Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[ApatheticAustrian]

volatile majorities are deciding who is sitting for A LIFETIME on a bench, cause of his or her political stands.....

seems...well...outdated.

[Vcrew192]

The best political strategy for Senate Democrats is to allow hearings, show up for them, and enable the Senate to vote on Gorsuch. Allow a few Democratic Senators from conservative states to defect and vote for him, but ensure that 41 Democrats filibuster his appointment. Send out a few Democrats to signal that they'd be willing to vote for an appointment of a more moderate SCOTUS nominee if Trump is willing to nominate one. Then, if he does, allow a few more defections from swing states allowing the appointment of a compromise candidate.

This sounds reasonable. Things like this kind of seem lost among some activists who demand total obstruction - in some situations it might be necessary to have vulnerable Senators vote a certain way with the understanding that the bill or nominee still won't pass/be confirmed. I suppose you can't blame them though, since they might not know if it was strategic or not.

Honestly, liberals/Democrats probably need to start accepting that we are now 99.999% unlikely to get that seat. It's almost guaranteed Republicans will kill the filibuster before 2020, especially after 2018 if they win more Senate seats. The best Democrats could possibly hope to do, imo, is somehow obstruct long enough to force a more moderate justice (or maybe an older Gorsuch-like justice, like 60+), but even that is a stretch. Republicans made a big gamble and they won. They hold almost all the cards now.

We'll see.

Wow. A dem who is actually aware of their situation and not blinded by some weird obsession with being rebellious. They should make you DNC chair.

All of these #wewillreplaceyou libs are either impossibly stubborn or secretly republicans. Doing everything you can to be a thorn in the side of Trump and the Rs in congress won't win you 2018. It'll make you look like hypocrites and confirm everything the Trump base has been saying in the eyes of the moderate voter.

Nice to see a reasonable dem for a change.

Best of luck in getting your comrades to see things your way.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The hearing resumes at 9:30 AM EST tomorrow.

[TJ in Oregon]

Unless Trump/Gorsuch withdraws Gorsuch's nomination, it's hard to imagine the Republicans going for a grand compromise after stopping Merrick Garland for an entire year.

The strategic advantage for the Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch would be that they'd make the Republicans invoke the nuclear option in the middle of a hearing where they would be picketing in the streets at the thought of Roe being overturned. If the Republicans eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees for Gorsuch, it will be forgotten by then, and one less tool at the Democrats' disposal.  Then again, if the don't filibuster Gorsuch, they're base might blow a gasket.

[MarkD]

Ah, revenge! Republicans said disingenuous things about why they were holding no hearings or vote on any nominee put forward by President Barack Obama, and now some Democrats here want to say things even more disingenuous, obviously out of a petty desire for sheer revenge.
A plague on both your parties.

I need to find out whether Gorsuch actually is an originalist. I particularly need to find out whether Gorsuch knows what was the originally understood meaning of the 9th Amendment, and what were the originally understood meanings of the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th, and what was the originally understood meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th.

All indications I've seen point to Gorsuch being a textualist. True dyed-in-the-wool originalists have a very hard time getting into high judicial position; the changes they want tend to be radical and align with no other judicial groups. Justice Thomas is an aberration we are unlikely to see again for a long time.

It was often said that Scalia was a textualist too. That worries me, a lot. Scalia worried me. If Gorsuch interprets the clauses I referred to above as badly as Scalia did, then I am going to continue feeling terribly desperate, dismal, and pessimistic. I desperately need a constitutional amendment to be adopted that explains, for the future, how those clauses should be interpreted -- much more narrowly. (I do not mean that the new amendment we adopt has to return to the Nineteenth Century meaning of the 14th Amendment. I envision a proposal that preserves some of the things that the Supreme Court has done which were not based on the Nineteenth Century meaning of the 14th, and maybe even goes a little beyond. The crucial thing is that the meaning of the 14th, as I suggest we re-write it, has got to be clearer and narrower than the way the Supreme Court has been interpreting the 14th for the last several decades.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure what you mean by "archaic," but clearly there needs to be something better adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would say that we keep getting politicians rather than the most objective interpreters of law serving on the court that is supposed to be made up of the most highly objective interpreters of law. We keep getting people appointed because of their ideology rather than because of their objectivity. I've noticed a couple of people here saying that they hope for someone more moderate than Gorsuch to be nominated if they can get Gorsuch's confirmation defeated/filibustered. Please do not confuse a moderate ideology with being truly objective. No matter how staunchly liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between a person is, they can and should strive to be objective.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Unless Trump/Gorsuch withdraws Gorsuch's nomination, it's hard to imagine the Republicans going for a grand compromise after stopping Merrick Garland for an entire year.

The strategic advantage for the Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch would be that they'd make the Republicans invoke the nuclear option in the middle of a hearing where they would be picketing in the streets at the thought of Roe being overturned. If the Republicans eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees for Gorsuch, it will be forgotten by then, and one less tool at the Democrats' disposal.  Then again, if the don't filibuster Gorsuch, they're base might blow a gasket.

     The Republicans have been feeling the heat lately, but the Dems also have their own tightrope act dealing with their base here. As is clear in this thread, many Dem partisans have different ideas from the Senate, and are not shy to voice it. Strategy has to fit into this somewhere.

[Klartext89]

Well, I was absent some weeks because I was tired of all this hatin' (from the Left towards Trump/GOP) going on. Makes rational discussions and arguments nearly impossible.

Yesterday I watch the whole Judiciary Committee day 1 Hearing because I'm strongly interested and fascinated by your whole political system and the process.

I thought that all Dem Senators tried their best to voice their (or their base) opinion but to stay on fairness and on topic. Some were very good at it (Feinstein, Leahy, Coons e.g.) some were a bit shaky (Blumenthal, Whitehouse e.g.)

Nevertheless, even with a bias on my words, I's very amused about the reality denial and lack of history by the Dems.

The single best moment, embarrassing and funny altogether, was when Senator Whitehouse said that "Republicans want to conquer the judicial branch" - LMAO, you don't? Who started "borking"?! Who humiliated Miguel Estrada because of pure political and racial (!) reasons?! Who held up Bush appointees for his first term because you couldn't handle the election result?!

The GOP actually never played as unfair as the Dems, before Merrick Garland they always caved and wanted to be fair. Hopefully they are awaken and are ready to take the fight for your Country, you the people towards the Gates of Hell.

Never forget that overwhelming majorities backed same-sex-marriage-amendments in every state and that liberal active judges showed their disrespect for Democracy.

Never every let the Left ruin the will of the people again. Conservative ideas always are more popular than liberal ideas, only the Courts can stop them. It is the GOP obligation to deny the small but very loud minority of crazy Leftists to implement their will towards the big but silent majority.

Abolish the Filibuster - you haven't used it ever before for SCOTUS and the Dems didn't hesitate to abolish it for lower Courts, they will abolish it as soon as they need it.  Do nuclear, confirm this outstanding qualified soon-to-be-Justice and fight back!

And now I yeel back to the President and watch the 2nd Day!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hearing is resuming.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Grassley is throwing some softballs at Gorsuch

[GlobeSoc]

Well, I was absent some weeks because I was tired of all this hatin' (from the Left towards Trump/GOP) going on. Makes rational discussions and arguments nearly impossible.

Yesterday I watch the whole Judiciary Committee day 1 Hearing because I'm strongly interested and fascinated by your whole political system and the process.

I thought that all Dem Senators tried their best to voice their (or their base) opinion but to stay on fairness and on topic. Some were very good at it (Feinstein, Leahy, Coons e.g.) some were a bit shaky (Blumenthal, Whitehouse e.g.)

Nevertheless, even with a bias on my words, I's very amused about the reality denial and lack of history by the Dems.

The single best moment, embarrassing and funny altogether, was when Senator Whitehouse said that "Republicans want to conquer the judicial branch" - LMAO, you don't? Who started "borking"?! Who humiliated Miguel Estrada because of pure political and racial (!) reasons?! Who held up Bush appointees for his first term because you couldn't handle the election result?!

The GOP actually never played as unfair as the Dems, before Merrick Garland they always caved and wanted to be fair. Hopefully they are awaken and are ready to take the fight for your Country, you the people towards the Gates of Hell.

Never forget that overwhelming majorities backed same-sex-marriage-amendments in every state and that liberal active judges showed their disrespect for Democracy.

Never every let the Left ruin the will of the people again. Conservative ideas always are more popular than liberal ideas, only the Courts can stop them. It is the GOP obligation to deny the small but very loud minority of crazy Leftists to implement their will towards the big but silent majority.

Abolish the Filibuster - you haven't used it ever before for SCOTUS and the Dems didn't hesitate to abolish it for lower Courts, they will abolish it as soon as they need it.  Do nuclear, confirm this outstanding qualified soon-to-be-Justice and fight back!

And now I yeel back to the President and watch the 2nd Day!

Because nothing ever changes in politics and it's always 1980 forever.

[Sorenroy]

Well, I was absent some weeks because I was tired of all this hatin' (from the Left towards Trump/GOP) going on. Makes rational discussions and arguments nearly impossible.

...

Never forget that overwhelming majorities backed same-sex-marriage-amendments in every state and that liberal active judges showed their disrespect for Democracy.

Never every let the Left ruin the will of the people again. Conservative ideas always are more popular than liberal ideas, only the Courts can stop them. It is the GOP obligation to deny the small but very loud minority of crazy Leftists to implement their will towards the big but silent majority.

Abolish the Filibuster - you haven't used it ever before for SCOTUS and the Dems didn't hesitate to abolish it for lower Courts, they will abolish it as soon as they need it.  Do nuclear, confirm this outstanding qualified soon-to-be-Justice and fight back!

And now I yeel back to the President and watch the 2nd Day!

Go on...

[ApatheticAustrian]

seems like gorsuch has spilled the water of a small lake on the idea he would kill roe vs wade.....said he wants to move on and the question is settled.

[Illiniwek]

I just really can't believe that he really wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade if he had the chance. And I am not pro-Roe, but I just think the guy is a liar.

[EnglishPete]

seems like gorsuch has spilled the water of a small lake on the idea he would kill roe vs wade.....said he wants to move on and the question is settled.

No, he deliberately avoided answering the question. He said that it had precedent, that that had been reaffirmed many times, and that that is something that should be considered in considering future cases, although he would not comment on hypothetical future cases for reasons of fairness.

Plessy vs Ferguson was a long standing SCOTUS precedent.

[KingSweden]

seems like gorsuch has spilled the water of a small lake on the idea he would kill roe vs wade.....said he wants to move on and the question is settled.

The likeliest future IMO is one where Roe's scope is narrowed/defanged rather than completely overturned. Not a great result for many abortion advocates obviously but better than outright repeal

[Bojack Horseman]

Good lord, Gorsuch is just as confrontational as Scalia was.

[Torie]

Senator Durbin didn't do very well against Gorsuch (basically Gorsuch crewed him up and spit him out). But then I consider Durbin a rather dim bulb.

[Dereich]

seems like gorsuch has spilled the water of a small lake on the idea he would kill roe vs wade.....said he wants to move on and the question is settled.

No, he deliberately avoided answering the question. He said that it had precedent, that that had been reaffirmed many times, and that that is something that should be considered in considering future cases, although he would not comment on hypothetical future cases for reasons of fairness.

Plessy vs Ferguson was a long standing SCOTUS precedent.

Technically Plessy v. Ferguson still IS longstanding precedent. It has never been directly overturned, just narrowed into total non-functionality.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Progress Update: Sasse is on now. Following him will be, in order - Coons, Flake, Blumenthal, Crapo, Hirono, Tillis, Kennedy. So still over three hours in the first round.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Flake is asking Gorsuch questions about his hobbies, LOL

[krazen1211]

Senator Durbin didn't do very well against Gorsuch (basically Gorsuch crewed him up and spit him out). But then I consider Durbin a rather dim bulb.

Back in the Roberts/Alito days he was arguably the smartest of the bunch.

[The Other Castro]

Manu Raju‏ @mkraju  2m2 minutes ago
Sen. Michael Bennet, who introduced Gorsuch this week, tells me he's "undecided" on how he'll vote

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I haven't heard every moment of the hearing, but I like most of what I've heard. Gorsuch doesn't seem to be a radical precedent-striker, regulation-assassinator, or power-grabber, nor does he seem to be tied to Trump. However, that Truck Driver case bothers me.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Day two of the hearing has concluded. Tomorrow will be another round of questioning by senators, with a 20 minute per senator time limit, for nearly seven hours of questions total (not counting breaks). The start time is again 9:30 AM EST.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hearing is resuming.