by "mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
Published 04/03/2017 at 15:22
by "mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
Published 04/03/2017 at 15:22
No Tags
STARS: 0
Dems are officially filibustering Gorsuch. Lets talk.
How do Oppo’s feel about Gorsuch? I’ve lightly read up on him, and he appears to be a solid jurist that is fully qualified to do the job. Pretty much the literal definition of “mainstream”. Are there legitimate issues with him that I am unaware of?
Secondly, do you agree with forcing the nuclear option here? Rather than apppear reasonable in holding a vote for an ostensibly qualified jurist, why fillibuster knowing the result? Why not go Alito for Alito here and save the fight for if/when a more liberal seat is at stake? You do realize that the possibility of a Justice Ted Cruz is a possibility far better suited for a fillibuster..... I don’t understand the logic of falling on the sword for THIS nomination.
*why not yes for cloture, no for nomination and seat him, saving the battle for something or someone less deserving or qualified?
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
04/03/2017 at 15:29, STARS: 4
This isn’t about Gorsuch. It’s about blocking anything and everything. Republicans did it to Obama, Democrats did it to Bush, etc.
"Roadster Man" (roadsterman)
04/03/2017 at 15:36, STARS: 4
You are wrong. Although Ted Cruz somehow managed to get a law degree from Harvard, he has never sat as a judge and I don’t think he even practiced law for very long. There is no possibility of a “Justice Ted Cruz,” period. Someone with ZERO experience as a judge wouldn’t even be confirmed by fellow Republicans to the Supreme Court.
Gorusch is your standard super-conservative judge. For the establishment republicans, he’s a good replacement for Scalia since he only looks backward and has a long history of reaching judgments in favor of large corporations. He is far more mild-mannered than Scalia was, and I doubt we will see pages-long angry Scalia- style dissents from Gorusch should he be confirmed. He would play nice with other judges when Scalia didn’t.
I think the Democrats should filibuster him for about 4 years. The street goes both ways, and I think it was an outright abuse of our government when the Republicans did not confirm Obama’s choice. I’d give them a dose of their own medicine.
"My citroen won't start" (lucasboechat)
04/03/2017 at 15:39, STARS: 1
Because he is a hardcore conservative, and that is the last thing the world needs. It will just continue the Scalia backwards mentality.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
04/03/2017 at 15:45, STARS: 1
I hate filibustering on principle. It’s anti-democratic and another way for grown adults to throw temper tantrums on our dime.
About the nominee, from what I’ve read, Gorsuch is a highly qualified, solid pick. I don’t know what the Democrats are doing if it isn’t a tantrum, because they won’t get any better from this president for their cause. They lost this seat from an ideological perspective last November.
"Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now)" (bman76-4)
04/03/2017 at 15:48, STARS: 3
This is why, replace Montana with America:
"someassemblyrequired" (someassemblyrequired)
04/03/2017 at 15:51, STARS: 0
It’s more about the Dem base than Gorsuch as a jurist. They are out for blood, and want Democrats to employ all of the same tactics Republicans used in opposition.
"BorkBorkBjork" (tbirdlemons)
04/03/2017 at 15:52, STARS: 1
I think congress is just enjoying having a competing branch of government neutered.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
04/03/2017 at 16:11, STARS: 1
No, he is not mainstream at all.
The only thing mainstream about him is he is generally polite in an “aw shucks, I’m going to be self-deprecating while not answering your question” sort of way, and that he is able to write about things academically.
His legal opinions are basically like Scalia, who nobody, even Scalia fans, would justifiably be able to call mainstream. You can call him mainstream if you want but that requires a skewed, inaccurate understanding of what constitutes “mainstream.”
But, even though I fundamentally disagree with his legal point of view, I’m against filibustering him for two reasons:
Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch will not tilt the balance of the Supreme Court further to the right.
A filibuster won’t block Gorsuch anyway. It is a symbolic, ultimately pointless demonstration of fury over the Republicans blocking Merrick Garland that only serves to weaken Democrats’ ability to block some other, worse nominee later.
"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform)
04/03/2017 at 16:15, STARS: 1
How did you feel when the Republicans refused to consider Merrick Garland?
"ZHP Sparky, the 5th" (e30s2k)
04/03/2017 at 16:42, STARS: 0
I get your perspective, and agree for the most part. But a majority of dem voters right now are pissed as hell and want revenge – in this instance mostly for the republicans not even being willing to give Garland a hearing. So yes, in a sense they’re being as bad as the other side…but also in this instance doing what their constituents want of them. Remember, especially after this most recent election the dems are on thin ice given all the shit that went down with Hillary/Sanders, DNC scandals, etc. So if the democrats want people to come out to vote in 2018 they’ve got to keep the base fired up and show them that they’re “working for them”. And Gorsuch, while not as explosive or crazy as Scalia, I still wouldn’t call middle of the road...so I’m OK with this. I think the dems are really betting on another supreme court opening not coming up within this presidency, and that the nuclear option will help them in the long run too. Of course it could all backfire really badly.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
04/03/2017 at 16:51, STARS: 0
I think it’s likely to back fire. But, I guess we’ll find out.
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
04/03/2017 at 17:00, STARS: 1
Except I don’t see them showing that they’re working for anyone but themselves.
At the rate they and the media echo chamber are going, they may find themselves losing even more support in coming elections. Demographics won’t be kind to them in the long run, as they just hit a tipping point where stacking the deck no longer works.
Not that I have faith in either party to hang on to their popularity much longer. It wouldn’t surprise me to see one or both of them implode, to be replaced by new parties that reject much of what the big two stand for.
Although I could also see the US breaking up in the coming decades for the exact same reasons.
"ZHP Sparky, the 5th" (e30s2k)
04/03/2017 at 18:34, STARS: 0
ot sure what you’re trying to say – that the left are the only ones looking out for just themselves and not for the good of the people? The republicans have mastered that over the course of the last decade. But yes – agreed that we’re in a very unproductive place with no real way to get out of it in sight. There is zero compromise and seemingly no moderates left in government – and that comes from the tone at the top. Trump could’ve just as easily tried to reach out to moderate democrats to make the AHCA in to something that enough people from both sides could agree on – but instead he decided to try appeasing the extremists on the right in the so called Freedom Caucus, the people who didn’t like AHCA because it wasn’t extreme enough, and lost people on both ends of the republican spectrum even in the process. Let’s see what happens with his infrastructure plans – there’s plenty of support for things of that nature on the left (that the republicans completely blocked during Obama’s presidency), we’ll see if he’s good enough a deal-maker to actually make something of it.
The country is headed in a very dangerous direction though –
both sides seem to be pointing towards their respective extremes, and
constituents play this like it’s a sports league where it’s one side against
the other almost at the level of becoming a blood sport…but at the end of the
day we’re all getting screwed all around. Maybe we will reach an end point soon where the country decides that divorce is better than fighting every day and getting nowhere.
"IAN_Z" (theonline)
04/03/2017 at 20:25, STARS: 1
Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on here. Their refusal to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland, a truly bipartisan pick many Republicans had said they would vote in favor of was a disgrace. Add to that the fact that some senate Republicans (Ted Cruz, Richard Burr, John McCain) were saying they would block ANY Clinton nominee for a full four years, I think Democrats are completely justified filibustering Gorsuch.
"IAN_Z" (theonline)
04/03/2017 at 20:27, STARS: 0
I forgot to mention his ruling in the “frozen trucker” case, which was clearly ridiculous and cruel.
"pip bip - choose Corrour" (hhgttg69)
04/04/2017 at 07:20, STARS: 0
nice Duster!
"BlueMazda2 - Blesses the rains down in Africa, Purveyor of BMW Individual Arctic Metallic, Merci Twingo" (bluemazda2)
04/04/2017 at 14:20, STARS: 1
“Justice Ted Cruz”
I’ll be totally honest. I don’t like the ring of that. I LOVE the ring of that.
I’ve read up on Gorsuch since he was on Trump’s list of potential replacements for Antonin Scalia. I agree with much of what he believes in.
Mind you, this is coming from a teenage Conservative Republican Latino immigrant.
I’m glad to see the vacant seat being replaced by a conservative Republican.