Well, at least Gorsuch appears from all reports to be a collegiant, respectful judge. Not an arrogant, nasty piece of work the way Scalia was.
Well, according to the British paper the Daily Mail (a conservative rag, but generally credible) "Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ at his elite high school."
For the moment, I am going to put this into the "credible but yet to be confirmed' category of news.
And anyhow, Jesuit schoolboys will be Jesuit schoolboys.
Well, at least Gorsuch appears from all reports to be a collegiant, respectful judge. Not an arrogant, nasty piece of work the way Scalia was.
Well, according to the British paper the Daily Mail (a conservative rag, but generally credible) "Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ at his elite high school."
For the moment, I am going to put this into the "credible but yet to be confirmed' category of news.
And anyhow, Jesuit schoolboys will be Jesuit schoolboys.
Well, at least Gorsuch appears from all reports to be a collegiant, respectful judge. Not an arrogant, nasty piece of work the way Scalia was.
Apparently, Scalia's colleagues including the liberal ones adored him. "Collegiality" among the judges may not be apparent to us from the decisions.
Gorsuch obtained a doctorate at Oxford under John Finnis who is perhaps the best known living advocate of natural law theory and is quite homophobic in his work. Gorsuch seems nice enough but is extremely conservative and while he may not upset the apple cart right away I suspect he will be key to very problematic decisions on equal protection, voting right and labour. The one silver lining is that he is a proponent of a stricter approach to evaluating executive power and the power of administrative agencies. Bu he will likely defer to every perversion the GOP-controlled Congress can churn out.
Gorsuch would merely put the court back to where it was a year or so ago. The key battle would be if there was a vacancy in any of the Democratic seats, or Kennedy's.
Gorsuch is a disaster and the Democrats need to filibuster
All the other stuff Trump is doing is small potatoes compared to the damage he is going to do to the law in the USA with his appointments to the Supreme Court
Not disagreeing. But the question is, do you want to use up your ammunition on someone who is replacing Scalia, or save it in case there is a vacancy of a more moderate seat in the next couple of years.
The Democrats need to fight tooth and nail every inch of the way on every single issue just as the right-wing does, and which is often the reason why the right-wing end up winning power more often.
Listening to the Trump lunatics and haters such as Sessons, Price, Bannon, Spicer, Conway, Fox News, etc., I wonder though if there are now irreconcilable differences in the USA and they each need to go their own separate way. I have heard California already wants out and there probably are other states as well. So many guns in civilian hands must also be of major concern.
Good decision by the Democrats. Garland should have been confirmed and never ever give an inch to the GOP. Yes the GOP will probably get rid of the filibuster option, but what's the point of having it if you don't use it.
If they do get rid of the filibuster option, the next Democratic president will actually be able to get stuff passed. The U.S. could end up with single-payer after all.
It seems like a given that the GOP will follow through on abolishing the filibuster. And hopefully the Democrats will soon control the Senate.
The worst possible outcome for Democrats would be to allow Republicans to fill a vacancy with 50 votes while forcing their party to muster 60. And there is a lot of reason to believe this is the case right now. Barack Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee, the highly respected and moderate jurist Elena Kagan, got the support of just five Republican senators, of which two were driven into retirement by actual or threatened primary challengers in part because of those votes. Once Democrats lost their supermajority, their ability to seat a justice probably disappeared with it.
In 2014, Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Elle that she did not want to retire in part because she believed Senate Republicans would filibuster any left-of-center nominee to replace her:
Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Democrats] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided.
Mitch McConnell wants to preserve an ambiguous situation where the norms say one thing and the rules say another. This is to his advantage, because he is a serial violator of norms. This isn’t a moral question — he’s a brilliant tactician and he’s very good at identifying political strategies that are legal but which have not been used due to social convention. If McConnell can use the threat of the nuclear option to make the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee a useless weapon for the opposing party, he can preserve it as a potential useful one for himself. If Democrats don’t make McConnell abolish the Supreme Court filibuster, he may use it to blockade their next nominee, and they will have only themselves to blame.
To be fair, the filibuster is a bit like saying that any hockey team willing to skate around in a circle for seventeen hours automatically wins. It would be impressive, but it wouldn't be hockey.
Part of the Dem's resentment: Not ok for Garland to proceed but ok for Gorsuch
If 60 votes are required to confirm Gorsuch in Senate and the Dems have 48 votes then just vote no. Why is there even a need for a filibuster? Or is the filibuster required to try and prevent the GOP from reducing that required vote count to a simple majority or 51 seats?
Trump Made His Supreme Court Pick. Now What? 5 Steps To Confirmation
Part of the Dem's resentment: Not ok for Garland to proceed but ok for Gorsuch
If 60 votes are required to confirm Gorsuch in Senate and the Dems have 48 votes then just vote no. Why is there even a need for a filibuster? Or is the filibuster required to try and prevent the GOP from reducing that required vote count to a simple majority or 51 seats?
Trump Made His Supreme Court Pick. Now What? 5 Steps To Confirmation
With 60 votes the debate can be officially skipped which prevents the possibility of filibuster. So 60 votes are required to skip the filibuster, but only a majority is required to confirm him. 60 votes is sometimes referred to as a supermajority for that reason.
Did he grow up?
Being a fascist doesn't mean you can't be courteous and respectful in your personal dealings.
Apparently, Scalia's colleagues including the liberal ones adored him. "Collegiality" among the judges may not be apparent to us from the decisions.
Gorsuch obtained a doctorate at Oxford under John Finnis who is perhaps the best known living advocate of natural law theory and is quite homophobic in his work. Gorsuch seems nice enough but is extremely conservative and while he may not upset the apple cart right away I suspect he will be key to very problematic decisions on equal protection, voting right and labour. The one silver lining is that he is a proponent of a stricter approach to evaluating executive power and the power of administrative agencies. Bu he will likely defer to every perversion the GOP-controlled Congress can churn out.
Yeah, ask Sandra Day O'Connor about that one.
Kagan, Sotamayor and Ginsburg are not my concern. They can handle their male colleagues.
Gentility won't mitigate his dismantling Bill of Rights caselaw except for the majority's freedom of religion, and guns.
Next Week's Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Will Be a Test for Democrats
Will members of the Senate Judiciary Committee stand up to Neil Gorsuch, or let Trump radicalize the Court for decades to come?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/gorsuch-supreme-court-conf...
Gorsuch would merely put the court back to where it was a year or so ago. The key battle would be if there was a vacancy in any of the Democratic seats, or Kennedy's.
Gorsuch is a disaster and the Democrats need to filibuster
All the other stuff Trump is doing is small potatoes compared to the damage he is going to do to the law in the USA with his appointments to the Supreme Court
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-constitution-originalism-20170...
In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts
Gorsuch’s ties to Hans von Spakovksy suggest a hostility to voting rights.
https://www.thenation.com/article/in-emails-neil-gorsuch-praised-a-leadi...
Not disagreeing. But the question is, do you want to use up your ammunition on someone who is replacing Scalia, or save it in case there is a vacancy of a more moderate seat in the next couple of years.
I noticed this thread was active again... my first thought was that he had risen from the grave and zombie apocalypse had started.
The Democrats need to fight tooth and nail every inch of the way on every single issue just as the right-wing does, and which is often the reason why the right-wing end up winning power more often.
Listening to the Trump lunatics and haters such as Sessons, Price, Bannon, Spicer, Conway, Fox News, etc., I wonder though if there are now irreconcilable differences in the USA and they each need to go their own separate way. I have heard California already wants out and there probably are other states as well. So many guns in civilian hands must also be of major concern.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/17/media/trump-administration-blocks-media/...
Gorsuch Is Just a Start as Right Plans a Remake of the Judiciary
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-cour...
Yes, but at least Clinton is not president.
It appears that the Democrats will filibuster.
Good decision by the Democrats. Garland should have been confirmed and never ever give an inch to the GOP. Yes the GOP will probably get rid of the filibuster option, but what's the point of having it if you don't use it.
If they do get rid of the filibuster option, the next Democratic president will actually be able to get stuff passed. The U.S. could end up with single-payer after all.
Scary if true.
Napolitano told friends he was on Trump's Supreme Court shortlist
The benched Fox News personality has claimed the president told him he'd be considered for the next seat that comes open.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/andrew-napolitano-supreme-court-sh...
They ought to get another term rather than using 'nuclear option'
The Democrats need to remember what happened to Garland and not give an inch.
Why would how they vote on Gorsuch have any bearing on the possible next nominee?
Gorsuch needs a straight flush to beat filibuster
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-236604
Reeling Republicans desperate for a win on Gorsuch
This is as close to must-win as it gets for President Donald Trump and the GOP after last week's health care debacle.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-republicans-supreme-court-...
Gorsuch nomination on track to irreparably change Senate — and further divide nation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/neil-gorsuchs-supreme-court-nom...
Republicans hold all the aces right now so we should expect to see massive changes taking place in the USA probably through the Presidential powers.
Bannon's approach is working with the government being discredited everywhere. Maybe California could do something about the nutters in Washington.
Gorsuch battle brings Senate to brink of a new low
And there's no bipartisan 'gang' this time to save it from itself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gangs-senate-gorsuch-236660
It seems like a given that the GOP will follow through on abolishing the filibuster. And hopefully the Democrats will soon control the Senate.
The worst possible outcome for Democrats would be to allow Republicans to fill a vacancy with 50 votes while forcing their party to muster 60. And there is a lot of reason to believe this is the case right now. Barack Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee, the highly respected and moderate jurist Elena Kagan, got the support of just five Republican senators, of which two were driven into retirement by actual or threatened primary challengers in part because of those votes. Once Democrats lost their supermajority, their ability to seat a justice probably disappeared with it.
In 2014, Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Elle that she did not want to retire in part because she believed Senate Republicans would filibuster any left-of-center nominee to replace her:
Mitch McConnell wants to preserve an ambiguous situation where the norms say one thing and the rules say another. This is to his advantage, because he is a serial violator of norms. This isn’t a moral question — he’s a brilliant tactician and he’s very good at identifying political strategies that are legal but which have not been used due to social convention. If McConnell can use the threat of the nuclear option to make the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee a useless weapon for the opposing party, he can preserve it as a potential useful one for himself. If Democrats don’t make McConnell abolish the Supreme Court filibuster, he may use it to blockade their next nominee, and they will have only themselves to blame.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/if-gorsuch-isnt-filibustere...
Democrats could always use the nuclear option themselves in that event.
To be fair, the filibuster is a bit like saying that any hockey team willing to skate around in a circle for seventeen hours automatically wins. It would be impressive, but it wouldn't be hockey.
Part of the Dem's resentment: Not ok for Garland to proceed but ok for Gorsuch
If 60 votes are required to confirm Gorsuch in Senate and the Dems have 48 votes then just vote no. Why is there even a need for a filibuster? Or is the filibuster required to try and prevent the GOP from reducing that required vote count to a simple majority or 51 seats?
Trump Made His Supreme Court Pick. Now What? 5 Steps To Confirmation
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512629596/here-is-what-it-takes-to-confirm...
Too bad the Dems lost the Senate which allows Pence to do his dirty work
Pence casts tiebreaking Senate procedural vote on funding for abortion providers
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326505-pence-casts-tiebreaking-senate...
With 60 votes the debate can be officially skipped which prevents the possibility of filibuster. So 60 votes are required to skip the filibuster, but only a majority is required to confirm him. 60 votes is sometimes referred to as a supermajority for that reason.
McConnell: 'Gorsuch is going to be confirmed' one way or the other
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/mcconnell-gorsuch-supreme-court-23...
Are the Democrats actually able to stop Gorsuch from getting to the Supreme Court?
Memo to Democratic senators: If you like your job, filibuster Gorsuch
If you’re a Democrat who wants to win your next election, maybe you don’t want the Supreme Court to endorse voter suppression.
https://thinkprogress.org/democrat-filibuster-neil-gorsuch-595bf188b9ea
They can filibuster, but the Republicans will likely go nuclear and get him through.
5 to go
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/30/us/politics/gorsuch-senat...
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donnelly-becomes-third-democrat-to...
Democrats now have the 41 votes to filibuster.
Gorsuch confirmed. End of story.
Sorry Mr Garland.
Too bad!
Pages