SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I argue the Courts have been politicized too long. But then again, we started the road to hell with the Democratic Party. The New Dealers started with trying to swing the Court to the Left, and it should be no shock the Reaganites began to value the Courts.

But that's all water under the bridge compared to 2016.

But Merrick Garland, to me, represented a nuclear option in that a vacancy came up in February 2016 and was not filled until February 2017. While Scalia's death was highly unfortunate, the partisan reasoning to leave a Court seat open for a full year stretches political norms past their breaking point. If this is the rationale - and the fig leaf of it being an election year being exactly that - then why shouldn't an opposition party in the majority hold up a Court appointment for 2 years? 3 years? What if a Republican President had a Democratic Senate and a court vacancy occurred?

There's a stretching of political norms and there's a breaking point. Garland was a breaking point. The President nominated him. We have a duty to have a fully staffed Court. The postponing of a Court vote in the name of partisan control of the Court was in a sense going beyond mere politics and validated the "anything goes."

Robert Bork was rejected, yes. I don't like it too much but the Senate fulfilled their Constitutional duty to "advise and consent." They looked at the nomination and they rejected it. Plain and simple. Senators are not required to rubber stamp a Court nominee. They're required to use their judgment as elected representatives to evaluate nominees and give them an up and down vote. Had McConnell said "we'll give Garland an up and down vote," and they failed him, I would have been happy. Instead, the Senate refused to even give him a courtesy hearing and held the seat open for a year.

I admit, I cheered this strategy a year ago as a partisan Republican. Since then, seeing the partisan gyre that has widened with Donald Trump's election and the "anything goes" mentality of the Republican Party (and now, the corresponding response from the Democratic Party, who rightfully believe that they have to respond in kind to stay viable) has made me reevaluate how far we go to break political norms. They may not be Constitutional, or whatnot, but they undergird how we function as a republic.

Indeed, Donald Trump was elected on that basis - that anything goes, and that political norms no longer matter in the name of "winning." The name of the game is to win, even if we stop being a republic in the process and our political divisions become so intense and bitter that like Rome, we require a monarch to rule us. This is exactly - I know it's cliched - what happened in ancient Rome. Norms were slowly stripped away as partisan factionalism intensified, ending in Augustus' rule.

Returning to my original point, now that the fig leaf has been used, now every Senate majority can ruthlessly stop an opposition president by holding open an Court seat for as long as they want - without consequences. That precedent has now been set - and the Court's balance is now considered fair game and no political norms now govern how we fill Supreme Court nominations.

We've crossed a Rubicon and unfortunately, to restore it, we're going to need one party to decisively defeat the other party and restore the political norms that make this republic functional.

Trump should have bucked his base, and risked his presidency to nominate Garland in the name of restoring political norms. That he didn't is understandable but it shows that our system's norms are broken and we need to address that.

I fully admit that, had Hillary Clinton won and Republicans kept the Senate, I would have advocated to not confirm any judges and justices for the entire four years.  Ending abortion is too important for that!

Speaking as a pro-lifer, the republic matters vastly more than abortion.

Nothing that man could accomplish is more important than ending abortion.  And, the USA is in no danger, anyway.

[Virginiá]

Nothing that man could accomplish is more important than ending abortion.  And, the USA is in no danger, anyway.

Well, at least no one can say you don't stick by your principles on at least this one issue.. even if it does continue to cause the degradation of our government and elections due to an "win by any means necessary" approach.

Don't take what we have for granted. There are consequences to that kind of behavior.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I argue the Courts have been politicized too long. But then again, we started the road to hell with the Democratic Party. The New Dealers started with trying to swing the Court to the Left, and it should be no shock the Reaganites began to value the Courts.

But that's all water under the bridge compared to 2016.

But Merrick Garland, to me, represented a nuclear option in that a vacancy came up in February 2016 and was not filled until February 2017. While Scalia's death was highly unfortunate, the partisan reasoning to leave a Court seat open for a full year stretches political norms past their breaking point. If this is the rationale - and the fig leaf of it being an election year being exactly that - then why shouldn't an opposition party in the majority hold up a Court appointment for 2 years? 3 years? What if a Republican President had a Democratic Senate and a court vacancy occurred?

There's a stretching of political norms and there's a breaking point. Garland was a breaking point. The President nominated him. We have a duty to have a fully staffed Court. The postponing of a Court vote in the name of partisan control of the Court was in a sense going beyond mere politics and validated the "anything goes."

Robert Bork was rejected, yes. I don't like it too much but the Senate fulfilled their Constitutional duty to "advise and consent." They looked at the nomination and they rejected it. Plain and simple. Senators are not required to rubber stamp a Court nominee. They're required to use their judgment as elected representatives to evaluate nominees and give them an up and down vote. Had McConnell said "we'll give Garland an up and down vote," and they failed him, I would have been happy. Instead, the Senate refused to even give him a courtesy hearing and held the seat open for a year.

I admit, I cheered this strategy a year ago as a partisan Republican. Since then, seeing the partisan gyre that has widened with Donald Trump's election and the "anything goes" mentality of the Republican Party (and now, the corresponding response from the Democratic Party, who rightfully believe that they have to respond in kind to stay viable) has made me reevaluate how far we go to break political norms. They may not be Constitutional, or whatnot, but they undergird how we function as a republic.

Indeed, Donald Trump was elected on that basis - that anything goes, and that political norms no longer matter in the name of "winning." The name of the game is to win, even if we stop being a republic in the process and our political divisions become so intense and bitter that like Rome, we require a monarch to rule us. This is exactly - I know it's cliched - what happened in ancient Rome. Norms were slowly stripped away as partisan factionalism intensified, ending in Augustus' rule.

Returning to my original point, now that the fig leaf has been used, now every Senate majority can ruthlessly stop an opposition president by holding open an Court seat for as long as they want - without consequences. That precedent has now been set - and the Court's balance is now considered fair game and no political norms now govern how we fill Supreme Court nominations.

We've crossed a Rubicon and unfortunately, to restore it, we're going to need one party to decisively defeat the other party and restore the political norms that make this republic functional.

Trump should have bucked his base, and risked his presidency to nominate Garland in the name of restoring political norms. That he didn't is understandable but it shows that our system's norms are broken and we need to address that.

I fully admit that, had Hillary Clinton won and Republicans kept the Senate, I would have advocated to not confirm any judges and justices for the entire four years.  Ending abortion is too important for that!

Speaking as a pro-lifer, the republic matters vastly more than abortion.

Nothing that man could accomplish is more important than ending abortion.  And, the USA is in no danger, anyway.

What about all the preventable deaths caused by Trump and the congressional Republican's policies?  What about the senseless loss of life that would occur if Trump starts a completely unnecessary war (nuclear or otherwise)?  If you're truly pro-life, I don't see how you can reconcile that with voting for someone like Trump...unless of course you're simply a partisan hack who only cares about "protecting the sanctity of life" when it suits your party.

[The Other Castro]

Manu Raju @mkraju
JON TESTER: "I have not made a decision on that yet but I am open" to supporting Gorsuch to SCOTUS

[Angel of Death]

If the SCOTUS is deadlocked on the travel ban by a 4-4 tie, shouldn't that harden the Democratic opposition?

[The Other Castro]

Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) talked to Gorsuch, and well...

Ashley Killough ‏@KilloughCNN  51m51 minutes ago
NEWS: Blumenthal telling reporters Neil Gorsuch used the words "demoralizing" & "disheartening" to describe Trump's attacks on judiciary

[EnglishPete]

Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) talked to Gorsuch, and well...

Ashley Killough ‏@KilloughCNN  51m51 minutes ago
NEWS: Blumenthal telling reporters Neil Gorsuch used the words "demoralizing" & "disheartening" to describe Trump's attacks on judiciary

Trump will be pleased to hear that report that his criticisms of overreaching judiciary are having their intended effect.

[Crumpets]

Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) talked to Gorsuch, and well...

Ashley Killough ‏@KilloughCNN  51m51 minutes ago
NEWS: Blumenthal telling reporters Neil Gorsuch used the words "demoralizing" & "disheartening" to describe Trump's attacks on judiciary

Trump will be pleased to hear that report that his criticisms of overreaching judiciary are having their intended effect.

Which is...?

[EnglishPete]

Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) talked to Gorsuch, and well...

Ashley Killough ‏@KilloughCNN  51m51 minutes ago
NEWS: Blumenthal telling reporters Neil Gorsuch used the words "demoralizing" & "disheartening" to describe Trump's attacks on judiciary

Trump will be pleased to hear that report that his criticisms of overreaching judiciary are having their intended effect.

Which is...?

Which is to demoralise and dishearten an overreaching judiciary.

[ApatheticAustrian]

if gorsuch shows more integrity, he will be yanked.

[Virginiá]

Which is to demoralise and dishearten an overreaching judiciary.

Why even have a judiciary anyway? Let's just fold all the branches of government into the White House. We can also schedule the next presidential election for 2024, where the two candidates will be members of Trump's family!

[Hindsight was 2020]

People in DNC claim it is a ruse set up by Bannon https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/829729129465536512/photo/1

[jamestroll]

Which is to demoralise and dishearten an overreaching judiciary.

Why even have a judiciary anyway? Let's just fold all the branches of government into the White House. We can also schedule the next presidential election for 2024, where the two candidates will be members of Trump's family!

I love how the GOP opposes power outside the presidency. Which is very dangerous.

The presidency, if anything, is too powerful.

[ApatheticAustrian]

People in DNC claim it is a ruse set up by Bannon https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/829729129465536512/photo/1

there is just no reason at all to go this way.

if trump would have wanted no problem at all he would have chosen someone a little bit more center-right and trump takes criticism quite bad in the best of times.

additionally the republicans can push through whoever they want.

[Crumpets]

So, I just saw an ad on TV supporting Gorsuch paid for by the "Judicial Crisis Network." Has there ever been a TV ad for a Supreme Court nominee before?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ I saw something like that. Some woman who (apparently) worked in the Obama administration praising Garland for 30 sec. I feel like there may have been something for Garland (but more of a generic #weneednine message), but definitely don't remember this being a thing for Kagan or Sotomayor.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I argue the Courts have been politicized too long. But then again, we started the road to hell with the Democratic Party. The New Dealers started with trying to swing the Court to the Left, and it should be no shock the Reaganites began to value the Courts.

But that's all water under the bridge compared to 2016.

But Merrick Garland, to me, represented a nuclear option in that a vacancy came up in February 2016 and was not filled until February 2017. While Scalia's death was highly unfortunate, the partisan reasoning to leave a Court seat open for a full year stretches political norms past their breaking point. If this is the rationale - and the fig leaf of it being an election year being exactly that - then why shouldn't an opposition party in the majority hold up a Court appointment for 2 years? 3 years? What if a Republican President had a Democratic Senate and a court vacancy occurred?

There's a stretching of political norms and there's a breaking point. Garland was a breaking point. The President nominated him. We have a duty to have a fully staffed Court. The postponing of a Court vote in the name of partisan control of the Court was in a sense going beyond mere politics and validated the "anything goes."

Robert Bork was rejected, yes. I don't like it too much but the Senate fulfilled their Constitutional duty to "advise and consent." They looked at the nomination and they rejected it. Plain and simple. Senators are not required to rubber stamp a Court nominee. They're required to use their judgment as elected representatives to evaluate nominees and give them an up and down vote. Had McConnell said "we'll give Garland an up and down vote," and they failed him, I would have been happy. Instead, the Senate refused to even give him a courtesy hearing and held the seat open for a year.

I admit, I cheered this strategy a year ago as a partisan Republican. Since then, seeing the partisan gyre that has widened with Donald Trump's election and the "anything goes" mentality of the Republican Party (and now, the corresponding response from the Democratic Party, who rightfully believe that they have to respond in kind to stay viable) has made me reevaluate how far we go to break political norms. They may not be Constitutional, or whatnot, but they undergird how we function as a republic.

Indeed, Donald Trump was elected on that basis - that anything goes, and that political norms no longer matter in the name of "winning." The name of the game is to win, even if we stop being a republic in the process and our political divisions become so intense and bitter that like Rome, we require a monarch to rule us. This is exactly - I know it's cliched - what happened in ancient Rome. Norms were slowly stripped away as partisan factionalism intensified, ending in Augustus' rule.

Returning to my original point, now that the fig leaf has been used, now every Senate majority can ruthlessly stop an opposition president by holding open an Court seat for as long as they want - without consequences. That precedent has now been set - and the Court's balance is now considered fair game and no political norms now govern how we fill Supreme Court nominations.

We've crossed a Rubicon and unfortunately, to restore it, we're going to need one party to decisively defeat the other party and restore the political norms that make this republic functional.

Trump should have bucked his base, and risked his presidency to nominate Garland in the name of restoring political norms. That he didn't is understandable but it shows that our system's norms are broken and we need to address that.

I fully admit that, had Hillary Clinton won and Republicans kept the Senate, I would have advocated to not confirm any judges and justices for the entire four years.  Ending abortion is too important for that!

Speaking as a pro-lifer, the republic matters vastly more than abortion.

Nothing that man could accomplish is more important than ending abortion.  And, the USA is in no danger, anyway.

What about all the preventable deaths caused by Trump and the congressional Republican's policies?  What about the senseless loss of life that would occur if Trump starts a completely unnecessary war (nuclear or otherwise)?  If you're truly pro-life, I don't see how you can reconcile that with voting for someone like Trump...unless of course you're simply a partisan hack who only cares about "protecting the sanctity of life" when it suits your party.

The line of thinking is basically that ending abortion is most important because it makes sure every life gets a chance, while everything else is secondary because it affects what happens after the baby leaves the womb, when the mother can no longer legally kill it, so the sense of urgency is less. (I could be slightly off here). It's not a philosophy that I use when voting, as my 2016 presidential selection should make clear, but ER is not the only person I've heard of who holds to such a philosophy.