jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (11 posts)

Should Democrats Filibuster Neil Gorsuch

  1. crankalicious profile image95
    crankaliciousposted 11 months ago

    It looks like Democrats are going to filibuster SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch and force Mitch McConnell to change the Senate rules so that a simple majority can confirm SCOTUS justices now and in the future.

    While I don't agree with judge Gorsuch on a lot of issues nor do I care for his opinions and I hate what the GOP did to Merrick Garland and believe that there should be some kind of retribution for that decision, I don't believe the Democrats should filibuster Gorsuch.

    First, he's not just a qualified nominee, but a highly qualified one. His nomination, despite what I think of him, has probably been the best decision of Trump's presidency so far. He seems to be a decent man and an excellent judge. Further, given that Trump could have nominated a number of far right-wing people, Gorsuch is actually something of a surprise. I suspect that if the filibuster is successful, the next nominee will be much more radical. Plus, it furthers the precedent that any reason is a good reason to oppose a SCOTUS nominee and that shouldn't be.

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I generally agree, after all Obama got Kagan and Sotomayer sp. confirmed. I am still PO ed by the way the GOP obstructed Obama's rightful prerogative to replace Scalia last year. But the show must go on, if the man is otherwise qualified, Gorsuch should be considered.

      BUT: Without the GOP generally agreeing to accommodate Dems much more, greater cooperation cannot be expected as forthcoming.

    2. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      If Republicans are willing to compromise on issues such as health insurance, then the Democrats should compromise on Supreme Court appointments.

      If the GOP refuses to compromise on anything, then yes, the Dems should filibuster.

      As a country, we need both parties to work together in order to solve our problems. But it takes both parties and not just one.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Seems to me the Republicans have already compromised on health care - we don't have a new Republican plan, after all.  Or does "compromise" just mean "Do everything my way, as I want it to be"?

        This whole filibuster thing is indicative of where our politics is going.  Remember a few years ago when one party left the state, preventing a quorum because the vote was not going to go as that party wanted?  "We either vote my way or we won't vote at all", that the work of the entire legislature was halted. 

        Children at play, that's all it is.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I wouldn't call the Republican inability to line up their own votes a compromise.

          That said, do you agree that both parties need to compromise to get things done?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            That they cannot do so is probably the biggest failing on the Hill, and there are many.  I'm not sure that compromise has to happen - witness the birth of ObamaCare - but when it isn't done we have a never ending fight to reverse the law. 

            Indeed your own comment, about R's "lining up their own votes" is indicative of the size of the problem; we expect party line votes, without compromise, and are surprised when it doesn't happen.  Gorsuch is another example, with a total party vote from committee and another one expected from the full body; not a single person will vote their own mind, sticking hard to the party demands.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I agree that both sides are now doing the same thing. They do so because of intense pressure from rich donors and angry voters.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Perhaps I expect too much from my fellow Americans, but to think anyone out here gets mad when congress does it's job, when politicians work together to find problems, when solutions are devised by effort from both sides, is disgusting.  It's likely true, though, which is a part of just why it happens.

  2. colorfulone profile image83
    colorfuloneposted 11 months ago

    It looks like the Senate Democrats nuclear option is going to backfire on them.  Wasn't that Harry Reid's baby?

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      I agree on this point, actually. The Dems, despite the good reasons for it, set the precedent for the nuclear option and have only themselves to blame.

  3. MizBejabbers profile image89
    MizBejabbersposted 11 months ago

    That depends. While Gorsuch is a respected judge in the GOP and for that reason can be judged by the people as a conservative, he promises to uphold the Constitution by studying and voting the law. What does that mean? There are different interpretations of the Constitution. When he was answering questions put forth about his beliefs, he answered as neutrally as a lawyer would which leaves neither side with satisfaction of where he really stands. One of the government lawyers that I work with explained to me that this puts him in an awkward position. The American people have the right to know more about him before the vote because this is a lifetime appointment and we will be stuck with a mystery man. He wasn't giving any hints to satisfy anyone. Until he opens up with more information about himself, I think the Demos are going to keep their backs up.