Confirmation Hearings for Neil Gorsuch

Post Reply New Topic

When asked about DJT's "so-called judge" comment, Gorsuch's called criticism of the motives of any federal judge "disheartening, because I know the truth."

DJT was completely out of line, but it bothers me to hear anyone claim to know the truth about a class of people.

The confirmation hearing is just theater, no point watching the silliness of it all.

Trump is free to comment on the judiciary if he wants, he would hardly be the first president to do so

Is missing the point the new debating?

[mod] Stop squabbling and address the discussion at hand or the thread will be locked.

[/mod]

There's no "Biden rule". Joe Biden once gave a speech where he said it would be wrong to nominate someone if a vacancy occurred around the conventions in the summer, but that is not a rule, it did not set a precedent, and in any case Garland was nominated well before then. Many nominees have been appointed closer to the election than Garland was.

Louis D. Brandeis was nominated in January and appointed in June (after the longest confirmation process in history). Republicans were annoyed, but nobody suggested Wilson was wrong to nominate someone in election year. They also didn't delay John H. Clarke when Wilson nominated him in July.
Benjamin Cardozo was nominated in July too, and Hoover had no chance of re-election.
Melville Fuller was nominated as Supreme Justice at the end of April.
William B. Woods was nominated in November, after the election.
Samuel Nelson was nominated and appointed in February... when John Tyler had two weeks to go before the new president was appointed!
And even John Marshall was appointed by a President who had just lost an attempt at re-election.

If Democrats had a majority in the Senate then Garland probably would of been confirmed via nuclear option, they didn't have a majority and had no way of getting their nominee passed so it was pointless to have any hearings on it since that is just political theater at this point and doing that during an election season wouldn't be beneficial. Not unprecedented, there have been vacancies on the court for years before and set number of judges has not always been 9. Get over it, nothing strange and Democrats would of done the same if the roles were reversed. We had an election and they lost, the SCOTUS issue was suppose to fire up the 'progressive' base but it fired up the conservative one instead. Democrats have no room to talk at all about politicizing the judiciary process, it is what it is at this point and I would just ram Gorsuch down their throat with a simple majority instead of playing this little game..

Why not just whack the repeat offenders instead of just locking thread after thread? You know as well as I do that 90% of the trouble in PPR right now is caused by the same 3-4 people, I don't think anyone would miss them.

I rarely post on this board, so I don't know who you're talking about, but a big part of the reason I entered, and stayed, in this thread is because of how nasty Jacoby, and then you, were acting. So I have to assume when you talk about "repeat offenders," you're referring to yourself and your friends. Of course, I'm sure what you really mean is anyone who disagrees with you.

You responded to me nastily not the other way around so if your feelings were hurt by my responses then don't insult me to begin with

I was responding to this nasty comment, which was clearly directed at Democrats in general. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

There isn't anything nasty about what I said, it's just matter of fact while you on the other hand personally attacked me when I wasn't even talking to you. I don't care, just one more for the peanut gallery, I respond in kind. I am a mirror, you come at me with respect then maybe we can have a discussion because you're going to find a lot of people are mean & nasty when you insult them in the first words you ever said to the person.

Gorsuch is getting confirmed tho, no point delaying the theatrics or waste time trying to get 60 votes when there is another option. There will likely be other openings on the court before the end of Trump's time in office, I'd give Democrats the ultimatum of giving Gorsuch a fair up & down vote and if they refuse then go nuclear here and in the future. Harry Reid can be thanked for all this.

I responded to your tone in kind, and now you're lecturing me about the same thing.
Again, I said I approve of Gorsuch.
Looking back at my first post in this thread, I did delete the insulting part of the post, but it looks like you saw it before I deleted it. I deleted it because you're right - I saw the insult as counterproductive. But the insult was there to respond to your own dismissive tone. The insult was literally there to reflect your own insulting manner. I can just as much criticize you for your own approach. Again, it's extremely hypocritical, it appears that you're completely oblivious of the consequences of your own actions - you view yourself as the victim, so anything you do is permissible, and anything anyone else does toward you is in the wrong.
But I will avoid being insulting because, again, it's counterproductive. I just urge you to develop a little self-awareness.
I'm going to stop squabbling now, out of respect for the mod.

Gorsuch seems like a pretty good choice. He's an Originalist and a Textualist.

That is the proper way to make legal judgments. If the law says X, ruling should be X. Period.

Gorsuch believes that he gets to decide when I die, and not me. Unacceptable.

Gorsuch is good as the Dems are going to get from this administration, at this point I kind of hope they do filibuster and get steamrolled, just to see the reaction when Ginsburg and Kennedy keel over and they're looking down the barrel of the rest of that Heritage Foundation list with no way to stop it.