell's gamble has paid off. Judge Garland's nomination has expired; and he will not be re-nominated anytime soon. Trump is now the duly elected President of the United States, and he has nominated Judge Gorsuch. The Senate is controlled by the Republicans, and they have absolute authority (if they go nuclear) to ensure that Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed. It is, therefore, a foregone conclusion that Judge Gorsuch will become the newest Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. The final result is now set in stone, and it is notable that there was never any such finality with respect to Judge Garland's nomination. Only one issue remains: will Democrats concede the inevitable, or will they pursue a scorched-earth policy--shredding what little remains of the Senate's vaunted decorum and collegiality. A pre-doomed effort at vengeance; or grudging acceptance. One or the other. Regardless, SCOTUS is soon to be restored to its full nine members.
6
The democrats do not have a leg to stand on. They've done everything they claim shouldn't be done. That they can stand there like hypocrites just shows how partisanship makes fools of everyone.
6
Doesn't this all fit so nicely into Bannon's playbook? Diminish, Disrupt,, or Destroy all elements of the "administrative" state. That means the institutions, the traditions, from our long political history of at least trying to resolve conflict with compromise. The civil service and the court are perhaps the last strongholds to take Down.
2
Hey, there's a thought!
"If the Democrats would start winning more elections they would not be in this position."
"If the Democrats would start winning more elections they would not be in this position."
6
It is a shame, no doubt. But it is wrong to subscribe to a "both sides do it" position because the blocking of Garland was wholly different. Beyond refusing hearings or a vote, most GOP senators refused to even meet with Judge Garland. To me, that is nothing more than pure vandalism of the institution to which you belong. The GOP brought us to this moment far more than anyone else.
"mild-mannered nominee"?? What is that supposed to mean? None of the opposition to justices has to do with their demeanor. Trump's nominee or Obama's.
And what nominee to the supreme court has been a raving hothead? I'm appalled that the writer thinks the demeanor of these justices has anything to do with the opposition, or their suitability to serve.
And what nominee to the supreme court has been a raving hothead? I'm appalled that the writer thinks the demeanor of these justices has anything to do with the opposition, or their suitability to serve.
1
US, is a de facto judicial dictatorship
The Courts rule on cases then offer dicta - opinions beyond the case, thus dicta-torship
and so the Gorsuch follies, are the Real Deal for Power in the US
the rest of us, think we self-govern via our toy government , a dumb show to distract the sheeple
The Courts rule on cases then offer dicta - opinions beyond the case, thus dicta-torship
and so the Gorsuch follies, are the Real Deal for Power in the US
the rest of us, think we self-govern via our toy government , a dumb show to distract the sheeple
If it makes you feel better to imagine this, by all means do so:
"Neil Gorsuch ... will always have an asterisk next to his ... votes signifying that there is absolutely no reason that this seat was filled by anyone other than Merrick Garland..."
There won't be any asterisk. Quick! Can you tell us how many potential nominees Reagan planned to name before he settled on Anthony Kennedy? How about Samuel Alito – do you recall that Bush had picked Harriet Miers before him? How about Stephen Breyer – did you remember that he was confirmed only the second time that Clinton picked him, that his name was withdrawn the first time because his "nanny problem" meant he would never be confirmed?
Do you imagine there will be an asterisk next to the votes of Kennedy? Of Alito? Of Breyer?
It's time to drop this hand-wringing and move on. Like it or not, Trump won and Clinton lost. The Democrats will be wise to focus on the future, not trying to undo the past. I'm shocked and dismayed to read that many Democrats are seriously considering backing future runs for old war horses such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Do you not understand that any of those three will be at least 70 years old if he or she gets elected? Indeed, Biden will be closer to 80 than to 70. It's time to come up with some new blood. This should be obvious, but I gather it's not.
"Neil Gorsuch ... will always have an asterisk next to his ... votes signifying that there is absolutely no reason that this seat was filled by anyone other than Merrick Garland..."
There won't be any asterisk. Quick! Can you tell us how many potential nominees Reagan planned to name before he settled on Anthony Kennedy? How about Samuel Alito – do you recall that Bush had picked Harriet Miers before him? How about Stephen Breyer – did you remember that he was confirmed only the second time that Clinton picked him, that his name was withdrawn the first time because his "nanny problem" meant he would never be confirmed?
Do you imagine there will be an asterisk next to the votes of Kennedy? Of Alito? Of Breyer?
It's time to drop this hand-wringing and move on. Like it or not, Trump won and Clinton lost. The Democrats will be wise to focus on the future, not trying to undo the past. I'm shocked and dismayed to read that many Democrats are seriously considering backing future runs for old war horses such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Do you not understand that any of those three will be at least 70 years old if he or she gets elected? Indeed, Biden will be closer to 80 than to 70. It's time to come up with some new blood. This should be obvious, but I gather it's not.
7
If the Dems don't fight this nomination, they'll give the Republicans an opportunity to save the nuclear option for a truly horrible candidate for the next opening. Newt is still out there!
1
McConnell started it. Let him chew on his own creation.
2
Both political parties are proud of their refusals to seriously consider Court nominees offered by the opposition party's President.
However, the failing coastal media is forbidden to even admit that this was begun and done the most often by Democrats. The Times has to hope that progressives-in-training never realize that Democrats ran the Senate most of the time since World War Two.
But the names involved are not lost to history. The names of Senators refusing to consider opposition nominees include Obama, Biden, Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, Feinstein and Boxer.
However, the failing coastal media is forbidden to even admit that this was begun and done the most often by Democrats. The Times has to hope that progressives-in-training never realize that Democrats ran the Senate most of the time since World War Two.
But the names involved are not lost to history. The names of Senators refusing to consider opposition nominees include Obama, Biden, Schumer, Leahy, Durbin, Feinstein and Boxer.
3
The democrats started first by changing the long standing rules for just a majority vote, Remember the nuclear option? And remember Obama with his executive orders? The left found this all to be perfectly understandable just a few months and years ago, When the left was breaking new ground in violating the constitution they used the excuse that congress was doing nothing. Congress was deadlocked and doing nothing because no side had a distinct advantage. Until one party had enough members voted into office there will be a deadlock. That is the design of it all. It was the democrats that lost patience with the design and changed the rules. Now they can live with it.
5
Conservatives tell falsehoods about the Court.
1. The GOP ceased to be the Party of Lincoln. Beginning with Grant, the GOP was bought off by Wall Street. The US has since been a corporatocracy. The Court was packed with conservatives approved by Wall Street. FDR didn’t pack the Court. He unpacked it.
2. In recent history we respected the Court. Shamefully, Nixon broke that tradition by appointing several unqualified people to provoke partisan battles.
3. The Senate fairly warned Regan not to appoint Bork, and was fully justified to vote him down. He was part of the Saturday Night Massacre. His views were extreme and did not represent most Americans. That is not the kind of judge the Court should have.
Bork was wrong to claim we have no right to privacy. Promoting individual rights was one of the framers’ intents. Right to privacy is granted in Amendments 1, 4, 9, 10: the power to conduct your business aside from powers granted to gov.
Bork endorsed a roll back of civil rights, supported a poll tax, was one of the few nominees ever opposed by the ACLU, sought to overturn Roe v. Wade, supported an excess of executive supremacy, had extreme views on antitrust.
“To Bork” does not mean to oppose an extreme or unqualified nominee. It means to disrespect the Court & inflame partisanship by nominating someone who you know will be seen as unqualified and too extreme. The shameful act was by Reagan, not the Senate.
4. It was the GOP that abused the filibuster under Obama.
1. The GOP ceased to be the Party of Lincoln. Beginning with Grant, the GOP was bought off by Wall Street. The US has since been a corporatocracy. The Court was packed with conservatives approved by Wall Street. FDR didn’t pack the Court. He unpacked it.
2. In recent history we respected the Court. Shamefully, Nixon broke that tradition by appointing several unqualified people to provoke partisan battles.
3. The Senate fairly warned Regan not to appoint Bork, and was fully justified to vote him down. He was part of the Saturday Night Massacre. His views were extreme and did not represent most Americans. That is not the kind of judge the Court should have.
Bork was wrong to claim we have no right to privacy. Promoting individual rights was one of the framers’ intents. Right to privacy is granted in Amendments 1, 4, 9, 10: the power to conduct your business aside from powers granted to gov.
Bork endorsed a roll back of civil rights, supported a poll tax, was one of the few nominees ever opposed by the ACLU, sought to overturn Roe v. Wade, supported an excess of executive supremacy, had extreme views on antitrust.
“To Bork” does not mean to oppose an extreme or unqualified nominee. It means to disrespect the Court & inflame partisanship by nominating someone who you know will be seen as unqualified and too extreme. The shameful act was by Reagan, not the Senate.
4. It was the GOP that abused the filibuster under Obama.
1
This seat on the Supreme Court, does not belong to Gorsuch! It's been stolen from Pres. Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland!
The fact that there's suspicion and an investigation into Donald's collusion with Russia, STOP the proceeding towards confirmation!
The fact that there's suspicion and an investigation into Donald's collusion with Russia, STOP the proceeding towards confirmation!
1
I am getting tired of the characterization of Democrats who choose to vote against the confirmation of Gorsuch as a schoolyard spat. Although there is a legitimate anger about the GOP illegitimate blocking Garland's hearing, there is plenty of valued and educated opposition to his appointment. Gorsuch was charming and suave in at hearings (yes, I spent three days in TV attendance of the hearings). But he was also evasive and jiggled a lot of rhetoric to try to substantiate his reason for not giving an answer on anything. The GOP members of the panel never really asked him anything...they used their time to give campaign-style endorsements in glowing terms. The Dems asked tough questions which showed they had done their research, none of which were answered. And if the cases that were presented by the panel are any indication of how he would perform on SCOTUS, there is a strong argument to vote against his confirmation.
One would not drive a car without knowing anything about it. One does not get married without knowing their affianced (except in reality TV shows). One does not commit to pet adoption without knowing what species it is. Why should we commit to 30 or more years of judicial decisions which will affect us, our children and perhaps our grandchildren without full disclosure?
One would not drive a car without knowing anything about it. One does not get married without knowing their affianced (except in reality TV shows). One does not commit to pet adoption without knowing what species it is. Why should we commit to 30 or more years of judicial decisions which will affect us, our children and perhaps our grandchildren without full disclosure?
2
Democrats should filibuster and let Republicans eliminate the filibuster for good. Democrats are the majority of voters in this country. The Republicans are a minority party holding on to power by gerrymandering, vote suppression and possible vote tampering in the dark corners of this country where voter protections are weakest.
Democrats should be more focused on having all the constituents fairly represented and recapturing the House and Senate than saving the filibuster. Trump promises to inflict a lot of damage to the GOP. Democrats can work on protecting the rest of the country and organizing angry voters for 2018 and 2020.
Reclaiming the majority is more important than maintaining tricks for the minority. You're not a minority party, Democrats. You rep the majority of voters. Start acting like it.
Democrats should be more focused on having all the constituents fairly represented and recapturing the House and Senate than saving the filibuster. Trump promises to inflict a lot of damage to the GOP. Democrats can work on protecting the rest of the country and organizing angry voters for 2018 and 2020.
Reclaiming the majority is more important than maintaining tricks for the minority. You're not a minority party, Democrats. You rep the majority of voters. Start acting like it.
1
And then there is the corrupted confirmation process which has become a game of cat-and-mouse with the opposition party, trying not to say anything of substance or to hide true intentions. How does an "originalist" find support in the Constitution for the Citizens' United decision?
The Democrats will need a better excuse than "they started it." Yes, what happened to Garland was wrong. But that doesn't make a Democratic filibuster right.
Let me give them a reason: originalism in all its shapes and forms. It's flim-flam masquerading as coherent judicial doctrine. And let me apply it to one area that bothers me a lot: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Now the most recent opinion authored by Scalia ignores the initial clause, which would suggest that only the National Guard has the right to bear arms in non-military situations. But if we ignore this qualification and take the remaining clause in the sense that the writers would have understood it, citizens are entitled to own a flintlock rifle or pistol, that is, a weapon that takes 15-20 seconds to reload through the muzzle and can only fire one shot at a time.
It's altogether fitting that Scalia should have met his great reward at a hunting resort, where they had much more than flintlocks. He didn't believe in originalism, and neither does Gorsuch.
So filibuster Gorsuch on account of originalism's fiction. But not out of sheer revenge. And by the way, he's (otherwise) a perfectly well-qualified judge with whom I disagree on almost everything. I don't think a second Trump pick will be any better.
Let me give them a reason: originalism in all its shapes and forms. It's flim-flam masquerading as coherent judicial doctrine. And let me apply it to one area that bothers me a lot: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Now the most recent opinion authored by Scalia ignores the initial clause, which would suggest that only the National Guard has the right to bear arms in non-military situations. But if we ignore this qualification and take the remaining clause in the sense that the writers would have understood it, citizens are entitled to own a flintlock rifle or pistol, that is, a weapon that takes 15-20 seconds to reload through the muzzle and can only fire one shot at a time.
It's altogether fitting that Scalia should have met his great reward at a hunting resort, where they had much more than flintlocks. He didn't believe in originalism, and neither does Gorsuch.
So filibuster Gorsuch on account of originalism's fiction. But not out of sheer revenge. And by the way, he's (otherwise) a perfectly well-qualified judge with whom I disagree on almost everything. I don't think a second Trump pick will be any better.
2
This is the type of bad faith argument that exemplifies why conservatives advocate blocking liberal judges. Your judicial philosophy boils down to, "The Constitution is what we say it is because we want it to say that." There's no principle behind it.
2
We should wait until the end of the inquiry over Russian interference. Trump can hardly claim to be our legitimate president with that going on.
1
The politicization of the Supreme Court reflects the polarization of both political parties which has produced hyper-partisanship and a dysfunctional Congress. If the Supreme Court, the major arbiter of our Constitution and the much ballyhooed "rule of law," is allowed to continue to reflect the partisan divide the very heart and soul of our democracy will fail. We need good judges who adhere to the law and not an ideology or a set of partisan "litmus tests" who are moderates who can see beyond the current partisanship. To achieve that Congress must create a mechanism that will produce and confirm such judges. One way might be to require 75 votes for confirmation that would ensure that both political parties would have to compromise and put open-minded, relatively apolitical, moderate men and women on the court. Right now the battle over Judge Gorsuch is a reflection that we have become once again the Divided States of America. If we are the heal ourselves as a nation we need to start with our judiciary so that we once again have "Equal Justice Under Law" no matter what your political persuasion.
The Democrats should have shut down the government when Garland was denied a hearing. Why did they blithely go along with the obstruction? They, like everyone else, thought Clinton was a shoo-in and it was a temporary roadblock. The lesson: Don't sacrifice integrity for perceived political gain. In this case, the right thing to do is to filibuster. Republicans change the rules in response, so be it. They too, as McConnell said, will eventually regret it.
1
"Plainly qualified" except for his consistent and egregious discounting of the rights of women and men in favor of the rights of corporate entities. The man is incapable of a balanced and moderate read of the law. Why is he even being considered? Oh, because the person who nominated him has so many ethical and legal problems? No Supreme Court judge should be given the bench until President Trump's legal issues have been resolved. I mean, there is every appearance that Mr. Trump colluded with Russian intelligence entities to corrupt the election process. Our sitting president is probably guilty of treason, and he continues to surround himself with people who are complicit in that corruption. Look at what is happening in Venzuela. This is how the destruction of a democracy begins, by packing a Supreme Court with people who have no pretense of impartiality.
If Trump had an ounce of decency, he would have nominated Merrick Garland. If Neil Gorsuch had an ounce of decency, he would have declined Trump's nomination and recommended Merrick Garland. What Mitch McConnell and the Republicans did was wrong, and their bad behavior must not be rewarded.
If Democratic senators do not filibuster Neil Gorsuch's confirmation, they can get dividends from moderate Republicans - there are still a lot more than few of them. Filibuster serves no real purpose other than poisoning the well.
2
The most compelling reason -- among many -- for rejecting the nomination of Gorsuch is not his extreme ideology, his refusal to meaningfully participate in the nomination hearings, his appointment by a president who is probably illegitimate, or because "the Republicans started it," but because he has shown, by his instrumental role in defending Bush's torture program and arguing (with Lindsey Graham) that there should be no judicial review of the executive's treatment of the detainees, and by his dissent in the "freezing trucker" case, that he is lacking in the judgment, compassion, morality, and commitment to the role of the judicial branch that is required of a Supreme Court Justice (or of any judge).
6
This was a surprisingly fair and unbiased reflection of the history of the SCOTUS nominations. It can be argued that the GOP's reason for not giving Garland an up and down vote played out as they projected during the election cycle because if there was one critical issue that truly affected the election it was the possibility of having the nomination of the vacant SCOTUS slot in the hands of HRC.
2
But that's what happens when you lose an election: the duly-elected president gets to put forth a nominee. The solution is not to lose the election, rather than blocking the nominee of the current duly-elected president.
One of the greatest responsibilities of a US Senator, in MY opinion, is how they vote on nominees to the Supreme Court. In fact although I am a registered Democrat and consider myself socially liberal and economically moderate, the confirmation of Scalia and Thomas was sacrilege on the part of Senate Democrats because those 2 men, among others, have had a disastrous affect on this country and made the lives of millions of Americans worse than they ever should have been. In the case of Gorsuch, since he does not seem to have a record that convinces one that he will uphold past decisions that were hard won and continually under attack (same-sex marriage etc) he should be DENIED confirmation and if the GOP leaders take the step of doing away with the last remaining filibuster, they will rue the day because it's only a matter of time (hopefully less than 2 years) before they lose their simple majority and then they will realize the error of their ways. Bottom line: Democrats must REJECT this man not because of the Garland affair but because he's the WRONG MAN for the job.
5
So only approve judges with Democratic leanings no matter who controls the White House and Senate? Seriously only someone in an airtight progressive bubble would think that is fair and makes any sense.
1
We would be better off taking away the power of either party to make these confirmations. They have lost sight of their mandate. At this point I'd be happier with a selection of two candidates from either party with a luck of draw or coin toss choosing one to be the next Supreme Court justice.
One of the reasons these nominations are so fraught with political implications is that the Court stands naked as to its intentions. Judges who come from comfortable financial backgrounds growing up, who attended only the most well known colleges and universities denied consistently to so the sons and daughters of so called "working class" Americans and minorities and who were under Republican influence while rising to the Court consistently hew the right wing or conservative line, with few exceptions. 2000, when the Court pushed Bush 2 into the White House, while ruling on "this one case only", stripped to the bone the high pretensions of law over politics, justice and fairness over personal belief. The Court is not about justice, it is about protecting the perceived interests, both personal and class oriented, of those who manage to get themselves appointed. When this is faced full on without sugar coating, it is hard to remove politics from how nominations are handled.
Lifetime appointments also make such considerations matters of generational concern, the power to set the course of the nation being determined for such long periods by so few people who cannot be recalled or replaced. Lifetime appointments are a legacy of another era and generally antithetical to democracy.
(Traveling in Spain, resident in the US)
Lifetime appointments also make such considerations matters of generational concern, the power to set the course of the nation being determined for such long periods by so few people who cannot be recalled or replaced. Lifetime appointments are a legacy of another era and generally antithetical to democracy.
(Traveling in Spain, resident in the US)
3
I think the truck driver, Alphonse Maddin, who Gorsuch had no problem letting die because in Gorsuch's opinion, the cargo was more important than the truck driver's life, would not call Gorsuch a "plainly qualified, mild-mannered nominee."
2
Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy during an election year--and he was approved by the Senate during Reagan's final year in office. It still boggles my mind that the Senators wouldn't even give Judge Garland a hearing. They could have grilled him and then rejected him, if they didn't like his responses. Republicans and Democrats alike had sung his praises and rated him as "highly qualified." He was viewed as fair, balanced, and middle-of-the-road--a constitutional scholar who held the law in highest regard. But the Republicans so hated President Obama that they wouldn't even hear what Judge Garland had to say.
I understand why the Democrats don't want to approve Judge Gorsuch, based on his record (especially in the case of the "frozen trucker" and special education students). But right now, my biggest concert is that the president is under a huge dark cloud, with so many of his closest advisers under investigation in connection with potential Russian tampering with the 2016 election. I don't know how our country could even consider Judge Gorsuch's nomination until--and if--that is cleared up. As someone who lived through Watergate, I think we have way too much to learn about Trump's potential involvement to enable him to put his imprimatur on the Supreme Court when he could potentially face charges himself.
I understand why the Democrats don't want to approve Judge Gorsuch, based on his record (especially in the case of the "frozen trucker" and special education students). But right now, my biggest concert is that the president is under a huge dark cloud, with so many of his closest advisers under investigation in connection with potential Russian tampering with the 2016 election. I don't know how our country could even consider Judge Gorsuch's nomination until--and if--that is cleared up. As someone who lived through Watergate, I think we have way too much to learn about Trump's potential involvement to enable him to put his imprimatur on the Supreme Court when he could potentially face charges himself.
3
When your own ruling, while you are being questioned by Senate Judiciary, is unanimously overturned by SCOTUS, ya might not necessarily be the best nominee for the job. You might be the pick of the Heritage Foundation, but that is not in the interest of the nation as a whole.
2
Gorsuch does not warrant this supreme Court seat, it was Justice Garland's. The Republican Senator's Behavior during the last nine months of President Obama's term was reprehensible.
4
Were Judge Gorsuch as non-political a choice as Judge Garland, the Democrats would have more difficulty in uniting to oppose his appointment. In fact, he represents a view of the law which is much to the right of mainstream American judicial thinking, and arrives at many of his decisions by truly convoluted logic.
That isn't to say that he is not personable or that he doesn't love his mother.
That isn't to say that he is not personable or that he doesn't love his mother.
3
I hate that it's come to this, but the democrats NEED to block Gorsuch's nomination. We can't have the parties playing with two sets of rules, where democrats follow the rules and play nice and republicans play dirty and block everything democrats do (including ignoring the constitution and stealing a supreme court seat).
4
It's reprehensible that Merrick Garland didn't get a hearing, and that some Republicans proposed continuing that behavior if a Democrat won the Presidency. That was so wrong.
So what should happen now? If Democrats vote to confirm Gorsuch and get nothing in return, the GOP stunts will continue. When Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, we have to be very careful about the process that puts them on the bench. We need balance.
Advise and consent used to say that after hearings, if a nominee is judged to be qualified, Senators consent, understanding that voters elected the Democrat or Republican who made the nomination. That should have happened with Merrick Garland, and it should happen with Gorsuch - except Hillary Clinton received more popular votes than Trump, Merrick Garland didn't get his hearing, and it's not clear that Trump legitimately won the election. It makes sense to me to wait until the investigations run their course.
In the absence of that, it only makes sense to vote to confirm Gorsuch if Senators agree in writing to avoid the nuclear option for at least the next 8 years. If the Democrats offer this and the Republicans refuse, Americans will see that yet again, the Dems tried to act reasonably and preserve the Senate's important tradition of a 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees. Who knows what name Trump may put forth the next time? We need that 60-vote threshold to stay in place.
So what should happen now? If Democrats vote to confirm Gorsuch and get nothing in return, the GOP stunts will continue. When Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, we have to be very careful about the process that puts them on the bench. We need balance.
Advise and consent used to say that after hearings, if a nominee is judged to be qualified, Senators consent, understanding that voters elected the Democrat or Republican who made the nomination. That should have happened with Merrick Garland, and it should happen with Gorsuch - except Hillary Clinton received more popular votes than Trump, Merrick Garland didn't get his hearing, and it's not clear that Trump legitimately won the election. It makes sense to me to wait until the investigations run their course.
In the absence of that, it only makes sense to vote to confirm Gorsuch if Senators agree in writing to avoid the nuclear option for at least the next 8 years. If the Democrats offer this and the Republicans refuse, Americans will see that yet again, the Dems tried to act reasonably and preserve the Senate's important tradition of a 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees. Who knows what name Trump may put forth the next time? We need that 60-vote threshold to stay in place.
2
Our founding fathers, for all their praise created a very dysfunctional system.
As for partisanship, again, I envision Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. Dems need to learn to fight as dirty as the GOP. Stop bringing a knife to a gun fight. This is an existential battle.
As for partisanship, again, I envision Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. Dems need to learn to fight as dirty as the GOP. Stop bringing a knife to a gun fight. This is an existential battle.
2
if we agree that the definition of "mild-mannered" is also vapid, spiritless, feeble, and dull - then I agree. After listening to Gorsuch and reading some of his opinions, there is another side to this man - cold, mean and ruthless to the little man and definitely amiable, complaisant and deferential ( other definitions to mild-mannered) to the corporations.
This guy will be worse than Alito and Scalia.
This guy will be worse than Alito and Scalia.
3
If someone else commits murder, does that give us a right to do it on the grounds, "They did it first?" That argument stinks and is impeding the business of the nation and murdering our national spirit. It's time to move forward and stop this playground name-calling nonsense.
1
He Republicans didn't start it. They stole it.
2
The most reassuring thing in this is that republicans have more guns. The left has been disarming itself for years.
I don't care if the Republicans nominate God for this seat. It belongs to the Democrats. No nominee of the Republicans should be confirmed, not now not ever. For all the rancor over the judicial nominations over the last 45 years, the Republicans went too far with their refusal to even consider Garland.
There are several reasons to block this nomination, but the most important is that it may be the nomination by an illegitimate president.
There is growing evidence that as this president had often said, " This election is rigged". Until the investigation is complete, the nomination should not go forward. So to put it of for 8 months should not be a problem.
There is growing evidence that as this president had often said, " This election is rigged". Until the investigation is complete, the nomination should not go forward. So to put it of for 8 months should not be a problem.
4
If it weren't so awkward-sounding, I think "Garland" would have become a verb like "Bork" did, with a different meaning (to refuse to even consider a nominee or a bill, or to deny a suggestion with the intent of replacing it with one's own).
Gorsuch is qualified for the position. There is nothing in his record that makes him unqualified even if you disagree with his judicial philosophy, or some of his rulings or explanations.
So Gorsuch didn't answer questions. Whether he had or hadn't, and regardless of how he answered them, most Democrats weren't and aren't going to vote for his confirmation. Regardless of what Senator Schumer said, this is all about Judge Garland.
The Senate is broken. So is the House. So are the Republican and Democratic parties. That means our Legislative Branch, and its processes, are broken. Exhibit #1 - we are halfway through the fiscal year and STILL do not have a budget. Writing the federal government's budget is one of the primary responsibilities of the Congress, and yet they're going on recess for almost three weeks with that crucial piece of legislation left undone. They are worse than useless, they are vestigial, like the appendix. The Congress sticks around with no apparent function, but can flare up and become a huge problem without notice.
The way this gets better is just like it does with the appendix. We excise the problem (intransigent Republicans and Democrats) so the body can heal and work better.
Gorsuch is qualified for the position. There is nothing in his record that makes him unqualified even if you disagree with his judicial philosophy, or some of his rulings or explanations.
So Gorsuch didn't answer questions. Whether he had or hadn't, and regardless of how he answered them, most Democrats weren't and aren't going to vote for his confirmation. Regardless of what Senator Schumer said, this is all about Judge Garland.
The Senate is broken. So is the House. So are the Republican and Democratic parties. That means our Legislative Branch, and its processes, are broken. Exhibit #1 - we are halfway through the fiscal year and STILL do not have a budget. Writing the federal government's budget is one of the primary responsibilities of the Congress, and yet they're going on recess for almost three weeks with that crucial piece of legislation left undone. They are worse than useless, they are vestigial, like the appendix. The Congress sticks around with no apparent function, but can flare up and become a huge problem without notice.
The way this gets better is just like it does with the appendix. We excise the problem (intransigent Republicans and Democrats) so the body can heal and work better.
1
I know that litigated cases must be resolved, and that with an uneven number there is a better chance of doing it. However, there is something to be said with having an even number. Given an equally divided Court, in order to resolve cases, at least one member of the opposite side would have to join the other to arrive at a decision. This might occur after many cases had ended in ties, and the situation become untenable. Presidents would hopefully come to the realization that instead of creating two antagonistic groups, they should seek more "centric"nominees that would be more disposed to cross over. In other words, let confusion and disruption reign until there is a revolt of reason.
It is clear that each party seeks to put up nominees that fall within its ideology. One can be juridically qualified and still be so totally dedicated to his/her personal ideology that there is no chance of getting an acceptable consideration of cases. In allowing such a person to become a judge, the opposite party is giving up any chance of getting a "fair" decision. The answer would be to nominate persons who do not have such definite profiles. But parties are too short-sighted to think this way.
Still, even with a filibuster there is a technical chance of getting approved. There is none when the nominee isn't even given a chance to be heard. Only the most dishonest shamelessness can give McConnell the right to complain.
Still, even with a filibuster there is a technical chance of getting approved. There is none when the nominee isn't even given a chance to be heard. Only the most dishonest shamelessness can give McConnell the right to complain.
The two US political parties are no better or smarter than the Spy v. Spy comics published by Mad Magazine. The process by which this nation negotiates its social contract is nothing but juvenile lies and frauds.
Congress failed to settle the slavery question and we had our worst war. We seem to be heading there again, even though each state contains both red and blue residents. Red states are determined to have their way, disenfranchising as many of their blue citizens as they can get away with, and their red majorities have little inclination to compromise with their blue minorities. The red majorities are willing to impose at least some of their moral and economic values on all, while the main value the blues try to impose is tolerance. Of course, for some tolerance is immoral, but for a democracy to work and be real, tolerance must trump most other values.
Blue states have so far not followed suit -- yet. California is solid blue because of the popular vote there; if gerrymandering were outlawed the balance of power would not change very much.
Blue states have so far not followed suit -- yet. California is solid blue because of the popular vote there; if gerrymandering were outlawed the balance of power would not change very much.
4
The whole deceitful US system is morass of unequally protective laws and processes.
As factual matter you are incorrect about tolerance. The left's deepest thinkers, Herber Marcuse, Joseph Tussman, check out Rules for Radicals. The left decided long ago that tolerance should not be tolerated. This is an explicit tent of left wing philosophy taught in colleges.
1
With the Trump Administration now furious with the so called "Freedom Caucus", the Democrats now have an opportunity to accept a bi-partisanship feeler extended their way, and the opportunity to drive the "Freedom Caucus" into irrelevance.
Or they can stay angry over the past behavior of Mitch McConnell, and try to get even. Which seems to be a questionable strategy, as they have many Senate seats to defend in 2018 in states that voted Trump.
Seems to me the nation, and the Democratic Party, would be better served by looking to the future, instead of trying to get even for the past. The desire to get revenge is corrosive to the soul.
Or they can stay angry over the past behavior of Mitch McConnell, and try to get even. Which seems to be a questionable strategy, as they have many Senate seats to defend in 2018 in states that voted Trump.
Seems to me the nation, and the Democratic Party, would be better served by looking to the future, instead of trying to get even for the past. The desire to get revenge is corrosive to the soul.
6
Trump simply lumped the "Freedom caucus" with the despised Democrats.
“Elections have consequences,” he told then number two Republican Rep. Eric Cantor. “And at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”
Hmmmm.......who said that......
Hmmmm.......who said that......
11
And good for him! The reprehensible way the GOP treated him for 8 years was disgusting- the GOP deserved that remark and more!
That one's a little too subtle for me… Although almost anything could be.
Please see my dramatic solution for these gas bags of both persuasions: First, you got To lure them outside – I don't know, tell him there's free dinner reservations out there on the table… Or better yet, free vacation packages to exotic places. Can you lasses them up and run a rope round and around till they're real tight together, then you get a Euge fork lift and turn them up on end, like a big wheel of cheese, and then, as the Talking Heads song goes; you take them "down to live by the river, rolling them down, rolling-down". Or some other liberty of paraphrasing the lyrics there.
Please see my dramatic solution for these gas bags of both persuasions: First, you got To lure them outside – I don't know, tell him there's free dinner reservations out there on the table… Or better yet, free vacation packages to exotic places. Can you lasses them up and run a rope round and around till they're real tight together, then you get a Euge fork lift and turn them up on end, like a big wheel of cheese, and then, as the Talking Heads song goes; you take them "down to live by the river, rolling them down, rolling-down". Or some other liberty of paraphrasing the lyrics there.
The bottom line is that republicans won the presidency and enough seats to win this round. People can deny those wins but they cannot change them. All they can do is live in their bubble of denial while the real world moves on without them.
In the real world Gorsuch will be the next member of the SCOTUS. He is exceptionally qualified and will do a fine job. Kudos to Trump for a very good job in one of his earliest selections.
In the real world Gorsuch will be the next member of the SCOTUS. He is exceptionally qualified and will do a fine job. Kudos to Trump for a very good job in one of his earliest selections.
2
The Republicans defied the Constitution, broke their oaths of office and degraded the country and themselves with their refusal to consider Merrick Garland.
They are now supporting a vicious, corrupt ignoramus who lost the popular by over 3 million, who conspired with our national enemies, who has chosen the absolute worst candidates for the judiciary and the Administration, who is trying to impose a radical, destructive agenda that was not and is not supported by the voters of the country and who is entirely illegitimate.
Their behavior since Trump was inaugurated has been despicable, incompetent and inept. They have put forward plans to destroy women's health, to discriminate on the basis of religion, to sell off the national parks, to degrade the environment, to sell our privacy and to make basic health care unaffordable to 24 million of our most vulnerable fellow citizens. They are impeding investigation of the president's treasonous collusion with Russia, they refuse to support demands that he release his tax returns, put his business in a blind trust, cease breaking the laws against nepotism, tell the truth or even just show up for work.
Now they want to ram through a SC justice who supports putting owners' religion over workers' civil rights, who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and who will buttress a reactionary agenda.
No Democrat should vote for this travesty.
They are now supporting a vicious, corrupt ignoramus who lost the popular by over 3 million, who conspired with our national enemies, who has chosen the absolute worst candidates for the judiciary and the Administration, who is trying to impose a radical, destructive agenda that was not and is not supported by the voters of the country and who is entirely illegitimate.
Their behavior since Trump was inaugurated has been despicable, incompetent and inept. They have put forward plans to destroy women's health, to discriminate on the basis of religion, to sell off the national parks, to degrade the environment, to sell our privacy and to make basic health care unaffordable to 24 million of our most vulnerable fellow citizens. They are impeding investigation of the president's treasonous collusion with Russia, they refuse to support demands that he release his tax returns, put his business in a blind trust, cease breaking the laws against nepotism, tell the truth or even just show up for work.
Now they want to ram through a SC justice who supports putting owners' religion over workers' civil rights, who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and who will buttress a reactionary agenda.
No Democrat should vote for this travesty.
42
Well-said! You nailed it.
If that incident was THIS traumatic, then all the other times when Obama, Biden, Schumer, Leahy, Fienstein, Boxer, and others refused to consider Bush 41 or Bush 43 appointees would absolutely give you a stroke.
The Dems even refused to let Bush 43 name Miguel Estrada to an appeals court because it would be a stepping stone to SCOTUS.
Remember - no, you don't - that Dems have been the Senate majority most of the time since WWII.
The people training you to hate Republicans are counting on you remaining completely uneducated about recent American history.
Do you plan to show them that they were correct in that assumption?
The Dems even refused to let Bush 43 name Miguel Estrada to an appeals court because it would be a stepping stone to SCOTUS.
Remember - no, you don't - that Dems have been the Senate majority most of the time since WWII.
The people training you to hate Republicans are counting on you remaining completely uneducated about recent American history.
Do you plan to show them that they were correct in that assumption?
1
Neil Gorsuch or whichever Trump (or Pence) appointee ultimately fills this seat will never be legitimate. Like Barry Bonds, he (or she) will always have an asterisk next to his (or her) votes signifying that there is absolutely no reason that this seat was filled by anyone other than Merrick Garland, and that in stealing this seat the GOP has delegitimized not only the Supreme Court but also our government.
Bush v Gore already shattered the idea that the judiciary is an apolitical body. Putting anyone but Garland in this seat will be a permanent stain on our Constitution and the Great American Experiment.
Bush v Gore already shattered the idea that the judiciary is an apolitical body. Putting anyone but Garland in this seat will be a permanent stain on our Constitution and the Great American Experiment.
22
For 7 years we liberals derided the GOP's "method" of political behavior as the minority party: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.
We need to not imitate what we rightfully decried.
Set aside the fact that in the long term any such obstruction is doomed to fail, and ignore those who say we'll be giving in to Trump, or that Democrats will lose face if they don't stand up and fight.
Even if progressives somehow manage to keep Gorsuch off the Supreme Court, are there any of you who think any alternative nominee will be an more palatable to the left?
We need to be the party that can say yes, rather than the party that lives and dies by a single word: no.
We need to not imitate what we rightfully decried.
Set aside the fact that in the long term any such obstruction is doomed to fail, and ignore those who say we'll be giving in to Trump, or that Democrats will lose face if they don't stand up and fight.
Even if progressives somehow manage to keep Gorsuch off the Supreme Court, are there any of you who think any alternative nominee will be an more palatable to the left?
We need to be the party that can say yes, rather than the party that lives and dies by a single word: no.
7
"Even if progressives somehow manage to keep Gorsuch off the Supreme Court, are there any of you who think any alternative nominee will be an more palatable to the left?"
True. And that is exactly why we ought to settle in to demand a four year long vacancy. Until a new Presidential election.
True. And that is exactly why we ought to settle in to demand a four year long vacancy. Until a new Presidential election.
8
Merrick Garland is the rightful owner of that seat. This is not even up for negotiations. Let them use the 'nuclear option'. I have never been a fan of it . In my opinion, it has been nothing but a tool stifle government by the anti-government forces.
Progressives are for making government work. Besides, with a 35% approval ratings and a fight with his rightwing base, it will not be long before we reclaim the nexus of power. Then we can fix Obamacare once and for all.
Progressives are for making government work. Besides, with a 35% approval ratings and a fight with his rightwing base, it will not be long before we reclaim the nexus of power. Then we can fix Obamacare once and for all.
6
But he's not the "rightful owner" of that seat. His nomination has expired. That is what's not up for negotiation.
You had the congress and the presidency when Obamacare was enacted. Why should it get any better if you have that power again?
Marrick Garland should have received a vote. At which time, he would have been rejected by the majority. The opportunity should have been his, agreed. But he was never going to get the seat anyway.
1
NYT Headline: Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992
"...in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."
Has the NYT conveniently forgotten some of its own roots to mention in this article?
"...in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."
Has the NYT conveniently forgotten some of its own roots to mention in this article?
20
Yes. Hypocrisy has no bounds.
13
Biden’s comment was about a potential nominee much later in the year than the Garland nomination and closer to the election, “once the political season is underway” (Biden’s statement). Biden’s statement was only a suggestion and was not Democratic Party policy.
The Times has deliberately and conveniently failed to mention this in almost all its news coverage and opinion pieces about the confirmation hearings. The Times also fails to mention similar comments made by Chuck Schumer in 2007. And the Times uses the term "unprecedented" to characterize the Republican Senate's failure to give Judge Garland a hearing. A mistake by the Republicans yes, but unprecedented - hardly.
Though this is a journalistic sin of omission rather than commission, it is sufficiently severe to border on "fake news."
Though this is a journalistic sin of omission rather than commission, it is sufficiently severe to border on "fake news."
1
Hope I'm not in over my head here but I've never understood why the Founding Fathers decided to give the president the power to pick the members of the Supreme Court, all by himself. I understand the checks and balances system but politics eventually triumphs over all. I know it's understood we're not to question the Founders' judgment but things are not going to get better. As for a solution, I don't have one, but I do know that the enmity between the parties doesn't bode well for ANY presidential selection.
5
Mark: "the enmity between the parties doesn't bode well for ANY presidential selection".
Extend that a little: the enmity between the parties doesn't bode well for Democracy or the country. We've had 8 years of it and now we are looking for another 4 years. No government. Not good
Extend that a little: the enmity between the parties doesn't bode well for Democracy or the country. We've had 8 years of it and now we are looking for another 4 years. No government. Not good
To our Washington elected officials, all of whom are paid by us:
1) Give Garland the hearing to which he is expressly entitled under the US Constitution.
2) Reject him if you will
3) If so, Then move on to Gorsuch.
End of story.
Do your job.
1) Give Garland the hearing to which he is expressly entitled under the US Constitution.
2) Reject him if you will
3) If so, Then move on to Gorsuch.
End of story.
Do your job.
25
Judge Garland is not "expressly entitled" to any kind of hearing at all regarding his nomination by President Obama to the US Supreme Court. Judge Garland's nomination expired, by operation of law.
1
"Give Garland the hearing to which he is expressly entitled under the US Constitution."
Do tell us which part of the Constitution says a nominee is "expressly entitled" to a hearing. We'll wait. Hint: it's not there.
Do tell us which part of the Constitution says a nominee is "expressly entitled" to a hearing. We'll wait. Hint: it's not there.
1
We shouldn't even be having this argument. This positions should have been filled last year. If Republicans weren't in a hurry back then why should Democrats give into Republicans sudden desire for closure.
17
And we could remember that McConnell said he might hold up the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice for another four to eight years if Hillary was elected. Anyone remember that comment? It's like his comment making Obama a one term president. This man (McConnell) is NOT interested in governing, only asserting his power.
1
The Garland matter seems no more controversial than Bush-Gore. Garland was denied his appointment by overly aggressive Republicans. Gore lost the Presidency by an arbitrary decision of the Supreme Court. When it comes to choosing the greater wrong, I'd say it's a toss up. But after the fact, Democrats seem angrier about Garland than Bush Gore.
If Gore had been elected, it would have changed our history much more than the Garland appointment. So why has the Garland matter generated greater anger? I suspect it is the growing hostility between the two parties. How to explain that? I'd guess it has something to do with the sharp growth in independent voters since 2000.
Independents in 2000 made up 30% of the electorate. It's 43% today. That means that the two parties have been stripped to their ideological core, and so are much more divided on the issues. In my experience, independents are less politically engaged. And so we have an electorate that is part highly polarized and part uncommitted.
The key to cooperation would seem to be to engage those in the middle. The more of them who choose a side, the more moderate the two sides will be. And the more moderate the two sides are, the more likely we are to find points of agreement.
If Gore had been elected, it would have changed our history much more than the Garland appointment. So why has the Garland matter generated greater anger? I suspect it is the growing hostility between the two parties. How to explain that? I'd guess it has something to do with the sharp growth in independent voters since 2000.
Independents in 2000 made up 30% of the electorate. It's 43% today. That means that the two parties have been stripped to their ideological core, and so are much more divided on the issues. In my experience, independents are less politically engaged. And so we have an electorate that is part highly polarized and part uncommitted.
The key to cooperation would seem to be to engage those in the middle. The more of them who choose a side, the more moderate the two sides will be. And the more moderate the two sides are, the more likely we are to find points of agreement.
2
The middle is too apathetic to engage.
1
You ask "So why has the Garland matter generated greater anger?" than Bush/Gore. Gee, it might have something to do with the fact that presidents serve for 4 (or maybe 8) years, and Supreme court justices serve for life. Do you see the difference?
1
Ummm. Gore lost the recount that was stopped. So the SC did not deny him the Presidency - he lost that all by himself.
Hypocrisy?
In C-Span videos still available on the Internet, Joe Biden (1992) and Chuck Schumer (2007) stood up in the Senate chamber and urged their colleagues to do exactly what the Republicans did after Scalia died. (We all may have forgotten this or never knew it, but C-Span never forgets.) And I have zero doubt that the Democrats would have done exactly what Schumer recommended if, say, a liberal Justice had died during Bush's last year and Bush had nominated a conservative replacement.
For better or worse, Supreme Court nominee votes have become political, just like everything else. Senators Schumer and Durbin heaped praise on John Roberts during his confirmation hearing (Durbin even said we should "retire the trophy"), but both of them voted against Roberts. Schumer points out that all Justices now on the Court got 60+ Senate votes (and that Gorsuch, therefore, must be defective if he can't), but Schumer neglects to mention that several sitting Justices got those 60+ votes only because most Senators didn't behave as Schumer had.
In C-Span videos still available on the Internet, Joe Biden (1992) and Chuck Schumer (2007) stood up in the Senate chamber and urged their colleagues to do exactly what the Republicans did after Scalia died. (We all may have forgotten this or never knew it, but C-Span never forgets.) And I have zero doubt that the Democrats would have done exactly what Schumer recommended if, say, a liberal Justice had died during Bush's last year and Bush had nominated a conservative replacement.
For better or worse, Supreme Court nominee votes have become political, just like everything else. Senators Schumer and Durbin heaped praise on John Roberts during his confirmation hearing (Durbin even said we should "retire the trophy"), but both of them voted against Roberts. Schumer points out that all Justices now on the Court got 60+ Senate votes (and that Gorsuch, therefore, must be defective if he can't), but Schumer neglects to mention that several sitting Justices got those 60+ votes only because most Senators didn't behave as Schumer had.
10
Or, maybe Schumer didn't vote for him because he knew he'd have enough votes.
All things are not equal and yesterday isn't today.
All things are not equal and yesterday isn't today.
"... the history books ... will point to Mitch McConnell as the person most responsible for the decline of the U.S. Senate."
Oh come on!
In a quiet moment, when you're sure nobody else is around, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself whether you really believe the Democrats wouldn't have done exactly the same thing (as Joe Biden in 1992 and Chuck Schumer in 2007 urged them to do). Suppose, for example, that Ginsburg had died or retired during the final year of Bush the Younger's term, and Bush had nominated a conservative judge to replace her. If confirmed, that judge would have produced a conservative majority on the Court (along with Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts -- and Kennedy, in many cases). Do you seriously think the Democrats (who controlled the Senate back then) would have held hearings on that nominee?
Oh come on!
In a quiet moment, when you're sure nobody else is around, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself whether you really believe the Democrats wouldn't have done exactly the same thing (as Joe Biden in 1992 and Chuck Schumer in 2007 urged them to do). Suppose, for example, that Ginsburg had died or retired during the final year of Bush the Younger's term, and Bush had nominated a conservative judge to replace her. If confirmed, that judge would have produced a conservative majority on the Court (along with Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts -- and Kennedy, in many cases). Do you seriously think the Democrats (who controlled the Senate back then) would have held hearings on that nominee?
9
Oh please!
"Bork, Thomas and Alito at least got hearings. Mitch left 107 judicial openings ..."
When Bush the Younger was President, Harry Reid refused to hold hearings on numerous judicial appointments. I don't remember whether it was more or less than 107, but the number was quite high. Both parties have done this.
"Bork, Thomas and Alito at least got hearings. Mitch left 107 judicial openings ..."
When Bush the Younger was President, Harry Reid refused to hold hearings on numerous judicial appointments. I don't remember whether it was more or less than 107, but the number was quite high. Both parties have done this.
11
Both parties have not "done this," if "this " is what McConnell actually did. No one has ever denied a Constitutionally required Presidential nomination to the Supreme Court a hearing and a vote. No one. ever. (other than Mitch McConnell and the Republicans). They keep talking about what Biden said, not what he did or didn't do.
I guess I'm part of the problem, aren't I.
I guess I'm part of the problem, aren't I.
1
Would any Democratic President today, even with a Democratic majority US Senate nominate anyone as liberal as Gorsuch is conservative? I think the answer is clearly no.
Similarly, there is simply no way that the GOP will ever let the Democratic party filibuster their SCOTUS nominee, even a hyper-conservative like Gorsuch, qualified though he may be.
No bargain with Trump/McConnnell to preserve the filibuster in exchange for approving Gorsuch would be likely to be honored since the same "nuclear option" can be threatened again. So the Democrats either need to call McConnell's bluff and force the destruction of the filibuster or successfully use it to force a more moderate nominee to the court, although there is no reason that Merrick Garland, who is basically the critically endangered species known as a moderate Republican, needs to be that choice.
The Democrats should force the issue. Either the GOP eliminates the SCOTUS filibuster option, risking that a future Democratic President and US Senate will correct any SCOTUS imbalance by stacking the court or work out a deal with McConnell and Trump, holding the seat empty until a second vacancy opens where conservatives can have Gorsuch and the Democratic Senate can pick a liberal to replace Ginsberg, thus restoring the stolen Obama seat.
Similarly, there is simply no way that the GOP will ever let the Democratic party filibuster their SCOTUS nominee, even a hyper-conservative like Gorsuch, qualified though he may be.
No bargain with Trump/McConnnell to preserve the filibuster in exchange for approving Gorsuch would be likely to be honored since the same "nuclear option" can be threatened again. So the Democrats either need to call McConnell's bluff and force the destruction of the filibuster or successfully use it to force a more moderate nominee to the court, although there is no reason that Merrick Garland, who is basically the critically endangered species known as a moderate Republican, needs to be that choice.
The Democrats should force the issue. Either the GOP eliminates the SCOTUS filibuster option, risking that a future Democratic President and US Senate will correct any SCOTUS imbalance by stacking the court or work out a deal with McConnell and Trump, holding the seat empty until a second vacancy opens where conservatives can have Gorsuch and the Democratic Senate can pick a liberal to replace Ginsberg, thus restoring the stolen Obama seat.
1
Judge Gorsuch seems very intelligent and qualified to sit on the country's highest court. But many years from now when he passes away, the first or second paragraph of his obituary will mention that he sat in the "stolen seat". History will not look kindly on Mitch McConnell and his crony Senator's disgraceful behavior
7
Actually it won't mean a stolen seat as the Republicans controlled the Senate and never would have confirmed him. You are presuming that after a hearing, during a presidential year, he would have won?
6
MM: at least it would have been fair and constitutional. So why didn't the Republicans do it that way?. As you said the Republicans controlled the Senate.
At least if he hadn't won, the Constitution would have been followed, which is what all of our elected officials swore to do.
Gorsuch has no shame whatsoever he knows better than to stand next to members of a fraudulent administration number one and number two he has no businesses trying to take a place that shouldn't be empty had all laws being followed, so having set these two facts in proper place he in no way shape or form has what it takes to defend the constitution of the USA he is not doing it now and therefore never will he is a crook just like this administration.
4
McConnell took an oath and he did not execute his Constitutional duty in the 114th Congress for 293 days. At Day 60 of Gorsuch nomination, I say to Senators Manchin and Heitkamp who just made political calculations that “trumped” their opportunity to oppose the Senate Majority Leader’s dereliction of duty and this Trump nomination abomination: “Shame on you”.
You leave West Virginia and North Dakota Democrats with nothing but a legacy of Trumptastic Fantasy.
You leave West Virginia and North Dakota Democrats with nothing but a legacy of Trumptastic Fantasy.
2
Or, you know, they think he's qualified...
Here is everything you need to know: Susan Collins's quote about worrying about the institution. Name the number of times in the previous eight years she broke with the Republican party in obstructing Barack Obama. You can do it on the fingers of one hand and have some left over. The hypocrisy would be stunning if it weren't a commonplace.
3
Numerous commenters say Trump shouldn't be allowed to nominate Justices (or do much of anything) until the investigation of his alleged conspiracy with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton has ended.
Please! While I'm all in favor of investigating to the investigators' hearts' content, let's keep in mind that those who allege this conspiracy have never even offered a shred of supporting evidence, much less proven that any such conspiracy existed. Trump may have been guilty of not taking this seriously, but let's not forget that it's now been five months since Election Day and no evidence whatsoever has come out to support this "conspiracy." It's understandable, frankly, if Trump and others sometimes fail to exhibit the respect for these conspiracy allegations that the allegation-tosser-outers demand they be shown.
At some point, those who allege that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election from Clinton have to come up with some actual evidence, not just shoot-from-the-hip allegations. In the meantime, Trump has every right to do the job he was elected to do, just as Clinton would have had that right if she'd won. Even if these "conspiracy" allegations had merit, Trump would be innocent until proven guilty. A President isn't prohibited from doing his job just because his opponents sling mud at him.
Please! While I'm all in favor of investigating to the investigators' hearts' content, let's keep in mind that those who allege this conspiracy have never even offered a shred of supporting evidence, much less proven that any such conspiracy existed. Trump may have been guilty of not taking this seriously, but let's not forget that it's now been five months since Election Day and no evidence whatsoever has come out to support this "conspiracy." It's understandable, frankly, if Trump and others sometimes fail to exhibit the respect for these conspiracy allegations that the allegation-tosser-outers demand they be shown.
At some point, those who allege that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election from Clinton have to come up with some actual evidence, not just shoot-from-the-hip allegations. In the meantime, Trump has every right to do the job he was elected to do, just as Clinton would have had that right if she'd won. Even if these "conspiracy" allegations had merit, Trump would be innocent until proven guilty. A President isn't prohibited from doing his job just because his opponents sling mud at him.
9
"Trump has every right to do the job he was elected to do" - so why the bleep doesn't he do his job?
Odd that you write this a day after Flynn asks for immunity. The trickle of Trump/Russia collaboration info is about to become a flood with major consequences.
Not a shred of evidence of collusion? To begin with, Trump openly and publically called upon the Russians to steal and release Clinton's computer files during the campaign. On top of this, there's a boatload of circumstantial evidence and reasonable suspicion: Trump's odd behavior toward Russia and Putin, the overwhelming opinions of intelligence agencies that Russia actively worked to sway the election, Flynn's firing and request for immunity, the on-going criminal investigation and the ever-growing list of campaign or administration figures with dubious Russian contacts or outright payoffs.
Must we wait for final convictions, which Republicans could stall for years, before we hit the pause button?
Must we wait for final convictions, which Republicans could stall for years, before we hit the pause button?
We Dems are sick and tired of trying to work with Republicans in any shape, manner or form. If Trump, Ryan, McConnell are for it, we're agin' it. Simply as that. And that is the way it's going to be until Trump/Pence are removed from office, Ryan is no longer Speaker and Mitch is in the minority. No more Mister Nice Dems.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
6
Good luck with that since the Democrats have become a majority big city, coastal party. By the way, losing over 1,000 seats nationally since 2008 makes your party toothless.
Thank goodness our memories tend to weed out unpleasantness:
"The Court used to duck controversial matters ... But today it is more willing to join the fray. ... The Court has become a bigger political player."
Many conservatives complained that the Warren Court did anything but "duck controversial matters." Then came the liberals' turn. They complained about the Rehnquist Court (and, to a lesser extent, the Roberts Court). In both situations, those who disagreed with the Court's decisions complained that judges were improperly "making" law. Those who agreed with the Court's decisions, by contrast, insisted that the judges were simply "applying" the laws that had been duly adopted by elected legislators.
"The Court used to duck controversial matters ... But today it is more willing to join the fray. ... The Court has become a bigger political player."
Many conservatives complained that the Warren Court did anything but "duck controversial matters." Then came the liberals' turn. They complained about the Rehnquist Court (and, to a lesser extent, the Roberts Court). In both situations, those who disagreed with the Court's decisions complained that judges were improperly "making" law. Those who agreed with the Court's decisions, by contrast, insisted that the judges were simply "applying" the laws that had been duly adopted by elected legislators.
2
We haven't ever seen a crass, political filibuster against a nominee to join the Supreme Court as a Justice. Of course the party that creates the current scene of fire bombings, riots, and assaults of people minding their own business wearing the wrong cap is now creating this situation.
The apparent panic in the Times may be because the paper knows that Sen. Schumer has made a serious mistake so early in his time as Minority Leader. (as if that awful, hectoring voice wasn't bad enough!)
The apparent panic in the Times may be because the paper knows that Sen. Schumer has made a serious mistake so early in his time as Minority Leader. (as if that awful, hectoring voice wasn't bad enough!)
At his hearing, it became abundantly apparent that Gorsuch's much-vaunted intellect and qualifications are selectively applied. When pressed on Citizens United by Rhode Island Senator Whitehouse, Gorsuch appealed to the privacy rights of dark money donors. When pressed on several of his past rulings, time and again Gorsuch appealed to the importance of judicial precedent. And yet when pressed by California Senator Feinstein on the standing of Roe v Wade, Gorsuch refused to recognize it as what Feinstein called a "super precedent." What this means, among other things, is that Gorsuch worries about precedent only for causes that he supports -- i.e. in a totally biased and partisan fashion. It also means that he believes in privacy rights for dark money donors like the Koch brothers, but curiously enough, not for ordinary women with respect to their own bodies and reproductive rights. The nuclear option may be bad, but so is the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. I personally have no interest in spending the rest of my life held hostage to decisions rendered by an obviously biased individual who managed to contradict himself in his own confirmation hearing. So much for legal logic and objectivity.
6
Amen .As i said above , he has ruled in favor of corporate to many times.
The frozen truck driver and the disabled child were disgusting to me.
The frozen truck driver and the disabled child were disgusting to me.
Reality check.
Gorsuch is more than qualified and he will be the next Supreme Court justice.
Like it or not, Garland is yesterday's news and nothing will change that. He is no longer a factor.
Trump is likely to nominate one more justice and that person will be confirmed.
If the Democrats would start winning more elections they would not be in this position.
As things stand now the Gorsuch nomination is fait accompli and no longer a news story. Time to move on.
Gorsuch is more than qualified and he will be the next Supreme Court justice.
Like it or not, Garland is yesterday's news and nothing will change that. He is no longer a factor.
Trump is likely to nominate one more justice and that person will be confirmed.
If the Democrats would start winning more elections they would not be in this position.
As things stand now the Gorsuch nomination is fait accompli and no longer a news story. Time to move on.
6
A made up rule counts for nothing. The seat was President Obama's to fill and that was not forgotten.
3
Tell that to George Bush and Miguel Estrada, Cheryl.
1
Sure, Cheryl, and Hillary won the popular vote. Never forgetting that will get you real far.
1
As Justice Ginsburg established in her Senate hearings for the Supreme Court in 1993, no nominee should answer pointed questions designed to discover how that nominee would vote on a case before the Supreme Court sometime in the future. Seemingly, some inquisitors are simply too lazy to do the work required, reading the record of every case the candidate judge before them decided one way or the other over the course of their legal career and adjudication.
Though I didn't follow all of the hearings concerning Judge Gorsuck, the current Supreme Court nominee by Trump, during the confirmation process I did catch snippets such as Ted Cruz's seemingly snide, loaded question as to whether Judge Gorsuch followed Justice Ginsburg's theory the Constitution is a "living document". If I recall correctly, Gorsuch deftly evaded the question but I didn't get all of his response since I had another obligation. What was Cruz hoping for with the question, to entrap Gorsuch that the Constitution is inalterable and dead, like Cruz, and the founding fathers and authors had not incorporated in its very wording the very living of human nature and progress. Besides, if it had not been written thus, Ted Cruz would not be sitting in the Senate or have the right to vote since at the time of its writing only property owners could vote and it didn't mean McMansions.
Democrats have a choice to rise above republican peevishness and entrapment.
Though I didn't follow all of the hearings concerning Judge Gorsuck, the current Supreme Court nominee by Trump, during the confirmation process I did catch snippets such as Ted Cruz's seemingly snide, loaded question as to whether Judge Gorsuch followed Justice Ginsburg's theory the Constitution is a "living document". If I recall correctly, Gorsuch deftly evaded the question but I didn't get all of his response since I had another obligation. What was Cruz hoping for with the question, to entrap Gorsuch that the Constitution is inalterable and dead, like Cruz, and the founding fathers and authors had not incorporated in its very wording the very living of human nature and progress. Besides, if it had not been written thus, Ted Cruz would not be sitting in the Senate or have the right to vote since at the time of its writing only property owners could vote and it didn't mean McMansions.
Democrats have a choice to rise above republican peevishness and entrapment.
The contitution is a living document. If you want to change what it says, there is a process to do that. It is called AMENDMENTS!
Whenever one says that Gorsuch accepting a nomination for an illegitimate seat on the Court is an indication of his low character and desire for the spotlight, the reply is:
"there has never been a nomination to the Court in an election year."
As if that settles the argument and justifies McConnell blocking a hearing for Garland.
But it would be a lie to claim there has never been a nomination during an election year. In fact, there have been nominations AND CONFIRMATIONS during an election year:
Frank Murphy: CONFIRMED January 1940, an election year.
Benjamin Cardozo: CONFIRMED February, 1932, an election year.
Louis Brandeis: CONFIRMED January, 1916, an election year.
John Clark: CONFIRMED July, 1916, an election year.
Malon Pitney: CONFIRMED February, 1912, an election year.
Eisenhower DIRECTLY placed William Brennan on the high court a month before election day, 1956, as a recess appointment and that judge was confirmed the next year.
Reagan nominated Kennedy in November, 1987 and he was confirmed in 1988, an election year.
So, please folks, stop lying and accept that Gorsch is not a reputable person for accepting an illegitimate nomination to the SCOTUS.
"there has never been a nomination to the Court in an election year."
As if that settles the argument and justifies McConnell blocking a hearing for Garland.
But it would be a lie to claim there has never been a nomination during an election year. In fact, there have been nominations AND CONFIRMATIONS during an election year:
Frank Murphy: CONFIRMED January 1940, an election year.
Benjamin Cardozo: CONFIRMED February, 1932, an election year.
Louis Brandeis: CONFIRMED January, 1916, an election year.
John Clark: CONFIRMED July, 1916, an election year.
Malon Pitney: CONFIRMED February, 1912, an election year.
Eisenhower DIRECTLY placed William Brennan on the high court a month before election day, 1956, as a recess appointment and that judge was confirmed the next year.
Reagan nominated Kennedy in November, 1987 and he was confirmed in 1988, an election year.
So, please folks, stop lying and accept that Gorsch is not a reputable person for accepting an illegitimate nomination to the SCOTUS.
7
This is an asymetrical situation. The Republicans gamed the system when they refused a hearing on Merrick Garland. Now they want to game it again by changing the filibuster rule. Yes, the Democrats did it during the last administration, but only after continued obstruction from the Republicans. As long as we have one party who wants control of the 3 branches of government, shirks its duty as a check and balance, and refuses to compromise, there is no reason for the Democrats not to filibuster; they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. A filibuster shows they are taking a stand, and the Republicans are taking a chance if they lose the Congress the filibuster be used against them.
Kudos to Senator Collins who put country before party. We need more like her to once again come to compromise in government.
Kudos to Senator Collins who put country before party. We need more like her to once again come to compromise in government.
Sometimes the Supreme Court has to get well out in front of public opinion to advance the cause of social justice. "Brown versus Board of Education" was such a necessary verdict. Forbidding the death penalty because of its inherent racism and class discrimination may be another example.
"Roe versus Wade" however has embittered national politics for over forty years. This anger and bitterness unfortunately shows no signs of abating. Decisions regarding abortion and gay marriage should have been left at the state level.
We need a Constitutional Amendment which would have the following provisions: (1) A single fifteen year term limit for justices, (2) a retirement age of 75, and (3) a requirement for a super-majority of six justices to overturn laws and regulations.
Hopefully these changes would make Supreme Court nominations less of a winner-take-all political exercise.
"Roe versus Wade" however has embittered national politics for over forty years. This anger and bitterness unfortunately shows no signs of abating. Decisions regarding abortion and gay marriage should have been left at the state level.
We need a Constitutional Amendment which would have the following provisions: (1) A single fifteen year term limit for justices, (2) a retirement age of 75, and (3) a requirement for a super-majority of six justices to overturn laws and regulations.
Hopefully these changes would make Supreme Court nominations less of a winner-take-all political exercise.
5
Anyone else think it's irresponsible for the headline to contain quotations marks when what's between them isn't an actual quotation?
6
Republicans when they controlled the Senate, have never rejected or filibustered a nominee appointed by a Democrat president in the post-war years. By my count, Democrats defeated two of Nixon's nominees and one of Reagan's. They attempted to turn the Clarence Thomas hearings into a high tech lynching and tried unsuccessfully to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito, with the support of then Senator Obama. Senators Biden and Schumer both stated at different times that a Republican president should not send up a nomination for the Supreme Court in an election year. The refusal to hold hearings for Garland saved the country from being diverted from crucial election issues and distracted by yet another meaningless media circus in which there was no chance the nominee would be approved.
While Republicans have not been pure in this regard, the party with the most blood on its hands is the Democrat Party when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. I expect Gorsuch will be approved without a filibuster, but if Democrats want to destroy the filibuster forever, using it against Gorsuch is the best possible way. If not, they will be able to keep their powder dry for the next nominee to the Supreme Court from Trump, which will probably be to replace a more liberal judge given that Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer are the oldest members. Leahy has said he will not support a filibuster over Gorsuch, which suggests their won't be one, at least not a successful one.
While Republicans have not been pure in this regard, the party with the most blood on its hands is the Democrat Party when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. I expect Gorsuch will be approved without a filibuster, but if Democrats want to destroy the filibuster forever, using it against Gorsuch is the best possible way. If not, they will be able to keep their powder dry for the next nominee to the Supreme Court from Trump, which will probably be to replace a more liberal judge given that Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer are the oldest members. Leahy has said he will not support a filibuster over Gorsuch, which suggests their won't be one, at least not a successful one.
2
I am seventy years and I have never seen a stolen seat ! Is the the norm now?
1
Let them trigger the nuclear option. If Democrats bend over for Mitch McConnell this time he will threaten the nuclear option for the next nominee. Are you so certain that Democrats will never regain power? Even slavery had to end. Payback will be fun next time republicans are out of power.
2
Neil Gorsuch would not be a nominee for the Supreme Court if the Republican Senate majority had fulfilled their constitutional duty more than a year ago. Merrick Garland was an eminently qualified nominee. To deny him a hearing and vote (actions mind you that have never been done in over 200 years) and now complain about not getting more than 60 votes for "their" nominee is bald hypocrisy.
The Democrats out of exasperation in 2013 ended the filibuster for other judicial appointees because the Republican minority was not allowing ANY federal judges to be confirmed. Always saying "no" is not the governance strategy of a healthy political party. They may win in the short term but do great damage to themselves and the country.
I don't know what the best Democratic response is for Gorsuch. I do know I am tired of Democrats frequently having to be the only adults in a room with a bunch of spoiled, conniving, narcissists - then acting in good faith and getting stabbed in the back.
The Democrats out of exasperation in 2013 ended the filibuster for other judicial appointees because the Republican minority was not allowing ANY federal judges to be confirmed. Always saying "no" is not the governance strategy of a healthy political party. They may win in the short term but do great damage to themselves and the country.
I don't know what the best Democratic response is for Gorsuch. I do know I am tired of Democrats frequently having to be the only adults in a room with a bunch of spoiled, conniving, narcissists - then acting in good faith and getting stabbed in the back.
5
You can call it a "schoolyard taunt," but the Senate refusing to even consider the nomination of Judge Garland was no minor thing. That was an unconstitutional act, and the reason given for it had nothing to do with the law; it was pure obstructionist politics. That *was* the twice-nominated Democratic President's seat to appoint, and the Republicans abdicated their responsibility to advise and consent. To now give the current President that seat -- a pill made even harder to swallow knowing that he lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in history, in an election that we now know may have been tainted by Russian interference -- is to normalize the GOP's radical move. They made their bed. Now they must either lie in it, or perform the further radical move of nuking the filibuster. Either way, it's on their hands. If maintaining the gentility of the Senate is truly on their minds, they could start by appointing Judge Garland instead of Gorsuch. That would mend the rift they created.
4
Yes, it was an obstructionist political act; but no, it was not unconstitutional.
1
That's your interpretation. But the Constitution says the President gets to nominate judges and have them appointed with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. I'd like to know how refusing to give a candidate a hearing is either "advice" or "consent." Note also that no one is saying they couldn't have voted Garland down, forcing the President to choose another candidate. But by their actions they made it actually impossible for the President to have *any* judge considered, in the process keeping the Court below the constitutionally called-for nine judges. Their justification for all this, by the way, is that no justice should be confirmed in an election year. There's no such rule anywhere. There's no angle on this where the GOP isn't violating the obvious spirit and intent of our laws.
Right or wrong I hope the Democrats filibuster the Gorsuch nomination. The greater wrong was done my McConnell's refusal to consider Obama's nominee. McConnell blew up the Senate. A filibuster of Gorsuch is justified solely based on the behavior of the Republicans during the last ten months of Obama's term. If McConnell goes nuclear, he will own the damage done to the Senate. Some day there will be better Republicans to take his place.
4
"They started it" is not a valid excuse for any adult, it's a distraction.
The ultimate issue is the breakdown of civic values in this country. The Constitution never explicitly mandated that every nominee gets a vote, yet what the Republicans did was unprecedented. I would not call it "stealing" a seat as it was entirely legal, but the law cannot function with a commitment to upholding social norms. We have now proven that all norms are out the window and every single political match will be a bare knuckle brawl.
Regardless of who wins this round or the next, we're all losers when this country chooses to willingly let go of the political culture that led it to become the world's sole superpower. My only view of Democrats and Republicans is "a pox on both their houses", and frankly "but he started it" is something every well raised high schooler knows won't fly. Our government officials should as well.
The ultimate issue is the breakdown of civic values in this country. The Constitution never explicitly mandated that every nominee gets a vote, yet what the Republicans did was unprecedented. I would not call it "stealing" a seat as it was entirely legal, but the law cannot function with a commitment to upholding social norms. We have now proven that all norms are out the window and every single political match will be a bare knuckle brawl.
Regardless of who wins this round or the next, we're all losers when this country chooses to willingly let go of the political culture that led it to become the world's sole superpower. My only view of Democrats and Republicans is "a pox on both their houses", and frankly "but he started it" is something every well raised high schooler knows won't fly. Our government officials should as well.
Democrats can always count on Heidi Heitkamp ( D-N.D). and Joe Manchin III (D-W.VA) to Pledge their Allegiance exclusively to the GOP. Honestly, I cannot fathom why no other Democrats in their respective states have run against them.
They are both a disgrace to their Party and the people they are supposed to serve.
They are both a disgrace to their Party and the people they are supposed to serve.
2
Reelection and major donor cash .Why would you presume otherwise ?
Democrats in North Dakota and West Virginia might have different priorities and interests than Democrats in California.
I hope they go the Nuclear Option in the senate, but I mean the literal one.
The choice by the American People of a Liar & a Cheat as their President has opened the path for POTUS to disintegrate the Time-tested Institutions of Congress into Moral Morass. This is another grim warning to the Democracies of the world.
The Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland was an outrage and a deliberate slap in the face of the president. The open seat on the Supreme Court should have gone to Judge Garland. However, this is a new world. Donald Trump was certainly not going to re-nominate Merrick Garland, clearly the most gracious and just thing to do. He's nominated Neil Gorsuch. I was amazed it wasn't someone even further to the right. If Gorsuch is voted down, no doubt Trump (and the Heritage Foundation) have more far-right candidates in the wings. We are not going to get a liberal justice or even a moderate one from this President and the Republican Congress. Fighting the Garland nomination is a waste of time and energy that the Democrats should be concentrating elsewhere.
3
Yes, the GOP started the stalemate with Garland, but it was the Bernie-or-Busters trashing their votes to spark a "revolution" who hand-delivered the Supreme Court to the GOP.
We all learned in middle school social studies that our ability to vote is the absolutely essential tool in a democracy. To those who gave their votes away by staying home or voting Green: please don't bother getting horrified when Gorsuch isn't anywhere near the worst of the terrible things that will happen under this President.
We all learned in middle school social studies that our ability to vote is the absolutely essential tool in a democracy. To those who gave their votes away by staying home or voting Green: please don't bother getting horrified when Gorsuch isn't anywhere near the worst of the terrible things that will happen under this President.
3
The Green vote is NOT why Trump won. Perhaps if the Democrats didn't run a dead dog of a candidate or refuse to engage voters in the Midwest then Trump would not be President.
But no it was Clinton's turn and she completed the process of marching the Democratic party off the cliff. Congrats!!!
But no it was Clinton's turn and she completed the process of marching the Democratic party off the cliff. Congrats!!!
I have instructed both my senators to filibuster Gorsuch and it has nothing to do with Garland.
Gorsuch refused to answer my number 1 question as to whether he thinks Trump is violation of the Emoluments Clause.
Gorsuch's refusal to even partially answer the most important legal question of our tconstitution s is grounds not to nominate for me.
Gorsuch refused to answer my number 1 question as to whether he thinks Trump is violation of the Emoluments Clause.
Gorsuch's refusal to even partially answer the most important legal question of our tconstitution s is grounds not to nominate for me.
2
Force them to withdraw and nominate a moderate. if both sides agree to do this we can have a functioning democracy instead of ideological fruit loops in one branch or another.
2
Conflict over judge confirmation has much to do with the Court itself. The number of politically charged decisions has grown exponentially over the years. Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, and the 2nd Amendment and gay marriage decisions are just a few examples.. Notwithstanding Brown v. Board and Dred Scott, the political caseload has substantially increased.
Countless recent cases are generated by, or joined as amicus by prominent interest groups. The ACLU, the NRA, and Planned Parenthood all have large legal staffs. And the largest of all may belong to the Chamber of Commerce, which politicizes many economic cases.
In the early years of the Court, it mostly settled non-political disputes. Later,, criminal cases became prominent because of the numerous criminal appeals heard by the Court. Today's Court hears a large number of Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment cases which have unique applicability to controversial state's rights disputes.
The Court used to duck controversial matters, as it recently did with transgender rights. But today it is more willing to join the fray. There is little doubt that the changes in the Court's docket have affected the confirmation process. The Court has become a bigger political player. It is front and center on abortion, gun rights, voting rights, climate change, and immigration. Whatever you may think about the increasing role of the Court in politics, it clearly goes hand in hand with appointment controversy.
Countless recent cases are generated by, or joined as amicus by prominent interest groups. The ACLU, the NRA, and Planned Parenthood all have large legal staffs. And the largest of all may belong to the Chamber of Commerce, which politicizes many economic cases.
In the early years of the Court, it mostly settled non-political disputes. Later,, criminal cases became prominent because of the numerous criminal appeals heard by the Court. Today's Court hears a large number of Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment cases which have unique applicability to controversial state's rights disputes.
The Court used to duck controversial matters, as it recently did with transgender rights. But today it is more willing to join the fray. There is little doubt that the changes in the Court's docket have affected the confirmation process. The Court has become a bigger political player. It is front and center on abortion, gun rights, voting rights, climate change, and immigration. Whatever you may think about the increasing role of the Court in politics, it clearly goes hand in hand with appointment controversy.
5
I saw much of the Gorsuch hearings and found his answers to waver between patronizing and grinning snarkiness. Even his attempts at any humorous colloquialness seem to have come from a dark place.
In all cases, he gave lenthy elaborate responses, but only, as to why he couldn't answer the question at hand.
Someone so infused with parse restraint, can only be assumed will rely strictly on precedent going forward, rather than on any interpretation which includes existing or hopeful societal progress.
He's not mainstream and not qualified (for the Supreme Court).
In all cases, he gave lenthy elaborate responses, but only, as to why he couldn't answer the question at hand.
Someone so infused with parse restraint, can only be assumed will rely strictly on precedent going forward, rather than on any interpretation which includes existing or hopeful societal progress.
He's not mainstream and not qualified (for the Supreme Court).
21
Gorsuch is an elitist who have no regards for everyday Americans. With his nomination a majority conservative justices will give Corporate billionaires cart-blanch privileges to abuse their powers. Environmental polluters and labor laws violators such as the Trump's will continue their abuse unchecked.
8
I'm a liberal, but c'mon, Gorsuch is clearly qualified. Yeah Garland got the shaft last year, but it's old news now. The business of Americans is too important for this partisan, childish behavior. The SCOTUS needs 9 jurists.
Take a vote and seat the judge. That's the way things work. For nut cases like Fortas and Bork, the system still works - although Thomas is only qualified to judge a beauty contest, he slipped through. The system works. Move on Senators.
Take a vote and seat the judge. That's the way things work. For nut cases like Fortas and Bork, the system still works - although Thomas is only qualified to judge a beauty contest, he slipped through. The system works. Move on Senators.
5
I would have agreed but Gorsuch's refusal to even opine on why the Founding Fathers created the Emoluments Clause nullifies Gorsuch.
1
That's a good point Jordan, especially for a self-proclaimed "originalist."
In fact, I think asking nominees about past cases are questions deserving answers. And the one you point out was one of several where he demurred. It's fair to ask how an originalist would have decided or at least assessed a settled case. There was too much evasion by Judge Gorsuch.
In fact, I think asking nominees about past cases are questions deserving answers. And the one you point out was one of several where he demurred. It's fair to ask how an originalist would have decided or at least assessed a settled case. There was too much evasion by Judge Gorsuch.
1
"Gorsuch has to be stopped."
I'm surprised that so many commenters seem to believe a filibuster might actually prevent Gorsuch from being approved. That's not going to happen. A filibuster might well be a good idea for the Democrats, but any benefit would be longer term and purely political -- it wouldn't affect Gorsuch's chances.
And, frankly, even if Gorsuch's nomination were disapproved, or he's hit by a truck tomorrow, or after being seated on the Court, Trump would just nominate someone else like him. It's not as if Trump is going to pick Merrick Garland, after all, much less a nominee he perceives as liberal. It's either Gorsuch or a Grouch-equivalent (or worse).
I'm surprised that so many commenters seem to believe a filibuster might actually prevent Gorsuch from being approved. That's not going to happen. A filibuster might well be a good idea for the Democrats, but any benefit would be longer term and purely political -- it wouldn't affect Gorsuch's chances.
And, frankly, even if Gorsuch's nomination were disapproved, or he's hit by a truck tomorrow, or after being seated on the Court, Trump would just nominate someone else like him. It's not as if Trump is going to pick Merrick Garland, after all, much less a nominee he perceives as liberal. It's either Gorsuch or a Grouch-equivalent (or worse).
North Dakota's Sen. Heidi was no surprise. Her full out swoon over Tillerson marked her as susceptible to the Alpha Male in a suit. Gorsuch, with his gollies, gosh and goodness was just the ticket. She'll ignore his appalling remarks on persons with ovaries being untrustworthy and mendacious. Her ND female voters will have to accept a SCOTUS who believes corporations are people entitled to full constitutional rights, and women aren't. WVA JM is the Last Dixiecrat Standing. Gimme summa those Pharma dollars, a degree for my daughter, and I don't give a darn about your daughter.
7
No the roots are a disrespect for the constitution and arrogant abusing people on the committee. When you ask a type of question, get the same answer you don't like and continue to ask you are disrespectful. Now vote against the person if you believe that is appropriate but don't act like a jerk.
How about an old fashioned Compromise.
Let one of the Liberal Judges step down.
Trump agrees to nominate Judge Garland.
Hearings are held.
He and Gorsuch are both voted onto the Court.
Life goes on.
Or as has been noted, stop making Federal Judgeships Life-Time appointments.
Meanwhile I offer my own services.
Spent one day at Boalt Hall Law School and said to myself:
"These would be lawyers don't care a whit for justice they just want money !"
Fled back to Moses Hall and the pursuit of truth, justice and the American Way
and the further study of Philosophy.
I am eminently qualified as I am quite capable of sticking pins in
the "blow-hard balloons" of the Left and Right and I promise
to answer every question the Senators put to me with how I fully intend
to vote or would have voted had I been on the Court.
Most of all I know what most Americans go through and so I will be on
their side, not that of the Corporations, Banks, Hospitals, Bill Collectors,
Prosecutors who are willing to knowingly convict the wrong person.
I am willing, ready and able to serve my country and my fellow Americans.
Let one of the Liberal Judges step down.
Trump agrees to nominate Judge Garland.
Hearings are held.
He and Gorsuch are both voted onto the Court.
Life goes on.
Or as has been noted, stop making Federal Judgeships Life-Time appointments.
Meanwhile I offer my own services.
Spent one day at Boalt Hall Law School and said to myself:
"These would be lawyers don't care a whit for justice they just want money !"
Fled back to Moses Hall and the pursuit of truth, justice and the American Way
and the further study of Philosophy.
I am eminently qualified as I am quite capable of sticking pins in
the "blow-hard balloons" of the Left and Right and I promise
to answer every question the Senators put to me with how I fully intend
to vote or would have voted had I been on the Court.
Most of all I know what most Americans go through and so I will be on
their side, not that of the Corporations, Banks, Hospitals, Bill Collectors,
Prosecutors who are willing to knowingly convict the wrong person.
I am willing, ready and able to serve my country and my fellow Americans.
3
Conservatives claim that it all started with Bork. Bork, however, was honored with hearings and a vote. He was rejected by a bipartisan majority, for six Republicans voted with the Democrats to reject him because of his role in the Watergate scandal and his sorry history on civil rights. He certainly was not the first justice to be rejected by the Senate. Nominees on both sides also have been subjected to tough questioning and negative votes. What is different now is the treatment merited to Merrick Garland and the unconstitutional claim by the Republicans that a president [of the opposing party] is only entitled to a 3-year term. When the history books are written, they will point to Mitch McConnell as the person most responsible for the decline of the U.S. Senate.
5
No where in this article is there mention of the on going investigations into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia. This alone should be reason to pause the Gorsuch confirmation proceedings.
16
Washington, D.C.'s strongest Russian connections are all shared by Democrats, from the Clintons to John Podesta to dozens of Senators who talk with the Russian Ambassador regularly.
2
And who have partaken in so much money laundering .Enough to
make one's head spin .Someday those sealed files will perhaps be open to the public .Until then hold on to your seats .
make one's head spin .Someday those sealed files will perhaps be open to the public .Until then hold on to your seats .
I hope the Democrats think about the mantra, "when they go low, we go high." Yes, the Republicans would not consider Judge Garland, but do we want to go down to that level or keep the founding father's principles as our guide?
3
Charitable Caryn forgets a lot of Senate history. Many GOP nominees for the top federal courts have been refused consideration by Dems - more than the other way around.
Buy the Founding Fathers' principles are indeed in trouble. What Schumer proposes has never happened before. This is far away from the Abe Fortas situation.
Buy the Founding Fathers' principles are indeed in trouble. What Schumer proposes has never happened before. This is far away from the Abe Fortas situation.
I'm in agreement with Senator McConnell that we should wait to fill this open seat until the people have definitively spoken in a free and fair election.
14
The people have spoken. Trump was elected President, according to our laws.
1
"Gorusch argues that in interpreting a statute, the court may ignore ... the agency’s interpretation of that statute even when Congress has expressly delegated to that agency the power to interpret the statute."
It's a little more complicated than this suggests.
Gorsuch (and many other judges and legal scholars) point out that, in many cases, a federal agency is enforcing a rule that the agency itself has written -- and then (as if that's not enough of a conflict already) insists that the court adopt the agency's interpretation of that rule since, after all, the agency wrote the rule and, therefore, must know better than anyone else how the rule should be interpreted.
The equivalent in private litigation? Suppose the plaintiff wrote a law, sued the defendant to enforce that law, and then insisted that the court honor the plaintiff's interpretation of that law. The defendant's odds wouldn't be too good, would they? But that's exactly what happens when an agency sues to enforce a rule that it has written itself and then insists that the court must adopt the agency's interpretation of its rule.
We can't have Congress making all of the rules necessary to implement every complicated statute it adopts. That's what agencies are supposed to do, and do do. Nor would it often be practical to have one agency write rules and a different agency enforce them. But all of those (and other) impracticalities don't make it any less fair.
It's a little more complicated than this suggests.
Gorsuch (and many other judges and legal scholars) point out that, in many cases, a federal agency is enforcing a rule that the agency itself has written -- and then (as if that's not enough of a conflict already) insists that the court adopt the agency's interpretation of that rule since, after all, the agency wrote the rule and, therefore, must know better than anyone else how the rule should be interpreted.
The equivalent in private litigation? Suppose the plaintiff wrote a law, sued the defendant to enforce that law, and then insisted that the court honor the plaintiff's interpretation of that law. The defendant's odds wouldn't be too good, would they? But that's exactly what happens when an agency sues to enforce a rule that it has written itself and then insists that the court must adopt the agency's interpretation of its rule.
We can't have Congress making all of the rules necessary to implement every complicated statute it adopts. That's what agencies are supposed to do, and do do. Nor would it often be practical to have one agency write rules and a different agency enforce them. But all of those (and other) impracticalities don't make it any less fair.
3
Or, the courts can decide if the rule and the enforcement are in line with what the legislative branch intended or allows.
The US system of selecting and approving Supreme Court Justices is totally broken. In a properly functioning system the ruling party nominates a totally competent and experienced individual whose general views are similar to there's, not grossly partisan extremists, such as Anhony Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Of course Judge Gorsuch is a reasonable choice, but the Republican leaders' outrageous refusal to even meet with Judge Garland last year has further damaged an already severely damaged instiution still tarnished by the appalling spectacle of Bush vs Gore. I have no idea how you get from the current situation to a sane one, like every other comparable country is in. The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world but its most important institutions are falling apart at the seams thanks to gross partisanship and the corruptive effect of big money. As a result it is now feared by all, but increasingly admired by few.
4
Former Sen. Harry Reid, who guided the nominations of radicals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor through the Senate confirmation process has already suggested that the filibuster has to be done away with.
These two nominees did indeed receive Republican votes to join the Court, but the Times will refuse to remind you of that fact.
Many say that we erred when we softened the filibuster by no longer a Senator actually continue speaking on the floor in many cases. Ted Cruz's epic delivery in 2013 was an exception.
The reasoning behind the Court finally giving up on wizards finding a way to award Al Gore the Florida electors was the solid thinking of a clear majority.
Besides, Al Gore has already banked his billion.
George Bush won EVERY recount of the Florida votes. Perhaps you should read more?
These two nominees did indeed receive Republican votes to join the Court, but the Times will refuse to remind you of that fact.
Many say that we erred when we softened the filibuster by no longer a Senator actually continue speaking on the floor in many cases. Ted Cruz's epic delivery in 2013 was an exception.
The reasoning behind the Court finally giving up on wizards finding a way to award Al Gore the Florida electors was the solid thinking of a clear majority.
Besides, Al Gore has already banked his billion.
George Bush won EVERY recount of the Florida votes. Perhaps you should read more?
2
It may be, although it is far from clear, that Bush actiually won, but it is the Republican justices, always total supporters of states' rights, who used their majority to prevent a proper recount in Florida for purely partisan reasons.
Kathrine Harris .I remember .
I think they should agree to accept Gorsuch after a vote for Garland is allowed.
4
Why didn't Mr. Obama nominate Garland when we weren't directly ahead of an election? Even Sens. Obama and Biden supported not allowing a vote on SCOTUS nominees that close to and election.
But does history from a decade ago matter to you?
But does history from a decade ago matter to you?
1
Bork, Thomas and Alito at least got hearings. Mitch left 107 judicial openings because he feels only conservatives should pick judges, so let him go nuclear and then the next democratic president will be able to pick judges as long as his party controls the senate. That's how Mitch wants to get down, so let's do it.
7
If the Republican senate goes for the nuclear option, they will without doubt live to regret doing so in the future.
7
What other choice do they have?
I disagree with the author's premise. The problem with Gorsuch ,as spelled out by the Democratic senators today,is that he refused to give any answers to direct questions about his opinions on previous cases. There is no hint of compromise in this man.
He has long record of siding with large corporations and against "small" people
He should not be seated. The Supreme Court is not a political contest. Garland was a middle of the road justice and was summarily dismissed without even the courtesy of a committee hearing. Gorsuch is extreme right wing. We need a more middle of the road court , neither left nor right.
He has long record of siding with large corporations and against "small" people
He should not be seated. The Supreme Court is not a political contest. Garland was a middle of the road justice and was summarily dismissed without even the courtesy of a committee hearing. Gorsuch is extreme right wing. We need a more middle of the road court , neither left nor right.
Unlike many commentators, I found this article balanced and reasonable.
It wasn't fair that the spot was left vacant while Republicans crossed their fingers for a Trump--But politics are hardly fair. And what is the solution? Let's deal with practicalities, not hurt feelings. They started it, no, really, they did, really really really they did, is not a productive argument.
If Gorsuch is not the nominee, who will be? He comes with stellar credentials--yes, of course, a liberal will disagree with some of his rulings, but the reality is this is a Republican-controlled congress. Do Democrats seriously think they will get someone better? And no, we won't get Garland, stop it.
Objecting to him makes the Democrats look petty and petulant, but worse, it paves the way for future extreme candidates. If the controlling party knows in advance the opposition party will object to *all* their candidates because they're poopy and they started it, then why on earth would they strive to find a moderate? Why work with the opposition party at all?
It wasn't fair that the spot was left vacant while Republicans crossed their fingers for a Trump--But politics are hardly fair. And what is the solution? Let's deal with practicalities, not hurt feelings. They started it, no, really, they did, really really really they did, is not a productive argument.
If Gorsuch is not the nominee, who will be? He comes with stellar credentials--yes, of course, a liberal will disagree with some of his rulings, but the reality is this is a Republican-controlled congress. Do Democrats seriously think they will get someone better? And no, we won't get Garland, stop it.
Objecting to him makes the Democrats look petty and petulant, but worse, it paves the way for future extreme candidates. If the controlling party knows in advance the opposition party will object to *all* their candidates because they're poopy and they started it, then why on earth would they strive to find a moderate? Why work with the opposition party at all?
6
There is no political motivation required to make a few simple observations. The atmosphere in the capitol is certainly not business as usual. The GOP committed an unconscionable political act in denying Garland a hearing resulting in permanent damage to our system of government. The Trump Administration is under an FBI investigation of potentially severe interference into the United States democratic oligarchy. I support any means necessary to prevent this potentially illegitimate president from making a lifelong appointment to one third of our federal government.
5
One commenter suggested changing the Constitution to set age limits on Justices (age 75, he suggested). That's unlikely to happen, but it's not a bad idea (though I'd kick up the age a bit -- 80, for example), as long as nobody has authority to extend (or shorten) a Justice's term.
On the other hand, age limits might arbitrarily exclude some Justices who are still sharp. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, would be too old already, even if age 80 were set as the limit. Like her or not, Ginsburg is still plenty sharp. And she wouldn't be the only one. I understand Kennedy is 80, or soon will be, and Breyer is 78. My hunch is that both of them have a few (or even many) more good years left in them.
On the other hand, age limits might arbitrarily exclude some Justices who are still sharp. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, would be too old already, even if age 80 were set as the limit. Like her or not, Ginsburg is still plenty sharp. And she wouldn't be the only one. I understand Kennedy is 80, or soon will be, and Breyer is 78. My hunch is that both of them have a few (or even many) more good years left in them.
1
First, we need to acknowledge the political cunning of Mitch McConnell. More than the hacking of the Russians or the miscalculations of the Clinton campaign, it was McConnell who moved he needle in the election. He knew that the only hope of increasing Republican turnout for an odious candidate was to make it a referendum on the Supreme Court. It was a Hail Mary, but it worked!
Having said that, the Democrats gain nothing by holding back on the filibuster or trying to 'save' it for a later nominee. Mitch will kill the filibuster whenever he needs to - in that sense the 'Nuclear' bomb has already gone off. They should just make it formal and get along with a simple majority rule instead of pretending that a 60 vote threshold exists any more.
Having said that, the Democrats gain nothing by holding back on the filibuster or trying to 'save' it for a later nominee. Mitch will kill the filibuster whenever he needs to - in that sense the 'Nuclear' bomb has already gone off. They should just make it formal and get along with a simple majority rule instead of pretending that a 60 vote threshold exists any more.
3
It seems that Mitch McCollum's "Making President Obama one term president" started this "round".
6
I agree with those who argue that the Democrats might as well filibuster now. I used to be in the "keep their powder dry" camp, arguing the Democrats should "save" their filibuster threat for next time when, say, Ginsburg dies or retires and Trump nominates a conservative to replace her.
But why wait?
Surely the Democrats would do everything in their power then to block Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg, and almost as surely the Republicans would change the Senate rules to do away with the filibuster. So why not do that right now instead? If the Democrats believe -- and they may be correct -- that doing away with the filibuster will be politically harmful to the Republicans, why wait?
I seriously doubt a filibuster would change the outcome on Gorsuch, and I'm sure Schumer understands this. But that doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't filibuster. If it's just a question of "when," not "if," why not do it now?
But why wait?
Surely the Democrats would do everything in their power then to block Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg, and almost as surely the Republicans would change the Senate rules to do away with the filibuster. So why not do that right now instead? If the Democrats believe -- and they may be correct -- that doing away with the filibuster will be politically harmful to the Republicans, why wait?
I seriously doubt a filibuster would change the outcome on Gorsuch, and I'm sure Schumer understands this. But that doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't filibuster. If it's just a question of "when," not "if," why not do it now?
5
Why would McConnell take that deal?
"I'm a Democrat, and I say the Dems should approve a vote on Gorsuch, after getting a guarantee from McConnell that he will not nuke the SCOTUS filibuster in the next 3 years."
The odds of McConnell taking that deal are slim to none, and Slim just left town.
"I'm a Democrat, and I say the Dems should approve a vote on Gorsuch, after getting a guarantee from McConnell that he will not nuke the SCOTUS filibuster in the next 3 years."
The odds of McConnell taking that deal are slim to none, and Slim just left town.
1
You say you are a Democrat and you give odds on what McConnell will and will not do.
McConnell did not fulfill his Constitutional duty for 293 days on the Garland nomination in the 114th Congress. The odds on that going down in history is 100%.
A 2-term President nominated by the Democratic Party deserves better than "Slim", doesn't he? I understand your joke, but many citizens take McConnell's inaction very seriously.
McConnell did not fulfill his Constitutional duty for 293 days on the Garland nomination in the 114th Congress. The odds on that going down in history is 100%.
A 2-term President nominated by the Democratic Party deserves better than "Slim", doesn't he? I understand your joke, but many citizens take McConnell's inaction very seriously.
Gorsuch would not be my first pick for the Supreme Court due to ideological differences, but, all reports are that Gorsuch is an outstanding jurist. The American Bar Association declared Gorsuch “highly qualified” their highest rating. Gorsuch has also received praise from both sides of the aisle, as Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, Gorsuch’s home state, also heaped praise on Gorsuch. The filibuster should be reserved for those nominations that are seen as unacceptable. Gorsuch is not one of those such picks and if you filibuster his nomination, and the Republicans change filibuster rules then the Democrats deprive themselves of a tool that could be use to block an even more distasteful nominee in the future.
1
The refusal to consider Garland, whether confirmed or not, was unfortunate, but, it was absolutely legal (why Obama did not press it). It is quite possible he would not have been confirmed even with a hearing. If the Democrats can find so much wrong with Gorsuch, I'm sure the Republicans can find things wrong with Garland. But, they might have confirmed him.
Democrats will hate to hear anything that suggests that they are more partisan than Republicans in any way - but, if you go over all the confirmation hearings since say Reagan (and you could back to the beginning), even if you count Garland as 46-54 against, Democrats have refused to vote for Republicans far more than visa versa. Not to mention the way Bork and Thomas alone were treated. Personally, though I have no vote, I would have voted for everyone who is on the court now, as they are all qualified and every past nominee who had a hearing, excepting Bork.
The truth is - this is all about politics, whatever anyone says. It always is. And though that can't be avoided, what can be is the waste of money. I hope they filibuster and the nuclear option is used because it was right when Reid did it and it will be right when McConnell does - even though they both are acting in their party's own interest. In fact, it would be best if the Senate's rules required an up and down vote on all presidential nominees in 30 days. The waste of time and money so either party can have a rare victory is just ridiculous.
Democrats will hate to hear anything that suggests that they are more partisan than Republicans in any way - but, if you go over all the confirmation hearings since say Reagan (and you could back to the beginning), even if you count Garland as 46-54 against, Democrats have refused to vote for Republicans far more than visa versa. Not to mention the way Bork and Thomas alone were treated. Personally, though I have no vote, I would have voted for everyone who is on the court now, as they are all qualified and every past nominee who had a hearing, excepting Bork.
The truth is - this is all about politics, whatever anyone says. It always is. And though that can't be avoided, what can be is the waste of money. I hope they filibuster and the nuclear option is used because it was right when Reid did it and it will be right when McConnell does - even though they both are acting in their party's own interest. In fact, it would be best if the Senate's rules required an up and down vote on all presidential nominees in 30 days. The waste of time and money so either party can have a rare victory is just ridiculous.
The Democrats started it all with their smearing of Judge Bork. Their attacks on him were despicable. Things went downhill from there.
1
Bork deserved every minute of it!
Peter, the Democrats gave Bork a hearing and a vote. He lost the vote, so the President chose another nominee, who was confirmed. That's the normal procedure especially with divided government.
The Republicans refused to give a hearing to ANY nominee of Obama and also threatened that if Hillary Clinton or any Democrat were elected the seat would remain vacant for four years. They would not consider ANYONE nominated by a Democratic President.
The Republicans refused to give a hearing to ANY nominee of Obama and also threatened that if Hillary Clinton or any Democrat were elected the seat would remain vacant for four years. They would not consider ANYONE nominated by a Democratic President.
If Gorsuch were a judge who could rule for people as much as he rules for business, he should be approved--despite the unforgivable actions of the GOP in refusing Garland even a meeting. But, the "Frozen Trucker" ruling --which put Gorsuch on Trump's list--is an outrageous decision. It shows that no matter the circumstances, Gorsuch will always rule for business. 27° below zero, the trucker was having difficulty breathing due to hypothermia after 3 hours waiting for a repair. He left to save his life. The company, Gorsuch and Trump believe the trucker deserved to be fired for leaving his broken trailer of meat rather than dying. (Presumably, after death he would be somehow be pleased to know he still had his job.) This is an outrageous decision. And Gorsuch's description of the circumstances as merely "unpleasant" shows a man who cannot even in the most extreme situation summon up enough empathy to place himself in the shoes of that trucker. We do not need this man to be judge over all of us.
5
I'm a Democrat, and I say the Dems should approve a vote on Gorsuch, after getting a guarantee from McConnell that he will not nuke the SCOTUS filibuster in the next 3 years. Gorsuch is an acceptable center-right candidate. I wouldn't vote for him, but the GOP did win the elections. While I too was very upset by the empty seat for 9 months (a stolen seat), the Dems should save their filibuster firepower for any future SCOTUS nominations, which may be much worse than Judge Gorsuch.
8
The provocative appointment of activist conservative judges played a critical role is setting this pot boiling. Had W. and Trump chosen centrist judges--more in the mold of Judge Garland--the Democrats would have had no incentive to filibuster.
6
Judge Garland is so certifiably centrist that he is a fair litmus test of good faith in a common interest. McConnell comes up red in the face.
4
whether the Garland non hearing was fair can be debated.
However, that was a different situation than with Gorsuch.
Most important -- the Repubs had the majority in the senate in 2016 when Garland was nominated. They also had the House -- so it was very clear that while Obama may have been president, the Dems were the minority party. That is not the case today where the Repubs hold the House and Senate (and the majority of state guvs). And before someone says -- but HRC got the majority of the popular vote -- that is not a relevant point. It's not how the presidential election is determined.
Second -- Obama was in the last 10 months of his presidency when he nominated Garland. So not only was the dem party in reality a minority party, a new president would be elected in 8 months and in office in 10. It was not necessarily unfair to let the voters decide through the election. Dems such as Joe Biden have endorsed that point of view.
Conversely it is 3 years and 10 months until the next president takes office.
And Obama was seeking to replace a conservative judge with a moderate thus changing the balance of the court, whereas Trump is simply replacing a conservative with a conservative
So while Garland might have made a good judge -- even a great one -- and it wasn't personally fair to him, politically it was fair and reasonable and the situations aren't analogous. Dems don't have a case to filibuster based on Garland. Gorsuch should be approved on merit.
However, that was a different situation than with Gorsuch.
Most important -- the Repubs had the majority in the senate in 2016 when Garland was nominated. They also had the House -- so it was very clear that while Obama may have been president, the Dems were the minority party. That is not the case today where the Repubs hold the House and Senate (and the majority of state guvs). And before someone says -- but HRC got the majority of the popular vote -- that is not a relevant point. It's not how the presidential election is determined.
Second -- Obama was in the last 10 months of his presidency when he nominated Garland. So not only was the dem party in reality a minority party, a new president would be elected in 8 months and in office in 10. It was not necessarily unfair to let the voters decide through the election. Dems such as Joe Biden have endorsed that point of view.
Conversely it is 3 years and 10 months until the next president takes office.
And Obama was seeking to replace a conservative judge with a moderate thus changing the balance of the court, whereas Trump is simply replacing a conservative with a conservative
So while Garland might have made a good judge -- even a great one -- and it wasn't personally fair to him, politically it was fair and reasonable and the situations aren't analogous. Dems don't have a case to filibuster based on Garland. Gorsuch should be approved on merit.
8
Conservatives who conserve nothing don't even conserve the meanings of words. They are not conservatives themselves, they are reactionaries.
6
Politically, it was unfair and unreasonable.
4
What we had was divided government with one party controlling Congress and with a President of the other party. This is normal, happens all the time, and has never before prevented the Senate from proceeding with hearings and a vote for the President's nominees. The President's responsibilities and powers are not diminished just because the Congress is under control of the other party, just as the Congresses powers are not diminished during times of divided government.
1
The Democrat's strategy for filibuster of Gorsuch is the most optimal strategy in all possible scenarios.
Suppose that they did not filibuster Gorsuch and he is subsequently appointed to the SCOTUS. Then suppose that 6 months to 1 year later, one of the liberal or moderate members of the SCOTUS resigns or dies of old age. Trump would then have the opportunity to push the court rightward by appointing another Gorsuch clone or worse. At that point, the Democrats would employ filibuster. But that would be ineffective because it is highly likely that the nuclear option would still be employed by the Republicans to eliminate the filibuster and that second SCOTUS nominee would then appointed by majority vote.
Since the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster would have been used by the Republicans no matter what the Democrats do, then it makes strategic sense for the Democrats to use the filibuster NOW on this particular nominee rather than save it for later when it would still be rendered ineffective. By forcing the Republicans to use the nuclear option now, the Democrats hope to exact a political price on the Republicans leading up to the 2018 elections.
If the Republicans hadn't tipped their hand early in the strategic game that they would use the nuclear option no matter what, then the Democrats would have been far more hesitant to use the filibuster because then they would think that the filibuster would still be a useful option for the potential second nominee.
Suppose that they did not filibuster Gorsuch and he is subsequently appointed to the SCOTUS. Then suppose that 6 months to 1 year later, one of the liberal or moderate members of the SCOTUS resigns or dies of old age. Trump would then have the opportunity to push the court rightward by appointing another Gorsuch clone or worse. At that point, the Democrats would employ filibuster. But that would be ineffective because it is highly likely that the nuclear option would still be employed by the Republicans to eliminate the filibuster and that second SCOTUS nominee would then appointed by majority vote.
Since the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster would have been used by the Republicans no matter what the Democrats do, then it makes strategic sense for the Democrats to use the filibuster NOW on this particular nominee rather than save it for later when it would still be rendered ineffective. By forcing the Republicans to use the nuclear option now, the Democrats hope to exact a political price on the Republicans leading up to the 2018 elections.
If the Republicans hadn't tipped their hand early in the strategic game that they would use the nuclear option no matter what, then the Democrats would have been far more hesitant to use the filibuster because then they would think that the filibuster would still be a useful option for the potential second nominee.
91
It would also be better for the GOP to own the nuclear option for SCOTUS.
And yet another liberal comment in the NYT Pick section.
So of the partisan comments in the NYT Picks today, six are from liberals and not a single one is from a conservative.
The articles is shockingly balanced, but the moderation is still rooted in the same mindless liberal partisanship.
Keep that echo chamber going folks. So much easier that acknowledging reality.
So of the partisan comments in the NYT Picks today, six are from liberals and not a single one is from a conservative.
The articles is shockingly balanced, but the moderation is still rooted in the same mindless liberal partisanship.
Keep that echo chamber going folks. So much easier that acknowledging reality.
The fact that Gorsuch was nominated by Donald Trump should be enough to give any intelligent and responsible person plenty of pause to be wary and concerned. The man's guilty by association.
8
It is certainly difficult to recommend a filibuster. Gorsuch is certainly qualified. Unfortunately, everyone knows that if roles were reversed the GOP would absolutely filibuster.
The blocking of Garland was unforgivable. He had unanimous approval when he went on the Court of Appeals. The GOP shamelessly stole his seat. For that, and only because of that, a filibuster is appropriate here. Since the GOP stole a moderate seat, they should show decency and put up a moderate. Until they do, consent should be withheld. Especially since there is a cloud of smoke hanging over the nominator.
The blocking of Garland was unforgivable. He had unanimous approval when he went on the Court of Appeals. The GOP shamelessly stole his seat. For that, and only because of that, a filibuster is appropriate here. Since the GOP stole a moderate seat, they should show decency and put up a moderate. Until they do, consent should be withheld. Especially since there is a cloud of smoke hanging over the nominator.
13
So now the Senate will decide who sits o the SC, Republican President, Democratic Senate, no SC nomination passes. Dem President, Reub Senate no SC nomination passes. Garland should have gotten a hearing and then McConnell could have had his Rebub. vote him down and at least the Republicans wouldn't have shown the plans for rigging of the Senate
3
When Scalia died, McConnell said the next President should pick Scalia's replacement -- just as the Democrats would have said if a liberal Justice had died during the last year of George W. Bush's Presidency.
Skeptics insisted McConnell meant that only if the Republican candidate won. Maybe he did, but I didn't take it that way, and McConnell certainly didn't do or say anything to support that skeptical view. If Clinton had won and McConnell had refused to hold hearings on her nominee, I'd have been just as upset as the skeptics were before the election. But I don't think McConnell would have done that. We'll never know for sure, of course, since Clinton lost.
Remember when someone asked Orrin Hatch whether the Senate would hold hearings for Garland promptly after the election if Clinton won, and Hatch said they'd indeed consider that? Someone asked McConnell the same question, and he said "no," which was the correct answer given the position he'd taken. Instead, he repeated his promise to let the next President pick the nominee.
Frankly, if Clinton had won and, before being inaugurated, had said "Garland's OK with me," it would have been OK with me if McConnell had held hearings and allowed a vote on Garland even before Clinton was inaugurated, though it also would have been appropriate for him to wait until Clinton actually became President and then confirmed her choice of Garland. Needless to say, that scenario did not arise since Clinton lost.
Skeptics insisted McConnell meant that only if the Republican candidate won. Maybe he did, but I didn't take it that way, and McConnell certainly didn't do or say anything to support that skeptical view. If Clinton had won and McConnell had refused to hold hearings on her nominee, I'd have been just as upset as the skeptics were before the election. But I don't think McConnell would have done that. We'll never know for sure, of course, since Clinton lost.
Remember when someone asked Orrin Hatch whether the Senate would hold hearings for Garland promptly after the election if Clinton won, and Hatch said they'd indeed consider that? Someone asked McConnell the same question, and he said "no," which was the correct answer given the position he'd taken. Instead, he repeated his promise to let the next President pick the nominee.
Frankly, if Clinton had won and, before being inaugurated, had said "Garland's OK with me," it would have been OK with me if McConnell had held hearings and allowed a vote on Garland even before Clinton was inaugurated, though it also would have been appropriate for him to wait until Clinton actually became President and then confirmed her choice of Garland. Needless to say, that scenario did not arise since Clinton lost.
3
"Needless to say, that scenario did not arise since Clinton lost."
This makes me happy every day
This makes me happy every day
5
You really presume too much, 3cents. I don't behave as you do. I see too many people projecting their own bad behavior onto others, to justify it, who take ratification from the conduct of Trump.
2
While one can point to the Bork nomination as the most recent divide between Democrats and Republicans, this schism is deeper and older. The tension between the administrative state and the market place go back to the 70's when the Critical Legal Studies movement challenged the orthodoxy of legal realism.
While most of this debate was carried out on the pages of little read law reviews, the battle was of an ideological nature and the stakes were real. So real in fact that the now famous Powell Memo, written by later Justice Louis Powell noted the importance for conservatives to control the courts. The Federalist Society became the training ground for that project and among many others, it produced our current Chief justice.
As this quiet battle developed studies showed that the likelihood of whether an employment discrimination case would go forward could be predicted with statistically significant regularity based on which party appointed the district court judge.
At the Supreme Court level the very definition of their role is to interpret the law when lower courts have disagreed. The ascendancy of the right needed a Contract With America, a little luck and a sympathetic court as evidenced by the decision in Bush v. Gore to achieve its goal.
This struggle is not about political parties, it's about political power, money, the ending of the very small'rights revolution of the 60's and the biggest project of them call, the final destruction of the liberal New Deal state.
While most of this debate was carried out on the pages of little read law reviews, the battle was of an ideological nature and the stakes were real. So real in fact that the now famous Powell Memo, written by later Justice Louis Powell noted the importance for conservatives to control the courts. The Federalist Society became the training ground for that project and among many others, it produced our current Chief justice.
As this quiet battle developed studies showed that the likelihood of whether an employment discrimination case would go forward could be predicted with statistically significant regularity based on which party appointed the district court judge.
At the Supreme Court level the very definition of their role is to interpret the law when lower courts have disagreed. The ascendancy of the right needed a Contract With America, a little luck and a sympathetic court as evidenced by the decision in Bush v. Gore to achieve its goal.
This struggle is not about political parties, it's about political power, money, the ending of the very small'rights revolution of the 60's and the biggest project of them call, the final destruction of the liberal New Deal state.
4
This was evidently a grand conspiracy to dyslexify the English Language. It reminds of the golden age Superman issue in which the Man of Steel had to rescue the world from the Joker, who had paralyzed it by copyrighting the alphabet.
"The tension between the administrative state and the market place go back to the 70's when the Critical Legal Studies movement challenged the orthodoxy of legal realism."
Good observation. The CLS people became so prominent/dominant at Harvard Law School (among other law schools) that at least one prominent non-CLS professor, Paul Bator, left HLS for the University of Chicago. I doubt Bator (since deceased) would have given this as a reason, but I strongly suspected it was the principal reason.
Good observation. The CLS people became so prominent/dominant at Harvard Law School (among other law schools) that at least one prominent non-CLS professor, Paul Bator, left HLS for the University of Chicago. I doubt Bator (since deceased) would have given this as a reason, but I strongly suspected it was the principal reason.
I always thought Batman kept the Joker in line. The Caped Crusader needed the Man of Steel to help out?
The treatment of Garland is a splinter that's gone too deep under America's epidermis for quick and easy extraction. There is already serious infection so expect pus. This splinter will need to be removed sooner or later, but sooner is better.
4
This is a seat that was not duly considered last administration for partisan purposes; because of this, the Democrats must do everything in their power to restore order by vehemently opposing this nomination, now.
Gorsuch is eminently qualified -- he'd make an excellent second appointment to the Supreme Court, should Trump gets another, but not this one.
Gorsuch is eminently qualified -- he'd make an excellent second appointment to the Supreme Court, should Trump gets another, but not this one.
1
Yet another "balanced" op-ed giving lies and distortiona as reasons to approve a Supreme Court nominee who treated the Senate hearing with total contempt. Gorshuch is soft-spoken, is he? and that qualifies him? Surely you jest! Not only did he refuse to say anything substantive except to repeat the cracked and broken promise by John Roberts to "respect" precedent, but when asked specific written questions later by dissatisfied senators, he answered with even more evasion. Gorsuch is trying to put something over on us, and we know what it is by seeing his past performance: it is ultra-right wing and corporate-friendly at the expense of the citizenry. Gorsuch has to be stopped.
Of course Trump and his GOP enablers will find a similar candidate. The Democrats have to uphold principle and keep voting on the merits.
Of course Trump and his GOP enablers will find a similar candidate. The Democrats have to uphold principle and keep voting on the merits.
5
The "current" Republicans in the Congress are gradually undermining every tradition long established in this country. Their unprecedented road block to almost all of Pres. Obama's reasonable policies, Rep. Nunes has destroyed the independence of House Intelligence Committee; Sen. Mitch McConnell destroyed Supreme Court nominee process by a President, when he refused Judge Merrick Garland a hearing. Pres. Trump is making a mockery of the presidency with his amoral behaviors. If I have a say in this, I will tell Democrats to hold firm and let the GOP change the 60 vote rule too on Supreme Court. Stop letting them get away with all these nonsense. Stand up to these bullies!
5
If we are not Republicans, we must be illegal aliens to them.
1
You may be a bottle or two short of a six-pack:
"Gorsuch ... should, as a matter of honor ... have declined the nomination until Garland went through his process."
Trust me on this one, Gorsuch devoted about as much time to considering that possibility as Garland would have devoted if Gorsuch had been nominated first.
How much time would that be? Let's just say it would require sensitive scientific instruments to measure it.
"Gorsuch ... should, as a matter of honor ... have declined the nomination until Garland went through his process."
Trust me on this one, Gorsuch devoted about as much time to considering that possibility as Garland would have devoted if Gorsuch had been nominated first.
How much time would that be? Let's just say it would require sensitive scientific instruments to measure it.
4
I doubt you are tall enough to shine Judge Garland's shoes, 3Cents.
1
You folks should say "verify me". You don't have trust.
I don't know who started it (truly), but I know that the egregious behavior with respect to Garland was unprecedented. To think any Democrat would now approve a candidate for the court selected by a President who is under investigation for treason is laughable. The Court is working just fine with 8 on the bench.
7
And why wasn't Obama's pick, a mild-mannered middle of the road, eminently qualified jurist not even given the due respect of a hearing? Please. What goes around comes around.
14
One third of senate democrats have yet to figure it out. Fail to support filibuster, prepare to have zero progressive support. Good luck with that.
2
Progressives have failed to realize they are not the majority in the Democratic Party and certainly not the country. Just a left wing fringe movement dedicated to spending other people's money. Sorry. But that is the plain, honest truth.
8
At least progressives spend other people's money on people. Conservatives spend other people's money on corporations.
1
It is all about a judge's past opinions and rulings. The frozen trucker case and Hobby Lobby, told me all I need to know about this judge, just say No. Yes, he is qualified, sure he seems nice, no doubt lots of people like and respect him and would tell me about his brilliant mind. But what can effect millions of our everyday lives are decisions that let Corporations do as they please.
11
Edward M. Kennedy started the pattern of all-out acrimony with Bork. that is a dark side of his legacy to us all.
6
Robert Bork was given an up or down vote.
He was NOT filibustered.
Merrick Garland was not given an up or down vote.
The GOP controlled the Senate when Garland was nominated.
What was the GOP afraid of.
They could have denied confirmation by voting no.
Robert Bork's role in the Watergate coverup was sufficient reason for the Senate to vote against confirmation.
There were other reasons but Bork's Watergate role was sufficient.
When Watergate prosecutor Cox was zeroing in on Nixon's guilt, Nixon asked Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus refused and was then either fired by Nixon or resigned. Bork then agreed to fire Cox.
By that unprincipled action Bork demonstrated his unsuitability for the Court.
That Reagan would nominate Bork also says something about Reagan.
He was NOT filibustered.
Merrick Garland was not given an up or down vote.
The GOP controlled the Senate when Garland was nominated.
What was the GOP afraid of.
They could have denied confirmation by voting no.
Robert Bork's role in the Watergate coverup was sufficient reason for the Senate to vote against confirmation.
There were other reasons but Bork's Watergate role was sufficient.
When Watergate prosecutor Cox was zeroing in on Nixon's guilt, Nixon asked Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus refused and was then either fired by Nixon or resigned. Bork then agreed to fire Cox.
By that unprincipled action Bork demonstrated his unsuitability for the Court.
That Reagan would nominate Bork also says something about Reagan.
6
Bork was Borked. That's why they call it Borking. That was when Advise and Consent became a matter of ideology and not just qualification. The Thomas was slandered. There is no other way to put it. She contradicted herself and her own fresh complaint witnesses, and everyone else who would have witnessed the behavior said they hadn't witnessed it.
The GOP let Gins burg and Sotomayor on. Kagan. They should not have withheld action on Garland. But they have never - not once - joined to vote against a nominee down based on ideology.
And in this case the opposition is misplaced - all Gorsuch says is that the law means what it says - you can't reinterpret it creatively so that the granny plaintiff can win a judgment against the big corporation or fat cat or vice versa.
The GOP let Gins burg and Sotomayor on. Kagan. They should not have withheld action on Garland. But they have never - not once - joined to vote against a nominee down based on ideology.
And in this case the opposition is misplaced - all Gorsuch says is that the law means what it says - you can't reinterpret it creatively so that the granny plaintiff can win a judgment against the big corporation or fat cat or vice versa.
6
Competent jurists are objective, not ideological.
1
The Constitution is not specific and Gorsuch refused to say what he believed the Constitution says.
There are many places where the Constitution is vague.
Some examples.
What are "unreasonable searches and seizures"[4th amendment]
What are "cruel and unusual punishments "[8th amendment]
Does the 2nd amendment refer just to the militia or does it also include all citizens.
What exceptions to"no law" in the 1st amendment are permitted.
What programs are allowed by the "general welfare" clause in Article I Section 8.
There are many other examples one could give.
Many Court decisions are 5-4 because of these ambiguities.
That is why it is important to know Gorsuch's views.
Saying he would follow the law is not satisfactory and is just evading the issues.
There are many places where the Constitution is vague.
Some examples.
What are "unreasonable searches and seizures"[4th amendment]
What are "cruel and unusual punishments "[8th amendment]
Does the 2nd amendment refer just to the militia or does it also include all citizens.
What exceptions to"no law" in the 1st amendment are permitted.
What programs are allowed by the "general welfare" clause in Article I Section 8.
There are many other examples one could give.
Many Court decisions are 5-4 because of these ambiguities.
That is why it is important to know Gorsuch's views.
Saying he would follow the law is not satisfactory and is just evading the issues.
How can the Republican-adopted technique of permanently blocking appointments to the Supreme Court be ended? The only way I know of forcing the technique to be barred is for both parties to use it and then make an agreement that neither party will ever use it. The only alternative is to permanently allow Republicans to remove the power of appointing Supreme Court justices from Democratic Presidents.
3
Biden rule -sitting Presidents don't get nomination in last year of Presidency.Obama knew that but offered up Garland anyway as a continuation of the divisiveness his administration pushed. Reid on the other hand instead of compromising on some lower but very important court appointments broke every rule in the book with his nuclear option saying they are blocking every one. Did Harry ever sit down with any republican to discuss a or negotiate a compromise; like our founding fathers wanted in their design??? Of course not. Gorsuch is eminently qualified except for most readers of the NYT.
3
Bork got a hearing and a vote. He lost in the Senate vote, with six Republicans voting against him. Bork is not a precedent for Garland.
Gorsuch seems like a reasonable Republican choice. But he should, as a matter of honor, and per the Constitution he is sworn to uphold, have declined the nomination until Garland went through his process.
Gorsuch seems like a reasonable Republican choice. But he should, as a matter of honor, and per the Constitution he is sworn to uphold, have declined the nomination until Garland went through his process.
2
This President and many of his associates are under investigation by the FBI and other Intelligence Agencies for some very serious issues. Until that's completed there is no hurry to put a selection of a Supreme Court Judge by the current President in to place before the investigation is completed.
4
Any person who defended torture, as he did, is unfit to be a judge.
6
It's hard to comprehend that a legitimate president in his last year in office was denied his constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice. Yet a president who is under investigation for possible treason and may be forced to resign gets to nominate a justice that we as a country will be stuck with for decades. There is something seriously wrong with this equation.
As a side note, why do justices get to serve for life anyway? Wouldn't a ten year term be more reasonable? Is it fair that the direction the court takes for decades is determined by who happens to be in office when a justice dies or resigns , unless of course your name if Merrick Garland? Perhaps there would be much less controversy over future nominations if both parties realized that whoever is chosen is not there for life.
As a side note, why do justices get to serve for life anyway? Wouldn't a ten year term be more reasonable? Is it fair that the direction the court takes for decades is determined by who happens to be in office when a justice dies or resigns , unless of course your name if Merrick Garland? Perhaps there would be much less controversy over future nominations if both parties realized that whoever is chosen is not there for life.
2
I don't agree with your comments except the ten year year term. And while we are at it two 6 year terms for senators and two four year terms for house.
Sorry, but Gorsuch, while "qualified" on paper, has shown in his written opinions to be out of touch with regular working class Americans. He has shown that he would be to the right of Roberts and Aleto. More significantly, this was a STOLE SCOTUS SEAT. If the republicans want to secure a justice on this Supreme Court, it must nominate a moderate along the lines of Judge Merrick Garland. In fact, they SHOULD nominate Garland. In return, we'll let them take all the credit. Pretty big of us democrats, I'd say.
2
You're being disingenuous. The law is what it is. He isn't trying to find for the employee or the employer. He isn't trying to pick winners. He is the ref - not the coach or the rule-maker. He doesn't call it incomplete or complete based on whether he wants the receiver's team to win, but based on whether both of his feet were in bounds when he gained control of the ball. That the receiver is white or black or rich or poor is irrelevant.
4
This article, like most of the Times’ coverage of the confirmation hearings, makes much of the fact that the Republican controlled Senate refused to consider President Obama’s candidate, Judge Garland. In the Times’ view, the vacancy on the Supreme Court represents an “unprecedented theft” by the Republican party (the quote is from a recent Times editorial).
It was indeed a mistake by the Republicans to refuse to hold hearings on Judge Garland, but it is hardly “unprecedented,” by any reasonable definition of the word. Both Joe Biden, in 1992, when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, and Chuck Schumer in 2007, clearly stated that lame-duck presidents should not appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Omitting mention of this is a serious journalistic oversight, and though a sin of omission rather than commission, it seems worthy of the overused label “fake news.” The Times’ readership deserves better.
The important question is why appointments to SCOTUS are so politicized; and the answer is apparent. The unelected justices enjoy lifetime tenure during which they wield tremendous, unchecked power. Rather than simply interpret the law when it is ambiguous, some justices write new law, based on their personal political philosophy. In an infamous interview a year ago, Justice Ginsburg said as much.
Perhaps it is time to amend the constitution, so justices serve limited, rather than lifetime, terms, after which they would receive generous lifetime pensions.
It was indeed a mistake by the Republicans to refuse to hold hearings on Judge Garland, but it is hardly “unprecedented,” by any reasonable definition of the word. Both Joe Biden, in 1992, when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, and Chuck Schumer in 2007, clearly stated that lame-duck presidents should not appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Omitting mention of this is a serious journalistic oversight, and though a sin of omission rather than commission, it seems worthy of the overused label “fake news.” The Times’ readership deserves better.
The important question is why appointments to SCOTUS are so politicized; and the answer is apparent. The unelected justices enjoy lifetime tenure during which they wield tremendous, unchecked power. Rather than simply interpret the law when it is ambiguous, some justices write new law, based on their personal political philosophy. In an infamous interview a year ago, Justice Ginsburg said as much.
Perhaps it is time to amend the constitution, so justices serve limited, rather than lifetime, terms, after which they would receive generous lifetime pensions.
1
Obama knew all about the "Biden" rule and Schumers comments. Obama further divided the country by even nominating Garland. The honorable path was for Obama to cede the Scalia seat to the next President.
2
From where I sit, it looks like the issue is neither pay-back for blocking Obama's nominee nor Gorsuch's credentials. For me, the nomination should wait until we have a president for whom there is no doubt about whether the election was valid.
2
There can be no doubt that the election was valid. No one has produced a shred of evidence casting any doubt upon the validity of the 2016 Presidential election.
1
Why not try something new? The Republican's nominate a person, the Democrats nominate a person AND a third person is nominated by a select committee. All three will face a vote together. All three are accepted or no one is accepted and the process begins again according to results. The Senate imposes a 60 vote minimum for a win, there will be no filibuster, and there cannot be a nuclear option. The no filibuster, and no nuclear option and 60 vote minimum will not be able to be changed unless all 100 members of the Senate agree. All commercial ads must immediately stop, and will not be allowed ever. Justice will no longer serve for a lifetime. 10 to 15 years at most with mandatory retirement at 75. The court is elevated to an 11 member court due to present school yard tactics of both parties. I would suggest Gorsuch and Garland as Republican and Democrat nominees respectively. I would hope, though truly not expecting, that the Republican's and Democrat's could figure out a select committee without too many problems for the third nomination. I suggest, with no hope of expecting that this process would begin on Monday and that the Gorsuch nomination be held until new rules are in place. This is ridiculous to be forced to such extremes, but what choice is there when politics create such a huge divide? After the fiasco for the current vacancy is over, I would recommend a select committee to pick all court nominees, for all court positions.
No further deliberation on Neil Gorsuch until the FBI investigation of this president and all his men and family is completed.
Unprecedented that a candidate and his team were investigated for months by the FBI and there he is sitting in the Oval Office.
A serious investigation of ties to a foreign adversary?
An inner circle that seems more like a secretive NY syndicate of mob bosses and junior level flunkies. A gang, a cartel, a cabal. Dirty tricks and underhanded workings.
The FBI pretty much sabotaged his political opponent days before the election:
Stolen presidency.
Stolen Supreme Court seat.
Unprecedented that a candidate and his team were investigated for months by the FBI and there he is sitting in the Oval Office.
A serious investigation of ties to a foreign adversary?
An inner circle that seems more like a secretive NY syndicate of mob bosses and junior level flunkies. A gang, a cartel, a cabal. Dirty tricks and underhanded workings.
The FBI pretty much sabotaged his political opponent days before the election:
Stolen presidency.
Stolen Supreme Court seat.
11
Unusually fair and balanced article.
5
Forget Garland. Why must the Times buy into every false narrative? The description here of Gorsuch is not simply wrong-headed, it's reprehensible. "Mild-mannered nominee." Who cares about his manners? Juan Péron was well mannered and cut an elegant figure across Argentina. Did that make him less a murderous dictator? Gorsuch has shown contempt for the rights of ordinary people since he ascended to the bench. He has twisted the constitution like plastic in a child's lariat. He reads the First Amendment to protect freedom "of" religion and ignores its protection of freedom "from" religion. He has indicated, subtly but with a loud dog whistle, that his decision in Hobby Lobby foreshadows institutionalization of massive discrimination against minorities. The only con artist better during a hearing then Gorsuch in the past couple of decades was Roberts, who has turned out to be the most ideologically driven Supreme Court Chief Justice in the history of the country. Should we put somebody else in line to do the same? Mild mannered. Does the Times think a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee's qualifications is a dinner party? This isn't about manners. It's about Gorsuch's ability to lie just as well as Roberts did. Let them explode the nuclear option because they're going to do it eventually anyway.
Oh, and there's the matter of Sullivan. Gorsuch recited the history of and legal reasoning behind the decision. He didn't say he supported it. Say goodbye to freedom of the press.
Oh, and there's the matter of Sullivan. Gorsuch recited the history of and legal reasoning behind the decision. He didn't say he supported it. Say goodbye to freedom of the press.
2
Gorsuch obviously doesn't get that the first amendment specifically denies Congress power to endorse faith-based beliefs in legislation, and denies Congress power to enact legislation that prohibits the voluntary conduct of religious worship. No laws respecting religion, pro or con.
There should not be a vote until the Republicans acknowledge that a presidential term is four years period.
4
What a shame that thomas and alito were confirmed.
5
The negation of the Garland nomination has had far more important ramifications than the fate of that esteemed jurist. It established, unmistakenly, the usurpation of the Judiciary and the Executive by the Legislative. Presidents no longer will be able to nominate SCOTUS candidates unless their party holds an overwhelming majority in the Senate. Judicial vacancies at all levels of the federal court system, will continue to be held ransom by the partisan whims of whoever holds committee power in the Congress.
It isn't supposed to work this way . . . "It" being the Constitution. It was intentionally designed to separate powers among the three branches of government, and to give each of those branches a checks and balance oversight of the others.
But this Constitutional framework was adopted just as political parties were in their nascent stages; partisanship holds our government in its meager hands. The rejection of Garland and the nomination of Gorsuch is a hyper-example of partisanship run amuck. No one gives a fig for Gorsuch's legal mind or experience. The Republican Senators simply want a toady to support their conservative agenda (in the same way Democrats want to insure a liberal, progressive balance on the Court).
You will hear plenty from politicians in the Congress about "honoring the Constitution." The sad fact is, our Constitution increasingly is being ignored by those who don't understand it, and really don't care.
It isn't supposed to work this way . . . "It" being the Constitution. It was intentionally designed to separate powers among the three branches of government, and to give each of those branches a checks and balance oversight of the others.
But this Constitutional framework was adopted just as political parties were in their nascent stages; partisanship holds our government in its meager hands. The rejection of Garland and the nomination of Gorsuch is a hyper-example of partisanship run amuck. No one gives a fig for Gorsuch's legal mind or experience. The Republican Senators simply want a toady to support their conservative agenda (in the same way Democrats want to insure a liberal, progressive balance on the Court).
You will hear plenty from politicians in the Congress about "honoring the Constitution." The sad fact is, our Constitution increasingly is being ignored by those who don't understand it, and really don't care.
6
Sorry...Obama, trying to put a halt to this cynicism, nominated a centrist who could be viewed as left wing only from the vantage point of hiking way out on the starboard side. The GOP has gone feral, and is in the process of dragging the SCOTUS with them.
7
Republicans contend that President Obama had no right to appoint a judge "after the campaign season has begun."
If the GOP assumes that that is reasonable, then let's be consistent.
Trump has already filed legal forms allowing for his campaign committee to fundraise for his re-election. He's already "campaigned" (not air quotes, but FACT) at least twice since becoming president. He, therefore, is no longer allowed to appoint a new justice.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/donald-trump-campaign-rallies/
What's good for the goose . . .
If the GOP assumes that that is reasonable, then let's be consistent.
Trump has already filed legal forms allowing for his campaign committee to fundraise for his re-election. He's already "campaigned" (not air quotes, but FACT) at least twice since becoming president. He, therefore, is no longer allowed to appoint a new justice.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/donald-trump-campaign-rallies/
What's good for the goose . . .
7
Brilliant! I had not thought of that. Thank you.
Query: Would Gorsuch be considered legitimate if lil donnas id impeached and imprisoned as a criminal? Surely this confirmation would have to be vacated.
Query: Would Gorsuch be considered legitimate if lil donnas id impeached and imprisoned as a criminal? Surely this confirmation would have to be vacated.
2
Politicization of Supreme Court appointments is not new. Perhaps some will take comfort in knowing why such appointments were so contentions in the past, while other will consider how disastrous the outcome was in appointing a justice who, while having true intellect, was political, and held a rigid, callous, and ultimately ruthless judicial philosophy. The result: Supreme Court decisions which nearly destroyed the judiciary, the Constitution, and the country. Roger B. Taney was the 5th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In January 1835 President Andrew Jackson nominated Taney as an Associate Justice to the Court after the Senate rejected Taney as Treasury Secretary. The session about to close, the Senate scheduled the confirmation vote for the closing day of the session. Anti-Jackson Whigs dominating the Senate not only blocked the vote, they introduced a motion to abolish the open seat on the Court. They prevented Taney's confirmation to the Court. How did Taney become Chief Justice? After the 1834 elections, Jacksonian Democrats took control of the Senate. During the 1835 recess, Chief Justice John Marshall died. In 1835 Jackson rammed the nomination of Taney through as Chief Justice to the Senate despite great opposition from the Whigs. Today Taney is best known for his 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Universally condemned, Dred Scott is not merely the worst decision in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court’s most immoral and political decision.
2
Politics is the only lawful process we have to negotiate the social contract we all must abide. This is why the process of law itself is such a battleground. Constitutional interpretation sets the ground rules of the contest.
Perhaps the Bush v. Gore ruling deserves credit as the Court's most purely political ruling. It seldom explicitly states not to use one of its decisions as a precedent, as it did in this one.
Perhaps the Bush v. Gore ruling deserves credit as the Court's most purely political ruling. It seldom explicitly states not to use one of its decisions as a precedent, as it did in this one.
1
It's a miracle that the "inescapably political" character of the Supreme Court hadn't manifested itself earlier in the confirmation process. The same holds for the "mutual recognition of the judiciary’s capacity to accelerate a party’s agenda". I think you must start from the recognition that the Court's role is "inescapable political". However, the Founding Fathers, with their antipathy towards "factions" did not envision the complications such factions bring to the delicately balance of power between the branches of government.
The political character of the Court entails also the recognition that the idea of leaving it to the accidents of biography when a Justice is substituted, aggravates the political problem. Does anyone doubt that eminently qualified candidates nowadays are excluded if they have passed a certain age in order to warrant the nominator's political legacy over the following three to four decades? There should therefore be term limits for the Justices.
There are very few issues that require qualified majorities in the Constitution. Judicial confirmations, given the judges' independence, should be one of them. Professor Levinson referred to in the text is one of the most acerbic critics of the Constitution. I don't know if the critique includes the set-up of SCOTUS.
I would readily concede that qualified majorities produce gridlock, as does the cloture rule. However, the change might provide a stronger basis for the development of new norms in the Senate.
The political character of the Court entails also the recognition that the idea of leaving it to the accidents of biography when a Justice is substituted, aggravates the political problem. Does anyone doubt that eminently qualified candidates nowadays are excluded if they have passed a certain age in order to warrant the nominator's political legacy over the following three to four decades? There should therefore be term limits for the Justices.
There are very few issues that require qualified majorities in the Constitution. Judicial confirmations, given the judges' independence, should be one of them. Professor Levinson referred to in the text is one of the most acerbic critics of the Constitution. I don't know if the critique includes the set-up of SCOTUS.
I would readily concede that qualified majorities produce gridlock, as does the cloture rule. However, the change might provide a stronger basis for the development of new norms in the Senate.
2
Call me small minded but I still can't forget what "they" did to Judge Garland. Major fail.
11
Why should we continue to follow Supreme Court decisions after this disaster? A 5-4 vote with Gorsuch in majority will always be suspect. Stolen seat, traitorous president, power hunger GOP.
16
Would Gorsuch be considered legitimate of lil donnie is impeached and imprisoned?
Unprecedented issues lil donnie is setting up. My vote is to get rid of devos first before she totally destroys public education which is desperately needed. We have to teach critical thinking to all our citizens if our democracy is to survive. Then we must teach the Constitution so every citizen will know when someone is trying to destroy our democracy. Next on the list--the fool at the EPA. If we don't stop him, our children and grandchildren will curse us.
Unprecedented issues lil donnie is setting up. My vote is to get rid of devos first before she totally destroys public education which is desperately needed. We have to teach critical thinking to all our citizens if our democracy is to survive. Then we must teach the Constitution so every citizen will know when someone is trying to destroy our democracy. Next on the list--the fool at the EPA. If we don't stop him, our children and grandchildren will curse us.
2
Whoever started the tit-for-tat over the SCOTUS, Barack Obama, as usual, did the responsible thing and offered the opportunity to knock it off. 3/4 of the way through his second term, he nominated one of the most qualified, dead-centrist jurists in the country. But instead of reciprocating that responsible gesture, Mitch McConnell chose to double down on his malicious obstructionism, and blocked it. Not since Gingrich was Speaker has one man contributed more to the complete disfunction and deterioration of our government than the cynic, McConnell.
26
This comment should shortly be a NYT Pick. It is exactly factually correct.
6
what the GOP did in denying President Obama's responsibility to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who they confirmed as a Federal Judge feels obstructionist and unconstitutional. McConnell does not honor our Constitution if it gets in the way of his party. He stopped Elizabeth Warren from performing her constitutional duties to advise and consent regarding the nomination of an attorney general.
The GOP actions to deny minority votes, gerrymandering and obstructionism slowly fray the fabric of our democracy and spit on the constitution. The GOP are criminals (think organized crime) and should be held accountable under some laws or democracy is doomed.
The GOP actions to deny minority votes, gerrymandering and obstructionism slowly fray the fabric of our democracy and spit on the constitution. The GOP are criminals (think organized crime) and should be held accountable under some laws or democracy is doomed.
2
As usual, another opinion piece equating the abusive use of power by the Republicans with the feeble response from the spineless democrats, suggesting they are both to blame for obstruction. This Supreme court seat is the Democrats' seat - it was stolen from them in a UNPRECEDENTED, and unconstitutional refusal by the senate to fulfill its obligations in advice and consent. President Obama and the Democrats should have refused to conduct further business until hearings were held and a nominee confirmed. Giving this seat to a right wing conservative disenfranchises the voters who elected President Obama, in part to liberalize the Supreme Court. The Democrats should be united in refusing to confirm ANYONE besides Merrick Garland - the Republicans lost their ability to reject him when they refused to hold hearings. The fact that no Democrat is holding this obvious position is why I never support this ineffective gutless party that can't even stand up for its voters.
2
With the clouds of suspicion clinging to this administration and the very validity of the election which put it in place being called into question, there should be NO vote on the installation of a new Justice that might still be in position in 30 years. Combine this with the Garland outrage, and yet somehow the Democrats are supposed to continue "playing nice"? No. It's time for the gloves to come off. If they can't prevent a vote with a preordained outcome, the Dems should remove themselves from the chamber when it comes to the vote. They should refuse to participate in this polluted process.
3
As long as the specter of treason and possible impeachment hangs over the Trump presidency, there should be no vote on his nominees including Gorsuch. Our electoral system is in shambles and Trump's victory is invalid if the Russian's helped him win by a tiny margin in a few states.
It is a far more reasonable cause for delay of any action on Trump's Supreme Court nominee than the refusal of Republicans to allow President Obama to fulfill his Constitutional duties by nominating Merrick Garland simply because he had one year of office remaining.
It is a far more reasonable cause for delay of any action on Trump's Supreme Court nominee than the refusal of Republicans to allow President Obama to fulfill his Constitutional duties by nominating Merrick Garland simply because he had one year of office remaining.
6
As long as the specter of treason and possible impeachment hangs over the Trump presidency...
This fantasy only exists in the minds of those still smarting from the defeat of their harridan.
This fantasy only exists in the minds of those still smarting from the defeat of their harridan.
1
This battle started with the so called "Schumer" rule. He told President Bush on the floor of the Senate that if he had a nominee to the Supreme Court he would not get an up or down vote due to the impending election. So you bitter angry democrats have Chuck Schumer to thank. He gave us Anthony Weiner mentoring him into what he ultimately would become. And he gave us the Schumer rule which made it certain that Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Judge Grland, eminently qualified, would silently twist in the wind.
6
Your "I do it because you did it first!" routine is so tediously juvenile that the whole world is laughing at you and your mother.
1
Just to get this right...
The GOP conservatives are adamant, make that ultra adamant that that laws and the Constitution should be followed to the letter and not subject to "interpretation" that would lead to something else.
And what do they call Mitch McConnell's interpreting the Constitution in such a manner that he can postpone, make that totally disregard what is written in the Constitution about how Presidents pick Supreme Court Justices?
Or, maybe conservatives think it is okay to interpret the Constitution if they are the ones doing the interpreting? But not liberals.
The GOP conservatives are adamant, make that ultra adamant that that laws and the Constitution should be followed to the letter and not subject to "interpretation" that would lead to something else.
And what do they call Mitch McConnell's interpreting the Constitution in such a manner that he can postpone, make that totally disregard what is written in the Constitution about how Presidents pick Supreme Court Justices?
Or, maybe conservatives think it is okay to interpret the Constitution if they are the ones doing the interpreting? But not liberals.
3
These fatuous jerks think their very own sperm cells carry the soul of God.
2
McConnell and his extremism on Garland (for whatever reason) ensured this. Democrats must stand up to this minority group (republicans) and refuse to allow any republican selection of the 9th justice. Even with all the gerrymandering, phony accusations of voter fraud and other efforts by the extreme right to suppress the vote the majority of Americans did not vote for the current president. The gridlock embraced by the republicans can be reflected in keeping the current 8 justices.
9
Their presumptuousness leaves no doubt that their claims to judicial objectivity or integrity are bogus. If they had the slightest shred of decency, they would tread very lightly after "winning" by a stupid fluke.
2
There should be no nomination of a member of SCOTUS by a lame-duck president that has his election committee under investigation by the FBI.
The next real POTUS should decide. This is a lifetime appointment.
The next real POTUS should decide. This is a lifetime appointment.
11
If the Democrats allow a vote on Neil Gorsuch after Mitch McConnell's personal "filibuster" of Merrick Garland, it will prove once again they are bringing knives to a gunfight. The question is, does McConnell then decide to go nuclear or does he pull back from the brink?
4
The Democrats cannot let the unprecedented Republican refusal to even vote for Garland go unanswered. So far the Republicans have paid no penalty for this, and even discussed blocking Hillary's nominations for the next four years when it appeared she would win the presidency.
If the Republicans wish to abolish the filibuster then so be it. If the filibuster cannot be used for the most important decisions made by the Senate then it really no longer exists anyway.
Republicans were perfectly fine with just eight justices on the Court for an entire year. The Democrats should keep it that way for at least another couple of years until the next midterms.
If the Republicans wish to abolish the filibuster then so be it. If the filibuster cannot be used for the most important decisions made by the Senate then it really no longer exists anyway.
Republicans were perfectly fine with just eight justices on the Court for an entire year. The Democrats should keep it that way for at least another couple of years until the next midterms.
4
What woman or man--alive today....in the current political climate.... could get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate? I suspect it might be considerably easier to be beatified to Saint-hood.....(then again-- most of those candidates at least have a track record to "vote" on....)
4
"They started it."
Wow. Sounds just like my kids when they were six.
Wow. Sounds just like my kids when they were six.
4
Obama, ever the grownup in the room tried to stop it with centrist Garland. The Rs, ever petulant children would not hear of it and threw a tantrum, blocking it. Disgusting.
4
When your kids were fighting did you also say that it was only one side's fault?
2
With the denial of a hearing for Merrick Garland the Gops declared the SCOTUS a political puppet. We don't need any more puppets. Let it wither from attrition and transfer the last word on laws to each state.
2
I don't know whether to compare the actions of our Congress to childlike - "he started it" mentality, or, more ominously, gang or tribal warfare. In the latter cases, each and every action by one side is met by retribution from the other side, in a process that has gone on for decades- sometimes centuries. The only way it will ever stop is if one side offers to forego retribution, in exchange for a lasting truce. Tragically, that rarely happens. In fact, in the case of Congress, the likelihood probably falls below the gangs or tribes.
Meanwhile, we, the people, are the collateral damage.
Meanwhile, we, the people, are the collateral damage.
1
As long as I can get my French-roast, fully-caffeinated coffee in the morning I am not much worried about the U.S. Supreme Court--and I am a trial lawyer. It has always been a political organ. If senate Democrats want to complete the job they started when they got rid of the filibuster for federal judges below the U.S. Supreme Court, they better hope RGB or Kennedy doesn't keel over.
3
Make Supreme Court terms 13 years and remove the Senate Filibuster.
It's the lifetime appointments that are the problem here. A judge could be making rulings for 40 years, decades after he or she has lost contact with the the daily life experience of Americans.
It's the lifetime appointments that are the problem here. A judge could be making rulings for 40 years, decades after he or she has lost contact with the the daily life experience of Americans.
4
So why are Republicans whistling by the graveyard as their so-called president is under investigation for possible reason? They'd be foaming at the mouth if the tables were turned.
3
Since lil'Donnie is on the Trump Titanic and there are many glaciers obfuscating whether or not he is a crook, we MUST hold off on this nomination because if found guilty, lil' donnie's nomination of this man would be illegitimate.
Let's call Judge Garland and start the process correctly since a legitimate president nominated him and he is greatly qualified and overwhelmingly confirmed by both parties as a Federal Judge.
Stop destroying the constitution GOP..
The American people are not that stupid.
Let's call Judge Garland and start the process correctly since a legitimate president nominated him and he is greatly qualified and overwhelmingly confirmed by both parties as a Federal Judge.
Stop destroying the constitution GOP..
The American people are not that stupid.
uh...icebergs?
The irony seems to be that the Senate is all-consumed with this SCOPUS picks because they know they can no longer govern themselves. In a government that no longer works, legislation happens in the courts.
The 2016 election was about the direction of the country.
One of the choices was composition of the Supreme Court.
After Scalia died the voters got the extra bonus of shaping the immediate future of the court through their vote for President.
Hillary Clinton may have cost herself the election for not naming names as to who she would pick to fill the vacancy.
The reason there was no hullabaloo about Garland not getting a hearing is that the voters wanted a say through their vote for President.
If Clinton had won the Democrats would not even be mentioning Garland.
One of the choices was composition of the Supreme Court.
After Scalia died the voters got the extra bonus of shaping the immediate future of the court through their vote for President.
Hillary Clinton may have cost herself the election for not naming names as to who she would pick to fill the vacancy.
The reason there was no hullabaloo about Garland not getting a hearing is that the voters wanted a say through their vote for President.
If Clinton had won the Democrats would not even be mentioning Garland.
3
Lies. The people voted for Obama, they HAD spoken, and it was his nomination, made 10 months before the election, that should have been voted on by the Senate.
McConnell, in an act of unpatriotic, corrupt spinelessness, violated his Constitutional duty by refusing to hold hearings and vote on Garland.
That had NOTHING to do with Clinton, but everything to do with McConnell's corruption.
McConnell, in an act of unpatriotic, corrupt spinelessness, violated his Constitutional duty by refusing to hold hearings and vote on Garland.
That had NOTHING to do with Clinton, but everything to do with McConnell's corruption.
4
The "give voters a voice" line implied that an appointment by Obama would _not_ represent voters' voice. Whose voice _would_ it represent, then, exactly?
Had Justice Scalia lived, we’d have a justice reflecting an election outcome from 1984. Why, then, did conservatives object to a justice solely because he would reflect an election outcome from 2012?
Had Justice Scalia lived, we’d have a justice reflecting an election outcome from 1984. Why, then, did conservatives object to a justice solely because he would reflect an election outcome from 2012?
2
I distinctly remember a massive and sustained hullabaloo about Garland not getting a hearing. How could anyone miss it?
Rather than outright ban the fillibuster, how about we just make them talk until they fall over. A fillibuster meant something when you had to work at it,. instead of being a minority obstructionism technique.
1
I see a lot of responses along the lines of 'it is time to get over this and heal the Senate' or 'yes, Republican behaved badly but time to put things aside for the good of the country' or something similar. The strange thing is is always in the context of Democrats doing this. I'm sure I've seen it reversed but seldom. It seems that Republicans are not asked to put aside their differences and 'heal the Senate'. I wonder why?
4
Apparently republicans have God on their side so they can cheat and lie as they please. Of course their God is suspiciously cruel and without compassion for his creation. Strange phenomena.
1
Spare me from the "he said" / "she said" nonsense.
What we have seen from judges pushed through by conservatives, helped sometimes by the acquiescence of some Democrats, has been a clear move away from democracy and to oligarchy. The court, which should stand as a last protection to the powerless from the depredations of the powerful (with their armies of lobbyists), has made nonsensical decisions such as Citizens United - which enabled with money to overwhelm the voices of ordinary people - and various decisions which enable religious organizations and religious owners of businesses to force their beliefs on others in the specious name of "religious freedom".
Who is on the Court matters and these conservatives jurists - who are the real "activist" judges - have an impact on our lives for many years.
When the Republicans nominate jurists who haven't shown long histories of favoring the powerful and twisting the law to the advantage of the wealthy, you won't see the Democrats fighting the nomination.
What we have seen from judges pushed through by conservatives, helped sometimes by the acquiescence of some Democrats, has been a clear move away from democracy and to oligarchy. The court, which should stand as a last protection to the powerless from the depredations of the powerful (with their armies of lobbyists), has made nonsensical decisions such as Citizens United - which enabled with money to overwhelm the voices of ordinary people - and various decisions which enable religious organizations and religious owners of businesses to force their beliefs on others in the specious name of "religious freedom".
Who is on the Court matters and these conservatives jurists - who are the real "activist" judges - have an impact on our lives for many years.
When the Republicans nominate jurists who haven't shown long histories of favoring the powerful and twisting the law to the advantage of the wealthy, you won't see the Democrats fighting the nomination.
4
This whole issue is a result of the inability of congress to produce legislation.
The standard cure for a court ruling, that seemed to be "legislating from the bench" used to be to pass a new law. In fact, Justices have occasionally advised Congress to do this, after issuing a decision that, while following the law, did not really seem appropriate.
Since our modern Congress is pretty much incapable of passing any laws, the opinions of the Justices have become much more important, leading to the exaggerated battles over their selection.
The root of this problem? The same as all other problems in our government - money in politics. How can you reach a consensus, when you "owe" your contributors the outcomes they paid your for? You can't - and that is why our government is deteriorating rapidly.
Solutions:
1. Shorten the length of the election cycle - all primaries must be on the same day.
2. Allow any congressman to to offer a bill in the house, so as to reduce the power of committee chairmen.
3. Term limits for House and Senate members.
4. Require any politician with excess funds at the end of a campaign, to return the money to their contributors on a pro-rata basis. Under no circumstances, can they be allowed to pass it on to other politicians, as they do now.
5. Ban all, non-product, non-service advertising from television and radio.
Our current version of government, is no more than a "delivery boy" for the ultra wealth - it's time for a change.
The standard cure for a court ruling, that seemed to be "legislating from the bench" used to be to pass a new law. In fact, Justices have occasionally advised Congress to do this, after issuing a decision that, while following the law, did not really seem appropriate.
Since our modern Congress is pretty much incapable of passing any laws, the opinions of the Justices have become much more important, leading to the exaggerated battles over their selection.
The root of this problem? The same as all other problems in our government - money in politics. How can you reach a consensus, when you "owe" your contributors the outcomes they paid your for? You can't - and that is why our government is deteriorating rapidly.
Solutions:
1. Shorten the length of the election cycle - all primaries must be on the same day.
2. Allow any congressman to to offer a bill in the house, so as to reduce the power of committee chairmen.
3. Term limits for House and Senate members.
4. Require any politician with excess funds at the end of a campaign, to return the money to their contributors on a pro-rata basis. Under no circumstances, can they be allowed to pass it on to other politicians, as they do now.
5. Ban all, non-product, non-service advertising from television and radio.
Our current version of government, is no more than a "delivery boy" for the ultra wealth - it's time for a change.
4
The deeper problem than that over the filibuster and its use is that of the judiciary's usurpation of power.
I can't think of any set of decisions in my lifetime by the Federal judiciary more flagrant in ignoring clear law and precedent than the recent decisions blocking President Trump's Executive Order regarding immigration. I truly don't see how an honest, reasonably objective person could agree that those decisions comported with the law and well established precedent regarding the powers granted to the President, and the powers denied to the judiciary to second guess the President on these matters. Being triggered by President Trump, and invoking a Trump exception, does not actually make for a legitimate legal argument.
Progressives today celebrate these literally lawless decisions, but there is a price that must be paid. That price is the complete denial of opportunity to left leaning judges henceforward. A judge who cannot be trusted to abide by law and precedent is a judge who should never have been appointed.
I expect and hope that President Trump, and further Republican Presidents, will not appoint a single left leaning judge anywhere in the country -- not even in the infamous 9th Circuit.
This is a battle must be fought: the judiciary cannot usurp the rightful powers of the President or Congress.
I can't think of any set of decisions in my lifetime by the Federal judiciary more flagrant in ignoring clear law and precedent than the recent decisions blocking President Trump's Executive Order regarding immigration. I truly don't see how an honest, reasonably objective person could agree that those decisions comported with the law and well established precedent regarding the powers granted to the President, and the powers denied to the judiciary to second guess the President on these matters. Being triggered by President Trump, and invoking a Trump exception, does not actually make for a legitimate legal argument.
Progressives today celebrate these literally lawless decisions, but there is a price that must be paid. That price is the complete denial of opportunity to left leaning judges henceforward. A judge who cannot be trusted to abide by law and precedent is a judge who should never have been appointed.
I expect and hope that President Trump, and further Republican Presidents, will not appoint a single left leaning judge anywhere in the country -- not even in the infamous 9th Circuit.
This is a battle must be fought: the judiciary cannot usurp the rightful powers of the President or Congress.
3
This article is exceptionally unhelpful because it completely disregarded the pragmatic impact of each party's actions. As other commenters have noted, our Supreme Court had played home to some few ideologues, none of them remotely leftist. The Republican party plays scorched earth, take no prisoners politics - power for the sake of power. The left is conciliatory by nature and this has led to our current government - far right iconoclasts looting and pillaging, completely deaf to the common man's situation. I am disgusted with the "conservatives" (who are interested in conserving nothing). Let them take the filibuster. We are on the cusp of a serious upheaval where these amoral excuses for human beings get their just deserves. The filibuster will simply slow down the inevitable massive rebound of the pendulum.
3
Mitch McConnell, with support from candidate Donald Trump, effectively amended the US Constitution by refusing to consider a nominee.
This is not a fleeting political skirmish. The Democratic base demands that Democratic Senators not acquiesce to the Republican Senate.
McConnell would be really wise to seek mediation and a compromise.
This is not a fleeting political skirmish. The Democratic base demands that Democratic Senators not acquiesce to the Republican Senate.
McConnell would be really wise to seek mediation and a compromise.
1
Leave the court at 8 and sit this out until we learn about the fate of the current president and administration.
6
"Schumer ... cited concerns over Judge Gorsuch’s record on workers’ rights and his degree of independence from Mr. Trump and conservative groups like the Federalist Society, which pushed for Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. “It’s not vengeance for us,” he said. “It’s not payback.”"
I would like to see more of the coverage of the Gorsuch confirmation be based, like this comment, on the specific concerns the Democrats have.
After all, a large majority of Americans would like to overturn the Republicans' Citizens United Decision, don't think corporations are people, or that billionaires' money should be treated as speech, and so would agree with those who are opposed to letting Trump give Gorsuch a lifetime appointment to the Court.
Let's focus on the very substantive and serious concerns of the Democrats who plan to vote against Gorsuch, rather than treat this like being poked and poked back in kindergarten.
I would like to see more of the coverage of the Gorsuch confirmation be based, like this comment, on the specific concerns the Democrats have.
After all, a large majority of Americans would like to overturn the Republicans' Citizens United Decision, don't think corporations are people, or that billionaires' money should be treated as speech, and so would agree with those who are opposed to letting Trump give Gorsuch a lifetime appointment to the Court.
Let's focus on the very substantive and serious concerns of the Democrats who plan to vote against Gorsuch, rather than treat this like being poked and poked back in kindergarten.
5
"“It may indeed make it impossible for presidents to confirm any nominee at any point in their terms unless they also have control of the Senate.”"
The Republicans already threatened to filibuster any nominee of Hillary Clinton's so the idea that this seat would not be filled unless there is a [Republican] President who controls the Senate was the Republican plan from the moment Scalia died.
The Republicans already threatened to filibuster any nominee of Hillary Clinton's so the idea that this seat would not be filled unless there is a [Republican] President who controls the Senate was the Republican plan from the moment Scalia died.
5
Mild-mannered or smooth? How many protestations of integrity and empathy without any evidence?
I am a Bloomberg Independent who voted for Obama and Hillary. But how judge Gorsuch is being treated by Chuck Schumer and the Liberals is a DISGRACE and DISGUSTING. I lost all respect Chuckie. Gorsuch is a good man who will apply the rule of law how it is meant to be applied. I wish all Supreme Court nominees and appointments were of his caliber. Trump will appoint someone - at least this person is independent, thoughtful and rational.
4
What do you mean by "meant to be applied"? Who means what?
1
SGT: Do you agree with the corporations are people, money is speech Citizens United decision? The majority of Americans don't and thus oppose on substance this Republican takeover [yes, takeover, since they blocked the centrist Garland] of the Court.
Schumer filibusters and loses. Gorsuch only needs 50 votes, and he gets them. The Winning Score : Stupidity 1, America 0.
This is just one more step down the road to dissolution of the Union. Abe was dead right when he said a House divided against itself cannot stand.
We are uncompromisingly divided - like the Hatfields and McCoys. You hate Us, and we loathe You. Doesn't have the same cachet as E Pluribus Unum or The Melting Pot, does it?
The county-by-county election results were like an MRI of the body politic of the United States. Depending upon your politics, large parts of our body is wracked with malignant lesions.
R.I.P. America. Death by our own hands.
This is just one more step down the road to dissolution of the Union. Abe was dead right when he said a House divided against itself cannot stand.
We are uncompromisingly divided - like the Hatfields and McCoys. You hate Us, and we loathe You. Doesn't have the same cachet as E Pluribus Unum or The Melting Pot, does it?
The county-by-county election results were like an MRI of the body politic of the United States. Depending upon your politics, large parts of our body is wracked with malignant lesions.
R.I.P. America. Death by our own hands.
2
Perhaps Lincoln would have advocated to dissolve the states had he not been assassinated. They had lost their purpose with the abolition of slavery and attendant unequal protection of law, and should have been replaced by administrative districts.
There are two big losers in this saga, the Democratic Party, wholly deserving, and the other, the Supreme Court, wholly undeserving.
Four months after losing the election, the Democratic party still shows no signs of learning lessons, re-configuring, re-calibrating, re-inventing. No plan B but obstruct at every corner. Ha! Asking once again, for the American voter to mete out hard punishment, which they will surely do as early as 2018. If Democrats won't stop digging their hole deeper, the voters will happily do their part, bury Democrats in droves at the polls.
The bigger issue here is the collateral damage to the Supreme Court, starting with Judge Garland. The blame for his humiliation surely falls on Obama for nominating him despite clear and unequivocal message that his nomination was DOA. And also on the judge himself, for not withdrawing his nomination when the same was spelt out to him equally clearly over breakfast with Senator Grassley, At that point, Garland was no longer a nominee, but as was obvious to everyone, another sorry and rhetorical excuse for Obama's failed presidency. The proper thing to do would have been request his president withdraw his nomination. Surprise, surprise, that didn't happen, so Garland just kept limping. Which, in a strange twist, brought-out his unfitness for neutrality, and therefore SC judgeship.
Finally, the issue of a damaged court split along party lines. Simple way to fix: require a 2/3 majority for all rulings.
Four months after losing the election, the Democratic party still shows no signs of learning lessons, re-configuring, re-calibrating, re-inventing. No plan B but obstruct at every corner. Ha! Asking once again, for the American voter to mete out hard punishment, which they will surely do as early as 2018. If Democrats won't stop digging their hole deeper, the voters will happily do their part, bury Democrats in droves at the polls.
The bigger issue here is the collateral damage to the Supreme Court, starting with Judge Garland. The blame for his humiliation surely falls on Obama for nominating him despite clear and unequivocal message that his nomination was DOA. And also on the judge himself, for not withdrawing his nomination when the same was spelt out to him equally clearly over breakfast with Senator Grassley, At that point, Garland was no longer a nominee, but as was obvious to everyone, another sorry and rhetorical excuse for Obama's failed presidency. The proper thing to do would have been request his president withdraw his nomination. Surprise, surprise, that didn't happen, so Garland just kept limping. Which, in a strange twist, brought-out his unfitness for neutrality, and therefore SC judgeship.
Finally, the issue of a damaged court split along party lines. Simple way to fix: require a 2/3 majority for all rulings.
4
Nihilists are the only happy Trump voters I see.
2
You don't sound nonpartisan to me. You just want to push down on the accelerator that's rushing our society off the cliff. More support to sociopathic billionaires who can hide their manipulations of our unraveling society.
2
In grade school elections, we learned that if you lie, cheat and steal, you couldn't be the winner even if you got the most votes, which, of course, Trump did not.
1
I think the senate show "advise and consent" on the Gorsuch nomination, immediately after they "advise and consent" on the Garland nomination. Anything less is obstructionism for political gain, and is inappropriate.
7
Money is speech and corporations are people, my friends.
Yeah, average people really want more of that thinking on the Supreme Court. Gorsuch will fit in just fine, and Senate Republicans will insist on it.
Yeah, average people really want more of that thinking on the Supreme Court. Gorsuch will fit in just fine, and Senate Republicans will insist on it.
1
There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with Gorsuch. He is a good, conscientious thorough judge. Much better than the weak minded, poltically pandering judges who keep overturning Trump's temporary immigration and travel bans.
4
The comparisons of Judge Gorsuch to Garland are apples to oranges. The President has the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice; the Senate has the right to "advise and consent" on those nominations. Hearings are at the discretion of the party in charge of the Senate. The advice to Obama was to not nominate Garland to fill Scalia's seat. Since he ignored this advice, consent hearings weren't granted. President Trump was advised to nominate Judge Gorsuch and hearings have followed. We shall see If Senate consent follows.
Actually, the simple solution would be to strike a deal where Garland is nominated when the next liberal Justice retires. Perhaps that would encourage Ginsburg to move along. Otherwise Democrats could suffer immeasurable setbacks.
Actually, the simple solution would be to strike a deal where Garland is nominated when the next liberal Justice retires. Perhaps that would encourage Ginsburg to move along. Otherwise Democrats could suffer immeasurable setbacks.
3
Very Serious People may gnaw on about partisanship. But, honestly, with the current integrity of the Republican party which is the elephant in the room. With a variety of litmus tests, including reversing roe vs. wade and "originalist" thinking that allows for disenfranchisement of voters, that the Republicans made clear time and time again. No the time for compromise is not now. The time for principal is.
Gorsuch has Trumps support for a reason. He has Dark money for another. It is because everyone, Democrat and Republican, perfectly well understand where he is on the political spectrum, to the right of just about everyone on the court.
To gnaw about partisanship is dog whistling white nationalism,
Gorsuch has Trumps support for a reason. He has Dark money for another. It is because everyone, Democrat and Republican, perfectly well understand where he is on the political spectrum, to the right of just about everyone on the court.
To gnaw about partisanship is dog whistling white nationalism,
3
Obstructing this nominee has little to do with his qualifications. It has everything to do with the treatment of Judge Garland and the fact that the person who nominated him is under an active FBI investigation. Those 2 facts alone make a no vote appropriate.
3
Asterix him!
Garland didn't get a vote, so don't give Gorsuch a vote.
Since a filibuster is unlikely to succeed and may be counter-productive, I propose abstaining, or better yet, leaving the chamber.
Let him be "confirmed" 52:0
Garland didn't get a vote, so don't give Gorsuch a vote.
Since a filibuster is unlikely to succeed and may be counter-productive, I propose abstaining, or better yet, leaving the chamber.
Let him be "confirmed" 52:0
1
Advise and consent to judicial and executive appointments, and to forging treaty obligations with other nations and international bodies, are fundamental responsibilities of the Senate. Why do we not all have equal representation in this body? Is this an immortal intention of dead people?
If he's confirmed he is Judge Gorland.
Look, I don't need to have a perfect solution to point out that when matters reach an impasse that more thoughtful types dig deep, examine first principles, and propose reformist solutions.
If the problem is that each of these vacancies are so high stakes that neither side feels they can compromise at all, that each seat is an existential threat, then one solution would be to de-escalate the uniqueness of each opportunity/threat.
Nothing says there must be a fixed number of justices. Many other courts operate with even more seats. Why not just agree that periodically every President gets to nominate a justice regardless of whether there is a vacancy? Maybe 1 per term, or 1 per Senate two-year cycle? Wouldn't making these events more frequent take quite a bit of sting out of every "defeat" for the "losing" side? Likewise, each death or resignation need not generate a vacancy at all (so long as a minimum number of justices be on the court, say, seven).
Let the court figure out how they want to arrange their affairs with a double-digit number of justices.
(Other reforms such as an age limit, or a maximum term might also be proffered.)
The bottom line is that there are solutions out there and we won't get to a mutually satisfactory solution unless Democrats do stand up, say no, and then offer alternatives to what most honest people is an unacceptable raw majoritarian ("nuclear") solution. Where is a Howard Baker or Daniel Patrick Moynihan when we need one?
If the problem is that each of these vacancies are so high stakes that neither side feels they can compromise at all, that each seat is an existential threat, then one solution would be to de-escalate the uniqueness of each opportunity/threat.
Nothing says there must be a fixed number of justices. Many other courts operate with even more seats. Why not just agree that periodically every President gets to nominate a justice regardless of whether there is a vacancy? Maybe 1 per term, or 1 per Senate two-year cycle? Wouldn't making these events more frequent take quite a bit of sting out of every "defeat" for the "losing" side? Likewise, each death or resignation need not generate a vacancy at all (so long as a minimum number of justices be on the court, say, seven).
Let the court figure out how they want to arrange their affairs with a double-digit number of justices.
(Other reforms such as an age limit, or a maximum term might also be proffered.)
The bottom line is that there are solutions out there and we won't get to a mutually satisfactory solution unless Democrats do stand up, say no, and then offer alternatives to what most honest people is an unacceptable raw majoritarian ("nuclear") solution. Where is a Howard Baker or Daniel Patrick Moynihan when we need one?
2
From the hearing itself, Neil Gorsuch does not deserve a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and the Democrats should do whatever is feasible to block his nomination. Senator Franken observed correctly Judge Gorsuch's analysis of a case concerning a truck driver in a life and death situation as absurd. Considering the rest of his testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee was void of any substance to judge the man, then all the committee had to go on included his unreasoned analysis. When we return to a time when a person presents himself, warts and all, instead of just evasion, then and only then should the person be given a vote.
4
When Obama nominated Merrick Garland the Republicans (likely in violation of the Constitution) said that because he only had 11 months to go in his term, they would refuse to give Garland a hearing and let the next President make the nomination. So the question is, how do we know who will be President 11 months from now. The fact is that we don't know. Given the Russian scandal and Trumps many conflicts of interest how do we know that he will still be President in 11 months. So following the Republican logic, we should wait at least 11 months before holding a vote on Neil Gorsuch.
13
Why is there never any mention of the age of appointees that leads to the likelihood thar a judge may well sit for 40 years or more.
2
I use the expression "life-term judge" when referring to the federal judiciary as Homer uses "wine-dark sea" to refer to the ocean.
Republicans prevented Obama’s selection for
The Supreme Court because the time line was
“during the last (but >full) year of his office.”
Democrats are preventing Trump’s selection
because this time line is during the first year
(but <100 days!) of HIS office in which this POTUS
and his Team are under investigation by every
Intelligence Agency in our government for
possible Treason.
Not “Oranges & Apples” but Partisan vs. Patriotism
The Supreme Court because the time line was
“during the last (but >full) year of his office.”
Democrats are preventing Trump’s selection
because this time line is during the first year
(but <100 days!) of HIS office in which this POTUS
and his Team are under investigation by every
Intelligence Agency in our government for
possible Treason.
Not “Oranges & Apples” but Partisan vs. Patriotism
Republicans love to point to Bork in 1987 as the time the Supreme Court became so unfortunately politicized (i.e., by Democrats). In fact, it was 1968, when the Nixon campaign made the nomination of conservative judges to the Supreme Court a central plank of its campaign. "Law-and-order judges" would turn things around in this country, they said, using their favorite racial dogwhistle of the time. Their determination to appoint "strict constructionist" judges was so great that they settled on two early choices (Haynesworth and Carswell) who were so awful that they were turned down by the Senate. Want to know whom to blame for the politicization of Supreme Court nominees? Nixon's The One!
1
It is clearly a bad idea to let presidents who have gained office by treason to appoint life-term judges to federal courts.
3
"plainly qualified"? Matt Flegenheimer should read Linda Greenhouse's recent article and the wonderful article about the original intent theory by Jill Lepore in the recent New Yorker. Gorsuch is an ultra-conservative judge whose views, including original intent, are far outside the mainstream. Greenhouse said he was the least forthcoming of any candidate ever, even refusing to say whether he would uphold Roe v. Wade. All he would say was that it was a "precedent." Lepore compared original intent to the magic feather in Dumbo, a conservative's excuse for far-right rulings. For a so-called historical-based theory, the fact is that only 2 Supreme court justices in over 200 years have followed the theory, and that neither the founders nor the early justices followed it. It is a flawed solution looking for a problem.
5
The "original intent" of the founders was to base legitimacy of government on the delegation of specific natural and artificial powers of people to a permanent organization to be exercised for the benefit of all citizens. This was a departure from the juvenile resort to the claim that God bestowed government on the people that prevailed prior to the Revolution. Nobody expected the constitution to endure this long, and even the most visionary did not imagine what has become technologically commonplace today.
I will not be happy until Judge Garland is the nominee. Whether the Senate approves him is a different story. He deserves a hearing and should not have been blocked because the GOP can't stand a black President.
2
Merrick Garland is the rightful new court justice.
Trump and company are treasonous radicals and need to be removed, yesterday.
Trump and company are treasonous radicals and need to be removed, yesterday.
1
He failed to show soundness of judgment when he failed to demand a hearing for the preceding nominee, Merrick Garland, FIRST.
2
Bork becamed one of the founders of the Federalist Society, along with similar like-minded right wing radicals like Edwin Meese. The Society was created for the purpose of vetting any potential judicial candidates (even at state and local levels) according to their adherence to numerous litmus tests, chief among them the willingness to defer to any legislative agenda pursued by a conservative, right wing legislature. The "code" for the litmus test was a refusal to engage in "judicial activism". Every ambitious judicial candidate, Gorsuch included, submits to the "extreme vetting" of the Society; his name would not have. Been on the short list prepared by and handed to Trump by the Society, with Gorsuch's name on it. Gorsuch claims to be his "now man"; in reality, he is the Federalist Society's man.
"Next week, the last bastion of comity is expected to fall over a plainly qualified, mild-mannered nominee who had no major stumbles in his hearings."
You could say the same thing about Merrick Garland except for that part about hearings.
You could say the same thing about Merrick Garland except for that part about hearings.
2
It really matters not what the Dems do. Gorsuch is in. If the filibuster isn't out now, it will be at the next appointment.
The idea that Gorsuch is an impeccable candidate is ludicrous: his past makes clear that he is another corporate candidate of the Citizens United category. There's nothing to be done about it, and the next appointment is very likely to be more extreme. That isn't to be changed by whatever is done now.
So a gesture of dissatisfaction is all that's left, unsatisfying as that is.
The idea that Gorsuch is an impeccable candidate is ludicrous: his past makes clear that he is another corporate candidate of the Citizens United category. There's nothing to be done about it, and the next appointment is very likely to be more extreme. That isn't to be changed by whatever is done now.
So a gesture of dissatisfaction is all that's left, unsatisfying as that is.
3
He had no "stumbles during his hearing' because he was trained to say nothing. This guy is a replacement by a President who was not elected fairly. This guy may be qualified but he is more conservative than Scalia and so yes, pull the nuclear option Mitch.
Let's really see some crazy rulings out of this august body in the next few years! Rulings that foment street revolutions and the end of the GOP as we know it.
Let's really see some crazy rulings out of this august body in the next few years! Rulings that foment street revolutions and the end of the GOP as we know it.
3
No matter which side you are on is this fight, I think we have to admit that the filibuster is a "dead man walking". Once upon a time it was sacrosanct and nobody would dare "go there". Now that it's out in the open, it's just a matter of time until one party or the other lacks 60 votes, and "goes nuclear". the Republicans are not going to see Gorsuch go down over trying to preserve it when you can be sure that the Democrats, if they had their backs to the wall, would likewise surely scrap it.
3
The filibuster only exists because the Senate is so speciously apportioned that it bears little resemblance to any genuinely representative legislative body.
Allowing Senators to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee makes sense to reduce the possible appointment of a justice with views far from the legal mainstream (such as Robert Bork) or one without the proper experience (such as Harriet Miers). But as political payback?
Certainly, it was wrong--indeed unconscionable--for Senate Republicans to deny Merrick Garland a hearing last year. But now that Neil Gorsuch has had a hearing, the only proper course is to proceed with a vote. Isn't that what President Obama would have demanded?
Certainly, it was wrong--indeed unconscionable--for Senate Republicans to deny Merrick Garland a hearing last year. But now that Neil Gorsuch has had a hearing, the only proper course is to proceed with a vote. Isn't that what President Obama would have demanded?
27
Given Republican Party discipline, "allowing a vote" equals confirmation. If you don't want him to sit on the Court, the only way to say so is to prevent the vote. Simple as that.
And after the first few months of Trump circus, I don't think even Obama believes the old "bipartisanship" claptrap. That's a dead letter now.
And after the first few months of Trump circus, I don't think even Obama believes the old "bipartisanship" claptrap. That's a dead letter now.
2
"without the proper experience (such as Harriet Miers)"?
The Constitution doesn't even require that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer.
The Constitution doesn't even require that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer.
2
Present Obama oversaw the near destruction of the Democratic Party. He failed to use the bully pulpit to defend Garland. Obama was part of the problem.He reached out to the Republicans and received a slap in the face. He apparently forgot he was Black--McConnell did not.
2
As a Republican, I want Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch. Ending the filibuster now will end any worries about it when the next vacancy occurs, one that will really change the balance on the Court and secure conservatives domination for a generation. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot if they filibuster, actually more like shooting themselves in the head. Dumb.
However, as a person who supports bipartisanship, I lament what's happened with Supreme Court nominees. And I'll lament the end of the filibuster.
However, as a person who supports bipartisanship, I lament what's happened with Supreme Court nominees. And I'll lament the end of the filibuster.
5
Democrats put on their big-boy pants and listened to Gorsuch.
Now Republicans need to put on their big-boy pants, and play by the rules of the 60 vote requirement.
Now Republicans need to put on their big-boy pants, and play by the rules of the 60 vote requirement.
2
Actually Merrick Garland didn't even get a hearing. His hearing should precede Gorsuch's. Gorsuch failed from the onset of this hearing by not mentioning the unfairness and lawlessness of not allowing a hearing to even be held for Mr. Garland.
2
Isn't it interesting how Republicans used every trick in the book to obstruct President Obama but whine and complain when Democrats use the same tactics. They expect Democrats to cave which they have done in the past and will lead to much anger now if they do. It is time for Republicans to do what is right.
2
Republicans often claim the battle over Supreme Court nominees began with Bork. That may be true because Reagan nominated Bork knowing full well that he was the Justice Department official willing to fire the special prosecutor on Richard Nixon's orders -- after the U.S. Attorney General had refused and resigned and then the Deputy also refused and resigned (Richardson and Ruckelshaus were both men of principle). So Bork had no principles. He deserved "Borking" but then the Republicans made sure to do it to the next Democratic nominee, regardless of whether it was deserved or not.
2
Talented, wealthy, well-connection children shouldn't be tasked with selecting our nation's judges.
1
We have a President often compared to a middle-schooler, and now Congress is being explained using school-yard taunts.
1
Seriously folks, if you think the Republicans won't go there, or are scraping the bottom of the barrel, you haven't been paying attention long enough.
The only, and I mean only thing they understand is power. They will collude with foreign powers, cover it up, instigate a hot civil war, have presidents assassinated, disenfranchise voters, anything at all. They will change the laws to make it legal. They will drag it out in the courts when caught. They will throw underlings under the bus and create new distractions to deflect from the old.
They have been perverting the course of governance for the entire history of the USA, and they are not going away.
The only, and I mean only thing they understand is power. They will collude with foreign powers, cover it up, instigate a hot civil war, have presidents assassinated, disenfranchise voters, anything at all. They will change the laws to make it legal. They will drag it out in the courts when caught. They will throw underlings under the bus and create new distractions to deflect from the old.
They have been perverting the course of governance for the entire history of the USA, and they are not going away.
9
Ask yourself: would the Democrats in similar circumstances, watch a nominee go down over a filibuster in today's environment? We can pretend, but I think that horse has left the barn.
2
But, THEY REALLY DID START IT! The Republican Senate Majority Leader refused to fulfill his Constitutional duty and give President Obama's nominee a HEARING. It's absurd to say that a filibuster is the same as dereliction of duty. Garland deserved his due process. If Judge Gorsuch had a shred of character he would decline this illegitimate nomination by the soon-to-be ex 45th president.
28
Indeed. Judge Gorsuch already has a life-term appointment to a federal appellate court. It would be no skin off his own back to decline this nomination to express his solidarity with the process due Judge Garland.
1
"Hours later, as liberal activists scolded him, the septuagenarian senator issued a clarification on Twitter."
Again, social media driving this madhouse. Before Facebook and Twitter there would have been a cooling-off period allowing only the most substantive objections or criticism to persist.
Not any longer. The biggest garbage will develop momentum and carry the day, as long as it can sustain itself not by substance, but by whipping up emotions.
Can someone remind me what exactly the difference between a liberal activist and a Tea Party member is?
Again, social media driving this madhouse. Before Facebook and Twitter there would have been a cooling-off period allowing only the most substantive objections or criticism to persist.
Not any longer. The biggest garbage will develop momentum and carry the day, as long as it can sustain itself not by substance, but by whipping up emotions.
Can someone remind me what exactly the difference between a liberal activist and a Tea Party member is?
5
Dyslexia.
Ann Gorsuch, Neil's mother, was Ronald Reagan's Scott Pruitt at the EPA. She left the office under a cloud.
2
The fiction about Robert Bork persists. Please remember Bork was given a hearing. Was Ted Kennedy hyperbolic in his criticisms of Bork? Perhaps partisans can argue that. The simple facts are that when pressed for answers Birk disqualified himself by virtue of what came out of his own mouth. Tit for tat? Give me a break. If you're keeping score one Clarence Thomas does more damage than three centrist judges.
18
reminds me of the sharks and the jets in West Side Story - - "Well they began it (Jets), Well, they began it (Sharks)"
2
False equivalence. On a scale of conservative to liberal, 1 being most right-wing, 5 most left-wing - none of the "liberal" justices are a 5. But Thomas and Gorsuch are 1's, Alito & Roberts barely over.
Supporting abortion rights and opposing big money in campaigns does not make you a flaming liberal. It's policy that most Americans agree on. The country labels itself as center-right, but holds centrist opinions.
Gutting voting rights, treating government regulations as unconstitutional, flooding campaigns with secret money, are way out of the mainstream.
Political strategies are not mirror images of each other. If they were, it would be clockwork. Please recognize the fear middle-American white people feel, watching demographic & cultural shifts in the country. Theirs is a defensive strategy. They block.
From 1789 to 2008, 3 district court nominees were filibustered. Under Obama, 20 were. That's a rate increase of about 18,000%. Reid didn't act precipitously.
Nothing symbolizes false equivalence like comparing Gorsuch and Garland. One is a radical, the other centrist.
Supporting abortion rights and opposing big money in campaigns does not make you a flaming liberal. It's policy that most Americans agree on. The country labels itself as center-right, but holds centrist opinions.
Gutting voting rights, treating government regulations as unconstitutional, flooding campaigns with secret money, are way out of the mainstream.
Political strategies are not mirror images of each other. If they were, it would be clockwork. Please recognize the fear middle-American white people feel, watching demographic & cultural shifts in the country. Theirs is a defensive strategy. They block.
From 1789 to 2008, 3 district court nominees were filibustered. Under Obama, 20 were. That's a rate increase of about 18,000%. Reid didn't act precipitously.
Nothing symbolizes false equivalence like comparing Gorsuch and Garland. One is a radical, the other centrist.
19
There are few adults in Congress. He said, she said, they started it, no they started it just proves it. If the Republicans had given Garland at the minimum a confirmation hearing and legitimate vote up or down, just maybe things would be a tad easier to swallow. Just a tad.
4
Simply as a practical perspective: Gorsuch will be confirmed. It will happen either because he gets 60 votes or because the Republicans will vote for cloture and Gorsuch will get the needed majority. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. This is not the time or issue for the Democrats to try to draw a line in the sand. They will lose. I shudder to think about the next nominee.
3
Regardless of Gorsuch's qualifications, capabilities, and ideologies, and regardless of the hypocrisy of Republicans on the Garland nomination, the Senate needs to postpone its vote for one simple reason: the person who nominated him may not be in a legitimate position to do so.
If the FBI and congressional investigations find that the Trump campaign did collude with the Russians, and Trump is removed from office for this reason, what will we do if Gorsuch is already on the bench? Are there established protocols for dealing with this? Better to wait until Trump is either cleared, or not cleared, of crimes that could nullify his presidency.
Wait out the investigations, senators. When all's clear, go ahead and vote however ye may.
If the FBI and congressional investigations find that the Trump campaign did collude with the Russians, and Trump is removed from office for this reason, what will we do if Gorsuch is already on the bench? Are there established protocols for dealing with this? Better to wait until Trump is either cleared, or not cleared, of crimes that could nullify his presidency.
Wait out the investigations, senators. When all's clear, go ahead and vote however ye may.
7
I'm 'with' the folks who want to filibuster.
McConnell stated the "people" should have a say in next SC nominee. Well, they DON'T now! Unless you consider the Electoral College 'the people.' I don't.
Obama was elected by both EC and popular vote, his nominee was not considered by Senate.
This nominee who was chosen by man voted in by EC only is not representing "the people." So... let him go down in history as a man not getting a clear win.
McConnell stated the "people" should have a say in next SC nominee. Well, they DON'T now! Unless you consider the Electoral College 'the people.' I don't.
Obama was elected by both EC and popular vote, his nominee was not considered by Senate.
This nominee who was chosen by man voted in by EC only is not representing "the people." So... let him go down in history as a man not getting a clear win.
2
Not to mention "the people" elected Hillary Clinton anyways...
3
"Unless you consider the Electoral College" You mean the Constitutional legal apparatus that determines who will be President? Yeah, why bother with that?
1
The hyper-politicization of nominees to the Supreme Court is an indicator of the peril our democracy is in. If we corrupt the very heart of our Constitutional democracy by this flawed, partisan political process, it and we along with it will fail. In order to eliminate the extremism now engulfing the process we need to change the criterion for a nominee to be approved from 60 votes that may soon be overturned to a simple majority (in the "nuclear option) 75 votes. This would ensure that all nominations would, in essence, be bipartisan and therefore moderate, non-ideoligical judges. The current process has only succeeded in gerrymandering the court into extreme, contentious wings rarely producing more than ideological 5-4 decisions.
1
"If we corrupt the very heart of our Constitutional democracy by this flawed, partisan political process..."
The GOP already has done this. The only retaliation is for the Dems to gain control of the Senate and refuse to allow any GOP nomination for the Court on the basis of tit for tat, which will be the new "standard procedure".
The GOP already has done this. The only retaliation is for the Dems to gain control of the Senate and refuse to allow any GOP nomination for the Court on the basis of tit for tat, which will be the new "standard procedure".
Short term, Gorsuch will be confirmed. The only drama is whether D's choose to force a change in Senate rules.
Long term (as the article quotes Jeffrey Rosen) the Q is whether a future president can confirm any nominee at any point in their terms unless they also have control of the Senate.
Also, if any future POTUS nominates a perceived moderate to get past a hostile Senate, will they regret it, like the Justice Souter scenario?
Long term (as the article quotes Jeffrey Rosen) the Q is whether a future president can confirm any nominee at any point in their terms unless they also have control of the Senate.
Also, if any future POTUS nominates a perceived moderate to get past a hostile Senate, will they regret it, like the Justice Souter scenario?
3
Senate Democrats should filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. The nomination process was permanently broken when Republicans failed to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland, and the nomination of an alternative candidate is simply the culmination of that abuse of power. Republican Senators demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the constitutional process and a complete inability to exercise any self-restraint. This is the new normal and we might as well confirm it. The Democrats will filibuster and the Republicans will change the rules to allow confirmation by a simple majority. And when the positions of the parties are ultimately reversed (as is inevitable), we will not hear complaints from Republicans that the nominee is Hillary Clinton (or someone equally reviled by them) instead of a more moderate nominee (like Judge Garland) and she is confirmed by a simple majority vote.
4
The likelihood is that the tables will be reversed in 30 years.
1
The refusal of the Senate to provide a hearing and vote for Garland violated the Constitution, because it stole the power of the President to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution gave Obama, not the Senate, that power.
The consequences of this unconstitutional theft is the legitimacy of our judicial branch of government. Therefore, it's of a different character altogether than the filibusters and the perhaps ill-considered votes against nominees.
There is no remedy to cure this injury. The seat, which was Obama's to fill under the Constitution, has sat empty, which has permanently affected the law of the land.
Part of the fault lays with Obama; he did not press his case out of an expectation that Clinton would win. But now we have a stolen seat which if filled destroys the legitimacy of the Court.
Democrats must refuse any nominee for a stolen seat, as the Justice who fills it will be illegitimate and his or her actions on the bench will be illegitimate.
The seat should remain open forever, a testament to the nihilism of McConnell. If we need additional justices for decisions, let Congress legislate an additional seat and let the sitting President fill it.
The consequences of this unconstitutional theft is the legitimacy of our judicial branch of government. Therefore, it's of a different character altogether than the filibusters and the perhaps ill-considered votes against nominees.
There is no remedy to cure this injury. The seat, which was Obama's to fill under the Constitution, has sat empty, which has permanently affected the law of the land.
Part of the fault lays with Obama; he did not press his case out of an expectation that Clinton would win. But now we have a stolen seat which if filled destroys the legitimacy of the Court.
Democrats must refuse any nominee for a stolen seat, as the Justice who fills it will be illegitimate and his or her actions on the bench will be illegitimate.
The seat should remain open forever, a testament to the nihilism of McConnell. If we need additional justices for decisions, let Congress legislate an additional seat and let the sitting President fill it.
8
Should have made these arguments to Biden and Schumer when they were advocating doing exactly what McConnell did to Garland when there were Republican presidents. Didn't hear a lot, or to be frank, any of these arguments being made then. Reap what you sow.
3
"Part of the fault lies with Obama; he did not press his case." He had no cards to play in that regard. No allies among the Republicans, and few interpersonal skills.
1
Actually, the Constitution is silent on any "requirement' for a nominee to have Senate hearings. The term is "advise and consent"; the Senate advised Obama not to nominate Garland. Thus, no hearings or consent. Further, Congress doesn't have to legislate any additional seats, since there is no set mandate on the number of Justices. The Court could stay at 8 Justices or increase to 1o with the simple consent of the Senate.
2
Yet again, the Republicans set the stage for even more partisan behavior and polarization of American politics—already very close to completely dysfunctional. As the "Party of No" during the Obama administration, Mitch McConnell openly vowed to make Barack Obama a one-term president by opposing everything and making it impossible for him to pass legislation or get appointments approved. This was shameless, inexcusable and a complete abdication of the Republicans' responsibilities as Congressmen and Senators. It was "Party über alles," and not the needs of America. McConnell misused the rules and gave Harry Reid no choice but to change them.
Now the Democrats want Gorsuch to achieve 60 votes, just like Kagan and Sotomayor had to do. If Mitch McConnell changes the rules, he will consolidate his reputation as one of the most cynical, hypocritical and shameless politicians in American history. And, given the questionable quality of many politicians in the past, that will be quite an achievement.
Now the Democrats want Gorsuch to achieve 60 votes, just like Kagan and Sotomayor had to do. If Mitch McConnell changes the rules, he will consolidate his reputation as one of the most cynical, hypocritical and shameless politicians in American history. And, given the questionable quality of many politicians in the past, that will be quite an achievement.
3
The constant whining about Garland is tiresome. Obama was given two uncontested, ultra liberal, nominations prior to that. The Republicans need to go nuclear and get Gorsuch through, then not sweat the next one or two seats that open. At that point, they can shove an ultra conservative down their throats, which they deserve.
5
Three vacancies occurred under Obama and three seats should be filled by Obama. It's as simple as that. Not to mention Trump is not even a legitimate President or patriot of this country.
2
Wow. You must be a very unhappy person with all that hate inside of you.
Wow. You must be a very unhappy person with all that hate inside of you.
Au contraire, I'm totally elated that the corrupt Clintons do not occupy the White House. Obviously you do not frequent these pages, or you would be aware of the daily vitriol, exhibited by truly hateful people, towards the current occupant of it.
Au contraire, I'm totally elated that the corrupt Clintons do not occupy the White House. Obviously you do not frequent these pages, or you would be aware of the daily vitriol, exhibited by truly hateful people, towards the current occupant of it.
3
This is in fact a stolen seat. Gorsuch is a corporate automaton. Filibuster him. Let the cheater Mitch McConnell play his hand and the nation witness his knavery.
8
GOP is crazy to think this is anything but payback for Garland. One hopes Dem Senators are getting this message to them in private.
The Senate leadership from both parties need to get to an understanding of new norms for how these appointments are going to go, so it's reasonably fair regardless of whether the President's party has a strong majority, weak majority, or a minority of Senate seats.
One hopes Senate seats are less susceptible to threats from the extreme right and extreme left, who won't like anything that looks like cooperation. But cooperation (on process) is exactly what's needed.
The Senate leadership from both parties need to get to an understanding of new norms for how these appointments are going to go, so it's reasonably fair regardless of whether the President's party has a strong majority, weak majority, or a minority of Senate seats.
One hopes Senate seats are less susceptible to threats from the extreme right and extreme left, who won't like anything that looks like cooperation. But cooperation (on process) is exactly what's needed.
1
The states are the permanently gerrymandered regions of the US.
There quite simply is no way to equate the Garland and Gorsuch affairs. Garland was afforded no chance, at all. That truly was the ultimate toxic decision. With the growing cloud of illegitimaty over the Trump, a very convincing case can be made for Democratic Party obstinacy.
,
,
8
Boys, is this grade school??? Do your job, OR go home. Permanently.
1
Everyone says the other guy started it, they are merely escalating the fight. And everyone is right.
But in my eyes, the violation of the Constitution (by Mitch McConnell, not by Justice Gorsuch) and thus the refusal to offer "advice and consent" on Obama's appointment, Justice Merrick Garland, was a MAJOR escalation.
Even more ironic given that Justice Gorsuch and his Republican allies continue to call themselves "originalists" and Constitutionalists." Sure, of course you are. Unless it's inconvenient politically, I guess.
But in my eyes, the violation of the Constitution (by Mitch McConnell, not by Justice Gorsuch) and thus the refusal to offer "advice and consent" on Obama's appointment, Justice Merrick Garland, was a MAJOR escalation.
Even more ironic given that Justice Gorsuch and his Republican allies continue to call themselves "originalists" and Constitutionalists." Sure, of course you are. Unless it's inconvenient politically, I guess.
295
I have absolutely zero respect for people who tell me they know what dead people think as well.
2
There is no violation of the Constitution. The Senate is not required to offer advice and consent within a specific time-frame. The Supreme Court can function with a minimum of six justices. The Constitution doesn't even specify how many justices should serve on the Court; Congress does that.
I guess you can toss out that blurb about the politicization originalists and constitutionalists.
I guess you can toss out that blurb about the politicization originalists and constitutionalists.
No. I don't base my condemnation of Judge Gorsuch on "they started it." That is nonsense.
I base it on the appalling shift towards voter suppression, getting rid of voting rights, a position he is demonstrated to hold.
I base it on his support of torture.
I base it on his support of corporations over life itself, when it comes to money. There would be one dead truck driver if his hypocrisy had dictated that the driver freeze in place.
I base it on his support of fetuses over women and family health and the lives of those already born.
I base it on Republican obstruction - now I'm getting to they started it - of the carefully chosen moderate Merrick Garland.
Death and kleptocracy over people? I don't think so.
I base it on the appalling shift towards voter suppression, getting rid of voting rights, a position he is demonstrated to hold.
I base it on his support of torture.
I base it on his support of corporations over life itself, when it comes to money. There would be one dead truck driver if his hypocrisy had dictated that the driver freeze in place.
I base it on his support of fetuses over women and family health and the lives of those already born.
I base it on Republican obstruction - now I'm getting to they started it - of the carefully chosen moderate Merrick Garland.
Death and kleptocracy over people? I don't think so.
17
Thinking about the morass that the Repubs have pushed our political discourse into (and, no, Dems are not equally culpable here), I can't help but think of W.T. Sherman's quote at the start of the Atlanta campaign: "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." The Dems need to give the Repubs all they gave during the Obama years - and more, I would argue in an attempt to get them to think twice about acting so irresponsibly again.
5
Democrats know that Gorsuch is qualified and they would have already voted to confirm if not for one thing: his Supreme Court seat was stolen.
I'd suggest that the Democrats negotiate not only a vote but a vote in favor of confirmation in exchange for one thing: a written apology from the Republicans for stealing the seat, and a promise not to do it again. Both sides should vow that judicial appointments made by sitting presidents deserve confirmation hearings and a vote when the appointment is more than one month before a presidential election. The American public deserves an apology, and a full Supreme Court.
I'd suggest that the Democrats negotiate not only a vote but a vote in favor of confirmation in exchange for one thing: a written apology from the Republicans for stealing the seat, and a promise not to do it again. Both sides should vow that judicial appointments made by sitting presidents deserve confirmation hearings and a vote when the appointment is more than one month before a presidential election. The American public deserves an apology, and a full Supreme Court.
3
Sounds good but the Republicans will never do that....not ever. They are self-righteously convinced that they are right with an equal refusal to bend an inch.
5
Gorsuch is a right-wing extremist who does not belong on the Supreme Court, period.
2
Everybody happy..... Both are going to get half of the baby....
4
Yeah, the bloody halves.
There should be no Supreme Court vote until the Russia investigation is completed.
16
"Waiting for Clinton, Democrats Hold Up Court Confirmations" (NYT, September 1, 1992): http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/us/waiting-for-clinton-democrats-hold-...
Biden's speech was probably part of this effort.
Sen. Graham said: "The moral high ground is a shaky place to be in the Senate when it comes to judges". His speech is worth reading in full: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/lindsey-graham-warns-of-consequenc...
Biden's speech was probably part of this effort.
Sen. Graham said: "The moral high ground is a shaky place to be in the Senate when it comes to judges". His speech is worth reading in full: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/lindsey-graham-warns-of-consequenc...
3
Robert Bork and his supporters asked for a forum from which he could put his allegedly brilliant legal mind on display. The Democrats let them have it. Bork proceeded to reveal a right-wing extremism so profound that it turned off even Republicans. He was rejected by the Judiciary Committee, but his nomination was sent to the full Senate anyway. He was rejected there as well, but a solid, bi-partisan majority. There was no unfairness, no "Borking". That is all a RW urban myth.
Having said that, I believe that we are at a point where the only way to put an end to endless filibusters or threatened filibusters over nominations to the judicial and executive branches is to eliminate them outright. This means that Trump will get the judges he nominates, for the most part. It also means that the next Democrat to occupy the White House may have a great deal more freedom to nominate genuinely qualified individuals knowing that a minority of Republicans can't prevent them from being confirmed. Steep price to pay, but worth it.
Having said that, I believe that we are at a point where the only way to put an end to endless filibusters or threatened filibusters over nominations to the judicial and executive branches is to eliminate them outright. This means that Trump will get the judges he nominates, for the most part. It also means that the next Democrat to occupy the White House may have a great deal more freedom to nominate genuinely qualified individuals knowing that a minority of Republicans can't prevent them from being confirmed. Steep price to pay, but worth it.
1
Can we jerk ourselves back to reality long enough to consider this question?
Suppose a liberal Justice had died during George W. Bush's last year in office, and Bush had nominated a conservative judge to fill the slot, resulting in 5 conservative Justices (the other 4 being Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts). How long would the Democrat-controlled Senate have considered whether to hold a confirmation hearing on Bush's nominee?
Here are the choices:
A. Three seconds.
B. One second.
C. A millisecond.
D. A nanosecond.
Whether the Democrat-controlled Senate would have been acting properly can be debated till the cows come home, just as that question is now debated for the Merrick Garland nomination. But does anyone seriously doubt that the Democrats would have done exactly the same thing if the tables had been turned?
Suppose a liberal Justice had died during George W. Bush's last year in office, and Bush had nominated a conservative judge to fill the slot, resulting in 5 conservative Justices (the other 4 being Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts). How long would the Democrat-controlled Senate have considered whether to hold a confirmation hearing on Bush's nominee?
Here are the choices:
A. Three seconds.
B. One second.
C. A millisecond.
D. A nanosecond.
Whether the Democrat-controlled Senate would have been acting properly can be debated till the cows come home, just as that question is now debated for the Merrick Garland nomination. But does anyone seriously doubt that the Democrats would have done exactly the same thing if the tables had been turned?
6
It's a false comparison. The Republicans could have easily just had the hearings and voted NO. They had the numbers to do that, and Obama could not invoke a "nuclear" option since he didn't have 50 votes
Why do you not pose that as an option for the Democrats in a 2008 hypothetical? they too had the majority in the Senate then.
The issue was not evne holding a hearing. It was a spineless and callous move, especially after years of demanding up or down votes when Bush was in charge. what kind of leadership party can't even go on record to vote?
Why do you not pose that as an option for the Democrats in a 2008 hypothetical? they too had the majority in the Senate then.
The issue was not evne holding a hearing. It was a spineless and callous move, especially after years of demanding up or down votes when Bush was in charge. what kind of leadership party can't even go on record to vote?
3
Well, now they will.
Watch the GOP shove Gorsuch down the throats of the American people.
After all, their Russian puppet masters must have already vetted him!
After all, their Russian puppet masters must have already vetted him!
6
EVERYTHING the Republican party advocates must be opposed! The Republican party has become an anti-human death cult run by the richest and most powerful oligarchs in the country.
8
If Schumer does not filibuster and Gorsuch is confirmed, then the court balance is 4-4-1. McConnell in enough of a traditionalist that he may - stress may - then be less inclined to invoke the nuclear option if future vacancies occur.
But the wingers on the left have vowed to primary Senators who vote to confirm Gorsuch. That means Democrat donors will have to fund primaries so two Democrats can fight each other to see who is the most left wing, then go up against a Republican in the general election in ten states Trump won. That both drains Democrat donor dollars and paints whoever wins the primary as perhaps too left wing to win in those states that Trump won, especially since it is an off year election when turnout among Dems tends to be lower.
On the other hand, if Schumer follows through on his promise to filibuster, then McConnell almost certainly changes the rules to allow SCOTUS nominees to be confirmed with only 51 votes. If Trump somehow manages to win re-election, the balance on the court could be radically changed for 30-40 years.
Schumer is in a very tough spot. It's a no win situation either way. But I think the smarter course is to not filibuster Gorsuch. Then go on a media blitz to explain to the base why retaining the filibuster is important and why it is counter-productive to primary Dems who vote to confirm Gorsuch. Seems like the rational way to go. But the wingers on both sides are often not very rational.
But the wingers on the left have vowed to primary Senators who vote to confirm Gorsuch. That means Democrat donors will have to fund primaries so two Democrats can fight each other to see who is the most left wing, then go up against a Republican in the general election in ten states Trump won. That both drains Democrat donor dollars and paints whoever wins the primary as perhaps too left wing to win in those states that Trump won, especially since it is an off year election when turnout among Dems tends to be lower.
On the other hand, if Schumer follows through on his promise to filibuster, then McConnell almost certainly changes the rules to allow SCOTUS nominees to be confirmed with only 51 votes. If Trump somehow manages to win re-election, the balance on the court could be radically changed for 30-40 years.
Schumer is in a very tough spot. It's a no win situation either way. But I think the smarter course is to not filibuster Gorsuch. Then go on a media blitz to explain to the base why retaining the filibuster is important and why it is counter-productive to primary Dems who vote to confirm Gorsuch. Seems like the rational way to go. But the wingers on both sides are often not very rational.
7
Scott, Schumer will not follow your sound advice because he is a politician and not a statesman. Even Lindsey Graham (whom I detest for breathing air on this planet) had a very sound reason for retaining the filibuster rule. Graham argued that the filibuster required parties to reach across the aisle and compromise in order to accomplish anything in Washington - quid pro quo. Killing the filibuster would create a zero-sum game, which is always a long term losing strategy. Grudgingly, I have to side with Graham on this one. America needs the filibuster.
1
What the USA needs most is a constitutional convention that eliminates the Senate, it is just about the most undemocratic institution on the planet.
The 25 least populated states can impose their will on the rest, talk about a tail wagging the dog.
The 25 least populated states can impose their will on the rest, talk about a tail wagging the dog.
2
Murphy's law,
Hey here's an idea, why not just abolish the entire Constitution, since it was written so long ago, by white males?
Hey here's an idea, why not just abolish the entire Constitution, since it was written so long ago, by white males?
2
Or at least cut the Senate's 6-year terms by half. Waiting until 2020 to oust that scoundrel Cory Gardner (R-CO), for instance, is outrageous.
1
All anyone needs to think about is the man Gorsuch would have
expected to freeze to death rather than 'disobey' his employer.....
Tells you everything you need to know about Gorsuch.............
....................Oh, you may want to think of all the dark money
paid out of pocket to satisfy the already rich who can't seem to stop
their craving for more......and who want Gorsuch to protect their
little empires at huge cost to the rest of us.
expected to freeze to death rather than 'disobey' his employer.....
Tells you everything you need to know about Gorsuch.............
....................Oh, you may want to think of all the dark money
paid out of pocket to satisfy the already rich who can't seem to stop
their craving for more......and who want Gorsuch to protect their
little empires at huge cost to the rest of us.
12
Both Republicans and Democrats should clearly understand by now that with Trump, a person who does not have a clear understanding of the Constitution, we are deliberately and steadily headed toward an authoritarian style government, or what is best known as a dictatorship. The writing is on the wall and has been clearly stated by Trump on several occassions. Words like loyalty (to him); the press, branded as the enemy of the People; and, efforts to strengthen the military. This rhetoric, along with the Supreme Court and Federal Judges picks, the control of the Justice Dept. and attacks on the credibility of an independent FBI and national intelligence agencies, plus control of oversight committees, and Presidential edicts by Executive order rather than by legislation, are all signs we are headed in the direction of one man rule. Most importantly is the misunderstanding of Trump and his supporters that there are three equal branches of government. What we see is a blatant attempt to control all three when they are independent and should remain so. The SCOTUS pick is just the peak of the iceberg. If it looks like the Democrats are against Gorsuch just because he was picked by a Republican, then maybe we should look deeper.
4
We are divided as a nation. It is alright to leave the court at 8. This will mean some important decisions are left unsettled, but it is representative of the politic.
203
A split decision means the lower court's ruling stands; nothing is left undecided.
1
But the court is not to be political. How about we expand it and pack it as a previous president threatened when he did not get his way?
Judge Gorsuch backed the defunding of Planned Parenthood, birth control and assisted suicide.
In the case of Alphonse Maddin, a truck driver has frozen brakes in 14 below zero weather, stops his rig and calls in for repair.
The dispatcher says stay with the rig, and the heater stops working in his cab. He calls in saying he can't feel his feet and is having trouble breathing. He can't feel his torso and falls asleep. His cousin calls him at 1:18 am and wakes him from sleep and he's slurring words. He has hypothermia.
Judge Gorsuch rules against the driver and he is fired.
"THE LAW SAYS: A person may not discharge an employee, who refuses to operate a vehicle because the employee has reasonable apprehension of serous injury to the employee or the public, because of the vehicle's hazardous safety or security conditions."
If Judge Gorsuch was ruling from the fact that the driver unhitched his cab and drove it away there is the Plain Meaning Rule.
The PLAIN MEANING RULE states:
When the plain meaning of a statue is clear on its face, when its meaning is obvious, the courts have no business looking beyond the meaning to the statute’s purpose UNLESS a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd.
How does an originalist vote on Roe v. Wade; on same-sex marriages; on unlawful searches and seizures; on giving our information to Google, Facebook and Amazon.com; on net neutrality; on the rights of women, gays and lesbians?
In the case of Alphonse Maddin, a truck driver has frozen brakes in 14 below zero weather, stops his rig and calls in for repair.
The dispatcher says stay with the rig, and the heater stops working in his cab. He calls in saying he can't feel his feet and is having trouble breathing. He can't feel his torso and falls asleep. His cousin calls him at 1:18 am and wakes him from sleep and he's slurring words. He has hypothermia.
Judge Gorsuch rules against the driver and he is fired.
"THE LAW SAYS: A person may not discharge an employee, who refuses to operate a vehicle because the employee has reasonable apprehension of serous injury to the employee or the public, because of the vehicle's hazardous safety or security conditions."
If Judge Gorsuch was ruling from the fact that the driver unhitched his cab and drove it away there is the Plain Meaning Rule.
The PLAIN MEANING RULE states:
When the plain meaning of a statue is clear on its face, when its meaning is obvious, the courts have no business looking beyond the meaning to the statute’s purpose UNLESS a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd.
How does an originalist vote on Roe v. Wade; on same-sex marriages; on unlawful searches and seizures; on giving our information to Google, Facebook and Amazon.com; on net neutrality; on the rights of women, gays and lesbians?
6
"Hard cases make for bad law."
As much as one might have sympathy for the driver under the facts of the case, a judge should rule on the law, which gives the employer the right to make the decision to discharge him (even if from the view of an outsider that decision might be unfair).
A disciplined jurist follows the law, not sentiment.
As much as one might have sympathy for the driver under the facts of the case, a judge should rule on the law, which gives the employer the right to make the decision to discharge him (even if from the view of an outsider that decision might be unfair).
A disciplined jurist follows the law, not sentiment.
Law exists to enable judges to make objective, not subjective, decisions. Otherwise 'bad' laws would never be changed; you would just find a judge who agrees with you before arguing the case.
1
Which is why I included the latter part of the The Plain Meaning Rule: "UNLESS a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd."
This is why the other judges on the 10th Circuit found Madden innocent. I found Gorsuch arrogant and cold and while saying he had “empathy” for Madden, not willing to reconsider a decision that was obviously “absurd”.
This wasn't a hard decision to come by that would have been based on sympathy, but a ruling that was obviously within the law. It is clearly ABSURD to think that a man with hypothermia should operate a vehicle risking his life and others. Or that almost dying from sub-zero temperatures, that he should be fired for driving away, which saved his life.
It's not a subjective decision, does not require a changing of the law . . . just proper interpretation. It's just being a good judge, making just, righteous decisions within the law, and knowing the full law, especially the latter part of the Plain Meaning Rule.
This is why the other judges on the 10th Circuit found Madden innocent. I found Gorsuch arrogant and cold and while saying he had “empathy” for Madden, not willing to reconsider a decision that was obviously “absurd”.
This wasn't a hard decision to come by that would have been based on sympathy, but a ruling that was obviously within the law. It is clearly ABSURD to think that a man with hypothermia should operate a vehicle risking his life and others. Or that almost dying from sub-zero temperatures, that he should be fired for driving away, which saved his life.
It's not a subjective decision, does not require a changing of the law . . . just proper interpretation. It's just being a good judge, making just, righteous decisions within the law, and knowing the full law, especially the latter part of the Plain Meaning Rule.
Who says "He started it!" ?? Congress is so like the kids fighting in the back seat of the car, and like any Mom I'm sick to death of the squabbling. Any good Mom would say - "OK Billy you give him Gorsuch and Jimmy will give you Garland. Then everyone will be happy." It's called compromise, and it's part of learning to be an adult.
And think of the relief, and joy that would come from one good compromise. The American people could finally believe our Congress is made of grown ups, working for us, instead of brawling 8 year olds.
And think of the relief, and joy that would come from one good compromise. The American people could finally believe our Congress is made of grown ups, working for us, instead of brawling 8 year olds.
2
"Antonin Scalia, for a generation the court’s irrepressible conservative id, earned 98 votes in the Senate. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now the patron saint of liberal jurisprudence, got 96."
The patron saint of liberal jurisprudence?
First jurisprudence does not come in liberal and conservative taxonomies. Those are the political taxonomies of dull people. And gossips.
Second the rhetorical gimmick of equating Scalia and Ginsburg is as wrong as it is smug. If looking for the judicial opposite of Scalia, Souter and O'Connor better fill the bill.
Third, Gorsuch has been explicitly chosen for having politics that will predict his votes. His confirmation hearings prove he was well chosen for his political task. Asserting this is jurisprudential is 100 percent corrupt.
Fourth American history has no equivalent to the 20th century born federalist society cult: right wing Roman Catholic dominated politicians calling themselves originalists or strict constructionists, out to get state power for their political beliefs. There is no "liberal" counterpart. The cult members are not judicial conservatives. They are reliably political reactionaries.
The accurate translation of "judicial philosophy" is, will vote political biases.
Fifth. In the history of the Republic the right wing robed legislatures have broken most all restaints. Just chart the use of Marbury up to Gore v. Bush, in which the majority announced the decision was not precedent, a lodestar of per se judicial corruption.
The patron saint of liberal jurisprudence?
First jurisprudence does not come in liberal and conservative taxonomies. Those are the political taxonomies of dull people. And gossips.
Second the rhetorical gimmick of equating Scalia and Ginsburg is as wrong as it is smug. If looking for the judicial opposite of Scalia, Souter and O'Connor better fill the bill.
Third, Gorsuch has been explicitly chosen for having politics that will predict his votes. His confirmation hearings prove he was well chosen for his political task. Asserting this is jurisprudential is 100 percent corrupt.
Fourth American history has no equivalent to the 20th century born federalist society cult: right wing Roman Catholic dominated politicians calling themselves originalists or strict constructionists, out to get state power for their political beliefs. There is no "liberal" counterpart. The cult members are not judicial conservatives. They are reliably political reactionaries.
The accurate translation of "judicial philosophy" is, will vote political biases.
Fifth. In the history of the Republic the right wing robed legislatures have broken most all restaints. Just chart the use of Marbury up to Gore v. Bush, in which the majority announced the decision was not precedent, a lodestar of per se judicial corruption.
3
Do the Democrats think they'll get a better, more qualified judge than Judge Gorsuch? Do the Democrats believe they must get even with the Republicans and their (outlandish) treatment of Judge Garland?
At some point, adults need to take over the room.
Judge Gorsuch is well qualified (per the ABA and Judge John Kane, hardly a conservative shill).
The politicization of our independent judiciary - a cornerstone of the Constitution - is a significant threat to our democratic republic.
Who will stand up to rescue the American judiciary and justice system?
At some point, adults need to take over the room.
Judge Gorsuch is well qualified (per the ABA and Judge John Kane, hardly a conservative shill).
The politicization of our independent judiciary - a cornerstone of the Constitution - is a significant threat to our democratic republic.
Who will stand up to rescue the American judiciary and justice system?
48
We Democrats have played the adult in the room too long. It hasn't worked for us and now our rights and our planet are threatened. If we have to get a little muddy so be it . Fight fire with fire.
4
So we should continue allowing the right wing to trash the mores of the court? The court is obviously already politicized. When they get by with these shenanigans it emboldens them to continue with their escalation. How can we expect them to stop when they are able to further their agenda time and time again?
3
Muleman, if you are a Republican, then it's up to you to find some adults to replace the hyperpartisan, no-compromise ideologues who run the GOP on behalf of the greedy billionaire class. You started it; only you can end it.
2
Judge Gorsuch is not of U.S.Supreme Court quality. A decent man in his position would not accept this nomination and would say it should have gone instead to Judge Merrick Garland. Judge Gorsuch is "bucking the line" and if accepted by the Senate, he will always have an asterisk attached to his name. A greedy opportunist, so sad.
7
This whole stinking sorry business revolves around the purported credence and importance of anyone's opinion of what God supposedly thinks about anything. There isn't a shred of honesty in the entire discussion of this topic. Gorsuch is just another seditious Republican plant to break down separation of church and state in the US.
4
Not sure this commenter gets it:
"Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment stating the Senate has ... 180 days ... to disapprove of a Presidential nomination or the Nomination is approved by default."
Whether or not Merrick Garland should have had a hearing is one question. Whether Merrick Garland would have been approved if he'd had a hearing is quite another. If the Democratic Party had been able to force a confirmation hearing, the Republicans would have disapproved Garland. If Scalia had died much earlier, probably Garland would have been approved. But it had been a very long time since a President nominated a Supreme Court Justice during the last year of his term. I believe Eisenhower was the last, and Brennan was approved only because Eisenhower cut a deal with the Democrat-controlled Senate.
"Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment stating the Senate has ... 180 days ... to disapprove of a Presidential nomination or the Nomination is approved by default."
Whether or not Merrick Garland should have had a hearing is one question. Whether Merrick Garland would have been approved if he'd had a hearing is quite another. If the Democratic Party had been able to force a confirmation hearing, the Republicans would have disapproved Garland. If Scalia had died much earlier, probably Garland would have been approved. But it had been a very long time since a President nominated a Supreme Court Justice during the last year of his term. I believe Eisenhower was the last, and Brennan was approved only because Eisenhower cut a deal with the Democrat-controlled Senate.
3
No. Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy in his last year as President and Justice Kennedy was indeed confirmed.
2
A little knowledge of history goes a long way.
Reagan nominated Kennedy in Nov 1987after his first choice, Bork, was made in July and blocked by the Senate.
After Bok was torpedoed, Reagan nominated Kennedy well before the start of his last year in office. It was also well before the start of the primaries.
Reagan nominated Kennedy in Nov 1987after his first choice, Bork, was made in July and blocked by the Senate.
After Bok was torpedoed, Reagan nominated Kennedy well before the start of his last year in office. It was also well before the start of the primaries.
if the Republicans were smart and honorable they would have given Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote.
If Democrats were smart and honorable they would deny Neil Gorsuch 60 votes on cloture.
If both parties want to resolve this process and insure normal regular order and rules for the future then President Trump would nominate Merrick Garland giving him the hearing and vote that he deserved and still deserves.
If Democrats were smart and honorable they would deny Neil Gorsuch 60 votes on cloture.
If both parties want to resolve this process and insure normal regular order and rules for the future then President Trump would nominate Merrick Garland giving him the hearing and vote that he deserved and still deserves.
7
...and if unicorns were real, I would ride one to work every day.
6
I doubt you would have the same opinion if the Democrat and Republican labels were switched in your first two statements and Trump were changed to Clinton.
The entire atmosphere in the Washington bubble has turned into an elementary school where boys need to puff their chests and shake their privates at each other in taunts just like juvenile chimps.
If they could get away with it they would likely resort to throwing fesces at one another.
The days of decorum, politeness, respect, and civility between members of Congress are gone just as it is by most of the country as we have seen in our crass attitude towards each others views.
The head guy in the White House set the example but in fairness the men and women in Congress work for us not the oval office no matter what Florida Ted Yoho seems to think. They have forsaken the will of the people for their own agendas and petty score settling.
If they could get away with it they would likely resort to throwing fesces at one another.
The days of decorum, politeness, respect, and civility between members of Congress are gone just as it is by most of the country as we have seen in our crass attitude towards each others views.
The head guy in the White House set the example but in fairness the men and women in Congress work for us not the oval office no matter what Florida Ted Yoho seems to think. They have forsaken the will of the people for their own agendas and petty score settling.
2
How many millions of dollars of so-called "dark money" is being spent to get this man on the Supreme Court? Gorsuch can do his "aw shucks" routine until the cows come home, but some very powerful and very rich people want him on the Court -- and they will definitely want payback. That's reason enough for me to see him as a Trojan horse.
49
Interesting approach:
"Let the multiple investigations run their course first."
In other words, if, for example, the pending investigations of the "Trump/Russia conspiracy to steal the election from Hillary Clinton" come up empty-handed (no evidence so far), then Trump is free to pick whomever he wants for the Court?
"Let the multiple investigations run their course first."
In other words, if, for example, the pending investigations of the "Trump/Russia conspiracy to steal the election from Hillary Clinton" come up empty-handed (no evidence so far), then Trump is free to pick whomever he wants for the Court?
3
There's never been an "...emerging realization that the courts increasingly act as a supra-legislature..."
Historically, those who believe that tend to disagree with court decisions -- as conservatives did, for example, during the Warren Court years and liberals did during the Renquist Court years (and still do, for the most part, during the Roberts Court years).
By contrast, those who agree with court decisions usually argue that the courts aren't "making" law at all, that they're simply "applying" the laws passed by legislators.
In other words, whether one believes that "judicial activism" is occurring, and is appropriate if it is occurring, depends -- just as it always has -- on whether one likes what the courts are deciding.
Historically, those who believe that tend to disagree with court decisions -- as conservatives did, for example, during the Warren Court years and liberals did during the Renquist Court years (and still do, for the most part, during the Roberts Court years).
By contrast, those who agree with court decisions usually argue that the courts aren't "making" law at all, that they're simply "applying" the laws passed by legislators.
In other words, whether one believes that "judicial activism" is occurring, and is appropriate if it is occurring, depends -- just as it always has -- on whether one likes what the courts are deciding.
3
There seems to be quite a racket for lawyers to get courts to decide nothing for huge fees here in the US, ThreeCents. Justice cannot possibly be fair at the pace it proceeds here.
1
The obstruction of the Republicans to Obama appointees in 2009-2010 was unprecedented and racist! We all know that. Obstruction of a President unprecidently! Mitch McConnell came out and said it! Racism was birtherism. The Republicans hopped on board. There is a price or pay. At some point the MSM has to acknowledge that America is a racist society condoned in law and practice and business.
5
"They started it!???!??. Good grief, America! This is NOT a 9th Grade school yard. How immature can you get? Shame on us, America. We definitely do need to grow up, especially regarding our political behavior. I wonder who will finish what "they" started"?
Bork was the first Supreme Court nomination specifically nominated to pack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. "They" are the self-proclaimed "right to life" movement, notwithstanding their abhorrence of the right to have sex without consequences.
1
The false equivalencies in this article are too numerous to list but please, spare me the sympathy for Robert Bork. He, unlike Merrick Garland, was granted a hearing. If the Republicans did not wish to approve Mr. Garland, they should have had the integrity to actually vote him down.
658
Exactly. The conduct of the Republican senators during the Merrick Garland fiasco is ABSOLUTELY indefensible. I really don't know how someone could think that the status quo will be returned to simply because the irresponsible party is now the party in power. "Oh, y'know, those republicans will do ANYTHING to get into power, but now that they're in power I'm sure they'll act responsibly." I don't think so. People are either high or stupid for thinking such a thing. The Repubs poisoned the well. The Dems are gong to finish this.
1
And in the GOP's own words, we should not have a President who is under investigation by the FBI. By extension--surely this is MORE reason to postpone a decision on Gorsuch than denying a hearing on Garland--the pick of a scandal-less President.
I think the biggest problem is the Advise and Consent Provision in the Constitution. Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment stating the Senate has 90 days, 180 days for a life time appointment, to disapprove of a Presidential nomination or the Nomination is approved by default. There is no excuse for the Senate no doing their job.
7
You don't tinker with the Constitution over such issues. It's not the Constitution that sets the number of justices - Congress does that. The SC can function with just a six justice quorum.
1
The Corporate Democrats did nothing thinking the Hillary would win so she could make a SC pick right off the bat.
Corporate Democrats were wrong about everything in 2016 including their nominee.
They most likely will run Hillary again in 2020.
They may never see the inside of the White House again.
Corporate Democrats were wrong about everything in 2016 including their nominee.
They most likely will run Hillary again in 2020.
They may never see the inside of the White House again.
2
No one is running Clinton in 2020 except the alt-right.
Debates between HRC & Trump in 2020 would be fascinating. Trump would defend the status quo and HRC would advocate change.
To place Judge Gorsuch's nomination in the context of partisan politics is dangerously misleading.
Judge Gorsuch is a threat to the enforcement of "both" Republican and Democratic sponsored programs.
Just think, in a unanimous decision written by Judge Roberts, the US Supreme Court during Judge Gorsuch's Senate hearings, suggested that Judge Gorusch’s approach to statutory interpretation was so flawed that it had led Judge Gorusch to ignore the obvious fact that a "de minimis" education was no education at all.
Judge Gorusch is an outlier within the judicial system. In direct contradiction to Justice Scalia’s approach, Judge Gorusch argues that in interpreting a statute, the court may ignore not only the purpose of the statute, but also may ignore the agency’s interpretation of that statute even when Congress has expressly delegated to that agency the power to interpret the statute.
Looking just at the literal language of the statute (which is often confusing) Judge Gorusch claims that only the Court may interpret the statute (not Congress or its agency).
That is a very dangerous approach which in effect gives the judge the sole power to say what the law is by ignoring the entire framework of our Republic. Justice Scalia must be turning in his grave.
Judge Gorsuch is a threat to the enforcement of "both" Republican and Democratic sponsored programs.
Just think, in a unanimous decision written by Judge Roberts, the US Supreme Court during Judge Gorsuch's Senate hearings, suggested that Judge Gorusch’s approach to statutory interpretation was so flawed that it had led Judge Gorusch to ignore the obvious fact that a "de minimis" education was no education at all.
Judge Gorusch is an outlier within the judicial system. In direct contradiction to Justice Scalia’s approach, Judge Gorusch argues that in interpreting a statute, the court may ignore not only the purpose of the statute, but also may ignore the agency’s interpretation of that statute even when Congress has expressly delegated to that agency the power to interpret the statute.
Looking just at the literal language of the statute (which is often confusing) Judge Gorusch claims that only the Court may interpret the statute (not Congress or its agency).
That is a very dangerous approach which in effect gives the judge the sole power to say what the law is by ignoring the entire framework of our Republic. Justice Scalia must be turning in his grave.
183
When will we stop using such staid and meaningless statements as: .... must be turning in his grave. What if you have no grave or are put in a communal grave or an urn or your ashes are thrown to the wind?
God bless America is another useless term indicating that some all powerful being is waiting for some so-called patriot to demand or order that being to do something as shallow as blessing a nation which has murdered Native Americans, blacks, women, immigrants and the poor for over 200 years.
Oh, did I forget millions of other people around the world to move the goal posts of unrestrained capitalism around the globe.
Maybe Americans should be saying to each other, how do we clear the future by acknowledging that no god worthy of such title would bless us for what we have done in that god or gods name?
It is becoming more appropriate to start thinking about the passing of America and its mythology about being the home of the brave and free [and millions blessed with no home, job, education, freedom, etc.]. America needs a proper an appropriate eulogy. Here is one that seems appropriate: Having lost all sight of their goals they redoubled their efforts. Or we could modify an old suggestion to read, god helps those who help themselves to billions.
God bless America is another useless term indicating that some all powerful being is waiting for some so-called patriot to demand or order that being to do something as shallow as blessing a nation which has murdered Native Americans, blacks, women, immigrants and the poor for over 200 years.
Oh, did I forget millions of other people around the world to move the goal posts of unrestrained capitalism around the globe.
Maybe Americans should be saying to each other, how do we clear the future by acknowledging that no god worthy of such title would bless us for what we have done in that god or gods name?
It is becoming more appropriate to start thinking about the passing of America and its mythology about being the home of the brave and free [and millions blessed with no home, job, education, freedom, etc.]. America needs a proper an appropriate eulogy. Here is one that seems appropriate: Having lost all sight of their goals they redoubled their efforts. Or we could modify an old suggestion to read, god helps those who help themselves to billions.
1
So you're saying that two justices appointed by Republican presidents disagree with each other and would vote differently? That's not going to make some people happy because it destroys their anti-GOP bias.
1
Come now he is only one and most junior judge and I seem to remember he was following precedent. Now the supreme court ruling on this case is so foolish that congress needs to clearly identify objective standards that local schools must provide. Otherwise lots of suits will occur.
I think most Democrats feel they have had enough of Republican garbage. Garland was the last straw. It is past the notion of playing nice and hope that Republicans will give us a cookie or two down the road. As to Gorsuch himself, he is no prize. As for Heitkamp and Manchin, they have the right to their own opinion, but it is time for them to decide what Party they want to be in, Democrat or Republican. Democrats must filibuster Gorsuch and let the chips fall wherever. Trump and the Republicans are at the beginning of complete self-destruction. Democrats need to show they have the guts to lead after that happens.
32
NYT sub-header in part: reflects years of creeping institutional shifts, partisan tensions and hypocritical arguments.
No it represents a full fledged campaign of the one percent to ensure that the government is there to serve their profits and their corporate fronts.
The rest is diversionary at worse and destructive to what is left of the once valued values of America.
When the only reason to exist is to win, nobody does.
No it represents a full fledged campaign of the one percent to ensure that the government is there to serve their profits and their corporate fronts.
The rest is diversionary at worse and destructive to what is left of the once valued values of America.
When the only reason to exist is to win, nobody does.
7
Republicans do these childish harmful things because they expect the Democrats to behave like adults and prevent the destruction that will inevitably come if they are made to face the consequences of their actions.
5
Comparing this to playground squabbles is a grotesque false equivalence. What the Republicans did to Garland was so reprehensible and outside the norm (as was so much else they did) that it could not be ignored. Comparing his case with Bork or any other previous nomination is simply a fig-leaf for the cynics on the right. That fig-leaf should be denied them at every turn.
433
Oh, please read your history books...
"What the Republicans did to Garland was so reprehensible and outside the norm".
Your flair for the dramatic runs strong.
Your flair for the dramatic runs strong.
Show what is behind to fig-leaf, however small it is.
1
That's not what happened:
"Blocking a specific nominee is different from blocking _all_ nominees of a specific President."
Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, but they didn't block ALL nominees of Obama. He nominated both Sotomayor and Kagan earlier, and both were approved with many Republican votes.
As I recall, one has to go all the way back to the 1950's to find another example of a President replacing a Supreme Court Justice that late in his term. I understand it happened then (Eisenhower nominating Brennan) only because the President had cut a deal with the Senate under which the Senate agreed to approve Brennan.
The situation arises only if the Senate and the Presidency are in the hands of different parties -- and, of course, whether/when an opening on the Court arises. The last time George W. Bush got an opportunity to nominate someone, for example, was in 2006 (he picked Alito), with well over two years left in his term. Who knows what would have happened if a Justice had died during the last year of Bush's term?
"Blocking a specific nominee is different from blocking _all_ nominees of a specific President."
Republicans blocked Merrick Garland, but they didn't block ALL nominees of Obama. He nominated both Sotomayor and Kagan earlier, and both were approved with many Republican votes.
As I recall, one has to go all the way back to the 1950's to find another example of a President replacing a Supreme Court Justice that late in his term. I understand it happened then (Eisenhower nominating Brennan) only because the President had cut a deal with the Senate under which the Senate agreed to approve Brennan.
The situation arises only if the Senate and the Presidency are in the hands of different parties -- and, of course, whether/when an opening on the Court arises. The last time George W. Bush got an opportunity to nominate someone, for example, was in 2006 (he picked Alito), with well over two years left in his term. Who knows what would have happened if a Justice had died during the last year of Bush's term?
4
Interesting that Gorsuch was confirmed to 4 Circuit Court Appeals unanimously by Democrats. Now, Schumer as self-appointed torch-bearer for the Loony Left, has convinced his lib colleagues to drink the same Kool-Aid he has for breakfast.
The whole thing is bemusing and laughable as i watch further erosion of the remaining shred of credibility the Dems may have left after, Wasserman, Brasille,and of course The Asterisk Candidate (first loser in both her party's and national election) have hoisted it on its own fabulist petard.
The whole thing is bemusing and laughable as i watch further erosion of the remaining shred of credibility the Dems may have left after, Wasserman, Brasille,and of course The Asterisk Candidate (first loser in both her party's and national election) have hoisted it on its own fabulist petard.
15
Interesting that you mention petard. I suspect you and the Republican Party will be hoisted soon enough when you destroy the country's standing in the world, destroy decades of women's rights, destroy the environment, make poor people poorer and sicker. Too much to list here. Every piece of news coming from Nunes to McConnell, to Ryan and Cruz show the total disdain the GOP have for people and the lack of empathy and decency as well as the dignity of our great country. We are the majority here. You won by mere 80,000 votes in the electoral college while you lost the popular vote by 3 million. Neil Grosuch should be blocked totally. We need to show backbone. Hold strong til 2018!!!
15
Hi Joanne
How do you know I'm GOP?
You see, it is your kind of black-white thinking that has our country going down like the Titanic. If your comment was level-headed and not hysterical, I might respond substantively. But as is not, I won't.
How do you know I'm GOP?
You see, it is your kind of black-white thinking that has our country going down like the Titanic. If your comment was level-headed and not hysterical, I might respond substantively. But as is not, I won't.
3
No it's not interesting. It's not bemusing and not laughable.
1
There should be no rush to fill the vacant seat. Historically and recently, the Supreme court has functioned just fine with long term vacancies.
And the Supreme Court/Judiciary has always been a politicized branch of our government. So, it does not matter that both Garland and Gorsuch are qualified.
The unique issue at hand is should a President who is basically under investigation for treason be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice?
For me the answer is absolutely not. Let the multiple investigations run their course first.
And the Supreme Court/Judiciary has always been a politicized branch of our government. So, it does not matter that both Garland and Gorsuch are qualified.
The unique issue at hand is should a President who is basically under investigation for treason be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice?
For me the answer is absolutely not. Let the multiple investigations run their course first.
512
The Constitution definition of treason is aiding and abetting an enemy nation. We are not at war with Russia. You can say "treason" a hundred times, but it doesn't make it treason.
It makes you sound ignorant.
It makes you sound ignorant.
3
Considering who is in charge of the Presidency, and the House, and the Senate --- If any so-called "multiple investigations run their course", they will never be heard from again. And, WE voted every one of them into high office, America.! Proud??
2
For me the answer is absolutely not. Let the multiple investigations run their course first.
How laughable, as if you have any say in the matter. The socialists, formerly Democratic Party, would make up any number of investigations to stall the inevitable.
How laughable, as if you have any say in the matter. The socialists, formerly Democratic Party, would make up any number of investigations to stall the inevitable.
1
Install Judge Merrick B. Garland to the SCOTUS and we can call it even. Deal?
19
That's funny! You'll end up with Gorsuch and 1 or 2 more like him. Enjoy.
1
Another manifestation of the Alt Left, "alt" being defined as a person who lives in an alternate universe. SCOTUS nominees in an election year are routinely NOT confirmed (be they Democrats or Republican). But why should facts stand in the way of your opinions?
3
Since 1900 the Senate has voted eight times for SCOTUS nominees in election years. You are the misinformed person. I deal in facts.
2
At some point Senators need to do their job as defined in the Constitution. If they can't get over politics and their own byzantine rules about how to do their job then they are unfit to serve. Judge Gorsuch should be evaluated and the Senate give it's advice and consent - like him, vote yes; else vote not. Who cares how many votes it takes to install him? The only way Trump and those who support him can be shown the door, either voluntarily or involuntarily, is to adhere strictly to the Constitution in the way we do things - we are a nation of laws, not some Trumpdom. Both the Senate and the House need to do their duty - and the rest of us need to watch and VOTE.
If "they started it" must be forgiven, then by analogy, if the Koch brothers put up one candidate, and Breitbart puts up the opposing candidate, as long as the people vote one of them over the other, the election was valid.
Sorry, the legitimacy of any candidate who got onto the ballot by illicit means is questionable.
Sorry, the legitimacy of any candidate who got onto the ballot by illicit means is questionable.
6
Politics has played a role in the selection of SC justices since day one of the republic. George Washington's recess appointment and the Senate's later rejection of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice, is a good example.
As for Sen. Hatch's comment, what is truly "demeaning to the Senate and this country" was the GOP's refusal to even consider Merrick Garland. There should have a hearing. If the GOP then wanted to filibuster or reject his nomination, fine. That's how the system is set up. Bottom line, the Democrats' position is the one consistent with how nominations are tradionally handled.
As for Sen. Hatch's comment, what is truly "demeaning to the Senate and this country" was the GOP's refusal to even consider Merrick Garland. There should have a hearing. If the GOP then wanted to filibuster or reject his nomination, fine. That's how the system is set up. Bottom line, the Democrats' position is the one consistent with how nominations are tradionally handled.
21
May be it is time to change the Constitution and adopt some more workable rules. In the UK and Canada, the Supreme Court Justices serve a term of ten years or until they reached the age of 75 years, which ever comes first. This means that the justices chosen are more current with present legal thinking and there is no fear of the chosen person sitting for 50 years or more. In the UK I understand when there is a vacancy, a select committee picks three candidates and both House of Parliament vote and the winner is appointed to the Supreme Court. This avoids a lot of partisan bickering. Of course, no such amendment will even be considered ,the Founding Fathers are all wise and all knowing even those they were OK with slavery and no rights for women, who where legally classified as "chattels".
265
I like the 75-year age limit. Ours serve until they drop (except Stevens, who is a very decent man). The lifetime term has led Republicans to nominate younger and younger men. I fully expect them to nominate a very bright high school junior next. After all, a law degree is not required.
1
Right. Life expectancy was around 40 in 1800 so the founders expected healthy turnover which is more democratic and not justices on the court for 30 or 40 years.
1
And the Democrats elect only old people? Kagan (56) and Sotamayor (62) will be very unhappy to hear that.
2
hey manchin,what up with you??do you not care about individual rights???have you been doing your homework[as gorsuch won't answer questions about past decisions]he always sides with corporations rather than the individual.Never trust a public official that uses a stream of golly,gee,gosh,when evading a question.who does he think he's kidding by saying judges are neither republican nor democratic…apparently YOU.
2
The Democrats have controlled the presidency for two of the last three administrations before Trump's illegitimate election. Left unmentioned was the appointment of Bush junior as president by the conservative majority in 2000, and his illegitimate appointment of Roberts and Alito. Republicans don't deserve to control the Supreme Court. They stole it at every opportunity.
26
How do you get through life being so cynical? I would hate to be you.
2
The GOP's obvious flouting of the intent of the Constitution by refusing to consider anyone nominated by Obama brings with it the specter of rulings so far to the right that they will make Citizens United look like an asterisk. That is truly scary, not just for me but for my children.
Does anyone wonder or even question whether Gorusch, or anyone else, would have been shelved by the Republicans, had Obama made that nomination? Sad!
Does anyone wonder or even question whether Gorusch, or anyone else, would have been shelved by the Republicans, had Obama made that nomination? Sad!
9
There's no flouting of the intent of the Constitution.The Constitution doesn't say that the Supreme Court can't operate with less than nine justices. The same principle holds for Congress. That's why both institutions don't have a law of succession. Only executive positions must be immediately which is why there is a clearly defined rule for succession.
1
Even if you disagree with many aspects of the Democratic Party and their elected representatives, it's very dubious for any self-respecting American to support the shenanigans of the Republican Party that has worked in 'good faith' for decades to suppress the vote, to disinform and dumb down the electorate and undercut the basic idea of an informed democracy.
Gorsuch is the Russian cherry on the 0.1%-corporate fascist cake of a very successful Republican coup d'etat.
America should not accept a stolen Supreme Supreme Court seat that is the product of pure political malfeasance.
Gorsuch is the Russian cherry on the 0.1%-corporate fascist cake of a very successful Republican coup d'etat.
America should not accept a stolen Supreme Supreme Court seat that is the product of pure political malfeasance.
150
I hope the Democrats unite against Gorsuch.
Senator Feinstein, what are you going to do? I sent you email but it came back "undeliverable"....
Senator Feinstein, what are you going to do? I sent you email but it came back "undeliverable"....
3
Paul Ryan said it himself, 'we were a 10 year opposition party where being against things was easy to do.' The GOP alone, at the behest of Mitch McConnell, prevented Merrick Garland from having his hearing--and created the current disaster that is Washington D.C. And if Gorsuch has any principles he should step aside.
14
In the "Most Naive Suggestion Ever" category, here's the hands-down winner:
"Gorsuch should withdraw his name and wait his turn."
Guess what? When someone gets nominated to the Supreme Court, he/she does NOT "withdraw his name" and "wait his turn." Almost never do nominees get a second bite at the apple -- Stephen Breyer being the only exception I can think of, and even Breyer did not go away willingly. Clinton withdrew his name (the first time) only because it had become clear that Breyer's "nanny problem" was going to prevent him from getting confirmed.
"Gorsuch should withdraw his name and wait his turn."
Guess what? When someone gets nominated to the Supreme Court, he/she does NOT "withdraw his name" and "wait his turn." Almost never do nominees get a second bite at the apple -- Stephen Breyer being the only exception I can think of, and even Breyer did not go away willingly. Clinton withdrew his name (the first time) only because it had become clear that Breyer's "nanny problem" was going to prevent him from getting confirmed.
3
The GOP refusal to provide advice and consent, i.e. a hearing, on Judge Garland was an unprecedented dereliction of their constitutional duty, and therefore calls for an unusual but well considered response. The constitutional "originalist" and "textualist" Judge Gorsuch should remove himself and recommend proper consideration of Judge Garland.
People can pretend that this cold-blooded elitist supporter of corporations is a reg'lar guy but he's nothing of the sort. He can't even recognize a basic principle of law: That it is not a suicide pact and NOBODY is obligated to die to fulfill a contract. Gorsuch believes that you ARE obligated to die for your employer and if they fire you for not dying, well, he's already ruled he's fine with that. And been over-ruled.
I'm shocked that Democrats don't realize that Neil Gorsuch represents a seismic shift, not just in the Supreme Court, but in how we appoint judges and justices. The seat WAS stolen and the justification? That 25 years ago Joe Biden suggested the same thing, but it never happened till now and McConnell is OK with that.
But 12 years ago, VP Cheney threatened as President of the Senate to arbitrarily sweep away the filibuster and Dems caved so it didn't happen. But 4 years ago when Reid did it, McConnell was FURIOUS with that...and so is going to do it again. Hypocrisy. Power play. Party and power first, nation second. McConnell's as much a catastrophe as is Trump.
And the first stolen SCOTUS seats in our lifetime? Remember Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry whose seats were stolen and went to Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun!
Time to stop it and make McConnell pay if he wipes out the filibuster.
I'm shocked that Democrats don't realize that Neil Gorsuch represents a seismic shift, not just in the Supreme Court, but in how we appoint judges and justices. The seat WAS stolen and the justification? That 25 years ago Joe Biden suggested the same thing, but it never happened till now and McConnell is OK with that.
But 12 years ago, VP Cheney threatened as President of the Senate to arbitrarily sweep away the filibuster and Dems caved so it didn't happen. But 4 years ago when Reid did it, McConnell was FURIOUS with that...and so is going to do it again. Hypocrisy. Power play. Party and power first, nation second. McConnell's as much a catastrophe as is Trump.
And the first stolen SCOTUS seats in our lifetime? Remember Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry whose seats were stolen and went to Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun!
Time to stop it and make McConnell pay if he wipes out the filibuster.
20
McConnell should not be blamed for implementing the Biden/Schumer rules.
9
Nor should McConnell be blamed when they institute the Reid rule and eliminate the filibuster for SC nominees.
6
An off the cuff comment by Biden, isn't a rule. But whatever, kill the filibuster. You guys were going to do it anyway.
1
I doubt that Garland will tack as far to the right as worried. I get a sense that this is the future Justice that the Republicans especially trump might live to regret.
1
One of the things this election was about is who will determine the judicial philosophy of the Court not only by filling Scalia spots but the one or two other spots to be filled over the next four years.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, Trump will get to make those picks and his nominees will be confirmed by the Senate. Any other scenario will ultimately destroy the Supreme Court as no one will be confirmed unless one party controls both the White House and overwhelmingly controls the Senate.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, Trump will get to make those picks and his nominees will be confirmed by the Senate. Any other scenario will ultimately destroy the Supreme Court as no one will be confirmed unless one party controls both the White House and overwhelmingly controls the Senate.
8
Sounds good to me. I doubt Trump will last four years.
Sounds good to me. I doubt Trump will last four years.
How much are you willing to wager?
How much are you willing to wager?
1
I'm certain you doubted Trump would win the election. Learn some humility. I didn't vote for either but felt Trump would win. You smug Hillary supporters failed to notice how much Hillary was hated in the Midwest. I personally blame arrogant Hillary supporters for Trump.
1
"When they go low, we go high." Democrats seem to have bailed on that motto - I say this as a Democrat, not some red baiting right winger.
Garland's treatment was low. I dislike Gorsuch, personally think he's obnoxious, but he is qualified and the Supreme Court is not meant to be a partisan institution. Approve him and hold the high ground Democrats. Preserve our institutional strengths. I dread what will happen if 50 votes is all that is required for either party to get its way.
Garland's treatment was low. I dislike Gorsuch, personally think he's obnoxious, but he is qualified and the Supreme Court is not meant to be a partisan institution. Approve him and hold the high ground Democrats. Preserve our institutional strengths. I dread what will happen if 50 votes is all that is required for either party to get its way.
9
No point. When McConnell did what he did, delaying Garland from even having a hearing, that was the end for the filibuster. Good bye. If it doesn't happen here, it will happen for the next SC. The second the democrats use the filibuster, McConnell will kill it. His promise means nothing.
If Garland wasn't considered because there was only 8 months left in Obama's term, then how can Gorsuch be confirmed in 3 months? Also, if the argument was to "let the people decide", and wait until a new President was voted on, didn't Hillary Clinton win the popular vote by almost 3 million votes? Doesn't that mean that most people wanted a Democrat to make the selection? It seems to me that Republicans lose on both arguments.
115
The illogical points made in this comment make my head hurt.
It's been a tradition - even Joe Biden said it - that Supreme Court nominations are not made in the last year during an active election. Three primaries had already been completed. I have no idea what you're talking about comparing the last 8 months of Obama to the first 3 months of Trump.
Brush up on your understanding of the Constitution. The presidential election is NOT decided by popular vote so it's meaningless in this discussion. All the popular vote victory means is that Clinton won big majorities in a few big states. Guess what...you don't get more electoral votes if that happens for good reason.
It's been a tradition - even Joe Biden said it - that Supreme Court nominations are not made in the last year during an active election. Three primaries had already been completed. I have no idea what you're talking about comparing the last 8 months of Obama to the first 3 months of Trump.
Brush up on your understanding of the Constitution. The presidential election is NOT decided by popular vote so it's meaningless in this discussion. All the popular vote victory means is that Clinton won big majorities in a few big states. Guess what...you don't get more electoral votes if that happens for good reason.
4
You're wrong, on both counts. The idea that somehow the last year of a Presidency (which is 25% of a President's term) doesn't count, is laughable, and there is no law that precludes nominating a replacement during that period. In fact, Taft, Wilson, Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt all nominated, and had successfully confirmed, Supreme Court picks in their last year in office. Also, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, during Reagan's last year in office. I have no idea what you're talking about stating that three primaries had already been completed. So what. Primaries have absolutely nothing to do with filling a Supreme Court vacancy. I mention the 3 months, vs. 8 months, because many Republicans stated that 8 months was simply not enough time to complete the process. Funny that when it's a Republican pick, 3 months is now more than enough time. See what I'm talking about now?
Also, I know full well how the Constitution works in selecting the President, but it was Republicans who said "let's wait and see who the people want, and let that person pick the next nominee." Well, more people wanted Hillary Clinton, by nearly 3 million. If it's simply to let the people decide, well, "the people" chose the Democrat. The electoral college tally had nothing to do with the consensus of the people.
Also, I know full well how the Constitution works in selecting the President, but it was Republicans who said "let's wait and see who the people want, and let that person pick the next nominee." Well, more people wanted Hillary Clinton, by nearly 3 million. If it's simply to let the people decide, well, "the people" chose the Democrat. The electoral college tally had nothing to do with the consensus of the people.
2
The absurd nature of the Republican argument against Garland is illustrated by its logical extension: The electoral college, not the Senate, should rule on Supreme Cort nominees. How crazy is that?
This seems to be the last opportunity for the Senate to pull themselves out of an all out partisan war.
Installing Gorsuch after refusing to hear Garland is merely the latest demonstration of the increasing desire to polarize the Supreme Court. It is the antithesis of what the Judicial is supposed to be; an objective interpretive branch meant to balance the polarities in Congress.
People may say both sides do it, but clearly no party has so ruthlessly craved power over all as the GOP. The willingness to turn a blind eye to outright fabrications and appalling behaviors demonstrates an utter lack of ability to lead; only a mindless, limitless desire for more power and more personal wealth.
We don't have many chances left to demonstrate a balanced democracy. Let's see how the Senate - who are supposed to work for us, after all - decide to act.
Installing Gorsuch after refusing to hear Garland is merely the latest demonstration of the increasing desire to polarize the Supreme Court. It is the antithesis of what the Judicial is supposed to be; an objective interpretive branch meant to balance the polarities in Congress.
People may say both sides do it, but clearly no party has so ruthlessly craved power over all as the GOP. The willingness to turn a blind eye to outright fabrications and appalling behaviors demonstrates an utter lack of ability to lead; only a mindless, limitless desire for more power and more personal wealth.
We don't have many chances left to demonstrate a balanced democracy. Let's see how the Senate - who are supposed to work for us, after all - decide to act.
359
Gorsuch should not be confirmed until the Russia investigation is completed -- for what should be obvious reasons.
1
It was too late the minute McConnell refused to allow the process to go forward under Obama.
3
Well said,
The only worse thing left, besides electing a totally unqualified ,delusional President is a Supreme Court at the mercy of partisan politics
The only worse thing left, besides electing a totally unqualified ,delusional President is a Supreme Court at the mercy of partisan politics
2
The article has numerous false equivalencies. The Clinton Administration had numerous appointees who never had a hearing; technically, these were not filibustered but were nevertheless blocked. Democrats have worked with Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush. Remember, the Republicans in the House both shut down the government and impeached Clinton. And the Republicans during the Obama administration refused to work with any proposal; remember the numerous proposal by the Obama Administration to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent (which is now being discussed). The Republications refused to even discuss this, they preferred no tax reduction if they did not get everything they wanted. Also remember it whas several Republications who openly discussed preventing any Supreme Court nominee should Secretary Clinton have won the presidency. While both sides have escalated the challenges, clearly the most egregious and escalations have been at the hands of the Republicans and they have to be the ones who walk back from the edge.
21
Let's not pretend that what the Republicans did with Garland last year is somehow equivalent to any other gamesmanship discussed in this article.
29
If Gorsuch was the strict defender of the constitution the GOP claims he is...he would not have agreed to be nominated. Garland was not even granted a hearing.
90
Let's get serious -- and creative.
Supreme Court Judges should not be appointed for life. They should be appointed for 20 years (max).
And Presidents should not nominate them.
The whole business whereby judges get appointed by politicians makes a joke out of supposed separation of powers.
Rather, judges should be selected by means of process that allows registered Independents to have more say than either Democrats or Republicans.
Supreme Court Judges should not be appointed for life. They should be appointed for 20 years (max).
And Presidents should not nominate them.
The whole business whereby judges get appointed by politicians makes a joke out of supposed separation of powers.
Rather, judges should be selected by means of process that allows registered Independents to have more say than either Democrats or Republicans.
7
I agree about a twenty year max for the Supreme Court. Lifetime is ridiculous and twenty years is sufficient time for political protection. I would also add term limits for the Senate and the House. Perhaps it should be two terms, just like for the President. It would break up some of the "good old boys" clubs in the Senate and in the House.
3
Democrats can do no wrong here. Trump's, McConnell's NEW system is completely rigged. I'll never respect another SC decision unless Merrick is confirmed. I guess that makes me, a proud centrist most of my life, a wing nut. This is where our GOP leaders are taking us when they put party above country.
44
Republicans have long held a deep sense of entitlement RE; judicial nominations....They seem to feel that nominating judges is a privilege only afforded to Republican presidents....
Forgetting about what happened to Merrick Garland, let's look at what happened to other Obama nominees.....At the end of 2016, over 25 Circuit Court, District Court, and Court of International Trade nominees all expired because Senator McConnell (as Majority Leader) refused to bring them up for a vote....Every one of these nominees cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and simply needed a floor vote...NONE were controversial...If the Republicans would have confirmed these 25 or so nominees before Obama left office, this would have shown some goodwill and perhaps Senate Democrats would have been more accepting of the Gorsuch nomination...Now the current president, who may colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, will have a chance to fill these seats...
Then who could forget the epic battle in 2013 over Obama;s 3 nominees to the DC Circuit....They were only able to be confirmed after then Majority Leader Reid invoked the nuclear option for lower court nominees...
Republican entitlement has led to the battle royale that always takes places when there are judicial nominations...
Forgetting about what happened to Merrick Garland, let's look at what happened to other Obama nominees.....At the end of 2016, over 25 Circuit Court, District Court, and Court of International Trade nominees all expired because Senator McConnell (as Majority Leader) refused to bring them up for a vote....Every one of these nominees cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and simply needed a floor vote...NONE were controversial...If the Republicans would have confirmed these 25 or so nominees before Obama left office, this would have shown some goodwill and perhaps Senate Democrats would have been more accepting of the Gorsuch nomination...Now the current president, who may colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, will have a chance to fill these seats...
Then who could forget the epic battle in 2013 over Obama;s 3 nominees to the DC Circuit....They were only able to be confirmed after then Majority Leader Reid invoked the nuclear option for lower court nominees...
Republican entitlement has led to the battle royale that always takes places when there are judicial nominations...
138
I get why two Democrats are voting for Gorsuch. They can say over and over how qualified he is. The bottom line is he backs religion and he has sided with corporations against workers in a variety of cases, including one in which a Kansas State professor was fired for requesting more leave after a cancer diagnosis. I believe the other involved a truck driver who had to sit in a malfunctioning truck for three hours. Small little cases perhaps. Perhaps not. Trump hates the judicial branch. Why would anyone vote for someone who is chosen by a president under investigation and who hates judges? Why would you vote for a man who professes religion over law and corporations over unfairness to the individual? The law is supposed to be blind. Gorsuch apparently peeks under the blindfold.
41
What a balanced analysis.
But I suppose the ultimate cause for all this is the politicization of the Court and the emerging realization that the courts increasingly act as a supra-legislature.
But I suppose the ultimate cause for all this is the politicization of the Court and the emerging realization that the courts increasingly act as a supra-legislature.
102
Yes, just ask John Marshall about Marbury v. Madison. It's taken Americans a long long time to process that one.
The odd thing is that the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for 40 years. Roe v. Wade was actually written by a Republican justice (Blackmum). So the trend you identify somehow seems linked with a history of domination by Republican appointees to the court.
1
You are absolutely right. 50 years ago we as a nation stopped amending our constitution (the true way to make it a "living document") and instead began relying on judges to read into the constitution what we hoped to see. Suggesting that implied rights "emanate from the penumbra" is just a fancy way of saying that judges are empowered to write our laws rather than simply interpret and apply them. By giving judges that power we have made a five person majority on the Supreme Court the most powerful legislative body in the land, and created this poisonous atmosphere around judicial nominees.
1
Ever since the "corporations are people" edict was issued by the majority of Supreme Court justices, I have worried about the performance of this branch of government. Currently 4 justices were appointed by Republican presidents and 4 by Democrats. As justice, Gorsuch promises to secure the rights of corporations over individuals and paves the way for the future court's decisions to skew Republican, and not moderate Republican.
I was chilled to read in this story that Senator Leahy is leaning towards supporting the appointment of Gorsuch. Surely the current scandal in our national government would promote the consideration of a nominee who is more moderate...oh, you know...someone like MERRICK GARLAND.
I was chilled to read in this story that Senator Leahy is leaning towards supporting the appointment of Gorsuch. Surely the current scandal in our national government would promote the consideration of a nominee who is more moderate...oh, you know...someone like MERRICK GARLAND.
10
The Democrats, in fact, did start the partisan dissection of Supreme Court nominees when the despicable Senator Ted Kennedy defamed Judge Bork, and his Democrat colleagues in the Senate and House then piled on. Their hatred for every candidate put forth by Republican presidents has continued to this day, and was never clearer than when they tried to link Clarence Thomas with the sexual harassment of Anita Hill, without any more proof than her own words. Politics is a dirty business, and the Democrats are the masters of the game.
6
Bork was not defamed. And Bork got a vote, so whatever.
5
They did start it. And why should trump have a nominee in his last year in office?
92
The Republican denial of a Supreme Court seat to Merrick Garland was an unprecedented act of political nihilism and hijacking of the political process, part and parcel of a long pattern of right-wing destruction of the levers of American democracy, including a long illustrious record of voter suppression, 0.1% campaign financing corruption of federal and state elections and gas-lighting the masses with fake news, propaganda and disinformation.
This one more chapter in the Greedy Old Pirate playbook, a coup de judicial grâce to keep the Grand Old Poison flowing to masses ad infinitum with their 'congenial' man Gorsuch ruling against the common man.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on November 11, 1987, and took the oath of office on February 18, 1988 with ten months to go in Reagan's term.
President Barack Obama nominated Judge Garland on March 16, 2016 with nine months to go in Obama's term.
But suddenly the right-wing 'last-year of the Presidency' nomination Prohibition Rule became the unlegislated law of the land.
We now have a President whose election campaign is under formal FBI investigation for sedition, treason and a rigged American presidential election.
Let's enforce the new right-wing 'last-year of the Presidency' nomination Prohibition Rule, since there's a reasonable chance Donald Trump is also in the last year of his so-called Presidency.
This one more chapter in the Greedy Old Pirate playbook, a coup de judicial grâce to keep the Grand Old Poison flowing to masses ad infinitum with their 'congenial' man Gorsuch ruling against the common man.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on November 11, 1987, and took the oath of office on February 18, 1988 with ten months to go in Reagan's term.
President Barack Obama nominated Judge Garland on March 16, 2016 with nine months to go in Obama's term.
But suddenly the right-wing 'last-year of the Presidency' nomination Prohibition Rule became the unlegislated law of the land.
We now have a President whose election campaign is under formal FBI investigation for sedition, treason and a rigged American presidential election.
Let's enforce the new right-wing 'last-year of the Presidency' nomination Prohibition Rule, since there's a reasonable chance Donald Trump is also in the last year of his so-called Presidency.
539
Socrates, to bolster your argument, President Obama had a bit more than 10 months left in his term.
10
God I hope you are right!!!!
It continues to be silly to compare the timing of Judge Garland's nomination with that of Judge Kennedy. Kennedy was the extremely moderate replacement nomination for the famous Judge Bork. R's were angry enough that one distinguished and qualified justice was denied. Hard to imagine the fallout had the D's also blocked Kennedy.
Robert Bork fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox on Richard Nixon's orders. Bork's two superiors in the Justice Department refused to fire Cox, seeing it as an improper exercise of presidential authority. Bork had no problem with the Watergate criminals and had no problem with firing the man appointed to investigate their crimes.
Bork's nomination was voted down by the Senate by a vote of 58-42. Two Democratic senators voted for him; six Republican senators voted against him. His defeat for the nomination was bipartisan. All the anguished cries about poor Robert Bork are crocodile tears for partisan ends.
Bork's nomination was voted down by the Senate by a vote of 58-42. Two Democratic senators voted for him; six Republican senators voted against him. His defeat for the nomination was bipartisan. All the anguished cries about poor Robert Bork are crocodile tears for partisan ends.
222
I was strongly anti-Nixon back then, and remember well when Bork fired Cox. But Bork was right. Nixon had the right to fire Cox, and Bork was merely carrying out Nixon's order.
Right or wrong, Bork's firing of Cox did hurt him when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. But I always thought what hurt him more was his "heartless" approach to legal cases. He described the cases that reach the Supreme Court as "an intellectual feast," which struck many people as reflecting a lack of concern for the human beings involved in those cases.
I agreed then, but I also remember later thinking how many lawyers (I'm one) really have the same attitude as Bork about legal cases. For example, though lay people probably don't know this, one of the very most important Supreme Court cases ever decided was Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. Every law student studies that case extensively, but I'll wage that most of them don't have a clue (I don't) which party won.
Right or wrong, Bork's firing of Cox did hurt him when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. But I always thought what hurt him more was his "heartless" approach to legal cases. He described the cases that reach the Supreme Court as "an intellectual feast," which struck many people as reflecting a lack of concern for the human beings involved in those cases.
I agreed then, but I also remember later thinking how many lawyers (I'm one) really have the same attitude as Bork about legal cases. For example, though lay people probably don't know this, one of the very most important Supreme Court cases ever decided was Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. Every law student studies that case extensively, but I'll wage that most of them don't have a clue (I don't) which party won.
3
The United States is known, praised and has always been respected for it rule of law. Laws applied supposedly applied equally to ensure all citizens are subject to the same rights and freedoms. A functioning government demands no less in order to operate openly and fairly.
The McConnell rule supplanted the Constitution that Supreme Court picks cannot be addressed during an active election. Just that ruling, in and of itself should have been immediately challenged and gone before the courts IMO anyway.
Unfortunately it didn't, and now the landscape is muddied and all parties at cross odds with each other. Is it too late for Garland (who has standing) to press his case?
The McConnell rule supplanted the Constitution that Supreme Court picks cannot be addressed during an active election. Just that ruling, in and of itself should have been immediately challenged and gone before the courts IMO anyway.
Unfortunately it didn't, and now the landscape is muddied and all parties at cross odds with each other. Is it too late for Garland (who has standing) to press his case?
28
During the summer of 2018, close enough to the election as to not affect the current Congress, but far enough away to leave the results in doubt, the leadership of the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee need to have a sit-down. The objective would be to set the rules going forward, with each side having to consider the possibility that they will be the minority in the next Congress. If the rules tilt the playing field in favor of judicial moderates, so much the better.
5
Part of the problem is that the Democrats should have brought a lawsuit when Republicans refused confirmation hearings of Garland. It is a constitutional issue that would have gone to the divided Supreme Court. In any event Gorsuch appears to be another of Trumps 'yes men' and should not be confirmed. This kind of infighting and Trumps chaotic out of control administration is bringing down this country.
93
Democrats should have brought a lawsuit? Hold on. Ethics is not a system requiring an unethical act. High ethics produce ethical actions without more. A reasonable ethical act would have been Judge Gorsuch’s staying in the Court of Appeals to which one expects he was reasonably confirmed. Requiring a lawsuit to correct the Senate’s unethical refusal to do constitutional duty or to correct Judge Gorsuch’s failure ethically to respond to the Senate is a last resort which the GOP invites. Ethics does not mean waiting until one gets called out, necessitating litigation or proceedings. Your litigation suggestion does not make you wrong. It makes the Senate and Judge Gorsuch wrong for bullying the system. It puts the nation on a bumpy road which rightly should have been avoided. What kind of judge would Judge Gorsuch make if he cannot reasonably perform an ethical act to supply one less case for the court he wishes to join?
Over the last 8 years, the Republicans have done everything they could to destroy the Obama Presidency. They refused to do the job they were elected to do. They refuse to put qualified people in government positions solely to thwart Obama. They failed to do their job which is putting the Country first and legislating for the good of all Americans. Now they are complaining that the Democrats should not be acting just like they did. The Republicans created this mess and they continue to propagate it. "Working together" does not mean caving into to Radical Republicans. As a Liberal and an Attorney, I think that Gorsuch could make a fine Justice but I thin that he needs to be examined carefully and thoroughly just as any liberal candidate would be.
55
She hit me. He gave me a dirty look. She wouldn't show me her comic book. He wouldn't let me sit next to him on the school bus.
Everybody has a reason. But when you escalate, it's no better than an excuse.
Gorsuch should withdraw his name and wait his turn.
Everybody has a reason. But when you escalate, it's no better than an excuse.
Gorsuch should withdraw his name and wait his turn.
43
It's all a waste of time. Trump will have McConnell hit the nuclear option and that will be the end of it. The next candidate will be where the battle will be fierce and partisan.
10
Dems forcing Reps to go nuclear now eliminates any ability for Dems to block next Trump nominee. As typical Dems will lose both the battle and the war.
3
@straight shooter. If the filibuster is tossed, there won't be any battles over SCOTUS nominations. Rapid approval will be a formality for men with good hair who mouth platitudes until they're seated. It will be a farce just as much as the formerly respected body's opinions will come to be.
3
If republicans eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, the next candidate the republicans send up will be a hardline ultra-conservative.
When the Democrats control the Senate and get the chance to nominate a Justice, that person will be a hardline ultra-liberal.
Neither of these scenarios bode well for justice in America.
In fact, of what value is a Supreme Court when the decisions they reach always fall along partisan lines?
It's only through careful deliberation, debate, and decision making that good decisions can be rendered.
Republicans can prevent this pointless escalation by keeping the filibuster. If Gorsuch can't get 60 votes, then a more moderate nominee should take his place.
The future of justice in America hangs in the balance.
When the Democrats control the Senate and get the chance to nominate a Justice, that person will be a hardline ultra-liberal.
Neither of these scenarios bode well for justice in America.
In fact, of what value is a Supreme Court when the decisions they reach always fall along partisan lines?
It's only through careful deliberation, debate, and decision making that good decisions can be rendered.
Republicans can prevent this pointless escalation by keeping the filibuster. If Gorsuch can't get 60 votes, then a more moderate nominee should take his place.
The future of justice in America hangs in the balance.
5
Blocking a specific nominee is different from blocking _all_ nominees of a specific President. If one nominee is blocked (no matter how unreasonably), the President can nominate another. If the President is blocked, there's no remedy. In that sense, blocking Obama was worse than filibuster. On the other hand, filibuster is done by a minority, while the blocking of Obama was done by a majority.
438
An easy solution would be for both parties to smarten up and start doing what's in the best interest of the American people.
Start nominating moderate judges.
Start nominating moderate judges.
And the *majority* of the vote went for someone else. Didn't McConnell demand to wait until the election so that the majority could be heard?
2
If Judge Gorsuch is denied the nomination on strictly partisan grounds it seems obvious that ANY nominee put forward by a Republican President would suffer the same fate.
You have made a distinction without a difference.
Thankfully, John Amend All, the nuclear option, is still at hand and this eminently qualified man will be seated.
You have made a distinction without a difference.
Thankfully, John Amend All, the nuclear option, is still at hand and this eminently qualified man will be seated.
1
Please stop trying to minimize and excuse the behavior of the Republican party. The nomination of Neil Gorsuch is abnormal in the extreme. The issue at hand is that this open Supreme Court seat was stolen from President Obama, and the consideration of Merrick Garland, by historically unprecedented partisan sabotage by the Republican party under the direction of Senator Mitch McConnell.
Do not cheapen the legitimate outrage of this issue by equating it with a schoolyard temper tantrum.
If the institutional normality of the Senate has been eroded or altered in any way, it is due to the actions of the Republican party, which for years has done everything in its power to stymie, sabotage, and defeat any legitimate attempts at bipartisan governance.
Do not attempt to enact the lazy journalistic shortcut of false equivalence. The GOP owns this situation lock, stock, and barrel. Gorsuch is an illegitimate nominee, gnomic and dodging in his responses, and radically conservative based on his past positions. He must not be confirmed.
Do not cheapen the legitimate outrage of this issue by equating it with a schoolyard temper tantrum.
If the institutional normality of the Senate has been eroded or altered in any way, it is due to the actions of the Republican party, which for years has done everything in its power to stymie, sabotage, and defeat any legitimate attempts at bipartisan governance.
Do not attempt to enact the lazy journalistic shortcut of false equivalence. The GOP owns this situation lock, stock, and barrel. Gorsuch is an illegitimate nominee, gnomic and dodging in his responses, and radically conservative based on his past positions. He must not be confirmed.
690
Mitch McConnell is the poster boy for everything that is wrong with Washington these days.
7
The theft is not from President Obama alone but theft from the American people. That some do not care is irrelevant. The people care and prefer to inhibit the party of Grand Absent Standards from stealing forever-and-a-day merely because it lacks Constitutional and ethical standards.
3
I've been sick of the false equivalencies since the ronnie raygun days.
2
A filibuster would just be a waste of time. The Republicans would change the rules and Gorsuch would be confirmed by a simple majority.
That's the way it goes in the government these days. Too bad.
That's the way it goes in the government these days. Too bad.
7
Any candidate not named Merrick B. Garland should be rejected by Democrats. Republicans in the U.S. Senate revel in raw power. Require the GOP to publicly ride roughshod over the minority by banishing the filibuster. The effect, one would hope, will be to galvanize opposition and allow subsequent Senates dominated by other parties to function without catering to a minority. The GOP may be in the minority by then. If not, those of us who vote must recognize that in a semi-democracy such as ours we ultimately get the government we deserve.
92
We are about to find out if the President was elected through collusion with an enemy state. Republicans want to confirm a Justice appointed by him for a post that has been unconstitutionally and maliciously held empty for a year. To not fight this with all means at their disposal seems like an extraordinarily stupid thing to request from the Democrats. If the filibuster is to be consigned to the history bin, this is as good a time as any. Bring it on!
427
Doesn't matter who started it. Somebody needs to end it, and the Democrats have that opportunity now. Otherwise it's just like Northern Ireland - people fighting each other over historic slights that they had nothing to do with.
9
I see this dynamic again and again. Republicans obstruct - shutting down government, refusing to work on bipartisan matters, voting to shut down the ACA 60 times, etc. Then when Democrats object, all of a sudden they are enjoined to be the "bigger party" and stop objecting and knuckle under. It does matter who started it, because if they are rewarded for it they will continue.
38
This is a very selective reading of “who started it.” The article says that in 2013, when Democrats controlled the Senate, they faced a Republican “blockade of the president’s appeals court and executive branch nominees.” So the Democrats changed the rules. Question: Why was the rule-change considered the first hit? Why not the Republican obstruction that forced the rule change?
Yes, there is a back-and-forth. But the Republicans are clearly taking the lead.
The question is not “should the Democrats hit back.” The question is when will Republicans take some blame for unprecedented obstruction?
Merrick Garland was a neutral, plausible left-leaning candidate. The equivalent case for Democrat obstruction would be a neutral plausible right-leaning candidate. But Trump offered no such olive branch. Democrats have no choice but to hit back.
Yes, there is a back-and-forth. But the Republicans are clearly taking the lead.
The question is not “should the Democrats hit back.” The question is when will Republicans take some blame for unprecedented obstruction?
Merrick Garland was a neutral, plausible left-leaning candidate. The equivalent case for Democrat obstruction would be a neutral plausible right-leaning candidate. But Trump offered no such olive branch. Democrats have no choice but to hit back.
293
Garland "left-leaning"? Alas, the word "left" has lost all contact with reality in this unfortunate country blasted by right-wing hate radio.
5
Republicans blocked Garland, Democrats block Gorsuch--even Steven. Now make a deal to roll back Nuclear option mistake to where it used to be. Let Republicans put up a new candidate with restored balance.
12
You don't actually believe that Dems blocking Gorsuch --- after he was given a hearing and a vote --- is "even steven" with Republicans refusing to even consider Garland for a year, do you?
8
There is a simple solution that is beyond a simpleton's logic. Hence, McConnell will not do it: restitution. Restitution is a noble concept. Stand up Mitch and offer to take a vote on Garland, holding Gorsuch's nomination for the next appointment or vote, whichever comes first.
83
A pipe dream, wish it could happen.
"They started it?"
I guess it depends on who "they" is. Each party claims "they" is the other party.
Ever since Bork, there's been a mixture of approaches to Supreme Court nominees. Scalia and Ginsburg, for example (both post-Bork) were approved unanimously, reflecting the "good old days" when a President's nominee was routinely approved if he/she was legally qualified (i.e. no ideological litmus test).
Many Senators have continued this approach, which explains why past nominees have been approved with 60+ Senate votes. But ideology nevertheless has reared its ugly head since Bork. When John Roberts came up for nomination, for example, Senator Schumer heaped praise on him, and Senator Durbin was so impressed that he said we should "retire the trophy." Yet both Schumer and Durbin voted against Roberts. He, like all other Justices on the Court, got 60+ Senate votes, but only because other Senators stuck to the "good old days" rule that Schumer and Durbin so conspicuously rejected.
Bottom line, it looks like party-based voting on Supreme Court nominees is here to stay, just as party-based voting on other matter appears to be here to stay.
I guess it depends on who "they" is. Each party claims "they" is the other party.
Ever since Bork, there's been a mixture of approaches to Supreme Court nominees. Scalia and Ginsburg, for example (both post-Bork) were approved unanimously, reflecting the "good old days" when a President's nominee was routinely approved if he/she was legally qualified (i.e. no ideological litmus test).
Many Senators have continued this approach, which explains why past nominees have been approved with 60+ Senate votes. But ideology nevertheless has reared its ugly head since Bork. When John Roberts came up for nomination, for example, Senator Schumer heaped praise on him, and Senator Durbin was so impressed that he said we should "retire the trophy." Yet both Schumer and Durbin voted against Roberts. He, like all other Justices on the Court, got 60+ Senate votes, but only because other Senators stuck to the "good old days" rule that Schumer and Durbin so conspicuously rejected.
Bottom line, it looks like party-based voting on Supreme Court nominees is here to stay, just as party-based voting on other matter appears to be here to stay.
79
And it appears that there is no Republican Party anymore. It has now become the white nationalist party.
12
MyThreeCents may remember that Roberts promised to abide by precedent yet he has become a champion reverser of precedent on numerous important issues. It looks like he was a liar and Schumer and Durbin were prescient.
8
The article you just (presumably) read reports that neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Alito were approved with 60+ votes . . .
As to the "Originalism" of Scalia and Gorsuch:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand-in-hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand-in-hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson
36
Gorsuch is far from a mild-mannered, bland nominee. He is anti-woman and anti-workers' rights. Declining to approve his nomination is rather more than a simple schoolyard battle.
125
The comments reflect how partisan and broken our politics are. A supreme Court nomination is not an election. By any reasonable standard Gorsuch is qualified and every Senator has pretty much acknowledged that. It is a step even lower than the bad place we are already if this vote is along party lines. Where have all the statesmen gone?
7