Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

[The Other Castro]

You mean 2024😊

It's been a long time since we had a 1-termer, so I'd say we are overdue at this point. Not that it is ever sure to happen, but if Trump doesn't pull himself together and get back on the ride side of public opinion, he could be ousted in 2020, possibly in spectacular fashion.

Have we ever had four two-term Presidents in a row before? I don't think so but I may be wrong.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

Fine, the Republicans can de-escalate by withdrawing Gorsuch's nomination and confirming Garland to fill Scalia's seat.

[Confused Democrat]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

Easier said than done.

I believe America is going to have to go through some sort of major crisis that leads to a watershed moment where politicians put aside partisan politics and begin to work together/compromise.

[SteveRogers]

Have both parties been guilty of playing games with the judiciary in the past? Yes, and both sides have enough gripes about the other to play the "what about" game. But the way I see it, when it comes to this particular vacancy it was Republicans who walked away from the negotiating table first, so I find the GOP's feigned outrage at the refusal of Democrats to play nice thoroughly unconvincing.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Thank you, Shelley Berkley and Marco Rubio!

Words never uttered before. You have become pretty disgusting since Trump won huh?

[krazen1211]

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

This timing of de-escalation is strange. One political party has won all elections. The other political party is  about as successful and meaningful as a pimple on someone else's buttocks.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

This timing of de-escalation is strange. One political party has won all elections. The other political party is  about as successful and meaningful as a pimple on someone else's buttocks.

I don't give a sh**t about the timing, you amoral creep, I'm just concerned that we not descend into some sort of irreconcilable civil strife over petty bullsh**t. I understand that that's not a prospect that bothers you but I'd invite you to consider, if it seems at all relevant to you, that I said that in response to something X, a left-of-center opponent of Gorsuch's confirmation, was saying. I'm fine with Gorsuch if his confirmation means that, in some small way, the country gets further away from coming apart at the seams.

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

Fine, the Republicans can de-escalate by withdrawing Gorsuch's nomination and confirming Garland to fill Scalia's seat.

For God's sake, you hack, not everything is about the fortunes of Our Lord and Savior the Democratic Party.

[Skill and Chance]

You mean 2024😊

It's been a long time since we had a 1-termer, so I'd say we are overdue at this point. Not that it is ever sure to happen, but if Trump doesn't pull himself together and get back on the ride side of public opinion, he could be ousted in 2020, possibly in spectacular fashion.

Have we ever had four two-term Presidents in a row before? I don't think so but I may be wrong.

I don't think so, but many of the 19th century presidents either weren't able to seek reelection or decided not to because they were sick with diseases that can be cured today, so I would expect to see many more 2 term presidents in the modern era in general.

[Beet]

You mean 2024😊

It's been a long time since we had a 1-termer, so I'd say we are overdue at this point. Not that it is ever sure to happen, but if Trump doesn't pull himself together and get back on the ride side of public opinion, he could be ousted in 2020, possibly in spectacular fashion.

Have we ever had four two-term Presidents in a row before? I don't think so but I may be wrong.

I don't think so, but many of the 19th century presidents either weren't able to seek reelection or decided not to because they were sick with diseases that can be cured today, so I would expect to see many more 2 term presidents in the modern era in general.

The only times we've had one-term presidents was when there was a recession in the middle of a presidency (1980, 1990-91). This has been happening less often since the business cycle has been getting longer, due to the shift of the economy away from industry as a total share (the industrial sector is notoriously volatile). That said, this is not normal times.

[Confused Democrat]

I'm fine with Gorsuch if his confirmation means that, in some small way, the country gets further away from coming apart at the seams.

It won't though.

[Cashew]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy  Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

Easier said than done.

I believe America is going to have to go through some sort of major crisis that leads to a watershed moment where politicians put aside partisan politics and begin to work together/compromise.

I kind of disagree, compromise can only happen once one party emerges victorious, forcing the other party to recognize it is the minority and compromise to remain viable. As we are now both parties are of relatively equal strength, with the Democrats winning The popular vote in six out the last seven presidential elections, but Republicans are more represented due to their support in rural areas and less populated states. Having two parties of equal legitimacy is not at all ideal, or the historical norm, and the longer we are stuck in this murky impasse the more destabilized the United States shall become. Hopefully something breaks the impasse soon.

[136or142]

To Mitch McConnell threatening the nuclear option:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLW3CFZBdXI

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy   Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

That's only true if you want a future United States that isn't small band of survivors eating rats and each other in the ruins of flooded cities. Since that seems to be a future that the Trumpublicans are quite happy with (so long as their band of survivors is white, shouts "Jebus" every so often, and makes sure to kick the women in the head a lot when they're young) the incentive for those of us who oppose the deplorable scum to deescalate is pretty minimal.

[Klartext89]

I'm still worrying that there will be a Deal reached before Deadline. The nuclear Option would only damage and harm the Democrats, that why I still can't believe that they are risking it at the end.

It would be so silly for them - even for them...

[Klartext89]

Lol.

Joe Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee did exactly this to John Roberts in 1992.

The Senate, imo, isn't obligated to accept anyone the president nominates for a judicial position, but they are obligated to accept someone and not be unreasonable about it. If it is a Republican president, the Senate should accept it's going to be some sort of conservative nominee, and if it is a Democrat, they should accept it is going to be some sort of liberal.

But of course you'll disagree with that in some way, because you're basically a partisan troll-hack destined to haunt Atlas forever.

Let's test this theory.

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

One wonders!

Thank you. Always a pleasure reading about the unbelieveable amout of Democrats hypocrisy.

[Associate Justice PiT]

so it is pretty clear Democrats should take a stand here against Trump, the GOP, and their theft of this Senate seat.

Lol. So the rules say whichever party controls the presidency at the exact moment a vacancy arises owns that seat forever? Because i will never understand this "they stole it, so we have to steal it back, but somehow when we do it its not stealing" argument.

i could have lived with republicans rejecting half a dozen judges, until we got someone who finally was good enough or moderate enough or neutral on abortion or 80 years old or whatever, but just being able to reject hearings is mindblowing, imho.

Agreed. And the democrats were right then to complain. Now theyve taken what moral high ground they had, shat all over it, and still keep complaining about how stinky the republicans were a year ago.

Next time don't steal Supreme Court seats and maybe we won't have this problem.

I dont need to poke holes in your argument because repeating this "stolen seat " garbage betrays your lack of understanding and objectivity, but what the hell.

This overall argument is equivalent to a toddler justifying the pulling of his playmate's hair because "she should have shared if she didnt want it pulled." Right and wrong dont just disappear if someone else did something first. That is nor how logic works.

You guys made your bed and now you'll have to sleep in it.  Enjoy  Oh and spare me the hypocritical moralizing, I think I speak for most Democrats when I say you're wasting your breath.  I literally have no interest in seeing that seat filled by anyone regardless of their qualifications or objectivity until we have a Democratic President.

AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DEESCALATE.

Easier said than done.

I believe America is going to have to go through some sort of major crisis that leads to a watershed moment where politicians put aside partisan politics and begin to work together/compromise.

I kind of disagree, compromise can only happen once one party emerges victorious, forcing the other party to recognize it is the minority and compromise to remain viable. As we are now both parties are of relatively equal strength, with the Democrats winning The popular vote in six out the last seven presidential elections, but Republicans are more represented due to their support in rural areas and less populated states. Having two parties of equal legitimacy is not at all ideal, or the historical norm, and the longer we are stuck in this murky impasse the more destabilized the United States shall become. Hopefully something breaks the impasse soon.

     The parties are no longer on the same page about what it takes to run a country. They are so no longer on the same page that one could be reduced to an irrelevant rump and it would be no more ready to compromise than it is now. You would simply have a base that would insist that they need to be more radical and uncompromising.

[Confused Democrat]

Lol.

Joe Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee did exactly this to John Roberts in 1992.

The Senate, imo, isn't obligated to accept anyone the president nominates for a judicial position, but they are obligated to accept someone and not be unreasonable about it. If it is a Republican president, the Senate should accept it's going to be some sort of conservative nominee, and if it is a Democrat, they should accept it is going to be some sort of liberal.

But of course you'll disagree with that in some way, because you're basically a partisan troll-hack destined to haunt Atlas forever.

Let's test this theory.

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

One wonders!

Thank you. Always a pleasure reading about the unbelieveable amout of Democrats hypocrisy.

Republicans are just as hypocritical, so I really don't see how that helps your case.

[Klartext89]

Lol.

Joe Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee did exactly this to John Roberts in 1992.

The Senate, imo, isn't obligated to accept anyone the president nominates for a judicial position, but they are obligated to accept someone and not be unreasonable about it. If it is a Republican president, the Senate should accept it's going to be some sort of conservative nominee, and if it is a Democrat, they should accept it is going to be some sort of liberal.

But of course you'll disagree with that in some way, because you're basically a partisan troll-hack destined to haunt Atlas forever.

Let's test this theory.

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

One wonders!

Thank you. Always a pleasure reading about the unbelieveable amout of Democrats hypocrisy.

Republicans are just as hypocritical, so I really don't see how that helps your case.

Not even close as Dems who started it all and are now whining about the other side doing the same. Well, there's an old German saying: What you don't want anyone to do with you, don't do it to someone else.

The only thing I'm wondering is how all these Dem Senators or people like Joe Biden can lie without any shame - while knowing that they created the problem and are the only ones to blame for.

[krazen1211]

Lol.

Joe Biden's Senate Judiciary Committee did exactly this to John Roberts in 1992.

The Senate, imo, isn't obligated to accept anyone the president nominates for a judicial position, but they are obligated to accept someone and not be unreasonable about it. If it is a Republican president, the Senate should accept it's going to be some sort of conservative nominee, and if it is a Democrat, they should accept it is going to be some sort of liberal.

But of course you'll disagree with that in some way, because you're basically a partisan troll-hack destined to haunt Atlas forever.

Let's test this theory.

John Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit in January 1992. What do you think happened to his nomination, and who do you think filled it?

And when Francis Murnaghan of the 4th circuit died in August 2000, how did his seat remain vacant until 2009? Little trivia. One of the failed nominations to that seat is our soon to be Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who has major Democratic support. But they wouldn't let him fill the seat.

One wonders!

Thank you. Always a pleasure reading about the unbelieveable amout of Democrats hypocrisy.

Republicans are just as hypocritical, so I really don't see how that helps your case.

Oh really? Did you know that Stephen Breyer was nominated to the 1st circuit in November 1980, and confirmed in December 1980? Very Nice!

This was after Jimmy Carter was thrashed in the 1980 elections. Ted Kennedy and company did not return the favor.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

     Judicial filibuster is a dumb idea anyway, alongside the politicization of the judiciary. Also this:

tbh non-talking filibusters should be abolished for everything.

Agreed. Make em work for their filibuster.

It gets more politicized with each new vacancy and at this point, I don't think further escalation is avoidable.  It is probably time to explicitly elect federal judges.  Absent a constitutional amendment, the closest we can get to that is having a norm where, upon taking office, each incoming one-party government packs SCOTUS and the federal circuits so that they control them by a wide margin.  If court nominations are going to be inherently political, this is the best way to reflect the will of the voters.

I'm beginning to think the best thing would be for the country to just start over.  Get rid of the president, get rid of the Congress, get rid of the Supreme Court.  Get rid of the goddamn states for all I care and redraw them or something.  Write up a new Constitution for a new government and ban everyone in the current government from reentering it.  Keep the civil rights and social programs obviously but do a total reset on everything else.  We've reached the point of no return at this chapter.
 Things are not going to get better by themselves.

Haha, I come up with the best ideas after I smoke some green.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     Judicial filibuster is a dumb idea anyway, alongside the politicization of the judiciary. Also this:

tbh non-talking filibusters should be abolished for everything.

Agreed. Make em work for their filibuster.

It gets more politicized with each new vacancy and at this point, I don't think further escalation is avoidable.  It is probably time to explicitly elect federal judges.  Absent a constitutional amendment, the closest we can get to that is having a norm where, upon taking office, each incoming one-party government packs SCOTUS and the federal circuits so that they control them by a wide margin.  If court nominations are going to be inherently political, this is the best way to reflect the will of the voters.

I'm beginning to think the best thing would be for the country to just start over.  Get rid of the president, get rid of the Congress, get rid of the Supreme Court.  Get rid of the goddamn states for all I care and redraw them or something.  Write up a new Constitution for a new government and ban everyone in the current government from reentering it.  Keep the civil rights and social programs obviously but do a total reset on everything else.  We've reached the point of no return at this chapter.
 Things are not going to get better by themselves.

Haha, I come up with the best ideas after I smoke some green.

Always knew it impaired judgement.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Schmucky is speaking on the Senate floor regarding Gorsuch.  Watch it for the lols.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Senate votes 55-44 to begin debate (Bennet, Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp aye, Isakson not voting). Only a simple majority was needed here, the 60 vote rule is on the vote to end debate which will be on Thursday.

[krazen1211]

Schmucky is speaking on the Senate floor regarding Gorsuch.  Watch it for the lols.

Mitch is going to be finishing off the Heist soon.



I suspect he is filing his mug with La Colombie free trade organic coffee, almond milk, and salty liberal tears.