I'm down.

[kramerhammer]

I can get behind this pick for SCOTUS.

[pumpf]

As a liberal, what did you think of the comments of the Democrats (yesterday?): that Gorsuch's view of the Constitution is too blind towards certain minorities? Since that's exactly what justice is supposed to be (blind), I was wondering if other Democrats agreed with Franken (et al)... or if they thought that that was not the best point that could be made against Gorsuch.

[badgervike]

Mar 21, 2017 12:17:22 GMT -6 pumpf said:

As a liberal, what did you think of the comments of the Democrats (yesterday?): that Gorsuch's view of the Constitution is too blind towards certain minorities? Since that's exactly what justice is supposed to be (blind), I was wondering if other Democrats agreed with Franken (et al)... or if they thought that that was not the best point that could be made against Gorsuch.

Yea...it's funny watching them try to trip him up....he's clearly the smartest guy in the room and it seems absolutely unflappable.  Probably a perfect pick in terms of intellect and temperament.

[vikingdan]

I just don't get it, wasn't he confirmed 98-0 for his lower court seat. At worst from a liberal perspective, the court remains effectively neutral. The next appointment is the one they should keep their powder dry for. This is just partisan gamesmanship at this point.

[Purp1eOne]

Mar 21, 2017 12:23:12 GMT -6 badgervike said:

he's clearly the smartest guy in the room and it seems absolutely unflappable.  Probably a perfect pick in terms of intellect and temperament.

I watched some of it over lunch and that is spot on.

Durbin was red faced by the end of his questioning and on his last question was trying to give his time back in the middle of Gorsuch's reply and the chair let him continue.

[Purp1eOne]

Mar 21, 2017 12:33:39 GMT -6 vikingdan said:

wasn't he confirmed 98-0 for his lower court seat

yes

Mar 21, 2017 12:33:39 GMT -6 vikingdan said:

This is just partisan gamesmanship at this point

and yes

[Uncle]

The Democrats are still mad at the Republicans over not even getting to confirmation hearing for Obama's pick, M Garland.

However, the problem is that there is some precedence for what the Republicans did - they were following the so-called "Biden Rule", formed in 1992 when then Senator Biden on the Judiciary Committee stated on the floor that President's shouldn't nominate Supreme Court Justice's during a Presidential Election Year, and it was an issue for the people to decide during their Presidential selection.

Whether the exact same situations were the same in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland as they were back in 1992 are definitely left up to discussion. There was no vacancy to fill on the Supreme Court in 1992 after Clarence Marshall was confirmed in 1991 - Biden was just speaking to the floor on if a vacancy did occur, for President Bush (Sr) to wait until after the '92 election ended and let the people decide. In 2016, Democrats wanted a swift confirmation for Garland because they argued a backlog of cases that needed to be heard in which a deciding vote needed to be cast so there may be some merit to that argument.

I personally hope that Democrats don't block the confirmation of Gorsuch out of spite for Garland and the "Biden Rule" implemented by the Republicans in 2016....just because we have such "rancor" between the parties right now, and regardless of who started it and who did what, it really would be nice for our Federal Government as a whole to come together and agree on something. And further, if the Democrats want a "nice" campaign platform to run on in 2018 and 2020, why not use something like this where they can say they really can get things done and reach across the aisle and they can use this example of confirming a Republican President's Supreme Court nominee as evidence of their ability to reach across. That would sure appeal to voters a heck of alot better than the constant finger-pointing that they always do.

[SmokedPears]

Watching a little bit on CSPAN. His memory is really impressive. He knows who wrote the majority and dissenting opinions in case after case after case...

[kramerhammer]

The dems won't be able to block him. They can play the delay game, but a filibuster will be fruitless and the GOP will still have the nuclear option.

They just need to consider him on his merits(which are quite considerable) and vote up or down. No need for partisan BS here and drive the wedge even further.

[njvikesfan]

Mar 21, 2017 13:53:44 GMT -6 Uncle said:

The Democrats are still mad at the Republicans over not even getting to confirmation hearing for Obama's pick, M Garland.

However, the problem is that there is some precedence for what the Republicans did - they were following the so-called "Biden Rule", formed in 1992 when then Senator Biden on the Judiciary Committee stated on the floor that President's shouldn't nominate Supreme Court Justice's during a Presidential Election Year, and it was an issue for the people to decide during their Presidential selection.

Whether the exact same situations were the same in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland as they were back in 1992 are definitely left up to discussion. There was no vacancy to fill on the Supreme Court in 1992 after Clarence Marshall was confirmed in 1991 - Biden was just speaking to the floor on if a vacancy did occur, for President Bush (Sr) to wait until after the '92 election ended and let the people decide. In 2016, Democrats wanted a swift confirmation for Garland because they argued a backlog of cases that needed to be heard in which a deciding vote needed to be cast so there may be some merit to that argument.

I personally hope that Democrats don't block the confirmation of Gorsuch out of spite for Garland and the "Biden Rule" implemented by the Republicans in 2016....just because we have such "rancor" between the parties right now, and regardless of who started it and who did what, it really would be nice for our Federal Government as a whole to come together and agree on something. And further, if the Democrats want a "nice" campaign platform to run on in 2018 and 2020, why not use something like this where they can say they really can get things done and reach across the aisle and they can use this example of confirming a Republican President's Supreme Court nominee as evidence of their ability to reach across. That would sure appeal to voters a heck of alot better than the constant finger-pointing that they always do.

You are correct about the "Biden Rule". Rumors were circulating that a supreme court judge might be retiring before the end of Bush Senior's term in office and Biden put this out there to pre empt a potential Judge being appointed by Bush in the final year of his presidency. Later in 2007 democrat senate majority leader Harry Reid invoked the "Biden Rule" and stated anyone Bush Junior appointed would not even receive a hearing because it was within the election season.

We are currently not in an election season, Trump won. Obama's two appointees were not filibustered like this and were voted in by republicans. The democrats really don't have a leg to stand on with any complaints about Garland not being given a hearing as that is the precedent they set with "the Biden Rule". Also while we are in "you reap what you sow" mode Harry Reid and the democrats changed hundreds of years of congressional rules and put a "nuclear option" in place, allowing the majority party to nominate and confirm a supreme court appointee with 51 votes instead of 60. Removing a check and balance from our system which used to demand a large majority vote to decide life time appointments to the supreme court. Now much less moderate judges can be appointed on a party line basis. The democrats would be wise to confirm Gorsuch or Trump could appoint someone who is far more ideological via Harry Reid and the democrats "nuclear option". Very ironic that the democrats power grab will be used to appoint a majority conservative supreme court for the next 30 years. Ooopps

[badgervike]

Mar 21, 2017 16:11:47 GMT -6 kramerhammer said:

The dems won't be able to block him. They can play the delay game, but a filibuster will be fruitless and the GOP will still have the nuclear option.

They just need to consider him on his merits(which are quite considerable) and vote up or down. No need for partisan BS here and drive the wedge even further.

Not sure this is the guy Democrats want to play games and force the nuclear option.  The court isn't getting any younger and some of the justices have talked retirement (or death).  Forcing the nuclear option with Gorshuch would allow Trump to next nominate someone who actually is extreme and ideological because they have the 51 votes needed for confirmation.  It's a bad precedent to set...especially when you're using the filibuster to block someone clearly qualified.

[njvikesfan]

Mar 21, 2017 16:11:47 GMT -6 kramerhammer said:

The dems won't be able to block him. They can play the delay game, but a filibuster will be fruitless and the GOP will still have the nuclear option.

They just need to consider him on his merits(which are quite considerable) and vote up or down. No need for partisan BS here and drive the wedge even further.

They may be hoping they can bait the republicans into using the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch so that if they were to try to use it again they could be made to seem dictatorial by the media.

With 3 judges on the SCOTUS over 80, (Ginsberg is prehistoric and rumored to be in poor health) 2 being liberal and Kennedy being the moderate, we will likely have one or two more being appointed by Trump. Possibly three. We could be looking at a potential 7-2 conservative SCOTUS by the end of rump's first term. Wow

There will be some battles ahead and the democrats cant fight them all.

[kramerhammer]

Mar 21, 2017 16:28:24 GMT -6 njvikesfan said:

Mar 21, 2017 13:53:44 GMT -6 Uncle said:

The Democrats are still mad at the Republicans over not even getting to confirmation hearing for Obama's pick, M Garland.

However, the problem is that there is some precedence for what the Republicans did - they were following the so-called "Biden Rule", formed in 1992 when then Senator Biden on the Judiciary Committee stated on the floor that President's shouldn't nominate Supreme Court Justice's during a Presidential Election Year, and it was an issue for the people to decide during their Presidential selection.

Whether the exact same situations were the same in 2016 when Obama nominated Garland as they were back in 1992 are definitely left up to discussion. There was no vacancy to fill on the Supreme Court in 1992 after Clarence Marshall was confirmed in 1991 - Biden was just speaking to the floor on if a vacancy did occur, for President Bush (Sr) to wait until after the '92 election ended and let the people decide. In 2016, Democrats wanted a swift confirmation for Garland because they argued a backlog of cases that needed to be heard in which a deciding vote needed to be cast so there may be some merit to that argument.

I personally hope that Democrats don't block the confirmation of Gorsuch out of spite for Garland and the "Biden Rule" implemented by the Republicans in 2016....just because we have such "rancor" between the parties right now, and regardless of who started it and who did what, it really would be nice for our Federal Government as a whole to come together and agree on something. And further, if the Democrats want a "nice" campaign platform to run on in 2018 and 2020, why not use something like this where they can say they really can get things done and reach across the aisle and they can use this example of confirming a Republican President's Supreme Court nominee as evidence of their ability to reach across. That would sure appeal to voters a heck of alot better than the constant finger-pointing that they always do.

You are correct about the "Biden Rule". Rumors were circulating that a supreme court judge might be retiring before the end of Bush Senior's term in office and Biden put this out there to pre empt a potential Judge being appointed by Bush in the final year of his presidency. Later in 2007 democrat senate majority leader Harry Reid invoked the "Biden Rule" and stated anyone Bush Junior appointed would not even receive a hearing because it was within the election season.

We are currently not in an election season, Trump won. Obama's two appointees were not filibustered like this and were voted in by republicans. The democrats really don't have a leg to stand on with any complaints about Garland not being given a hearing as that is the precedent they set with "the Biden Rule". Also while we are in "you reap what you sow" mode Harry Reid and the democrats changed hundreds of years of congressional rules and put a "nuclear option" in place, allowing the majority party to nominate and confirm a supreme court appointee with 51 votes instead of 60. Removing a check and balance from our system which used to demand a large majority vote to decide life time appointments to the supreme court. Now much less moderate judges can be appointed on a party line basis. The democrats would be wise to confirm Gorsuch or Trump could appoint someone who is far more ideological via Harry Reid and the democrats "nuclear option". Very ironic that the democrats power grab will be used to appoint a majority conservative supreme court for the next 30 years. Ooopps

There was no precedent set.  Their were no nominations so it was no more than a statement of personal opinion.  There was a nomination by Obama and it was the GOP that set the precedent.  Republicans set the precedent and they better hope it doesn't bite them in the ass  some day.  Remember to be careful what you wish for.

[kramerhammer]

Mar 21, 2017 16:39:37 GMT -6 njvikesfan said:

Mar 21, 2017 16:11:47 GMT -6 kramerhammer said:

The dems won't be able to block him. They can play the delay game, but a filibuster will be fruitless and the GOP will still have the nuclear option.

They just need to consider him on his merits(which are quite considerable) and vote up or down. No need for partisan BS here and drive the wedge even further.

They may be hoping they can bait the republicans into using the nuclear option to confirm Gorsuch so that if they were to try to use it again they could be made to seem dictatorial by the media.

With 3 judges on the SCOTUS over 80, (Ginsberg is prehistoric and rumored to be in poor health) 2 being liberal and Kennedy being the moderate, we will likely have one or two more being appointed by Trump. Possibly three. We could be looking at a potential 7-2 conservative SCOTUS by the end of rump's first term. Wow

There will be some battles ahead and the democrats cant fight them all.

I firggin hope not.  This is as good a nominee as any liberal could hope for and they need to quit grandstanding and vote him in NOW.

[Purp1eOne]