jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (38 posts)

Should Ds Filibuster Gorsuch or Wait For the Next Nominee?

  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 3 months ago

    My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait.  The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change Senate rules to eliminate filibustering for Supreme Court nominees; just as Democrats did for other judges and cabinet nominees (Rs were letting any through)

    Their purpose is most likely two-fold, to prevent the Supreme Court from tilting far to the Right again and as payback for McConnell not bringing Judge Garland to a vote (or even beginning the process) for almost a year.

    The thing is, if the Ds choose to let Gorsuch through, giving the Court a 4-4-1 flavor, which tilts right because of Kennedy, and put up a fight for the next Uber-conservative Trump nominates, then they almost guarantee a 5-3-1 or 5-4 far-Right Court.  The Rs will have every reason to trigger the nuclear option in that event.

    Alternatively, the Ds could take a chance that they gain control of the Senate back in 2018, a hard task given who will be running.  If they do, then they can pull a McConnell and refuse to process anybody they don't like.  But that is a lot of ifs.

    Consequently, the Ds might as well give it a shot now as their best chance.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      I don't think you understand what got Trump elected to the office.  Hint: playing political games for revenge or refusing to do the job because you might not like the result is a part of it.

    2. lions44 profile image97
      lions44posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Why would you filibuster him?  What are they against? The man is incredibly qualified. Whether you like Trump or not (and I don't), Gorsuch deserves to be appointed.

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image89
        RJ Schwartzposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        He was A+ rated and unanimously confirmed to the lower court - why is he suddenly unqualified?

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        No he doesn't (deserve to be appointed).  The proposal came from Trump and that's all it takes for the D's to vote against him.  He could be the best judge in 241 years, but Trump proposed him so he's out.

        As Esoteric points out, petty partisan politics take priority over the country.

        1. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Do you mean like the Rs opposed anything and everything from Obama.

          If you think the Taney court was a great court (Dred Scott) or how about the Chase court (evisceration of the 14th and 15th Amendment) or maybe the Fuller Court (Separate but Equal) then yes Gorsuch will be a great Justice.

          Do you think he would have dissented in Brown v Board of Education (overturned Separate but Equal)?  How about being in the majority on Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung which upheld the 1964 Civil RIghts Act.  Or Miranda v. Arizona. Or Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. which overturned several Fuller Court decisions that had reversed the 1866 Civil Rights Act

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            The R's opposed, playing the game.  And that means the D's should do worse, posturing and pretending they can do the same thing for years instead of months.  THAT really makes good sense doesn't it - a loud whine that somebody else did it so they should to.

            And that's exactly the behavior that put Trump in the White House.  Whether D's or R's, it's what put him there - either learn the lesson the first time around or lose your job in 2 years.

            1. My Esoteric profile image89
              My Esotericposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              McConnell poisoned the well and needs to be punished for it.  Even if he had not done that to President Obama.  But, if the goal is simply to have a fair Court, then opposing Gorsuch makes a lot of sense on its own.

              I am guessing the far Right expects their presidents to be supermen.  By mid-March 2009 your propaganda thought that Obama should have fixed everything by then.  Now you expect Trump to play God and change human and political nature.  It isn't going to happen.  He is Not the CEO/dictator of a real estate company, but he Is the President of the United States who must deal with the Real World and not the fictional one he has created and duped you into believing.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                LOL  With "fair" meaning another liberal leaning judge voting his conscience rather than the law.  big_smile

                But the D's aren't either "punishing" McConnell OR looking for that "fair" judge.  They're just having a tantrum - "You did it so we will, too!", same as any child does.  To the detriment of the nation.

                No, God won't change political nature.  The people will, one legislator at a time if necessary, beginning with the office of President.  Once more, you seem to "forget" just how Trump landed where he did, or why.

                1. My Esoteric profile image89
                  My Esotericposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  In this case it is to the benefit of America.  Garland was that "fair" judge, so is Kennedy.  Since I have read Breyer's book, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judges View, and agree with most of what he said, I consider him "fair".

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    "In this case it is to the benefit of America."

                    In your opinion, an opinion that very few seem to agree with.  But you and I both know that isn't why the D's have decided there will be no new justice, and THAT is the topic, not whether President's choice is a good one.

      3. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        If Gorsuch was a Centrist or Moderate then nobody, except the Republicans of course, would oppose him.  But he isn't a Moderate, he is hard-Right (for the most part) who will rule against the People like Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts do much of the time.  Those 4 would fit perfectly on the Taney court that eviscerated the 14th and 15th Amendments in the 1880s (yes, that includes Thomas).

        A perfect world would be a Court foll of Kennedys and Garlands.  Then one could start believing in the Court and respecting its decisions.

        The bottom line is that regardless of how qualified Gorsuch is, American civil rights cannot afford another Taney Court and his penchant to rule as if today was 1790.

    3. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Well, I have to question if Gorsuch can be a judge on the Supreme Court.

      In 2005 Neil Gorsuch worked directly for Attorney General Gunzalous.  He, Gorsuch initiated and enhanced several programs that were totally illegal and immoral. The enhancement of interrogation, rendition and torture. He was key to the torture implementation and legitimacy of using torture against so-called terrorists.  This came after 9/11.

      So we have a descent man from Colorado who tells you how humble he is, and really he is very bright. 

      Diane Feinstein, whom I don't like, but I think she was right to push in on the key issue. The moral integrity of Neil Gorsuch does not lie in his 48 years of his life, it lies in the 14 months that he was a co-conspirator with Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice and Romney to implement Patriot's Act, increase terrorism and increase interrogation.

      Does that make Gorsuch an amoral man that has been corrupted?
      Does that make Gorsuch a Neocon and a con-artist?
      Neocons are a very dangerous group because they want war.   

      Credit to Dr. Steve Pieczenik for talking about this with Alex Jones on Infowars.

  2. Reason and Facts profile image82
    Reason and Factsposted 3 months ago

    Democrats should simply say, until the FBI investigation is complete, we don't feel it is prudent to confirm any nominee of President Trump, especially to a lifetime appointment.

    Scalia's seat has been open for over a year.  Clearly the Rs have demonstrated there's no urgency to fill the seat.

    To those who say he's qualified, I've never seen more non-answers to direct questions.  What is your stance on this?  Well, gosh, golly, gee, I really can't say what my position on that would be.

    1. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      If your name was true to form , You'd realize your own collusion with the leftist  plague ,opposition to progress  .   
      Liberals should change their self naming from Progressive to Digressive .

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Conservatism, by definition and practice, is backward looking.  Most conservatives supported slavery and opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments as well as women's right to vote, civil rights, individualism, etc.

        1. ahorseback profile image45
          ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          How false ,  Lets really look into slavery  as it was you who  brought it up .    Democrats invented  the whole slavery issue by  the constant support of slavery  ,   Look at the true supporters all the way from the beginning  and you will see ,  when progress away from slavery was the issue it was liberal opposition  , even when it was moving towards supporting slavery , it was liberally motivated .   

          I always find that intellectualism among liberals only goes so deep,I suggest you  dig deeper into who really "supported " blacks in America more .

          Conservatism   :means exactly its definition , the" backwards looking " is on display right now in every liberal stronghold in America  , NYC,    LA. SF.  Seattle  , Chicago , Baltimore ,  Houston , Detroit , Atlanta ,  New Orleans ,   Your liberal political" leadership" is proven time and time again .    BLM  has only to look into their own cities leadership party to see the true enemy ! Look them up , don't be afraid.

          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Please don't confuse conservatism and liberalism with a political Party.  Over the long-run they are not related, even though in the short-run they might be.  So your statement should be "Conservatives invented  the whole slavery issue by  the constant support of slavery" 

            Also, please don't confuse liberalism or progressivism with the inner-city poverty you are referring to.  While liberals try to alleviate their poverty, conservatism do nothing or actually make it worse through their policies and philosophy of social hierarchy.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              "While liberals try to alleviate their poverty"

              No they don't - all they seem to know is to throw money at it, which is destined to fail miserably.  Unfortunately, they seem incapable of figuring that out, so keep throwing money...money that belongs to someone else.

              1. ahorseback profile image45
                ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                That's more than  Obvious in Detroit Chicago LA baltimore.  S f.    Why won't they see this

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  It's a "feel good" thing, I think - they don't know HOW to actually alleviate poverty, yet it really is sad to see it.  So throw money at it, giving the poor more than they have and creating that good feeling that you have "helped" someone in need - next month or year we can repeat the process.  Altruism does make us feel better, and that it permanently locks the poor into the clutches of politics makes it even better.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    And the conservative solution is to just let them suffer without lifting a finger,.SAD as Trump would say.

                    The conservative mantra is just as you quoted "Altruism does make us feel better, and that it permanently locks the poor into the clutches of politics makes it even better." which sounds good to conservatives but is nevertheless devoid of fact.

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months ago

    Confirming a Supreme Court nominee of a president who is under investigation for illegal interference in his own election seems irresponsible for a governing body that has sworn to protect and defend our constitution. You are exactly right. If a year wasn't too long to wait, a few more months won't be either.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Wait.  Do you mean we are actually confirming Trump as a judge?  Or that because Trump was involved the evil has contaminated Gorsuch, a completely different person?

      And do you mean that it's fine to ignore the designated duties of Congress in favor of political posturing?

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Well, it must be what the people want for they gave Trump a "massive" win and firmly established the GOP and its philosophy as rulers of America AND "And do you mean that it's fine to ignore the designated duties of Congress in favor of political posturing?" is what they think is the way you are supposed to do it.

        Ds are just following the R philosophy.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Wonderful.  Then get rid of both sides if they refuse to do their job.  Exactly what is needed and what I've said all along.

 
working