Total utter hypocrisy from the NYT. Shoe on the other foot and they'd be talking out of the other side of their mouths. To replace Scalia, the conserative icon, with another hyperlefty like Sotomayor or Kagan would have tipped the court to the libs. And everyone knows what occurs when that happens. A group of 5 people get to legislate to 315 million Americans. Just like the Constitution said they should. Oh wait what? Judicial Review is not in the Constitution but an assumed power? Another lib court would have altered the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Amendments and outlawed the 2nd. Sorry Charlie. No sale.
3
Just a thought...what if Judge Gorsuch withdraws his name from consideration until such times as cooler heads in the Senate prevail? I would view this as very nonpartisan and statesmanlike. He might change a few no votes to yes.
11
The Courts should not be used as political cudgel by any party, nor should be stripped of all authority to interpret the meaning of law based on precedent and the law itself. We have separation of powers and that includes the judiciary. One could only hope that if this nominee gets confirmed he will become a complete and utter surprise in the vein of William O. Douglas (appointed by President Eisenhower and the most liberal justice appointed to the court). The refusal to consider appointments to the bench for 8 years, coupled with ignoring the Garland nomination betrays the Republican Party's commitment to the Constitution they seem to revere.
4
The Supreme Court will be more than a "partisan tool." Together with the Office of the Presidency, and the United States Congress, the Trump-court (gives me chills) will be the final arbiter of an insane President's plans to "blow-up the administrative state" (Steven Bannon).
The Republican Party has killed you. Goodbye America. Been good to know you.
The Republican Party has killed you. Goodbye America. Been good to know you.
5
I always thought that Democrats were pretty good at strategy but I was wrong. Appeasing their liberal base (i.e. Tea party by a different name) at all costs is what brings us this moment. Usually Republicans are devoid of strategy but in this case, I have to admit McConnell is playing the Democrats like a fiddle. Rhetoric aside, he hopes the Democrats go through with the filibuster on Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch is very defensible and simply replaces Scalia. No ideological swing. With the filibuster gone, any Justices to be replaced will be easily done with a simple majority. Interesting that the editorial never mentioned Reid. In truth he threw the first grenade in terms of the Senates Rules and Precedents (btw, it's a precedent that will be changed; not a rule).
Like Reid, Schumer will rue the day his name (as minority leader) and party lit the fuse that ended "advise and consent" filibusters. Can the end of legislative filibusters be far behind?
Like Reid, Schumer will rue the day his name (as minority leader) and party lit the fuse that ended "advise and consent" filibusters. Can the end of legislative filibusters be far behind?
7
So there are quite a few people extolling Gorsuch and saying that he is a highly "moral" person and that that "morality" is enough that he should be confirmed. Given the disgusting, truly immoral, behavior or McConnell, which is, in fact, the only reason Gorsuch is even under consideration, it seems to me that a "highly moral" candidate should remove himself from the process. His tenure on the court will always have an asterisk next to his name to the effect that the seat he is in truly belongs to Merrick Garland. Greed and lust for power has a way of wiping all morality out of the equation.
13
This is not about revenge for the unconscionable treatment of GARLAND. The messaging has been wrong and therefore unpersuasive. The REAL ISSUE IS THAT NO NOMINEE FOR THE LIFETIME POST OF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILE THE PRESIDENT WHO MADE THE NOMINATION IS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI. The process should be tabled until we know exactly if and what role trump/administration played in helping Russia influence our 2016 election. We must know if we have a pro American president or a colluder working with a foreign power to subvert the integrity of our democracy. Putting this appointment process on hold makes absolute sense. Who wants a SC JUDGE PICKED BY A TARNISHED PRESIDENT WHO MAY BE A CRIMINAL MAY BE IMPEACHED MAY RESIGN? Don't saddle the court and Americans with that deciding vote unless all hands are clean. Garland was ignored because it was an election year. If that excuse holds, surely the possibility of the president or his admin being traitor merits postponing his nomination consideration. Wouldn't you agree?
9
The Supreme Court has indeed become highly politicized, threatening it as a institution vital to the checks and balances of our constitutional government.
But blaming this on Sen. McConnell is worse than misleading. Yes, Sen. McConnell denied Judge Garland, who is qualified to sit on SCOTUS, a hearing. This was wrong. But the Times deliberately ignores that fact that in 1992 Joe Biden (then chair of the Senate Judiciary committee) and in 2007 Sen. Schumer (now Senate minority leader) unequivocally indicated that what Sen. McConnell did was appropriate - that lame duck Presidents should not be able to fill a SCOTUS vacancy. This is incorrect, but make no mistake - the Democrats thought of it first. This piece is an editorial, not a news article, but ignoring the clear words of these Democratic leaders is inappropriate.
Why has the Court and the appointment of Justices become so political? Because the Justices so often do not vote on the basis of what the law and the Constitution say. Rather, they let their own political philosophies shape their decisions. Instead of interpreting the law, all too often the unelected Justices take it on themselves to write the law. This was well illustrated by Justice Ginsburg in notorious public interviews a year ago.
The answer is probably to amend the Constitution, and end lifetime tenure for Justices. They should serve lengthy, but non-renewable terms, after which they should receive lifetime pensions equal to their full salaries.
But blaming this on Sen. McConnell is worse than misleading. Yes, Sen. McConnell denied Judge Garland, who is qualified to sit on SCOTUS, a hearing. This was wrong. But the Times deliberately ignores that fact that in 1992 Joe Biden (then chair of the Senate Judiciary committee) and in 2007 Sen. Schumer (now Senate minority leader) unequivocally indicated that what Sen. McConnell did was appropriate - that lame duck Presidents should not be able to fill a SCOTUS vacancy. This is incorrect, but make no mistake - the Democrats thought of it first. This piece is an editorial, not a news article, but ignoring the clear words of these Democratic leaders is inappropriate.
Why has the Court and the appointment of Justices become so political? Because the Justices so often do not vote on the basis of what the law and the Constitution say. Rather, they let their own political philosophies shape their decisions. Instead of interpreting the law, all too often the unelected Justices take it on themselves to write the law. This was well illustrated by Justice Ginsburg in notorious public interviews a year ago.
The answer is probably to amend the Constitution, and end lifetime tenure for Justices. They should serve lengthy, but non-renewable terms, after which they should receive lifetime pensions equal to their full salaries.
5
This editorial is as bad or worse than the behavior it espouses on Mr. McConnell.
Judge Garland is in the past. It is time to move on, it is time to get back to governing and not pine over Judge Garland and the democratic partisan loss. Democrats will loose more seats in the next election with this behavior.
As you state "What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
I also believe President Obama lit the fuse of these wars during the Obama care negotiations when he put down Eric Cantor and republican concerns by stating, elections have consequences Eric, and I won. What goes around comes around.
Judge Garland is in the past. It is time to move on, it is time to get back to governing and not pine over Judge Garland and the democratic partisan loss. Democrats will loose more seats in the next election with this behavior.
As you state "What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
I also believe President Obama lit the fuse of these wars during the Obama care negotiations when he put down Eric Cantor and republican concerns by stating, elections have consequences Eric, and I won. What goes around comes around.
8
Like so many of our current problems in Washington, the overriding cause can be traced to extreme gerrymandering. What is the incentive for compromise when a radical legislator's position is protected by like-minded voters? Not only was Merrick Garland blocked by McConnell, the Republicans threatened to block a Clinton nomination (when it appeared that Trump was going to lose the election). In other words, only a Republican nominee was acceptable, period! End gerrymandering or our democracy, including an impartial judiciary, will not survive.
10
The Supreme Court is a political tool... but it is used primarily by Democrats. Prior to Garland, in the last 50 years, name for me a single justice nominated by a Democrat president that was filibustered or otherwise denied an up or down vote by republicans. And it wasn't that Democrats were nominating moderate justices. Since 1967 they have nominated and had approved Thurgood Marshall, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. You can't cite a single major ruling in which one of these five did not predictably and consistently vote with the liberal block. They are all ideologically liberal... period. And yet the Republicans allowed them on the court. And yet of the 12 Republican nominated justices to join the Court there was much moderation. Nixon appointed Blackmun authored Roe v Wade. Reagan appointed Kennedy wrote the gay marriage rulings. Bush appointee Roberts wrote the rulings upholding the ACA. Kennedy and fellow Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Conner consistently voted with the liberals to maintain the core of Roe v Wade. So after appointing 12 of the 17 justices over the last 50 years only to have many major rulings decided 5-4 often against conservative's core beliefs, because they have nominated often unpredictable or moderate justices, only to watch Democrats time after time nominate liberal ideologues and get them approved, and with the delicate Court balance at stake they said... no more and took up the tools the Dems have used for decades.
9
Gee, how can you possibly forget Garland? "... or otherwise denied an up or down vote by republicans?"
Why is it that right-wingers here cannot remember the most recent and obvious fact of this situation?
Why is it that right-wingers here cannot remember the most recent and obvious fact of this situation?
4
Repnah
You're so far gone you have forgotten what 'liberal' means.
We have not had a bona fide liberal approach to policy for fifty years or more. And, no, not Bernie.
There is not one legitimate liberal voice with any power in Washington.
You even imagine yourself to be a moderate, I expect.
It's no wonder the world beyond American shores frightens you people so.
You're so far gone you have forgotten what 'liberal' means.
We have not had a bona fide liberal approach to policy for fifty years or more. And, no, not Bernie.
There is not one legitimate liberal voice with any power in Washington.
You even imagine yourself to be a moderate, I expect.
It's no wonder the world beyond American shores frightens you people so.
2
So lose the filibuster. Then come back stronger than ever, Democrats.
And live to dance on McConnell's grave.
And live to dance on McConnell's grave.
6
I suspect (and hope) McConnell will be viewed negatively by history.
7
The degree of control of the Senate at the time of Supreme Court nominations in the past would seem to be an important factor in determining how much of a departure from past practice the current situation is.
Term limits for SCOTUS justices are needed because we are now stuck with this guys backward views for 30 yrs. Three appointments for each president every four years. Twelve years is plenty. If you want less ideological choices then maybe 60 votes should be required. Real advise and consent by both sides of the aisle. That's what the fights about. If democrats in the future are able to pass progressive legislation, then Trojan horse Gorsuch will be able to help swat it down. His ridged philosophy could endanger social security, Medicare, abortion, gay rights and one payer healthcare if it ever gets passed
2
April 5, 20015
Congressional men and women serve first and foremost their State and constituency- respectful of all fifty states and not a supreme monolithic presumption for dominance to rule on every obsession for doctrinal wishful legalism. Spending effective time doing the right kind of politics can make our social contract more tolerant and developing from the grass roots to what becomes our national character - for the best efficiency to work on the needs that are firstly local and collectively in conformity with our legal values that are steadfast and honored for the best of our value system.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
Congressional men and women serve first and foremost their State and constituency- respectful of all fifty states and not a supreme monolithic presumption for dominance to rule on every obsession for doctrinal wishful legalism. Spending effective time doing the right kind of politics can make our social contract more tolerant and developing from the grass roots to what becomes our national character - for the best efficiency to work on the needs that are firstly local and collectively in conformity with our legal values that are steadfast and honored for the best of our value system.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
I completely disagree with the article's premise here. It's not up to one party to determine if the filibuster is worth saving. It's up to both parties. Just like it's not up to one party to create a functional government, it's up to both. Otherwise, one party gets to take advantage of the other all the time. The filibuster was destroyed when McConnell started using it, instead of elections, as a political tool to stop all nominations (court & administration). It's not about whether to save it or not. It's already gone.
7
America's Constitution is a flawed document bssed on an original intent of denying the Declaration by perpetuating slavery. All men are not equal under the Constitution.
Compromise, personal ethics and a sound use the separation if powers has at times overcome the flaws,, but unfortunately not often enough.
The period just before the Civil War demonstrated most clearly how slavery or any really decisive issue could not be resolved under the Constitution.
For 150 years since, not including women in the 14th amendment, allowing Jim Crow and hiding other serious problems behind the States Rights remnant of slavery have let us fumble along.
Now the Constitution again is our problem as it's 3 parts are each so lacking in democratic reasoning that it us hard to see a way ahead without another major conflict.
Compromise, personal ethics and a sound use the separation if powers has at times overcome the flaws,, but unfortunately not often enough.
The period just before the Civil War demonstrated most clearly how slavery or any really decisive issue could not be resolved under the Constitution.
For 150 years since, not including women in the 14th amendment, allowing Jim Crow and hiding other serious problems behind the States Rights remnant of slavery have let us fumble along.
Now the Constitution again is our problem as it's 3 parts are each so lacking in democratic reasoning that it us hard to see a way ahead without another major conflict.
"Now the Constitution again is our problem"
So, are you pressing for a constitutional convention to replace it?
So, are you pressing for a constitutional convention to replace it?
1
This is a surprising position taken by the Editorial Board. As soon as the Majority Leader announced that the sitting president's nomination for a vacant Supreme Court seat would not be acted upon by the Senate, as is its duty under the Constitution, any notion of comity or putting aside partisan differences went out the window.
7
I am utterly mystified that anyone would say the following with a straight face:
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
This is ridiculous. If the Republicans are willing to "go nuclear" they will do so whenever they want to, no reason to give them a free pass on the most egregious violation of the intent of the constitution we have seen since the civil war.
The worst of it is that this "thinking" is so crass it cannot even state its argument logically, instead it throws up nonsense. The real argument here is that the right is desperate to get a Scalia clone with this appointment, for a mix of rational and irrational reasons ... and that furthermore while it has no basis in the constitution at all, the Republicans think that they have "the right" to a very conservative nominee given that a conservative nominee died.
Your final paragraph says the truth: McConnell has destroyed any notion that the Supreme court is judicial in any meaningful sense.
Mr. Gorsuch, and originalist, has refused to answer the obvious question: is Mr. McConnell's action within the original intent of the constitution? He won't answer because he knows he cannot gaslight America with some blarney that it is. By accepting this nomination, Mr, Gorsuch impugns himself as a liar and poseur, nothing more.
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
This is ridiculous. If the Republicans are willing to "go nuclear" they will do so whenever they want to, no reason to give them a free pass on the most egregious violation of the intent of the constitution we have seen since the civil war.
The worst of it is that this "thinking" is so crass it cannot even state its argument logically, instead it throws up nonsense. The real argument here is that the right is desperate to get a Scalia clone with this appointment, for a mix of rational and irrational reasons ... and that furthermore while it has no basis in the constitution at all, the Republicans think that they have "the right" to a very conservative nominee given that a conservative nominee died.
Your final paragraph says the truth: McConnell has destroyed any notion that the Supreme court is judicial in any meaningful sense.
Mr. Gorsuch, and originalist, has refused to answer the obvious question: is Mr. McConnell's action within the original intent of the constitution? He won't answer because he knows he cannot gaslight America with some blarney that it is. By accepting this nomination, Mr, Gorsuch impugns himself as a liar and poseur, nothing more.
9
Don't fold Democrats; the current radical republican party will not, nor never compromise.
Saving the filibuster now not will not gain anything.
Saving the filibuster now not will not gain anything.
4
This is a renegade justice.
McConnell is as low as it gets.
The Repo's have made it a habit for most of our history in trying to control the courts for their wealthy clientele.
The major change, is that nominees can be picked with more precision.
At one time, a pick may have wandered from what the party who nominated him would have expected. With the advent of algorithm tools, the picks are now "safe" for the duration.
McConnell is as low as it gets.
The Repo's have made it a habit for most of our history in trying to control the courts for their wealthy clientele.
The major change, is that nominees can be picked with more precision.
At one time, a pick may have wandered from what the party who nominated him would have expected. With the advent of algorithm tools, the picks are now "safe" for the duration.
3
I suggest a change in Senate rules to require 3 non-majority party votes for confirmation of presidential nominees. Neil Gorsuch has the three.
So the Times deplores the politicization of Supreme Court nominees. This isn't new. This reader recalls the nomination of Robert Bork -- a highly qualified judge with a moderate court record (both items stipulated by the Democrats).
This reader also recalls the Times leading the howling mob that defeated that nomination.
To borrow and old legal concept, the Time does not enter this discussion with clean hands. To refute my statement, you might tell the readers more about your record regarding Republican nominees to the Court. Have you ever had a kind word to say about any of them?
This reader also recalls the Times leading the howling mob that defeated that nomination.
To borrow and old legal concept, the Time does not enter this discussion with clean hands. To refute my statement, you might tell the readers more about your record regarding Republican nominees to the Court. Have you ever had a kind word to say about any of them?
6
What about the fact that Bork got a vote and lost 58-42 do you not understand?
And why do you think that the Bork of Nixon's saturday night massacre, who was promised a supreme court seat by Nixon for doing the dirty work, should have been confirmed?
And why do you think that the Bork of Nixon's saturday night massacre, who was promised a supreme court seat by Nixon for doing the dirty work, should have been confirmed?
3
With Gerrymandering, Citizens united and The Electoral College.
The Right wing does not need "Any stinking Majority" to pack the bodies of government with their cronies and rule us.
Look at Trump, Congress and the Senate !
Only the Judiciary may be able to save us now.
Gorsuch is now ready to be stacked into a stolen seat. The blade of the right Wing is on America's neck. McConnell will do anything in order to deliver the coup de grace.
If Merrick Garland is not in that seat who then will save us?
This is real, people. Do something to save your country from their clutches.
The Right wing does not need "Any stinking Majority" to pack the bodies of government with their cronies and rule us.
Look at Trump, Congress and the Senate !
Only the Judiciary may be able to save us now.
Gorsuch is now ready to be stacked into a stolen seat. The blade of the right Wing is on America's neck. McConnell will do anything in order to deliver the coup de grace.
If Merrick Garland is not in that seat who then will save us?
This is real, people. Do something to save your country from their clutches.
2
A little off-topic, but I am surprise that, as of almost 3:00 p.m. EST, the Times has not yet reported on a landmark decision by the Conservative-leaning 7th Circuit of Appeals finding that sexual orientation discrimination is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While I have come to recognize that the Times has a certain coastal myopia, this is a huge deal worthy of front page coverage. It is also related to the current Supreme Court debate, as the Judge who wrote the dissenting opinion is Judge Sykes, who is on Trump's short list of potential nominees.
2
Indeed as to Sykes, appointed by George W. Bush who wrote the majority “deploys a judge-empowering, common-law decision method that leaves a great deal of room for judicial discretion.”
She went on: “Respect for the constraints imposed on the judiciary by a system of written law must begin with fidelity to the traditional first principle of statutory interpretation: When a statute supplies the rule of decision, our role is to give effect to the enacted text, interpreting the statutory language as a reasonable person would have understood it at the time of enactment,” Sykes writes. “We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions.”
In other words ... she trots out the extreme "originalist" position and flat out denies what the text actually says ... she would conclude that "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws" (from the 14th amendment) applied ONLY to blacks in the south, as that was what most citizens understood the purpose of the 14th amendment to be, despite the plain and sweeping language!
This is nuts.
She went on: “Respect for the constraints imposed on the judiciary by a system of written law must begin with fidelity to the traditional first principle of statutory interpretation: When a statute supplies the rule of decision, our role is to give effect to the enacted text, interpreting the statutory language as a reasonable person would have understood it at the time of enactment,” Sykes writes. “We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions.”
In other words ... she trots out the extreme "originalist" position and flat out denies what the text actually says ... she would conclude that "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws" (from the 14th amendment) applied ONLY to blacks in the south, as that was what most citizens understood the purpose of the 14th amendment to be, despite the plain and sweeping language!
This is nuts.
1
The Times states:What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court.
Only fools believe that. Democrats And Republicans have for generations been trying to stack the Court. Why else describe Justice Kennedy as a swing vote. Why aren't they all swing votes. Jerome Frank observed that whoever the judge is makes a difference. When he was appointed Chief Justice Roberts said he would try and foster consensus. How did that work out? The fact he didn't or couldn't on key issues like gay marriage has reduced the Court to a political institution that worst of all is uneleceted. It is unfair to blame one party over the other. If the situation were reversed either with Garland or Gorsuch the Democrats would do the same thing. Both sides are hypocrites and political opportunists. Don't think for a moment that the dems who are voting for Gorsuch haven't made a political calculation on how to vote. And we the people suffer.
Only fools believe that. Democrats And Republicans have for generations been trying to stack the Court. Why else describe Justice Kennedy as a swing vote. Why aren't they all swing votes. Jerome Frank observed that whoever the judge is makes a difference. When he was appointed Chief Justice Roberts said he would try and foster consensus. How did that work out? The fact he didn't or couldn't on key issues like gay marriage has reduced the Court to a political institution that worst of all is uneleceted. It is unfair to blame one party over the other. If the situation were reversed either with Garland or Gorsuch the Democrats would do the same thing. Both sides are hypocrites and political opportunists. Don't think for a moment that the dems who are voting for Gorsuch haven't made a political calculation on how to vote. And we the people suffer.
5
The Dems should write in Merritt Garland as their choice.
In the near future, the only time a justice will be confirmed is when the executive and the senate are of the same party. Justices will be more extreme..it's possible the likes of David Duke or Bill Maher could be seated on the bench.
When will the partisanship reach an inflection point? Hopefully before the above scenario occurs.
In the near future, the only time a justice will be confirmed is when the executive and the senate are of the same party. Justices will be more extreme..it's possible the likes of David Duke or Bill Maher could be seated on the bench.
When will the partisanship reach an inflection point? Hopefully before the above scenario occurs.
1
I can't see how even Republicans could support the nomination to the Supreme Court of anyone who advised GW Bush that torture of enemy combatants was justifiable under American and international law.
3
For your assignment please compare and contrast your stance now to your stance when Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats played this same card back in 2013.
Those that wish an activist court are making a partisian tool out of it. Those who insist that judges follow the constitution, the law, etc. and leave their personal views out of their decisions are defending and supporting the constitution. You know which group does each of these things. Some want the courts to deliver things that they can't get through the proper channels, as do those same people want the president to deliver things that he should not just because they say so and are smartest and correct according to them.
4
Since Republicans have always voted in great numbers in support of the Dem nominees, but every Democrat would vote against Gorsuch, looks like the only party making the Supreme Court partisan are the Democrats!!! SHOCKING......
6
With all due respect, did you sleep through the last year? As the editorial mentions repeatedly, the Republicans refused to allow so much as a vote on Obama's nominee for the seat under consideration, making the current situation the sole fault of the Republicans.
Get your facts straight, man.
Get your facts straight, man.
6
Sorry David, but there has never been a more brazenly partisan power play than McConnell's unconstitutional refusal to consider the nomination of Judge Garland.
5
Pssst ... Garland. You really cannot ignore the Garland nomination ... try as you might.
4
" if they lose the filibuster now — as they will — then it is not available to use against another Trump nominee, who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well."
Well, surely if there is a nominee who is objectionable to Republicans, they will vote against that person, and a filibuster will not be necessary - that is, if said Republicans vote their conscience and their responsibility to their constituents, and not their party. Which is it going to be, Republicans? How low are you willing to go in the name of party unity?
Well, surely if there is a nominee who is objectionable to Republicans, they will vote against that person, and a filibuster will not be necessary - that is, if said Republicans vote their conscience and their responsibility to their constituents, and not their party. Which is it going to be, Republicans? How low are you willing to go in the name of party unity?
2
As far as politicization of the Court, an up-and-down vote of the Senate is now expected to roughly mirror the divide between Democrats and Republicans, which is regrettable (and inexplicable in other than partisan terms), but that’s a separate issue from the very serious one of whether Democrats should filibuster that vote from taking place and Republicans should nuke their filibuster to get to that vote.
1
Dear Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado:
With your decision not to support the Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, you have lost my vote in Colorado and the support of my family. Democrats like you didn’t stand up as Mitch McConnell’s outrageous obstructionism became an accepted GOP political tactic that has grown like a malignant tumor in our national politics. Democrats took it on the chin as they watched the GOP controlled Senate delegitimize President Obama by refusing to even vote on his highly qualified Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. And now we are faced with you, a Democratic Senator in a blue state, who is opting to feed the crocodile in the hopes that it will eat him last. It will eat you first.
With your decision not to support the Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, you have lost my vote in Colorado and the support of my family. Democrats like you didn’t stand up as Mitch McConnell’s outrageous obstructionism became an accepted GOP political tactic that has grown like a malignant tumor in our national politics. Democrats took it on the chin as they watched the GOP controlled Senate delegitimize President Obama by refusing to even vote on his highly qualified Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. And now we are faced with you, a Democratic Senator in a blue state, who is opting to feed the crocodile in the hopes that it will eat him last. It will eat you first.
6
"Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s moderate and eminently qualified candidate..."
He is not a moderate. He is against the "keep and bear" part of the 2nd Amendment. You people aren't going to get another judge like him and Breyer until you win more elections, a lot more elections. But not to worry, I can feel your pain, I can so feel your pain.
He is not a moderate. He is against the "keep and bear" part of the 2nd Amendment. You people aren't going to get another judge like him and Breyer until you win more elections, a lot more elections. But not to worry, I can feel your pain, I can so feel your pain.
9
It's infuriating that the Republicans always cheat and ignore the rules, but the Democrats have to be responsible and play by the rules. McConnell is the most cynical hypocrite who has ever disgraced the Senate, although somehow Bernie Sanders likes him. Despite all that, the best thing is probably for the Democrats to let Gorsuch go through. There are a lot worse, more troglodytic Republican judges than Gorsuch, who has shown a spark of humanity in some of his decisions. Who knows, maybe he'll turn out to be Trump's Earl Warren. What we really need, though, is an economic Earl Warren and it's pretty clear Gorsuch will side with the rich and powerful. Elections have consequences.
2
I believe the correct approach for the Democrats is to finally stand up and say NO.
I think we tend to depend on the Supreme Court too much. Even though the Court is very important, it does tend to follow the general political consensus. When it gets a little ahead of itself, as it did in Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, and similar decisions, the tendency has been to celebrate a victory and think the war is over when it is not.
As we now see from all the creative ways the states have used to deny women the right to control their pregnancy, and the creative ways states are using religious freedom to attack gay rights, a positive Supreme Court decision can actually have negative consequences. We have tended to celebrate, relax, and go home when we should have been aware that there will continue to be cleverly crafted dodges to undermine the decision. We should have been energized to keep up the fight to the finish.
We should take a page from the Right’s playbook and look for ways to undermine, nullify, and ultimately change decisions like Citizens United. Is it a universal fact that the candidate with lots more money always wins? How could the money imbalance be counteracted? Free publicity? Convincing people not to watch campaign ads? Focused education? Massive, effective use of person-to-person contacts using newly energized volunteers?
I think we tend to depend on the Supreme Court too much. Even though the Court is very important, it does tend to follow the general political consensus. When it gets a little ahead of itself, as it did in Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, and similar decisions, the tendency has been to celebrate a victory and think the war is over when it is not.
As we now see from all the creative ways the states have used to deny women the right to control their pregnancy, and the creative ways states are using religious freedom to attack gay rights, a positive Supreme Court decision can actually have negative consequences. We have tended to celebrate, relax, and go home when we should have been aware that there will continue to be cleverly crafted dodges to undermine the decision. We should have been energized to keep up the fight to the finish.
We should take a page from the Right’s playbook and look for ways to undermine, nullify, and ultimately change decisions like Citizens United. Is it a universal fact that the candidate with lots more money always wins? How could the money imbalance be counteracted? Free publicity? Convincing people not to watch campaign ads? Focused education? Massive, effective use of person-to-person contacts using newly energized volunteers?
2
Trump showed how to beat the money game both in the primaries and general election. He spent a fraction of his rivals. Why? He made himself truly accessible.
3
Or because he was willing to tweet or say anything about anybody, to deny he said it, to say maybe he said it but he didn't mean it, to lambaste anybody who quoted him, to pretend video doesn't exist, to say OK maybe he said it, to say somebody made him say it, to say he said it but that he meant to say it even harder, to say that he didn't say that 'harder' part but he said the first thing, and to say that only Real American Patriots could understand what he said he said and that everybody else is a loser, if he said it.
And we got to watch all that for free.
And we got to watch all that for free.
3
"What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court. "
Thus, is lip-service paid.
What actually matters is that Americans ARE governed by law, not just that they believe they are.
Thus, is lip-service paid.
What actually matters is that Americans ARE governed by law, not just that they believe they are.
4
Just to note, the frequent use of "extreme polarization in the nation's capitol" implies an equivalency that does not exist. It's a falsehood. Ever since Reagan and the evolution of Fox News/Limbaugh virulence, the extremes have almost ALL been from the Right. The Left has made a few small contributions---Harry Reid was no angel---but most of the work against our democracy has been from Republicans. Polarization means force from opposite directions, but for the last 40 years most of the force---and all its venal consequences---has been from the GOP. And shame on them for it.
6
Schumer's rule has lead us to the so called nuclear option. Sorry democrats, you lose again. Elections have consequences. Take your toys and go home.
8
Sorry folks, you seem to have very selective and biased memory. The republicans were just applying the "Biden Rule" which was generated by the democrat Joe Biden. That is: NO supreme court nominations are to be advanced or considered in the last year of a lame duck president. Here are some memory jogs from the congressional record.
BIDEN: “…in 1800, 1828, 1864, and 1956-the President himself withheld making a nomination until after the election was held. …it is time to consider whether this unbroken string of historical tradition should be broken. In my view, what history supports, common sense dictates in the case of 1992.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)
BIDEN: “…in 1800, 1828, 1864, and 1956-the President himself withheld making a nomination until after the election was held. …it is time to consider whether this unbroken string of historical tradition should be broken. In my view, what history supports, common sense dictates in the case of 1992.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16316, 6/25/1992)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.16317, 6/25/1992)
6
This editorial suggests the Democrats should give up the use of the filibuster now to preserve it for the future. The Republicans should also question ending the filibuster. It would only take two to retain its use for their future.
1
Three. Pence would settle a tie.
1
Liberal fantasies are getting out of control--Russia hacked the election, Trump is a Russian agent, Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat was stolen. Freud called this neurosis, a subconsciously calculated denial of reality, a refusal to face certain facts. I don't know how we can have a functioning political system when the self-appointed representatives of Enlightenment make Alex Jones look like a scientist.
8
The Russians DID hack the election and the Republicans DID steal Garland's Supreme Court seat. I assume that Freud called it what I do, reality.
5
They didn't steal the seat from Garland. They could have slow walked it, held hearings and after the election results came in voted him down. Also the election was in great measure a referendum on who should select the next Justice.
2
Freud was right about one thing--that the solution to your kind of problem would in the end have to be chemical.
1
The problem we have is:
The Democrats are willing to share (offering a moderate candidate) &
The Republicans need to have it all (a hard right person).
Anyone with siblings understands this situation: Hogs destroy a family!
Why is that? Hogs have no respect for others.
Welcome to Washington!
The Democrats are willing to share (offering a moderate candidate) &
The Republicans need to have it all (a hard right person).
Anyone with siblings understands this situation: Hogs destroy a family!
Why is that? Hogs have no respect for others.
Welcome to Washington!
5
Welcome to the Republican Party is more like it.
4
Obama appointed two justices who are as hard left as is possible. No wonder the Republicans decided to apply the Biden-Schumer rule.
5
A "rule" which has never been acted upon and was nothing but an off the cuff remark.
1
The filibuster is not worth saving for several reasons, but the most obvious one is that apparently only Republicans get to use it.
8
The Republicans, Mitch McConnell in particular, are the big problem for the country because of their extreme partisanship.. The Supreme Court nomination problems are merely one of the difficulties of this unyielding, persistent problem.
7
It's time to face Reality, folks. The US of A is no longer U. There are deep ideological schisms in this country. March Madness, The Super Bowl and The World Series notwithstanding, we have become the Hatfields and the McCoys writ large. The animus has become generational.
You hate Us, and We loathe You. And NEVER the twain shall meet. That's the new American credo. E Pluribus Chaos.
The Garland-Gorsuch incident is just a symptom of the devolution of the American Experiment. The devolution was manifested endlessly during the last election cycle. When both sides of the political divide accuse the other side of being unpatriotic, treasonous and bereft of traditional American values, you know we have a problem. Both sides can't be right in their accusations. But, both can be mistaken.
The Democrats will filibuster. The Republicans will nuke. Judge Gorsuch will be sworn in. Next Monday, when the sun breaks on the Atlantic Coast, The Hatfields will still hate the McCoys who will still loathe the Hatfields.
The national narrative needs to turn to the inevitable post American era. Maybe we can eventually embrace the new national reordering as the Crown and Colonies did after the First American Revolution.
You hate Us, and We loathe You. And NEVER the twain shall meet. That's the new American credo. E Pluribus Chaos.
The Garland-Gorsuch incident is just a symptom of the devolution of the American Experiment. The devolution was manifested endlessly during the last election cycle. When both sides of the political divide accuse the other side of being unpatriotic, treasonous and bereft of traditional American values, you know we have a problem. Both sides can't be right in their accusations. But, both can be mistaken.
The Democrats will filibuster. The Republicans will nuke. Judge Gorsuch will be sworn in. Next Monday, when the sun breaks on the Atlantic Coast, The Hatfields will still hate the McCoys who will still loathe the Hatfields.
The national narrative needs to turn to the inevitable post American era. Maybe we can eventually embrace the new national reordering as the Crown and Colonies did after the First American Revolution.
This is the bitterness in the throes of transition: "dumb white guys rule" is having its last gasp. You would think that a political party that wanted a future would avoid alienating everybody but a declining demographic ... wouldn't you?
3
If Gorsuch had an ounce of integrity, he would have turned down the nomination instead of his sanctimonious "I don't want to get involved in the politics." It's like a fence excusing himself for purchasing stolen goods by saying, "Oh, I don't get involved with the criminal aspect of it."
This whole nightmare sits at the feet of Mitch McConnell. He owns it, and he should pay for it. I'm wondering when the good people of Kentucky will recognize the damage he is doing to the Senate and vote him out.
This whole nightmare sits at the feet of Mitch McConnell. He owns it, and he should pay for it. I'm wondering when the good people of Kentucky will recognize the damage he is doing to the Senate and vote him out.
11
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all." A classic victim-hood statement if I ever heard one. Doing what the bullies that are the Republicans in the Senate want in the hope they will be nice later is NEVER going to work. Resistance is what is needed. McConnell is a dishonorable man who has sullied the name of the Senate. He is a dishonest man who has lied to the American people. We can NEVER trust him. Stop this nomination by all means possible. Delay everything for the next two years and hope the people vote the Democrats back into control.
11
Harry Reid managed to be just as, if not more, dishonorable when he invoked the nuclear option for his limited political gains.
Now that he is gone and there are Republican majorities, Nevada could well at last become the host of large quantities of spent nuclear waste.
Now, THAT's political pay-back.
Now that he is gone and there are Republican majorities, Nevada could well at last become the host of large quantities of spent nuclear waste.
Now, THAT's political pay-back.
5
One Partisan Tool created by another Partisan Tool.
The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is now nothing but a morally bankrupt institution that serves as a lapdog for GOP.
The House, The Senate, The Presidency, and The Supreme Court: all working towards the "big goal" of turning the country into nothing but uneducated wage slaves and their elitist financial overlords.
This country is a lost cause. Period.
The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is now nothing but a morally bankrupt institution that serves as a lapdog for GOP.
The House, The Senate, The Presidency, and The Supreme Court: all working towards the "big goal" of turning the country into nothing but uneducated wage slaves and their elitist financial overlords.
This country is a lost cause. Period.
6
Mitchell McConnell destroyed the Senate. Judge Gorsuch and every other nominee should decline the nomination in protest of the way Merrick Garland was treated, some kind of professional courtesy. The Supreme Court is already tainted and Justice Gorsuch presence will completely delegitimize it. When $10M are spent buying a Justice, the SC is doomed.
5
The mentions game theory without details.
In a two party transactional system, where one cheater beats the side that cooperates, letting the cheater go unpunished, means they will cheat every time.
It has been shown mathematically that the proper strategy in such a system is Your for Tat With Forgiveness. This means that when your opponent cheats, you cheat next time to punish them. You must keep cheating until they stop. On the round after they cooperate, you cooperate also.
The Republicans cheated. If they are not punished, the Democrats will lose more seats on the Supreme Court.
In a two party transactional system, where one cheater beats the side that cooperates, letting the cheater go unpunished, means they will cheat every time.
It has been shown mathematically that the proper strategy in such a system is Your for Tat With Forgiveness. This means that when your opponent cheats, you cheat next time to punish them. You must keep cheating until they stop. On the round after they cooperate, you cooperate also.
The Republicans cheated. If they are not punished, the Democrats will lose more seats on the Supreme Court.
3
I wonder if Mitch McConnell is considering delivering Judge Neil Gorsuch for President Trump and the far right as his final act before retirement. By not seeking consensus, he may not care much about being reelected. Clearly, by his strategy of blocking government as much as possible over the last 8 years, he does not care about the country; it's people or the government. He appears to work for the corporations, the wealthy and now the far right. I think the Republicans who still seek a career in government should think carefully before supporting a candidate for the Supreme Court such as Judge Gorsuch. They may find themselves out of a job soon. A majority of people in the country vote Democratic--not only for Hilary Clinton, but for the Congress—and with gerrymandering we have a government where the minority governs the majority. With a President Trump in the White House, I think the majority has woken up.
2
Regardless of what happened to Garland, Gorsuch is a well-qualified, center-right nominee. He is filling Scalia's seat, one of the most conservative Justices in the last 50 years. He is going to be confirmed, filibuster or not. However, if the Democrats choose a moderate jurist like Gorsuch to force the nuclear option, they won't be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube when Ginsburg leaves. That's when the true power will shift in the SCOTUS - by allowing a conservative Justice to take her place.
5
Classic bully: "give me your lunch money, and you won't get hurt."
Do that, and you never eat lunch again.
The most insulting thing here is that you southern right-wingers think that all liberal northerners are cowards. Remember the civil war -- wasn't true then, isn't true now.
Do that, and you never eat lunch again.
The most insulting thing here is that you southern right-wingers think that all liberal northerners are cowards. Remember the civil war -- wasn't true then, isn't true now.
1
"What goes around comes around" isn't benign. McObstruction serves no one.
1
The Supreme Court has always been a partisan tool, or it has since Marbury v. Madison. Every president has used that tool to benefit his philosophy to its greatest effect.
It's always amazed me to hear politicians, Senators especially, since it is they who hold the power in a president's selection, speak in religious tongues in paying reverence to the Constitution. With all due respect, their allegiance to such pronouncements - that SCOTUS is composed of the least judgmental judges this side of Solomon - is pure poppycock. Those well-schooled in the arcane practice of Law know all too well the Law which they so sanctimonious cite which is bestowed upon them to make sound judgments in actuality is a canard. It is an insidious ploy, a clever device used to make it appear the letter of the Law is being followed. It is not. No human could make decisions which goes against their beliefs unless they were schizophrenic. Assuming the Supremes are not exhibiting such signs, they are benders of the truth.
It is why we identify someone a Liberal or Conservative Judge. It is how Scalia can coin a made-up word like "Originalist". When you're schooled in the fine art of reading and writing gobbledygook, such as Scalia, you can make anything sound credible, to his adoring fans.
Judges are smart, very clever. They choose words carefully, to support already long-held beliefs. There are no balls and strikes being called. But It is they who determine the Strike Zone.
DD
Manhattan
It's always amazed me to hear politicians, Senators especially, since it is they who hold the power in a president's selection, speak in religious tongues in paying reverence to the Constitution. With all due respect, their allegiance to such pronouncements - that SCOTUS is composed of the least judgmental judges this side of Solomon - is pure poppycock. Those well-schooled in the arcane practice of Law know all too well the Law which they so sanctimonious cite which is bestowed upon them to make sound judgments in actuality is a canard. It is an insidious ploy, a clever device used to make it appear the letter of the Law is being followed. It is not. No human could make decisions which goes against their beliefs unless they were schizophrenic. Assuming the Supremes are not exhibiting such signs, they are benders of the truth.
It is why we identify someone a Liberal or Conservative Judge. It is how Scalia can coin a made-up word like "Originalist". When you're schooled in the fine art of reading and writing gobbledygook, such as Scalia, you can make anything sound credible, to his adoring fans.
Judges are smart, very clever. They choose words carefully, to support already long-held beliefs. There are no balls and strikes being called. But It is they who determine the Strike Zone.
DD
Manhattan
4
What, pray tell, is a “moderate” judge?
A “conservative” justice is one who reads and applies the law as it is, while a “liberal” justice is a politician who inevitably arrives at Politically Correct results. Is a “moderate” one who is only political half the time?
We need an understanding of the proper judicial role; what makes a person “qualified”? In short, the ONLY issue is ideology: will a judge promise to be bound by the law as the people or their representatives give it to him? Gorsuch? Almost certainly. Scalia? No doubt. Thomas? Absolutely.
RBG? NEVER! Her decisions are ALWAYS political.
The left views the judiciary as a means of securing policy it can’t get through Congress. Liberal judges simply impose leftist dogma, the actual law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Simply put, only originalists should be confirmed, as there is no other way to limit judicial discretion. Absent binding judges to what the people (or Congress) thought they were writing, nothing constrains judicial power. Ala Roe, it becomes (as Justice White wrote) “raw judicial power”. A decision based only upon the whim of five geriatric lawyers cannot be said to be legitimate. Only decisions grounded in the actual text of the document are proper.
So, anyone who can utter the words “penumbras and emanations”, or “living breathing document”, must be excluded from consideration. Only those who understand that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means should be confirmed.
A “conservative” justice is one who reads and applies the law as it is, while a “liberal” justice is a politician who inevitably arrives at Politically Correct results. Is a “moderate” one who is only political half the time?
We need an understanding of the proper judicial role; what makes a person “qualified”? In short, the ONLY issue is ideology: will a judge promise to be bound by the law as the people or their representatives give it to him? Gorsuch? Almost certainly. Scalia? No doubt. Thomas? Absolutely.
RBG? NEVER! Her decisions are ALWAYS political.
The left views the judiciary as a means of securing policy it can’t get through Congress. Liberal judges simply impose leftist dogma, the actual law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Simply put, only originalists should be confirmed, as there is no other way to limit judicial discretion. Absent binding judges to what the people (or Congress) thought they were writing, nothing constrains judicial power. Ala Roe, it becomes (as Justice White wrote) “raw judicial power”. A decision based only upon the whim of five geriatric lawyers cannot be said to be legitimate. Only decisions grounded in the actual text of the document are proper.
So, anyone who can utter the words “penumbras and emanations”, or “living breathing document”, must be excluded from consideration. Only those who understand that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means should be confirmed.
5
Poor, poor, deluded conservatives. Take a look at Citizens United and tell us how the majority applied the law as it was written.
3
They applied the 1st Amendment EXACTLY as it was written.
Yes, take a look and tell us where in the Constitution does it restrict freedom of speech and the right to support a candidate for office.
Remember - the decision applies to even very liberal unions as it does "greedy" business people (like George Soros and Tom Steyer?).
Who gets to decide how much someone can fund free speech? Guess you deluded liberals....
Remember - the decision applies to even very liberal unions as it does "greedy" business people (like George Soros and Tom Steyer?).
Who gets to decide how much someone can fund free speech? Guess you deluded liberals....
3
Let's clear up a few things. First, NEITHER side has clean hands here. Repubs can point to not just Bork back in 1987, but actually the first use of the fillibuster for Judicial nominees by Schumer back in 2003 when he stonewalled 9 of Bush's nominees to other courts. And Dems can certainly point to their share of misgivings.
Re Garland, let me ask liberals a question. Had he gotten a hearing, does anyone really think he'd have a chance of getting confirmed ? This has nothing to do with his credentials. Rather, conservatives had held a majority on the Supreme Court for almost 50 years. Dems only had 46 Senators in their caucus. How were they even getting to 51 ... forget about 60 ?!
The decision not to give him a hearing was simply an effort to avoid political theater. These things are always contentious. And heated exchanges re things like abortion or affirmative action were sure to make it to youtube and be used in every Dem email fund raiser. Thanks, but no thanks.
The Times did get one thing right - "danger some Democrats ... of their appearing ineffectual in a futile effort to block the Gorsuch appointment." More than ineffectual, Dems will appear impotent and create a self-inflected error by giving Trump a much-needed win.
Re Garland, let me ask liberals a question. Had he gotten a hearing, does anyone really think he'd have a chance of getting confirmed ? This has nothing to do with his credentials. Rather, conservatives had held a majority on the Supreme Court for almost 50 years. Dems only had 46 Senators in their caucus. How were they even getting to 51 ... forget about 60 ?!
The decision not to give him a hearing was simply an effort to avoid political theater. These things are always contentious. And heated exchanges re things like abortion or affirmative action were sure to make it to youtube and be used in every Dem email fund raiser. Thanks, but no thanks.
The Times did get one thing right - "danger some Democrats ... of their appearing ineffectual in a futile effort to block the Gorsuch appointment." More than ineffectual, Dems will appear impotent and create a self-inflected error by giving Trump a much-needed win.
4
Yes, I think there is a high likelihood he WOULD have been confirmed. Use some common sense man, if McConnell had thought he could could be defeated in the vote, why bother to do the extreme thing that McConnell did.
The rest of your argument is equal nonsense. As a liberal, I expect my representatives to
1. go down fighting rather than just cravenly give the bully their lunch money, and
2. same analogy ... even if the bully gets your lunch money, if he has to work for it and gets even a fat lip in the process ... he'll look for someone else next time.
It's truly ridiculous to claim that the Democrats would look worse fighting Trump and McConnell and losing, that simply cravenly giving in. Nothing looks worse than that.
And beyond that, if you thought it was true, you'd keep your mouth shut and smile while the Democrats did exactly what you claim is so foolish.
The reality here is that you fear two obvious things: -- there might be 3 Republicans who want to save the filibuster, and if not then eliminating the filibuster has a high likelihood of coming back to really haunt the Republicans.
The rest of your argument is equal nonsense. As a liberal, I expect my representatives to
1. go down fighting rather than just cravenly give the bully their lunch money, and
2. same analogy ... even if the bully gets your lunch money, if he has to work for it and gets even a fat lip in the process ... he'll look for someone else next time.
It's truly ridiculous to claim that the Democrats would look worse fighting Trump and McConnell and losing, that simply cravenly giving in. Nothing looks worse than that.
And beyond that, if you thought it was true, you'd keep your mouth shut and smile while the Democrats did exactly what you claim is so foolish.
The reality here is that you fear two obvious things: -- there might be 3 Republicans who want to save the filibuster, and if not then eliminating the filibuster has a high likelihood of coming back to really haunt the Republicans.
1
There's an easy solution to the partisanship of the SCOTUS - term limits. That should turn the temperature down on the appointment process.
Gorsuch is only 49 and could potentially be on the court for the next 35 years or more with no term limits. That's ridiculous. No wonder Democrats are balking as McConnell did with Garland.
Gorsuch and his supporters claim that he follows the letter of the law and only calls balls and strikes. That's baloney as he clearly injected personal opinion in many of his rulings and his opinion regarding federal agencies to write rules is highly impractical.
Gorsuch is only 49 and could potentially be on the court for the next 35 years or more with no term limits. That's ridiculous. No wonder Democrats are balking as McConnell did with Garland.
Gorsuch and his supporters claim that he follows the letter of the law and only calls balls and strikes. That's baloney as he clearly injected personal opinion in many of his rulings and his opinion regarding federal agencies to write rules is highly impractical.
3
Republican politicians have been bought by the wealthy and likewise their supreme court cronies. If you really want anyone to believe that the Supreme Court is nothing but a political tool, you will only select judges that both sides can agree on. It might also help to get rid of the billions of dollars biasing everything in DC and the gerrymandering of voting districts that creates so many safe seats.
1
Once upon a time, I taught a leadership course to aspiring and talented non-profit professionals with several of my CEO and Executive Director colleagues.
Lesson #1 - your decisions, not your philosophy, will define you
Lesson #2 - any decision made which is received as short-sighted, personal, blatantly partisan or sacrificing long term goals for short term victories will greatly diminish the effectiveness of the leader
Lesson #3 - Learn from your mistakes
Mr. McConnell may have benefited from attending our course, as he seems to have made all three of these mistakes in handling the nomination of Judge Garland.
Lesson #1 - your decisions, not your philosophy, will define you
Lesson #2 - any decision made which is received as short-sighted, personal, blatantly partisan or sacrificing long term goals for short term victories will greatly diminish the effectiveness of the leader
Lesson #3 - Learn from your mistakes
Mr. McConnell may have benefited from attending our course, as he seems to have made all three of these mistakes in handling the nomination of Judge Garland.
1
To let the Republicans chip away at whatever Democrats want or believe sounds like a flimsy argument. Do 'this' because 'that' MIGHT be worse seems like a bad way to go about just about anything. It doesn't really solve a problem but it does put it off 'till later. The fact of Trump himself is the kind of thing you end up with if you keep putting problems off 'till later.
2
what a pin-headed editorial!
if the dem senators don't do everything in their power, including filibuster, to respond to repubs' refusal to give garland a hearing, mcconnell will become even "bolder"--ie, more partisan, more plainly putting party above country.
the dems must project dedication to principle and strength to voters to preserve the understanding that "what goes around comes around." in some ways, this is like the nuclear standoff we've had with the russians. weakness in the face of bullying will create more, and worse, bullying.
of course, the answer now lies in the hands of the few repubs in the senate who are rational and appreciate the danger of eliminating the filibuster. if they fail the senate now, they fail the country.
if the dem senators don't do everything in their power, including filibuster, to respond to repubs' refusal to give garland a hearing, mcconnell will become even "bolder"--ie, more partisan, more plainly putting party above country.
the dems must project dedication to principle and strength to voters to preserve the understanding that "what goes around comes around." in some ways, this is like the nuclear standoff we've had with the russians. weakness in the face of bullying will create more, and worse, bullying.
of course, the answer now lies in the hands of the few repubs in the senate who are rational and appreciate the danger of eliminating the filibuster. if they fail the senate now, they fail the country.
2
Hold the votes!!!
Gorsuch may have plagiarized - and that act has taken down many others. We can't have a Supreme Court Justice guilty of plagiarism.
At least, delay this vote - and investigate now!!!
Call your Senators, and let them know this!!
Gorsuch may have plagiarized - and that act has taken down many others. We can't have a Supreme Court Justice guilty of plagiarism.
At least, delay this vote - and investigate now!!!
Call your Senators, and let them know this!!
1
politicization of the courts
Enough
Jefferson defeated Adams
Adams stayed up into the night to appoint "midnight judges".
Jefferson tried to derail the appointments.
Went to Supreme court in Marbury v. Madison where Chief Justice Marshall wrote that Adams could appoint but Supreme Court couldn't force Jefferson to hand over the commission of appointment.
Equivalent of Obama can appoint Garland but Senate doesn't have to confirm.
For the misty eyed, courts have been riddled with politics from the beginning
Enough
Jefferson defeated Adams
Adams stayed up into the night to appoint "midnight judges".
Jefferson tried to derail the appointments.
Went to Supreme court in Marbury v. Madison where Chief Justice Marshall wrote that Adams could appoint but Supreme Court couldn't force Jefferson to hand over the commission of appointment.
Equivalent of Obama can appoint Garland but Senate doesn't have to confirm.
For the misty eyed, courts have been riddled with politics from the beginning
4
Marbury was not a midnight judge in the sense of the extra federal judges Adams appointed. Most had their commissions regularly delivered. Marbury was to be a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. The Midnight Judges lost their jobs to an act of doubtful constitutionality passed by Jefferson's Congress which to make sure they didn't get overruled, also ordered it that the Supreme Court could not meet for two years.
The article is exactly correct, at least in as much as it points directly at McConnell. Although Gorsuch has shown himself to be an intelligent individual, perhaps within what might be considered to be the mainstream, the same was said about the conservatives currently on the court. But those 5 individuals voted for Citizen's United. That's more than enough information to know that we should do whatever can be done to stop the erosion of democracy and the rule of law that this court represents.
3
A true American patriot would withdraw from consideration rather than permit himself to be used in this way and thereby cause such damage to our democracy.
The fact that he's still allowing himself to be voted upon proves his partisanship.
Thus, Judge Gorsuch will live in history with an asterisk next to his name.
The fact that he's still allowing himself to be voted upon proves his partisanship.
Thus, Judge Gorsuch will live in history with an asterisk next to his name.
1
I've got to throw some shade at Chief Justice Roberts, too. His silence during the Garland nomination tacitly implied he approved of the Republicans' politicizing the nomination process. The consequence of this is that under his watch, the Supreme Court has become a political tool rather than a check on the other two branches of government.
1
It would be remarkably short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating for Republicans to remove the filibuster - a tool they used frequently and to great effect during the Obama presidency - merely to get one candidate on the Supreme Court. The filibuster, a tool that ensures a minority voice is at least heard in government, has been perhaps the distinguishing characteristic of the Senate for generations, and a structure that gives the Senate a large part of its legitimacy as an institution. Destroying the essence of governance in Congress just to maintain ideological control of another branch of government is the archetype of bad governance. Mitch McConnell is the opposite of a statesman and the cause of so much dysfunction in politics and the country today.
26
Once the filibuster is gone, and the Senate becomes an extension of the House of Representative, it will become apparent that the institution is nothing but an encumbrance on democracy and that it should be abolished. We are already on the verge of a constitutional convention -- one engineered by ALEC and its Republican toadies -- so let's begin the discussion now on how to have a real democracy. One in which the people of the nation elect the president, where majorities rule and where people count more than cows (a not so thinly veiled reference to Montana having the same representation in the Senate as California).
2
It always baffles me, and defies history, when people like the NYT editors make the case that republicans are primarily responsible for the politicization of SCOTUS. For the last 30+ years we have an ideologically divided court with many significant rulings passing 5-4. And yet over the 30 years of our current "conservative court" this conservative court has given us gay marriage, upheld Roe v Wade numerous times and upheld the ACA just to name a few of the not very conservative decrees that we now live under.
And the other strange thing is the 5-4 narrowly divided SCOTUS justices weren't narrowly nominated between the parties. In the last 50 years democrat presidents have nominated 5 justices and Republican presidents have nominated 12. So why is the Court so narrowly divided??? Because there is no such thing as a moderate justice nominated by a Democrat. All the moderates have been nominated by Republicans. Here's a challenge, find me the moderate in this list Thurgood Marshall, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. Find me a significant ruling in which one of these 5 didn't consistently and predictably vote with the liberal block. On the other hand Harry Blackmun (appointed by Nixon) authored Roe v Wade, Robert's (appointed by Bush) authored the ACA rulings, Kennedy & O'Conner (Reagan) were the swing votes for liberals on numerous rulings. Reality is there is no such thing as a democratic moderate justice.
And the other strange thing is the 5-4 narrowly divided SCOTUS justices weren't narrowly nominated between the parties. In the last 50 years democrat presidents have nominated 5 justices and Republican presidents have nominated 12. So why is the Court so narrowly divided??? Because there is no such thing as a moderate justice nominated by a Democrat. All the moderates have been nominated by Republicans. Here's a challenge, find me the moderate in this list Thurgood Marshall, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. Find me a significant ruling in which one of these 5 didn't consistently and predictably vote with the liberal block. On the other hand Harry Blackmun (appointed by Nixon) authored Roe v Wade, Robert's (appointed by Bush) authored the ACA rulings, Kennedy & O'Conner (Reagan) were the swing votes for liberals on numerous rulings. Reality is there is no such thing as a democratic moderate justice.
9
Democratic Party complaints on the Garland issue are chock-full of elective indignation. Here is then Senator Joe Biden, in a New York Times article, no less:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-dela....
And on filibuster: Democrats opposed it in 2013 (that's when Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option), and the GOP embraced it. In 2017, same players, different scripts. So both parties are adept at double-dealing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-dela....
And on filibuster: Democrats opposed it in 2013 (that's when Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option), and the GOP embraced it. In 2017, same players, different scripts. So both parties are adept at double-dealing.
6
Let's change the archaic system of selecting justices. They should have terms and should not be able to hang on for life. The current system leads to just this sort of problem. They should have staggered terms of no more than 20 years, preferably less. The expiration dates would coincide with the mid-point in the presidency so we don't experience another McConnellesque episode of depriving the president of his constitutional authority to name justices to vacancies. Let's make that clear. The sitting prez has the power - and not as a matter of courtesy of the Senate Majority leader.
3
What is fairly unique in this situation is the threat (or use of) a filibuster for a Supreme Court Justice. Based on what i have read, this is a rare occurrence in the last 50 years. So the Senate Democrats are in essence lighting the fuse on the nuclear option when it is clear Gorsuch has the requisite majority of votes.
With respect to the Merrick Garland situation, the Republicans should absolutely have held a vote, though it is not clear that Garland would have succeeded given the Republicans majority of the Senate. So yes, that was a break from historic precedent, but that's what the majority of the body gets to do, decide when to have a vote. And don't forget that Biden and Schumer amongst others, were on record saying they too wouldn't have held the vote if the situation was reversed (back when HW was president). And good old Elizabeth Warren railed against the use of the filibuster back in 2013 of one of the Supreme Court nominees.
So let's just accept that in the current polarizing environment, politics rules. In fact one can argue the Supreme Court itself is politicized given the reliable votes that 6 of the 8 (4 liberals, 2 conservatives) deliver, with the other two (Roberts and Kennedy) occasionally breaking from conservative position
With respect to the Merrick Garland situation, the Republicans should absolutely have held a vote, though it is not clear that Garland would have succeeded given the Republicans majority of the Senate. So yes, that was a break from historic precedent, but that's what the majority of the body gets to do, decide when to have a vote. And don't forget that Biden and Schumer amongst others, were on record saying they too wouldn't have held the vote if the situation was reversed (back when HW was president). And good old Elizabeth Warren railed against the use of the filibuster back in 2013 of one of the Supreme Court nominees.
So let's just accept that in the current polarizing environment, politics rules. In fact one can argue the Supreme Court itself is politicized given the reliable votes that 6 of the 8 (4 liberals, 2 conservatives) deliver, with the other two (Roberts and Kennedy) occasionally breaking from conservative position
3
Under these circumstances, anyone that would accept a nomination from Donald Trump is unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America.
The Democrats keep saving the filibuster, by not using it, to be used against them. It's pathetic.
The Democrats keep saving the filibuster, by not using it, to be used against them. It's pathetic.
1
Thanks to the conservatives, and the still-wounded and disaffected Southern Confederate it both romances and exploits, we are headed toward another civil war.
We wouldn't have to be headed that way, of course, if we could only grow up and evolve like the rest of the developed world.
But here we are, and there we will be.
It is times like this my husband and I are very happy to have made the choice to not have children.
We wouldn't have to be headed that way, of course, if we could only grow up and evolve like the rest of the developed world.
But here we are, and there we will be.
It is times like this my husband and I are very happy to have made the choice to not have children.
This is rich. Democrats established the precedent of Borking; they were the first to filibuster court appointees (thanks, Chuck); and they removed the filibuster for their rivals on lower court nominations (thanks, Harry). Meanwhile, liberal jurisprudence seems to be exemplified by the kinds of decisions that came out about Trump's travel orders--to the effect that nothing Trump ever does will get by the court, just because it is Trump, even if they would approve the identical order coming from Obama. Independent judiciary indeed! They don't believe in judicial independence, a k a rule of law, because in their view the court must always be either right-wing or left-wing, never just a court applying the law but a political instrument for advancing an agenda. Their view of "conservative" nominees (a tool of business, etc.) really reflects their own view of what a judge should be (a tool of the opposite).
7
Could you please be bothered to get basic facts straight? Bork WAS NOT FILIBUSTERED. He was defeated 58 to 42.
Why do you "conservatives" seem unable to correctly cite or understand just about any issue of fact?
Why do you "conservatives" seem unable to correctly cite or understand just about any issue of fact?
2
The Constitution assigns political parties no role in government. Any tactic that enable political parties to exert influence over legislation should be regarded as unconstitutional. Modern America’s acquiescence to rule by political party is frightening. In his farewell address, George Washington said, “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
1
Were Mitch McConnell a patriot, and an American at heart, putting country before party, we would not be here. The GOP has placed him in it's titular position in the Senate, and he has proceeded to obliterate as much of our democracy as he can. IF we survive the next 3 1/2 years, and we confront the Russian attack on the US successfully, we will look back and notice that those such as McConnell actually acted as traitors to our values and our democracy.
Should the Democrats filibuster or not? It makes little difference to the politics, McConnell will proceed to place his party, morally bankrupt though they may be, above all. But to history, and to save our soul, we must sometimes stand up for what we believe. Who is going to stand for America and who is not?
We all have choices. And pretty soon it will begin to be clear just WHO the GOP is following and WHAT they are. I fear. And I pray. And some days despair. But I also hope that we find a way out of this madness.
Should the Democrats filibuster or not? It makes little difference to the politics, McConnell will proceed to place his party, morally bankrupt though they may be, above all. But to history, and to save our soul, we must sometimes stand up for what we believe. Who is going to stand for America and who is not?
We all have choices. And pretty soon it will begin to be clear just WHO the GOP is following and WHAT they are. I fear. And I pray. And some days despair. But I also hope that we find a way out of this madness.
1
I keep reading posts referring to GOP actions about denying Judge Garland a Senate confirmation vote. These posts along with this article rant about how immoral and wrong these actions were. Well- The obvious counter is that the American People had a chance to punish these terrible actions. What did the voters do? Elected a GOP President along with a GOP controlled Senate and House.
Liberals simply do not like the outcome of this election. Didn't someone famously say "Elections have consequences.....". If the Dems filibuster- aren't they the party "obstructing" the will of the American people?
Liberals simply do not like the outcome of this election. Didn't someone famously say "Elections have consequences.....". If the Dems filibuster- aren't they the party "obstructing" the will of the American people?
8
Are you serious? Just now the Supreme Court has become "a nakedly partisan tool"? My gosh! Thomas is the best exponent of a "nakedly partisan" Court, without any intellectual capacity, and what to say about Alito! C'mon, what is going on with #45, his minions (including Gorsuch) seems a kind of blow back of what we have done to others, outside the US. Tragic.
2
The fact is the Democrats are using the Senate rules appropriately in filibustering. Yet the editors seem to admonish the Democrats for using the only power available to the minority. Why aren't you calling on Republicans to not vote on removing the filibuster?
"But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
Democrats do not have "no chance at all."
Sometimes lazy voters, many of whom assume that the system "will take care of it" and prevent "bad things" from happening, have to be woken up. The Founding Fathers called this "awakening" by the term "democracy" with an emphasis on citizen action to set and shape the Republic's destiny.
Don't like a majoritarian GOP "stacking" the Supreme Court with autocratic toadies? Well then get off your duff, organize politically, and vote.
Much has been made of the shortcomings of the Electoral College in the recent election. The College has nothing to do with why there was a Republican, by polling one of the most disliked and vulnerable Republicans in the entire nation, re-elected to the Senate from Wisconsin rather than a Democrat. It has nothing to explain how a Republican, who all but begged voters to toss him out of office because he hated being in the Senate so very much, managed to win re-election from Florida rather than a Democrat.
And ditto, North Carolina.
And ditto, Missouri.
And ditto, Indiana.
And ditto, Ohio.
And ditto, Pennsylvania.
And ditto, Arizona.
And ditto, Louisiana.
Democrats are in their present situation because many opportunities at the state level were squandered. Lazy voters who didn't grasp what would be lost are to blame.
They are the "chance" you're looking for.
Democrats do not have "no chance at all."
Sometimes lazy voters, many of whom assume that the system "will take care of it" and prevent "bad things" from happening, have to be woken up. The Founding Fathers called this "awakening" by the term "democracy" with an emphasis on citizen action to set and shape the Republic's destiny.
Don't like a majoritarian GOP "stacking" the Supreme Court with autocratic toadies? Well then get off your duff, organize politically, and vote.
Much has been made of the shortcomings of the Electoral College in the recent election. The College has nothing to do with why there was a Republican, by polling one of the most disliked and vulnerable Republicans in the entire nation, re-elected to the Senate from Wisconsin rather than a Democrat. It has nothing to explain how a Republican, who all but begged voters to toss him out of office because he hated being in the Senate so very much, managed to win re-election from Florida rather than a Democrat.
And ditto, North Carolina.
And ditto, Missouri.
And ditto, Indiana.
And ditto, Ohio.
And ditto, Pennsylvania.
And ditto, Arizona.
And ditto, Louisiana.
Democrats are in their present situation because many opportunities at the state level were squandered. Lazy voters who didn't grasp what would be lost are to blame.
They are the "chance" you're looking for.
3
We need to overcome the enemies of Democracy first.
Gerrymandering
Citizens United
Electoral College
Each one (and more yet to be exposed) has become a weapon in the arsenal of Right Wing republicans who then employ them to thwart our freedom, stain our government with their corruption and ignore the Will of The People.
They nauseate us with their blatant attacks on all that is helpful for American Citizens, our health, our quality of life and those whom "We The People" vote for.
Gerrymandering
Citizens United
Electoral College
Each one (and more yet to be exposed) has become a weapon in the arsenal of Right Wing republicans who then employ them to thwart our freedom, stain our government with their corruption and ignore the Will of The People.
They nauseate us with their blatant attacks on all that is helpful for American Citizens, our health, our quality of life and those whom "We The People" vote for.
3
New Rule: We should never appoint a nominee during a year when the president is under investigation by the FBI and the results could indicate the complete illegitimacy of his presidency. Never!
5
There is no reason why McConnell should have called a vote on Garland. There were not 51 votes to confirm him. Besides, he was following the advice of Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer by not confirming a justice in the last year of a president.
Schumer's folly is suicidal. Democrats have lost control of the House, the Senate, the White House, never had control of the Supreme Court, and lost control of the majority of governors mansions and state legislatures. And Schumer's plan is to impale the Democratic party onto the sword forged by Harry Reid? Go ahead Chuck. Throw away the only tiny lever of power the Democrats have left.
The other hilarious thing is to see that Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is joining the suicide pact. Missourians gave 50% more votes to Trump than they did to Hillary, and one of the primary motivations for Trump voters was the nominees to the Supreme Court.
Start packing your boxes, Claire. You will be fired in 19 months.
Schumer's folly is suicidal. Democrats have lost control of the House, the Senate, the White House, never had control of the Supreme Court, and lost control of the majority of governors mansions and state legislatures. And Schumer's plan is to impale the Democratic party onto the sword forged by Harry Reid? Go ahead Chuck. Throw away the only tiny lever of power the Democrats have left.
The other hilarious thing is to see that Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is joining the suicide pact. Missourians gave 50% more votes to Trump than they did to Hillary, and one of the primary motivations for Trump voters was the nominees to the Supreme Court.
Start packing your boxes, Claire. You will be fired in 19 months.
6
The root problem here really goes back to that now arcane construct called the electoral college. The extremely disproportionate level of power it grants to rural areas and low population states has already thwarted democracy twice in this young century. The disproportionate power the most extreme right "Freedom Caucus" holds over republicans and the rest of America is another indirectly related result. Their districts would have far less of a psychological hold on the rest of the party, absent the known impact of the electoral college on presidential races. All of these forces combine to slow down and occasionally reverse the inevitable march of social progress that America has been on for the past seventy years. Our Founding Fathers never anticipated that Americans working in rural agriculture would shrink all the way from ninety percent of the population to just over one. Today's cities are not only where the population lives and works, they are where almost all socioeconomic trends are formed. We are now stuck with this flawed electoral model for many decades to come. The election of Donald Trump and today's Supreme Court battle are just two of many results thwarting the will of the greater population.
4
If Clinton Inc. had not botched the elections in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, you would be crowing about the genius of the Founding Fathers and their foresight in including the electoral process in presidential elections...If by socioeconomic trends you are referring to inner-city decay, drug trafficking, organized crime, transportation congestion, high housing prices and so on, then yes, urbanity is where it's happening in the modern world
3
Your argument for retaining the filibuster includes the premise that it would be needed for a future nominee "who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well". Yet consider that in such circumstances those Democrats and "few Republicans" may likely constitute the simple majority needed to reject the nomination; hence, no need for the filibuster. Better to acknowledge that the filibuster is an appropriate check and balance on simple majority rule. The sadness lies in the majority's inability to accept such limitation.
3
At least since Gore V Bush we have not been a nation governed by law, but one ruled by political machinations. What does it matter if the filibuster goes now, or next week. The republicans will waste it whenever they need to put one of their cronies on the bench no matter what the Democrats do now.
Joe Biden,Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer all have said in the past that their party would not confirm a SCOTUS nominee and the last year of a republican president's term. Don't the republicans have that same privilege by not confirming Garland in the last 9 months of Obama's presidency?
8
Who knows what the situation in Washington will look like when another SCOTUS opening happens. Whether to filibuster this week or next year -- the future in politics isn't set in stone.
1
"and it may, in the end, fall to the court itself to find a way to rise above the steadily encroaching tide of factionalism." It would be naive at best to look to the Robert's court or Judge Gorsuch to stem the tide of factionalism in the judicial system. The dark money support of Gorsuch & his embrace of extremists like the Mercer family gives us clear direction regarding his approach to law & justice. He will be another Scala and will advance the objectives of the wealthy & corporate powers he and Roberts have been consistent advocates for throughout their careers. The possibility of compromise & a moderate candidate ended with McConnell's scorched earth approach to the Garland nomination.
3
The filibuster rule is already dead since the Republicans are ready, willing and able to discard it as soon as it is invoked.
There is no downside to the Democrats invoking it now.
There is no downside to the Democrats invoking it now.
3
The GOP's factional tide has been rising since the 1990s -- again, it's not a false equivalency narrative of both parties doing this. For the right's deep dig on Bork getting voted down in '87, at least he got a hearing. This is something the GOP categorically refused to do with Garland -- that difference is revealing.
The Stolen Seat will live in infamy, except for this -- there will be more, if the GOP continues to hold the majority. RBG is surely the next one to go, and then we'll see the process occur again, depending on when she falls. And the McConnell tactic will be used by the GOP any time they can get away with it, which is why the Dems need to fight hard on this, or else there'll be more and more Stolen Seats.
The Stolen Seat will live in infamy, except for this -- there will be more, if the GOP continues to hold the majority. RBG is surely the next one to go, and then we'll see the process occur again, depending on when she falls. And the McConnell tactic will be used by the GOP any time they can get away with it, which is why the Dems need to fight hard on this, or else there'll be more and more Stolen Seats.
2
Though it may escape notice for a time, politicization of the Supreme Court leaves no final recourse for justice and, thus, will invite recourse to immediate "justice" -- violence. This may mark the real unraveling of America's republic.
2
Kentucky needs to quit sending McConnell to the Senate. It is high time for him to retire.
3
Are there still Americans naive enough to believe that: "they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
Every single controversial issue of recent years, from Abortion to Bush vs. Gore to Obamacare, has ended up being decided by the Supreme Court. There is always some excuse to turn it into a legal battle somewhere, and once this happens, it's only a matter of time before it gets to the Supreme Court.
Now, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution as best they can and decide what the Law actually says on the question. But that's not what happens.
Instead, the justices have already picked out their position on each question, based on their politics. And then they use their legal training and expertise to make nice legal arguments to support the side they would like to see prevail.
Which would be great if they were supposed to act as attorneys for one side or the other. But no, they are supposed to be neutral judges.
There is only one thing that saves the Supreme Court from immediate dissolution as inherently inept and corrupt, and that is the general public's lack of understanding of statistics and probability.
Because even the most rudimentary statistical analysis of their rulings would quickly reveal that the individual justices are not following any "principles", but rather playing politics, pure and simple, applying or opposing "principles" depending on their convenience for a given vote.
Every single controversial issue of recent years, from Abortion to Bush vs. Gore to Obamacare, has ended up being decided by the Supreme Court. There is always some excuse to turn it into a legal battle somewhere, and once this happens, it's only a matter of time before it gets to the Supreme Court.
Now, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution as best they can and decide what the Law actually says on the question. But that's not what happens.
Instead, the justices have already picked out their position on each question, based on their politics. And then they use their legal training and expertise to make nice legal arguments to support the side they would like to see prevail.
Which would be great if they were supposed to act as attorneys for one side or the other. But no, they are supposed to be neutral judges.
There is only one thing that saves the Supreme Court from immediate dissolution as inherently inept and corrupt, and that is the general public's lack of understanding of statistics and probability.
Because even the most rudimentary statistical analysis of their rulings would quickly reveal that the individual justices are not following any "principles", but rather playing politics, pure and simple, applying or opposing "principles" depending on their convenience for a given vote.
3
How does your rudimentary statistical analysis explain the large number of unanimous votes by the Justices? Are those "unprincipled" decisions?
1
The unanimous votes do not affect the statistics. The statistical questions would be things like:
1. when there is a division of opinion, do the justices differ in the random way we'd expect if they were truly independent thinkers evaluating each case on its merits (so any two judges are as likely to agree or disagree as any other two)?
2. if they do not - i.e. if the same people tend to be on the same sides of differences - can their differences be consistently explained in terms of some basic legal principles - for example, differing on how literally the constitution should be interpreted?
3. can their differences be consistently explained with a hypothesis that proposes that each judge (with maybe one exception) is going to be on the same side of a particular issue as one of the two political parties?
The answers would be:
1. Overwhelmingly no. There is a huge tendency for some justices to be consistently grouped together.
2. Intermediate. If this was the only explanation you had, it could explain a significant % of the variability of the data, I would suspect still much less than half.
3. Overwhelmingly yes.
The sad thing is, we all know this. Just ask yourself - if then hanging chads in Florida would have shifted the election in the opposite way, don't you know that every judge on the supreme court would have expressed the exact opposite opinion to the one he/she expressed - because they didn't care about the law, just what would get their guy elected!
1. when there is a division of opinion, do the justices differ in the random way we'd expect if they were truly independent thinkers evaluating each case on its merits (so any two judges are as likely to agree or disagree as any other two)?
2. if they do not - i.e. if the same people tend to be on the same sides of differences - can their differences be consistently explained in terms of some basic legal principles - for example, differing on how literally the constitution should be interpreted?
3. can their differences be consistently explained with a hypothesis that proposes that each judge (with maybe one exception) is going to be on the same side of a particular issue as one of the two political parties?
The answers would be:
1. Overwhelmingly no. There is a huge tendency for some justices to be consistently grouped together.
2. Intermediate. If this was the only explanation you had, it could explain a significant % of the variability of the data, I would suspect still much less than half.
3. Overwhelmingly yes.
The sad thing is, we all know this. Just ask yourself - if then hanging chads in Florida would have shifted the election in the opposite way, don't you know that every judge on the supreme court would have expressed the exact opposite opinion to the one he/she expressed - because they didn't care about the law, just what would get their guy elected!
1
If the Supreme Court had not made itself a super legislature then judicial appointments would not be so visceral.
Jefferson summed it up well in his response to Marshall's Marbury v Madison:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Jefferson was onto something. Wickard v. Filburn made them the deciders of all things. Griswold v. Conn gave them the right to make stuff up. Maybe we should send the Supreme Court a message to get off their high horse and defer to the legislature.
Jefferson summed it up well in his response to Marshall's Marbury v Madison:
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Jefferson was onto something. Wickard v. Filburn made them the deciders of all things. Griswold v. Conn gave them the right to make stuff up. Maybe we should send the Supreme Court a message to get off their high horse and defer to the legislature.
2
Between a rock and a hard spot. I see no win for the Dems on this one. We are legally in peril with this nomination and future ones.
2
What comes 'round goes around. Far right Republicans won't be in power forever, then liberal judges can be nominated. Better yet, the next time Democrats get a chance, nominate a lawyer or judge still in their thirties. He or she will be around a long time. As far as being a partisan tool, the Constitution, like the Bible, is subject to all sorts of interpretations and any pretense to an absolute meaning is a mirage. Therefore, the Supreme Court, like it or not, will always be filled with 'junior varsity politicians.' It would be different if we were nominating a mathematician to the Supreme Court of Mathematicians.
Would that be a Pure or an Applied Mathematician? An Algebraist or a Topologist? From Berkeley or Princeton? These things get messy so quickly. Seems like a butterfly is always flapping its wings somewhere.
2
Yes it is mirroring polarized congress, which is why it's time to vote for SCOTUS.
President, Congress, more than one political party could still "nominate" a Justice but get rid of the political manipulation! Disconnect SCOTUS from the presidency. Do as McConnell suggested last year. Let the voters decide.
President, Congress, more than one political party could still "nominate" a Justice but get rid of the political manipulation! Disconnect SCOTUS from the presidency. Do as McConnell suggested last year. Let the voters decide.
1
Please, NO. A thousand times NO.
With the Citizens United ruling in place any vote for Supreme Court justices would be embedding corporate and foreign interests into the positions. How many more PACs and lobbyists do we need?
With the Citizens United ruling in place any vote for Supreme Court justices would be embedding corporate and foreign interests into the positions. How many more PACs and lobbyists do we need?
This whole mess is the fault of Mitch McConnell and he now bears responsibility to fix it. He must now decide which is more important: longstanding Senate rules and decorum or his brow-beating attempts to get his way at any cost.
The tyrant, in attempting to humiliate and subjugate Democrats, has all but dared a filibuster of this nominee. The Dems have no choice but to do so. They can stand up to the bully now or forfeit any semblance of power they have left.
One way out of this mess would have been for Trump to put forth a consensus nominee. That did not happen and there was no attempt to make that happen. Now Republicans want the nation to accept a controversial nominee from a president with the lowest approval ratings in the country’s history.
Voters will remember.
The tyrant, in attempting to humiliate and subjugate Democrats, has all but dared a filibuster of this nominee. The Dems have no choice but to do so. They can stand up to the bully now or forfeit any semblance of power they have left.
One way out of this mess would have been for Trump to put forth a consensus nominee. That did not happen and there was no attempt to make that happen. Now Republicans want the nation to accept a controversial nominee from a president with the lowest approval ratings in the country’s history.
Voters will remember.
If Trump was nearly as smart or as good a deal maker as he thinks he is, he would nominate Garland, declaring it an attempt to unite the country. Now that would be truly shaking things up.
you are suggesting that the Democrats should wait for a candidate worse than Gorsuch to try a filibuster because they might have a few Republicans (at least three) to help sustain the filibuster. Does that make sense? If the Democrats had three Republicans join them in opposing a nomination they would NOT need a filibuster.
3
Missed point by too many. It is not in the Democrats power to preserve the filibuster, it is in the Republicans' hands. If the only way to preserve the filibuster is to concede to a candidate they'd rather vote against, the same argument will be made for the next nominee. Critics act as though the filibuster won't be destroyed as soon as it is enacted by the Democrats. That means Democrats are held hostage to vote "yea" to get the far right justice, or vote "ney" for the same result. Why shouldn't they vote their conscience on this incredibly right wing and not humble, but clearly arrogant nominee proposed without the traditional consultation with the opposing party....
1
Merrick Garland is the current nominee for the Supreme Court until he is given an up or down vote in the Senate. He has been the nominee for more than a year now, and just because Mr. Obama is not the President any longer does not terminate that nomination.
1
Actually, his nomination was withdrawn.
1
Why should,Mitch McConnell,not pay a heavy price for what he did to Obama.Garland,and the American people? What will Mitch do next
if not held ACCOUNTABLE.
if not held ACCOUNTABLE.
2
Great article. Save the filibuster for a more objectionable nominee where is has a possibility of success, instead wasting it.
I have a proposal for the Democrats. LET McConnell excercise,the nuclear option. Then, when Ruth Bader Ginsberg decides to leave the bench...nominate (wait for it......) BARACK OBAMA!
McConnell is gaming the filibuster rule, whose original intent was to allow the minority to set up a roadblock, in cases of seriously objectionable moves by the majority. McC's move is to appeal to this principle when R's are in the minority, but to charge D's with obstructionism when D's are in the minority and use that to justify the nuclear option.
Here's the (bad) game theory advice that results, and has for too long been taken or advised for Democrats:
(1) When R's are in the minority and filibuster, D's should not invoke the nuclear option, because then they'll remove their own ability to use the filibuster when in the minority.
(2) When D's are in the minority, don't filibuster, because R's will invoke the nuclear option, and filibustering will no longer be an option.
As can be seen, this sets the D's up for a fail: With a gamer like McConnell as opponent, taking such advice is tantamount to giving up on the filibuster already. It makes no difference that McConnell might invoke the nuclear option, if you've already taken the advice of (1) and (2). So don't.
Here's the (bad) game theory advice that results, and has for too long been taken or advised for Democrats:
(1) When R's are in the minority and filibuster, D's should not invoke the nuclear option, because then they'll remove their own ability to use the filibuster when in the minority.
(2) When D's are in the minority, don't filibuster, because R's will invoke the nuclear option, and filibustering will no longer be an option.
As can be seen, this sets the D's up for a fail: With a gamer like McConnell as opponent, taking such advice is tantamount to giving up on the filibuster already. It makes no difference that McConnell might invoke the nuclear option, if you've already taken the advice of (1) and (2). So don't.
"In blocking even a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland ... he deeply degraded the nominating process"
Choosing to not consider a nominee is a legitimate option for the Senate under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. That degraded the process more than the smears and character assassination that Democrats inflicted on Bork and Thomas?
"Republicans stole the seat after Justice Scalia died by denying Judge Garland a vote for eight months"
That seat could not be "stolen" because it was never held by anyone after Scalia's death. It was never Garland's because he was not appointed (because the Senate did not consent).
Choosing to not consider a nominee is a legitimate option for the Senate under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. That degraded the process more than the smears and character assassination that Democrats inflicted on Bork and Thomas?
"Republicans stole the seat after Justice Scalia died by denying Judge Garland a vote for eight months"
That seat could not be "stolen" because it was never held by anyone after Scalia's death. It was never Garland's because he was not appointed (because the Senate did not consent).
4
Pleeease.
The Times blames Mitch for accepting the DNC donation of SCOTUS nominations. Hold up.
Isn't this expected when a political party throws their base under the bus and hands over power to the opposition?
You don't have to dance with the one who brung you, but they might then dance with someone else.
The Dems have at least 2 long years to cry, but they could dry their eyes, apologize and try to kiss and make up.
Or just lose forever.
The Times blames Mitch for accepting the DNC donation of SCOTUS nominations. Hold up.
Isn't this expected when a political party throws their base under the bus and hands over power to the opposition?
You don't have to dance with the one who brung you, but they might then dance with someone else.
The Dems have at least 2 long years to cry, but they could dry their eyes, apologize and try to kiss and make up.
Or just lose forever.
3
Democrats have much to gain by filibustering Gorsuch. The new Democratic majority in the Senate will ensure Trump gets no more Supreme Court picks, and the 2020 Democratic president can nominate young liberals with no filibuster for Republicans to stop any of them.
What's that you say? 2018 bad for Senate Democrats? 2020 too early to call for a Democratic president? Ah, you forget that Republicans installed History's Greatest Con Man and the con is unraveling before our very eyes.
What's that you say? 2018 bad for Senate Democrats? 2020 too early to call for a Democratic president? Ah, you forget that Republicans installed History's Greatest Con Man and the con is unraveling before our very eyes.
2
Here, direct from Politico (so far): http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/gorsuch-writings-supreme-court-236891 our next supreme court justice gorsuck is a PLAGIARIST. Nice, huh?
1
The false equivalence continues. Bork was blocked because of his role in firing the prosecutor in the Watergate scandal.
The republican party has shed any semblance of doubt that they are the American anti-democratic party. The American fascist party composed of zealots so committed to opposition they will throw their constituents under the bus. They will throw their constituents under the bulldozer for their anti government dogma.
It will be up to voters in next year's election to put an end to republican malfeasance and their quest to deny the right to participate in civil society to the citizens of this Nation who are not billionaires.
Leaving this up to the rather apathetic bloc of non voters leaves me a bid unconvinced We the People can do this.
The republican party has shed any semblance of doubt that they are the American anti-democratic party. The American fascist party composed of zealots so committed to opposition they will throw their constituents under the bus. They will throw their constituents under the bulldozer for their anti government dogma.
It will be up to voters in next year's election to put an end to republican malfeasance and their quest to deny the right to participate in civil society to the citizens of this Nation who are not billionaires.
Leaving this up to the rather apathetic bloc of non voters leaves me a bid unconvinced We the People can do this.
5
The US population is increasingly partisan, and government merely reflect this democratic reality.
4
Regardless of what qualifications Judge Gorsuch may or may not have, he will always be an illegitimate as a member of the court, because the seat was stolen by Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in Congress.
5
What's wrong with leaving the court with 8 Justices?
2
Couldn't the D's let this one pass, but keep in their "back pocket" the precedent of not allowing a hearing the next time they control the Senate, as did the Republicans on Garland ?
2
They could do that even after McConnell nukes the filibuster.
No, John R. -. Democrats need to follow the precedent and standard of obstructionism set by Republicans over the last 7 years. Democrats need to fight fire with fire and caving in to the Republicans recalcitrance is a recipe for disaster.
The nuclear option will almost totally disenfranchise blue states at the national level for the foreseeable future. Despite the gerrymandered and hack-influenced Republican successes in the last election, the majority of votes still went to the Democratic side. The abuse of power also flies in the face of the fact that states such as California tend to be net contributors to the federal treasury, while most red states are a drain on tax revenues. And still, Trump and his cronies threaten to withhold funds to blue states. This is not just about an arcane procedural matter in the Senate, but leads us to a complete lack of representation for the majority interest of the nation.
1
They are talking about nuking the Supreme Court filibuster, not the filibuster in general .
I'd still like someone to explain why the Senate is passing legislation this season without sixty votes. I thought that was impossible.
I'd still like someone to explain why the Senate is passing legislation this season without sixty votes. I thought that was impossible.
1
Maybe it is time for the citizens of the United States to become the adults in the room. Maybe we need to amend our laws, or our Constitution, so that a simple majority is not sufficient to appoint individuals to any lifetime position. Maybe we need to impose Citizens' Rules on the Senatorial Sandbox so that Senators, especially Majority Leaders, put Country Before Party!
What if we passed an amendment requiring 2/3rds of the Senate, 67 votes, to approve a nominee for the Supreme Court. It wouldn't eliminate ideologues on either side but it would prevent a Mitch McConnell from controlling the sandbox.
What if we passed an amendment that required 61 votes in the Senate to confirm any lifetime position below the level of the Supreme Court and at the same time required the Senate to vote on any nominee within 60 days of the individual's nomination.
If you don't like the nominee then don't vote for them but vote. If your nominee cannot meet the voting threshold then maybe you should not have put them forward in the first place. I could live quite happily with a Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary made up of Anthony Kennedys and Merrick Garlands. They would not always vote the way I would like but that isn't the point.
What if we passed an amendment requiring 2/3rds of the Senate, 67 votes, to approve a nominee for the Supreme Court. It wouldn't eliminate ideologues on either side but it would prevent a Mitch McConnell from controlling the sandbox.
What if we passed an amendment that required 61 votes in the Senate to confirm any lifetime position below the level of the Supreme Court and at the same time required the Senate to vote on any nominee within 60 days of the individual's nomination.
If you don't like the nominee then don't vote for them but vote. If your nominee cannot meet the voting threshold then maybe you should not have put them forward in the first place. I could live quite happily with a Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary made up of Anthony Kennedys and Merrick Garlands. They would not always vote the way I would like but that isn't the point.
25
A two thirds rule sounds reasonable, but it would just make it easier to walk all over the wimpy Democrats, who would act in "good faith" for Republican nominees, only to have everyone of their nominees unable to clear the threshold.
I hope the Democrats pay no attention to this advice. Trying to game what the Republicans might do if they nominate an even more objectionable person than Gorsuch is absurd. If the Democrats have the votes to sustain a filibuster they should do it now. In fact, they are doing it, quite impressively so far. If the Republicans retaliate by eliminating filibustering Supreme Court nominees, so be it. They too, just like the Democrats, have to consider the cost to themselves of giving up this obstructionist weapon. Do Republicans have the votes to change the rule? It's not at all clear that they do. A Republican senator formerly considered something of a maverick is reported to have said that only "stupid idiots" would do away with the filibuster. We'll soon see how many stupid idiots there are among Republican senators.
5
What if the Democrats and Republicans bring this thing to a VOTE on Gorsuch, and he loses because he doesn't receive the 60 required votes? Why does
there have to be a Democratic filibuster? Why can't it be brought to a vote? In all likelihood, Gorsuch doesn't get voted in and Republicans move on and come up with another Supreme Court nominee? Someone, anybody please explain why "filibustering" has replaced "voting" this thing to its foregone conclusion?
there have to be a Democratic filibuster? Why can't it be brought to a vote? In all likelihood, Gorsuch doesn't get voted in and Republicans move on and come up with another Supreme Court nominee? Someone, anybody please explain why "filibustering" has replaced "voting" this thing to its foregone conclusion?
1
A vote on debate cloture currently requires 60 votes. If this "standard" is overturned on a rules change vote, Gorsuch only requires a simple majority vote of the Senate in order to be confirmed.
1
It requires 60 votes to break the filibuster. It only requires a simple majority to confirm a justice.
Filibuster. No negotiating with terrorists!
2
The terrorists are the ones who use violence to silence their opposition. Berkeley, Washington DC, Baltimore, ferguson.... and on and on. YOU own it.
It should have been clear to the American public that our Supreme Court is a tool of partisan conflicts when Bush was placed into office by them. If that didn't do it, Citizens United should have clinched the deal. I have lost faith,in the 3rd branch of our government. Our democracy is weakened and perhaps will die under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and the Republican men who want the country to be owned and ruled by corporations, bigots and chauvinists.
3
" ... then [the filibuster] is not available to use against another Trump nominee, who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well."
With only a two vote majority in the Senate, any Trump nominee objectionable to a few Republicans would not need to be filibustered, they would lose an "up or down vote."
This will be the MOST principled filibuster ever, as for this seat on the SCOTUS, there is a nominee who is genuinely do a hearing and a vote, and his name is Merrick Garland. The Republican Senators would not even MEET the man, much less hold a hearing and a vote.
This is the single most disrespectful treatment of a Supreme Court nominee in my life, and I lived through the Clarence Thomas hearings. And HE is serving a lifetime term on the Court!
With only a two vote majority in the Senate, any Trump nominee objectionable to a few Republicans would not need to be filibustered, they would lose an "up or down vote."
This will be the MOST principled filibuster ever, as for this seat on the SCOTUS, there is a nominee who is genuinely do a hearing and a vote, and his name is Merrick Garland. The Republican Senators would not even MEET the man, much less hold a hearing and a vote.
This is the single most disrespectful treatment of a Supreme Court nominee in my life, and I lived through the Clarence Thomas hearings. And HE is serving a lifetime term on the Court!
2
Democrats are not using the filibuster as a partisan weapon, but as a principled one. Gorsuch is an ideological pick who will drastically change the outlook for economic, environmental, social, criminal and political justice for generations. He indicated that while Roe v Wade has been tested numerous times, it can still be overturned, that corporations have more “people” rights than individuals. McConnell and the Republicans are responsible for unraveling the traditions of the Senate and Congress, generally, using the filibuster in unprecedented numbers to obstruct and defeat Obama and his policies which were embraced by the majority of Americans. Scalia, with the Bush v Gore, Citizens United and countless other decisions demonstrated that “originalism” is a fiction, but a cover for his advancement of partisan ideology. Gorsuch is considered further right to Scalia. On health care, environment, climate action, tax reform, workers rights, gun violence prevention, Internet privacy, women’s reproductive rights, the Republicans could care less about what the majority of Americans want. Schumer is correct: for a lifetime appointment of a justice who will establish (yes, establish) laws that will impact every American’s life, it should be someone who can garner 60 votes. I had predicted that McConnell, who advances power and party over country, would end the filibuster when he had the chance. I am being proved right.
4
There's a reason that the Republicans' year-long refusal to even consider any nominee from their twice-elected Democratic president last year was unprecedented: everyone understood that once you take partisanship in court appointments to that level, there's no going back. Now, we have to live with a system in which justices are merely Democrats and Republicans in robes.
Of course the Demos would pull out all the stops in opposing a Trump appointment that was stolen from Obama. Of course the Republicans will resort to the "nuclear option" to circumvent their opposition. Of course this will permanently divide the Supreme Court, as each party now has ample incentive to push through the youngest, most extreme nominee it can muster. All of this was a foregone conclusion when the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
Of course the Demos would pull out all the stops in opposing a Trump appointment that was stolen from Obama. Of course the Republicans will resort to the "nuclear option" to circumvent their opposition. Of course this will permanently divide the Supreme Court, as each party now has ample incentive to push through the youngest, most extreme nominee it can muster. All of this was a foregone conclusion when the Republicans blocked Merrick Garland.
36
The way to make the Supreme Court non partisan is to fill it with 9 Scalias or, apparently, Gorsuches. That is, people who will simply and accurately uphold the Constitution AS WRITTEN and the laws AS WRITTEN.
If that makes politicians unhappy, they know the solution: change the laws.
If that Supreme Court says its unconstitutional, change the Constitution.
This makes left wingers mad because they want the Supreme Court to create certain new "rights" that can't be legislated away, and destroy other rights.
(I'm referring to a right that's actually in the Declaration of Independence,
the one to "life", which no longer exists for unborn children, because of the activism of the Supreme Court.)
If that makes politicians unhappy, they know the solution: change the laws.
If that Supreme Court says its unconstitutional, change the Constitution.
This makes left wingers mad because they want the Supreme Court to create certain new "rights" that can't be legislated away, and destroy other rights.
(I'm referring to a right that's actually in the Declaration of Independence,
the one to "life", which no longer exists for unborn children, because of the activism of the Supreme Court.)
3
Your argument might be persuasive if at the time the Constitution was written, abortion was illegal. But, it wasn't. And, in light of the 10th amendment reserving undelegated powers to the states or to the people, later rulings by the Supreme Court finding a constitutional right to privacy rest on solid legal and constitutional grounds. It seems that right wingers, simply want the courts to deny fundamental rights to people whom they dislike, such as the right to be left alone, the right to privacy, the right to do with one's own body as one sees fit, and even the right to equal justice under law no matter one's race, religion, gender, sexual preference, sexual identity or national origin.
3
The right to liberty means a bunch of old men should not be telling women what to do with their bodies.
And most right to lifers only care about the unborn. As soon as a baby leaves the womb most of you are happy to let it starve to death, go to underfunded schools, go to prison, and get a lethal injection, if the almighty market dems it necessary.
If you really care about life, stop voting for Republicans, or Democrats either. We need representatives that actually represent us.
And most right to lifers only care about the unborn. As soon as a baby leaves the womb most of you are happy to let it starve to death, go to underfunded schools, go to prison, and get a lethal injection, if the almighty market dems it necessary.
If you really care about life, stop voting for Republicans, or Democrats either. We need representatives that actually represent us.
3
Doug
You live in Champaign, so I assume you have access to a decent library or two.
Before you comment further, you might want to take look at the Constitution and try to match it up with many recent Republican actions, appointments, elections, etc.
You can limit your search to decisions by Scalia if you like, although that will yield a picture unfairly damaging to conservatives.
See how often you can honestly say your party and its minions have accurately reflected the wording of the Constitution. If you want to go home feeling really bad, see how often they flaunted the clear intent of the framers. I know that's against your religion, but you might find it informative.
You live in Champaign, so I assume you have access to a decent library or two.
Before you comment further, you might want to take look at the Constitution and try to match it up with many recent Republican actions, appointments, elections, etc.
You can limit your search to decisions by Scalia if you like, although that will yield a picture unfairly damaging to conservatives.
See how often you can honestly say your party and its minions have accurately reflected the wording of the Constitution. If you want to go home feeling really bad, see how often they flaunted the clear intent of the framers. I know that's against your religion, but you might find it informative.
1
I take a back seat to no one in the desire to eliminate the filibuster for almost all things. My belief was tested when I saw Pres. Trump's "basket of deplorables" cabinet picks. But I still believe that, in the long run, it will make for more efficient, more democratic government.
However, I make an exception for the Supreme Court. These are lifetime appointments. Their say is final on judicial matters. (And we're coming to place where just about all government matters are judicial matters.) They are nearly impossible to get rid of if they show themselves to be incompetent, corrupt or insane. (Yes, there is the Constitutional process of impeachment and removal, but only one has been impeached and he was acquitted. It's easier to remove a president.) For all these reasons, we have to be VERY careful who we put on the Court. A supermajority is one way to better make sure no Justice Donald J. Trump gets on the court. At least with Trump as President, we'll only have him for a maximum of 8 years.
So what's the best strategy for maintaining the SC filibuster? Maybe allowing Gorsuch to be confirmed and fighting the next time when Trump will almost certainly attempt to put on a more extreme candidate. My feeling is that Sen. McConnell will again try to go nuclear, but it will be harder with a less defensible pick. And maybe, just maybe, the Dems will have the Senate back.
However, I make an exception for the Supreme Court. These are lifetime appointments. Their say is final on judicial matters. (And we're coming to place where just about all government matters are judicial matters.) They are nearly impossible to get rid of if they show themselves to be incompetent, corrupt or insane. (Yes, there is the Constitutional process of impeachment and removal, but only one has been impeached and he was acquitted. It's easier to remove a president.) For all these reasons, we have to be VERY careful who we put on the Court. A supermajority is one way to better make sure no Justice Donald J. Trump gets on the court. At least with Trump as President, we'll only have him for a maximum of 8 years.
So what's the best strategy for maintaining the SC filibuster? Maybe allowing Gorsuch to be confirmed and fighting the next time when Trump will almost certainly attempt to put on a more extreme candidate. My feeling is that Sen. McConnell will again try to go nuclear, but it will be harder with a less defensible pick. And maybe, just maybe, the Dems will have the Senate back.
8
Gorsuch is not moderate. He only played one in his hearings. Stop believing the lies.
1
You bring up a point I have been concerned about for some time: the absence of a "25th Amendment" function for the courts, especially the Supreme Court. We have seen what can happen when there is a long term vacancy on the Court but that vacancy could have been filled at any time if necessary. What if Justice Scalia had not died but had been left in a long term coma or vegetative state where he could not resign and could not be removed except by impeachment? We could have an effective unfillable vacancy for years. And with several very old Justices it is conceivable that there could be more than one unfillable seat on the Court.
"But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
This argument makes sense only if you believe the party in majority has integrity. The Republicans do not. Their craven and self-serving obstruction of Merrick Garland (and of President Obama's entire agenda) shows that they place the pursuit of power over all else, including their patriotic and Constitutional duties. They will not hesitate to eliminate the filibuster at some future point, even if the result is that some "renegade justice" is appointed to the Court, because at least it will be a conservative "renegade."
I hope these people live long enough to see how history will judge them.
This argument makes sense only if you believe the party in majority has integrity. The Republicans do not. Their craven and self-serving obstruction of Merrick Garland (and of President Obama's entire agenda) shows that they place the pursuit of power over all else, including their patriotic and Constitutional duties. They will not hesitate to eliminate the filibuster at some future point, even if the result is that some "renegade justice" is appointed to the Court, because at least it will be a conservative "renegade."
I hope these people live long enough to see how history will judge them.
6
Right, the argument is let them have this nominee, so they can nuke the filibuster next time.
What is the point of that?
What is the point of that?
1
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too."
Might as well go down fighting than just wimp-out. We all know McConnell would remove the filibuster the next time anyway.
Might as well go down fighting than just wimp-out. We all know McConnell would remove the filibuster the next time anyway.
6
Mitch McConnell ignores that President Obama was Elected by the people !
Obama represented the majority of Americans. He nominated Merrick Garland after Scalia's death saved our country from more of his "Citizen United" type outrages. McConnell robbed America of what we voted for. The same way the Electoral College robbed America.
Now McConnell wants to fill that stolen seat with a nominee from Trump. Trump does not represent America. Trump was not voted for by the Majority of our people. He is the choice of Putin ! Not the American People. To have a Trump puppet on our Supreme court is as dangerous as Trump himself.
The fight is for justice. The fight is for OUR president's nominee, Merrick Garland.
McConnell is a disgrace to our Nation, as nauseating as Trump.
Obama represented the majority of Americans. He nominated Merrick Garland after Scalia's death saved our country from more of his "Citizen United" type outrages. McConnell robbed America of what we voted for. The same way the Electoral College robbed America.
Now McConnell wants to fill that stolen seat with a nominee from Trump. Trump does not represent America. Trump was not voted for by the Majority of our people. He is the choice of Putin ! Not the American People. To have a Trump puppet on our Supreme court is as dangerous as Trump himself.
The fight is for justice. The fight is for OUR president's nominee, Merrick Garland.
McConnell is a disgrace to our Nation, as nauseating as Trump.
7
"Republicans like to say that Democrats’ 1987 blocking of Robert Bork marked the beginning of the politicization of Supreme Court nominations" -- so Abe Fortas has dropped into a memory black hole?
oh please, Fortas had serious ethics issues and resigned from the court.
2
Reagan tried to Bork the Supreme court by nominating this unethical toad.
After two people resigned rather that obey Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox for going after the Nixon tapes, Nixon was finally able to find Bork, who then obediently did the dirty work.
Easy to see why the Right Wing's ideologue "Reagan" would want a Bork on the Supreme court. The same way the Right Wing wants Gorsuch on it.
Our National heritage is at stake here. On it will either be the face of Mitch McConnell or Barack Obama. Gorsuch or Garland This is Real folks.
Do something for Your country.
After two people resigned rather that obey Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox for going after the Nixon tapes, Nixon was finally able to find Bork, who then obediently did the dirty work.
Easy to see why the Right Wing's ideologue "Reagan" would want a Bork on the Supreme court. The same way the Right Wing wants Gorsuch on it.
Our National heritage is at stake here. On it will either be the face of Mitch McConnell or Barack Obama. Gorsuch or Garland This is Real folks.
Do something for Your country.
1
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says the President shall appoint nominees but does not require the Senate to hold hearings. It is clear. Therefore all this wailing and nashing of teeth over Merrit Garland is false. The Constitution does not require a vote.
If the Senators who oppose Gorsuch have legitimate issues, then they should bring them up. However, the ones played on the news are definately not valid when compared to previous nominees. Those nominees acted pretty much as Gorsuch did and answered with the same vagueness. As they should have to be fair to future cases brought before the Court.
If the filibusted is eliminated, it is because Democrats changed the rules of what is fair and right in affirming the Judge, not anything related to the filibuster itself. The nuclear option (as used by Harry Reid), just levels the playing field.
It is sad, but Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
If the Senators who oppose Gorsuch have legitimate issues, then they should bring them up. However, the ones played on the news are definately not valid when compared to previous nominees. Those nominees acted pretty much as Gorsuch did and answered with the same vagueness. As they should have to be fair to future cases brought before the Court.
If the filibusted is eliminated, it is because Democrats changed the rules of what is fair and right in affirming the Judge, not anything related to the filibuster itself. The nuclear option (as used by Harry Reid), just levels the playing field.
It is sad, but Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
7
Advise and consent means hold hearings and vote.
2
Per the US Senate Glossary: "advice and consent - Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote." Please note that a vote is required for the confirmation to be approved. It does not include a requirement that forces an actual vote. A nomination remains effective until voted upon or withdrawn.
@Amused Reader: Your interpretation of the Constitution is completely wrong. To say that "The Constitution does not require a vote." would make the Senate's role to "advise and consent" on the President's Supreme Court nominees totally meaningless in practice and the reality of actually governing. Are you suggesting that the Senate never vote to confirm nominees to the Supreme Court? How would Justices ever be appointed then? Your argument is illogical. It's also not true that other nominees refused to answer questions honestly and openly during their hearings. This is yet another "both sides do it" false equivalency. Finally, Harry Reid only eliminated the filibuster (for judicial appointment below the Supreme Court level) because McConnell and the Republicans used the filibuster SEVERAL HUNDRED times to block Obama with total obstruction. I actually hope the filibuster does get eliminated because it has been abused by Republicans to the point that the Senate can no longer function.
2
What I find most disturbing is that a bunch of misguided folks in Kentucky are changing my country for the worse.
6
I'm not a Democrat and I am furious with McConnell. He must have known what his tactics of last year would lead to. If not, He's stupid.
5
I'm not a Republican, but I applaud McConnell for this.
1
The pretense of Senate decorum outlined in this article is just one thing: pretense. That pretense has been broken long time ago and the so called higher legislative body has been moving toward the strict partisanship scheme for all to see. The only difference today between the Senate and the House of Representatives is five years! Nobody from both sides believes in that decorum anymore. The Senate has already joined the nitwit decorum of the House when you look at the composition of it! What to make out of the unbelievable pronouncements from the Cruze, the Paul, the McConnell etc ...? They are no better if not worse than in many High School Student Councils around the country!! Stupidity has been elevated to the rank of rationality! American People have decided for sometime to elect the lowest common denominator people to their two legislative chambers irrespective of their ... decorum! We have one in the White House now! Why would people expect different, learned, decorum abiding people in the senate? Let's stop pretending!!!
3
If a future nominee were "objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well" then a simple majority "no" vote would prevail and thus no need for 60 votes to block the nomination
2
A middle ground between retaining the traditional filibuster and abasing the Senate to the low level of the House, which often ramrods bills through without even reading them, would be to require 60 votes for immediate passage of any bill or confirmation. Any measure that received a majority but not 60 votes would be automatically tabled for an additional time, say 2 weeks, on the request of any dissenting Senator. At that time, it would return for a final vote and would require only a simple majority for final passage.
Such a rule would give Senators, their staffs, journalist, and the blogosphere extra time to actually read bills, and to drum up support or opposition back home for controversial appointments and measures.
For details, see my blogpost, "The Mullibuster Option," at http://blog.independent.org/2017/03/12/the-mullibuster-option/ .
Such a rule would give Senators, their staffs, journalist, and the blogosphere extra time to actually read bills, and to drum up support or opposition back home for controversial appointments and measures.
For details, see my blogpost, "The Mullibuster Option," at http://blog.independent.org/2017/03/12/the-mullibuster-option/ .
1
That's logical. The current "filibuster" is really only the threat of a filibuster. You used to actually have to stand and talk four hours. Now you just file a piece of pepper and kill the vote. It's a scam.
Well, Mitch McConnell did do a very shameful and hyper partisan thing in refusing to offer Justice Merrick Garland the courtesy of a hearing, leave alone an up or down vote. So if he is really interested in preserving the sanctity of the filibuster, McConnell could agree to a deal with the Democrats – the Gorsuch filibuster ends and he gets an up or down vote provided Republicans guarantee that the next Trump Supreme Court nominee will be a filibuster-proof Merrick Garland?
1
When citizens vote but find out later that their votes can be nullified by the losing side through "filibusters" they are rightly unhappy. Good riddance.
2
McConnell HAS to GO
He is a danger to America on so many levels
He is a danger to America on so many levels
3
It's hard to disagree with this editorial which seems gently to suggest that Democrats forego the filibuster for now since it will be futile and save it for a later, perhaps more propitious time. I agree. The Board holds McConnell chiefly to blame in the present circumstances. I believe that the blame is shared equally by both parties who have created a bitter partisan divide. Choose for yourself when it began: with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Bush v. Gore, the 2013 decision by Democrats to use the nuclear option for judges below the Supreme Court or the refusal by Republicans to take up Judge Garland's nomination.Or pick another. The chief reason now is that the Democratic base demands that their senator join the filibuster and they ignore that outcry at their peril and they know it.
2
Filibuster is a necessary response for the democrats. 3,000,000 more people voted against this right wing coup than it's own supporters. A large enough swarth of Americans watch and believe fox news to create this continual lurching to the extreme right. Enough Americans to do mischief. Why this is occurring needs to be addressed. The propaganda machine from this Murdoch monster is threatening our society and even the planet when you take into account climate change. Trump, McConnell, and Ryan and their enablers may only be a harbinger of worst things to come. Perhaps a democratic populist untethered to Wall Street is needed.
5
There are so many awful people who don't want the world to outlive them that the Rapture will evidently be a self-fulfilling prophesy..
Once again it falls to Democrats to be reasonable, to be the adults in the room, to compromise, lest the government devolve even further into partisan dysfunction. Expecting Republicans to reciprocate--whether we're talking about the next Supreme Court nominee, the next budget showdown, or the next Democratic president's ability to pass legislation--is a fool's errand. You cannot appease people like Mitch McConnell. They smile, mouth platitudes about their respect for the institution, and proceed to stick the knife in your back. The Democrats are going to lose one way or another. They might as well go down fighting.
77
Their end game is annihilation. That is nihilism in a nutshell.
Obama took five weeks to nominate Garland after Scalia died. It should have been the next day.
And, Obama, should have more vigorously supported Garland on the legitimate bases of honoring Scalia, who was an originalist, and presumably, would have followed the "intent" of the Constitution, to allow a sitting President a nomination to be considered.
Obama's legacy, concerning McConnell, was complete victimhood and subjugation. Were we all suppose to feel sorry for the President because he was so unjustly bullied? Where were the eloquent speeches concerning the lack of patriotism of McConnell? It was as if, Obama was tied to the whipping post, "Thank you, Mr. Speaker, may I have another?" Yes, we all hate McConnell but it got us nowhere. Same thing with the bankers. Obama was an empty chair, and The United States of America suffered for it.
I can't help thinking of, yes, Sarah Palin's, question to America, "How's that, hope and change, working out for you?" Lot's of hope, and no change. The conservatives now have EVERYTHING in government.
And, Obama, should have more vigorously supported Garland on the legitimate bases of honoring Scalia, who was an originalist, and presumably, would have followed the "intent" of the Constitution, to allow a sitting President a nomination to be considered.
Obama's legacy, concerning McConnell, was complete victimhood and subjugation. Were we all suppose to feel sorry for the President because he was so unjustly bullied? Where were the eloquent speeches concerning the lack of patriotism of McConnell? It was as if, Obama was tied to the whipping post, "Thank you, Mr. Speaker, may I have another?" Yes, we all hate McConnell but it got us nowhere. Same thing with the bankers. Obama was an empty chair, and The United States of America suffered for it.
I can't help thinking of, yes, Sarah Palin's, question to America, "How's that, hope and change, working out for you?" Lot's of hope, and no change. The conservatives now have EVERYTHING in government.
3
Thank God. After we add 4-7 seats Senate in 2018, and President Trump adds another Constitutionalist to the SCOTUS we can begin repairing the vast damage Liberalism has done to our country
2
You folks are truly amazing - no wonder very few people can follow your line of thinking. Dems own the disfunction on the Court. What you call a right word shift by conservative Justices is merely the Court reflecting the Constitution as it is written. Perhaps the Progressive Left should adopt policies more in line with the Constitution instead of treating it as a living document that can be re-written by 5 people in black robes to accomplish things they have failed to achieve legislatively for 100 years. And on Garland - the Senate gave his nomination every consideration they were required to - meaning none. Obama serially abused the Senate and trampled their prerogatives (the Recess Appointments cases comes immediately to mind). In a co-equal relationship, you cannot abuse your partner and then grouse about not receiving your due.
4
"surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
No, it isn't. (and don't call me surely) A threat has been made. Preserving a threat only makes it worse and extends its power.
And finally. One thing should be completely clear: It is NOT up to Democrats whether the filibuster is worth saving. That vote rests ENTIRELY with Mr McConnell and his merry band of GOP Senators.
No, it isn't. (and don't call me surely) A threat has been made. Preserving a threat only makes it worse and extends its power.
And finally. One thing should be completely clear: It is NOT up to Democrats whether the filibuster is worth saving. That vote rests ENTIRELY with Mr McConnell and his merry band of GOP Senators.
8
McConnell should have retired a long time ago for he has no use for the Democrats in the Senate and hated former President Obama. This was clearly evident by announcing loud and clear that his goal was to make sure former President Obama would be a one term president. Of course it galled McConnell when he and his ilk were defeated the second time around. The payback of course was obstructing anything Obama and the Democrats suggested and block everything. The Republicans' crowning moment was denying Judge Garland interviews and hearings on the Hill. Yes, the Democrats bear some responsibility by playing to their base however, the Republicans with McConnell at the helm bear the lion share of the blame. Mitch McConnell is a disgusting and despicable human being without heart or empathy. The best thing that could possibly happen would be for Gorsuch to withdraw from the nomination although, I know this is wishful thinking. I just hope this country will survive the next four years of the present president and these Republicans in Congress of whom many are just despicable and without empathy or a moral compass. Where are the moderate, middle of the road Republicans in all of this?? And what a shame that SCOTUS is now no longer apolitical. That trend started when the majority of Supreme Court Judges voted in favor of Citizen United. Now we all have to live with the result of this very bad decision. We are clearly now a plutocracy and maybe even a third world country. So very sad
5
Let us also not forget that McConnell is beholding to President "You're Fired!" Trump so that his wife keeps her job. Besides being a despicable human being, McConnell has a major Conflict of Interest to ensure his dear wife remains employed in the Federal system. My head hurts from shaking it everyday at what Trump and his cronies will stoop to in order to ensure the destruction of our democracy. It's time for McConnell and his wife to retire to some lovely rocking chairs on their front porch. Perhaps there's enough room on the porch for the rest of this useless administration and, of course, Jared and Ivanka.
3
Had Barry the Drone King Obama not been so timid and done a recess appointment for Judge Garland, we wouldn't even have this discussion...
Judge Gorsuch who ruled that corporate profits trumped human life has no place having any say in any human affairs, let alone the supreme court. Those nominating and voting for him will be long remembered for their lack of human value and ethics.
And Judge Gorsuch is only 49-years old, too.
This one's on Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, establishment democrats and the mainstream media who elevated Trump's status in the GOP primaries, thinking that even an old neoliberal corporate warmonger, Wall Street's Warmongering Madame, a pseudo-progressive stooge, could defeat Trump in the general election.
Four democrats are about to vote FOR this right-of-Scalia nominee, and when their caucus numbered enough to overcome filibuster they still couldn't even pass a public option, let along single payer.
Democrats are placebo, occupying the space of a progressive party without actually being such a party. In this respect, they are more valuable to the oligarchy than the Republicans. Democrats take opposition off the board by pretending to be the opposition.
"What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law".
Really?
Still?
Judge Gorsuch who ruled that corporate profits trumped human life has no place having any say in any human affairs, let alone the supreme court. Those nominating and voting for him will be long remembered for their lack of human value and ethics.
And Judge Gorsuch is only 49-years old, too.
This one's on Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, establishment democrats and the mainstream media who elevated Trump's status in the GOP primaries, thinking that even an old neoliberal corporate warmonger, Wall Street's Warmongering Madame, a pseudo-progressive stooge, could defeat Trump in the general election.
Four democrats are about to vote FOR this right-of-Scalia nominee, and when their caucus numbered enough to overcome filibuster they still couldn't even pass a public option, let along single payer.
Democrats are placebo, occupying the space of a progressive party without actually being such a party. In this respect, they are more valuable to the oligarchy than the Republicans. Democrats take opposition off the board by pretending to be the opposition.
"What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law".
Really?
Still?
1
First, I fully agree that Justice Garland should have had a hearing and a vote. While I personally believe that Justice Gorsuch will be a better candidate, Mr. Obama's pick deserved a chance to be voted up or down.
That being said, however, I hope the GOP does abolish the filibuster. In fact, I would like to see it gone for legislation as well. The idea that a significant piece of legislation or a Supreme Court nomination needs a supermajority is found nowhere int he Constitution. It does call for one in certain cases, such as treaties and impeachment; which means that if it is not specifically called for, it should no be required.
The Senators are elected by a simple majority vote in their individual states, and their deliberations as representatives of the people of those states should utilize the same format.
That being said, however, I hope the GOP does abolish the filibuster. In fact, I would like to see it gone for legislation as well. The idea that a significant piece of legislation or a Supreme Court nomination needs a supermajority is found nowhere int he Constitution. It does call for one in certain cases, such as treaties and impeachment; which means that if it is not specifically called for, it should no be required.
The Senators are elected by a simple majority vote in their individual states, and their deliberations as representatives of the people of those states should utilize the same format.
13
The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Politics is about compromise, not just running roughshod over the losers. Majority rule is simply another step on the way to dictatorship.
1
Respect for the law, in itself demonstrates a lack of understanding of Law.
Garland mistakenly believes the words on paper are more important than the unforeseen circumstances that create human existence.
We find these truths to be self evident...not the American right-wingers.
Garland mistakenly believes the words on paper are more important than the unforeseen circumstances that create human existence.
We find these truths to be self evident...not the American right-wingers.
1
Garland?
1
Stop blaming Republicans when it was last in his class Joe Biden who decided to invoke blatant partisanship, blocking any nomination of a Supreme Court nominee in 1992.
YOU'RE condemned to YOUR own history. And YOU wonder why YOU lost the election.
YOU'RE condemned to YOUR own history. And YOU wonder why YOU lost the election.
5
Please educate me as to whose nominations to was that Joe Biden blocked.
1
But Republicans blamed Democrats for limiting filibusters in 2013, even though Republicans threatened the same in 2005 (and only the Gang of 14 deal avoided that).
Edgar,
To cut the Republicans off at the pass was exactly Biden's point. Think about it, why would the Republicans have nominated anyone under those circumstances?
Great big hint: It would have been a waste of time.
To cut the Republicans off at the pass was exactly Biden's point. Think about it, why would the Republicans have nominated anyone under those circumstances?
Great big hint: It would have been a waste of time.
2
Straddling the fence are we?
Should the Senate Democrats filibuster or not? Well???
The always opinionated Editorial Board is not taking a clear position. Can't make up your mind?
Okay - so I'll give it to you. Doesn't matter whether they filibuster or not. Real change in Washington depends on the voters. And that means all of us - not just the left wing readers and writers of this paper!
Want change? Find a way to elect a Democratic Senate, House and Executive next time.
Should the Senate Democrats filibuster or not? Well???
The always opinionated Editorial Board is not taking a clear position. Can't make up your mind?
Okay - so I'll give it to you. Doesn't matter whether they filibuster or not. Real change in Washington depends on the voters. And that means all of us - not just the left wing readers and writers of this paper!
Want change? Find a way to elect a Democratic Senate, House and Executive next time.
5
YES, the situation with the US Supreme Court IS the same type of intractable problem that is plaguing Congress AND the run for the White House as well. The fact is our country is irreparably divided almost 50/50 and while one can envisage the power shifting back and forth, back and forth, the time has finally come when accepting that sort of non-functionality has become dangerous and possibly fatal for our democracy. NO ONE can honestly say that the moderate liberal and the moderate conservative as they exist today will ever be able to find a way to live in peace the way they did during the Reagan Era, for example. So rather than writing yet ANOTHER editorial telling us what we have heard now far too many times, we need ANSWERS and SOLUTIONS. I shall posit one: since representative democracy should reflect as closely as possible to will of those it governs, I feel a United Federation of the States Of America where TWO federations, each led by a chief executive, whice would work together France and Germany pre-EU. Honestly, who can say a person from Manhattan has more common with AG Sessions than with Theresa May or Angela Merkel? I am so sick at heart to think of the man sitting in the Oval Office and knowing that he has ZERO values that reflect my own (just as Obama had for the entire Trump Cabinet) that for us to survive we need to divide. Otherwise, we will face a race to the bottom as the decline is already apparent. Go to Penn Station if ya don't believe me.
2
This is just a continuing trend that the nation has been witnessing for roughly the past couple of decades. First, the US Senate went from what was supposed to be a more deliberative body, to becoming just as politicized as the US House. Now SCOTUS nominees, like Garland and Gorsuch, are pawns in political chess.
The editorial brings up how easily Scalia and Ginsburg were confirmed by both parties. I remember when liberal justices Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed just a few years ago. Even though there were GOP votes against them, there were still quite a few GOPers who voted in favor of each of them along with all Democrats. Now, it's all strictly party line.
The editorial brings up how easily Scalia and Ginsburg were confirmed by both parties. I remember when liberal justices Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed just a few years ago. Even though there were GOP votes against them, there were still quite a few GOPers who voted in favor of each of them along with all Democrats. Now, it's all strictly party line.
4
There is no logic in avoiding the destruction of the filibuster now or later. The threat of doing so is not an idle one. To expect a different outcome in the future would mean to expect that enough Republican Senators would object to the next Supreme Court nominee enough to not vote with the Party to have a simple majority to change the rules. A snowball in hell's chance. Lets make sure that the next Senate has a Democratic majority.
1
Mitch McConnell has been shameless in his behavior during the two terms of President Obama, the refusal to even hold hearings on judge Garland's nomination providing the exclamation point. That was the ultimate political hail Mary pass and, to the country's detriment, it was successful.
Now the arrogant McConnell declares that judge Gorsuch will be confirmed "one way or another"--which way being up to the Democrats. His twisted rationalizations and craven dishonesty must be tolerated no longer. Democrats should take a stand by what ever means available. They should make Sen. McConnell exercise the nuclear option to further expose the Republican hijacking of the political process.
Now the arrogant McConnell declares that judge Gorsuch will be confirmed "one way or another"--which way being up to the Democrats. His twisted rationalizations and craven dishonesty must be tolerated no longer. Democrats should take a stand by what ever means available. They should make Sen. McConnell exercise the nuclear option to further expose the Republican hijacking of the political process.
61
Who started the partisanship? Democrats with Bork and Justice Thomas. Before then a nominee had to almost be a criminal to not be confirmed. Senator Obama wanted to filibuster Alito. Don't remember ANY Republican filibusters.
For some of us, what is happening calls into question whether the evolution of our society has become inimical to the democracy that was originally ours. To be sure, it's possible destruction isn't on the immediate horizon. Maybe, the next steps are for Democrats to return the favor or if faced by an entrenched set of Republican judges to start enlarging and stacking courts as FDR threatened to do. The main point is whether what's happening is having a corrosive effect on the faith of the public that justice is basically even handed. If at some time we pass a tipping point, those of us who can't purchase justice will abandon "democratic" participation. I imagine that to poor Romans it was irrelevant whether their overlords were the rich who evaded taxes and any military service or the barbarians and so, the fall of Rome.
1
Thanks for NOT taking a stand in the editorial. What do you propose that the Democrats do in this extraordinary situation? Filibuster or not? I looked to your editorial for guidance and found nothing. Thanks for the courageous stance, guys. Sometimes you act more like politicians than journalists.
1
The construct of our government is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The so called filibuster rule is designed to force the parties to work towards a mutually satisfactory end - it's a good thing. If it is tossed out we can, and should blame BOTH parties
" What matters is that Americans BELIEVE they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
NO. What matters is WHETHER Americans are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court. And the answer is no, so let the filibuster go and be honest about the fact that stacking the Supreme Court is just a tool to ensure that a policy is still being followed long after it has been rejected at the ballot box.
NO. What matters is WHETHER Americans are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court. And the answer is no, so let the filibuster go and be honest about the fact that stacking the Supreme Court is just a tool to ensure that a policy is still being followed long after it has been rejected at the ballot box.
3
Neil Gorsuch is a product of the political Process he claims to stand above . He says he is in the mode of Justice Scalia who though claiming nonpartisanship clearly was a Republican partisan. If Judge Gorsuch wants to be seen as nonpartisan he needs to state clearly that he will never associate with the Republicans who voted him in and stay clearly away from them.judge Gorsuch seems to be an honorable man, but the proof of this will be his complete separation from any political taint, something that Justice Scalia never seemed able to do.
1
This editorial, for all of its usual pro-Democrat slant, is sensible advice.
I have absolutely no idea why Democrats want to stomp their foot now, over Gorsuch, who does not shift the ideological balance of the Court.
Their professed reason is that their base "will be livid" if they don't. Perhaps, probably. But they'll be livid on Friday. By Monday, to which party will they switch their allegiances? Where will they go for comfort?
And if they vent by causing the removal of the status quo Democratic leadership (viz. Pelosi) - well, it's about time. There are fresher voices in the Democratic Party - even ones that are not totally blinded by ideology and could possibly have an interest in working with the other side, to find some common ground, instead of in vain screaming "illegitimate!!!!" and “resist!!!!!” for four, or eight, years, as Trump rolls them on every issue.
The best evidence that Democrats should abandon the filibuster is that the Republicans want it. They can then nuke it, and next time, Nirvana: Only a majority vote for every new SCOTUS Justice, including someone to the right of Attila the Hun.
But, then again, as empirical evidence amply shows, this particular Democratic crowd is a Party of Dumb. Abandon all hope ye who enter.
I have absolutely no idea why Democrats want to stomp their foot now, over Gorsuch, who does not shift the ideological balance of the Court.
Their professed reason is that their base "will be livid" if they don't. Perhaps, probably. But they'll be livid on Friday. By Monday, to which party will they switch their allegiances? Where will they go for comfort?
And if they vent by causing the removal of the status quo Democratic leadership (viz. Pelosi) - well, it's about time. There are fresher voices in the Democratic Party - even ones that are not totally blinded by ideology and could possibly have an interest in working with the other side, to find some common ground, instead of in vain screaming "illegitimate!!!!" and “resist!!!!!” for four, or eight, years, as Trump rolls them on every issue.
The best evidence that Democrats should abandon the filibuster is that the Republicans want it. They can then nuke it, and next time, Nirvana: Only a majority vote for every new SCOTUS Justice, including someone to the right of Attila the Hun.
But, then again, as empirical evidence amply shows, this particular Democratic crowd is a Party of Dumb. Abandon all hope ye who enter.
4
Do we really believe if Hill had won and Garland was up and the Dems had 52 votes and facing filibuster they wouldn't go nuclear?
How would the "Base" react to that?
You can argue that if McConnell violated the spirit of the Costitution he didn't violate the Letter of it.
As I recall it was reported recently Sen Biden was advocating a similar blocking scheme back in 90's when a Bush lame duck vacancy was potentially developing but didn't.
So depends whose ox is getting gored.
How would the "Base" react to that?
You can argue that if McConnell violated the spirit of the Costitution he didn't violate the Letter of it.
As I recall it was reported recently Sen Biden was advocating a similar blocking scheme back in 90's when a Bush lame duck vacancy was potentially developing but didn't.
So depends whose ox is getting gored.
5
"the court is devolving into a nakedly partisan tool"
This is patently false, as the SC has been a political institution for many years now.
Otherwise, how would you explain the fact that every time that there is a case with a political tinge, the same usual suspects align themselves in the exact same fashion?
There is no such thing as a judge that interprets the law without injecting his own ideology into the matter. At times, there might be one or two judges that ideologically sit on the periphery, but that is all.
For this reason, filibuster or not, the approval of Gorsuch will not have a significant impact into the workings of the Senate.
The rules changed when the Republicans refused to hold a hearing for Garland, if not earlier. At that point in time it became clear that we will only select new SC judges when the Senate and the President belong to the same party.
The length of time remaining in a presidency, the filibuster, the nuclear option, etc. etc. are all empty words that count for nothing.
In summary, and to answer the author's question, America will be governed by the political party that manages to stack the SC.
This is patently false, as the SC has been a political institution for many years now.
Otherwise, how would you explain the fact that every time that there is a case with a political tinge, the same usual suspects align themselves in the exact same fashion?
There is no such thing as a judge that interprets the law without injecting his own ideology into the matter. At times, there might be one or two judges that ideologically sit on the periphery, but that is all.
For this reason, filibuster or not, the approval of Gorsuch will not have a significant impact into the workings of the Senate.
The rules changed when the Republicans refused to hold a hearing for Garland, if not earlier. At that point in time it became clear that we will only select new SC judges when the Senate and the President belong to the same party.
The length of time remaining in a presidency, the filibuster, the nuclear option, etc. etc. are all empty words that count for nothing.
In summary, and to answer the author's question, America will be governed by the political party that manages to stack the SC.
1
So, what's the problem? Since when has law been understood as above politics except by those who naively believe they are doing the work of God or reason? If the people of this country want judges to be elected to federal courts they will have to vote for presidential candidates from the same party that controls the Senate (i.e., the party that can muster 60 votes). As much as we may bemoan McConnell's shortsightedness, his lack of leadership, and his craven self-interest, he has used the law quite effectively to his and his party's advantage.
Senator McConnell is not a man to be trusted. No deals can be cut with him regarding the filibuster or anything else. He is a man without country. He is a man only of the party. When archeologists pick through the rubble of our republic, it is his bust they will find at the bottom of the heap that was the senate.
1
Current events outside the American info sphere can help us gain a better perspective on what's happening at home.
Last week, Venezuela's slide into one-man rule accelerated briefly when the Supreme Tribunal, which is now essentially an arm of the Chavista executive branch, stripped the National Assembly of its legislative powers and intimated it might might delegate the law-making function to itself.
Now, this was ultimately a step too far even for the authoritarian regime in Caracas and was quickly walked back.
Nevertheless, make no mistake: what happened in Venezuela differs only in degree, not kind, from the constitutional crisis Mitch McConnell triggered when he refused to entertain President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland.
This is as shocking an example of the collapse of the constitutional order as the goings on in authoritarian Venezuela. Americans can now say they know what it's like to live under one-man rule, though it's not at all clear that the American public fully understands just the enormity of Mitch McConnell's usurpation of the rule of law.
We are indeed living in perilous times.
Last week, Venezuela's slide into one-man rule accelerated briefly when the Supreme Tribunal, which is now essentially an arm of the Chavista executive branch, stripped the National Assembly of its legislative powers and intimated it might might delegate the law-making function to itself.
Now, this was ultimately a step too far even for the authoritarian regime in Caracas and was quickly walked back.
Nevertheless, make no mistake: what happened in Venezuela differs only in degree, not kind, from the constitutional crisis Mitch McConnell triggered when he refused to entertain President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland.
This is as shocking an example of the collapse of the constitutional order as the goings on in authoritarian Venezuela. Americans can now say they know what it's like to live under one-man rule, though it's not at all clear that the American public fully understands just the enormity of Mitch McConnell's usurpation of the rule of law.
We are indeed living in perilous times.
Republicans are absolutely ruthless when it comes to judicial nominations.....They would feed their first born to an alligator if it secured confirmation for a judge or justice or as was the case of Merrick Garland, completely derail a nomination because of sheer hatred for the man who nominated him....
If Mitch McConnell exercises the 'nuclear option' and gets rid of the filibuster to install Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, he will have committed one of the most heinous acts of goppioni (=GOP Partisan Interest Over National Interest) in US history. The long effects of this particularly brazen act of goppioni (really just the latest in a series that began with what amounts to a partisan theft of a seat on the SC) will include destroying any pretense that Republicans do not view and opportunistically use the judicial branch as a willing accomplice for partisan ends. The long term effect on the legitimacy of the judiciary is potentially enormously damaging.
It looks like you may win, Mitch McConnell, what may be a Pyrrhic victory of colossal import.
It looks like you may win, Mitch McConnell, what may be a Pyrrhic victory of colossal import.
The treatment of Garland was despicable, but it's now ancient history. Holding a grudge is seldom the right thing to do. A Trump nominee, whether it's Gorsuch or someone else just as bad, is inevitable.
2
A filibuster in the hand...
I am a lawyer, and it is apparent to me that the Supreme Court as it currently conducts its business has outlived its usefulness. It is clear that the votes of those on both the Left and the Right are easily predicted by their ideological preferences. They have no particularly skilled legal analysis to add to the major of issues of the day such as gay rights, environmental law, immigration law, equal protection et cet. That being the case, we need some mechanism for Congress [or potentially some other mechanism] to override Supreme Court decisions by more than a majority vote. (Maybe 55 or 60%)
A five-person majority of the Court with no real institutional limitations for potential bias, incompetence or corruption should not be a decisive force in the many contentious political, economic and social issues of the day. For those who would argue in favor of some sort of higher level of learning on the part of the Supreme Court, I would point to Buck v. Bell and the Japanese Internment cases. In any event, the ultimate authority of the Court is premised on the public perception that it is fair and skilled. That perception is in the process of being inevitably fractured.
JD
A five-person majority of the Court with no real institutional limitations for potential bias, incompetence or corruption should not be a decisive force in the many contentious political, economic and social issues of the day. For those who would argue in favor of some sort of higher level of learning on the part of the Supreme Court, I would point to Buck v. Bell and the Japanese Internment cases. In any event, the ultimate authority of the Court is premised on the public perception that it is fair and skilled. That perception is in the process of being inevitably fractured.
JD
1
Thanks, Harry Reid, for setting the stage for this even though Judge Gorsuch is eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice...that isn't the issue, is it?
Democrats in the U.S. Senate are determined to reap what they've sown. So be it.
ALL of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees...going forward...will also be confirmed. I suspect that Democrats will like the next one even less.
Again...thanks, Harry.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate are determined to reap what they've sown. So be it.
ALL of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees...going forward...will also be confirmed. I suspect that Democrats will like the next one even less.
Again...thanks, Harry.
5
This could be the most misguided editorial I've read in the Times since the Iraq War. Senator McCain has already condemned the nuclear option. We must assume then that the Democrats are working with him to find other votes against the nuclear option. Also, I would certainly hope that the Dems who intend to vote for Gorsuch would still not vote to get rid of the filibuster so they only need two more Republicans who like McCain.
What's more, your editorial neglects to mention that the investigation into collusion with Russia could prove that Trump's win is illegitimate and he has no right to appoint a justice, let alone a 49-year-old one, to a lifetime position.
What's more, your editorial neglects to mention that the investigation into collusion with Russia could prove that Trump's win is illegitimate and he has no right to appoint a justice, let alone a 49-year-old one, to a lifetime position.
The Democrats have made it easy and painless for the GOP to eliminate the filibuster. First the Senate Democrats did the same thing for all lower court judges a short time ago. Now the Democrats threaten Judge Gorsuch, a near perfect judge by all objective measures. Lastly, the Republicans will end up looking like statesmen as the Democrats fall on their sword – a much needed image improvement after the health care stalemate.
A newspaper comment does not provide enough space, but perhaps it is time for the US to seriously consider some of the judicial reform that the UK went through the past 20 years. There are so many fundamentally flawed aspects of our constitutional system, yet we deify it (when it is convenient and ignore it when not so convenient). Of course, reform is impossible in a nation where a corporation can donate to both sides of a given political race. Absurdities ad nauseum.
Like the NYT Editorial Board, I will be understanding if the Democrats decide they do not want to die on this hill. However, I think many of the Dems are not afraid of the nuclear option because they expect it to serve them well in a few years. They're hoping to take back the Senate in 2018 and the White House in 2020 (which, if Trump's approval ratings keep dropping over the course of his presidency or he faces impeachment, could certainly happen). In that case, they'll use that simple majority to let Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire in peace while they walk a 40-something liberal lion right through the confirmation process.
To restore honor to the system of nominating and confirming Judges to the supreme court, Judge Gorsuch should decline his nomination. He must recognize that he is being used to fill a "stolen" seat. He cannot be blinded to the fact that Senator McConnell has "stolen" the seat from the Obama Administration. Period.
1
True, if Gorsuch were a truly honorable person and jurist, he would not let his name be associated with such shameful acts of goppioni (=GOP Partisan Interest Over National Interest), perpetuated by Mitch McConnel & Co.
GOP is like, only my.. you don't even get a highway.
Let them kill it.. one of these two will happen:
1. It gets worse and so their supporters realize what they have been fooled with. OR
2. It gets worse and supports will be happy, since they wanted this outcome.
Let them kill it.. one of these two will happen:
1. It gets worse and so their supporters realize what they have been fooled with. OR
2. It gets worse and supports will be happy, since they wanted this outcome.
The NYT editorial board should be honest for once. FDR tried to expand the court to stack it in his favor and push through even more quasi-socialist programs. Harry Reid nuked the filibuster on lower court appointees. Finally, there is no supreme court justice nominee, proposed by Trump, that Chuck Schumer would find acceptable. This "blame now belongs to one man" garbage is just more of the NYT showing their bias.
4
Does anyone else smell the reeking hypocrisy coming from the Democrat side of the aisle? Leaving aside whether Mitch McConnell's (arguably reprehensible) conduct regarding Judge Garland was Constitutional (which it was), how can Democrats point to that circumstance and then turn around, threaten to do (effectively) the same thing, and claim they're the righteous ones?
I understand the Democrats are faced with a Catch-22: i.e. let Gorsuch in with little to no fight, and effectively establish the McConnell tactic as legitimate; or play the same Republican game, and effectively establish the McConnell tactic as legitimate. In either circumstance, the Democrats lose.
But so do the rest of us. Politicizing the Supreme Court weakens its credibility, undermines the rule of law, and is at odds with separation of powers principles. Rather than make a martyr out of Judge Garland--a rather unseemly, and in my opinion a nakedly transparent act of partisanship--the Democrats ought to get their priorities straight and stop playing the Republicans' game. It's a game they will continue to lose.
I understand the Democrats are faced with a Catch-22: i.e. let Gorsuch in with little to no fight, and effectively establish the McConnell tactic as legitimate; or play the same Republican game, and effectively establish the McConnell tactic as legitimate. In either circumstance, the Democrats lose.
But so do the rest of us. Politicizing the Supreme Court weakens its credibility, undermines the rule of law, and is at odds with separation of powers principles. Rather than make a martyr out of Judge Garland--a rather unseemly, and in my opinion a nakedly transparent act of partisanship--the Democrats ought to get their priorities straight and stop playing the Republicans' game. It's a game they will continue to lose.
4
Perhaps your masthead should read "NYT as a Partisan Tool." How dare your editorial board lend legitimacy to the planned Supreme Court filibuster based upon the refusal to consider Judge Garland when you know that Democrat leaders proudly proclaimed that they would not consider a Republican nominee under similar circumstances. That fact, alone, makes the purported moral ground for this editorial no more than pure partisan advocacy that obscures the real facts.
There is no principled opposition to this nominee. Democrats oppose him because they are butt hurt over losing the election, because their base demands rabid opposition to anything Trump, and because a conservative court interpreting the Constitution in originalist terms will stop the progressive movement dead in its tracks.
A bit of honesty from your editorial board would put an end to this notion of a "stolen seat" and show the planned filibuster for what it really is.
There is no principled opposition to this nominee. Democrats oppose him because they are butt hurt over losing the election, because their base demands rabid opposition to anything Trump, and because a conservative court interpreting the Constitution in originalist terms will stop the progressive movement dead in its tracks.
A bit of honesty from your editorial board would put an end to this notion of a "stolen seat" and show the planned filibuster for what it really is.
3
Not sure what the point is. The US Supreme Court has been a partisan tool for as far as I can remember. Whenever you can predict with extremely high probability the way a particular justice is going to vote on, and this is important, controversial issues that divide the nation based on said justice political ideology, you know that the US Supreme Court is nothing but a super legislature of 9. If the rulings of the US Supreme court during the last 10 years look libertarian is because there are 4 strongly conservative justices, 4 strongly liberal justices and 1 libertarian sitting in the US Supreme Court. Thus, the many 5-4 decisions with a libertarian bent -conservative on the economic issues, liberal on the social issues. I don't buy the argument that a high percentage of decisions are unanimous. Said decisions are not the ones that divide the nation.
The only novelty that I see with Neil Gorsuch, and Garland, is that conservatives have finally learned to play the game liberals have been playing since the Bork days. Of course, liberals don't like this, but I think it is a more honest way of thinking about US Supreme Court nominees. Unilaterally disarming is never a good idea and yet that is what conservatives had been doing until last year.
I know nobody -left or right- who believes the mantra that the US Supreme Court interprets the law anymore.
The only novelty that I see with Neil Gorsuch, and Garland, is that conservatives have finally learned to play the game liberals have been playing since the Bork days. Of course, liberals don't like this, but I think it is a more honest way of thinking about US Supreme Court nominees. Unilaterally disarming is never a good idea and yet that is what conservatives had been doing until last year.
I know nobody -left or right- who believes the mantra that the US Supreme Court interprets the law anymore.
14
Unilaterally disarming? Really?? That you equate the Bork episode with what was done to Judge Garland tells us more about your inability to see nuance than your ability to comment insightfully. The outcome of that, Judge Kennedy, shows a profound difference between Ronald Reagan (still no saint in my eyes) and Trump. Reagan followed up with a reliably conservative, but thoughtful, voice who actually tries to "call balls and strikes" instead of what we seem to be facing now, an ideologue with an agenda.
Mitch McConnell has no signature pieces of legislation to his name, because he has no skills in legislating. He can obstruct, destroy norms of behavior, and undermine people...that is what he came to Washington to do not to write laws. Thus, we should name the elimination of filibuster after him...it would be a crowning achievement for all of the things he has done to make American citizens lives worse. The United States will be a better place when he has left government.
121
Yes, but McConnell is the closest thing to an offended turtle we've had in the senate since forever. He's on the lookout for ways to continue his campaign of GOP first, last and always while sacrificing the good of all Americans in its pursuit. He tries to be peacock but the one occupying the White House now will outshine even the swiftest turtle and McConnell is far from swift at anything.
5
One of the biggest ironies here is that Mitch McConnell is the only man in history who has ever filibustered his own bill.
A filibuster, even if McConnell changes the rule, is the right thing to do. He will change it anyway, so there is no reason to wait. It also will expose this incredibly corrupt and anti-democratic individual for what he is: a very small-minded partisan. The Senate and SCOTUS had its problems under FDR and others, but McConnell's tenure represents the most egregiously undemocratic and partisan time in US modern history. It is unclear whether the country can even survive the GOP and this President, but history will not be kind to this political hack.
3
What about the unprecedented nature of giving a Supreme Court seat to a president who is currently under investigation by the FBI for possibly colluding with Russia to subvert our election and steal the presidency. It makes no sense to apply bipartisanship to someone nominated under these circumstances.
In the end, does it really matter if the Democrats filibuster Gorsuch or wait the filibuster the next Trump appointment, if there is one? Either way, McConnell will "go nuclear" so they might as well get this bit of political theater and posturing out of the way.
I think that the Democrats playing to the base (including me) will serve them well in the 2018 midterms.
I think that the Democrats playing to the base (including me) will serve them well in the 2018 midterms.
3
The partisan fighting in Congress is not a reflection of Judge Gorsuch's clear qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. It is a reflection of the paralysis of our federal government to work together to get anything done at all. Both Dems and Repubs are to blame. The elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees is a natural progression of the deterioration of Congress to function properly. No one should be surprised by this.
1
Somehow you guys have come to believe there is no reason other partisanship to oppose Gorsuch.
But many of his decisions have been highly questionable, and much of his writing gives the lie to his faux "originalist" stage persona.
You can think this is all a Democrat shadow play, if you like, but that says to me you haven't been paying attention. The man is a tool of the rich and the corporate who happily warps the Constitution whenever it suits him to do so.
But many of his decisions have been highly questionable, and much of his writing gives the lie to his faux "originalist" stage persona.
You can think this is all a Democrat shadow play, if you like, but that says to me you haven't been paying attention. The man is a tool of the rich and the corporate who happily warps the Constitution whenever it suits him to do so.
Gorsuch is bad enough, and will probably be seated, but the much worse outcome is when it's a 6-3 hyper conservative majority, which is likely in the next four years. Then, democracy is over and Americans will be pummeled with the bible replacing the constitution, elimination of voting rights and civil rights, and complete control of government by corporations, and continual violence in the streets, but the GOP now controls the military. This is long term and potentially catastrophic for the county and the world - think WWIII aided and abetted by SCOTUS. Groups like ACLU and others defending the rights of the Middle Class and poor will never even take a case to the Supreme Court. This has been the GOP plan all along, just read the Republican Platform. Good luck in Trump Nation getting good paying jobs back. Imagine $2.00 per hour minimum wage. All these things are coming with the most conservative court in American history. Thanks angry white voters.
McConnell (and others) was inherently wrong to block virtually nearly everything Obama-ish in his all-consuming effort to make Obama a "one term president", which, in turn, led to doing away with the filibuster for lower court appointments. He (and the usuals), against all precedent, was also wrong in denying even a consideration to Judge Garland. And he will be wrong in applying the "nuclear option". McConnell is old enough to comprehend that where this all ends up is not good either for the Senate as an institution or for the nation at large.
It's time for adults to meet and reestablish order, part of which involves getting impartiality into Supreme Court picks. Another and related part is to establish rules (e.g. a ten-year contract?) for the conduct of business that apply to all and are inviolate.
As a guideline and for example, I suggest that Supreme Court nominees, selections, and the SC itself should at a minimum have the appearance of apolitical-ness. By that I mean they should look like "umpires", all of whom judge by the same set of rules, not by different sets determined on the basis of party. It looks like it's time for a do over.
But, then, one could more realistically argue that we've crossed the Rubicon.
It's time for adults to meet and reestablish order, part of which involves getting impartiality into Supreme Court picks. Another and related part is to establish rules (e.g. a ten-year contract?) for the conduct of business that apply to all and are inviolate.
As a guideline and for example, I suggest that Supreme Court nominees, selections, and the SC itself should at a minimum have the appearance of apolitical-ness. By that I mean they should look like "umpires", all of whom judge by the same set of rules, not by different sets determined on the basis of party. It looks like it's time for a do over.
But, then, one could more realistically argue that we've crossed the Rubicon.
2
High time you hung these huge infractions on McConnell,
editors.
His has been a life of disservce to his country.
editors.
His has been a life of disservce to his country.
3
And just who are these few Republicans you're thinking of you suggest might join Democrats in opposing another Trump nominee? When you find the rock they are hiding under please let us know.
5
This consideration of politicization of the Supreme Court omits possibly the most important factor: performance of the Justices once they make it on to the Court. The "swing justice" at least for the past 30 years always has been one of the nominees of a Republican president, such as Kennedy and before him, Sandra Day O'Connor. The justices who migrate to the other ideological bloc on the Court are the nominees of Republican presidents, such as John Paul Stevens and David Souter. By contrast, there are no Democratic-appointed Souters. No Democratic-appointed "swing justices." At least since Byron White left the Court, the Democratic-appointed justices know exactly why they're there. They never break ranks on the big, defining issues such as racially discriminatory "affirmative action." In the face of this reality, Republicans finally wised-up and started exercising some quality control over their nominees. For decades one side knew exactly what it was doing while the other side blundered along. Until it finally got smart. There's no "partisanship" when one side habitually lets itself get steamrolled. When it finally starts asserting the interests and values of its supporters, I suppose that sets up "partisanship." Better late than never. No more Souters.
4
Republicans "wised up" are bringing a bumper of a headache to this country. Citizens United has opened the flood gates and your voice is nothing compared to fellows like Charles Koch, Adelsen and Robert Mercer. Get ready for another Great Recession and blind populist back lash.
The Democrats need to force the Republicans into the 'Nuclear Option'. The Republicans have no shame and the Democrats need to send the message that this seat was stolen. It doesn't pay to keep the filibuster in play for the next nomination. The Republicans will do anything to get through any conservative nominee and would have invoked nuclear option on any subsequent conservative nominee.
3
Partisanship is at an all-time high. Why, for example, did Susan Rice unmask the identities of people in the Trump campaign, then flat out deny that she did it two weeks ago on PBS? I know she meant well, but contradicting herself on national television only provides fodder for Republicans intent on proving that she leaked the information for purely political reasons.
Let's hope she reveals the smoking gun of Russian election involvement when questioned by Congress. It would also be good to explain which other Obama officials were involved, and what their undoubtedly wholesome intent was.
This optics on this one are just terrible.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-04/wsj-least-one-more-previously-u...
Let's hope she reveals the smoking gun of Russian election involvement when questioned by Congress. It would also be good to explain which other Obama officials were involved, and what their undoubtedly wholesome intent was.
This optics on this one are just terrible.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-04/wsj-least-one-more-previously-u...
2
Gorsuch was nominated by a man who lost the popular vote, may have criminally colluded with our enemy, Russia, and is as unpopular as any President ever. The right thing to do is put off any major votes on ANYTHING until a redo ally competent Russia probe is completed and the facts released. Since that ain't happening, by all means filibuster. It will make it that much easier when Trump goes to prison and the balance of power shifts to confirm, say, Chief Justice Obama, by 51 votes, screwing Mitch McConnell who deserves it.
The nomination of Supreme Court justices should not incite such fear and loathing. The authors of the U.S. Constitution and the delegates who signed it would be appalled to learn that today we permit nine unelected black-robe partisan to determine constitutional rights by a five-to-four vote. They would be equally horrified by the assertion that the Constitution requires “interpretation.” The founders expected us to settle constitutional issues by passing new amendments or convening new constitutional conventions. Instead, we engage in idiotic arguments over what the Constitution says or doesn’t say. (It says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. It’s mute on most issues because these issues weren’t issues in 1787.) As things stand now, American’s rights and liberties constitutional rights hinge on Supreme Court mortality rates—who dies next, a liberal or conservative judge? We should be holding periodic constitution conventions to settle constitutional issues.
3
As an octogenarian, I have witnessed many swings in the saying "what goes around, comes around." I hope the democrats do filibuster the nomination to stack the Supreme Court and that McConnell opts to use the nuclear option. Then let the chips fall where they may. Again, what goes around, comes around.
In my years I have truly witnessed two most evil men: Gingrich and McConnell. The one for shutting the government down and the other for rank hypocrisy.
In my years I have truly witnessed two most evil men: Gingrich and McConnell. The one for shutting the government down and the other for rank hypocrisy.
3
"Some of the blame rests with Democrats." Some of the blame? Put donkey ears on that sentence. No need to remind the editorial board about FDR's packing of Supreme Court. This court has always been a political stage.
7
Seriously? Complaining about the partisanship of Mitch McConnell? He's a puppy dog compared to Harry Reid. What a farce.
The Fillibuster is there to protect the country from rampant extremism. A once deliberative body made up is Statesmen that allowed an UN-elected Gerald R. Ford to replace the Liberal Lion of the court, William O. Douglas, when the Democrats had a commanding hold on the Senate 68-32 seats. The nomination of John Paul Stevens was presented to the Senate in early December 1975 and confirmed by the whole Senate in late December. Never in the history of the Senate has the Majority restricted debate prior to commencing debate...never. Mitch McConnell abusive use of the Majority is the very concern the founders had and is expressly written in the Federalist Papers in discussing the concern of the tyranny of the Majority. Without the Filibuster extremism and tyranny will replace what was once an honored and sacred representation of democracy in action. Unfortunately, my thirty something age children have never seen this great body perform the work of its long heritage which is building consensus among Statement by perfecting the art of politics, compromise. Why are we at this point in our history? Where have all the Statemen gone?
3
Garland was left to twist in the wind, nominated by a lame duck President in the midst of an election. He deserved no consideration. The open seat was litigated on November 8. Trump won . Hello? Elections have consequences. Now the ball is in the democrat Court. Gorsuch will be confirmed after cloture or before cloture. I hope democrats follow the Schumer down the rabbit hole. Fillibusters are not in the constitution. It is an arcane Senate rule. Majority should rule. Democrats can thank Biden and Schumer for this result. Their chickens have come home to roost.
3
If Garland's nomination was put forth in "the midst of an election" by a lame duck president. let the Congress pass a law to tthe effect no other lame duck presidents nominations can be voted on. As filibusters are not in the Constitution, neither is not voting on a lame duck presidents nomination to the Supreme Court.
Elections absolutely count and do have consequences. What goes around, comes around. There may be more than 2 down that "rabbit hole".
Elections absolutely count and do have consequences. What goes around, comes around. There may be more than 2 down that "rabbit hole".
McConnell has shown that the threat of filibuster is no threat at all.
Saving it for the more horrendous choices to come is an empty gesture.
Gorsuch is the nominee of a corrupt President. That this corrupt President was even presented with this opportunity is the result of impropriety by McConnell and the Senate Republicans.
Forcing McConnell to reveal his disdain for bipartisanship now at least will make a statement about the corruption that has allowed this choice.
PS. Hey Republicans, what goes around, come around.
Saving it for the more horrendous choices to come is an empty gesture.
Gorsuch is the nominee of a corrupt President. That this corrupt President was even presented with this opportunity is the result of impropriety by McConnell and the Senate Republicans.
Forcing McConnell to reveal his disdain for bipartisanship now at least will make a statement about the corruption that has allowed this choice.
PS. Hey Republicans, what goes around, come around.
2
This editorial seems to discount the possibility that 3 Republican Senators will refuse to vote for eliminating the filibuster.
If, in fact, every last Republican senator will vote to change the rules then bring it on.
Americans deserve to know who their elected representatives really are.
The current situation demands that the seat be kept vacant, simply because filling it rewards the theft of a Supreme Court seat. The legitimacy of the Court, and our faith in the rule of law, simply can not survive the theft of a Supreme Court seat. Democrats must not be complicit in the delegitimization of American law.
McConnell should have anticipated that, and I hope 3 Republican senators still care enough about our nation's legitimacy that they will allow the Democrats to protect it.
If, in fact, every last Republican senator will vote to change the rules then bring it on.
Americans deserve to know who their elected representatives really are.
The current situation demands that the seat be kept vacant, simply because filling it rewards the theft of a Supreme Court seat. The legitimacy of the Court, and our faith in the rule of law, simply can not survive the theft of a Supreme Court seat. Democrats must not be complicit in the delegitimization of American law.
McConnell should have anticipated that, and I hope 3 Republican senators still care enough about our nation's legitimacy that they will allow the Democrats to protect it.
2
The Democrats should filibuster now. There's an important psychological advantage in showing voters that they have guts at this time, in preparation for the midterms in a year and a half, as well as the psychological boost for themselves in getting a "win" in losing the Gorsuch nomination, that is, in forcing McConnell to play his hand now in front of the nation. Besides, if Trump goes crazier and nominates Attila the Hun next time around, there is also an increased probability we will all be living in a genuine nuclear wasteland by then, so it may not make any difference. If Trump remains even remotely rational, why would he nominate someone so heinous next time that McConnell wouldn't be able to get the votes to go nuclear then? Your argument is based on the product of a number of unknown, but likely low, probabilities that would result in little reason not to go ahead and just filibuster now.
“… and it may, in the end, fall to the court itself to find a way to rise above the steadily encroaching tide of factionalism.”
So … there will be some future Supreme Court decision that will help solve this partisanship dilemma? By some justices discovering the personal courage to do so? So the court can again be “fairly” stacked with partisan judges? What, exactly, is your plan?
“… and it may, in the end, fall to the court itself to find a way to rise above the steadily encroaching tide of factionalism.”
So … there will be some future Supreme Court decision that will help solve this partisanship dilemma? By some justices discovering the personal courage to do so? So the court can again be “fairly” stacked with partisan judges? What, exactly, is your plan?
1
The issue isn't the fillibuster. The issue is that the Democrats are clinging to the idea that their opponents care about playing according to the rules. The institution is already destroyed. The only political power the majority of Americans have anymore is in the streets. Democratic Senators should join us there instead of playing political theatrical shows in Washington
1
The American people should demand that Merrick Garland be confirmed and that Neil Gorsuch fill the first seat that becomes available in the Trump term. Both are good candidates.
The Garland theft is one of the most atrocious acts in congressional history. And, once again, the Republicans move the bar even lower and the country will be worse off for it.
The Garland theft is one of the most atrocious acts in congressional history. And, once again, the Republicans move the bar even lower and the country will be worse off for it.
1
"— and it may, in the end, fall to the court itself to find a way to rise above the steadily encroaching tide of factionalism."
Really? With John Roberts, the greatest and most unabashed ideologue of them all, leading it? Roberts, the man who steamrolls over the very idea of stare decisis? The chief justice who pronounced his respect for precedents and then set about demolishing them, that's who we should count on?
Let's not hold our breath.
Really? With John Roberts, the greatest and most unabashed ideologue of them all, leading it? Roberts, the man who steamrolls over the very idea of stare decisis? The chief justice who pronounced his respect for precedents and then set about demolishing them, that's who we should count on?
Let's not hold our breath.
The court has long been political animals. Why should the legislative process pretend otherwise?
Justice Scalia has provided numerous ranting dissents that would be more at home on right wing talk radio, than a courtroom. Justice Clarence Thomas has done little to downplay his contempt for American blacks who haven't done as well as he has. Justice Ginsberg is an outspoken liberal beacon. Justice Sotomayor has pursued lucrative appearances on the memoir circuit, and the fame of appearing on Sesame Street. Justice Kennedy makes not secret of his vision of being a decisive history maker on gay rights.
Justice Scalia has provided numerous ranting dissents that would be more at home on right wing talk radio, than a courtroom. Justice Clarence Thomas has done little to downplay his contempt for American blacks who haven't done as well as he has. Justice Ginsberg is an outspoken liberal beacon. Justice Sotomayor has pursued lucrative appearances on the memoir circuit, and the fame of appearing on Sesame Street. Justice Kennedy makes not secret of his vision of being a decisive history maker on gay rights.
2
The time of "responsible stewards of republican traditions and ideals," ended many years ago. The Senate is a mess, the House is a mess and the Court system is a mess. What difference does it make if the filibuster is not saved? The editorial states losing the filibuster will not be available for the next nominee who may be objectionable to some Republicans as well as Democrats. Really? Does the editorial board believe that there is even one Republican who may object to another deplorable nominee? McConnell and the Republicans have won and and to these people that is all that matters.
Please. If McConnell and the Rs are willing to get rid of the filibuster now, they will be willing to use it for the next nominee. "...another nominee..may be objectionable to a few Republicans?" Yeah, sure, there will be R votes against an R nominee, and I am Marie of Rumania.
Anyway, Gorsuch is objectively despicable.
Anyway, Gorsuch is objectively despicable.
"That leaves it to Democrats to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving. "
NO. That leaves it to the REPUBLICANS to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving. They are the ones threatening to change the rules.
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
NO. If the filibuster isn't a bargaining chip now, why would it be against a renegade justice? This argument simply does not stand up to reason. If there is one thing the Republican Party has demonstrated it is this: It will do ANYTHING to get its way and to thwart Democrats' good-faith efforts to govern.
NO. That leaves it to the REPUBLICANS to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving. They are the ones threatening to change the rules.
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
NO. If the filibuster isn't a bargaining chip now, why would it be against a renegade justice? This argument simply does not stand up to reason. If there is one thing the Republican Party has demonstrated it is this: It will do ANYTHING to get its way and to thwart Democrats' good-faith efforts to govern.
This is ridiculous advice. Gorsuch has to be filibustered, and if the Reps then eliminate the filibuster, that is on them. Hoping without any reason that somehow the Reps will be nicer when the next nomination comes around is craven.
Anyway the filibuster should be eliminated. In the modern age of polarization, it ensures eternal gridlock. And this is not going to get better. So best if the party in power can really move the country in a direction, even if it is the wrong one. They'll have to own what they did, and will face the consequences.
The filibuster was maybe beneficial in past times when most people in Congress were devoted to the common good, but that time has passed and it's not coming back.
Anyway the filibuster should be eliminated. In the modern age of polarization, it ensures eternal gridlock. And this is not going to get better. So best if the party in power can really move the country in a direction, even if it is the wrong one. They'll have to own what they did, and will face the consequences.
The filibuster was maybe beneficial in past times when most people in Congress were devoted to the common good, but that time has passed and it's not coming back.
What? No mention of Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid setting the stage for the so-called "nuclear option" by eliminating the filibuster for other court appointments?
3
He had no choice. McConnell was filibustering everything. He clearly was putting his party over our country.
The weapon is no good if it can't be used. Bring it on. Let McConnell be the one to kill it. He doesn't do anything good for the country.
1
Many argue for majority rule in the senate, but the GOP senators in the majority do not represent a majority of American voters. The numbers expose the
cruel situation. Tyranny of the minority.
Moreover, we now have, for instance, the farce of one Kentucky senator having been elected by fewer voters than a mayor of a large city. His powers are far out of proportion to the numbers.
Bitter irony.
cruel situation. Tyranny of the minority.
Moreover, we now have, for instance, the farce of one Kentucky senator having been elected by fewer voters than a mayor of a large city. His powers are far out of proportion to the numbers.
Bitter irony.
1
I was with the Editorial Board until it went off the rails blaming McConnell. To be sure, he is an obstinate troll. But that seems to be a condition of the leaders of both houses in recent memory. Look no further than the arrogance of Pelosi and Reid when the shoe was on the other foot. Or witness Chuck Schumer chanting dump Trump with his local protesters after the election. Both parties are sickening and neither can claim the high road. And suggesting one is more to blame than the other contributes nothing to fixing the problem.
"The Supreme Court is a partisan tool."
Gee, ya think?
Was the Warren Court partisan?
Was Thurgood Marshal partisan?
Was it partisan when Dems borked Bork?
Was it partisan when Dems slimed Judge Thomas?
Was it partisan when Dems used the "Nuke" option on non-Supreme Court nominees?
Are Ginzburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan partisan?
And is it partisan when Dems, for the first time in US history, filibuster a nominee for no reason other than they don't like the President?
Gee, ya think?
Was the Warren Court partisan?
Was Thurgood Marshal partisan?
Was it partisan when Dems borked Bork?
Was it partisan when Dems slimed Judge Thomas?
Was it partisan when Dems used the "Nuke" option on non-Supreme Court nominees?
Are Ginzburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan partisan?
And is it partisan when Dems, for the first time in US history, filibuster a nominee for no reason other than they don't like the President?
8
Jack
Bork was instrumental in seeking to derail investigations that ultimately led to the departure of the openly criminal Nixon. In doing so, he circumvented regular justice and declared himself a willing political tool.
Apart from that, his decisions were notably radical even by today's standards.
If Borking means declining to confirm an extremist client who has manifest little respect for the law, then yes he was Borked and deservedly so. It's a cause célèbre among you people only because you repeat six times each night that it was so.
Thomas was not slimed, he was investigated. And, I hesitate to point out, he was voted on and confirmed.
If you recall history, which includes everything that happened and not just the good parts, Republicans had withheld consideration of so many Federal court nominations that even conservative justices had declared a legal emergency. So, yes, the Democrats took extreme steps to fill those seats. At least they had the good sense to leave the Supreme Court out of it.
But you're right, who can forgive the behavior of scoundrels like Thurgood Marshal and Earl Warren? I mean, look what they did to our country....
Bork was instrumental in seeking to derail investigations that ultimately led to the departure of the openly criminal Nixon. In doing so, he circumvented regular justice and declared himself a willing political tool.
Apart from that, his decisions were notably radical even by today's standards.
If Borking means declining to confirm an extremist client who has manifest little respect for the law, then yes he was Borked and deservedly so. It's a cause célèbre among you people only because you repeat six times each night that it was so.
Thomas was not slimed, he was investigated. And, I hesitate to point out, he was voted on and confirmed.
If you recall history, which includes everything that happened and not just the good parts, Republicans had withheld consideration of so many Federal court nominations that even conservative justices had declared a legal emergency. So, yes, the Democrats took extreme steps to fill those seats. At least they had the good sense to leave the Supreme Court out of it.
But you're right, who can forgive the behavior of scoundrels like Thurgood Marshal and Earl Warren? I mean, look what they did to our country....
An utterly self-blind article
=
So long as the judiciary makes the final determination on things governmental, overruling the legislature (think Venezuela),and the executive, essential on whim, long winded and eloquent, researched, footnoted and loquacious, but still on whim,
we live in a toy democracy.
A toy democracy, where the courts, via judicial review and judicial dicta - run our country,
and so the fight over the Justices, is the fight over governance,
Why now?
BECAUSE HARRY REID TORE UP THE RULE BOOK that's why, of HIS nuclear option, for non-SCOTUS justices, our side is just playing catch-up, and pay-backs, pay-backs, as the phrase goes, are a bee-yootch
Think back to Bork, created a verb even
=
NYT takes sides of course, no surprise there
Big A (Abortion) for example, judicial imperialism, judicial ukase, judicial usurpation Citizens United, Bush V Gore, we fight over power
Better to undo judicial review, oops, and let the Courts' rulings be advisory
=
The Const means whatever 5/9 Black robes want it to mean, any given Monday; at least when the legislature runs amok it is recoverable in two or four years
Abandon judicial review and the fight goes away
The fight is over power, how can this be a hard concept, absolute power
And oh yeah, the Biden rule and Judge Garland, OMG,
I blame Obama; I am a Trump zealot.
=
So long as the judiciary makes the final determination on things governmental, overruling the legislature (think Venezuela),and the executive, essential on whim, long winded and eloquent, researched, footnoted and loquacious, but still on whim,
we live in a toy democracy.
A toy democracy, where the courts, via judicial review and judicial dicta - run our country,
and so the fight over the Justices, is the fight over governance,
Why now?
BECAUSE HARRY REID TORE UP THE RULE BOOK that's why, of HIS nuclear option, for non-SCOTUS justices, our side is just playing catch-up, and pay-backs, pay-backs, as the phrase goes, are a bee-yootch
Think back to Bork, created a verb even
=
NYT takes sides of course, no surprise there
Big A (Abortion) for example, judicial imperialism, judicial ukase, judicial usurpation Citizens United, Bush V Gore, we fight over power
Better to undo judicial review, oops, and let the Courts' rulings be advisory
=
The Const means whatever 5/9 Black robes want it to mean, any given Monday; at least when the legislature runs amok it is recoverable in two or four years
Abandon judicial review and the fight goes away
The fight is over power, how can this be a hard concept, absolute power
And oh yeah, the Biden rule and Judge Garland, OMG,
I blame Obama; I am a Trump zealot.
"Bush v. Gore"...Ahh, yes. How can anyone forget that travesty where the Supreme Court injected itself and stopped the Florida recount in the 2000 election, thereby awarding the presidency to Bush...I remember that night vividly. I was anxiously watching the election results when I believe it was ABC that announced that Gore had won Florida, thereby giving the election to Al Gore. I was ecstatic...only to have my joy snuffed out a few minutes later when ABC announced that...oops, we spoke too soon -- "Florida is still too close to call". We all know what happened next: 8 miserable years of Bush-Cheney.
Get this guy confirm already.
Dems are uselessly wasting time.
Idiots talking for 8 hours at a time will accomplish nothing.
Dems are uselessly wasting time.
Idiots talking for 8 hours at a time will accomplish nothing.
Many Americans no longer have any faith, respect or confidence in any of the courts regardless of political persuasion! After having been a victim, I sure don't!
Nuff Said...Dennis
Nuff Said...Dennis
1
The people backing Gorsuch want to put themselves above the law by defining the practices of discrimination, exploitation and abuse as decreed by God and a lawful free exercise of religion. They are psychopathological and should be denied.
Who cares? We are quickly slipping into a banana republic.
The smart people are looking for life rafts. America is done.
The smart people are looking for life rafts. America is done.
Oh please. It started with Haynsworth and Carswell. It continued through Bork, Thomas, and Miguel Estrada. Then they (Obama included) attempted to filibuster Alioto. In that time Republicans have never rejected or filibustered a nominee by a Democrat president.
So don't preach to us about using the Supreme Court as a "partisan tool." Does the NYT think everyone has lost their memory?
So don't preach to us about using the Supreme Court as a "partisan tool." Does the NYT think everyone has lost their memory?
4
This is fake news...McConnell was just following the Biden rule set forth in 1992 when he sensed that Clinton would win the Presidency. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
1
I would argue that the results of the 2016 election demonstrate a sizable number of Americans no longer believe we are governed by law but rather by which party is in power. Else, how do we account for overwhelming evangelical support for Trump who clearly violates most Christian standards, but was seen as the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As always, it falls upon the Democrats to "do the right thing, against their own interests, for the good of the nation", while the republicans get away with lying, cheating, voter supression and stealing Supreme Court Seats. I say stand on princliple. Nothing good will come of it either way. We will be stuck with a so called judge who sits in a stollen seat, nominated by a so called president and a rouge republican congress hell bent on undoing any good for that black President. If we can't get rid of the donald's whole illegitimate administration we are doomed.
Why not say it? The Supreme Court Justices are not blind. Justice depends upon the morals of the day, the politicians and their morals, how the public feels about what is being decided, and how much money both sides can spend in the battle to get what they want. In this case the Democrats are willing to filibuster while risking the loss of a filibuster as a weapon in the future. The GOP was perfectly happy to deny Obama's nominee meetings and a hearing because they believe that the seat Scalia occupied is a conservative seat. Will they grant the Democrats the same courtesy when Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down if it occurs during the Trump administration? Of course not.
The Crude Partisan Party should be aware that justice cuts both ways. At some point they are going to push the wrong buttons and the court will rule against them in a possibly united decision. Who will they appeal to then? The seats on the Supreme Court are not territories or owned by any one party or set of beliefs. Clarence Thomas is not a Thurgood Marshall and Marshall's seat was not an African American seat. The seats/nominations should be filled when they are open by lawyers who are well qualified. McConnell and his hacks deprived the American people of a good judge out of their petty prejudicial desire to thwart Obama. In so doing they broke their oath to serve the American people.
The Crude Partisan Party should be aware that justice cuts both ways. At some point they are going to push the wrong buttons and the court will rule against them in a possibly united decision. Who will they appeal to then? The seats on the Supreme Court are not territories or owned by any one party or set of beliefs. Clarence Thomas is not a Thurgood Marshall and Marshall's seat was not an African American seat. The seats/nominations should be filled when they are open by lawyers who are well qualified. McConnell and his hacks deprived the American people of a good judge out of their petty prejudicial desire to thwart Obama. In so doing they broke their oath to serve the American people.
4
The Judges chosen for the Supreme Court really need to reflect the mainstream centrist positions that can satisfy both parties. This is NOT a one party country no matter that the GOP has managed to grab control of Congress for now. (The country, seeing how bad their policies can really be will dump them soon enough). To install a far right"Conservative" Justice that reflects the politics and policy desires of 20% of ONE political party is just WRONG.
3
"Justice that reflects the politics and policy desires of 20% of ONE political party is just WRONG."
Exactly, that is why I opposed Justice Sotomayor.
Exactly, that is why I opposed Justice Sotomayor.
2
She's not THAT far left.
1
Plus she had been appointed to judicial posts by both Clinton and Bush and garnered 68 votes.
1
Of course Mitch McConnell will use the Nuclear option. Remember, it was the Republicans in Congress who have shut down the Government, not once, not twice, but three times. To my knowledge, the Democrats have never voted to close the Government.
Why does anyone think there is a responsible Republican left in Congress.
Their actions speak louder than words.
Disgusting, all of them. And I have no choice but to think it is the Republicans who are "the basket of deplorables" A term I do not even like, but they have shown total disregard for the American people.
Why does anyone think there is a responsible Republican left in Congress.
Their actions speak louder than words.
Disgusting, all of them. And I have no choice but to think it is the Republicans who are "the basket of deplorables" A term I do not even like, but they have shown total disregard for the American people.
2
If the reason for not considering Merrick Garland was that President Obama only had a year to go in his presidency, then I would certainly think that the Trump Administration being under investigation by the FBI for possible collusion with the Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign would certainly be a valid reason and a much stronger one for not considering Trump's nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The current actions of the republicans in Congress have them now being lucky to be elected dog catchers in future elections, and if they decide on the nuclear option to end the filibuster, they will be digging their own future graves.
Instead of lecturing democrats to go along and confirm Trump's judge, we should consider redressing great injustice done to Obama's nominee who was not even allowed hearing for one year. Let there be a third nominee acceptable to both the parties. Judge Gorsuch should withdraw for the sake of his honor and dignity.
It is time for Democrats to stop playing the long suffering wife to an abusive husband. We have endured behavior for the "good of the children" that has enabled the monster to thrive. Now we need to leave them where the Good Lord flang them - out in the rain, cold and alone, to contemplate the mess they have wrought.
1
When the Roberts Court voted for Corporations as personhoods....this was
the lie...yes a Supreme Court deliberate partisan LIE...that spells the end
of the view that laws are for the people ....all the people ...everyone who
is a US Citizen ...not a block of amorphous and secret anomaly as a
CORPUS OF MANY ....as just ONE...
This is the infamy of Citizens United...so when the US Congress has the guts
to overturn this ....secretive manufacturing of the US Congress whose
jobs depend on Citizens United and the wealthiest to pay for puppets who
do their bidding...like DOW now has done for Trump and the rest of the
Trump MESS...then get rid of this ....Unconstitutional Citizens United.
or we are going to die by the hands of the one percent of billionaires
whose greed will land them in jail or hell.
the lie...yes a Supreme Court deliberate partisan LIE...that spells the end
of the view that laws are for the people ....all the people ...everyone who
is a US Citizen ...not a block of amorphous and secret anomaly as a
CORPUS OF MANY ....as just ONE...
This is the infamy of Citizens United...so when the US Congress has the guts
to overturn this ....secretive manufacturing of the US Congress whose
jobs depend on Citizens United and the wealthiest to pay for puppets who
do their bidding...like DOW now has done for Trump and the rest of the
Trump MESS...then get rid of this ....Unconstitutional Citizens United.
or we are going to die by the hands of the one percent of billionaires
whose greed will land them in jail or hell.
Democrats in Congress (and in the nation) must continue to resist the Republicans and Trump at every point. anything they put forth must be resisted. Democrats cannot roll over and play dead like the opossum does. It works for the opossum. I can recall how a possum under attack by my dog Roscoe simply keeled over as if dead and it stopped the attack instantly. If Democrats do that, they'll just be roadkill.
So even if they propose something that you would have otherwise agreed with, because it is being put forth by Trump and Republicans, you MUST resist it? Makes perfect sense...
2
Thanks, Grant. We learned that one from you all when you rejected a recovery bill top heavy with tax cuts just because it was Obama's idea.
Or when you refused an infrastructure bill that now you can't congratulate yourselves enough for considering, also because it was Obama's idea.
Or that time when...
Or when you refused an infrastructure bill that now you can't congratulate yourselves enough for considering, also because it was Obama's idea.
Or that time when...
Long after the U.S. Senate has ceased to be the braking system against wild ideological swings in policy, historians will associate the ruins of this once-great deliberative body with but one self-serving and unpatriotic man; Addison Mitchell McConnell.
I know how the snake Mitch McConnell will go down in the history books. Whenever his name appears, Merrick Garland's will appear in the same sentence, along with the facts of the stolen Supreme Court seat and destruction of the Senate for Republican partisan power. McConnell's racist animosity to our elegant President Barack Obama will never be forgotten. Obama is Jackie Robinson and McConnell is Ben Chapman.
Not one word in this editorial about Harry Reid's role in all of this. Classic NY Times!
4
So Dems should accept Gorsuch so that if Ginsburg dies, GOP will sing kumbaya and nominate a moderate justice? On what planet? These guys make Nixon look like a schoolboy. Wake up, Dems! Your enemy, also the enemy of democracy, is rich, organized and mean as a badger. Put the granola away and start acting like LBJ.
I think the argument is that if, let us say, President Trump nominates Judge Pryor to replace Justice Ginsburg, and there is still a filibuster, they might peel off Republicans in a way not possible with so stellar a candidate as Judge Gorsuch.
Doubt me he's stellar? Note the teflon robe! Nothing sticks!
Doubt me he's stellar? Note the teflon robe! Nothing sticks!
Mitch McConnell is a craven contemptible political hack. Thank you people of Kentucky.
1
"The Senate today gets its seventh chance to correct two offenses against decent governance. The first is the filibuster, once a dubious but rare tactic that has recently been turned into routine obstructionism."
From a NYT editorial, September 15, 1987. Oh, how they forget...
From a NYT editorial, September 15, 1987. Oh, how they forget...
6
The Founders may have warned against factionalism but the Senate now reflects what we have become as a nation. We are a house divided. In the current race in Georgia to fill the Gingrich/Price seat, Democrats energized by Bernie Sanders are coming out and simultaneously acknowledging that in a historically Republican district they've been afraid to admit their party adherence. When people view their political adversaries as enemies--and there is no doubt that scorched earth view was promoted most by Republicans, first with Gingrich, then the Tea Party, and McConnell especially--the country is in self-destruct mode. We don't need Russia. We don't need ISIS. As Walt Kelly's Pogo said it, back in the day, "I have seen the enemy and it is us." I say, Filibuster away.
1
I think is was a great strategy from the GOP when they held off Obama's nominee. If Hillary Clinton would have won she would have appointed a liberal judge. She had a 95% chance of winning according to the NY TIMES. The GOP took the chance that blocking Garland it would have no negative consequences in the election. It worked,Trump appointed a conservative and hopefully will appoint a few more. We should thank Harry Reid who killed the rules. Trump's victory is great for America and his appointments will uphold the law for decades to come.
4
A President Clinton would not have appointed Merrick Garland, who whatever his merits is 64 years old, and would be the third oldest at time of appointment after Hughes (as CJ) and Lurton. She'd have appointed some young liberal appellate judge.
Would Democrats have regarded the seat as stolen?
Would Democrats have regarded the seat as stolen?
1
Because of Mitch "Yertle the Turtle" McConnell, Neil Gorsuch will, despite the fact that he may well be impartial and candid in his decisions, a tainted Justice. But it bothers me that Gorsuch understands and realizes this and yet is all but openly campaigning with banners and bands for the job. This is itself a form of political partisanship.
McConnell is as much responsible for the president now in office as any man. More than ever, this filibuster must go on. The Senate will invoke nuclear war and, with McConnell, Trump, Pence, Bannon & Co. leading the way, this experiment in government will unravel, and soon. But that is just more justification for the Democrats to act.
Mr. Smith, Washington is calling.
McConnell is as much responsible for the president now in office as any man. More than ever, this filibuster must go on. The Senate will invoke nuclear war and, with McConnell, Trump, Pence, Bannon & Co. leading the way, this experiment in government will unravel, and soon. But that is just more justification for the Democrats to act.
Mr. Smith, Washington is calling.
56
Mr. Smith will indeed need to go to Washington as after eight years of Obama, the Democrats have almost no bench. Belief in Obama proved the faith that lost a thousand seats.
1
Supreme court justices are there to apply the constitution and law consistent with it. A non partisan process seeks to fill seats with those who will interpret the Constitutions including its amendments consistent with what those who ratified them most likely understood it too mean.
When judges are selected to interpret the constitution contrary to its originally intended meaning, ideology and partisinism are being introduced.
Judges are there to rule with the Constitution, whether or not it is contrary to what they personally feel is best.
As far as the need for change, our Constitution has changed dramatically though Amendments. Some, have extended the original text, others have superseded it. The original text of the constitution, including the parts that have been overridden by amendments is just over 21,300 characters. The Amendments are just over 14,900 characters.
The Amendment process allows us to Taylor the generally timeless principals to unforeseen changes. Legislation, including changing the meaning of the constitution is NOT the constitutional role of judges.
John
When judges are selected to interpret the constitution contrary to its originally intended meaning, ideology and partisinism are being introduced.
Judges are there to rule with the Constitution, whether or not it is contrary to what they personally feel is best.
As far as the need for change, our Constitution has changed dramatically though Amendments. Some, have extended the original text, others have superseded it. The original text of the constitution, including the parts that have been overridden by amendments is just over 21,300 characters. The Amendments are just over 14,900 characters.
The Amendment process allows us to Taylor the generally timeless principals to unforeseen changes. Legislation, including changing the meaning of the constitution is NOT the constitutional role of judges.
John
1
As long as the GOP is not punished at the ballot box this demise of our liberties and dysfunctional government will continue! If we want change we must get involved in local and national politics ASAP.
Jerry W NYC
Jerry W NYC
2
"For their part, the Republicans, who want to confirm Judge Gorsuch this week, need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. They’re a few votes short..."
Exactly.
So either they need to make a better case or they need to offer a different nominee.
For Republicans to again rely on technical tactics for the sake of gaining a win runs counter to the reasons our founders created the government they did: to avoid giving a simple majority the ability to run roughshod over the nation and its lawmaking process.
Those who invoke Harry Reid should both look more closely at that event, undertaken in response to a years-long campaign by Republicans to deny any court appointees whatsoever to Democrat presidents leaving courts dangerously understaffed even by conservative lights, to McConnell's own unprecedented denial of a hearing to Obama's nomination (In response to snarky comments here, nobody expected Garland to be confirmed. They expected him to have the hearings and vote he had should have been granted. Unlike "only winning counts" Republicans, Democrats were fighting for the process. Sure, they would have liked to win. But they were willing to lose, if they lost fairly.), to the clear intent and the plain statements of the signers who wished to avoid a "tyranny of the majority" at all costs.
Of course, that requires respect for the Constitution which is clearly absent among "originalists" of the Right, and a commitment to serve the nation before their own petty interests.
Exactly.
So either they need to make a better case or they need to offer a different nominee.
For Republicans to again rely on technical tactics for the sake of gaining a win runs counter to the reasons our founders created the government they did: to avoid giving a simple majority the ability to run roughshod over the nation and its lawmaking process.
Those who invoke Harry Reid should both look more closely at that event, undertaken in response to a years-long campaign by Republicans to deny any court appointees whatsoever to Democrat presidents leaving courts dangerously understaffed even by conservative lights, to McConnell's own unprecedented denial of a hearing to Obama's nomination (In response to snarky comments here, nobody expected Garland to be confirmed. They expected him to have the hearings and vote he had should have been granted. Unlike "only winning counts" Republicans, Democrats were fighting for the process. Sure, they would have liked to win. But they were willing to lose, if they lost fairly.), to the clear intent and the plain statements of the signers who wished to avoid a "tyranny of the majority" at all costs.
Of course, that requires respect for the Constitution which is clearly absent among "originalists" of the Right, and a commitment to serve the nation before their own petty interests.
An unlamented farewell to the Filibuster for SCOTUS nominations.
The Left is so intent on denying the eminently qualified Judge Gorsuch a place on the court that any argument, no matter how flawed, is being thrown against the wall to see if it will stick.
What McConnell and his cohorts did to the also eminently qualified Judge Garland was wrong. But so is this.
No matter, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed on Friday, most probably after the demise of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations, and the Republicans will have an easier time the next time when they will be in a position to alter the philosophical direction of the court.
The Left is so intent on denying the eminently qualified Judge Gorsuch a place on the court that any argument, no matter how flawed, is being thrown against the wall to see if it will stick.
What McConnell and his cohorts did to the also eminently qualified Judge Garland was wrong. But so is this.
No matter, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed on Friday, most probably after the demise of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations, and the Republicans will have an easier time the next time when they will be in a position to alter the philosophical direction of the court.
3
@Aunt Nancy. You assume that when "next time" comes, the Republicans will still hold a majority in the Senate and that Trump will still be President. Neither of those assumptions is foregone.
2
Please o please Editorial Board: To filibuster or not to filibuster- isn't the question. A Democratic filibuster isn't going to change the malice of the GOP. As you well know- the party in charge can change *the rules* as often as they wish for what ever reason. Which begs the question- why save the filibuster in this instance when Republicans will change the rules....and if somehow- the F is eliminated- it can always be resurrected by another Congress.
2
Judge Gorsuch's own words, legal analysis, and votes in case after case supply ample reason to oppose his elevation to the Supreme Court court. His radical positions threaten not only freezing truck drivers, disabled children, or women facing discrimination in the work place and assault at home. His views threaten the concept of individual rights for all workers, all children, and all women and also threaten the ability of any federal agency to implement laws passed by Congress. Senator McConnell and most of his Republican colleagues have been paid very well to take total control of the US judiciary and the entire government. Eliminating the Senate filibuster is just another instance of the abuse of power Senator McConnell accepts as his duty to serve those who pay for the positions he and his colleagues take. Senate Democrats may well be helpless in this situation, but they are at least exposing the scope of the problem.
1
Nothing in this country will improve until voters go to the polls in huge numbers and vote against the party that has gerrymandered the nation to its present state of dysfunction. A real over haul will have to wait until after the 2020 census. It's downhill (can't even imagine the damage) until then. If middle class voters don't stop thinking that their vote isn't important it won't make a difference anyway.
1
How do you gerrymander a state? After all, the senate, who will confirm a justice (or not) is based on states, so how exactly is that gerrymandered?
1
The distain Congress is showing for its own institutional norms is now slopping over to the Supreme Court. Congress is giving insufficient care and consideration to the institution that is the Supreme Court. We have 3 branches of government: The Executive, Congress and the Judiciary. The Executive and the legislative branches are regularly at odds in every administration. The role of the courts is to act as referee and to cool the heat of any matter that comes before it. Making the court be a bulwark for either party is to poison the Court and its effectiveness.
Congress should take care not to drag the Court into partisan politics with litmus tests.
The 60 vote standard would seem to insure that a nominee is above partisan politics and has bipartisan support.
Congress should take care not to drag the Court into partisan politics with litmus tests.
The 60 vote standard would seem to insure that a nominee is above partisan politics and has bipartisan support.
The Radical elements in both Parties are slowly but surely destroying a wonderful dream of our Forefathers, a country by the the people & for the people. We have become a Country for the Parties, where the secular progressives & the reactionary theocrats are doing whatever they can to divide us, & make a sham of what we call a Democratic Republic.
2
Please name the radical elements in the Democratic party.
PK,
Lets Start with Keith Ellison, the list is too long to list.
Lets Start with Keith Ellison, the list is too long to list.
2
While the demise of the anti-democratic filibuster is no big deal, the partisanship in government is. I see the future as one where ALL nominees will be confirmed when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by the same party, and NO nominees will be confirmed when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by different parties.
Of course the other issue is that there is no consensus in the US over the role of the courts in interpreting the law. Do the courts interpret the law and Constitution as written, or do they interpret the law to achieve the outcome that they feel is just and right?
Of course the other issue is that there is no consensus in the US over the role of the courts in interpreting the law. Do the courts interpret the law and Constitution as written, or do they interpret the law to achieve the outcome that they feel is just and right?
2
Gorsuch should win the nomination with 90+ votes. He is a qualified candidate for the court. There are only political reasons to vote against him. Garland is over, finished. Stop litigating the past and move on with the business of the country. Keep the filibuster in place to preserve it for an unqualified or highly divisive nominee. Gorsuch taking Scalia seat isn't a proper use of the filibuster for this SCOTUS nomination.
1
Lost in the furor over process is a larger question: Would the Supreme Court be a better Court for having a Justice Gorsuch on it? His opinions over the years show that he is not the man for the job. He favors the rich and powerful over ordinary Americans. He claims to obey "original intent" in formulating his opinions. But that is absurd. The Constitution is interpreted to apply in the modern world in every Court decision. Gorsusch and other originalists are using a fiction to give a gloss of respectability to their personal conservative prejudices. The objective of the Court should be justice, not subjective self-serving notions of history.
Too bad the Senate has turned his nomination in to a political power struggle. A win for the Republicans will be a loss for the rest of us.
Too bad the Senate has turned his nomination in to a political power struggle. A win for the Republicans will be a loss for the rest of us.
1
What is needed is Gorsuch followed by Garland for the next vacancy. Here is the deal, Mr. President, that will neither satisfy nor alienate.
1
The Founders wanted to believe in legislatures as the core institution of governance among free men. The nation began with a Continental Congress. Yet the inefficiencies of that body were clear to those who depended on it. Still, they left it as the sole federal power under the Articles of Confederation. States had governors and courts, the nation had Congress. It didn't work.
So we created a President and federal courts, and more importantly encoded Checks and Balances among the three branches in an unprecedented innovation in governance. That has worked for most of our 225+ years.
Lately we see again the failure of Congress writ large through partisan bickering as though that were its purpose. The evident intention that the Senate be less partisan then the House has failed as 2 parties obstruct each other by any means necessary. Congress can be the wellspring of the peoples' governance, but first the mud wrestling needs to stop.
So we created a President and federal courts, and more importantly encoded Checks and Balances among the three branches in an unprecedented innovation in governance. That has worked for most of our 225+ years.
Lately we see again the failure of Congress writ large through partisan bickering as though that were its purpose. The evident intention that the Senate be less partisan then the House has failed as 2 parties obstruct each other by any means necessary. Congress can be the wellspring of the peoples' governance, but first the mud wrestling needs to stop.
1
Had the people elected Mrs. Clinton, and had she had her own ideas about a Supreme Court nominee, say Judge Goodwin Liu, a far leftist, I wonder if the snowflakes would deem his tenure illegitimate, and his seat stolen?
Didn't think so.
Didn't think so.
2
I've read this argument now in 3 or 4 Times articles now and it isn't correct no matter how many people think there's a "higher ground" to take here.
Right now the democrats are totally powerless on almost every level of government. It makes no sense to go from battle to battle trying to decide which choice the democrats make would be more magnanimous.
This is about winning elections. Nothing else matters. Democrats need to stoke their own fires and that entails standing up at every opportunity to block this menace of a president and train wreck of a congress because if they fail in 2018, what's the point of high ground?
I wish we lived in a time where people respected the other side, discussed with open minds, and informed themselves of current political events. Maybe someday in the future that will be political discourse in America.
But it's not.
Today on April 5th, 2017 there are two political sides and we have to choose one. You're overthinking this one bigly.
Filibuster Gorsuch. End of story.
Right now the democrats are totally powerless on almost every level of government. It makes no sense to go from battle to battle trying to decide which choice the democrats make would be more magnanimous.
This is about winning elections. Nothing else matters. Democrats need to stoke their own fires and that entails standing up at every opportunity to block this menace of a president and train wreck of a congress because if they fail in 2018, what's the point of high ground?
I wish we lived in a time where people respected the other side, discussed with open minds, and informed themselves of current political events. Maybe someday in the future that will be political discourse in America.
But it's not.
Today on April 5th, 2017 there are two political sides and we have to choose one. You're overthinking this one bigly.
Filibuster Gorsuch. End of story.
2
Principles matter. The Dems have to vote against Gorsuch, a Thomas clone who will do damage to human beings, like the truck driver who had to choose between his job and life.
The pharaohs would have been proud of Gorsuch who argued that the man's job/employer came first.
The pharaohs would have been proud of Gorsuch who argued that the man's job/employer came first.
1
this editorial is strangely blind to history. Think back to the origins of the court and the fierce battles during the first three presidents. Then Roosevelt's attempts to pack the court. The modern era began with "Borking" -- as a Democrat I still wince thinking about dumpster diving to find out his tastes in rented videos. And of course Judge Garland got the treatment without even a hearing.
1
When Judge Gorsuch was first nominated and Nancy Pelosi so incompetently and incoherently tried to pull a Ted Kennedy and "Bork" ("if you breath air, drink water, etc.") him, that pretty much painted the picture that any nominee to the right of the wise latina was going to be demonized by Democratic dopes. The game ended then. The rest is just play time.
2
The Constitution specifies that treaty ratification requires a two-thirds majority but that the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees require only a simple majority, “up or down” vote. The filibuster is unconstitutional because it denies presidents the ability to appoint justices as the Constitution intended—with a simple majority. The same applies to other legislation.
Original Senate rules allowed any senator to “move the previous question,” which meant ending debate and proceeding to an up or down vote. But in 1806, Senator Aaron Burr—shortly after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel—argued that the previous-question motion was unnecessary because it was seldom evoked and should be eliminated. The Senate eliminated the rule, but created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate. As a result, we got the filibuster and congressional gridlock. Southern “Dixiecrats popularizes the filibuster to stall or water down civil rights legislation. Today, just the threat of a filibuster is enough to table major legislation. The Senate should kill the filibuster and restore the original rule.
Original Senate rules allowed any senator to “move the previous question,” which meant ending debate and proceeding to an up or down vote. But in 1806, Senator Aaron Burr—shortly after killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel—argued that the previous-question motion was unnecessary because it was seldom evoked and should be eliminated. The Senate eliminated the rule, but created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate. As a result, we got the filibuster and congressional gridlock. Southern “Dixiecrats popularizes the filibuster to stall or water down civil rights legislation. Today, just the threat of a filibuster is enough to table major legislation. The Senate should kill the filibuster and restore the original rule.
4
The way I look at it is: if those who believe in a god who has nothing better to do than snoop around checking who I'm sleeping with, who I vote for, whether I use contraceptives, have had an abortion, have come to understand I was meant to be the opposite sex from whatever I popped out of the womb as ... AND likes hanging around with bigots who raise their hands in self-praise of him because they think they are, literally, holier than thou and me then, let 'im have 'em for all eternity.
As Jesus Christ said [paraphrase]: be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
As Jesus Christ said [paraphrase]: be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
Democrats should filibuster until Garland is given a hearing. Period.
There are nine SC Justices, not three. Trump is replacing a conservative Judge with a much more moderate one, and still they complain.
Obama got his two Liberal Judges, 68 votes, and 63 votes, and still they complain.
Garland was going nowhere, hearing or no hearing, and it wasn't fair for Obama to put the man in that position. The people spoke, and they rejected his candidate.
The Dem Senators in the really safe zones. sound like imbeciles: Warren, Schumer, and the prize goes to Whitehouse.
Grow up, and do your job. Move to next the battle, because there's more than one Justice on deck.
Obama got his two Liberal Judges, 68 votes, and 63 votes, and still they complain.
Garland was going nowhere, hearing or no hearing, and it wasn't fair for Obama to put the man in that position. The people spoke, and they rejected his candidate.
The Dem Senators in the really safe zones. sound like imbeciles: Warren, Schumer, and the prize goes to Whitehouse.
Grow up, and do your job. Move to next the battle, because there's more than one Justice on deck.
2
You are on the fifth grade playground and you and your friends are being bullied by the big kids. You complain to a teacher, and for some reason the teacher says it isn't his problem.
So you have a choice, fight back and get clobbered, or let them "pants" you and your friends. You figure it is better to fight than to feel the humiliation, so you and your friends stop letting them abuse you. They gang up on you and hurt you all.
But in class, later, you and your friends feel differently, you wear smiles through the pain. You work to find better ways to hurt them.
Democrats, you represent the majority of us in the country. I live in Oregon and see that Gorsuch will work to end our Death with Dignity laws. Fight back even if they use the nuclear option. Find other ways to hurt them. Humiliation is its own hell, don't choose to live with Trump's bullies for even one minute...
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
So you have a choice, fight back and get clobbered, or let them "pants" you and your friends. You figure it is better to fight than to feel the humiliation, so you and your friends stop letting them abuse you. They gang up on you and hurt you all.
But in class, later, you and your friends feel differently, you wear smiles through the pain. You work to find better ways to hurt them.
Democrats, you represent the majority of us in the country. I live in Oregon and see that Gorsuch will work to end our Death with Dignity laws. Fight back even if they use the nuclear option. Find other ways to hurt them. Humiliation is its own hell, don't choose to live with Trump's bullies for even one minute...
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
Everyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that if the roles were reversed the Democrats would have done the same thing.
But the most disingenuous part of the NYT editorial is managing to talk about how Senate rules might be changed without even once mentioning Sen. Harry Reid's precedent in 2013. This alone make the NYT's argument completely dishonest and not even worth considering.
But the most disingenuous part of the NYT editorial is managing to talk about how Senate rules might be changed without even once mentioning Sen. Harry Reid's precedent in 2013. This alone make the NYT's argument completely dishonest and not even worth considering.
2
Democrats as usual are not thinking about the bigger picture; the long term effects or the precedent set by a filibuster.
Face the fact that Merrick Garland is off the table. Most of the voting public probably doesn't even know who he is.
Gorsuch is actually a pretty middle of the road pick. The same way Democrats demonized decent candidates like McCain and Romney and then had no ammunition or credibility left to fight Trump. So too, if too much power is squandered on Gorsuch there will be none left for the next likely more conservative choice ahead. Do Democrats really think Trump will leave the seat empty for 4 years if Gorsuch is defeated?
This kind of short term, hysterical all out response is why Democrats have lost so many legislative seats throughout the country over the past decade.
Get smart, pick your battles more carefully please.
Face the fact that Merrick Garland is off the table. Most of the voting public probably doesn't even know who he is.
Gorsuch is actually a pretty middle of the road pick. The same way Democrats demonized decent candidates like McCain and Romney and then had no ammunition or credibility left to fight Trump. So too, if too much power is squandered on Gorsuch there will be none left for the next likely more conservative choice ahead. Do Democrats really think Trump will leave the seat empty for 4 years if Gorsuch is defeated?
This kind of short term, hysterical all out response is why Democrats have lost so many legislative seats throughout the country over the past decade.
Get smart, pick your battles more carefully please.
2
"That leaves it to the Democrats to consider weather the filibuster is worth saving."
Yesterday, I heard Jeffrey Toobin on the Brian Lehrer show argue to this effect: the filibuster is a largely undemocratic, conservative tool. The liberals are acting as if losing the filibuster would be a terrible tragedy when in fact, it was consistently used by the right wing to block the work of Democrats. He pointed to the nature of Democratic bigger-government values, which makes Democrats the ones who try to push for more legislation. Whilst liberals try to do, Conservatives try to block. The filibuster then, is at best, not as valuable to Democrats as Republicans, at worst, obstructionism mostly useful to the greedy right.
I say let them dismantle the filibuster, and the legislative filibuster too. Will it be a chip in the fine china? Maybe. But the dishes are scattered on the floor in bits anyway.
Yesterday, I heard Jeffrey Toobin on the Brian Lehrer show argue to this effect: the filibuster is a largely undemocratic, conservative tool. The liberals are acting as if losing the filibuster would be a terrible tragedy when in fact, it was consistently used by the right wing to block the work of Democrats. He pointed to the nature of Democratic bigger-government values, which makes Democrats the ones who try to push for more legislation. Whilst liberals try to do, Conservatives try to block. The filibuster then, is at best, not as valuable to Democrats as Republicans, at worst, obstructionism mostly useful to the greedy right.
I say let them dismantle the filibuster, and the legislative filibuster too. Will it be a chip in the fine china? Maybe. But the dishes are scattered on the floor in bits anyway.
1
Thanks, but.... You wrote: "What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
Sorry, but that is a myth you should no longer perpetuate.
I recommend that the NY Times start naming all judges and Justices on decisions followed by identification of the party that nominated them e.g. (R*, D*, or I*).
By continuing to not give your readers this information is to keep them in the dark.
The Washington Post now has on its masthead "Democracy Dies In Darkness".
Sorry, but that is a myth you should no longer perpetuate.
I recommend that the NY Times start naming all judges and Justices on decisions followed by identification of the party that nominated them e.g. (R*, D*, or I*).
By continuing to not give your readers this information is to keep them in the dark.
The Washington Post now has on its masthead "Democracy Dies In Darkness".
Good grief, spare us the Garland hypocrisy. Joe Biden in 1992, head of the Judiciary Committee, on Supreme Court nominations in a presidential election year:
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” he said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” he said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
It all comes down to an overwhelming lack of trust. After the Garland fiasco the Democrats can't trust the Republicans. Its not just won't, which would be bad enough, but can't. Winning the election by hook or crook, quite possibly both, they have clearly sacrificed all in their lust for power. Electing an unqualified fool for a president wasn't enough. They have to cheapen the courts too. McConnell is a disgrace. The country doesn't matter at all, only partisan politics does.
He was willing to destroy the country in order to save it. It was a bad idea then, it is so now.
The Republicans cheapen everything they touch.Their ideas extend only to enriching their donors and not beyond. Negative, destructive, backward looking, everything bad they love.
What happened to forward looking, optimistic, innovative decent, civil society? Which at least we tried for.
All that is considered un-American, subversive,liberal, pro-Islamic.
dangerous.
Trump will deliver us. God, guns, guts, and Trump will prevail.
Personally, I'm more sad than angry. I'm older and don't have to put up with a lot more.
To my daughter I can only say I'm sorry to have gotten you into this mess.
He was willing to destroy the country in order to save it. It was a bad idea then, it is so now.
The Republicans cheapen everything they touch.Their ideas extend only to enriching their donors and not beyond. Negative, destructive, backward looking, everything bad they love.
What happened to forward looking, optimistic, innovative decent, civil society? Which at least we tried for.
All that is considered un-American, subversive,liberal, pro-Islamic.
dangerous.
Trump will deliver us. God, guns, guts, and Trump will prevail.
Personally, I'm more sad than angry. I'm older and don't have to put up with a lot more.
To my daughter I can only say I'm sorry to have gotten you into this mess.
Funny thing. Liberals never minded politicized courts so long as they got their way in judicial decisions. It was the liberals and their partisan Justices who somehow found that a right to privacy includes infanticide, something that could never be achieved legislatively. Now we have partisan judges declaring proper immigration enforcement to be somehow "unconstitutional" while remaining silent regarding the laws that provide this enforcement power . Clearly a political, not an objective, assertion of judicial activism. Now that they have cratered in an election their hubris still cannot fathom and face the prospect of becoming a poor man's socialist workers party, they suddenly decry politicized courts. Gee, that's too bad. And at the same time, so delicious is the irony, our only concern is whether this sweet outcome causes cavities.
1
Once the Senate Democrats used their majority to amend the rules to strip the filibuster as to some appointments, their decision to leave it in place for Supreme Court nominees was either a fig leaf that was eventually going to be removed, or an express agreement that a Supreme Court nominee was to be treated differently. This should be the turning point. No majority lasts forever. McConnell knows that. Let's see who blinks first.
The #1 reason for the partisanship of the Court is abortion. At least, that is the reigning sentiment around rural piece of hyper-paranoid fly-over. I know so many loyal evangelicals around here who voted for Trump because of the singular reason that they wanted another Supreme Court justice who would vote to overturn, or at least severely limit the effects of the long-standing Roe vs. Wade decision.
They knew he was an amoral, unqualified jerk but that was unimportant in comparison to the possibility of eliminating this "work of the devil". After all, he wasn't really their choice but rather "God's choice". Argh!
They knew he was an amoral, unqualified jerk but that was unimportant in comparison to the possibility of eliminating this "work of the devil". After all, he wasn't really their choice but rather "God's choice". Argh!
This editorial fails to mention the important part of the story...does anyone out there believe for one second that the Democrats wouldn't have done the exact same thing if the roles were reversed? They would have blocked any nominee during an election year. No question.
The Supreme Court is the most important part of electing any President, and the DNC treated the topic as a throw away...I would wager the high majority of Americans couldn't tell you how many members make up the court.
The Supreme Court is the most important part of electing any President, and the DNC treated the topic as a throw away...I would wager the high majority of Americans couldn't tell you how many members make up the court.
2
And so, Dear Editor, you believe the filibuster should be preserved in the event of a "renegade justice." You have much greater faith than I have, that the GOP will care. They tend to live in Opposite World, where they automatically take a contrary position to that of the Democrats (or anything connected to President Obama), even if it undermines our traditions, our institutions, the good of the country over party. A non partisan court? That horse has already left the barn.
1
What would Mitch McConnell do if the situation was reversed? We already watched him spitefully steal this nomination and many others from a sitting president. We watched him set filibuster records to obstruct and spite that same president. This is what caused "going nuclear" to become a thing in the first place.
Do as Mitch would do. The only option is to fight back and not let your party get steamrolled by these power-hungry hypocrites. If he does go nuclear for the SC then it's on him. When the pendulum swings back left with the sociopaths on the right standing there naked and powerless, then Dems can throw the gavel down. Mitch has brought us to this destructive point of no return. Might as well play ball.
Do as Mitch would do. The only option is to fight back and not let your party get steamrolled by these power-hungry hypocrites. If he does go nuclear for the SC then it's on him. When the pendulum swings back left with the sociopaths on the right standing there naked and powerless, then Dems can throw the gavel down. Mitch has brought us to this destructive point of no return. Might as well play ball.
2
If the goal or justification for the 60 vote rule for judicial appointments was to ensure "bipartisan" or "centrist" nominations, it has obviously failed already.
So, hasta la vista.
So, hasta la vista.
Mitch McConnell and the rest if the Republican Party want to make sure Citizens United case doesn't get overturned. He is why we need term limits in Congress. Voters of Kentucky, why do you keep electing him? He is toxic to put country
Of course you fault Republicans Bork got a vote? Yes, after Ted Kennedy said the following: "Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government." Bork would have been treated better if he had been a passenger in Ted's car.
More importantly, McConnell is simply practicing the Biden rule regarding nominees at the end of a presidential term. Please share your criticism of big Joe B when he said he would not confirm a Republican judge during Bush's term.
Finally, Republicans confirmed Obama's two leftist (and in the case of Sotomayor, racist) nominees. How about the Dems give Trump 2 picks before they have a hissy fit?
More importantly, McConnell is simply practicing the Biden rule regarding nominees at the end of a presidential term. Please share your criticism of big Joe B when he said he would not confirm a Republican judge during Bush's term.
Finally, Republicans confirmed Obama's two leftist (and in the case of Sotomayor, racist) nominees. How about the Dems give Trump 2 picks before they have a hissy fit?
1
Get rid of the filibuster rule.
In recent years, we've seen it used automatically by Republicans, such that anything Democrats wanted to do required 60 votes.
Yet when Democrats use it, the get admonishments like this one, suggesting they should never use it because they might "force" Republicans to eliminate it entirely.
With an assist from "responsible" news outlets, the filibuster has become, in effect, a tool available only to Republicans --a minority of voters that somehow continues to operate as a majority. Get rid of it.
In recent years, we've seen it used automatically by Republicans, such that anything Democrats wanted to do required 60 votes.
Yet when Democrats use it, the get admonishments like this one, suggesting they should never use it because they might "force" Republicans to eliminate it entirely.
With an assist from "responsible" news outlets, the filibuster has become, in effect, a tool available only to Republicans --a minority of voters that somehow continues to operate as a majority. Get rid of it.
1
I think the whole over-blown "Federalist Society" of lawyers are dyslexics who get everything backwards.
The Congress has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and none of the powers reserved by the people are listed. If you want your reserved powers respected, you want "Federalist Society" judges like you want more holes in your heads.
The Congress has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and none of the powers reserved by the people are listed. If you want your reserved powers respected, you want "Federalist Society" judges like you want more holes in your heads.
First, to blame McConnell rather than realize that both sides go back and forth with partisan warfare is as partisan as anything the editorial complains about. He did what Dem. leaders said they were going to do during Bush's last term. But, you can go back to ancient times. People like to blame the other side for almost all woes and if they feel they must take some blame, it is always because the other side started it.
And . . . we should get rid of the filibuster for nominations. There is no bigger waste of time and money than these stupid . . . and they are stupid, fights.
And . . . we should get rid of the filibuster for nominations. There is no bigger waste of time and money than these stupid . . . and they are stupid, fights.
1
What Sen. McConnell has done to the Senate and to American government is unforgivable. This individual obstructed the twice elected president for eight years--from Inauguration night making his infamous vow to obstruct every single policy sight unseen to the end of his presidency. This treatment of the first black president had the taint of racism. It was irrational, and Pres. Obama made sincere efforts early in his office to work with Republicans only to constantly be rebuffed including his invitations to the White House. The culmination of this disrespect and attempt to nullify his elections was the unconstitutional refusal to bring his Supreme. Ours nominee -- the highly respected and eminent Merrick Garland-- to any consideration for almost a year.
McConnell completely abused his power and betrayed the American people, disenfranchise their votes. He silenced Sen. Warren when she tried to quote a Civil Rights leader, a sexist and racist action McConnell had never done to a male senator. Now McConnell's wife serves on Trump's Cabinet. McConnell should recuse himself due to conflicts of interest. Trump will no longer have Supreme Court nominees rated by the American Bar Association. Republican tyranny has borne its fruit.
McConnell has exhibited racism, sexism and extreme partisanship. He betrayed his country. Trump is one outcome. And McConnell has broken the venerable United States Senate. He belongs in a Hall of Shame.
McConnell completely abused his power and betrayed the American people, disenfranchise their votes. He silenced Sen. Warren when she tried to quote a Civil Rights leader, a sexist and racist action McConnell had never done to a male senator. Now McConnell's wife serves on Trump's Cabinet. McConnell should recuse himself due to conflicts of interest. Trump will no longer have Supreme Court nominees rated by the American Bar Association. Republican tyranny has borne its fruit.
McConnell has exhibited racism, sexism and extreme partisanship. He betrayed his country. Trump is one outcome. And McConnell has broken the venerable United States Senate. He belongs in a Hall of Shame.
3
The core issue with the Supreme Court is that the far right must use the court to advance laws they cannot enact through normal legislation. The complete fecklessness of the contemporary Congress is a reflection of the tension between what voters want and what major campaign contributors demand. On issue after issue overwhelming popular opinion is against the conservative agenda. So secretive political action groups stand up straw men to advance cases to the supreme court where law may be made from the bench.
Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If they wanted to say outlaw abortion, they could develop legislation and enact it. They cant or wont because they know it would get them crushed at the ballot box.
Instead they keep appointing more and more conservative justices in the vain hope that someday Roe v. Wade will fall. Meanwhile, while Christian conservatives wait for this to pass, the SCOTUS has handed down Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, Heller, et.al. and a whole wish list of conservative priorities that Republicans in Congress know they could never garner enough votes to pass.
Disfunction in Congress has become a feature, not a bug. There is broad consensus that we as a nation need to act on changing climate, gun violence, income inequality and more. To do so would be impactful on the fortunes of Americas wealthiest and most politically connected persons. And so we get a legislature that outsources their primary duty to the court.
Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If they wanted to say outlaw abortion, they could develop legislation and enact it. They cant or wont because they know it would get them crushed at the ballot box.
Instead they keep appointing more and more conservative justices in the vain hope that someday Roe v. Wade will fall. Meanwhile, while Christian conservatives wait for this to pass, the SCOTUS has handed down Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, Heller, et.al. and a whole wish list of conservative priorities that Republicans in Congress know they could never garner enough votes to pass.
Disfunction in Congress has become a feature, not a bug. There is broad consensus that we as a nation need to act on changing climate, gun violence, income inequality and more. To do so would be impactful on the fortunes of Americas wealthiest and most politically connected persons. And so we get a legislature that outsources their primary duty to the court.
Like so many other American political traditions the filibuster has been twisted and abused until it is unrecognizable. I personally do not believe that representatives of either party should be able to "phone in" a filibuster. If members of either party want to filibuster they should don a pair of adult diapers, stand up on the floor of the House or the Senate and talk untill they drop. Be like Jimmy Stewart in "Mister Smith Goes to Washington" or just forget the whole thing. Go big or go home.
This whole mess was started by Grassley and McConnell. Not giving Garland an opportunity and he would have made a fine judge, he would have won Republican support. Rs played politics, they broke it. They want to break it again, let them. Two old guys destroyed the system, both will be dead, senile, or wearing diapers in five years
Sad and frustrating days accumulate in DC as the Republican power swagger continues in both the House and Senate. Mitch McConnell is at the heart of this issue in the Senate. His hatred for Barack Obama trumped everything including the Constitution and the American people. Gorsuch will most likely take his seat on the court. I believe he was chosen--probably by Bannon--to achieve some specific goals over the next few years. I salute the Democratic Senators who have spoken up against this nominee. In reality, we shouldn't be voting and confirming anyone or anything in Trump's agenda until we find out if he is really the president.
The media loves to paint everything as democrats vrs republicans. Their labeling red/blue states has caused unnecessary division in America.
What about America first? What about the fact that every single person elected pledges to uphold the United States Constitution? Unfortunately these things seem to have gotten lost - all to further enrich the Top 1% Global Financial Elite/ Radical Religion mafia-style Good Old Boys' Party/ Corporate Cabal who have bought OUR government at all levels.
They have no social conscience and want to destroy democracies around the world while they expect US - WE THE GOOD TAXPAYING PEOPLE OF AMERICA - to pay for it with OUR money and children/grandchildren's lives.
The article says, "That leaves it to Democrats to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving." NO. That leaves it to every lawmaker of every persuasion to decide if democracy in America is worth saving. Are their children and grandchildren's lives worth saving? Do they think WW3 is a good idea? Do they think America should be a radical christian nation constantly at war?
Today, once again, I have faith that there are enough Good, Honest, America-loving lawmakers to preserve democracy in America. We will see.
What about America first? What about the fact that every single person elected pledges to uphold the United States Constitution? Unfortunately these things seem to have gotten lost - all to further enrich the Top 1% Global Financial Elite/ Radical Religion mafia-style Good Old Boys' Party/ Corporate Cabal who have bought OUR government at all levels.
They have no social conscience and want to destroy democracies around the world while they expect US - WE THE GOOD TAXPAYING PEOPLE OF AMERICA - to pay for it with OUR money and children/grandchildren's lives.
The article says, "That leaves it to Democrats to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving." NO. That leaves it to every lawmaker of every persuasion to decide if democracy in America is worth saving. Are their children and grandchildren's lives worth saving? Do they think WW3 is a good idea? Do they think America should be a radical christian nation constantly at war?
Today, once again, I have faith that there are enough Good, Honest, America-loving lawmakers to preserve democracy in America. We will see.
1
Veiled, but prudent advice. Gorsuch would replace Scalia, restoring the court's balance to the status quo ante. That is, the devil we know. Filibuster now, invite the nuclear option, and we risk the next vacancy being filled by a truly unqualified nominee - the devil we don't know, but given the calculus of the SC and Trump's temperament, ought to expect. That is a high price to pay for the short lived, adolescent satisfaction of simple, emotion-driven payback.
3
As I wrote at the time, a golden moment was lost during the Garland nomination to solve this problem. President Obama should have sued the Senate for abrogating their constitutional duty. The constitution says the Senate "shall" provide advise and consent on presidential nominees. Nowhere does is say that they can skip that duty that every fourth year. Or that they can exercise a pocket veto by never bringing the nomination up. The Senate rule that allows this unconstitutional behavior has resulted in an immense partisan divide. Prompt discharge of the written Constitutional duty would substantially change the behavior of the Senate for the better. As an extension of this argument, why should not the nomination of Judge Garland be considered instead of Judge Grouch. It was put before the Senate as specified in the Constitution and still has not been acted upon. The Senate does not have the right to dismiss a nomination without consideration just because the executive branch has changed. That too is not in the constitution. If such a brief were filed before the present court, the process would have to await the court's decision. Let's see if the conservatives are truly "Constitutionalists" as they claim!
9
Interesting point, Common cause.
Also, "Judge Grouch" -- see, the spell checker even has issues with this guy.
Also, "Judge Grouch" -- see, the spell checker even has issues with this guy.
It is time for the filibuster to go and not just for the Supreme Court. In current world where being bipartisan is seen as traitorous and inviting a primary challenge in the next election all it does is make government totally dysfunctional. The Republicans won the White House and the House and Senate. But they can't get anything done because of the 60 vote standard in the Senate. Today getting rid of the filibuster will help Republicans but historically majorities switch off pretty regularly so tomorrow it will help the Democrats.
3
The Supreme Court is much too political to justify lifetime appointments. During the Bush v Gore debacle the Court put itself in the mainstream of politics. We need to get away from lifetime appointments and give them six or eight or ten year terms. Lifetime appointments made sense when the court was above politics. That is no longer the case.
4
Its a disgrace. For Gods sake can't we retain anything of quality, history and law without destroying our country
What makes you think the court is above factionalism and not seen as illegitimate today? Just look at the contorted Bush V. Gore decision in 2000, or that corporations are people or their reading of the Second Amendment. The Right would look at Griswold v. Connecticut on birth control and so on.
As for respecting the law equally, do we really? Black Lives Matter or Native Americans would say there is White law and Coloured Law, and they do have a case. (Ex: How many no-knock raids are conducted in Trump Towers?)
As for respecting the law equally, do we really? Black Lives Matter or Native Americans would say there is White law and Coloured Law, and they do have a case. (Ex: How many no-knock raids are conducted in Trump Towers?)
"What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
I'd like to believe that, but only because I'd like to believe that is true. But if it isn't true anymore, then I don't want to believe it just to feel better about our government. I suspect it isn't true. The animating principle of the seems to be that only Republican Presidents get to make appointments. Too many decisions are nakedly partisan. When someone as qualified as Judge Garland can't even get courtesy calls because he isn't in the partisan-bag, we aren't ruled by law anymore.
The other dynamic worth noting is the way the courts have been politicized generally. Conservatives didn't like the trend of the Warren court. Some, likely most, reacted with arguments and attempts to change the law. Some of that worked. But the other reaction was purely political, a movement to demonize activist judges and proclaim that the Constitution itself meant whatever was in the Republican party platform of the moment. Instead of taking positions they disagreed with as positions of good-faith jurists, these conservatives proclaimed political war on the judiciary in an attempt to de-legitimize the courts. By this point the make-up of the judiciary has changed, and its fair to say that most "activist" judges are on the right.
The trouble we are in now is that one the judiciary has become a political football, the process can't be undone.
I'd like to believe that, but only because I'd like to believe that is true. But if it isn't true anymore, then I don't want to believe it just to feel better about our government. I suspect it isn't true. The animating principle of the seems to be that only Republican Presidents get to make appointments. Too many decisions are nakedly partisan. When someone as qualified as Judge Garland can't even get courtesy calls because he isn't in the partisan-bag, we aren't ruled by law anymore.
The other dynamic worth noting is the way the courts have been politicized generally. Conservatives didn't like the trend of the Warren court. Some, likely most, reacted with arguments and attempts to change the law. Some of that worked. But the other reaction was purely political, a movement to demonize activist judges and proclaim that the Constitution itself meant whatever was in the Republican party platform of the moment. Instead of taking positions they disagreed with as positions of good-faith jurists, these conservatives proclaimed political war on the judiciary in an attempt to de-legitimize the courts. By this point the make-up of the judiciary has changed, and its fair to say that most "activist" judges are on the right.
The trouble we are in now is that one the judiciary has become a political football, the process can't be undone.
I think I can live without the filibuster, if it comes to that. To me the important point is for Democrats to vote against any Trump (or Pence, if it comes to that) nominee to the Supreme Court. I can never forgive the Republican Party (and this even before Trump rose triumphant from the garbage heap) ) and their refusal to even hold hearings on Obama's nominee. Already there is a movement among Democrats to unseat all Democratic senators who vote for Gorsuch. Way to go! All my long life I have advocated compromise and getting along: in my old age my heart has hardened. They didn't compromise, so why should my side!
3
"They didn't compromise, so why should my side!"
Well, maybe because somehow, in some way, some people have to begin acting like adults who care more for the Republic than they do for their party...
Well, maybe because somehow, in some way, some people have to begin acting like adults who care more for the Republic than they do for their party...
Supreme Court battles are nothing new. FDR tried to pack the court and was rebuffed. Abe Fortas was forced to resign in '69 or face probable impeachment after LBJ tried, unsuccessfully, to elevate him to Cheif Justice.
Clarance Thomas received a 52-48 vote to assume his place on the court after an awfully contentious process.
The individuals who achieve that bench come to the court with their own beliefs and experiences and inject them into judicial decisions. Politics has always played a role in selection because politicians control the appointments.
Gorsuch will get a seat. The politicians have told us so....
Clarance Thomas received a 52-48 vote to assume his place on the court after an awfully contentious process.
The individuals who achieve that bench come to the court with their own beliefs and experiences and inject them into judicial decisions. Politics has always played a role in selection because politicians control the appointments.
Gorsuch will get a seat. The politicians have told us so....
1
I respectfully disagree. As you state, the Republicans can always revoke the filibuster for the next nominee, too. Just as likely, the Democrats can reinstate it with control of the Senate again. And Gorsuch is too young and ultra-conservative for America. Dems should oppose him for his record alone.
To confirm Judge Gorsuch would only reward Mitch McConnell and the Republicans for their childish, undemocratic opposition to everything Obama, including the Garland nomination.
Better we keep to the high road, and oppose everything regressive and Republican.
To confirm Judge Gorsuch would only reward Mitch McConnell and the Republicans for their childish, undemocratic opposition to everything Obama, including the Garland nomination.
Better we keep to the high road, and oppose everything regressive and Republican.
4
First of all, claiming that the US Supreme Court is a non-partisan institution is as as false as the claim that everybody is equal under the law. As the Supreme Court is highly political and partisan institution, political parties should treat it as such. Thus, Democratic Party should do everything possible to block a nominee of Republican Party, and vice versa. Obama appointed two Supreme Court judges--how neutral are they? Would Republicans nominate and appoint judges like those? Now, it is Republican's turn. Such Russian Roulette should continue as long as the Supreme Court of the country remains a highly partisan institution. Make it apolitical, a neutral institution by putting a term limit for Supreme Court judges--may be a non-renewable 10-year term, and make it mandatory for the judges to retire by the age of 70, lots of politics and drama will evaporate right away.
4
Civility is not a sign of weakness. We should uphold our constitutional traditions. Th Democrats should avoid a filibuster.
It is not the just the stolen Supreme Coourt seat but the desire of the right to have a judge with a heavy foot on the scale tilting decisions to the right. Furthermore Citizens (dis)United allows plutocrats to bolster Republican senatorial representaton from relatively sparsely populated states. McConnell has said Trump won. Well did he? Trump's story and secretive behaviour vis a vis Russia cast doubts on his legitimacy.
Jusitce Ginsberg was a centrist when she was nominated for the Supreme Court. And now McConnell points to her as he once voted for a Liberal. No he voted for a centrist. Arlen Specter said before he died that said his party moved so far to the right he could not recognize it.
Jusitce Ginsberg was a centrist when she was nominated for the Supreme Court. And now McConnell points to her as he once voted for a Liberal. No he voted for a centrist. Arlen Specter said before he died that said his party moved so far to the right he could not recognize it.
2
When has the Supreme Court not been a partisan political tool?
Senator Addison Mitchell McConnell, Jr. marks the return of Jefferson Davis and the Confederate States of America. But instead of using violence and secession the treacherous rebels are trying to sever our Union from within. Aided and abetted by his fellow rebels Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III and Rex Tillerson the Dixie Kings are now in charge.
When can we expect another round of horrid Supreme Court decisions along the lines of Dred Scott and Plessy?
Senator Addison Mitchell McConnell, Jr. marks the return of Jefferson Davis and the Confederate States of America. But instead of using violence and secession the treacherous rebels are trying to sever our Union from within. Aided and abetted by his fellow rebels Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III and Rex Tillerson the Dixie Kings are now in charge.
When can we expect another round of horrid Supreme Court decisions along the lines of Dred Scott and Plessy?
4
McConnell's guilt is clear. But whatever his record, his shoulders are far too narrow and his backbone far too weak to bear the lion’s share of the guilt for the current impasse. Americans should believe they are governed by law? Yes, as long as we accept that laws are made by the powerful, who also happen to be the wealthy. That is how it is, and that is how it has always been. True equality under law is a goal to be pursued as we push back against whatever form of plutocracy plagues contemporary society. That such equality actually exists is a fiction, a dangerous myth, one that prepares the people for all kinds of sub-myths: science is bad; book-learning is for elites; a successful businessman can run any country and knows all kinds of things better than anyone else; bankruptcy and divorce are learning processes that prepare one for realpolitik? Western democracies face a crisis of which McConnell and his ilk are symptoms. The UK is a prime example. We have placed ourselves in the same kind of mess. Are we to await some salvation from France where the Founding Fathers found much of their inspiration?
1
The true problem is that the court has been creating laws around controversial issues that have been at gridlock in Congress. Many legal approaches to moral issues have been changed by the courts rather than Congress, and this goes back well before abortion rulings in the early 70s. Both sides are at fault, laying aside "who started it?", and the responsible approach is that that courts must resist law-making. This is exactly what the Harvard Law School Dean has been advocating as the right path forward. The Editorial Board is not looking at the bigger picture, and failure to do so is irresponsible.
1
All of us can trace the birth of our nation to a very specific time and place. Even though the decades preceeding and following our Declaration of Independence were filled with critical historical events, we mark July 4, 1776 as the moment of our nations birth.
Similarly, I believe the precise end of our great American experiment with Democracy occurred on March 16, 2016 when Mitch McConnell declared that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Mertick Garland would not receive a senate confirmation process.
The consequences to this direct disobedience to our US Constitution are playing out now. The conflict so many of us have with these events is due to our American Experiment having been so successful for so long. We have no individual memories of what it's like to live in an autocracy, or a monarchy, or an oligarchy or whatever.
So better get used to it folks. The rights of the minority party (Democrats) will disappear. Constitutionally protected individual rights, gone. Free spech and an independent media, gone. Equal protection under the law, HA! What we will all witness now is the slow motion train wreck of what used to be the greatest experiment in liberal democracy the world had ever seen.
The critcal historic events that will take place over the next decades will chronicle America's return to the type of government the vast majority of humans have lived under since the beginning of time.
Whatever that will be, it won't be a Democratic Republic.
Similarly, I believe the precise end of our great American experiment with Democracy occurred on March 16, 2016 when Mitch McConnell declared that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Mertick Garland would not receive a senate confirmation process.
The consequences to this direct disobedience to our US Constitution are playing out now. The conflict so many of us have with these events is due to our American Experiment having been so successful for so long. We have no individual memories of what it's like to live in an autocracy, or a monarchy, or an oligarchy or whatever.
So better get used to it folks. The rights of the minority party (Democrats) will disappear. Constitutionally protected individual rights, gone. Free spech and an independent media, gone. Equal protection under the law, HA! What we will all witness now is the slow motion train wreck of what used to be the greatest experiment in liberal democracy the world had ever seen.
The critcal historic events that will take place over the next decades will chronicle America's return to the type of government the vast majority of humans have lived under since the beginning of time.
Whatever that will be, it won't be a Democratic Republic.
5
Mitch McConnell and the remnants of the Republican Party that had a series of beliefs, while different from Democrats' social principles, nevertheless understood governance, is gone. He has become a castaway as has Paul Ryan, spouting an 1980's-style economic agenda, on an island surrounded by shark-like party radicals. Having waited years for their moment to take the field, now that they are in possession, these old institutionalists like McConnell, are desperately trying to save themselves. Having worked for so long in tightly controlled networks, as the edges fray and their center is in danger of no longer holding, in his leadership role, he wants to make his mark in a last desperate attempt to hoist the Republican flag as a mark of his 'leadership.' The latter is not defined by leading but by alternately stabbing at and throwing up obstacles to keep his sharks at bay and progressive and/or more moderate policies in check, knowing that the Republican Party's time on top will be brief. Desperation in his final years of his career has overtaken whatever pragmatism he might have had, potentially ruining his legacy and the tainting our democratic ideals by his arrogance and partisanship. Whatever happens, he will be forever be a castaway and seen as a political hack in historical renderings.
2
McConnell and his cynical smile, as he berates the Democrats for playing politics, is a fine example of how the 'family values party' becomes the party of hypocrites. He and his wife have milked the 'body politic' for years and he has the gall to call names!
2
"The judicial confirmation process is mirroring the mess in Congress. "
The Judicial Confirmation Process is part of the mess in Congress.
I was a little upset with President Obama about not being forceful with the GOP leadership over Merrick Garland.
Had I been President, I would have consulted with the Justice Department regarding suing the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Minority Leader in the US Supreme Court for unconstitutional obstruction.
In principle, the Executive Branch could make the case that the "Advice and Consent" must come from the ENTIRE Senate and not some subset of it.
Here is the rationale:
Under Article II regarding Presidential Powers:
"He ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."
However, in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2, it states:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
But, between that clause and others in Article I, I do not clearly see how obstruction of a Supreme Court Justice from the "Consent" process is permissible or a power of a subset of the Senate.
Had President Obama won that case, he still would have lost on the full Senate vote, but an important Constitutional question would have been resolved and, with the resolution to such a question, some blocks in Congress would be removed.
The Judicial Confirmation Process is part of the mess in Congress.
I was a little upset with President Obama about not being forceful with the GOP leadership over Merrick Garland.
Had I been President, I would have consulted with the Justice Department regarding suing the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Minority Leader in the US Supreme Court for unconstitutional obstruction.
In principle, the Executive Branch could make the case that the "Advice and Consent" must come from the ENTIRE Senate and not some subset of it.
Here is the rationale:
Under Article II regarding Presidential Powers:
"He ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."
However, in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2, it states:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
But, between that clause and others in Article I, I do not clearly see how obstruction of a Supreme Court Justice from the "Consent" process is permissible or a power of a subset of the Senate.
Had President Obama won that case, he still would have lost on the full Senate vote, but an important Constitutional question would have been resolved and, with the resolution to such a question, some blocks in Congress would be removed.
2
First of all, it was NEVER a rule in the Constitution that SC appointees needed 60 votes for confirmation. All you needed was a simple majority.
So let's go back to that.
So let's go back to that.
2
SAD that the McConnells of the world have lowered the bar so low that virtuous positions become untenable. One elector wrote a column in the Times- no other electors followed his valiant admonition.
Judges throughout the land should be raising their voices demanding that Garland be the man obtaining to the advice and consent of Congress.
SAD
Judges throughout the land should be raising their voices demanding that Garland be the man obtaining to the advice and consent of Congress.
SAD
Please stop repeating the Republican fiction that Bork was rejected for partisan reasons. Bork was the one who carried out Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, firing Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, when the more highly principled Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus refused to do so. Bork later said Bork says President Richard Nixon promised him the next Supreme Court vacancy if he complied with Nixon's order to fire Cox.
Notably, Bork rejected the concept that the Constitution contains implicit guarantees of fundamental rights, even if those rights are not specified. For example, he refused to agree with the SCOTUS decision Griswold v. Connecticut which invalidated a law prohibiting married couples from using birth control. Clearly, Bork should never have been put in the position of protecting the basic rights of Americans…and the same is true of Neil Gorsuch, who believes in the same principles as Robert Bork, having pointedly refused to endorse Griswold.
Notably, Bork rejected the concept that the Constitution contains implicit guarantees of fundamental rights, even if those rights are not specified. For example, he refused to agree with the SCOTUS decision Griswold v. Connecticut which invalidated a law prohibiting married couples from using birth control. Clearly, Bork should never have been put in the position of protecting the basic rights of Americans…and the same is true of Neil Gorsuch, who believes in the same principles as Robert Bork, having pointedly refused to endorse Griswold.
Gorsuch could reject his nomination, but then someone else like him would just be appointed in his place. Eventually with justices on the Supreme Court, a term limit could be imposed (10 years?) or an age limit (forced retirement at 75 years old?) – but like changing the Electoral College, these modifications seem difficult to envision in the foreseeable future.
Gorsuch should accept his position. Then, if he is really someone of true character, he should face the realization that he occupies a stolen seat. He should spend the rest of his life consulting with Merrick Garland as to how he should vote on every issue and act according to Garland's recommendations, as best he can. It’s a simple plan. No need to try to change our system of government in any way. And what a story it would make for posterity. Talk about a profile in courage.
So why not? Maybe … it’s the thing about him being someone of true character. Because, in reality, and like the people who nominated him, he’s just not. But maybe … someday … someone … will rise to the occasion, at a time like this.
Gorsuch should accept his position. Then, if he is really someone of true character, he should face the realization that he occupies a stolen seat. He should spend the rest of his life consulting with Merrick Garland as to how he should vote on every issue and act according to Garland's recommendations, as best he can. It’s a simple plan. No need to try to change our system of government in any way. And what a story it would make for posterity. Talk about a profile in courage.
So why not? Maybe … it’s the thing about him being someone of true character. Because, in reality, and like the people who nominated him, he’s just not. But maybe … someday … someone … will rise to the occasion, at a time like this.
3
"... if they lose the filibuster now — as they will — then it is not available to use against another Trump nominee, who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well.'
Failing to Neil Gorsuch would betray Democrats everywhere.
Anyone who holds on to this false hope expressed above has not watched the Republican Party since the days of Newt Gingrich. Quite simply, it is a fools errand.
More important, choosing not to filibuster would have a squander the nascent mobilization of those on the left, who have taken to the streets to protest Donald Trump's policies and flooded the phone banks at Congress to help shape the debate on the GOP health care plan and more. The passion we have seen at town hall meeting in red districts would vanish.
Democratic politicians have long taken its base for granted, and that hurt them in 2016. Failing to respond to the will of their constituency would risk killing the movement they so desperately need. Folding now would be a huge mistake.
Failing to Neil Gorsuch would betray Democrats everywhere.
Anyone who holds on to this false hope expressed above has not watched the Republican Party since the days of Newt Gingrich. Quite simply, it is a fools errand.
More important, choosing not to filibuster would have a squander the nascent mobilization of those on the left, who have taken to the streets to protest Donald Trump's policies and flooded the phone banks at Congress to help shape the debate on the GOP health care plan and more. The passion we have seen at town hall meeting in red districts would vanish.
Democratic politicians have long taken its base for granted, and that hurt them in 2016. Failing to respond to the will of their constituency would risk killing the movement they so desperately need. Folding now would be a huge mistake.
2
Mitch McConnell has worked tirelessly throughout his career and particularly during Obama's presidency to undermine the notion that the GOP was anything other than a group of venal apparatchiks who would always vote party, and by extension their political careers, over country whatever the consequences for the electorate. When he tore up the rule book a.k.a. The American Constitution by refusing to hold hearings for the Merrick Garland, he prepared the ground that culminated in the election of Donald Trump and the current "sniveling milksop" GOP Congress. What a travesty!
Enough with the hand wringing over a non-constitutional based, anti-democratic Senate rule that the founders never envisioned. My read of history shows that it was only put in place to defend slavery and later segregation. And later still: all the hobby horses of the reactionary right.
In it's present guise of cloture rules to proceed to business or to act on business simply leads to a super majority position on most any issue. Something never sought for or approved of by the founders. Remember that they where quite explicit about when super majority's where desirable and said so in the language of the Constitution.
It is also correct that the 'weaponization' (to use the new buzz word for ultra reactionary partisanship) of the current rule was the result of Sen. Mitch McConnell and his horde of Grand Old Pirates desire to obstruct all business they did not agree with. Mostly based on race & minority hatred.
The final result will be a return to democratic values in the Senate. And of course votes have consequences. As they should. If you don't like the voting record of a particular person or institution throw the bums out. And start again.
In this particular case over Judge Gorsuch it is simply a case of Resistance to reactionary politics and the politicians that are reactionary. And if you do not like the way the current majority party of the Senate is heading then just vote them out. And start again.
In it's present guise of cloture rules to proceed to business or to act on business simply leads to a super majority position on most any issue. Something never sought for or approved of by the founders. Remember that they where quite explicit about when super majority's where desirable and said so in the language of the Constitution.
It is also correct that the 'weaponization' (to use the new buzz word for ultra reactionary partisanship) of the current rule was the result of Sen. Mitch McConnell and his horde of Grand Old Pirates desire to obstruct all business they did not agree with. Mostly based on race & minority hatred.
The final result will be a return to democratic values in the Senate. And of course votes have consequences. As they should. If you don't like the voting record of a particular person or institution throw the bums out. And start again.
In this particular case over Judge Gorsuch it is simply a case of Resistance to reactionary politics and the politicians that are reactionary. And if you do not like the way the current majority party of the Senate is heading then just vote them out. And start again.
The American people are going to get "what's coming to them"...and it is richly deserved.
I am near the end of my life and have watched as this once proud democracy has slowly not just devolved but has actually dissolved...and it is quite amusing.
We had it all right here but some - those bearing the genotypes that stepped off the Mayflower onto Plymouth Rock were never satisfied to see their fellow citizens hold a different, a more free opinion of life.
Democrats usually pass laws and govern with the concept of "You Can but you don't have to" as in abortion and Family Planning.
The Republicans govern with the concept of "What is good for me is mandated for you" as again in the case of abortion.
Americans chose the Republican Model...and they chose poorly. But no matter because China will soon, within 5-years overtake and push America out of the way while we continue to debate about sexual identity and bathrooms -- and that is an easy one to solve...just make a series of lockable stalls and allow any sex to use any stall.
But that is too simple...Americans would rather fight about it....well you are getting your wish. Of course you could have educated your children not in unicorn religions but in practical civics...but no you would rather debate the number of angels that can dance on the had of a pin. American chose poorly.
So Sad, Too Bad...Bye-Bye Miss American Pie
I am near the end of my life and have watched as this once proud democracy has slowly not just devolved but has actually dissolved...and it is quite amusing.
We had it all right here but some - those bearing the genotypes that stepped off the Mayflower onto Plymouth Rock were never satisfied to see their fellow citizens hold a different, a more free opinion of life.
Democrats usually pass laws and govern with the concept of "You Can but you don't have to" as in abortion and Family Planning.
The Republicans govern with the concept of "What is good for me is mandated for you" as again in the case of abortion.
Americans chose the Republican Model...and they chose poorly. But no matter because China will soon, within 5-years overtake and push America out of the way while we continue to debate about sexual identity and bathrooms -- and that is an easy one to solve...just make a series of lockable stalls and allow any sex to use any stall.
But that is too simple...Americans would rather fight about it....well you are getting your wish. Of course you could have educated your children not in unicorn religions but in practical civics...but no you would rather debate the number of angels that can dance on the had of a pin. American chose poorly.
So Sad, Too Bad...Bye-Bye Miss American Pie
Mitch McConnell has done more to undermine faith in the federal court system than any present or recent member of Congress. What he did to the process by refusing to even meet with Merrick Garland was unconscionable. What's worse is that the entire Republican senate caucus went along with him. Not a single voice spoke up to say, "Wait a minute!" to his blatant violation of the Constitution. What he is about to do in invoking the so-called nuclear option will forever stain his legacy and the legacy of the Republican Party. "Comity?" Forget it.
We are left with a government of, by and for—money.
We are left with a government of, by and for—money.
Just an outline.
1. Former President Obama had the duty to nominate Garland. President Obama had a mandate on both terms, winning both popular and EC votes.
2. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's a man of extremes. Remember in 2008, his only goal was not working but making Obama a "one-term president."
3. So then ultraconservative Justice Scalia suddenly dies, and before he's even buried, McConnell decides to invalidate anyone Obama suggests, even though Obama nominated exactly the "concesus" centrist people such as Republican Senator Orrin Hatch had publicly spoken for, hoped for.
4. Republican leadership claim that the "American people should decide." The American people collectively elect Hillary Clinton, but the under our undemocratic Electoral College system, the EC elects Donald Trump.
5. Donald Trump has no mandate, loser of the popular vote. (Most American voters didn't vote for and didn't want this guy, appointing any Justice or doing anything, period.)
6. Merrick Garland, a centrist, and more "Supreme Court"material treated like trash just to humiliate Obama and create mess.
7. Now Republicans threaten to change rules of the filibuster... (What would Senator Byrd say if he was alive today)
8. Hypocritical, cynical Republicans blame this on former VP Biden, who never went this far.
9. The new way "My way or no way" is the McConnell Way, and we all know it.
10. Total mess, no future.
1. Former President Obama had the duty to nominate Garland. President Obama had a mandate on both terms, winning both popular and EC votes.
2. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's a man of extremes. Remember in 2008, his only goal was not working but making Obama a "one-term president."
3. So then ultraconservative Justice Scalia suddenly dies, and before he's even buried, McConnell decides to invalidate anyone Obama suggests, even though Obama nominated exactly the "concesus" centrist people such as Republican Senator Orrin Hatch had publicly spoken for, hoped for.
4. Republican leadership claim that the "American people should decide." The American people collectively elect Hillary Clinton, but the under our undemocratic Electoral College system, the EC elects Donald Trump.
5. Donald Trump has no mandate, loser of the popular vote. (Most American voters didn't vote for and didn't want this guy, appointing any Justice or doing anything, period.)
6. Merrick Garland, a centrist, and more "Supreme Court"material treated like trash just to humiliate Obama and create mess.
7. Now Republicans threaten to change rules of the filibuster... (What would Senator Byrd say if he was alive today)
8. Hypocritical, cynical Republicans blame this on former VP Biden, who never went this far.
9. The new way "My way or no way" is the McConnell Way, and we all know it.
10. Total mess, no future.
It's McConnell. Plain and simple. He has heretofore not be recognized for damaging government to the extent he has. So, so much of this destruction lies at his feet. He is responsible. From turning the filibuster into an automatic hurdle, the premeditated and irresponsible gridlocking of government for eight years of the Obama Administration to the great detriment to the nation, and the unprecedented refusal to allow Merrick Garland hearings or a vote.
He is one of the worst actors in U.S. history. It is hard to debate otherwise.
He is one of the worst actors in U.S. history. It is hard to debate otherwise.
1
Save it for the next "guy." Yes it will be a guy. No Republican will ever appoint a woman again -- a woman might not be reliable on women's rights. Also the next guy will certainly be a graduate of Oral Roberts or some such. You can bet on that.
Reality check.
Judge Garland is no longer applicable to this discussion. He is old news. He will not be a Supreme Court Justice. The left needs to accept and deal with this fact.
The democrats would have done the same thing as McConnell if roles were reversed. How do I know? I know because both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer said so. Any disparagement at McConnell by democrats concerning Garland is pure and utter hypocrisy.
The fate of the filibuster is in the hands of the Democrats. Regardless, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed. And Trumps next appointments will also be confirmed unless the democrats start winning some elections.
Judge Garland is no longer applicable to this discussion. He is old news. He will not be a Supreme Court Justice. The left needs to accept and deal with this fact.
The democrats would have done the same thing as McConnell if roles were reversed. How do I know? I know because both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer said so. Any disparagement at McConnell by democrats concerning Garland is pure and utter hypocrisy.
The fate of the filibuster is in the hands of the Democrats. Regardless, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed. And Trumps next appointments will also be confirmed unless the democrats start winning some elections.
28
Yes, you do need a "reality check". Bottom line: McConnell is a partisan of the worst order. When did the Democrats ever pull such a stunt?!...(silence).
Delusion alert.
Refusing to vote on Judge Garland makes him absolutely applicable to this discussion. The Senate's role is to advise and consent, not obstruct and nullify.
Whatever the Democrats might have done in some alternative universe that lives in GOP fantasy land is not relevant. What actually happened is: McConnell refused to give hearings on a well-qualified justice.
Speaking of hypocrisy, the GOP's whining about the use of the filibuster against a well-qualified candidate reaches deafening levels of it.
Refusing to vote on Judge Garland makes him absolutely applicable to this discussion. The Senate's role is to advise and consent, not obstruct and nullify.
Whatever the Democrats might have done in some alternative universe that lives in GOP fantasy land is not relevant. What actually happened is: McConnell refused to give hearings on a well-qualified justice.
Speaking of hypocrisy, the GOP's whining about the use of the filibuster against a well-qualified candidate reaches deafening levels of it.
Reality check.
What Biden and Schumer said is irrelevant as it was hypothetical and never happened. It may come as a surprise to you that politicians often say things they don't do.
What has happened is now the precedent has been set by McConnell and a president is only allowed 3 years of his term to nominate a justice, or I should say a Democratic president is only allowed 3 years - i am quite certain that wouldn't happen should an opening occur in Trump's 4th year. Regardless of party this is wrong.
What Biden and Schumer said is irrelevant as it was hypothetical and never happened. It may come as a surprise to you that politicians often say things they don't do.
What has happened is now the precedent has been set by McConnell and a president is only allowed 3 years of his term to nominate a justice, or I should say a Democratic president is only allowed 3 years - i am quite certain that wouldn't happen should an opening occur in Trump's 4th year. Regardless of party this is wrong.
In the various articles I've read so far I have yet to find a convincing argument that saving the filibuster for a later date might have a greater chance of saving the day. Politics have become paralyzingly partisan ever since Ronald Reagan. It's not about to change now or in the foreseeable future. Our democracy is broken because the use of checks and balances devised by the Founders has collapsed. Why should we believe that the Supreme Court with Gorsuch's participation will hopefully rise above partisan politics in an effort to save the political system? The only chance to change the ideological divide in government is for Americans to engage in grass root efforts to force change by massive protests. Otherwise, it will be business as usual- a broken political system.
2
The Senate should not consider any Supreme Court Justice nominations put forward by Trump until all of the several investigations that have bearing upon his legitimacy as President have been resolved in his favor.
8
This will sound crazy of course- but, if Trump was a real leader of "all the people", he would have nominated Garland- then the Republican dominated Senate would have fairly voted against him, then he could have nominated Gorsuch who would have been approved without much fuss by the democrats. A win-win and Trump would have been seen as a political genius. Unfortunately, Trump is no leader of "all the people".
4
Trump has passed up the most important possible reform to make in the US right now: abolition of the Electoral College and election of the president by direct popular vote.
The man is simply a poisonous grifter with no plan beyond lining his own pockets and trailing an entourage of remoras. The US is having a nightmare.
The man is simply a poisonous grifter with no plan beyond lining his own pockets and trailing an entourage of remoras. The US is having a nightmare.
Now and then, the news media pick up a meme and run with it, just because everybody's saying the same thing, which apparently makes it true. In this case, both right and left are lamenting the loss of a future filibuster during hearings for a Supreme Court nominee.
It is difficult to understand the claim that the sky is falling. If McConnell adopts the nuclear option, it only affects Supreme Court nominees -- not the legislative filibuster. If he permits a few days of debate in order to lessen the contempt of history, it won't be because he allegedly killed the right to filibuster; it will be because violated the Constitution in not permitting the Senate to play its required advice and consent role.
On the plus side, allowing those few days of debate is more than Democrats would have gotten had McConnell simply gone about business as usual. That is a victory for both democracy and the filibuster.
The Senate's reputation as a deliberative body may have been tarnished by McConnell's action, but without a Supreme Court filibuster, the Senate will come into greater public view. WIthout that old political cover, the Senate leadership will not be able to conceal when the presidential tail starts wagging the senatorial dog. It remains a very arguable point whether the "loss" of the Supreme Court filibuster is a plus or a minus.
At the moment, only one person can avert this alleged disaster: McConnell.
It is difficult to understand the claim that the sky is falling. If McConnell adopts the nuclear option, it only affects Supreme Court nominees -- not the legislative filibuster. If he permits a few days of debate in order to lessen the contempt of history, it won't be because he allegedly killed the right to filibuster; it will be because violated the Constitution in not permitting the Senate to play its required advice and consent role.
On the plus side, allowing those few days of debate is more than Democrats would have gotten had McConnell simply gone about business as usual. That is a victory for both democracy and the filibuster.
The Senate's reputation as a deliberative body may have been tarnished by McConnell's action, but without a Supreme Court filibuster, the Senate will come into greater public view. WIthout that old political cover, the Senate leadership will not be able to conceal when the presidential tail starts wagging the senatorial dog. It remains a very arguable point whether the "loss" of the Supreme Court filibuster is a plus or a minus.
At the moment, only one person can avert this alleged disaster: McConnell.
1
Why do some people have ever so much more representation than others in this fundamental national and international business of advise and consent to judicial appointments, executive appointments, and ratification of treaties?
This country is a shrine to the dead, governed for the purported benefit of the dead.
This country is a shrine to the dead, governed for the purported benefit of the dead.
all anyone needs to do to gauge the state of affairs that has us slipping on the slope toward plutocracy is listen...listen to the tone and temper of our electeds' references to "the american people."
a boiler plate gloss, a necessary nod to us, the ones they have to dance with for show while their sugar daddy dates wait in the limo.
choose your own analogy but the wager here is that none of those will include references to commitment.
granted that partisan lock step is easier, less time consuming, more tv-genic, than preparation for and participation in actual debate, (your local civics teacher, if you still have one, can supply a copy of the rules), but there's no reason we have to settle for that, unless we're just as indifferent to promoting "the general Welfare" as they are, in which case we deserve them.
the old will rogers standard, "the best congress money can buy," still applies...to find out "for whom," just follow the money, guaranteed it ain't us.
a boiler plate gloss, a necessary nod to us, the ones they have to dance with for show while their sugar daddy dates wait in the limo.
choose your own analogy but the wager here is that none of those will include references to commitment.
granted that partisan lock step is easier, less time consuming, more tv-genic, than preparation for and participation in actual debate, (your local civics teacher, if you still have one, can supply a copy of the rules), but there's no reason we have to settle for that, unless we're just as indifferent to promoting "the general Welfare" as they are, in which case we deserve them.
the old will rogers standard, "the best congress money can buy," still applies...to find out "for whom," just follow the money, guaranteed it ain't us.
2
Seeing as how there are two parties in the US, the proper balance for the court is 4 Dem and 4 Rep, with a neutral Chief Justice.
I say that as a progressive, and recognize the right for political representation of those who disagree with my worldview.
However, Republicans would take all 9 seats if they could get away with it.
Why does it seem like all the energy of the US political system is spent trying to contain abuses like that? Why is there never a single good-faith public dialogue in the service of the American people?
I say that as a progressive, and recognize the right for political representation of those who disagree with my worldview.
However, Republicans would take all 9 seats if they could get away with it.
Why does it seem like all the energy of the US political system is spent trying to contain abuses like that? Why is there never a single good-faith public dialogue in the service of the American people?
6
The anger of the Dem base is going to drive the Dems to filibuster whether it is the right or tactical thing to do. There is some logic to holding fire against this Justice, since you aren't going to defeat him either way, and instead use it in the future if Trump gets to nominate someone who could really tip the Court's balance of power. Logic and tactics are out the window when your political base is screaming.
3
gmor
Just as they may as well be out the window if you choose to harbor the crazy hope that, Democrats having sheathed the filibuster on this occasion, McConnell will refrain from the nuclear option if they opt to filibuster in the future.
McConnell may appear to be a legislative weeny, but he is every bit as committed as Bannon to blowing the whole thing up if he thinks it will give him some advantage to do so.
Whatever happens this week, the filibuster is already dead. As is the integrity of the Senate and the Supreme Court.
Just as they may as well be out the window if you choose to harbor the crazy hope that, Democrats having sheathed the filibuster on this occasion, McConnell will refrain from the nuclear option if they opt to filibuster in the future.
McConnell may appear to be a legislative weeny, but he is every bit as committed as Bannon to blowing the whole thing up if he thinks it will give him some advantage to do so.
Whatever happens this week, the filibuster is already dead. As is the integrity of the Senate and the Supreme Court.
If Gorsuch is confirmed, he'll carry the burden of being of being Donaldovich's choice to the end of his days. The weight of the burden will depend on how this presidency ends, but the taint will linger no matter what happens.
That in turn leads to the question of whether this extra load would make Gorsuch a better judge, one who tried to be fair, open-minded, and non-partisan, or whether it would elicit self-righteousness and further his sense of destiny, pushing him to the far right limits.
That in turn leads to the question of whether this extra load would make Gorsuch a better judge, one who tried to be fair, open-minded, and non-partisan, or whether it would elicit self-righteousness and further his sense of destiny, pushing him to the far right limits.
1
The notion that the Democrats can "save" their use of the Senate filibuster for a future day is fantasy. The Republicans are engaged in a zero-sum battle over court nominees. Shall Democrats acquiesce to a GOP attempt to establish a two-tiered court nomination standard? Shall there be one standard for Republicans and another for Democrats? Shall we simply overlook the clear messages of last year's extreme refusal to take up a sitting president's court nomination for a year? Shall we ignore the emboldened messages arising then from GOP Senators that a presumed incoming Democratic president also should have her nominees blocked for 4 years? This is the actual situation Democrats face, and they simply have had no other choice but to resist it. There is every reason to believe the loss of the filibuster for court nominees will hurt either party equally, which will be an improved situation frankly for Democrats since, at least, it will be an equitable one. Under that circumstance, elections will--as they say--have consequences equally for both parties. That can only be healthy, especially since the real reason for the GOP's blocking of Merrick Garland was to escape the consequence of having lost a second time to President Barack Obama. Finally, it is also time the court stood up for itself, spoke up for itself, resisted the expectations of partisan supporters, resisted its own inclination to read the law in obedience to politics while hiding comfortably in its robes
3
The Republican Party made it its policy during the Obama administration to block ANY democratic court nominee, just as they said that if Hillary won the presidency, they would be willing to hold the Supreme Court seat open for 8 years if necessary.
Obama showed good faith by selecting a centrist, not a left wing candidate, in Merrick Garland. The Republicans made it clear they would not consider ANY Supreme Court nominee Obama proposed.
They have already used the nuclear option in deed, if not in name.
Obama showed good faith by selecting a centrist, not a left wing candidate, in Merrick Garland. The Republicans made it clear they would not consider ANY Supreme Court nominee Obama proposed.
They have already used the nuclear option in deed, if not in name.
6
A hardened shameless cynic, Senator McConnell so abused the appointment and lower court filibuster that former Senate Majority Leader Reid had to get rid of it. Back in the majority, Senator McConnell and his GOP confederates then refused even a hearing on President Obama's pick of Judge Garland for a Supreme Court opening. In his unrelenting drive for partisan advantage by adding Trump nominee radical extremist Gorsuch to the Court, Senator McConnell is blowing up the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Once he kills it, it isn't coming back, which means some day soon Senate Democrats will exact their revenge.
Why must parliamentary procedure be left up to the Senate to decide? Procedural tricks like the filibuster should be subject to the popular vote.
1
Agreed. It would s the Fox guarding hen house.
I think the Founders understood the dangers of direct majority rule much better than most modern Americans. One can talk about Tyranny of the Majority, Federalist 10, or any number of other concerns.
There are some who think that the filibuster should disappear, that it just gets in the way of "majority rule" (what about the Electoral College?). Modern gerrymandering has helped insure that the most partisan among us now inhabit the House and that the role of the Senate is to be blunted. We can reap the rewards of partisan whim and whipsawed public opinion. We can await more instances of refusal to hold votes on qualified SCOTUS nominees.
The only SCOTUS nominee "filibuster" occurred with the attempted appointment of Abe Fortas during in 1968 when Chief Justice Warren planned to retire and Johnson wanted to insure a liberal Chief Justice. This was 5 months prior to an election, and Fortas was blocked: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/jeffrey-t... .
Now, with the "threat" of the second filibuster of a justice nominee in history, the Republican leader of the Senate feels impelled to "go nuclear."
It is not often I find myself in full agreement with Senator McCain. McConnell's next move, the so-called "nuclear option," will be seen as a predictable result of the last three decades of a process that is--in fact--antithetical to our Constitution and its planned checks and balances.
There are some who think that the filibuster should disappear, that it just gets in the way of "majority rule" (what about the Electoral College?). Modern gerrymandering has helped insure that the most partisan among us now inhabit the House and that the role of the Senate is to be blunted. We can reap the rewards of partisan whim and whipsawed public opinion. We can await more instances of refusal to hold votes on qualified SCOTUS nominees.
The only SCOTUS nominee "filibuster" occurred with the attempted appointment of Abe Fortas during in 1968 when Chief Justice Warren planned to retire and Johnson wanted to insure a liberal Chief Justice. This was 5 months prior to an election, and Fortas was blocked: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/jeffrey-t... .
Now, with the "threat" of the second filibuster of a justice nominee in history, the Republican leader of the Senate feels impelled to "go nuclear."
It is not often I find myself in full agreement with Senator McCain. McConnell's next move, the so-called "nuclear option," will be seen as a predictable result of the last three decades of a process that is--in fact--antithetical to our Constitution and its planned checks and balances.
2
Can we please stop repeating the absolutely false narrative that modern partisanship over SCOTUS appointments started with the Democratic Party's decision to vote against Robert Bork? Bork's judicial and political philosophy was radically right-wing and far, far outside the mainstream. He was also complicit in Nixon's attempted Watergate coverup for his dispicable role in the Saturday Night Massacre. The Democrats' rejection of this man for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court was an act of conscience, good-citizenship, and patriotism. If anything, Ronald Reagan's decision to appoint the man in the first place was the inexcusable act of naked partisanship that started us on the modern road to partisan intransigence in the confirmation of Justices to the SCOTUS. When was the last time a Republican President appointed a Justice who was as moderate as Merrick Garland? Dwight Eisenhower, perhaps?
6
Act of conscience?
Here's how low the top Democrat stooped to defeat the nomination of Judge Bork.
"Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens"
All lies, and all from a person of despicable personal character.
Here's how low the top Democrat stooped to defeat the nomination of Judge Bork.
"Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens"
All lies, and all from a person of despicable personal character.
1
The act is futile, worse because Republicans will do something quite strong: change the rules, squash the opposition, force their way against the conventions of our government. The only value to the Democrats is protest and there are other options.
When it comes to the vote, the Democrats should leave. The statement is that the process is illegitimate since the seat should rightly have been filled a year ago. Walk out, hold a party outside, name the Republicans for the self-serving swindlers they and their President are.
When it comes to the vote, the Democrats should leave. The statement is that the process is illegitimate since the seat should rightly have been filled a year ago. Walk out, hold a party outside, name the Republicans for the self-serving swindlers they and their President are.
3
Very shortsighted of the Republicans. The Trump Presidency and 2010 census gerrymandering is a house built upon sand. The Democrats were wrong about the demographic tide having already come in for such a flawed, party-hack candidate as Hillary Clinton, but that tide is coming nevertheless.
3
As usual these editorials include the modest admission that "Some of the blame rests with Democrats". But of course the "lion's share of the blame" must be attributed to Republicans. I've always believed it takes two to tango as well as fight.
The court itself is NOT a nakedly partisan tool. Whether one agrees with a justice's stand on issues, it's pretty clear that all of the sitting justices are honorable people, as is Gorsuch.
I believe that the "stolen seat" meme needs to be put to bed. If it's a given that all Senate Republicans were united in not confirming Garland (admittedly partisan rather than on his merits), then the exercise of holding hearings and debate would have been a waste of time.
The court itself is NOT a nakedly partisan tool. Whether one agrees with a justice's stand on issues, it's pretty clear that all of the sitting justices are honorable people, as is Gorsuch.
I believe that the "stolen seat" meme needs to be put to bed. If it's a given that all Senate Republicans were united in not confirming Garland (admittedly partisan rather than on his merits), then the exercise of holding hearings and debate would have been a waste of time.
The reality is that the Court is politicized!
My guess is that it will take a long, long time before such a "mess" ends.
However, I also feel that if Neil Gorsuch intends to repeal Roe then we will see activism of a nature that will make history. Bravo/brava!
My guess is that it will take a long, long time before such a "mess" ends.
However, I also feel that if Neil Gorsuch intends to repeal Roe then we will see activism of a nature that will make history. Bravo/brava!
The fact that Merrick Garland was supremely qualified (previously approved by a majority of Republicans to the Circuit Court) but McConnell would not allow him to be considered was the ultimate politicization of the SCOTUS confirmation process. With that move, he made it plain that qualifications and competence did not matter. He wanted to put a partisan choice on the Court, and now here we have Gorsuch. For McConnell to claim that opposing Gorsuch is simply liberal partisanship is laughable, and despicable.
6
You could have pointed out that in 1991, Joe Biden laid out the case why the Senate should not hold hearings or confirm a Supreme Court nominee in a president's last year in office. You could have pointed out that Chuck Schumer made the same case in 2007.
You could have pointed out that the Democrats enacted the Nuclear Option in 2013 to get their appellate court appointees confirmed (they denied hearings on Republican nominees from 1990-1992, and 2001-2003), and that Vice Presidential Candidate, Tim Kane, said that when he and Hillary won, the Democrats would go nuclear to get their Supreme Court picks confirmed.
You could have pointed this out. But then, it might have weakened your argument that it's all Mitch McConnell's fault.
You could have pointed out that the Democrats enacted the Nuclear Option in 2013 to get their appellate court appointees confirmed (they denied hearings on Republican nominees from 1990-1992, and 2001-2003), and that Vice Presidential Candidate, Tim Kane, said that when he and Hillary won, the Democrats would go nuclear to get their Supreme Court picks confirmed.
You could have pointed this out. But then, it might have weakened your argument that it's all Mitch McConnell's fault.
1
Facts are stubborn things. One only look to the NY Times own editorial pages back in 2013 when Harry Reid set the precedent. If Trump were this loose with the truth and facts...oh, never mind.
1
McConnell refused to even hear of the right of a sitting President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. He *will* use the "nuclear option" to achieve some goal - whether it is this controversy or the next one - and he *will* use the nuclear option again and again if he so desires.
So ignore the nuclear option. It isn't all that nuclear anymore.
What the Democrats need to consider is if Gorsuch is the best or the worst choice they will be given. Then vote accordingly. The nation cannot stall this nomination the way it did the last - someone will sit on the Court.
So they should be looking at whether Gorsuch is likely to support checks and balance; whether he feels that the Court should be the deciding point of legislation that half the nation finds appalling and half wants fervently; whether he will foster individual rights to religion or against corporate interests. There is a lot to think about with Gorsuch, but it goes well beyond payback.
So ignore the nuclear option. It isn't all that nuclear anymore.
What the Democrats need to consider is if Gorsuch is the best or the worst choice they will be given. Then vote accordingly. The nation cannot stall this nomination the way it did the last - someone will sit on the Court.
So they should be looking at whether Gorsuch is likely to support checks and balance; whether he feels that the Court should be the deciding point of legislation that half the nation finds appalling and half wants fervently; whether he will foster individual rights to religion or against corporate interests. There is a lot to think about with Gorsuch, but it goes well beyond payback.
1
I would begrudgingly accept this nomination if not for the horrible treatment of judge Garland. In light of that, it's payback time.
3
The “Harry Reid Option” is a better moniker. There is nothing nuclear about the damage to our democracy inflicted by Harry Reid. Furthermore, while Dems only controlled the Senate in years 3-6 of Obama’s terms, Harry Reid, in perhaps one of the most obstructionist track records in history, prevented almost every bill introduced from coming to the floor for a vote. While, there is tons of blame to go around on both sides, including the denial of Merrick Garland an up or down vote last year, anyone that tries to argue which side or which person is more to blame is demeaning their own intelligence or ability to view this with an impartial eye. The divide in Congress has mutated from being based on political differences to deep-rooted personal hatred. The unprecedented level to which this has risen since Trump was elected can be primarily blamed on the utter obstructionist tactics, at any cost to the country, being employed by Dems on a daily basis. The Dems need to wake up and accept that it is their fault for losing the election to such a beatable candidate as Trump. The Dems should be thanking their lucky stars that Gorsuch is the nominee. He is undisputedly moderate and a purist that does not change the balance of the court. Alternatively, the GOP could let the Dems vote Gorsuch down and then appoint a far right conservative using the Harry Reid Option. The filibuster will undoubtedly come back to haunt the Dems.
The proper mission of the Democratic Party now is to help the Republican Party bring on its own disintegration. That's happening before our eyes, with Donald Trump as the catalyst.
The GOP today may look like a colossus as it stands astride the entire US Government, but this is its Twilight of the Gods. President Trump's usefulness to the party -- even to any one faction of the party -- is practically nil. For his part, he lacks the experience, intelligence, or purpose to use the party.
And Trump's charisma? Long may it glitter to those who care, but his base of diehard supporters is destined to become an island of Calibans. Other Republicans will take care not to be shipwrecked there again. If a new demagogue manages to dominate the presidential primaries, look for the breakup of the Republican Party to begin in earnest. In any case, look for the old logic of Republican electoral disadvantage, which Trump managed to defy, reassert itself for years to come.
The Democratic strategy in the Gorsuch confirmation battle should be to make the party of McConnell do its worst and discredit itself to the utmost. There will be blame due to both sides, but a moral war of attrition is one which today's Republican Party can't win.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp
The GOP today may look like a colossus as it stands astride the entire US Government, but this is its Twilight of the Gods. President Trump's usefulness to the party -- even to any one faction of the party -- is practically nil. For his part, he lacks the experience, intelligence, or purpose to use the party.
And Trump's charisma? Long may it glitter to those who care, but his base of diehard supporters is destined to become an island of Calibans. Other Republicans will take care not to be shipwrecked there again. If a new demagogue manages to dominate the presidential primaries, look for the breakup of the Republican Party to begin in earnest. In any case, look for the old logic of Republican electoral disadvantage, which Trump managed to defy, reassert itself for years to come.
The Democratic strategy in the Gorsuch confirmation battle should be to make the party of McConnell do its worst and discredit itself to the utmost. There will be blame due to both sides, but a moral war of attrition is one which today's Republican Party can't win.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp
1
How anyone can support the filibuster, given the certainty that your support will certainly terminate its existence is a puzzle to me. This is even more true given the strong, credentials of Judge Gorsuch. While his testimony was frustrating in that he refused to share his judicial views, it's clear from his opinions that, while he is no moderate, he is smart, principled and well-qualified. The next nominee may not be. Keep your powder dry!
1
Once again, the analysis gets it wrong due to the perpetual blind spot: money in politics. The threat appears to be internal. That is because we have all come to accept the external threat with no more than a shrug of the shoulders.
The Senate could once appear to be a collegial body because for better or worse it was a sanctuary where people, even while looking down at the House at times, could bask in exclusion. Yes, they could be patrician, but they felt a bond of belonging to an august institution and expectations were reinforced by a peer group and arm-twisters like LBJ who could also offer carrots.
As soon as private money gained traction, the sanctuary was opened to abuse. The bond was weakened as plutocrats increased pressure to force members to turn their backs on the majority of Americans and each other to promote special interest agendas instead. The House naturally fell first. Committee chairmen lost power. It was open season for private gain.
Senator Schumer earned his current post. Not the least because he is so good at raising and sharing Wall Street money. Being real, the Dems are always catching up with the GOP on money. The system has been corrupted from outside and competition for private cash is fierce with too much time "dialing for dollars" instead of legislating.
The only way to retrieve the higher calling and purpose that once existed is to get money out of play and restore the sanctuary once again.
The Senate could once appear to be a collegial body because for better or worse it was a sanctuary where people, even while looking down at the House at times, could bask in exclusion. Yes, they could be patrician, but they felt a bond of belonging to an august institution and expectations were reinforced by a peer group and arm-twisters like LBJ who could also offer carrots.
As soon as private money gained traction, the sanctuary was opened to abuse. The bond was weakened as plutocrats increased pressure to force members to turn their backs on the majority of Americans and each other to promote special interest agendas instead. The House naturally fell first. Committee chairmen lost power. It was open season for private gain.
Senator Schumer earned his current post. Not the least because he is so good at raising and sharing Wall Street money. Being real, the Dems are always catching up with the GOP on money. The system has been corrupted from outside and competition for private cash is fierce with too much time "dialing for dollars" instead of legislating.
The only way to retrieve the higher calling and purpose that once existed is to get money out of play and restore the sanctuary once again.
In order to hire an "Originalist" to the Supreme Court, the Senate is going to have to throw out one of the very hallmarks of the Constitution in the filibuster. Perhaps Gorsuch should decline the offer on "Originalist" grounds.
Elections have consequences. With the death of Scalia, did the Democrats and Obama actually believe that a liberal nominee would satisfy the conservatives and Republicans? The past rulings by the supremes have taken us too far left. Scalia' s replacement must be a conservative snd a constitutionalist to balance the court. when Ginsburg retires or expires , I would think that most Americans would assume the next nominee would have a more liberal bent. again, to balance the court. By dems denying Gorsuch his place leaves McConnell no other choice but to use Reid's nuclear option. Go for it and let's move on.
3
Mitch McConnell said the Republicans would have wait until a Republican is president to confirm a Supreme Court Justice if Democrat's won the white house. So the die cast is already set in stone.
Now that the president is a Republican we have to wait because there will be no new Supreme Court Judge until a Democrat is in office.
It's the "McConnell" Rule and like everything that man does, it's designed to destabilize and undermine democracy.
Now that the president is a Republican we have to wait because there will be no new Supreme Court Judge until a Democrat is in office.
It's the "McConnell" Rule and like everything that man does, it's designed to destabilize and undermine democracy.
2
If I recall correctly, in a move that was unprecedented, probably unconstitutional and simply shameful, Mc Connell (and Cruz and countless other GOPers) refused to even consider Merrick Garland because it was the last year of Obama's presidency.
Fine then, as Trump's campaign is already under FBI investigation and he sould (hopefully) soon be impeached, Dems should apply the same standard to Gorsuch, and call it the Mc Connell rule while they're at it ....
Fine then, as Trump's campaign is already under FBI investigation and he sould (hopefully) soon be impeached, Dems should apply the same standard to Gorsuch, and call it the Mc Connell rule while they're at it ....
1
This discussion and review of the history of judicial nominees, obstruction, and appointments is as incomplete and one-sided as any of Sean Spicer's answers to press questions these days. When the mainstream media is buried once and for all, this editorial will be a key forensic piece of the autopsy.
2
To anyone who thinks Judges automatically leave their biases at the courthouse door....you're wrong.
They are Human.
They are a product of their past
Gorsuch is not, and never will be, open and non partisan in every ruling.
And if, due to McConnell's machinations, he is confirmed, I hope every single day he hears the Tell Tale Heart "You Stole The Seat..."
They are Human.
They are a product of their past
Gorsuch is not, and never will be, open and non partisan in every ruling.
And if, due to McConnell's machinations, he is confirmed, I hope every single day he hears the Tell Tale Heart "You Stole The Seat..."
1
While the editorial makes some excellent points, particularly about the nonexistent charter of Mr. McConnell your conclusion is without a doubt wrong! If you believe that the filibuster should remain intact, then it is up to the so called moderates of the republican side of the senate. Folks like Orin Hatch, Charles Grassley, John McCain Susan Collins and others to deny the little tyrant the votes he needs to destroy the senate. It certainly isn't the responsibility of the democrats to once again retreat only to encounter the same situation a few months later.
Thanks to McConnell, the extra-constitutional filibuster is no longer worth the paper it's (not) written on. Yet you want Democrats to fall on that sword. Sorry, we're not in the mood.
Mitch McConnell's refusal to allow a vote on President Obama's pick of Judge Garland for the Supreme Court for the better part of a year so that the Republicans can stack the Court in their favor is despicable and demonstrates how far the Republicans will go to secure political power. It's simply outrageous. The Senate used to be a place where men and women of conscience could openly debate their differences in a civil and constructive manner where partisanship rarely raised its ugly face. All that has changed and Mitch McConnell is principally responsible for its demise.
141
Where is the most famous Republican, Abe Lincoln, when we need him: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." He may have spoken too soon. We have a Government of Political Power, by Political Power, for Political Power.
The NYT did no hand ringing when Harry Reid changed the rules. It was the republicans fault and it had to be done. When Democrats are in the majority the filibuster is bad and visa versa when the republicans lead. Grouch is perfectly qualified as was Garland. The Democrats filibuster at their peril but will do it to please their growing left wing.
2
To my eyes, it's the same problem then and now, from different power perspectives.
During the Obama administration, all judicial nominations were halted regardless of merit or need. This is unacceptable for those responsible for governance.
Now, during the Trump administration, it's well known that Gorsuch will end up on the Supreme Court. However, after Garland, there is a price to be paid.
Republicans are going to sorely miss that filibuster pretty soon, but god they're going to have the sugar high of a lifetime until then.
I still think this is the next escalation in a long process that takes the country somewhere dark. It is an ongoing civil war, maybe the even same old one.
During the Obama administration, all judicial nominations were halted regardless of merit or need. This is unacceptable for those responsible for governance.
Now, during the Trump administration, it's well known that Gorsuch will end up on the Supreme Court. However, after Garland, there is a price to be paid.
Republicans are going to sorely miss that filibuster pretty soon, but god they're going to have the sugar high of a lifetime until then.
I still think this is the next escalation in a long process that takes the country somewhere dark. It is an ongoing civil war, maybe the even same old one.
The argument that Democrats shouldn't filibuster to protect against the nuclear options is so completely non-sensical, I can't even fathom why anyone would pretend this to be a logical argument. McConnell has already gone "nuclear" by refusing Garland a hearing. Further, you would have to be a complete idiot to think that he wouldn't change the rules on the next candidate.
Since there is no way to stop McConnell and the GOP from ramming Gorsuch or some other candidate through, the win for Democrats is to demonstrate they have a spine. That is how they will energize their base, keep their jobs, and perhaps build their ranks when 2018 rolls around. I for one will do everything in my power to make sure that spineless members of the Democratic party go the way of the dinosaurs in future primaries. I'm fairly certain there are many others who feel the same way.
Since there is no way to stop McConnell and the GOP from ramming Gorsuch or some other candidate through, the win for Democrats is to demonstrate they have a spine. That is how they will energize their base, keep their jobs, and perhaps build their ranks when 2018 rolls around. I for one will do everything in my power to make sure that spineless members of the Democratic party go the way of the dinosaurs in future primaries. I'm fairly certain there are many others who feel the same way.
21
"What matters, of course, is not some arcane voting process in the Senate. What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
No. What matters is that we ARE governed by law; not just believe it, but for it to be true.
No. What matters is that we ARE governed by law; not just believe it, but for it to be true.
4
We're governed by laws that distort the values of our votes beyond any semblance of democracy. The only thing that legitimizes it is awe of dead people.
What also matters is that the noble patriots in Congress realize that if the conviction sets in that our system of laws is as rigged toward money and power as it is coming to be, they will have a steep price to pay and it will be exacted in the streets.
All those conservative yokels who love to spout about refreshing democracy with the blood of patriots may find that they are the patriots in question.
All those conservative yokels who love to spout about refreshing democracy with the blood of patriots may find that they are the patriots in question.
If Gorsuch has any decency he should withdraw. Being "nominated" by a tainted president and promoted a tainted leader of the Senate, taints the nominee as well. An at least equally qualified, but much less partisan candidate put forward by an untainted president elected by a huge majority never even got a hearing because of partisan politics. Accepting his nomination under such circumstances is, to say the least, very uncollegial to this peer and, as said, taints this man and his potential, alas life-time, tenure as well. The circumstances of this nomination are tragedy for the country and its judicial system, hence withdrawal should be his only chivalrous and respectful option. In not doing so (at least until now), the Democrats have rightfully no other choice but to filibuster and hopefully at least some Republicans whose interest for country go before interest for their party will vote along.
Sadly, this nomination is the fourth, and perhaps worst, time that a justice is appointed under tainted circumstances, the first one being Thomas, followed by the court-anointed Bush appointments of Roberts and Alito. In all of the earlier three cases the Democrats went along, dutiful letting process and country going before party; however, now the measure is full and in nominating this man under these circumstances the current (tainted) president and Senate leader do not even pretend to serve anyone else but the “happy few”, their rich and pollution-spewing ilk.
Sadly, this nomination is the fourth, and perhaps worst, time that a justice is appointed under tainted circumstances, the first one being Thomas, followed by the court-anointed Bush appointments of Roberts and Alito. In all of the earlier three cases the Democrats went along, dutiful letting process and country going before party; however, now the measure is full and in nominating this man under these circumstances the current (tainted) president and Senate leader do not even pretend to serve anyone else but the “happy few”, their rich and pollution-spewing ilk.
6
Why does the Editorial Board and Commentators say:
"A Stolen Supreme Court Seat"
as if a Supreme Court Appointment belongs to the person nominated,
or the Party that Nominated that particular Judge.
Does anyone think the Senate would have approved of Judge Garland
if he had been given a hearing and a vote ?
We are dutifully instructed that we, as a Nation, must accept and follow the
rulings of the Supreme Court because they are ultimately based upon the
Constitution - America's Holy Scripture.
Judge Bork was a Literalist, Justice William O. Douglas was an Expansionist.
At least with Bork you can say he follows the words of the Constitution and so
his rulings would have been given due consideration as they are based closely on what the Constitution says. With Douglas, we were being asked to accept that his rulings must be followed because he is a Supreme Court Justice...not
because they are based on the Constitution.
I don't want to be ruled by Judges, especially Judges who are appointed for life,
and frankly know very little about the lives that most of us live.
Should extremists of either party - fill the court with their own Judicial Ideologues - the Supreme Court and its rulings will soon be dragged down into
the mud of our ongoing political morass.
And so if a President, and enough Governors refuse to submit to a particular
Supreme Court ruling - what will happen ? If the President refuses to allow
Federal Marshals/National Guard to enforce the ruling...
"A Stolen Supreme Court Seat"
as if a Supreme Court Appointment belongs to the person nominated,
or the Party that Nominated that particular Judge.
Does anyone think the Senate would have approved of Judge Garland
if he had been given a hearing and a vote ?
We are dutifully instructed that we, as a Nation, must accept and follow the
rulings of the Supreme Court because they are ultimately based upon the
Constitution - America's Holy Scripture.
Judge Bork was a Literalist, Justice William O. Douglas was an Expansionist.
At least with Bork you can say he follows the words of the Constitution and so
his rulings would have been given due consideration as they are based closely on what the Constitution says. With Douglas, we were being asked to accept that his rulings must be followed because he is a Supreme Court Justice...not
because they are based on the Constitution.
I don't want to be ruled by Judges, especially Judges who are appointed for life,
and frankly know very little about the lives that most of us live.
Should extremists of either party - fill the court with their own Judicial Ideologues - the Supreme Court and its rulings will soon be dragged down into
the mud of our ongoing political morass.
And so if a President, and enough Governors refuse to submit to a particular
Supreme Court ruling - what will happen ? If the President refuses to allow
Federal Marshals/National Guard to enforce the ruling...
2
The notion that Justices "follow the words of the Constitution" or ought to is demonstrably lame. If there were not legitimate arguments, indeed a long history of them, about the proper interpretation of the Constitution we would not need nine Justices. One best reader would do.
1
The first amendment plainly denies Congress power to make any laws that feed the heads of any psychotics who claim to know what God thinks.
Cheating that is what this disgusting travesty is all about
Cheating that is what this disgusting travesty is all about
John Brown, what is your view of Citizens United? Was that not an ideological decision? It was clearly a decision putting rich zealots to work undermining democracy, and one has to think the Court was savvy enough to know that was a probable outcome. Maybe the Constitution envisions a government by and for rich zealots? Gorsuch supports this decision, and as he is fully aware of its consequences, we know his stance on democracy.
Admittedly, this won't solve the partisan issue but could make the nomination and confirmation process seem fairer.
No more life terms for Supreme Court Justices. Why should a judge get to be on the court for 30+ years??
The U.S. needs to move to 18-year terms, with a justice's term expiring every two years. Each President will nominate two justices in four years. Yes, that means four justices in a two-term presidency. And we need the rule to require the Senate to confirm a justice in X months. No holding the seat hostage like Mitch McConnell. That should be illegal.
No more life terms for Supreme Court Justices. Why should a judge get to be on the court for 30+ years??
The U.S. needs to move to 18-year terms, with a justice's term expiring every two years. Each President will nominate two justices in four years. Yes, that means four justices in a two-term presidency. And we need the rule to require the Senate to confirm a justice in X months. No holding the seat hostage like Mitch McConnell. That should be illegal.
5
Hmmm...37 comments so far and complete silence on Harry Reid's role in applying the Nuclear Option to the judiciary? Makes me think most NYT readers live in a special bubble insider the general liberal bubble.
Seriously, didn't even one of you think of at least mentioning Reid? Or does that require stepping over the line of your group-think dogma?
Seriously, didn't even one of you think of at least mentioning Reid? Or does that require stepping over the line of your group-think dogma?
4
@OTOH. Ok, I'll take your bait. At the time Harry Reid went nuclear in 2013, the Republicans had filibustered 307 times; many multiples of the number ever before in history. They had filibustered 81 of Obama's nominees to the District Courts and Courts of Appeal, also a record. But then. as a last straw, McConnell announced that the Republicans would filibuster every single Obama nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from that time forward until Obama was no longer President. Over 300 filibusters, more than 80 of them for judicial appointments, before McConnell and the Republicans gave Harry Reid no choice but to use the nuclear option. McConnell, OTOH, goes nuclear after a single solitary filibuster by the Dems -- and that for a stolen Supreme Court seat. No legitimate comparison of the two circumstances.
Had it it been for the filibuster we would have had anti-lynching legislation back in 1922 and a variety of other beneficial civil rights laws would have been passed much earlier. The filibuster is not some precious legacy.
1
What good is having a filibuster if you can't use it?
2
I understand that these are famous last words, but is a supreme court nominee somewhere to the political right of Antonin Scalia not a waste of a filibuster?
2
I can't imagine how anyone who calls him/herself a Judge would be willing to occupy a stolen seat.
2
Rather than filibuster, Democrats should abstain. Same moral point, but a pilot light for future bipartisanship will be kept alight.
1
I do not think the Democrats should filibuster this nomination. As pointed out, it will not prevent Gorsuch's confirmation. Worse, it will reflexively change the Senate rules, and McConnell will be that much further ahead with an even more conservative candidate should another opportunity arise.
4
I say keep it 4 to 4 for 4 more years and the reason why is because that gives us enough time to change the congress. Why should a conservative court be allowed to rule over what could be a more progressive congress for years after they have become irrelevant?
1
This will be a court that lets Congress enact all sorts of silly and blatantly unconstitutional faith-based legislation, thereby making Congress attractive to flies.
Mitch McConnell is the exact reason why term limits are needed in the Senate.
7
Don't forget Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer.
1
Kentucky is an example of a state utterly under control of the local plutocracy, which does not want federal supervision.
I'm sure that Trump wants to pick "his man" to sit on the Supreme Court, especially with his "Russia problem" still very much in the mix. That would give him a 5 to 4 majority on the Court that could potentially bring any legal proceedings against Trump to a dead stop.
3
When Mitch McConnell decided that he would resist all traditional norms and rules and not even meet with Merrick Garland, that was the true beginning of the most recent battle. He didn't even waste one hour after Scalia died in announcing that Obama would not be able to fill this seat, which is what more than five million people voted for in 2012.
This reprehensible action of the Senate Majority "leader" should have been disqualifying for any Trump-nominated justice.
This reprehensible action of the Senate Majority "leader" should have been disqualifying for any Trump-nominated justice.
4
Actually, both the nomination process to and the performance of the Supreme Court has been reflective of the partisan political divide in both Congress and in the American electorate throughout our history. The 19th century divide between north and south is the best example while conservatives still point to FDR's court packing threats in the 1930s.
Politics in this country has been more about civil war with ballots than anything else. In comparison to the alternative with bullets, its been a remarkably bloodless experience and the envy of the rest of the world who have experienced variants of our 1861 - 1865 disaster more frequently.
The real issue hobbling American governance is the archaic rules and traditions of the Senate, foremost among them the filibuster. The republican led Senate has demonstrated quite clearly that they will use any procedural tool available to them to avoid either pragmatic compromise or governance. They re-engaged the somewhat dormant civil war of ballots by fanning those embers with Reagan, stoked the fires with Bush & Rove, and sprayed gasoline on the blaze when Obama assumed the presidency. Under McConnell, the filibuster has been a non-governance weapon of mass destruction.
The filibuster is not worth saving.
The best thing that the electorate could demand from its political leaders is to demand Constitutional amendments requiring term limits for all members of government, SCOTUS included. This life tenure business doesn't work.
Politics in this country has been more about civil war with ballots than anything else. In comparison to the alternative with bullets, its been a remarkably bloodless experience and the envy of the rest of the world who have experienced variants of our 1861 - 1865 disaster more frequently.
The real issue hobbling American governance is the archaic rules and traditions of the Senate, foremost among them the filibuster. The republican led Senate has demonstrated quite clearly that they will use any procedural tool available to them to avoid either pragmatic compromise or governance. They re-engaged the somewhat dormant civil war of ballots by fanning those embers with Reagan, stoked the fires with Bush & Rove, and sprayed gasoline on the blaze when Obama assumed the presidency. Under McConnell, the filibuster has been a non-governance weapon of mass destruction.
The filibuster is not worth saving.
The best thing that the electorate could demand from its political leaders is to demand Constitutional amendments requiring term limits for all members of government, SCOTUS included. This life tenure business doesn't work.
2
"What matters, of course, is not some arcane voting process in the Senate. What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
Perhaps this fallacy has been taught to Americans for too long. The courts have always been political in appointment and decision. Young citizens should be raised to understand this and then they might actively monitor and participate in the selection of judges when they run for the lower level fences or minor leagues of the judicial system. We must also have a modern discussion about ending life time appointments for Federal Courts!
Perhaps this fallacy has been taught to Americans for too long. The courts have always been political in appointment and decision. Young citizens should be raised to understand this and then they might actively monitor and participate in the selection of judges when they run for the lower level fences or minor leagues of the judicial system. We must also have a modern discussion about ending life time appointments for Federal Courts!
2
Benches, not fences!
Thank Harry Reid and Joe Biden for this spectacle. If you think I'm wrong, study some history.
3
I worked and played in the DC bubble of government in the 60s and 70s -- years of historical significance (Johnson, Nixon). The partisan split was there, but not to the detriment of our nation. Dems and GOPers had heated arguments, sometimes compromised, sometimes compromising, and sometimes agreeing to disagree ...then went out and had a toasted each other. Despite the scandals of Watergate and Vietnam war, there was still a dedication to the purpose of running a government that would benefit its people and strengthen our nation. The McConnell power train delivered the mortal wound to that practice (after Bush 2 proclaimed that if you were opposed to the Iraq "Shock and Awe" attack, you were not a patriot) when he declared on the eve of the 2008 election that the Senate's course would be to obstruct Obama -- who had been elected with a mandate. Three hundred-plus filibusters later, and the unprecedented blocking a sitting president from doing his job of submitting a candidate for SCOTUS, BOOM -- we have the situation we have now. As stated succinctly by Lord John Dalberg-Acton, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority..." With Trump sequestered in the White House and Mar-a-lago, McConnell, with the help of his GOP henchmen, have co-opted the Senate and have free reign to impose their ideology as supreme law.
"But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
So giving in, one degrading step at a time -- while you wait for one of them to suddenly develop a conscience -- is the best way to deal with kidnappers?
What in the past few decades suggests that even a few GOP politicians will value country over billionaire-serving party? If it was going to happen it should have happened by now.
So giving in, one degrading step at a time -- while you wait for one of them to suddenly develop a conscience -- is the best way to deal with kidnappers?
What in the past few decades suggests that even a few GOP politicians will value country over billionaire-serving party? If it was going to happen it should have happened by now.
4
Disagree the lions share of the blame goes to Senators Reid and Schumer.
Why didn't the Supreme Court stand up and say something during the Merrick Garland travesty? Didn't they realize that the legitimacy of their Court, not to mention the public's trust in it, was dissolving away?
Sadly, in a pathetic show of "being above the fray", the Justices stayed silent and allowed their own institution to be used for political purposes.
They are as guilty for the result as the Republicans who carried out the scheme.
Sadly, in a pathetic show of "being above the fray", the Justices stayed silent and allowed their own institution to be used for political purposes.
They are as guilty for the result as the Republicans who carried out the scheme.
As a Canadian living in Germany, I'm afraid I cannot identify a single U.S. political institution that is not dysfunctional. Filibustering and filiblustering is not going to address the problem. Americans need to find a way to literally smash their existing institutions to bits, revise the constitution, and find a better way, or the decline of America will get even uglier...
The Supreme Court lost a lot of respect after their decision on the 2000 election, when five Republcians voted to pick our president. The court has gone downhill since then with gutting the VRA, and giving corporations more power than the American people with their Citizens United and the Hobby Lobby case.. They have been writing laws, not deciding if they are Constitutional. Now they have a candidate, given to them by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, who cannot get the 60 votes to be confirmed,so Republcians will just change the rules, which they abused for eight years.
3
The irony of the Republicans' stance is palatable...
I am puzzled by the piece. So the Dems are expected to "save" the Senate's voting procedure in spite of the actions of the Republican leader. Come on... the Dems are supposed to save some procedural rule but the Republicans???? Double standard is alive and well.
3
The USSC has been a political animal since its founding, and until today, a proposed nominee has never faced the threat of a filibuster, including those who were obviously less qualified, and more reprehensible, than the current nominee, who, without dissent, is clearly very well qualified and is as qualified as any future nominee can be. Indeed, the current nominee is as or more qualified than President Obama's two justice nominations. It appears to me that this whole episode is not about the current nominee, but is about the treatment of Judge Garland and the alleged "theft" of a liberal seat to replace a sitting but now deceased conservative justice and swing the balance of the court for decades to come. Put another way, there would be no talk of filibuster had Judge Garland at least had his hearing. And what is the Democratic Party's plan if it succeeds in blocking the current nomination of a qualified candidate ? Blocking all candidates for the next 4 years? Because that can only be their end game here - a terrible message being sent, guaranteeing chaos in the future.
bronx
The "terrible message being sent, guaranteeing chaos in the future" is already out there. It was delivered directly from your man McConnell.
The 'theft' was not of a "liberal seat" which, by rights is a thing that ought not to exist, but the final blow to the integrity of our system of laws and rules by a wee little man interested only getting his way.
You are correct, if Garland had been allowed a hearing and a vote, even if he was not confirmed, there would be no talk of a filibuster. What, exactly, is your problem with that?
The "terrible message being sent, guaranteeing chaos in the future" is already out there. It was delivered directly from your man McConnell.
The 'theft' was not of a "liberal seat" which, by rights is a thing that ought not to exist, but the final blow to the integrity of our system of laws and rules by a wee little man interested only getting his way.
You are correct, if Garland had been allowed a hearing and a vote, even if he was not confirmed, there would be no talk of a filibuster. What, exactly, is your problem with that?
There wouldn't be a nuclear option if Harry Reid (D) Nevada, didn't invent it.
3
Today when our country is so divided, it is more important than ever that the Judicial branch not be politicized. If half the country thinks that there is absolutely no part of the govt where their views are taken into account, we no longer have a democracy. A panel of federal judges, law professors, and the members of the Supreme Court should compose a list of 6-10 judges who they consider eminently qualified, then when there is an opening on the court we pick a name out of the hopper. End the partisan battles and restore the Court's reputation for impartiality.
The Democrats should absolutely filibuster Gorsuch, more the most petty of reasons, having nothing whatsoever to do with his qualifications (which many have noted should also disqualify him).
After what the Republicans did to the Merrick Garland nomination, the filibuster is essentially illusory. The Republicans have clearly showed themselves to be entirely partisan, and the Democrats should call their bluff. If they don't change the rule now (because they won't have to if the Democrats cave in) they, and the Democrats, will know that they will do it the next time.
What the Democrats should do is hold firm. If the rule does get changed, when the Democrats are back in control of the Senate, they can then simply reimpose the rule, and show themselves to be the grown up legislators that the Republicans are not.
After what the Republicans did to the Merrick Garland nomination, the filibuster is essentially illusory. The Republicans have clearly showed themselves to be entirely partisan, and the Democrats should call their bluff. If they don't change the rule now (because they won't have to if the Democrats cave in) they, and the Democrats, will know that they will do it the next time.
What the Democrats should do is hold firm. If the rule does get changed, when the Democrats are back in control of the Senate, they can then simply reimpose the rule, and show themselves to be the grown up legislators that the Republicans are not.
The "nuclear option" is not going to be the last shoe to drop. There is a good chance the Republican's will take a shellacking in the next mid-term election and loose control of the Senate. The Democrats will then have the ability to deny a vote for any nominee coming from any Republican president - and they will if they want to protect the rights of individuals to use the courts as the last chance to resist the aggressions of the powerful.
Hyper-partisan politics doesn't just happen. It is the inevitable outcome of a minority party to hold power over a majority, at any cost. And the ultimate goal in America's version of that game is control of the Supreme Court - the seat of rule making for how we are governed and the least democratic institution in our system of government.
Mitch McConnell may be the one who led the charge down this path, starting with the denial of President Obama's legitimacy, but the reality is the rest of the Republican party has been more than willing to follow. And in Republican controlled legislatures across the country they have been eager to use whatever mechanisms possible to maintain their grip on power.
If a minority is able to control all of the branches of government, including the courts, and put an end to all avenues of redress, and eventually descent, the end game is the loss of legitimacy for the whole system. Take a look around the world. There is ample evidence of exactly that scenario and what happens next.
Hyper-partisan politics doesn't just happen. It is the inevitable outcome of a minority party to hold power over a majority, at any cost. And the ultimate goal in America's version of that game is control of the Supreme Court - the seat of rule making for how we are governed and the least democratic institution in our system of government.
Mitch McConnell may be the one who led the charge down this path, starting with the denial of President Obama's legitimacy, but the reality is the rest of the Republican party has been more than willing to follow. And in Republican controlled legislatures across the country they have been eager to use whatever mechanisms possible to maintain their grip on power.
If a minority is able to control all of the branches of government, including the courts, and put an end to all avenues of redress, and eventually descent, the end game is the loss of legitimacy for the whole system. Take a look around the world. There is ample evidence of exactly that scenario and what happens next.
Republicans have long since lost any notion of fair play in the interests of the Country. Any concessions Democrats make are never enough, will never be enough. If Gorsuch was the lover of the Constitution he professes to be, he would have refused the nomination and publicly supported Merrick Garland in his place. In not doing so he showed his true colours (red) and he doesn't deserve to sit on the Court. Seems to me it's long past time for the Republicans to try and be the "nice guys". I won't hold my breath.
Yes, Mitch stole my vote, the very thing I fought for when I went off to war years back. Mitch didn't just cross my red line, he jumped across it when Mr. Garland was denied a hearing. He stilled my voice. I cannot forgive him. There is no other way for me to view this. Why did I put my life on the line back then? I am repulsed to think I was helping to protect him.
The filibuster is already dead. If the majority says, "if you filibuster we will get rid of the filibuster" and then the minority drops it, the nuclear option is in effect without having been done on paper.
McConnell has had his enabler in the form of Senator Grassley. Grassley was the one who refused to move Garland's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee. The Senator should not be forgotten in his role of polarizing the nominating process to the detriment of the Court and the Constitution.
This op-ed, to me, does not describe the extent to which McConnell broke our system of government by refusing to even consider Garland's nomination. I felt sick when I realized last year that the Constitution, what I believed to be our strong ,beautiful Constitution, is an 18th Century Gentlemen's Agreement that scoundrels can ignore with impunity. That there was no constitutional remedy for McConnell's perfidy should frighten every citizen. The theft of the SCOTUS seat revealed a fundamental weakness in our country. Governance by the rule of law requires that all in power honor those laws in letter and in spirit. McConnell showed utter disdain for the spirit of the law,
This putrid mess has forced me to believe that we must switch to a parliamentary government if we are to survive as a sane, decent country.
If the Republicans are willing to change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations now, why on earth would Democrats believe that on the next judicial nomination the Republicans will not take a similar high-handed approach?
Our method of bringing the approval of judicial nominees to a vote in the Senate is a mess, and most of this is the fault of Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, but he has had help. Orrin Hatch of Utah has been almost as outrageous.
The focus of Democrats and Independents will need to be on defeating Republicans in the nation’s voting booths. One issue which will enhance the ability to defeat Republicans in coming elections will be the G.O.P. handling of the federal judiciary selection process.
Democrats are tired of having pundits, journalists and editors tell them that they must be reasonable and compliant, no matter how unreasonably Republicans act.
Our method of bringing the approval of judicial nominees to a vote in the Senate is a mess, and most of this is the fault of Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, but he has had help. Orrin Hatch of Utah has been almost as outrageous.
The focus of Democrats and Independents will need to be on defeating Republicans in the nation’s voting booths. One issue which will enhance the ability to defeat Republicans in coming elections will be the G.O.P. handling of the federal judiciary selection process.
Democrats are tired of having pundits, journalists and editors tell them that they must be reasonable and compliant, no matter how unreasonably Republicans act.
McConnell succeeded in a Machiavellian power play that unconstitutionally denied Judge Garland a vote. Victims of his abuse must oppose the outcome on principle or be its enablers.
1
Sad days for America and sad days for democracy. How can a simple majority break a (filibuster) rule that is in place to prevent a simple majority ruling in first place? It doesn't make sense. Well, not much makes sense in US these days...
The "nuclear option" is a great metaphor for a president who many like me fear might just use the "nuclear option" to try to solve complex international issues. He and the GOP ruling minority have brought us to the brink. How in the world did we get to this point? This is NOT making Amercian great! America is great when it is moderate and makes compromises.
Desperation is the root cause of the Republican's willingness to do whatever it takes to force conservative dogma upon an unwilling majority. Though both parties are imperfect, history will have little good to say about the post-Reagan GOP. Contemporary republicans have spent the past thirty years in a do or die struggle against modernity itself. Media fragmentation has also acted to encase them all in a self-feeding bubble of fact-free delusion. Those voters who are most keen to reject social and scientific progress have coalesced to form the new core of today's GOP. Their ideal world of conservative-male Christian dominance is rapidly eroding away. They will stop at nothing in a desperate series of feeble attempts to reverse the very march of time. Skullduggery and ethical lapses are easily justified within the self- generated environment of fear and loathing in which today's conservative voters have encased themselves. Merrick Garland was just another symptom of this incurable disease. No matter if it takes four years or another forty, many believe the death of today's GOP is still all but inevitable. Until it's future remnants reform into something far more logical and reasonable, the Republican Party will continue to stumble along as America's crazy political uncle. How can one determine if this hypothesis is correct? President Donald J. Trump should be all of the evidence required.
1
This problem is a Republican problem. Any court packing has been at the hands of the Republicans and the Republicans alone, the party that replaces Marshall with Thomas; OConnor with Alito. Replacing real jurists with partisan hacks and then blocking a true moderate in order to allow a so-called president, under investigation for treason, to put a Federalist Society selected partisan hack on the court. The Senate is broken, McConnell and the Republicans broke it.
1
Gorsuch should be confirmed by Friday. Harry Reid will go down in history; serendipity.
"But the lion’s share of the blame now belongs to one man — Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader." Absolutely agreed!
The President, Congress, and voters have all put their personal self-interest ahead of their country without any regard for the consequences. When, when, will we ever return to the notion "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"-JFK. That is the ideal we should be striving for at this moment in our country's great history.
The Resistance is rising, where will you stand...
The President, Congress, and voters have all put their personal self-interest ahead of their country without any regard for the consequences. When, when, will we ever return to the notion "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"-JFK. That is the ideal we should be striving for at this moment in our country's great history.
The Resistance is rising, where will you stand...
1
Neil Gorsuch is highly-qualified and deserves to be confirmed. However, in protest of the Republican refusal to allow a vote on Merrick Garland's nomination, all 48 Democrats should abstain.
Democrats, indeed all Americans, would be better served on the cloture vote on Judge Gorsuch by a combination of (1) first, filibustering briefly and (2) preserving the 60-vote rule on Supreme Court nominees. Four Democrats have shown they will vote to bring the Gorsuch nomination to a confirmation vote. Six more Democrats should join those four and two Republicans, for instance, should vote against cloture as a demonstration of the importance of preserving bipartisan approval of nominees to the Court.
Better still, Senator McConnell should introduce a Senate rule change so that all nominees for Article III federal judges, or at least for the Supreme Court, shall be voted upon by the Senate within 120 days of their nomination and the votes of 55% of senators are required for confirmation.
Better still, Senator McConnell should introduce a Senate rule change so that all nominees for Article III federal judges, or at least for the Supreme Court, shall be voted upon by the Senate within 120 days of their nomination and the votes of 55% of senators are required for confirmation.
Democrats worked within the constraints of the constitutiuuon with the Bork nomination. They met with him, interviewed him about his views of the constitution and found him wanting. They found him too extreme and voted not to confirm, that is the Senate's duty. How does refusing to have hearings on Garland compare? How did the Senate perform its constitutional duty to advise and consent? The escalation discussed here is extra-constitutional and can easily be seen as illegal. There is no equivalence here moral or other wise.
1
GORSUCH AS RENEGADE During his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch characterized himself as a mainstream justice, citing the fact that in his opinions he cast his vote along with the majority 97% of the time. Not recently, though. He rendered a heartless, inhumane ruling that a truck driver who was stuck beside the road in a truck where he would have frozen to death, warranted dismissal from his job due to his having abandoned company property. The Supreme Court rendered an extremely rare UNANIMOUS opinion overturning Gorsuch's cruel and unusual punitive opinion. So it is not Gorsuch's majority opinions that are of greatest concern; but rather his minority or sole opinions where his findings are so extreme as to cause the unification of the notoriously split Supreme Court! That in and of itself disqualifies Gorsuch from being a viable candidate for the Supreme Court. I believe that it is crucial that those concerned about their own civil rights along with those of every American, assure that Gorsuch, with his demonstrably monstrous opinions be prevented from being seated on the Supreme Court. Indeed, his inhuman findings render him incapable of findings of fact, leave alone determining the truth, in my personal opinion.
What is the point of holding it back in case a worse nominee comes along, as the filibuster would just be used then. That approach in itself is highly political. The only thing that would restore any public faith in the Senate is if everyone votes according to how they feel. As long as Democratic Senators truly believe Gorsuch is a poor addition to the Supreme Court, they should oppose him. Let the filibuster be abolished. At least the Democrats in the future will be able to point to a consistent voting record based on the principles they stood for when they were elected. Anything else just plays McConnell's game and actually will end up giving him cover. Occupy the moral high ground and stay there.
We need to find a different way to appoint Supreme Court justices.
The Republicans failed miserably by blocking Merrick Garland, and the Democrats are failing just as miserably by blocking Neil Gorsuch. It has become clear that the Senate is incapable of performing this basic task. Perhaps there should be a lottery like mechanism, or maybe a panel of kindergarten teachers, drawing straws, rock-paper-scissors, etc.
Regardless, the present situation has become ridiculous and is no longer acceptable.
We have to eliminate the role of political parties, as well as all caucus affiliations. The system is BROKEN!
The Republicans failed miserably by blocking Merrick Garland, and the Democrats are failing just as miserably by blocking Neil Gorsuch. It has become clear that the Senate is incapable of performing this basic task. Perhaps there should be a lottery like mechanism, or maybe a panel of kindergarten teachers, drawing straws, rock-paper-scissors, etc.
Regardless, the present situation has become ridiculous and is no longer acceptable.
We have to eliminate the role of political parties, as well as all caucus affiliations. The system is BROKEN!
While some of the blame for this partisan mess lies with the Democrats, McConnell's refusal to to bring forth Garland's nomination has taken it to the next level. If the Democrats do not filibuster in hopes that perhaps next time they can filibuster if a renegade justice is nominated, what would make them think that McConnell would not go nuclear then?
Yes, in order to fix this partisan mess, one side is going to have to make the first conciliatory move, but that move should not be made while McConnell is the leader of the other side.
Yes, in order to fix this partisan mess, one side is going to have to make the first conciliatory move, but that move should not be made while McConnell is the leader of the other side.
87
More than "some of the partisan mess" is attributable to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their heavy handed actions in 2009 and thereafter. This doesn't excuse the vitriolic behavior we now witness on both sides and I fail to see why the Garland issue is repeatedly brought up because he was never going to be confirmed as 14 or more Republican Senators were not going to cross over. If your candidate, Mrs. Clinton had won maybe the decision to defer on Garland would have backfired... but she didn't win and like it or not elections have consequences.
It is not up to Democrats to decide whether their filibuster of Judge Gorsuch is worth risking the Republicans' employment of the nuclear option (though, I think it is); it is up to the Republicans to decide whether it is worth employing the nuclear option to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed.
We need to put the responsibility for Republicans' actions where it belongs- with them. They have been blaming Democrats for their own misdeeds long enough.
We need to put the responsibility for Republicans' actions where it belongs- with them. They have been blaming Democrats for their own misdeeds long enough.
237
If the Democrats won't vote to sit Judge Gorsuch, what imaginable SCOTUS nominee from a Republican President would they seat?
Better to kill the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees than to hand over veto power to the Democrats on any nominee to the right of Judge Sotomayor.
Better to kill the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees than to hand over veto power to the Democrats on any nominee to the right of Judge Sotomayor.
1
My answer to your question is a nominee who doesn't adhere to the extreme originalist/textualist judicial philosophy.
I advocate a return to the old practice of both parties confirming qualified, impartial judges who rule, not based on extreme judicial philosophies, but on the law and the Constitution, rather than blocking nominees based on the president's party or the nominee's personal political views.
But the Republicans, in refusing to give Judge Garland even the time of day, much less a hearing, proved that they have no intention of returning to that bipartisan practice. Garland was no flaming liberal; his treatment by the Republicans was as naked a display of pure partisanship and dodging of Constitutional responsibility as I have ever seen. Until they show that they will vote for qualified judges nominated by Democrats, Democrats must stand their ground. Otherwise, Republicans will have no incentive to change and our judicial system will continue to suffer.
I advocate a return to the old practice of both parties confirming qualified, impartial judges who rule, not based on extreme judicial philosophies, but on the law and the Constitution, rather than blocking nominees based on the president's party or the nominee's personal political views.
But the Republicans, in refusing to give Judge Garland even the time of day, much less a hearing, proved that they have no intention of returning to that bipartisan practice. Garland was no flaming liberal; his treatment by the Republicans was as naked a display of pure partisanship and dodging of Constitutional responsibility as I have ever seen. Until they show that they will vote for qualified judges nominated by Democrats, Democrats must stand their ground. Otherwise, Republicans will have no incentive to change and our judicial system will continue to suffer.
42
Yes exactly!
2
"if they lose the filibuster now — as they will — then it is not available to use against another Trump nominee, who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well"
Then it is not up to Democrats alone, but to any Republicans who may be concerned about that scenario, to show some courage, put Country over the dictatorial order of McConnell, and uphold the filibuster.
If there aren't a few Republicans who would stand up now, why should Democrats believe that there will be Republicans with the courage to stand up some other day.
The answer is for all Americans who are appalled by Republican Court decisions (from the Republicans on the Supreme court who gave us Citizens United and unregulated secretive billionaires pouring money into the election, to the Republicans who allowed other Republicans to deny Medicaid expansion for the working poor in their states, to Gorsuch himself who insisted a man should freeze to death rather than leave his truck's cargo in subzero degree weather) to register, vote for Democrats, and restore a Supreme Court that reflects the democracy of our Constitution rather than the Republicans' cynical claim that corporations are people and that billionaires buying candidates What our Founders meant by freedom of speech.
Then it is not up to Democrats alone, but to any Republicans who may be concerned about that scenario, to show some courage, put Country over the dictatorial order of McConnell, and uphold the filibuster.
If there aren't a few Republicans who would stand up now, why should Democrats believe that there will be Republicans with the courage to stand up some other day.
The answer is for all Americans who are appalled by Republican Court decisions (from the Republicans on the Supreme court who gave us Citizens United and unregulated secretive billionaires pouring money into the election, to the Republicans who allowed other Republicans to deny Medicaid expansion for the working poor in their states, to Gorsuch himself who insisted a man should freeze to death rather than leave his truck's cargo in subzero degree weather) to register, vote for Democrats, and restore a Supreme Court that reflects the democracy of our Constitution rather than the Republicans' cynical claim that corporations are people and that billionaires buying candidates What our Founders meant by freedom of speech.
1
The seat was not stolen. Republicans had 54 Senate seats last year, there is no way Garland would have picked up 14 Republicans to be confirmed. With only a third of the Senate up for re-election, the odds of winning a Democratic Senate majority were also slim. They needed 5, they got 2.
I hate the nuclear option term as well. Power play is a better word, but you just wait. In 2018, or 2020, some bright young minds will run and win as INDEPENDENTS. And those Independents will hold immeasurable power. 48 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 4 Independents. The battle and struggle for those 4 votes will be beyond anything in our history.
My suggestion, hold your nose and approve Gorsuch unanimously. He will be one of 9, not the sole judge on the bench. Even on the court there are checks and balances
I hate the nuclear option term as well. Power play is a better word, but you just wait. In 2018, or 2020, some bright young minds will run and win as INDEPENDENTS. And those Independents will hold immeasurable power. 48 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 4 Independents. The battle and struggle for those 4 votes will be beyond anything in our history.
My suggestion, hold your nose and approve Gorsuch unanimously. He will be one of 9, not the sole judge on the bench. Even on the court there are checks and balances
24
Then giving Garland a hearing and a vote would have been the right thing to do instead of giving Obama and the Democrats the finger, which is what McConnell and the Republican did.
2
Given that no one expected trump to win, republicans might have realized that if Hillary Clinton won the election and if the Democrats picked up some seats in the Senate (which seemed imminently possible after trump's pussy-grabbing comments became public, but I guess I vastly overestimated the populace's dedication to law, decency, and equality), she would likely nominate a less-moderate candidate for Scalia's seat on the bench. Some republican senators might have hedged their bets and voted for Judge Garland just as some believe Democrats should do with regard to Judge Gorsuch. So, yes, the seat was stolen, or at the very least, the Senate majority leaders violated the public's trust (whatever miniscule amount was left) by not performing their duty to consider Judge Garland's nomination.
2
@Lambros Balatsias: "Republicans had 54 Senate seats last year, there is no way Garland would have picked up 14 Republicans to be confirmed."
Without a hearing or a vote, we'll never know.
So your claim is basically an opinion, not a fact.
Without a hearing or a vote, we'll never know.
So your claim is basically an opinion, not a fact.
2
The Supreme Court became a partisan tool in Bush v Gore. They chose to make themselves tools. They could recover from that debacle over time but they've chosen to remain in that role with decisions such as Citizens United. I don't think I'll ever see them again the way I did the night before they decided Bush v Gore.
3
The democrats should remember: "If they go low, we will go high!"
Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a simple majority vote of 52-48 on 15 October 1991. He did not get 60 votes.
Right but he got 60 votes to end debate....
To McConnell goes the historical footnote for smashing all rectitude in the confirmation process, not only by quashing the need for 60 votes, but for the high-handed treatment of Garland. Both actions are no more than might makes right, inexcusable, and earn McConnell every slight that voters and other Senators can provide him.
3
You rightly want the Democrats to look beyond this appointment, but you wrongly want them to look only as far as Trump's second appointment. That sort of gamesmanship is not going to win the 2018 elections, or the 2020 elections.
Face it, right now Democrats have no actual power to affect legislation, court appointments, cabinet appointments, or much of anything else. What they /can/ do is stand on principle, every time, win or lose. Introduce bills for single payer health care! (And maybe even call it by its real name, like the rest of the world.) Vote for workers and against racism, every single time. If they try calling you the "party of no," so be it.
Meanwhile, field candidates for every open office everywhere in the country. And all of them, from dogcatcher on up, should run explicitly against Trump and McConnell.
And, in 2020, if voters choose four more years of Trump rather than candidate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Barbara Lee (not a Democrat for the Leisure Class candidate please), well, maybe Mexico will let us immigrate.
Face it, right now Democrats have no actual power to affect legislation, court appointments, cabinet appointments, or much of anything else. What they /can/ do is stand on principle, every time, win or lose. Introduce bills for single payer health care! (And maybe even call it by its real name, like the rest of the world.) Vote for workers and against racism, every single time. If they try calling you the "party of no," so be it.
Meanwhile, field candidates for every open office everywhere in the country. And all of them, from dogcatcher on up, should run explicitly against Trump and McConnell.
And, in 2020, if voters choose four more years of Trump rather than candidate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Barbara Lee (not a Democrat for the Leisure Class candidate please), well, maybe Mexico will let us immigrate.
2
This,is all out war.Republicans have cavalierly and caustically Stolen the probable majority from the progressive faction of Scotus.Democrats can't let this slight pass without rebuff or retort.There Must be a 'price and republicans must Pay it.It may manifest on the court itself,as various justices(Kennedy in particular) may see this action as a disqualification of ethical jurisprudence.It could 'push him to the Progressives.It almost certainly will not foster a more conservative trend in his opinions.Fate is indeed fickle,especially when justices don't exactly issue decisions as extreme as anticipated.Gorsuch would hardly fit this category of justices,but it could materialize in other circumstances,maybe all of them.The 2018 elections is one particular area where such results could be seen.Democrats could campaign on the ruthless precedents republicans have set for the future of 'US.The dark 'omens of this situation just will not disappear...We're in for Trouble.
1
Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy and has nothing but praise for him. Despite the process, I think Kennedy will think that the Court is in good hands.
It is ridiculous to claim that, by not using the filibuster now, the Democrats would retain the option of using it against a different Trump nominee later. If the Republicans are willing to use the nuclear option now, then they will be willing to use it later. The only way to find out if there is any power left in the filibuster at all is to call their bluff and filibuster the nomination of Gorsuch. If your prediction is correct, then the filibuster has already become useless and that should be made clear as soon as possible.
243
As I understand the situation, the rule requiring 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee would be done away with if the Democrats filibuster Judge Gorsuch's nomination, not just for the present, but for all future nominees, too. Which means, of course, that the Democrats (and republicans, in fact) would not have the filibuster available to block future nominations. The only way to retain the filibuster for use in the future is to NOT use it against Judge Gorsuch's nomination.
1
You missed the point.
The nuclear option only works if there are sufficient votes to exercise it. Gorsuch is a mainstream candidate that, without the Garland fiasco, would have won widespread bi-partisan support. No Republicans would even consider voting against him.
If the next candidate is too far to the right, there might be some Republicans that would consider voting against him (e.g. Susan Collins if she is still around). And it is also possible that there won't be 52 Republican senators as well. In other words, the nuclear option might not exist at the time.
The nuclear option only works if there are sufficient votes to exercise it. Gorsuch is a mainstream candidate that, without the Garland fiasco, would have won widespread bi-partisan support. No Republicans would even consider voting against him.
If the next candidate is too far to the right, there might be some Republicans that would consider voting against him (e.g. Susan Collins if she is still around). And it is also possible that there won't be 52 Republican senators as well. In other words, the nuclear option might not exist at the time.
1
The next nominee might not have the universal approval on the Republican side of the aisle that Judge Gorsuch has, and a vote on amending the filibuster might fail in a straight up and down vote. It would be easier for a Republican Senator to vote against changing the rule than voting against their party's nominee, as they could mask that as respect for Senate tradition rather than antipathy to the nominee.
3
This wholly partisan and one-sided view aside, the blame for the current mess belongs squarely with the Democrats. Starting with ex-president Obama for pushing a nominee despite repeat clear messages it wasn't happening. In other words the Senate did their part: plenty of advice, all ignored, and decline to consent, all dismissed. Too bad it all fell on deaf ears.
What followed was months of public display of useless self-righteous rhetoric and pointless symbolism by a failed president. All of which weirdly supported by Judge Garland himself, ditching even cosmetic semblance of neutrality, not to mention sound legal mind, and recklessly amplified by the Democrats.
But fully capitalized by the Republicans/Trump at the polls, when voters unambiguously signaled their approval for Republican actions in droves. As they will surely again, once this sorry episode of "Who wants to dig my Democrat hole?" starring Schumer & co., comes to a fitting close Friday.
The history is so fresh, you can hardly call it that, yet Democrats seek nothing from it, having literally learned nothing. Little do they realize that forcing the nuclear option on the GOP, as they did with Garland, will with certainty, backfire on them. Who, in right frame of mind, can have a problem with getting rid of a tradition that has no purpose other than obstruct? Not voters for sure.
Begone Fili, and welcome Judge Gorsuch. As for the Democrats with more egg on face, here, another napkin.
What followed was months of public display of useless self-righteous rhetoric and pointless symbolism by a failed president. All of which weirdly supported by Judge Garland himself, ditching even cosmetic semblance of neutrality, not to mention sound legal mind, and recklessly amplified by the Democrats.
But fully capitalized by the Republicans/Trump at the polls, when voters unambiguously signaled their approval for Republican actions in droves. As they will surely again, once this sorry episode of "Who wants to dig my Democrat hole?" starring Schumer & co., comes to a fitting close Friday.
The history is so fresh, you can hardly call it that, yet Democrats seek nothing from it, having literally learned nothing. Little do they realize that forcing the nuclear option on the GOP, as they did with Garland, will with certainty, backfire on them. Who, in right frame of mind, can have a problem with getting rid of a tradition that has no purpose other than obstruct? Not voters for sure.
Begone Fili, and welcome Judge Gorsuch. As for the Democrats with more egg on face, here, another napkin.
3
"This wholly partisan and one-sided view aside, the blame for the current mess belongs squarely with the Democrats."
Or "This wholly partisan and one-sided view aside, listen to my partisan and one-sided view." Very helpful.
Or "This wholly partisan and one-sided view aside, listen to my partisan and one-sided view." Very helpful.
All Presidents have a constitutional responsibility to fill vacancies on the court. President Obama's term ran to January 2016. A presidential election doesn't make him the un-President. He nominated Garland because it was his job. Senator McConnell didn't deal with the nomination and didn't do his job. Not suggesting that Garland should have been approved but the Senate needed to complete its advise and consent work and give Garland an up or down vote. That's all that was asked for. Advise and consent does mean asking the Senate's permission to nominate someone. Perhaps the President's skin color has convinced you the 'boy' should have done that.
@C Richard
Are you kidding me! The constitution only provides a president the power to appoint judges in tandem with the Senate. Not unilaterally and definitely not in the face of all logic. The Constitution thankfully also doesn't get into procedure, only substance. Advice and consent could be through a tweet under 140 characters for all the Constitution cares, and maybe one day it will.
Senate advice to Obama was from the very beginning "don't do it", eloquently reasoned and politely communicated multiple times. Yet Obama pursued the foolish journey solo, thinking rhetoric and oratory were sufficient. And along the way, he picked up loyal passenger Garland, who really should have jumped ship after breakfasting with Grassley. Instead, happily paddled with loyal master through the awfully-still waters.
To think one man lead our country for eight years, and the other actually had a shot at the nation's highest judgeship is beyond amazing. That these two went nowhere is immensely relieving, no small thanks to Senator McConnell, without whose cool-minded leadership, this country would be a lot worse-off.
Are you kidding me! The constitution only provides a president the power to appoint judges in tandem with the Senate. Not unilaterally and definitely not in the face of all logic. The Constitution thankfully also doesn't get into procedure, only substance. Advice and consent could be through a tweet under 140 characters for all the Constitution cares, and maybe one day it will.
Senate advice to Obama was from the very beginning "don't do it", eloquently reasoned and politely communicated multiple times. Yet Obama pursued the foolish journey solo, thinking rhetoric and oratory were sufficient. And along the way, he picked up loyal passenger Garland, who really should have jumped ship after breakfasting with Grassley. Instead, happily paddled with loyal master through the awfully-still waters.
To think one man lead our country for eight years, and the other actually had a shot at the nation's highest judgeship is beyond amazing. That these two went nowhere is immensely relieving, no small thanks to Senator McConnell, without whose cool-minded leadership, this country would be a lot worse-off.
1
Time for a real compromise that could reduce the politicizing of Supreme Court appointments: pass a law governing Supreme Court appointments. It could include:
(1) A supermajority should be required--say 2/3--not because of antiquated Senate filibuster rules, but because a Supreme Court seat is different from every other office. People seated on the Court should have wide bipartisan support.
(2) Vacancies must filled within one month. (No more Garland incidents,)
(3) Institute a term limit--say 14 years. Custom, not the Constitution gives Justices life tenure. Garland at 65 years of age was less threatening than Gorsuch at 49.
These are not novel. They are rules found in other constitutional courts.
(1) A supermajority should be required--say 2/3--not because of antiquated Senate filibuster rules, but because a Supreme Court seat is different from every other office. People seated on the Court should have wide bipartisan support.
(2) Vacancies must filled within one month. (No more Garland incidents,)
(3) Institute a term limit--say 14 years. Custom, not the Constitution gives Justices life tenure. Garland at 65 years of age was less threatening than Gorsuch at 49.
These are not novel. They are rules found in other constitutional courts.
3
The Supreme Court wields inordinate and disproportionate power. Whether same-sex marriage, the Florida election, corporate buying of politicians, or countless other matters, every citizen's life is dramatically affected by nine unelected individuals who serve for life and are beyond even judicial ethical rules (from which they have exempted themselves). The Court even refuses to live-cast its proceedings.
That our wellbeing—our rights to healthcare, marry whom we wish, or, for women, control their bodies—has devolved into a fickle game of chance makes this institution arguably too powerful.
We can debate whether our nation's founders wanted this. But it is beyond cavil that without systemic overhaul, at the very least, the conventions observed to date must be respected, lest the Court lose legitimacy and chaos follow.
This means both parties observing the 60-Senator super-majority rule—because it assures at least some semblance of forged consensus on positions that have such outsize influence.
The GOP played with fire when they shamefully refused even a hearing on Merrick Garland. So be it. But for them now to compound this by scotching one of the Court’s core authority-preservation mechanisms would—and should—invite all-out war.
Put differently, "nuclear option" is an apt metaphor here: GOP recklessness now will incite a conflagration unlike any to date, with the Court itself undermined.
In sum, the GOP should beware of what their partisan antics may bring.
That our wellbeing—our rights to healthcare, marry whom we wish, or, for women, control their bodies—has devolved into a fickle game of chance makes this institution arguably too powerful.
We can debate whether our nation's founders wanted this. But it is beyond cavil that without systemic overhaul, at the very least, the conventions observed to date must be respected, lest the Court lose legitimacy and chaos follow.
This means both parties observing the 60-Senator super-majority rule—because it assures at least some semblance of forged consensus on positions that have such outsize influence.
The GOP played with fire when they shamefully refused even a hearing on Merrick Garland. So be it. But for them now to compound this by scotching one of the Court’s core authority-preservation mechanisms would—and should—invite all-out war.
Put differently, "nuclear option" is an apt metaphor here: GOP recklessness now will incite a conflagration unlike any to date, with the Court itself undermined.
In sum, the GOP should beware of what their partisan antics may bring.
180
Pardon me for pointing this out, but the Supreme Court lost its legitimacy when the senate refused to perform its duty to give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote. I agree with a previous commenter that out of respect for the Court and the Constitution, all trump nominees should refuse nominations to the Court until Judge Garland is considered. It's the only way to right the capsized institution.
As if the Democrats opposition to Judge Gorsuch is anything but "partisan antics"! They would deny an unquestionably qualified Jurist a place on the SCOTUS to appease their radical Left wing,
Your "60-Senator super-majority rule", where in the Constitution would that be found?
Your "60-Senator super-majority rule", where in the Constitution would that be found?
2
Rick Fouad has it right. A formal 60-vote threshold for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees might help assure reasonably independent (and competent) judges. I only fault his first two paragraphs, where he seems to bemoan the "power" of the Supreme Court. I would only ask, do we not need this independent (as non-politicized as possible) third branch of government? Doesn't a "final word" have to be determined by this key institution? Regardless of its decisions, up to now most citizens accept the Court's rulings and move on, maybe in hopes of rehearing the same case later on, but nonetheless accepting the decisions. Who else could play this role in a democracy? [The military, anyone? I don't think so.]
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice..." Oh please, certainly, if ever a "renegade" is made the nominee, be sure that the Republicans will jettison the 60-vote threshold.
The Superbs should START --
in the name of love, before they etc., etc.
in the name of love, before they etc., etc.
Where are these opinions when liberal revisionists are being scrutinized? Uh, uh, what was that question, again?
The Democrats must filabuster. McConnell will doublecross them the next time around. He will eliminat the filibuster whenever he cannot get his way. He and his caucus have to pay a price for what they did to Judge Garland and President Obama. It is a fool's errand to think a few Republicans will peel off and help the Democrats electa moderate in a few years. That's not going to happen. Not a single Republican voted for President Obama's ACA or for his stimulus package. Not a single Republican voted for the budget Bill Clinton put through that saved our economy in 1993. Why on earth would you think they would behave differently now or in a few years? It's insane to think that McConnell and Cornyn and the rest of them will change their ways out of a sense of decency. The fact they are willing to prop up ashameless demagogue, and possibly a traitor, like Trump tells us all we need to know about them. Filibuster now.
312
Thank you.
"Why on earth would you think they would behave differently now or in a few years? It's insane to think that McConnell and Cornyn and the rest of them will change their ways out of a sense of decency."
"Why on earth would you think they would behave differently now or in a few years? It's insane to think that McConnell and Cornyn and the rest of them will change their ways out of a sense of decency."
Ace, you've got it backwards. Republicans won't peel off to vote for a moderate, of course (elections have consequences), but a few might peel off to block an ultra-right candidate, therefore helping to block him/her. At that stage, with recalcitrant Republicans, I doubt anybody can use the nuclear option, effectively disenfranchising their own party's Senators. Therefore to preserve the filibuster would seem a wiser choice. It costs nothing, since there is no chance for Gorsuch not to be confirmed.
1
Mitch McConnell's rationale for refusing to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland was that the November election would be a referendum on who the nominee should be. He wanted to leave it up to the American people to decide. Well, they did, and the Republicans received 3,000,000 fewer votes than the Democrats. It was the Electoral College that elected Trump, not a plurality of the people.
The American people spoke, and Mitch refuses to listen when the outcome doesn't match his political agenda. Outrageous and pathetically partisan. Mitch McConnell, have you no shame sir!
The American people spoke, and Mitch refuses to listen when the outcome doesn't match his political agenda. Outrageous and pathetically partisan. Mitch McConnell, have you no shame sir!
2
George,
Perhaps you forgot social studies, but in this country, the Electoral College is how elections are determined.
Perhaps you forgot social studies, but in this country, the Electoral College is how elections are determined.
Dear Concerned Reader,
As a history major in college, I'm fully aware of the electoral college process. I'm merely echoing Mitch McConnell's own words. He specifically stated that the "American people" should weigh in on the nominee.
As a history major in college, I'm fully aware of the electoral college process. I'm merely echoing Mitch McConnell's own words. He specifically stated that the "American people" should weigh in on the nominee.
Now.......or later. It makes no difference. Conceding an objectionable nominee to preserve "some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade judge" IS "having no chance at all." If McConnel can persuade his faction to abandon this last remnant of a once reasonable and moderate assembly, it doesn't matter when they pull the trigger.
And would all the journalists covering this issue please stop describing it as democrats "forcing" republicans to employ the nuclear option. Forcing implies coercion. The correct description is that republicans have been threatening to end this long tradition of civility, and have been holding every decision hostage to their threats.
And would all the journalists covering this issue please stop describing it as democrats "forcing" republicans to employ the nuclear option. Forcing implies coercion. The correct description is that republicans have been threatening to end this long tradition of civility, and have been holding every decision hostage to their threats.
3
SCOTUS entered the political arena when the Marshall court, in Marbury vs Madison, claimed for itself the power to issue authoritative rulings on the meaning of provisions of the Constitution. In practice, the federal government's limited interventions in the economy and society throughout most of the 19th century provided few opportunities for the court to exercise its powers of judicial review, the infamous Dred Scott decision serving as a rare exception.
The activist state of the 20th century, however, sucked SCOTUS into the middle of the debates over the proper role of the federal government. From the judiciary's initial resistance to the New Deal through the Warren court's attempt to redefine the impact of the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment on government's responsibilities to its citizens, the Supreme Court intervened in issues that divided Americans. The resulting controversies may have penetrated the confirmation hearings for justices only after the nomination of Bork, but presidents had sporadically sought to shape the membership of SCOTUS since FDR's ill-starred court-packing scheme.
A judiciary whose authority supersedes the powers of Congress and the state legislatures cannot remain above the fray. The GOP, more than the Democrats, have accelerated the process of politicization in irresponsible ways. But a judiciary with the power over the political branches enjoyed by SCOTUS cannot entirely escape the taint of political bias.
The activist state of the 20th century, however, sucked SCOTUS into the middle of the debates over the proper role of the federal government. From the judiciary's initial resistance to the New Deal through the Warren court's attempt to redefine the impact of the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment on government's responsibilities to its citizens, the Supreme Court intervened in issues that divided Americans. The resulting controversies may have penetrated the confirmation hearings for justices only after the nomination of Bork, but presidents had sporadically sought to shape the membership of SCOTUS since FDR's ill-starred court-packing scheme.
A judiciary whose authority supersedes the powers of Congress and the state legislatures cannot remain above the fray. The GOP, more than the Democrats, have accelerated the process of politicization in irresponsible ways. But a judiciary with the power over the political branches enjoyed by SCOTUS cannot entirely escape the taint of political bias.
"What matters is that Americans believe they are governed by law, not by whatever political party manages to stack the Supreme Court."
It's too late to change that for that ship sailed when the GOP blocked Merritt Garland from consideration. Their claims that the "people have to speak" were disingenuous to say the least. The people spoke in elections in 2008 and 2012, but the statement was not what the GOP wanted. They ignored their constitutional responsibility; made a mockery of our system; and tarnished the Supreme Court.
I do not think that the Dems should filibuster for it would be a useless exercise, i.e., it will not stop Mr. Gorsuch from being elected. Someone must act with integrity. Let's save the filibuster for future use, not stoop to the GOP level.
It's too late to change that for that ship sailed when the GOP blocked Merritt Garland from consideration. Their claims that the "people have to speak" were disingenuous to say the least. The people spoke in elections in 2008 and 2012, but the statement was not what the GOP wanted. They ignored their constitutional responsibility; made a mockery of our system; and tarnished the Supreme Court.
I do not think that the Dems should filibuster for it would be a useless exercise, i.e., it will not stop Mr. Gorsuch from being elected. Someone must act with integrity. Let's save the filibuster for future use, not stoop to the GOP level.
16
This ship sailed long ago captained by Sen. Ted Kennedy and navigated by the National media that did not call Kennedy out.
1
Change the Constitution so Supreme Court Justices [and all other judges] are elected.
But you argue ordinary voters are too ignorant.
Then you are arguing against small d democracy.
Do you think ordinary voters would make worse choices than a Scalia who said it is not unconstitutional to execute an INNOCENT person who had a fair trial and who struck down the requirement that guns in the home not in use be either trigger locked or stored in safes.
Justices do not decide cases based on the Constitution but on expediency. A Justice decides what decision he or she wants and then dredges up some rationale to support that decision.
Explain Korematsu or Cohen.
Black's argument in Korematsu.
"We were at war" That is not an argument based on the Constitution but on expediency.
Expediency is why many decisions are 5-4. The Justices are experienced lawyers. They know what the Constitution says.
Since so many Court rulings are not based on the Constitution but on expediency and personal choice then the voters should ELECT Justices.
Do you really think presidents of either party make Court appointments based on a candidate's scholarly ability. A president has a detailed discussion and appoints someone who will vote as the president wants.
Gorsuch said repeatedly during the confirmation hearings he could not comment on specific cases.
Do you think that when Donald askedGorsuch how Gorsuch would decide on a specific case that Gorsuch said he couldn't comment.
But you argue ordinary voters are too ignorant.
Then you are arguing against small d democracy.
Do you think ordinary voters would make worse choices than a Scalia who said it is not unconstitutional to execute an INNOCENT person who had a fair trial and who struck down the requirement that guns in the home not in use be either trigger locked or stored in safes.
Justices do not decide cases based on the Constitution but on expediency. A Justice decides what decision he or she wants and then dredges up some rationale to support that decision.
Explain Korematsu or Cohen.
Black's argument in Korematsu.
"We were at war" That is not an argument based on the Constitution but on expediency.
Expediency is why many decisions are 5-4. The Justices are experienced lawyers. They know what the Constitution says.
Since so many Court rulings are not based on the Constitution but on expediency and personal choice then the voters should ELECT Justices.
Do you really think presidents of either party make Court appointments based on a candidate's scholarly ability. A president has a detailed discussion and appoints someone who will vote as the president wants.
Gorsuch said repeatedly during the confirmation hearings he could not comment on specific cases.
Do you think that when Donald askedGorsuch how Gorsuch would decide on a specific case that Gorsuch said he couldn't comment.
9
Yep a gerrymandered vote would be fair NOT.
Gerrymandering affects local Congressional districts.
Electing Court Justices by the national popular vote would not be affected by gerrymandering.
Electing Court Justices by the national popular vote would not be affected by gerrymandering.
Not true gerrymandering affects all of our elections from the local districts to the national stage.
Answer
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
Question
Give An example of a quisling.
"Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
Question
Give An example of a quisling.
10
Republicans would be stupid to end the filibuster because they are the ones who are going to need it.
The demographic trends are already set that will guarantee Democrat majorities in the future. Gerrymandering and voter suppression won't be enough to win elections in the future.
If they kill the filibuster, they will lose most votes by simple majority in the future.
The demographic trends are already set that will guarantee Democrat majorities in the future. Gerrymandering and voter suppression won't be enough to win elections in the future.
If they kill the filibuster, they will lose most votes by simple majority in the future.
14
Since Harry Reid has already killed the filibuster and if your prognosis proves correct then what difference would it make? Granted Supreme Court nominees were exempted but a future Senate controlled by Democrats would change that anyway if Republicans filibustered a Democratic candidate. The gordian knot has already been cut.
Under Harry Reid's leadership Democrat Senators did end the filibuster, but only of Cabinet nominees, and pointedly not of Supreme Court nominees. Why? Because a single Supreme Court justice has much greater power to change government decisions that a Cabinet member.
First, Cabinet members cannot change law, they can only administer the laws and recommend changes to Congress. We've just seen that. Tom Price has bitterly opposed Obamacare for years and became the Secretary of HHS determined to repeal Obamacare. He, Ryan and Trump tried but failed to change the law.
Second, a 9th Supreme Court Justice who is as extremely conservative as Gorsuch would change many/most Court decisions, meaning change government laws. And, we've seen that happen to Obamacare after Roberts became the 9th Justice (Chief Justice). He is much less conservative than Gorsuch but, nontheless divided the baby in the Sebelius decision - leaving the mandate in effect but making Medicaid expansion optional.
So, the real gordian knot has not been cut and both political parties would be wise to leave it in place. Killing the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee would come back to haunt either party. It is part of our Checks and Balances that prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority.
First, Cabinet members cannot change law, they can only administer the laws and recommend changes to Congress. We've just seen that. Tom Price has bitterly opposed Obamacare for years and became the Secretary of HHS determined to repeal Obamacare. He, Ryan and Trump tried but failed to change the law.
Second, a 9th Supreme Court Justice who is as extremely conservative as Gorsuch would change many/most Court decisions, meaning change government laws. And, we've seen that happen to Obamacare after Roberts became the 9th Justice (Chief Justice). He is much less conservative than Gorsuch but, nontheless divided the baby in the Sebelius decision - leaving the mandate in effect but making Medicaid expansion optional.
So, the real gordian knot has not been cut and both political parties would be wise to leave it in place. Killing the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee would come back to haunt either party. It is part of our Checks and Balances that prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority.
19
Reid also eliminated it for all lower court judgeships: the lower courts also wield tremendous power, but Reid didn't have a problem with it then.
In ancient Greece, an individual who acted independently of the established order was considered an idiot. In Elizabethan England, an individual who acted without the protection of a powerful patron was called a person. These were not compliments. Individuals who consider issues independently of their tribe are few and far between. From the founding fathers until the modern era, however, the elite constituted a tribe that aspired, or at least professed, to behave nobly. What has changed is that the elite now profess proudly to be utensils of their tribes, and not persons.
4
@ Long Memory
The elite??? You must be joking. "Brown shirts" would be a better label.
The elite??? You must be joking. "Brown shirts" would be a better label.
Highly privileged, then.
They will go to 51 whenever they need to ,.what difference does it make..this is a democratic protest. For my money they should have boycotted the whole procedure based on the Garland precedent set by McConnell
18
Judge Gorsuch is more than a Supreme Court Justice. He is an investment for the GOP in pro-corporate, anti-minority, and possibly anti-Roe v. Wade legislation. And he will be on the bench long after Mitch McConnell is gone. He guarantees right-wing policies for generations to come. That is why McConnell and his cronies have been willing to cheat with Garland, and wreck long-standing Senate procedures to get their way, and cement their odious, anti-social policies into a permanent conservative majority on the court.
It may not be possible for Democrats to stop this juggernaut, but they must make a valiant try. Just rolling over and letting the Republicans ruin the nation and deprive Americans of their civil rights, and protection from oppression with this right-wing judge is not an ethical or moral option.
It may not be possible for Democrats to stop this juggernaut, but they must make a valiant try. Just rolling over and letting the Republicans ruin the nation and deprive Americans of their civil rights, and protection from oppression with this right-wing judge is not an ethical or moral option.
47
Bravo!
1
So however it happens, Friday will bring us one step closer to a Supreme Court that is a naked political arm of the ruling party. With life-time appointments we can now expect the last election to change the nature and direction of America for 40 or more years, even if the normal 8 year party swapping continues at the Presidential level. Within the present Presidential term we may find ourselves with a puppet high court that even Nicolás Maduro would be proud of.
We already have two systems of "justice", one for the rich and powerful and another, far harsher one, for everybody else. With this new development, "liberty and justice for all" is a complete farce.
We already have two systems of "justice", one for the rich and powerful and another, far harsher one, for everybody else. With this new development, "liberty and justice for all" is a complete farce.
28
Two points:
1. If Dems fear using the filibuster one last time against Gorsuch or any other mominee, then for all practical purposes the filibuster is already dead.
2. Let history show that the Repubs own this illegitimate nomination.
1. If Dems fear using the filibuster one last time against Gorsuch or any other mominee, then for all practical purposes the filibuster is already dead.
2. Let history show that the Repubs own this illegitimate nomination.
17
I won't be around to see the judgment of history. I worry for myself and my loved ones in the here-and-now. Worrying about letting "history show" gave us Sanders Zealots and Never-Clintons and we got Trump.
The Times acknowledges that if Senate Democrats refrain from filibustering the Gorsuch nomination to preserve the tactic for a future court pick, their chances of prevailing in that future battle are just as remote as they are today. So why delay? The time to register a political protest over the treatment of Judge Garland is now--during the confirmation of the judge who would not have been picked to replace Justice Scalia if Senate Republicans had fulfilled their constitutional duty last year.
14
I wish we could change the nomination process. If presidents didn't nominate Supreme Court justices, and the court didn't play such an outsize role, perhaps many of the Republicans who voted for Trump wouldn't have. And as to the content of the editorial, I agree almost entirely. There's something fantastical about the way progressives discuss this. Gorsuch is as good as it gets with President Trump.
I also agree with another commentor who said that the politicization of the court is only an instance of the politicization of everything in today's America. The country is as divided as it's ever been, save the Founding generation and the Civil War era.
I also agree with another commentor who said that the politicization of the court is only an instance of the politicization of everything in today's America. The country is as divided as it's ever been, save the Founding generation and the Civil War era.
6
And the Vietnam era.
"If presidents didn't nominate Supreme Court justices, and the court didn't play such an outsize role, perhaps many of the Republicans who voted for Trump wouldn't have."
This hypothetical Republican voter could have been me. I did not vote for Trump but almost did, for fear that president Hillary would nominate yet another anti-gun justice, thereby dooming Heller and McDonald.
This hypothetical Republican voter could have been me. I did not vote for Trump but almost did, for fear that president Hillary would nominate yet another anti-gun justice, thereby dooming Heller and McDonald.
The seat Judge Gorsuch will probably occupy on the Supreme Court was stolen from Judge Garland or whomever else President Obama might have selected if Judge Garland had been rejected by the Senate. SCOTUS judges have the obligation to act by their interpretation of the constitution and, one would expect, have deep respect for it and in many cases are bound by precedent. Unless I am completely mistaken (as I may very well be) the Senate did not have the option of ignoring President Obama’s choice of Judge Garland or of any other president’s choice for SCOTUS . In that case, I believe judges chosen for SCOTUS by the present administration, out of respect for the constitution and for precedent, should be honor bound to refuse the appointment until Judge Garland has had his day with the Senate. Failure to do so basically endorses this final and most conspicuous act of the deliberate obstruction of President Obama’s presidency Senator Mitch McConnell declared on inauguration day 2009.
392
You are mistaken! Not doing anything is "advice"! The Constitution allowed the Senate to make its own rules.
You are mistaken. The Senate absolutely had that option, and exercised it. Separation of powers principles prevent anyone but the voters via the political process from telling the Senate how to carry out its constitutional duty of advice and consent, and, well, we know what the voters had to say on that!
You are mistaken: US Constitution, Article 1, section 5, line 2 "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings". That means that the Senate decides what the Senate is required to do. The executive or Judicial branch can't force the Senate to call a vote.
1
Good call. Don't filibuster this nomination.
The Democrats should try to get a concession on something else, something big in exchange for allowing the nomination to proceed. Otherwise, they should devise their own "nuclear option" in retaliation for the Republican theft of the prior nominee. Shutting down the government for a few days, if they can't otherwise make a deal, doesn't seem out of the question.
Even a hyper-partisan snake like McConnell surely must have some respect for the long traditions of the U.S. Senate. Surely. If the Democrats agree to allow the nomination to go forward, then he would not have to change the rules of the Senate and procedures would be preserved. If, however, he won't concede anything at any time, the Democrats might find themselves in a position from which they cannot retreat. Hey, it happens.
For the eight years of Obama, the Republicans obstructed government by blocking appointments at many levels AND they garnered little blame and almost no attention from the major national media. Whatever the Democrats do now, they should make sure that the country understands what they are doing and they come out looking like winners. Gorsuch is going on the Court no matter, so they should leverage this situation to their advantage. If they can't, all bets should be off.
The Democrats should try to get a concession on something else, something big in exchange for allowing the nomination to proceed. Otherwise, they should devise their own "nuclear option" in retaliation for the Republican theft of the prior nominee. Shutting down the government for a few days, if they can't otherwise make a deal, doesn't seem out of the question.
Even a hyper-partisan snake like McConnell surely must have some respect for the long traditions of the U.S. Senate. Surely. If the Democrats agree to allow the nomination to go forward, then he would not have to change the rules of the Senate and procedures would be preserved. If, however, he won't concede anything at any time, the Democrats might find themselves in a position from which they cannot retreat. Hey, it happens.
For the eight years of Obama, the Republicans obstructed government by blocking appointments at many levels AND they garnered little blame and almost no attention from the major national media. Whatever the Democrats do now, they should make sure that the country understands what they are doing and they come out looking like winners. Gorsuch is going on the Court no matter, so they should leverage this situation to their advantage. If they can't, all bets should be off.
3
@ Hank Berry III
"Even a hyper-partisan snake like McConnell surely must have some respect for the long traditions of the U.S. Senate."
Alas, Mr. Berry, like all bullies and hate-filled obstructionists, McConnel is incapable of respect, though he can fawn on power if it feeds his rage, his racist rage at Obama for example. I think of Iago.
"Even a hyper-partisan snake like McConnell surely must have some respect for the long traditions of the U.S. Senate."
Alas, Mr. Berry, like all bullies and hate-filled obstructionists, McConnel is incapable of respect, though he can fawn on power if it feeds his rage, his racist rage at Obama for example. I think of Iago.
Imagine President Hillary Clinton's nominee was being filibustered by McConnell. The Gray Lady would be at the top of the list calling for the nuclear option. They are no better than the DPRK news agency. I think they may be even more biased.
6
GOP is interested in one thing and one thing only repeal of Roe v Wade. States would then be able to ban abortion in their state. We will go back to back room abortions and the millennial will experience what their mothers had to go through. And all of those jobs will be available for men because women will have to have children, a la repeal of federal guidelines sexual abuse can only be arbitrated secretly. What a sorry society when we punish women, their mothers, and children!
7
There is no equivalent here with respect to both parties. The Republicans or whatever you want to call them now are rats on a sinking ship. White old men like Mitch are destroying my country for the sake of smirks and power grabs. It's time for a new order. These people need to go away, Clintons included. We need a fresh start
9
Republicans keep going back to Robert Bork as the beginning of the process of politicizing the Court. That is nonsense. First, in recent times, it is clear the process of using primarily political criteria for selecting judges began in the Reagan years. Second, Robert Bork was rejected by a majority of the Senate because in his hearings his failings as a caring human being became obvious for all to see. I had read some of Bork's opinions, so had some strong suspicions that the hearings confirmed. The real problem is that the Republican Party is committed to representing the rich and powerful and are willing to bend rules, laws, traditions, or even the constitution to achieve that goals. Assume that the filibuster will disappear for all Senate action in this term because it is the only counter control Democrats have left.
284
Indeed. Bork's problem was that he answered candidly, something no republican nominee has done since. Gorsuch was barely willing to give his name, rank and serial number.
Maybe. America, France and Russia threw off this kind of thing. Though those revolutions were bloody, they were worth it. Unfortunately, it appears that Russia has fallen back into the tar pits. America and France haven't, though it appears that America has begun to slide back. The question is whether it's too late.
I agree with Rawebb. For quite a few years now, the Republicans have acted as if they are the only party that can legitimately govern. They are not trying to have a two party system. Many words are said about freedom and less government -- but it really all breaks down to government that protects the rich and gives them the freedom to grab all they want -- everyone else be damned! All we can do is resist. Our gentlemanly (in the broadest sense of the word) compliance on Roberts and Alito has only gotten us Citizens United.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear.. Trump didn't nominate Judge Gorsuch- The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute did it for him. That means our Supreme Court is now for sale to the highest bidder. This is like the Charlie Brown and commercialization of Christmas episode- complete with the aluminum tree. Is nothing sacred in this country anymore? Sooner or later each judge will have a collection of corporate sponsor patches sewn in their robes. This makes me sick.
17
No NY Times. This is on Harry Reid. As soon as he ended the filibuster on judicial nominees it was only a matter of time before it was extended to SCOTUS. Timmy Kane said as much back in October when it looked like Bill Clinton's enabler would be elected president.
8
People who have deliberately politicized the Court have no standing to complain when the Court gets embroiled in partisan politics.
It is pure chutzpah for the Times to invoke the rule of law when no one has tried harder to undermine it or more aggressively advocated for the Court to substitute the Times's policy preferences for the Constitution.
It is pure chutzpah for the Times to invoke the rule of law when no one has tried harder to undermine it or more aggressively advocated for the Court to substitute the Times's policy preferences for the Constitution.
8
There is nothing in a Senator's oath of office saying they have to vote yes on a candidate and Senators have voted down Judicial candidates since the beginning of the nation, long before Bork. The Senate oath does say the Senators promise to uphold the constitution - this means that deciding that they will refuse to do their job and interview or vote on all candidates is refusing to do the job they swore to do. The NY Times is, as always, far too ready to play the both sides do it game. There is a fundamental difference between voting down candidates and refusing to perform the office of Senator as described in the constitution. When a party refuses to do it's job at all it is breaking the pact to govern by law and constitution that is the only thing that make our government possible.
5
The editorial board tries very hard to pin this on McConnell and the Republican caucus, but I will counter with one key fact omitted here. Not one single nominee has ever been the subject of a successful partisan filibuster. Justice Alito was confirmed by fewer than 60 votes, and despite the fact that then Obama and others attempted to filibuster his nomination, they failed to achieve 60 votes, and Alito received an up or down vote. The reality is that if a nominee of the caliber of Neil Gorsuch is required to attain 60 votes for confirmation, then no virtually seats will ever be filled unless there exists a supermajority of the same party as the president, which has seldom occurred in the past 50 or so years. And do not forget that Biden, et al. essentially said "no confirmation" in the final Bush years.
The underlying problem is that justices do, in fact, vote in a predictably partisan way, at least in politically charged cases. This is not especially a new thing. But since the court has taken it upon itself to essentially assume the mantle of a super-legislature, the stakes have become immense. The culmination of this was the Obergefell decision. Regardless of whether you approved the outcome or not, Obergefell essentially was Kennedy and the D. justices imposing their own policy preferences on the country. When five people can create such an outcome out of whole cloth, then the stakes in these confirmation hearings are clear. And McConnell is nothing but rational.
The underlying problem is that justices do, in fact, vote in a predictably partisan way, at least in politically charged cases. This is not especially a new thing. But since the court has taken it upon itself to essentially assume the mantle of a super-legislature, the stakes have become immense. The culmination of this was the Obergefell decision. Regardless of whether you approved the outcome or not, Obergefell essentially was Kennedy and the D. justices imposing their own policy preferences on the country. When five people can create such an outcome out of whole cloth, then the stakes in these confirmation hearings are clear. And McConnell is nothing but rational.
6
Protecting the filibuster should not be a goal. The filibuster, as often as not, has been used to thwart progress. It was used routinely to block civil right legislation. It prevented us from reforming health care until there was a temporary 60 vote Democratic majority. The Senate, with 2 senators per state regardless of size, is undemocratic enough. Adding an arbitrary 60 vote threshold makes it even worse. It is time to get rid of the filibuster, for judicial nominations and everything else, and embrace the chaos that may ensue.
5
Shame on the NYT Editorial Board.
You acknowledge that the Republicans "could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too." So you counsel that the Democrats err on the side of timidity about reporting and responding to aggravated assault and rape?
What is wrong with you? The traditions of the Senate are not up for discussion...where have you been for the entire term of the two Obama Administrations?
McConnell and the Senate Republicans have no intention of preserving the function of the Senate as prescribed by the Constitution. Garland was just the frosting the cake...they've done it for eight year and not fighting back is not a strategy for making them stop!
Making them ridiculous is the only possible response. And bringing out the vote in 2018 and 2020 and prosecuting every possible violation, however minor, for every possible criminal and ethics violation until the GOP can be swept up in a dust pan and put in the trash.
Fuggitaboutit! Filibuster...make them own the crime.
You acknowledge that the Republicans "could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too." So you counsel that the Democrats err on the side of timidity about reporting and responding to aggravated assault and rape?
What is wrong with you? The traditions of the Senate are not up for discussion...where have you been for the entire term of the two Obama Administrations?
McConnell and the Senate Republicans have no intention of preserving the function of the Senate as prescribed by the Constitution. Garland was just the frosting the cake...they've done it for eight year and not fighting back is not a strategy for making them stop!
Making them ridiculous is the only possible response. And bringing out the vote in 2018 and 2020 and prosecuting every possible violation, however minor, for every possible criminal and ethics violation until the GOP can be swept up in a dust pan and put in the trash.
Fuggitaboutit! Filibuster...make them own the crime.
3
Alas, making Hitler seem ridiculous didn't work. As a country, we're right on the slippery edge of the tar pits from which no creature has emerged alive.
What a farce. McConnell is a sophisticated hypocrite, lying to us with a straight face, a 'model' obstructionist when in the opposition; a radical ideologue otherwise, to stack the Court with Alt Right comrades in arms. Decency is, deplorably, awol.
8
I voted Democrat for over 20 years, beginning with Bill Clinton in 1992, right through to and including Barack Obama's reelection in 2012. I was disgusted and disappointed with the Bush vs. Gore decision (and also the lackluster campaign run by Al Gore). And I have to say it unfortunately started with what the Democrats did to Robert Bork. Will never forget my father's outrage at the Borking of America, and he was a lawyer & card-carrying member of the Liberal Club at his university in the 1950's (hosted Adlai Stevenson more than once).
3
McConnell's abhorrent behavior in trying to obstruct all of President Obama's efforts at governing must not be rewarded. Therefore, the Democrats must filibuster Gorsuch's nomination. Nothing will get better until the U.S. sinks to the bottom, and a large majority of the public recognizes the real perils that all Americans are facing.
270
McConnell is the worst blockhead ever to sit in the Senate....a'
Foul small minded TOAD.
Foul small minded TOAD.
McConnell had to, or we'd be stuck with Obama's mess for many more years. The real perils that all Americans are facing will dissolve as the Obama appointments fade away.
Elections have consequences, or at least I heard that from someone. Unfortunately folks in congress are too polite and think they are friends with opponents. Some have declared war, smart people just win it.
Mitch McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings on Obama's rightful candidate is the single worst act of party over constitution in the long history of Senate leaders. If he now changes the rules to allow a quick, but bare majority, approval of his party's choice, that act will seen as more of the same– an act of brazen and pure partisanship. McConnell is not a statesman; he is a party hack.
540
He is not a flack, he is great leader of the band, the pied piper. Let the rats follow him.
Of course, you know that the Democratic Party would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed, right? I mean, now that we're being honest and everything....
No, he was just applying "The Biden Rule" that Supreme's should not be confirmed in the last year of an administration. Nothing new here and actually started by the Dems. Facts matter even in a fact free zone like the Times.
If a candidate for SCOTUS cannot garner 60 votes we need to ask why. Obama was in his final year and that was the excuse to steal a seat but Trump is being investigated for what would be tantamount to treason and may be forced for office but the GOP is willing to grant him a lifetime appointment before the cloud of the president's is a legitimate president or not. If Gorsuch is rammed through and Trump is forced from office by impeachment or otherwise that will be a second stolen seat and the GOP knows it and does not care.
3
The Constitutional method is best. Every Senator gets a vote, and majority rules,whether the Senators are Republicans or Democrats or others.
2
Hah, I'm amused that the editorial board is naive enough to even attempt to place the blame on McConnell. He's only using a method spearheaded by the democrats in 2013 to override a republican filibuster.
6
"But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
Why do you presume that Neil Gorsuch is not a renegade? The NYT published a very informative op-ed by Bazelon and Posner on Judge Gorsuch, Schechter, Chevron, and the administrative state. Non-delegation? You want to go with Congressmen of insufficient vocabulary and staffers of overweening misunderstanding? Add that you want 10,000 rules re-interpreted? Senator Franken used the word absurd to characterize the frozen trucker ruling. I think 'overturn Chevron' gets to absurd pretty quick too. All told, I'll call Judge Gorsuch a legal renegade. The only reason he might not seem to be is that they have been multiplying like rabbits for the last five decades.
Why do you presume that Neil Gorsuch is not a renegade? The NYT published a very informative op-ed by Bazelon and Posner on Judge Gorsuch, Schechter, Chevron, and the administrative state. Non-delegation? You want to go with Congressmen of insufficient vocabulary and staffers of overweening misunderstanding? Add that you want 10,000 rules re-interpreted? Senator Franken used the word absurd to characterize the frozen trucker ruling. I think 'overturn Chevron' gets to absurd pretty quick too. All told, I'll call Judge Gorsuch a legal renegade. The only reason he might not seem to be is that they have been multiplying like rabbits for the last five decades.
Good riddance to the filibuster! It was always an anti-democratic weapon that a Senate minority could use to block the majority. The Republicans weaponized it during Obama's time in office to block nominees even for the lower Federal courts. Like any weapon, it can point both ways. Best to let the Republicans get rid of it. There's the nice irony of those who depended on it being the ones to eliminate it, and eventually there will be another Democratic president who will be grateful for the judicial filibuster's demise. Bring it on Mitch!
150
Why are terms like respect and human dignity meaningless to the adult-children that call themselves republicans?
Barring a catastrophe in our society the Republicans are headed for increasing minority status and will suffer from this tantrum.
1
The majority is NOT always right. The filibuster is one way of preventing the "tyranny of the majority" from running roughshod over all opposition. If a question is important enough it can always be worked out in time and negotiation. The misuse of the filibuster as a political tool to block everything proposed by the other party is an illegitimate application.
Perhaps the problem comes down to entrenched power at the upper levels of the Senate's(and the House's)organization. The President of the Senate(the Vice President) already is subject to term limits, perhaps the positions of Majority leader, Minority leader in both Houses and the Speaker should be replaced after two Presidential terms.
Perhaps the problem comes down to entrenched power at the upper levels of the Senate's(and the House's)organization. The President of the Senate(the Vice President) already is subject to term limits, perhaps the positions of Majority leader, Minority leader in both Houses and the Speaker should be replaced after two Presidential terms.
I find this sad more than anything.
The article dances around the issue of governmental legitimacy but doesn't elaborate. What should be the subject of a future op-ed is exactly how far in the sewer any of the branches of government must fall before they lose all credibility with those who are purportedly governed by them. Democracy is a two way street, and exists only so long as the governed consent to being governed.
That is what concerns me most about the direction this is heading. Why obey the laws if they are installed by a corrupt cabal? Why obey Court orders if they are made for a partisan purpose by political appointees?
The article dances around the issue of governmental legitimacy but doesn't elaborate. What should be the subject of a future op-ed is exactly how far in the sewer any of the branches of government must fall before they lose all credibility with those who are purportedly governed by them. Democracy is a two way street, and exists only so long as the governed consent to being governed.
That is what concerns me most about the direction this is heading. Why obey the laws if they are installed by a corrupt cabal? Why obey Court orders if they are made for a partisan purpose by political appointees?
2
The Senate rules are complicated. And those who know them best can accomplish the unexpected.. No one has ever considered knowledge of the rules to be dirty pool. Lyndon Johnson's expertise helped get the Civil Rights bill passed over the objection of the Republicans. McConnell did basically the same. He knew the rules better than the Democrats and so he blocked the Obama appointment . Johnson was much-praised for being clever. McConnell is much criticized. Both did their party's work with ingenuity. Both believed they were serving the interests of justice. There will be meaningless distinctions made. And nobody will admit that similar partisan tactics were used because Democrats irrationally adhere to the notion that McConnell's permissible tactic, unlike Johnson's, was a travesty of justice.
4
"Lyndon Johnson's expertise helped get the Civil Rights bill passed over the objection of the Republicans. "
A majority of Republican senators supported the Civil Rights Bill. Southern Democratic senators did not.
A majority of Republican senators supported the Civil Rights Bill. Southern Democratic senators did not.
President Obama, a legitimately elected president of the United States nominated Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court after the death of Justice Anthony Scalia. President Obama fulfilled a constitutional duty to recommend to the Senate a candidate for their review. The Senate refused to review his credentials. The republicans failed to carry out their constitutional duty. A concocted litany of excuses was presented by the republican senate to deny this honorable man a hearing and potentially a seat on the Supreme Court. Among these was the falsehood that President Obama should not nominate a Justice in an election year. This fabricated distortion does not exist in the American constitution.
The nomination of Neil Gorsuch by Donald Trump to become a member of the United States Supreme Court is now an illegitimate nomination and Gorsuch will take his place on the court with an asterisk after his name. In criminal law if you accept property that you know is stolen you are a party to the crime and can be charged with theft. Stories speak of the credentials of Gorsuch as a strict interpreter of the American constitution. If he has any integrity and respect for the Constitution of the United States, he will refuse to be sworn in as a Supreme Court justice and go back to Denver. If he takes the oath he becomes a willful lackey in the latest episode of the republicans hijacking the American constitution for blatant partisan political purposes.
The nomination of Neil Gorsuch by Donald Trump to become a member of the United States Supreme Court is now an illegitimate nomination and Gorsuch will take his place on the court with an asterisk after his name. In criminal law if you accept property that you know is stolen you are a party to the crime and can be charged with theft. Stories speak of the credentials of Gorsuch as a strict interpreter of the American constitution. If he has any integrity and respect for the Constitution of the United States, he will refuse to be sworn in as a Supreme Court justice and go back to Denver. If he takes the oath he becomes a willful lackey in the latest episode of the republicans hijacking the American constitution for blatant partisan political purposes.
14
All decorum and acting like adults aside, face it -- this is WAR, and McConnell has launched the first bomb. Dems, GO ALL OUT., this is now a Blood Sport.
6
This is one motherloving stupid way to negotiate and manage a social contract.
Some of us find it surprising that no one has attempted to take the Garland case to the supreme court and surprising as well that no one now is taking the Gorsuch nomination to the supreme court. We the people, the Obama government, and Judge Garland deserved to have Garland given a hearing and voted on as the legitimate nominee. We the people deserve that Judge Gorsuch not be given the hearing he has received and not be voted on at all because his nomination is illegitimate--not to mention that the president and party nominating him may also be proven to be illegitimate. It is thuggish of the Republicans to take an attitude of "You can't stop me." This is the brutalization of democracy by those whose only goal is power. The world has seen such people before.
22
freyda ny you've put into words exactly what I'm feeling. I'm a republican but I truly believe I know right from wrong. Gov John Kasich recently said, " The nation risks losing its "soul" but I think my party has already done that led by the Freedom Caucus.
Response to Freyda, I had not heard that suggestion before and I love it.
Bring it to the Supreme Court. Why should mitch be able to make up lies about everything go unchallenged?
Bring it to the Supreme Court. Why should mitch be able to make up lies about everything go unchallenged?
If there is any naivete in Washington these days, it is with the notion that bipartisanship is still alive. The Gorsuch nomination should be opposed. Let McConnell go nuclear if he wants. When the roles are reversed in a couple years, he'll be the one crying about it.
4
I hesitate to say this but the Editorial Board has its head in the "Ideal World of Congress" clouds. As long as Mitch McConnell and his supporters infest the Senate and have a majority the Democrats will not get their way. He is able to hold his Caucus whereas some Red State Democrats will shoot their own in the back, such as Manchin, Heitcamp etc. Or maybe they were given the day of because they got 41.
Its better for the Democrats to show some guts and hold the line. The GOP will do more harm for the middle and working classes with other egregious legislation and its better for the Democrats to get some practice in being a real opposition party than the Republican football (soccer) to be pushed around whenever possible. The President needs to know he cannot come running to them if the hard right stops him.
Its better for the Democrats to show some guts and hold the line. The GOP will do more harm for the middle and working classes with other egregious legislation and its better for the Democrats to get some practice in being a real opposition party than the Republican football (soccer) to be pushed around whenever possible. The President needs to know he cannot come running to them if the hard right stops him.
8
Democrats are now in the minority and it's high time for them to follow the "standard" set by Republicans. The one-upmanship game played by Republicans in the past 7 year is the new standard Republicans have set and Democrats should follow the rules set by Republicans.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Democrats should block any and all Republican initiatives, even if they lose in the end and, even if it is to the detriment of our nation. Republicans set the standard by not even considers Garland for the Supreme Court.
Dems have to fight fire with fire.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Democrats should block any and all Republican initiatives, even if they lose in the end and, even if it is to the detriment of our nation. Republicans set the standard by not even considers Garland for the Supreme Court.
Dems have to fight fire with fire.
I suggest a brokered solution. Garland is confirmed to replace a retiring Ginsberg, the fillibuster in Supreme Court confirmation is preserved, and Gorsuch is confirmed. This would keep the seat of the 84 year old Ginsberg out of Trump's hands, and leave the Court with the same balance it had before Scalia's death.
5
I don't foresee Ginsburg allowing a person like Trump to replace her.
The realistic prospect of dying and being replaced by a Trump nominee, with no filibuster, could persuade her. If she won't jump, top Democrats will likely have to push her.
"That leaves it to Democrats to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving." - I'm not sure about that. When someone blackmails you and you decide not to pay, are you the one who forced the decision?
While as a reasonable American, presented with a reasonable choice for SCJ, I have no trouble appointing Gorsuch. However, as a patriot who has had their vote trampled on by McConnell and his fellow GOP committee members, alongside the fact that Trump's presidency has been chaotic, disrespectful to the Constitution and he's still under investigation for what boils down to treason, I don't see why this has to be rushed. If it could wait for 8 months, why not another 8?
McConnell is a traitor, pure and simple. He has failed to uphold his oath of office and denigrated the Senate. It will be his legacy.
While as a reasonable American, presented with a reasonable choice for SCJ, I have no trouble appointing Gorsuch. However, as a patriot who has had their vote trampled on by McConnell and his fellow GOP committee members, alongside the fact that Trump's presidency has been chaotic, disrespectful to the Constitution and he's still under investigation for what boils down to treason, I don't see why this has to be rushed. If it could wait for 8 months, why not another 8?
McConnell is a traitor, pure and simple. He has failed to uphold his oath of office and denigrated the Senate. It will be his legacy.
32
Barbra,
You lost the election! The boat has sailed! Rigging your primary against Bernie Sanders has brought you to this point, not "The Russians"!
You lost the election! The boat has sailed! Rigging your primary against Bernie Sanders has brought you to this point, not "The Russians"!
1
Wish that your editorial page hadn't advocated restriction of filibusters in 2013. Once we say that the Senate minority may be denied any voice/leverage in some matters, it's hard to explain why doing the same in other matters is wrong.
5
The US Senate's apportionment makes a complete travesty of the whole concept of majority and minority.
"And the danger some Democrats appear to fear of seeming naïve by clinging to a goal of bipartisan support for the court seems less acute than the certainty of their appearing ineffectual in a futile effort to block the Gorsuch appointment."
So, the danger seems less acute than certainty--what are you trying to say?
Ah, the mess may need to be resolved the the "stacked court." Good luck with
that. I'm sorry, but I don't find any clarity in this analysis.
The only hope is that a few standing on principle for the good of the country may find support and demonstration by an aroused public. Fighting in the trenches for scraps will not win anything.
So, the danger seems less acute than certainty--what are you trying to say?
Ah, the mess may need to be resolved the the "stacked court." Good luck with
that. I'm sorry, but I don't find any clarity in this analysis.
The only hope is that a few standing on principle for the good of the country may find support and demonstration by an aroused public. Fighting in the trenches for scraps will not win anything.
6
Treason to arrogate more power to Republicans is no vice.
Bill Clinton dealt with Newt's extremist partisanship by so-called "triangulation" -- caving to conservative demands, like "ending welfare as we know it" and getting impeached as an exercise in hatred. GW Bush created angry dissent by pushing incompetence to the max with lies about his vanity wars, torture, fossil fuel takeover of the country, and VP Cheney's craziness. But the last 8 years, led alarmingly by Mr. McConnell, has been an exercise in the destruction of our country. They opened our nation's original wound of racial hatred for power. For Koch and Mercer dollars, they have lost even the pretense of working for the average guy. Trump is the direct result. McConnell should hope that what goes around most certainly does not come around.
19
Gingrich is bilious bag of bad faith pumped up by folks like Sheldon Adelson.
I support the Dems filibuster and forcing mcconnell's hand to use the nuclear option.
mcconnell knows he brought this on based on his obstruction of the Garland nomination. The stain and stench of this nuclear option will remain with the GOP for years!
Obstruction has consequences!
This is a stolen SCOTUS seat.
Do it mitch! Pull the trigger...and the GOP will pay the price well into the future.
mcconnell knows he brought this on based on his obstruction of the Garland nomination. The stain and stench of this nuclear option will remain with the GOP for years!
Obstruction has consequences!
This is a stolen SCOTUS seat.
Do it mitch! Pull the trigger...and the GOP will pay the price well into the future.
20
And what price will the GOP pay?
1
Actually Roe v Wade leaps quickly to mind. This terrible decision was the beginning of the modern politicization of the Supreme Court. It was a political decision made by judicial fiat, and with little Constitutional grounding. SCOTUS brought this problem upon itself.
7
Little constitutional grounding? The decision was nearly unanimous.
The decision was made 7-2 and has withstood all challenges in more than 40 years with the possible exception of limiting it to the first trimester.
And how about when the SCOTUS made Bush Jr. the President of the US? You want to talk about judicial overreach? Explain that one.
The decision was made 7-2 and has withstood all challenges in more than 40 years with the possible exception of limiting it to the first trimester.
And how about when the SCOTUS made Bush Jr. the President of the US? You want to talk about judicial overreach? Explain that one.
Roe was a 7-2 decision that included Republican appointees like Chief Justice Burger in the majority. Roe is still supported by most American people. And the article's about partisanship, so maybe your comment isn't even on topic?
@glennst01 -
The US Constitution is totally silent on the issue of abortion. To justify the Roe v Wade decision, the majority had to rely upon "penumbras" and "emanations" and other figments of their imagination. Even many liberal legal scholars who favor abortion acknowledge that the Roe v Wade decision was poorly reasoned.
The danger in basing Supreme Court decisions on the imagination of judges rather than the written plain meaning of the Constitution is that it is subject to change with a change in personnel on the SCOTUS. Hence the political hysteria that ensues every time a new seat opens up.
The US would have been better off if SCOTUS had sent the abortion issue back the states in 1973 to be resolved through the political process.
The US Constitution is totally silent on the issue of abortion. To justify the Roe v Wade decision, the majority had to rely upon "penumbras" and "emanations" and other figments of their imagination. Even many liberal legal scholars who favor abortion acknowledge that the Roe v Wade decision was poorly reasoned.
The danger in basing Supreme Court decisions on the imagination of judges rather than the written plain meaning of the Constitution is that it is subject to change with a change in personnel on the SCOTUS. Hence the political hysteria that ensues every time a new seat opens up.
The US would have been better off if SCOTUS had sent the abortion issue back the states in 1973 to be resolved through the political process.
Most nominees, as you notle, have received bipartisan support. The Senate should agree to give up the filibuster if there's an agreement that a super-majority of 67 votes is required to approve a nomination. This would ensure that future nominees would be much more moderate than ideological judges who are more clever in bending the law to their views and, instead, would be more willing to have their views bend to the law. That means, we'd have a more centrist court willing to be open to compromise, as was the case in the 9-0 verdict in manor cases like Brown v. Board of Topeka Education. Such decisions are much better for our democracy than the current dysfunctional 5-4 partisan verdicts.
7
McConnell puts party before country. What he and Grassley and friends did to Garland was wrong and damaging, but two wrongs don't make a right. Let it go. Keep your honor.
1
The outrageously dysfunctional Trump administration combined with a cannibalistic GOP could result in a Democratic sweep in both houses of congress between 2018 and 2020. In our topsy-turvy politics, anything is possible.
If Republicans have eliminated the filibuster to nominate one, two, or three supreme court justices, can they visualize the vengeful payback coming their way when they are the minority party with no filibuster? That, too, is a very real possibility.
Republicans would not go to all the effort of boycotting Garland for so long if they were not certain, behind the scenes, that Gorsuch was their man, and would overturn Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and rule in favor of the corporate plutocracy with predictable certainty. Their agenda is razor sharp.
Democrats very likely will lose this battle. If so, they should lose with some honor, because if they do not the grass-roots progressive voters will have no choice but to bolt for a third party in large numbers. It is in Democratic party's long-term interets to stand firm against Gorsuch.
If Republicans have eliminated the filibuster to nominate one, two, or three supreme court justices, can they visualize the vengeful payback coming their way when they are the minority party with no filibuster? That, too, is a very real possibility.
Republicans would not go to all the effort of boycotting Garland for so long if they were not certain, behind the scenes, that Gorsuch was their man, and would overturn Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and rule in favor of the corporate plutocracy with predictable certainty. Their agenda is razor sharp.
Democrats very likely will lose this battle. If so, they should lose with some honor, because if they do not the grass-roots progressive voters will have no choice but to bolt for a third party in large numbers. It is in Democratic party's long-term interets to stand firm against Gorsuch.
2
"If Republicans have eliminated the filibuster to nominate one, two, or three supreme court justices, can they visualize the vengeful payback coming their way when they are the minority party with no filibuster? That, too, is a very real possibility."
The Democratic base will insist on the most severe payback regardless, so why not confirm a justice or three first?
The Democratic base will insist on the most severe payback regardless, so why not confirm a justice or three first?
Well done.
Not one mention of Reid.
Not one mention of Democrats blocking Bush nominees so that he had to horse trade with them including giving up Miguel Estrada for the Court of Appeals. Democrats didn't want a brilliant Hispanic to have a chance to get on the Supreme Court.
"But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
Do have to feel sorry for the Editors as they cry in their beer even though they were the ones who egged on the stonewalling.
Trump made cabinet appointments that everyone knew were going to be confirmed and the Democrats delayed and delayed including not showing up to deprive a quorum.
Why should Republicans deal with them if they don't have to.
"
Not one mention of Reid.
Not one mention of Democrats blocking Bush nominees so that he had to horse trade with them including giving up Miguel Estrada for the Court of Appeals. Democrats didn't want a brilliant Hispanic to have a chance to get on the Supreme Court.
"But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all."
Do have to feel sorry for the Editors as they cry in their beer even though they were the ones who egged on the stonewalling.
Trump made cabinet appointments that everyone knew were going to be confirmed and the Democrats delayed and delayed including not showing up to deprive a quorum.
Why should Republicans deal with them if they don't have to.
"
6
Isn't justice supposed to be objective and apolitical ? Sadly, the problem is more entrenched and insidious.
How else do you explain that nearly 80% of the ninth circuit cases are overturned by the SC ?
It is no surprise that the American people are disillusioned by the judicial system as much as they are sickened by the political system. The latest filibuster nonsense of Judge Gorsuch only adds fuel to the fire.
How else do you explain that nearly 80% of the ninth circuit cases are overturned by the SC ?
It is no surprise that the American people are disillusioned by the judicial system as much as they are sickened by the political system. The latest filibuster nonsense of Judge Gorsuch only adds fuel to the fire.
4
"How did this happen" the Board rightly asks? It happened when the GOP began to believe in its own ideology above the very apparent disquiet and unease a majority of American voters have with that ideology. Even our Page Six President wasn't elected as a Republican, but as a purported 'outsider', willing to 'blow up' the status quo.
Notwithstanding recent successes at the ballot box, the modern GOP not only cannot fathom why they are not more popular with the public, but are becoming all too preoccupied with extra-legal methods to ensure they continue 'winning' elections in spite of their marginal electoral performances. Marginal, that is, in those places that still have reasonably fair and un-gerrymandered districts, as well as voting rules that don't function as vote-suppressors for one party over the other. Congress has had a majority party for 6 years that has only garnered a minority of votes nationally, an unusual phenomenon until the modern era.
They so insist on 'having their way' regardless of the methods employed, GOP donors have managed to find a Sen. Majority leader willing to break constitutional norms to prevent a sitting president from nominating a SCOTUS justice, using spurious excuses that center around self-serving constitutional semantics completely unheard of in any known legal circles of any repute.
What it all adds up to is disrespect. Disrespect for voters, disrespect for institutions, and disrespect for the constitution this nation was founded on.
Notwithstanding recent successes at the ballot box, the modern GOP not only cannot fathom why they are not more popular with the public, but are becoming all too preoccupied with extra-legal methods to ensure they continue 'winning' elections in spite of their marginal electoral performances. Marginal, that is, in those places that still have reasonably fair and un-gerrymandered districts, as well as voting rules that don't function as vote-suppressors for one party over the other. Congress has had a majority party for 6 years that has only garnered a minority of votes nationally, an unusual phenomenon until the modern era.
They so insist on 'having their way' regardless of the methods employed, GOP donors have managed to find a Sen. Majority leader willing to break constitutional norms to prevent a sitting president from nominating a SCOTUS justice, using spurious excuses that center around self-serving constitutional semantics completely unheard of in any known legal circles of any repute.
What it all adds up to is disrespect. Disrespect for voters, disrespect for institutions, and disrespect for the constitution this nation was founded on.
9
"That leaves it to Democrats to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving." What? No it doesn't. The Democrats are not the ones threatening to blow up the process. Unlike the Republicans, they refused to play games with the Senatorial process and gave Judge Gorsuch a fair hearing. He proved polite, friendly, qualified and extremely, even dangerously conservative. And unlike Roberts, Ginsberg, Thomas, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Alito and Breyer, he did not garner 61 votes in the Senate. So the President who lost the popular vote, squeaked into office and hasn't the slightest support for tilting the Court to the far, far right should submit another, more centrist judge. I recommend Merrick Garland. Your ire should be saved for Mitch McConnell.
11
Neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Alito received sixty votes. You are mistaken.
With the current crop of Republicans, rules do not apply, so why not apply a filibuster now when you have the chance to use it - and for good reason. It is not as if waiting for the next time it will be of any use - the same Republicans can override at will, and a filibuster may be harder to justify than it is now.
But maybe "next time" is after 2018 and the justice chair thieves lose enough seats for opposition to have a say. They will benefit by simple majority then to try and overturn the swampy mess we are in.
If Democrats can't gain seats in 2018 given our current state of affairs, then all is lost anyhow!
But maybe "next time" is after 2018 and the justice chair thieves lose enough seats for opposition to have a say. They will benefit by simple majority then to try and overturn the swampy mess we are in.
If Democrats can't gain seats in 2018 given our current state of affairs, then all is lost anyhow!
8
By their inaction on Judge Merrick Garland, McConnell and the GOP not only disrespected Judge Garland, they also disrespected the POTUS and the constitution.
No matter what the Democrats do with respect to Judge Gorush, McConnell and GOP should shut up and stop whining.
Harry Reid was no prize, but thanks to Mitch McConnell and the GOP, if the president's party doesn't control the Senate, essentially, the sitting president can only nominate a Supreme Court nominee during the first 3 years of his term. The GOP and McConnell didn't break any rule, but created a new dastardly one that would have an adverse impact on the country for years to come.
McConnell belongs in the Senate Hall of Shame. His tenure cannot end soon enough to suit me and I am sure I am not alone.
No matter what the Democrats do with respect to Judge Gorush, McConnell and GOP should shut up and stop whining.
Harry Reid was no prize, but thanks to Mitch McConnell and the GOP, if the president's party doesn't control the Senate, essentially, the sitting president can only nominate a Supreme Court nominee during the first 3 years of his term. The GOP and McConnell didn't break any rule, but created a new dastardly one that would have an adverse impact on the country for years to come.
McConnell belongs in the Senate Hall of Shame. His tenure cannot end soon enough to suit me and I am sure I am not alone.
13
I fail to understand why "That leaves it to Democrats to consider whether the filibuster is worth saving."
The nuclear option needs nearly a unanimous Republican front. Are there not at least 2 Republicans who might also consider the whether the filibuster is worth saving?
The nuclear option needs nearly a unanimous Republican front. Are there not at least 2 Republicans who might also consider the whether the filibuster is worth saving?
8
You need three. If two, Pence would vote.
However this seditious game is played out by the utterly amoral, repugnant, and racist McConnell, let us not fall prey to the endless efforts to suggest that there is any precedent or equivalency between the parties: there is none - McConnell and his bunch of Neo-Confederates engaged in an unprecedented level of filibusters, and, as we all know, met the very night of President Obama's first inauguration to plan their strategy to "make him a one-term President," and obstruct and block every single initiative he proffered, and judge he nominated. McConnell is a liar - flat out - if he opts to eliminate the filibuster, after literally engaging in treasonous refusal to even accord a hearing to a highly qualified SCOTUS nominee, that is solely on his head, not the Democrats'. Let us also not lose sight of the fact that Robert Bork was the GOP-er who was all in for Richard Nixon's demand that he fire Archibald Cox, whereas Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus both resigned, rather than abet Nixon's criminal conduct. Bork was unsuited by any measure for a SCOTUS seat, and his conduct proved that. This nation is being held hostage to a bunch of power-addicted right wing thugs who are intent upon installing a theocracy, a kleptocracy, and restoring the 1800's. Never in my life have I feared more for this nation - when an entire amoral party and its appalling, illegitimate POTUS pose an existential threat to us all. 4/4, 10:41 PM
17
Blocking nomination of Neil Gorsuch by the Senate Democrats might be a fitting political response to the Republican obstructionism during the Obama presidency years but not a sign of a mature and responsible opposition. Given the inadequacies and incompetence of the Trump administration and the disarray the Republican party does find itself in, neither would there be lack of opportunity for the Democrats to checkmate the executive lapses nor to force the rollback of stupid legislative measures. It's time to act prudently.
1
The Supreme Court has been politicized ever since Earl Warren decided to substitute fidelity to the real Constitution with making it up as you go along according to the "living Constitution." If I am to be governed by a document whose meaning is in perennial flux, which depends on the whims of five unelected lifetime members of the judicial clerisy, then let's be honest and admit that we are picking politicians who masquerade as judges ... and, in that case, out with Garland and in with Gorsuch, Bork, Scalia, Thomas, et al., and let's find out about the cat in the bag we are supposed to buy for life in an Anthony Hamlet Kennedy, a Souter, or a Stevens. I already know what I am getting in a RBG, who shilled for Planned Parenthood and the ACLU before she went into the judiciary, which is why I would have voted against her, as in the case of Sonia and Elena. If anybody had any doubt where they would come down on cases, that person is incompetent. So why are we pretending that we should be agnostic about this?
2
I don't know if there's a way to stabilize the system at this point. Between gross gerrymandering leading to iron-clad Republican seats, to the abhorrent dereliction of duty and obstructionism with respect to the Garland nomination to, in turn, a much needed strong response from the Democrats. Simple tit-for-tat. Acquiescing by the Democrats would only lead to a green light for more abuses by the Republicans. The problem is that, in this system, all loose. Nobody wins until both sides cooperate and give. They may not win as much, but they win.
How do we get to a more cooperative stand by both parties? Abolish the nuclear option, gerrymandering, overturn Citizens United, impose term limits (perhaps including in the Supreme Court), increase terms in the House to four years, so they're not always in campaign mode, and abolish lobbying. When all of this happens, people will work together towards the good of the country, and pigs will fly.
How do we get to a more cooperative stand by both parties? Abolish the nuclear option, gerrymandering, overturn Citizens United, impose term limits (perhaps including in the Supreme Court), increase terms in the House to four years, so they're not always in campaign mode, and abolish lobbying. When all of this happens, people will work together towards the good of the country, and pigs will fly.
2