Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fight or note, there is no possible way he could have appointed Garland. Obama hardly reached out to work with the democrat controlled senate, and his disdain for republicans (or anyone) who didn't see things exactly the way he did was legendary. The republicans held a solid majority with even moderates supporting the idea of holding off until the election was over. Elections have consequences, Obama lost the senate because of his BS and lack of being a team player off a presidential election cycle. Had he been, perhaps republicans wouldn't have edged out the dems in the senate or even been able to convince a couple republicans to push him over the slim majority. But again, there is an unspoken rule that both sides generally support a split court of unelected judges that they can have on the back burner to settle controversial issue like Obamacare, abortion, gay rights, etc. so they can say "hey we tried, but failed"


"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Putting aside the fact that Merrick Garland should be sitting on the court (that ship has sailed), why are the Dems delaying and threatening to filibuster Gorsuch?

There's nothing wrong with this nominee.

Pelosi says he is a "very hostile" appointee and is bad if you "breathe air, drink water, take medicine" on CNN. Why isn't she laughed out of the building?

It really just partisan politics?

The thought process is pretty simple: The Dems are doing this because of what the Pubs did to Garland. They get payback and they are hoping that the Pubs resort to the "Nuclear Option" as it has been called to allow a simple majority to confirm. Once they do that the Dems will come back with the "we could have done the same thing be we respect the rules" and the Pubs will have no real defense, plus now the rules will have change and the Dems are assuming that in 2 years they can gain back some ground, maybe enough to do the same thing, only claiming it as "tit for tat" again.

It is really a pretty simple and clever plan.

"...the street finds its own uses for things"
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [AutomaticJack] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AutomaticJack wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Putting aside the fact that Merrick Garland should be sitting on the court (that ship has sailed), why are the Dems delaying and threatening to filibuster Gorsuch?

There's nothing wrong with this nominee.

Pelosi says he is a "very hostile" appointee and is bad if you "breathe air, drink water, take medicine" on CNN. Why isn't she laughed out of the building?

It really just partisan politics?


The thought process is pretty simple: The Dems are doing this because of what the Pubs did to Garland. They get payback and they are hoping that the Pubs resort to the "Nuclear Option" as it has been called to allow a simple majority to confirm. Once they do that the Dems will come back with the "we could have done the same thing be we respect the rules" and the Pubs will have no real defense, plus now the rules will have change and the Dems are assuming that in 2 years they can gain back some ground, maybe enough to do the same thing, only claiming it as "tit for tat" again.

It is really a pretty simple and clever plan.
Well except the Dems were the first to actually use the nuclear option, which they introduced as an option in 2013. It's a bullshit rule and bullshit interpretation of Senate rules. I would oppose the Republican's use of it if it came to it, just like I'd oppose what Republicans said they wanted to do in passing the ACHA (using reconciliation as was used for the ACA) but, again, it's shit that the Democrats introduced as past precedent, they can't then turn around and cry when it's used against them.
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [iO4] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iO4 wrote:
The beef is that the Dems don't want another extremely right wing justice.

They aren't getting one in Gorsuch. They are getting a conservative justice who is more of a deep thinker than the ultra-conservative justice he is replacing.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
LorenzoP wrote:
a sitting POTUS should not put a candidate for SC in the last year of their presidency


Well, I disagree, which is why I said Garland should be on the court. But again, that's done. So what about Gorsuch?

It is called the Biden Rule https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.f4fea2320ea1

The dems will oppose anyone and anything that the puts forward, no matter the nominee or the subject.

All I Wanted Was A Pepsi, Just One Pepsi

Team Zoot, Team Zoot Mid-Atlantic

Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
iO4 wrote:
The beef is that the Dems don't want another extremely right wing justice.


They aren't getting one in Gorsuch. They are getting a conservative justice who is more of a deep thinker than the ultra-conservative justice he is replacing.

Is this the deep thinker who thought Bush v. Gore was a precedent?

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
iO4 wrote:
The beef is that the Dems don't want another extremely right wing justice.


They aren't getting one in Gorsuch. They are getting a conservative justice who is more of a deep thinker than the ultra-conservative justice he is replacing.

Is this the deep thinker who thought Bush v. Gore was a precedent?

How is it not?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the Repubs unwilling to hold a vote for Garland was bullshit. My opinion only, he would have made a fine judge on the Supreme Court. I also think that Gorsuch will make a fine judge should he be approved. His personal beliefs are a little more to the right of mine, but from what I have read, he seems to follow the letter of the law pretty closely.

I think what the Dems are trying to do is force a showdown with the Repubs to force them to elect the "nuclear option". I think that is a bad idea for either party when you start looking further down the road and other nominees are nominated and the opposite party has control. The country loses if they change the rules in my opinion.
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
iO4 wrote:
The beef is that the Dems don't want another extremely right wing justice.


They aren't getting one in Gorsuch. They are getting a conservative justice who is more of a deep thinker than the ultra-conservative justice he is replacing.


Is this the deep thinker who thought Bush v. Gore was a precedent?


How is it not?

Because SCOTUS said it wasn't. It was explicitly stated that it only applied to those particular circumstances.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
iO4 wrote:
The beef is that the Dems don't want another extremely right wing justice.


They aren't getting one in Gorsuch. They are getting a conservative justice who is more of a deep thinker than the ultra-conservative justice he is replacing.


Is this the deep thinker who thought Bush v. Gore was a precedent?


How is it not?


Because SCOTUS said it wasn't. It was explicitly stated that it only applied to those particular circumstances.

No. The remedy is non-precedential. The determination that there is an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of vote counting in different counties, which was agreed to by 7 of the justices, is precedent.

In addition, where are you seeing that Gorsuch said anything about "precedent?" All I see is questions by Congressmen who called it precedent.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
iO4 wrote:
The beef is that the Dems don't want another extremely right wing justice.


They aren't getting one in Gorsuch. They are getting a conservative justice who is more of a deep thinker than the ultra-conservative justice he is replacing.


Is this the deep thinker who thought Bush v. Gore was a precedent?


How is it not?


Because SCOTUS said it wasn't. It was explicitly stated that it only applied to those particular circumstances.


No. The remedy is non-precedential. The determination that there is an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of vote counting in different counties, which was agreed to by 7 of the justices, is precedent.

In addition, where are you seeing that Gorsuch said anything about "precedent?" All I see is questions by Congressmen who called it precedent.

Quote:
Judge Gorsuch had so thoroughly absorbed his handlers’ instruction to answer every question about a precedent by acknowledging that it was, indeed, a precedent that he actually slipped up in answering a question about Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 presidential election. “As a judge, it is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, and it deserves the same respect as other precedents of the United States Supreme Court when you come to it as a judge. And it is to be analyzed under the law of precedent.”

Well, not exactly. As Judge Gorsuch would undoubtedly have been able to recall had he not spent the preceding days and weeks in nonstop nominee training, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore actually said something else: “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.” While the meaning of that odd sentence isn’t completely self-evident, it has generally been understood to limit the decision to the facts of the case, depriving its contorted equal-protection rationale of weight as a precedent.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
iO4 wrote:
The beef is that the Dems don't want another extremely right wing justice.


They aren't getting one in Gorsuch. They are getting a conservative justice who is more of a deep thinker than the ultra-conservative justice he is replacing.


Is this the deep thinker who thought Bush v. Gore was a precedent?


How is it not?


Because SCOTUS said it wasn't. It was explicitly stated that it only applied to those particular circumstances.


No. The remedy is non-precedential. The determination that there is an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of vote counting in different counties, which was agreed to by 7 of the justices, is precedent.

In addition, where are you seeing that Gorsuch said anything about "precedent?" All I see is questions by Congressmen who called it precedent.


Quote:
Judge Gorsuch had so thoroughly absorbed his handlers’ instruction to answer every question about a precedent by acknowledging that it was, indeed, a precedent that he actually slipped up in answering a question about Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 presidential election. “As a judge, it is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, and it deserves the same respect as other precedents of the United States Supreme Court when you come to it as a judge. And it is to be analyzed under the law of precedent.”

Well, not exactly. As Judge Gorsuch would undoubtedly have been able to recall had he not spent the preceding days and weeks in nonstop nominee training, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore actually said something else: “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances.” While the meaning of that odd sentence isn’t completely self-evident, it has generally been understood to limit the decision to the facts of the case, depriving its contorted equal-protection rationale of weight as a precedent.

I don't see anything wrong or inaccurate about his response. In addition, he was asked whether he would "overturn" Gore v. Bush. I believe he responded properly and appropriately. How would you have liked him to answer?

Finally, as I mentioned above, it is accurate as it pertains to the holding regarding the 14th Amendment applicability and local government voter accountability procedures have been revised as a result of this holding.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agree completely. I tend to sit well to the left. But Gorsuch is a best case scenario nominee for the Democrats. Thoughtful, smart, right experience, right temperament, deferential to elected officials and established law unless there is strong constitutional grounds not to be. He's like the opposite of the "activist jurist" that everyone complains about -- "Don't like how I interpret the law? Change the law."

Who do people think the President is going to nominate instead of Gorsuch? I'm guessing no one the DNC will think is "better."

People keep hitting him on his sense of fairness, but that isn't his job -- a good sense of justice is way more important than a good sense of fairness for SCOTUS.

He's like Elana Kagan. And Republicans should feel the same way about her -- you might not like her answer, but you have to respect how she gets there.

I think I disagree with him about a lot of things. But, frankly, I hope he gets the appointment. And I look forward to 20 years of Kagan/Gorsuch opinions/dissents. To me that is way better than more Sotomayor/Thomas opinions.

Andy
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [AndyPeterson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AndyPeterson wrote:

He's like Elana Kagan. And Republicans should feel the same way about her -- you might not like her answer, but you have to respect how she gets there.




If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
LorenzoP wrote:
a sitting POTUS should not put a candidate for SC in the last year of their presidency


Well, I disagree, which is why I said Garland should be on the court. But again, that's done. So what about Gorsuch?

Maybe he meant this is the reason that the Dems have an issue with Gorsuch; because a sitting president shouldn't appoint someone to SC in the last year of their presidency?
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the Democrats are making a big blunder with this.

I get that they're playing to their base, and that their base wants payback for Garland. But what do they really hope to accomplish? Best case scenario (in fantasy world) is that the Gorsuch nomination is withdrawn and Trump nominates someone else from his list. What's the reward there? And is it really worth the risk?








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J_R wrote:
Duffy wrote:
LorenzoP wrote:
a sitting POTUS should not put a candidate for SC in the last year of their presidency


Well, I disagree, which is why I said Garland should be on the court. But again, that's done. So what about Gorsuch?

Maybe he meant this is the reason that the Dems have an issue with Gorsuch; because a sitting president shouldn't appoint someone to SC in the last year of their presidency?

Try to follow along...

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll refrain from jokes that might go over your head in the future.
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J_R wrote:
I'll refrain from jokes that might go over your head in the future.

I repeat, try to follow along.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
J_R wrote:
I'll refrain from jokes that might go over your head in the future.

I repeat, try to follow along.

I'd repeat but I promised to refrain .
Quote Reply
Re: What's the beef with Neil Gorsuch? [J_R] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
J_R wrote:
Duffy wrote:
J_R wrote:
I'll refrain from jokes that might go over your head in the future.

I repeat, try to follow along.

I'd repeat but I promised to refrain .

You really need to read the whole thread. This was already covered days ago.

Or you can just keep digging yourself deeper into your hole of embarrassment.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply

Prev Next