Neil Gorsuch - Nominee to the Supreme Court

[ExiledInIllinois]

So far toms bot has been pretty spot on

 

 

But it is a bit boring.

[snafu]

Two things:

First, I agree with Chuck Schumer about the fact that it's unseemly to allow a president currently under FBI investigation for colluding with a foreign enemy to appoint a justice to a lifetime position.

Second, at the VERY LEAST, it seems reasonable to slow the process down a bit in order to get a more thorough chance to vet Gorsuch and to let more of the Trump/Russia process play out. And for anyone who says "enough obstructionism" or "why wait?", well: The GOP saw fit to let 322 days pass without even giving Garland a hearing, and now they think it's important to push through Gorsuch ASAP? What's the hurry all of a sudden?

You don't think there's been a thorough background check on Gorsuch? Honestly? You're going with Schumer on this one? As for your second "point" how much arm twisting did Obama do to get Garland appointed in those 322 days? Answer: none. He figured Hillary was a shoo-in and would take care of business after she was coronated.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Zero-sum world, you play for all the marbles. The Repubs blocked the Dems and won the election (@ all cost)... To the victor go the spoils.

 

 

[DC Tom]

 

My Bad. Still wiggle room when judges interpret. It is called being human. Not everything is black and white. Many shades of gray.

 

That's exactly why I think the court needs a textualist like Gorsuch, to balance out the touchy-feely interpretations of Ginsburg. Conversely, the court needs a Ginsburg to balance out the textualism of someone like Gorsuch.

 

I wouldn't want to see a court made up of nine of either of them, but having one of each on the court's not a bad thing.

 

 

But it is a bit boring.

 

It does need an update.

[GoBills808]

Two things:

 

First, I agree with Chuck Schumer about the fact that it's unseemly to allow a president currently under FBI investigation for colluding with a foreign enemy to appoint a justice to a lifetime position.

 

Second, at the VERY LEAST, it seems reasonable to slow the process down a bit in order to get a more thorough chance to vet Gorsuch and to let more of the Trump/Russia process play out. And for anyone who says "enough obstructionism" or "why wait?", well: The GOP saw fit to let 322 days pass without even giving Garland a hearing, and now they think it's important to push through Gorsuch ASAP? What's the hurry all of a sudden?

I disagree with your first point for a lot of reasons. Not only does it set bad precedent and adds to the contentious relationship between the WH and IC, but there's following the law and making up rules to suit yourself. It was why the Republican obstreperousness to Garland really painted them for the lightweights they are, and should really give pause to the idea that conservatism and constitutional fidelity somehow to hand in hand. So no. President nominates justice, and Senate confirms. End story.

 

To your second point, there HAS to be a political party willing to put the good of the country first (a 9 member bench is kind of important) and think beyond 'they did it first!' as a governing philosophy. It may as well be the Democrats at this point, they've got precious little goodwill left to squander.

[B-Man]

Did Neil Gorsuch roll his eyes at Al Franken?

 

 

5 Myths About Originalism, Neil Gorsuch’s Judicial Philosophy.

[Nanker]

Or the Carter Administration actively conspiring with the USSR in a failed bid to defeat Reagan.

Ted Kennedy when he was a US Senator actively conspired with Russia.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers."

Read more at the link.

[DC Tom]

Or the Carter Administration actively conspiring with the USSR in a failed bid to defeat Reagan.

 

Or Reagan conspiring with Iran in a successful bid to defeat Carter...

[Keukasmallies]

It appears that only the party on the outside may raise issues and condemn the party on the inside without being responsible for similar prior bad acts.

 

Given the above maxim of American politics: Sail On, Oh Ship of State

[B-Man]

When voters see right through the grandstanding..............

 

POLL: Most Voters See Gorsuch Opposition as Political, Not Issue-Based

[boyst]

Two things:

 

First, I agree with Chuck Schumer about the fact that it's unseemly to allow a president currently under FBI investigation for colluding with a foreign enemy to appoint a justice to a lifetime position.

 

Second, at the VERY LEAST, it seems reasonable to slow the process down a bit in order to get a more thorough chance to vet Gorsuch and to let more of the Trump/Russia process play out. And for anyone who says "enough obstructionism" or "why wait?", well: The GOP saw fit to let 322 days pass without even giving Garland a hearing, and now they think it's important to push through Gorsuch ASAP? What's the hurry all of a sudden?

when Clinton was being impeached he still ran business as normal and there was proof and evidence.

 

And slow it down to study him? Why? He's had a long career to look at

When they hacked the 2016 presidential election.

 

Here's a Wiki, in case you missed it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), representing 17 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked its documents to WikiLeaks.^[3][4] In early January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified before a Senate committee that Russias alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign went beyond hacking, and included disinformation and the dissemination of fake news often promoted on social media.^[5] Six federal agencies have also been investigating possible links and financial ties between the Kremlin and Trump's associates, including his advisers Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone.^[6][7]

U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Putin "personally directed" the operation

wiki is not a source that is credible. Please try again. Because even their sources are weaker

[Logic]

I disagree with your first point for a lot of reasons. Not only does it set bad precedent and adds to the contentious relationship between the WH and IC, but there's following the law and making up rules to suit yourself. It was why the Republican obstreperousness to Garland really painted them for the lightweights they are, and should really give pause to the idea that conservatism and constitutional fidelity somehow to hand in hand. So no. President nominates justice, and Senate confirms. End story.

 

To your second point, there HAS to be a political party willing to put the good of the country first (a 9 member bench is kind of important) and think beyond 'they did it first!' as a governing philosophy. It may as well be the Democrats at this point, they've got precious little goodwill left to squander.

Thanks for this response.

 

Well reasoned and civil.

 

Sometimes it's tough to acknowledge that, while much of the GOP have been selfish, obstructionist children the past eight years, it doesn't mean democrats have to follow suit. You're probably correct, though.

[TH3]

Oh and :

 

 

First:

 

Wiki is not a source you should be posting here.

 

Second:

 

The DNC is not a government entity, it is a private entity.

 

Please..."wiki is not a source" ....says who?...you tards who use the most alt right sources all the time?

 

Second - LA - please again - we get it - you can use your fancy word parsing skillz to try to separate the words election and campaign....nifty!! you gotta try hard to not to understand that most people interpret election to include the campaign

[meazza]

 

Please..."wiki is not a source" ....says who?...you tards who use the most alt right sources all the time?

 

Second - LA - please again - we get it - you can use your fancy word parsing skillz to try to separate the words election and campaign....nifty!! you gotta try hard to not to understand that most people interpret election to include the campaign

 

Says anyone who has actually done some research.

[DC Tom]

 

Please..."wiki is not a source" ....says who?

 

[IDBillzFan]

 

Second - LA - please again - we get it - you can use your fancy word parsing skillz to try to separate the words election and campaign....nifty!! you gotta try hard to not to understand that most people interpret election to include the campaign

 

Ooooh, I get it. It makes more sense now. So when you say the Russians "hacked the election," it's not that you're being dishonest...it's that you think people are stupid enough to believe your dishonesty.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Nanker]

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there? So the Russians "interfered" with our Presidential election campaigns.

 

Check.

 

Now let's get back to overthrowing governments like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Libya. Good times man. Good times.

[row_33]

Who knows what he'll do if he gets in.

 

GOP appointments do what they like,

 

Souter never once sided with what those who voted Reagan/Bush were hoping,

 

The best would be the Dems sending up someone who goes against their any of their 3 most cherished causes.

[Nanker]

The Left would call for impeachment, without a doubt.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Best use of that ever.