Neil Gorsuch - Nominee to the Supreme Court

[B-Man]

Nets Downplay Gorsuch Swearing In, Ignore Daschle Scolding Senate Dems

 

On Monday, Judge Neil Gorsuch became the 113thassociate justice to sit on the Supreme Court after he was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts. The event was a culmination of many hours of testimony, a damaging filibuster by Senate Democrats, which forced Senate Republicans to use the so-called “nuclear option” to proceed with Gorsuch’s confirmation. But despite all of those historic obstacles, the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) treated it as though it was nothing special, and ignored Democratic icon Tom Daschle who scolded Democrats for filibustering.

All three of the networks gave to story the bare minimum of a simple news brief. ABC gave Gorsuch’s swearing in a mere 20 seconds of airtime, CBS and NBC gave it 23 and 25 seconds respectively. There was not a single mention of the filibuster nor the use of the “nuclear option.” It was a complete turnaround from last week’s coverage, where ABC and NBC ran full reports railing against Republicans for using the “nuclear option” to end debate and move on to a vote.

{snip}

That fact didn’t seem to be lost on former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who recently slammed his fellow Democrats for their shenanigans. In a discussion with RealClearPolitics, Daschle lamented that “Today is just amazing — the symmetry that exists between those who believe that it’s wrong today but to believe in doing it before … What I would fear the most is a lack of respect and appreciation of the institution itself.”

According to Daschle, “Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands when it comes to the erosion of the institutional pillars of the Senate than Republicans going all the way back.” He also noted that when it came to eroding the pillars of the Senate, Democrats are responsible for far more damage than just the Supreme Court confirmation process:

The whole budget process was a Democratic product, and that was in my view a procedural disaster. Then we lowered the threshold from 67 to 60. That was a Democratic effort. And then in 2013, we took it away completely for nominations, and that was Democratic. So, Democrats who may lament this institutional deterioration, I think there’s a lot of history here that can’t be explained away.

 

 

[Nanker]

Again, a lot more Republicans voted for the uber liberal justices Sotomayor and Kagan than the meager 3 Dems who voted for Gorsuch.

Schumer is a snake-like critter. He looks like the cross between a muskellunge and a copperhead. He's fugly.

[Bray Wyatt]

Well, I'd say the Republicans - for what they're worth - did at least try at times to have comity with the Democratic majority. Look at the votes for Sotomayor 68 - 31, and Kagan 61 - 31. A lot more Republicans voted to confirm those two liberals than the three Democrats that voted to confirm Gorsuch. But the Dems are so galvanized and petrified by the hysterical prog leftists that they're afraid to do anything that seems even remotely going along with the Republicans. They're scared schitless of losing their seat. It's like the wack-o lefties are playing the Great White to their representatives' Captain Quint.

 

I agree, but I think the Dems need to grow a pair and stand up to them. Those crazy progs will vote Dem no matter what, its not like they are going to choose the republican candidate.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I agree, but I think the Dems need to grow a pair and stand up to them. Those crazy progs will vote Dem no matter what, its not like they are going to choose the republican candidate.

They are worried about being challenged in their primaries from the left, not about losing to a Republican.

[Bray Wyatt]

They are worried about being challenged in their primaries from the left, not about losing to a Republican.

 

I get that, but if the Democratic party is backing the incumbent, they are pretty much guaranteed to get the nomination, which brings me back to the point of them standing up to them. I think they started to realize this with picking the new DNC chair, a lot of the progs wanted the guy from Minnesota Keith Ellison (? I think that is his name)

[ALF]

The democrats really messed up not voting for a moderate Gorsuch. Next time Trump can nominate a far right judge and just need 51 instead of 60 votes.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Again, a lot more Republicans voted for the uber liberal justices Sotomayor and Kagan than the meager 3 Dems who voted for Gorsuch.

Schumer is a snake-like critter. He looks like the cross between a muskellunge and a copperhead. He's fugly.

And how many voted for Garland? This stupidity cuts both ways. It's an asshat duel at high noon. I hope both parties score fatal shots.

[boyst]

And how many voted for Garland? This stupidity cuts both ways. It's an asshat duel at high noon. I hope both parties score fatal shots.

its cute you try to be so objective now. Where was this a year ago, asshat?

[Bray Wyatt]

And how many voted for Garland? This stupidity cuts both ways. It's an asshat duel at high noon. I hope both parties score fatal shots.

 

The exact same amount as the democrats

[grinreaper]

And how many voted for Garland? This stupidity cuts both ways. It's an asshat duel at high noon. I hope both parties score fatal shots.

What, you worried that gay marriage laws might be stricken?

[Benjamin Franklin]

What, you worried that gay marriage laws might be stricken?

 

Not a priority for me--you and your husband should be OK.

[Rob's House]

And how many voted for Garland? This stupidity cuts both ways. It's an asshat duel at high noon. I hope both parties score fatal shots.

This is the "both sides" fallacy. I don't think "stupid" is the right word for both sides. Say what you will about the propriety of Republicans here, but ultimately they took a Supreme Court seat from the Dems. All the Dems achieved was showing they're hypocrites of the highest order who never believed in any of their criticisms of the Republican's maneuvering in the first place.

[Doc Brown]

The democrats really messed up not voting for a moderate Gorsuch. Next time Trump can nominate a far right judge and just need 51 instead of 60 votes.

The Republicans would have just pulled the nuclear option next time then. Democrats filibustered the pick to help energize the more liberal side of their base to help with the '18 midterms and force Republicans to pull the nuclear option. Best case scenario for the Dems, they take back the Senate and White House in 2020 and they could easily pass extremely liberal young judges to replace Kennedy and Ginsburg and there's nothing the Republicans can do about it. If criticized, they can just point to McConnell. Of course, things can work out just as nicely for Republicans. It's why we need term limits for SCOTUS judges imo.

[Benjamin Franklin]

This is the "both sides" fallacy. I don't think "stupid" is the right word for both sides. Say what you will about the propriety of Republicans here, but ultimately they took a Supreme Court seat from the Dems. All the Dems achieved was showing they're hypocrites of the highest order who never believed in any of their criticisms of the Republican's maneuvering in the first place.

 

There's an obsession on this board and the media with showing hypocrisy. "When the shoe was on the other foot the [Repubs/Dems] did it." We can carry on that discussion all day.

 

So I disagree with you. This is not a "both sides" fallacy. Neither side, not either one, is showing that they are doing what's best for Americans. They continuously show that their priority is party and their own hides. So a pox on both their houses until and unless they show that they can work together and for "us."

Edited April 12, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin

[Rob's House]

 

There's an obsession on this board and the media with showing hypocrisy. "When the shoe was on the other foot the [Repubs/Dems] did it." We can carry on that discussion all day.

 

So I disagree with you. This is not a "both sides" fallacy. Neither side, not either one, is showing that they are doing what's best for Americans. They continuously show that their priority is party and their own hides. So a pox on both their houses until and unless they show that they can work together and for "us."

How does such a simple point fly so far over your head?

 

The point was about "stupid" cutting both ways. Lets look at what each side gave up and gained.

 

The Republicans gave up political capital/high ground with the Garland situation. In return they got a Supreme Court seat, one of the most coveted prizes in politics.

 

In return, the Democrats ceded the political capital/high ground back to the Republicans by fighting the Gorsuch appointment tooth and nail, and have nothing to show for it.

 

The point is, both sides spent roughly equal political capital. But one got to !@#$ the prom queen while the other got stood up.

 

Tell me again how that one cut both ways.

[Benjamin Franklin]

You make my point perfectly. The Reps won the political point (and the Dem lost it in blszingly embarassing fashion). But where everything is divided by party and not a mission to work together with country as priority, we don't win.

 

And the point won is as short lived as Obamacare, Trumpcare, immigration, gat bathrooms. When no one compromises and works towards a middle solution, the majority will just keep subjugating the minority. That makes for ceaseless divisiveness and change: not teamwork and predictability.

 

So by all means, celebrate your guys win in the moment. I'm doing so, you reflect the confidence of Harry Reid.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin

[4merper4mer]

You make my point perfectly. The Reps won the political point (and the Dem lost it in blszingly embarassing fashion). But where everything is divided by party and not a mission to work together with country as priority, we don't win.

 

And the point won is as short lived as Obamacare, Trumpcare, immigration, gat bathrooms. When no one compromises and works towards a middle solution, the majority will just keep subjugating the minority. That makes for ceaseless divisiveness and change: not teamwork and predictability.

 

So by all means, celebrate your guys win in the moment. I'm doing so, you reflect the confidence of Harry Reid.

 

 

A high percentage of the people in office are either demagogues or they are working at the behest of someone else. "Working towards a middle solution" never happens even when it appears to be happening. What they are always trying to do is redefine the middle.

 

Teamwork and predictability can only be gained by adhering to something that is defined and not subject to the whim of some new cast of characters from the right, left or "middle". Like maybe...the Constitution. Clearly that ship has sailed. IMO they might as well just fight it out in front of everyone's eyes with the left/right thing rather than redefining the middle over and over and over again in ways that can't be documented because they are done on whims.

[Doc Brown]

 

There's an obsession on this board and the media with showing hypocrisy. "When the shoe was on the other foot the [Repubs/Dems] did it." We can carry on that discussion all day.

 

So I disagree with you. This is not a "both sides" fallacy. Neither side, not either one, is showing that they are doing what's best for Americans. They continuously show that their priority is party and their own hides. So a pox on both their houses until and unless they show that they can work together and for "us."

Who's the most popular Senator in America right now? Bernie Sanders according to a national Fox News poll last month. 61% approve and a 32% disapprove. There's other national polls showing his approval rating is even higher. The next closest Senator was Elizabeth Warren at 39% approval followed by Paul Ryan at 37%. Why is a SOCIALIST the most popular Senator in America? He's not bought and owned. He ran a populist campaign where he was able to raise all his money all coming from individual contributions instead of special interest groups, corporations, etc...and the Democrats/Republican politicians hate him for that.

 

I remember watching CNN during the primaries and they had an empty Trump podium while Bernie was speaking in a small box in the right hand corner and the analysts were talking about what Trump might say. Now CNN and MSNBC have him on all the time because their candidate lost and it's no longer advantageous for them to shield Hillary. Bernie draws more viewers equaling more money.

 

I don't agree with Bernie on many things in his platform, but I marveled at his campaign that he came very close to beating the Clinton Machine. Trump ran a similar populist campaign, but he's a phony populist imo and nothing he's done thus far has changed my mind. The point being that you see the approval rating gap between Bernie and every other bought politician and it supports the notion you mentioned that neither side really cares about what's best for Americans. As the wealth gap continues to increase more people are going to wake up to that fact.

[IDBillzFan]

Who's the most popular Senator in America right now? Bernie Sanders according to a national Fox News poll last month. 61% approve and a 32% disapprove.

 

It's not difficult to be the most popular Senator in America if your entire plan is to pop out of ice cream cartons promising free stuff!

 

[DC Tom]

 

It's not difficult to be the most popular Senator in America if your entire plan is to pop out of ice cream cartons promising free stuff!

 

 

Free Ben & Jerry's? He's got my vote.