Should Ds Filibuster Gorsuch or Wait For the Next Nominee?

1. 84

   My Esotericposted 7 years 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.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   2. 92

      lions44posted 7 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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".

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, you are right, very few far-Right people agree with me.  And it ALL about Trump's choice.  Do you actually believe that if Trump nominated an equally well qualified Garland, that the Rs wouldn't have continued their obstruction of him.  Obviously if Trump had chosen a Ginsburg, they would have been apocalyptic and called for his impeachment.
                              
                              A Right-leaning court has almost always set the case for civil rights and personal liberty backwards, take Roberts' ruling against the Voting RIghts Act and how the conservative  state governments first make up a story about rampant voter fraud by illegals and then passing laws that disenfranchised a whole host of low income, elderly, and minority voters.
                              
                              The courts have been very busy declaring most of these moves unconstitutional.

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 It sounds like you are all for the D's to continue to refuse any vote at all until their "own" president finds a good hearted, left leaning judge that will vote the party line without regard to the law.
                                 
                                 And this is your idea of proper legislator action?  It really is no wonder that the Hill is the quagmire it is; that our politicians are self serving scoundrels without a care for the nation.  It's what the people want!

                                 replyreport
      3. 84

         My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
   3. 78

      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
2. 59

   Reason and Factsposted 7 years 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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin 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 .

      replyreport
      1. 84

         My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Well, it is a fact denied by libs...even as they extend further control over the poor (how about drug testing to get food now?).  It's a very true fact, Esoteric, whether you like to look into it deep enough to see the chains or not.  As much fact as that conservatives would do nothing at all; problem is that you don't see jobs or higher wages as valuable.  Such things liberate the poor from the liberal chains, and that's not good, is it?

                              replyreport
                              1. 84

                                 My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Then give me the studies, that can stand critical review, that prove your claim that helping people leads to dependence on that help.  If you can't, then you are clearly wrong.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Look around you, at people stuck in the welfare programs and can't get out.  That you refuse to look at real people, in real life, does not mean they are not there.
                                    
                                    When we see people trying to get a few $ for utility bills denied that help but offered total care if they will quit work and depend solely on govt. for their needs it is an indication.  When we see people trying hard to get ahead, gaining skills and getting raises...only to lose more welfare than the raise was, that's an indication.  When we see the workfare programs die on the vine because working is demeaning, that's an indication.  When we see govt. actively searching for people to give money to, people that are getting along without it, that's an indication.  When the programs are designed to give more money the less the recipient does, that's an indication.  When we see the "poverty line" increase each year, not because of inflation but because we want the poor to have more luxuries, that's a good indication. 
                                    
                                    Lots and lots and lots of real life evidence that welfare binds people to govt. and makes it difficult to impossible to get off of it, but if you don't want to look that's up to you.  You have made it extremely clear over the past few months (since Trump and "fake news" came on the scene) that any study, news, literature, etc. that doesn't agree with your opinion cannot stand "critical review" and will not be believed, so there is no reason to look for such.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 84

                                       My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       You are providing anecdotal evidence which may or may not represent what is happening writ large.  I can counter ever one of your examples (which I don't deny have actually happened, I employed one and couldn't give her a raise) with one that disproves your belief.  The only thing worth considering as real evidence are robust studies that look at lots of non-cherry picked cases.
                                       
                                       A system that helps many, many more people than it hurts is a good system that could use a few fixes.  Said another way, a system that hurts only one person is not evidence the program should be canned and therefore hurt millions instead of one.

                                       report
                                       1. 96

                                          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          The problem is that "help" means giving money away, not teaching (or requiring that people support themselves, while "hurting" all too often means not providing support to those that are capable of doing it themselves.  And anecdotal evidence shows that to be all too true.
                                          
                                          Here's what we should be doing - small housing for the homeless.
                                          "“Through these villages, we've been able to transition 161 people into housing, 106 gained employment working with case managers, and 34 have been reunited with family or friends," Castle said."
                                          "The Low Housing Institute operates the village and says they tiny homes are meant to be temporary."
                                          http://www.kgw.com/news/politics/north- … /428137129
                                          Instead, we provide 2,000 square foot homes, with all the amenities, for years on end.
                                          
                                          So while the solution is not to "can" the system, it is to change the thrust from simply providing for needs to teaching and requiring people to supply those needs themselves.  As far as those robust studies, they begin with the concept that providing is the solution, and neglect the harm done to those required to foot the bill.  It is similar to the "studies" showing illegals carry their weight while neglecting to mention the majority of costs the country pays.

                                          report
                                          1. 84

                                             My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             It is wonderful that programs like the Small Village exist, they are certainly needed.  But the conservative theory that family, friends, churches, and philanthropic groups are sufficient to handle the volume of people in need.  All the evidence shows that theory is false and in any case is a patchwork, helping some and ignoring others.  That was what faced FDR during the 1929 Depression and he quickly found that paradigm is simply wishful thinking; it always has been and always will be.
                                             
                                             Another theory of conservatives is that there is always a job to be had and you are simply lazy because you can't find one.  That is also not true.  Today, at full employment, with business continuing to grow, there are Not Enough job openings to employ everyone who wants a job, even forgetting that most of the jobs available today require an education beyond high school.  Conservatives don't want to admit some things are impossible and putting people in jobs that don't exist is one of them.
                                             
                                             This was exacerbated during the Great 2008 Recession when there were 20 or more people looking for every job that was available.  Even then, it was easy to find commentary from conservatives that the 19 who didn't get the job were lazy leeches on society.  Conservatives are simply unrealistic, and that includes Kirk and his Principals.  It would be nice if reality worked the way he proposes, but it doesn't ... and, because of human nature, can't.
                                             
                                             As to job training being the way out ... apparently that is not the case as you will see in this: http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-an … nce-shows.  This is study-based, not anecdotes.
                                             
                                             There are a plethora of federal job training programs, you can find them at https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/training. In addition, most, if not all, states have multiple job training programs.  In fact, many states require it for able-body persons to receive aid.

                                             report
                                             1. 96

                                                wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                That private people did the small homes wasn't the point: the intended point was that the destitute are given temporary occupancy to shield them as opposed to luxurious homes for years to come that we currently supply.
                                                
                                                When a person goes for years without a job, it isn't because there are no jobs available.  That is the liberal philosophical failure, and we most definitely saw it in the recession when white collar workers refused to take manual labor, preferring years of unemployment insurance because the work was "beneath" them.
                                                
                                                No, it doesn't take training enrollment to get welfare - not for a single parent with kids.  Somehow, having kids means that work is no longer necessary even though millions of others in the same circumstances juggle work and kids quite successfully.  Not easily, not nearly as easy as watching TV all day, but successfully.
                                                
                                                Nor is it required for anyone; just that some work or training is done after a reasonable time period.  Which in turn means that welfare becomes a way of life and there is nothing to be gained by taking training or getting a higher paid job.  And once more, that is another philosophical failure of the liberal bent, and a very severe one.

                                                report
                                                1. 84

                                                   My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   You made my point about anecdotes.  You said when one person goes without a job for years ...  I don't care about 1 person or 100 people, that is not a problem, it is just an artifact of life.  If you show me a study that says 10% of able-body Americans between the ages of 18 and 62 go for years without a job, now you have got my attention.
                                                   
                                                   So, what percentage of that demographic do you believe chooses to go for years without a job.?

                                                   report
                                                   1. 96

                                                      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Without a job or with a job far below their capabilities?  The first perhaps 10%.  The second more like 80%.  The "demographic" of course refers to those collecting welfare of some kind - primarily housing or EBT.  We'll ignore medicaid recipients as ObamaCare gives insurance to everyone.
                                                      
                                                      Of course, the percentage during the height of the recession was greater as skilled, white collar labor jobs were not to be had.

                                                      report
                                             2. 82

                                                GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                I hope you don't mind if I jump in My Esoteric, but...
                                                
                                                If I were in your shoes, I would feel more than just a bit of trepidation using such broad strokes and generalities as you do referencing "conservatives." I am surprised you don't also.
                                                
                                                But... following your and Wilderness' exchanges, concerning the homeless and jobs, and taking wilderness' "low housing" example at face value, (I did not pursue his link), would your opinion of the most positive method of addressing the most people change if every state had one of those "low housing" operations? Or even, (if we allowed such a degree of optimism), if there were multiple such programs in each state, or even in each high-density population center - would that influence your opinion?
                                                
                                                What about a thought of redirecting Federal block grant aid to foster such private programs, instead of just feeding the beast of Federal poverty program mandates as they currently exist?
                                                
                                                I would also heartily dispute your generalization that "conservatives think that "family, friends, churches, and philanthropic groups" are the entire answer to these problems. I would generalize and say that we do think those choices should be paramount in our efforts, but we also acknowledge that there is a need for some of the Federal poverty programs - just not that they are the only, or the best, way to address the problem.
                                                
                                                You rationalize with the proportion of folks helped Federally vs. privately, and I would counter that how would you ever know how effective those private efforts, (with Federal support), could be, if you have predetermined that they could never be enough?
                                                
                                                I know as well as you do that anecdotal examples seldom meet the bar of national reality, but, in my eastern Seaboard region - employment advertisements, (manual labor to  skilled blue collar to white collar),  fill the local media. It seems to be the case in Wilderness' region too. Can it be that only high-density population centers differ?
                                                
                                                Also referring back to another of your responses concerning FDR, and his, necessary for the times,  "welfare" programs,  I think if you checked, you will find that he not only publicly proclaimed that he intended them to be temporary, but that almost all of them included some kind of work, or retraining effort from recipients of the programs. FDR's freebies had strings attached. Something that is generally ignored in too many of today's "welfare" programs.
                                                
                                                All other points aside, my primary intent was to challenge your generalization of "conservatives." I think refusing to appreciate that error greatly diminishes the credibility of your perspectives.
                                                
                                                GA, (aka The Wet Blanket)
                                                
                                                [EDIT ADDED]
                                                oops, I just glanced back and saw that I have participated in a thread hijacking - oh well, it happens. At least it was your thread, and you were a fellow co-hijacker.

                                                report
3. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years 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.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
      1. 84

         My Esotericposted 7 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin 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.

            replyreport