Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Virginiá]

Useless tidbit:

Unanimous Supreme Court overturns a Gorsuch decision ... in the middle of his confirmation hearing

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/22/1646072/-Unanimous-Supreme-Court-overturns-a-Gorsuch-decision-in-the-middle-of-his-confirmation-hearing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

^ The Senate probably won't even consider that in their decision, hut they definitely should consider it.

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

After watching what I could of the hearing, reading highlights from what I missed, and considering the SCOTUS decision mentioned above, I feel that is best that the senate does not confirm Mr. Gorsuch, and also that he is not approved at the cloture or committee stages, for the following reasons:

- He has to be pushed to even give implied support for Lawrence v. Texas, Brown v. Board, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.

- He is clearly insufficiently committed to at least seriously considering overturning Roe v. Wade, and even implied cautious support for it.

- The Truck Driver Case

- Being against a unanimous supreme court ruling on the disability-related case mentioned above

This is not about Trump, or Garland. I did not even consider either factor, and barely paid attention to pre-hearing events.

------------------

Let's bring on an actual moderate-conservative. My suggestion is Brian Sandoval.

[The Other Castro]

I'm sure the Senate will take your concerns into consideration.

[Dereich]

Useless tidbit:

Unanimous Supreme Court overturns a Gorsuch decision ... in the middle of his confirmation hearing

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/22/1646072/-Unanimous-Supreme-Court-overturns-a-Gorsuch-decision-in-the-middle-of-his-confirmation-hearing

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These things happen all the time; the curse of the Circuit Court judges is that they have to interpret what both the legislature and the Supreme Court REALLY meant without primary sources to rely upon while at the same time they must keep to their own precedents and stay away from radical re-examinations of the law that only SCOTUS can do. Here's a good few lines from Gorsuch's opinion on how prior precedents led him to this standard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its not difficult to take SCOTUS precident saying "we're just trying to provide access" and uncontested 10th circuit precedent saying "you're required to do more than nothing, but we're not requiring a set level of functionality" and coming up with "as long as the school had a disability program and it wasn't a sham, its fine." There's no shame in not wanting to act outside prior precedent and set new standards from nowhere; it was SCOTUS's prerogative to clarify and that's what they did.

[Bacon King]

- He is clearly insufficiently committed to at least seriously considering overturning Roe v. Wade, and even implied cautious support for it.

Let's bring on an actual moderate-conservative. My suggestion is Brian Sandoval.

do you not see the contradiction here

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

- He has to be pushed to even give implied support for Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.

- He is clearly insufficiently committed to at least seriously considering overturning Roe v. Wade, and even implied cautious support for it.

so you want him to strongly oppose Roe but also strongly support the cases that provided Roe's legal underpinning?

More than anything, I just want some consistency here - cautiously Supporting roe but being skeptical of cases that allow contraception makes little sense. But yes, I would prefer a judge who supports contraception (Grizwold/Baird), but opposes Abortion (roe).

[krazen1211]

Trump wins again!

Link

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

[mencken]

- He has to be pushed to even give implied support for Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.

- He is clearly insufficiently committed to at least seriously considering overturning Roe v. Wade, and even implied cautious support for it.

so you want him to strongly oppose Roe but also strongly support the cases that provided Roe's legal underpinning?

More than anything, I just want some consistency here - cautiously Supporting roe but being skeptical of cases that allow contraception makes little sense. But yes, I would prefer a judge who supports contraception (Grizwold/Baird), but opposes Abortion (roe).

God forbid we have a judge that applies the law without regard to its implications for specific policy issues.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Trump wins again!

Link

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

Not enough. They should hold out until Republicans agree to allowing Ginsburg to choose a successor and to have that successor nominated.

[Cashew]

Trump wins again!

Link

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

This is just an excuse to cave.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Trump wins again!

Link

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

Democrats think we're stupid enough to believe that they're that stupid. Hahahaahahahaa.

[Green Line]

No one can be confirmed with the cloud of scandal surrounding the current President.  It would be unfair to the American people.

[ApatheticAustrian]

This is just an excuse to cave.

it's the best imaginable deal right now.

[TJ in Oregon]

Frankly if the Republicans can't get this guy confirmed, with or without the nuclear option, they should just resign and go home.

[Cashew]

This is just an excuse to cave.

it's the best imaginable deal right now.

Tell me, what incentive does there exist for McConnell to not rip up the agreement next time an empty supreme court seat needs to be filled? Will Gorsuch promise to resign if the deal is broken?

Exactly, deal this will only lead to humiliation for the Democrats when the betrayal inevitably comes.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Tell me, what incentive does there exist for McConnell to not rip up the agreement next time an empty supreme court seat needs to be filled?

he is an old-school-guy who likes the filibuster and i guess would hate to be forced by the lunatic wing of the GOP to push some madman through just cause they can.

besides....there is NOTHING the democrats could have got...literally NOTHING.

[Green Line]

Pass Gorsuch, and in exchange Trump is impeached.  Sounds fair to me.

[publicunofficial]

Tell me, what incentive does there exist for McConnell to not rip up the agreement next time an empty supreme court seat needs to be filled?

he is an old-school-guy who likes the filibuster and i guess would hate to be forced by the lunatic wing of the GOP to push some madman through just cause they can.

besides....there is NOTHING the democrats could have got...literally NOTHING.

They have their pride and dignity. Something they would hand over if this McConnell deal went through.

[krazen1211]

This is just an excuse to cave.

it's the best imaginable deal right now.

Tell me, what incentive does there exist for McConnell to not rip up the agreement next time an empty supreme court seat needs to be filled? Will Gorsuch promise to resign if the deal is broken?

Exactly, deal this will only lead to humiliation for the Democrats when the betrayal inevitably comes.

No betrayal is required. The deal is only binding on 3 Republican Senators. And maybe we can choose the 3. All the GOP has to do is thrash the Democrats, again, in the 2018 elections.

[Cashew]

Tell me, what incentive does there exist for McConnell to not rip up the agreement next time an empty supreme court seat needs to be filled?

he is an old-school-guy who likes the filibuster and i guess would hate to be forced by the lunatic wing of the GOP to push some madman through just cause they can.

besides....there is NOTHING the democrats could have got...literally NOTHING.

Have you forgotten how Orrin Hatch showered Garland with praise only to fall behind party lines when convenient, one of the most ardent institutionalists in the senate?
 

[TJ in Oregon]

The aformentioned deal is stupid for the Republicans. They'd be giving up the possibility of invoking the nuclear option for nothing in return but a minor inconvenience.

[ApatheticAustrian]

They have their pride and dignity. Something they would hand over if this McConnell deal went through.

i prefer a 2018 backlash to doing ted cruz's work.

they want to do it...let them do it themselves.

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

The final stage, the panels, is now in progress. First one (American Bar) on now.

[Klartext89]

Trump wins again!

Link

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

Like I said, at the end the GOP caves again and wants to play fair - while the other side never plays fair...

If there's a "subsequent vacancy" it is the big chance to get get rid of all this liberal nonsense and abuse of law. But yeah, then there will be the next Souter or Kennedy getting the confirmation...

Indeed, very clever, Dems...