Why senate Dems. MUST filibuster Gorsuch's consent.....

[Ray From Cleveland]

I lean left on many issues, especially social issues... but I'm just not seeing good reason to block Gorsuch. I hear the talking points but they seem like generic anti conservative attacks. What is the biggest threat to having a constitutional originalist on the Supreme Court? I haven't seen any evidence of Gorsuch playing partisan politics, he seems like a good honorable dude. The Dems, unfortunately, are at risk of blowing their load with all the protest and obstruction they are dishing out. It waters down their arguements with oversaturation. Plus, how will they be able to critique Republican obstruction when they do the same thing once the Dems regain power?? It's all very short sighted, hypocritical, and unproductive. Not how our government is intended to work.

Although I can appreciate the "fair minded" attitude, Gorsguch will be sitting on the SCOTUS for the next 30-40 years....With one of the more centrist or left leaning justices due to soon retire, the SCOTUS stands to have a 7-2 right wing leaning for decades, regardless of how "liberal" congress and the WH can become.

Bear in mind that that many progressive initiatives can be thwarted by SCOTUS decisions, such as workers' rights, environmental issues, homosexual rights, voters' rights, redistricting, and, most of all, women and minorities rights.

We can regain congress and the WH fairly easily...but the SCOTUS is a much more prolonged obstacle to progressive causes..

They only do one thing, and that is determine if X is constitutional or not. You on the left are not looking for that, you are looking for activists instead.

 

[nat4900]

The dimshits are trying to keep the people that will try them for their treason out of the positions that will let them prove what shit the liberals are and hang, or shoot them.

Be "proud" right wingers that you have this type of imbecility within your ilk........LOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Merrick Garland was approved by Republicans in the past.

Turnabout is fair play.

It is? Well Republicans gave DumBama two of his SC judges.

 

[nat4900]

Well you must see that liberal justices have much more change potential than conservatives, right? Progressives are much more proactive to change and create law, while conservatives tend to want to lessen the power of the federal government, the court included, and let the laws be made by the states and congress. You may be anxious for liberal changes but that doesn't necessarily mean those changes need to come from the SCOTUS. Elect representatives to write laws you support. It is the way the system is meant to work. Like I said before, I think there are more important areas to focus on.

Again, I mostly agree........I have little doubt that IF Gorsuchs become a justice, Roe v. Wade will be in serious jeopardy and workers' rights (through unions) will be a thing of the past. Corporations (where Scalia found a "true friend" for his recreational desires) will be sacrosanct and the environment will suffer with decision on the repealing of safeguards.

Gorsuchs is regarded by many who have reviewed his decisions as being to the "right" of Scalia, as if that could ever be possible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So they put up a fight and lose reelection, then we Republicans will have a much stronger majority.

If that's your liberal plan, no wonder your party is so weak right now.

I am FULLY aware that senate dems in red states may stand a chance to lose re-election....FINE !!!
This is NOT (or should not be) a lifetime job anyway. However, the principle stands and when you stand up for principle, ultimately you will win.....first at the local and state levels, and then the federal one.

As time passes, everyone (including right wingers) will realize what a mistake it might have been to have you right wingers FULLY in charge of this country, and the inevitable fuck ups will also be FULLY yours to shoulder.

Like Trump, we are ready for the challenge just like you guys were when DumBama first took over. If you are ready to lose more power in the Senate just to make you feel good, you have no complaint from us on the right. But I think those up for reelection think differently. If you're going to lose anyway, why not use the opportunity to make yourself look less partisan? After all, the judge seems to be a good man and a good choice for the SC. The only objection would be those that are looking for an activist instead.

 

[nat4900]

Angry lefties refer to the genius of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, whom everyone respected and admired, as a thug. How can you respect anything the crazy left has to say these days?

I readily call Scalia a thug, NOT because he was not smart, but because he established a little fiefdom by domineering two other justices (Thomas and Alito) and made them into virtual puppets.

When the SCOTUS rules along party lines, that segment of the division of powers is NO LONGER in existence....just an extension of the temporal whims of the electorate...EXCEPT that justices are appointed for life.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Angry lefties refer to the genius of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, whom everyone respected and admired, as a thug. How can you respect anything the crazy left has to say these days?

I readily call Scalia a thug, NOT because he was not smart, but because he established a little fiefdom by domineering two other justices (Thomas and Alito) and made them into virtual puppets.

When the SCOTUS rules along party lines, that segment of the division of powers is NO LONGER in existence....just an extension of the temporal whims of the electorate...EXCEPT that justices are appointed for life.

I was listening to an interview of Justice Thomas on (I believe) the Rush Limbaugh show. He stated that the SC isn't like most people think. They do not sit in a room and debate cases. They each write their own opinion separately and in private, and nobody knows of the outcome until it's read.

 

[nat4900]

Like Trump, we are ready for the challenge just like you guys were when DumBama first took over. If you are ready to lose more power in the Senate just to make you feel good, you have no complaint from us on the right. But I think those up for reelection think differently. If you're going to lose anyway, why not use the opportunity to make yourself look less partisan? After all, the judge seems to be a good man and a good choice for the SC. The only objection would be those that are looking for an activist instead.

Losing one's principle is WORSE than losing an election........Had Garland been allowed what every other president has been allowed to do, THEN I would have no objection if one of the "liberal" justices were to retire and Trump nominate Gorsuchs....

BUT, cowering to McConnell's moronic stunt last year cannot warrant the "turning of the other cheek",,,,.

 

[nat4900]

I was listening to an interview of Justice Thomas on (I believe) the Rush Limbaugh show. He stated that the SC isn't like most people think. They do not sit in a room and debate cases. They each write their own opinion separately and in private, and nobody knows of the outcome until it's read.

Read The Brethren and you'll get a different view of how justices influence one another.

 

[Slade3200]

Well you must see that liberal justices have much more change potential than conservatives, right? Progressives are much more proactive to change and create law, while conservatives tend to want to lessen the power of the federal government, the court included, and let the laws be made by the states and congress. You may be anxious for liberal changes but that doesn't necessarily mean those changes need to come from the SCOTUS. Elect representatives to write laws you support. It is the way the system is meant to work. Like I said before, I think there are more important areas to focus on.

Again, I mostly agree........I have little doubt that IF Gorsuchs become a justice, Roe v. Wade will be in serious jeopardy and workers' rights (through unions) will be a thing of the past. Corporations (where Scalia found a "true friend" for his recreational desires) will be sacrosanct and the environment will suffer with decision on the repealing of safeguards.

Gorsuchs is regarded by many who have reviewed his decisions as being to the "right" of Scalia, as if that could ever be possible.

I hear ya, it would be a shame to see anything happen to roe v wade, although it did survive with Scalia in the bench so I dont anticipate big changes with the addition of Gorsuch. I'd be more worried about the EPA and department of labor than SCOTUS for environmental and worker issues. I have no problem with protest and passion for the issues you speak of. I hope we can get back to healthy honest debate. Politically and strategically speaking, I think obstructing this SCOTUS pick is counter productive to the Dems cause. He is going to get through regardless.... it is a wasted bullet.

If the Dems gave this one to trump and showed support then it would be something they could fall back on and show how they did actually cooperate in government functions and not simply obstruct everything. I fear for what kind of backlash this is setting up. Dems can't expect respect when they take the lead if they can't show respect when the GOP has it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like Trump, we are ready for the challenge just like you guys were when DumBama first took over. If you are ready to lose more power in the Senate just to make you feel good, you have no complaint from us on the right. But I think those up for reelection think differently. If you're going to lose anyway, why not use the opportunity to make yourself look less partisan? After all, the judge seems to be a good man and a good choice for the SC. The only objection would be those that are looking for an activist instead.

Losing one's principle is WORSE than losing an election........Had Garland been allowed what every other president has been allowed to do, THEN I would have no objection if one of the "liberal" justices were to retire and Trump nominate Gorsuchs....

BUT, cowering to McConnell's moronic stunt last year cannot warrant the "turning of the other cheek",,,,.

Then the Republican led Senate will change the rules so that the Democrats have no say-so. Happy?

 

[BluesLegend]

Gorsuch will be confirmed and the left can't do shit to stop it. Don't get mad at us its your fault, you picked Obama and Hillary.

 

[nat4900]

They only do one thing, and that is determine if X is constitutional or not.

Sure, we all wish that were the case...But the responsibility of a justice is not just to do a "word search" between a case and the Constitution. But the Constitution does NOT state that corporations are the same as "common citizens" and the Constitution does NOT state that a state supreme court should stop a recount on a presidential election.

 

[nat4900]

Then the Republican led Senate will change the rules so that the Democrats have no say-so. Happy?

I think.....and correct me if I'm wrong.......that you're at least smart enough to realize that eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way and democrats regain both the WH and Congress...So, if repubs. change the rules, they are basically loading the gun for a future suicide pact.

 

[nat4900]

Don't get mad at us its your fault, you picked Obama and Hillary.

I'd agree that Clinton was a poor choice with all her baggage and her defeat was also a product of Comey's partisanship....virtually ANY other democrat could have beaten trump........
But, Obama's greatest "fault" with conservatives after 8 years may be attributed to his darker skin color.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't get mad at us its your fault, you picked Obama and Hillary.

I'd agree that Clinton was a poor choice with all her baggage and her defeat was also a product of Comey's partisanship....virtually ANY other democrat could have beaten trump........
But, Obama's greatest "fault" with conservatives after 8 years may be attributed to his darker skin color.

Without one ounce of evidence to support your claim.

 

[Spare_change]

A strict constructionist on the Federal bench does nothing to prevent the individual States from enacting most of the authoritarian policies they prefer. On the other hand a "living document pull things out of my ass" SC justice makes everyone live by the same, government heavy standard.

Conservatives had the opportunity under Scalia to make rulings that could have been impartial and strictly unbiased; they blew it and a continuation of that catastrophe with someone like Gorsuch, Thomas (who was a puppet of Scalia), Alito and even Roberts and Kennedy, would be a disaster that cannot be tolerated or allowed.

Did it ever occur to you that the far left has wandered away from constitutional values, and because of that, they can't accept the inevitability of having a textual constitutionalist on the court?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then the Republican led Senate will change the rules so that the Democrats have no say-so. Happy?

I think.....and correct me if I'm wrong.......that you're at least smart enough to realize that eventually, the pendulum will swing the other way and democrats regain both the WH and Congress...So, if repubs. change the rules, they are basically loading the gun for a future suicide pact.

Not at all. It's Harry Weed who did that. He was the one that changed the stipulations that Senate does have the authority to change the rules to a simple majority to select a SC judge. Republicans are just simply exercising that change.

 

[Spare_change]

Don't get mad at us its your fault, you picked Obama and Hillary.

I'd agree that Clinton was a poor choice with all her baggage and her defeat was also a product of Comey's partisanship....virtually ANY other democrat could have beaten trump........
But, Obama's greatest "fault" with conservatives after 8 years may be attributed to his darker skin color.

Nonsense.

And, frankly, getting pretty old ... it's far easier to find fault outside than to look inside.

 

[mgh80]

So in your mind a person who actually want to follow the constitution and do his Job correctly is unfit for the job of Chief Justice.... Never dawns on you idiot progressives that this is why you are losing elections does it?

In all fairness Obama/dems were blasted for following the Constitution when he nominated a replacement for Scalia. The Constitution clearly granted Obama that power and obligation.

I'm no Obama fan, and I don't mind Trump's pick...but if we're going to pull the "follow the Constitution" card-we need to be consistent when we do. Obama's nomination should have went to a vote...why? Because that's what the Constitution says.