Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me the Democrats are playing a dangerous game. As far as I have seen; they have nothing really against the man. OK; so maybe they want to spite Trump or the Republicans - but the odds are that Gorsuch will be our next SCOTUS. Now, even if he was always a fair and honest judge; would he rule in the Democrats favor after so many did not want him to have the job? My feeling is, in cases that are very close; that it would be reasonable to assume that he would take the side of those that backed him. I think they are only hurting themselves.
Of course, even the 'nuclear option' is invoked, the Senate still has the 'filibuster' available to members. The only difference: said Senator will have to take the floor and, in the spirit of James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, hold the floor for however long the Senator is able to speak.
Right, as I said earlier, I have long been for ending the fake filibuster. If you want to do it, put in the work and do it.
Right, but you were trying to argue overturning Roe vs Wade was a bad idea, but it happened to be the only reason many Evangelicals voted for Trump, because Trump promised to nominate someone who would work to overturn it, and that is "in your face" broken promise.
I don't speak for them nor am I responsible for them.
By the by, I doubt that Judge Gorsuch becoming a Justice means the 'end of Roe v. Wade'. For one, he is simply replacing Justice Scalia. Secondly, Judge Gorsuch may well be reluctant to buck the 'rule' of stare decisis (it is not an actual rule, but more of a philosophy to let prior rulings by the Court stand).
Over the decades, people have been appointed to the Supreme Court that, when push came to shove, were unwilling to overrule a prior Supreme Court decision simply because they, personally, disagree with said decision. Many Justices have felt, and many still do, that a prior Court ruling should not be overturned simply due to a change in the personnel of the Court.
As such, while I disagreed with Citizens United, if I were appointed to the Court, I would not vote in favor of overruling said decision, unless compelling arguments were made. Such arguments are rarely made. Indeed, it took 70 years for the Supreme Court to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson (Separate but Equal) with Brown v. Board of Education. Even then, if you read Brown, the Court never explicitly said "we hereby overrule Plessy".
We must recall that President Nixon appointed two justices that he firmly believed were 'strict constructionist' (now called originalist or such), including Harry Blackmun (the writer of the Roe v. Wade decision). One of Reagan's appointees, Anthony Kennedy, likewise became a pivotal vote in many cases, that Mr. Reagan would probably have disagreed with.
It has always been uncertain how a person will rule when they receive a life-time appointment to the highest court in the land.
Then blame Harry Reid and the Democrats. They broke the rule first. And now that they have, as you put it, it will be that way forever.
I disagreed with Harry Reid's decision but there was certainly a reason why he took such action. I think we should expect better behavior from all our representatives other than "they did it first", this isn't a school play ground. If the democrats filibuster and the republicans pass Gorsuch by a simple majority this has ling term repercussions for both parties. I don't want either to pass through appointments just because they happen to inhabit the senate. No one should be celebrating this impasse.
Last edited by Goodnight; 04-04-2017 at 07:27 AM..
I disagreed with Harry Reid's decision but there was certainly a reason why he took such action. I think we should expect better behavior from all our representative other than "they did it first", this isn't a school play ground. If the democrats filibuster and the republicans pass Gorsuch by a simple majority this has ling term repercussions for both parties. I don't want either to pass through appointments just because they happen to inhabit the senate. No one should be celebrating this impasse.
Sorry sweetie. Actions have consequences and this IS a school playground. Dems nuked first, now it's their turn. They asked for it, now they will get it. And it's the gift that will keep on giving. When Trump, or Pence if he is impeached, get to make the next 2 nominations as the old socialists die off the bench, we won't have to pick a moderate at all. We can go even less moderate and more conservative because we will only need 51 votes. The implications will echo far into the future. And the Dems made it all possible. And they deserve everything they now will get.
Sorry sweetie. Actions have consequences and this IS a school playground. Dems nuked first, now it's their turn. They asked for it, now they will get it. And it's the gift that will keep on giving. When Trump, or Pence if he is impeached, get to make the next 2 nominations as the old socialists die off the bench, we won't have to pick a moderate at all. We can go even less moderate and more conservative because we will only need 51 votes. The implications will echo far into the future. And the Dems made it all possible. And they deserve everything they now will get.
Like Mitch McConnell stated "we shouldn't govern as if we will be in power forever". You are assuming there will be 2 more nominations and the senate will still be Republican.
One thing we can agree on is that this will have consequences far into the future, you are being short sighted because your vision is clouded by your partisanship.
I disagreed with Harry Reid's decision but there was certainly a reason why he took such action. I think we should expect better behavior from all our representatives other than "they did it first", this isn't a school play ground. If the democrats filibuster and the republicans pass Gorsuch by a simple majority this has ling term repercussions for both parties. I don't want either to pass through appointments just because they happen to inhabit the senate. No one should be celebrating this impasse.
I can't agree, for the sole reason that Democrats don't have a good reason for not voting Gorsuch in. They voted unanimously for him previously, he's got the Bar Association's highest rating, and according to articles I've seen, he's left of Thomas and Alito - maybe even Roberts. Remember, Republicans voted in Sotomayor and Kagan, even when Sotomayor admitted that her background would affect her rulings. This kind of partisan crap leaves me thinking it's nuke time.
The days of compromise and middle-ground are over. There are only two sides now and you are either on one side or the other. Those on your side are your friends. Those on the other side are your enemies.
That's the country we live in. In such an environment, one side will do whatever it can to further its cause. If that includes rewriting rules, so be it. If it means foot-dragging appointments, that's life.
Each side can only do it's best to ensure it's program lives when the other has its turn. But it can never be enough because the other side will change the rules so its program gets through. (Ultimately one side or the other will have to be done away with. That's the only solution.)
Compromise, reason, comity are vestiges of a bygone time. Now, the winner takes all and the loser gets nothing.
Reading through some if these responses over 10 pages I had a question.
When did the Supreme Court become so political? Shouldn't the judges that are appointed be above partisan politics?
The Dems hate Trump and everything he is about. They must see Gorsuch as Trump's puppet to be this fearful of a guy who is so qualified for the job.
The GOP delayed on Obamas pick to fill the vacated spot in the SC because there was only a few months left of his term. The guy that Obama had picked seemed decent enough and certainly more centered than anyone that Hillary would have put up. The GOP took a real gamble there when all hope seemed to be lost that they would win the WH but that gamble has paid off and America has a chance for a future.
Imagine you Dems, when after the 2018 elections if you keep carrying on the way you are, you lose more seats and the 60 votes is guaranteed to place a truly conservative judge without your help and with no concern to your hindrance.
It is ridiculous that everything today has to come down to party lines. Is this the Dems policy for the next 4 years, to block everything that comes from Trump? Talk about Petty Politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
