-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Senate confirms Gorsuch to replace Scalia on Supreme Court
- Thread starter DOWN
- Start date
- Status
Or for general elections...
Don't do this to yourself.
tearsintherain
Member
When dems get into office next time they should change SCOTUS so its not lifetime appointments but 10 or 15 or 20 years max. Lifetime, for any office, is ludicrous especially in this modern medicine day and age but each party wins an election and thinks they are going to rule forever. Republicans think it now, so they kill the filibuster for SCOTUS which benefits them in the short term but will bite them hard in the ass when dems take back majority in 2020 or 2024.
When dems win then, they will think they will rule forever too - the whole idea that maybe you will lose in the future (because you don't do anything you promised to) is something that seems to occur to zero politicians.
When dems win then, they will think they will rule forever too - the whole idea that maybe you will lose in the future (because you don't do anything you promised to) is something that seems to occur to zero politicians.
RPGCrazied
Member
Hope it backfires on them. When Democrats get back in control(soon), they will put up even more liberal judges. Garland, Republicans are going to wish they would have confirmed him, its going to be even more left.
Or any election period. Local election turnout is abysmal. I had to personally plead with people to vote last year and in some cases sit with them while they registered to vote. Then of course nag on them during the lead up to the election to make sure they freaking voted.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Congrats SC Judge Gorsuch, well deserved.
Mr. Blonde
Member
Oh boy
Gonna say zero, but don't misconstrue that to think I'm sating trump should be impeached
If the Dems can take the Senate back in two years (a highly difficult task, I acknowledge), no more SC Justices will be approved by this President.
And that's pretty much how it will be from now on. Presidents will only be able to get SC Justices when their party has the Senate.
And that's pretty much how it will be from now on. Presidents will only be able to get SC Justices when their party has the Senate.
Yep. This also needs to be pointed out everytime someone starts in with their "we need to compromise" stuff when/if the democrats get power back. You cannot negotiate with people who are negotiating in bad faith.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Now compare how long republicans were filibustering compared to how long democrats filibustered this wear before the nuclear option was used.
Just saying
balladofwindfishes
Member
A stolen seat filled by a potentially illegitimate president
Yep, well deserved, alright
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
ftfy
Maybe one more justice. Just crazy that before all is said and done, Trump may be able to nominate yet another Justice and this one will be even more conservative becauase they had to use the nuclear option.
Even worse is, soon anything the federal judges challenge for Trump's laws, the 9th District, if it goes to the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor.
RPGCrazied
Member
I think that was sarcasm. But I don't know anymore. The world has gone to shit.
To be fair, Democrats overturned the fillibuster for the lower courts because we basically had a non-functioning government in place. Cases were piling up to the ceiling because there was no one to hear them. That wasn't the case here. This was just Republicans being scared that they'd have to put someone who isn't a human pile of garbage forward.
Inferno313
Banned
My fiancé was catching up with an old friend a few weeks ago, the passionate progressive that my fiancé is, she talked about how awful Trump is for a bit. Her friend more or less agreed, but then followed it up with a genuine: "But really, who do you think would've been worse?"
My fiancé just about blew a gasket, haha.
This. We got fleeced.
Keep blaming Obama instead of the party who actually made this happen.
Of course. That's politics. This isn't a game of basketball were you want to be fair. This thing is about power, great power and thus great consequences.
If you're really convinced your side is right, the blocking by your enemy is immoral and needs to be criticized. At the same time you blocking your enemy whenever needed has to be done.
As much as I think this seat was stolen, the blame goes to both sides for this type of practice for quite awhile.
I was just reading up on Democrats doing this same thing when Bush was trying to nominate a Justice. I was too young to pay much attention during that time, but what was the rationale behind Dems doing that at that point?
I was just reading up on Democrats doing this same thing when Bush was trying to nominate a Justice. I was too young to pay much attention during that time, but what was the rationale behind Dems doing that at that point?
Mr. Blonde
Member
Garland would've lost a straight up and down vote last year.
Maybe if Obama had nominated garland in hos forst term instead of ultra liberals kagan and Sotomayor republicans would've been more receptive, but by 2016 there was too much ill will on both sides.
madstarr12
Member
And some thought Trump was better cuz "OMFG I'm anti-establishment!!!"
Irredeemable.
The Dems went nuclear and stalled his appointee until they had power?
Bruce Springsteen
Member
He is much to blame for this, especially with his almost zero aggression towards Russia and knowing of their interference
DontBeThatGuy
Member
That's a laugh.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
I am a bit confused, looking at the US supreme court votes here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
You can see that other judges, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, also didn't get 60 votes. How were they confirmed if the nuclear option wasn't called back then? Is the nuclear option a recent thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
You can see that other judges, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, also didn't get 60 votes. How were they confirmed if the nuclear option wasn't called back then? Is the nuclear option a recent thing?
FloydtheFathead
Member
Because Miers wasn't qualified..
There's plenty of blame for them, but that doesn't excuse Obama just rolling over for them for a whole year.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
You also gotta think that Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Gynsberg, and Stephen Breyer are going to be out, either dying or retiring, in the next few years and will need to be replaced. I hope it'll be a more straightforward affair then.
More revisionist bullshit though. It would not have mattered who Obama nominated for Kagan and Sotomayor, Republicans would have refused his Garland pick at the end. Because they knew they had the votes and because Garland was a choice that was going to change the ideological lean of the court in favor of liberals.
Also, Kagan and Sotomayor are hardly "ultra liberal", unless that just means "someone who won't overturn Roe v. Wade or the Voting Rights Act" or some such. You'd never please modern obstructionist Republicans, as they are literally enemies of the state whose goal is to force government to stop working right so that they can turn to the people and say "See, government doesn't work right! Small government is the way to go!"
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Uh, they didn't.
Bush nominated four Supreme Court justices:
1. John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Nomination withdrawn because William Rehnquist died.
2. John Roberts to replace William Rehnquist. Confirmed 78-22, all Republicans and about half of Democrats voted for him.
3. Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Nomination withdrawn because she was an incompetent who failed basic tasks and Republicans demanded Bush withdraw the nomination; Democrats did nothing to stop confirmation.
4. Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Democrats argued he was a hard right conservative. Some progressive Democrats wanted a filibuster, it didn't happen. Confirmed 58-42, 4 Democrats voted yes, 1 Republican voted no.
Voting against a nominee doesn't mean filibustering them. You need 50 votes to approve a nominee and always have. You need 60 votes to break a filibuster if one is occurring. Parties routinely allow a nomination to continue even when they don't support it.
It's still funny to direct one's ire towards Obama instead of the republicans who blatantly made this happen.
Obama not fighting hard enough pales in comparison to what the opposing party did.
He should have listened to Michelle when she told him that he was being foolish reaching across the aisle. I hope the next democrat remembers how Obama was treated and gives a middle finger instead.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
Gotcha, that makes sense, but why doesn't the majority part always invoke a nuclear option, thus nullifying the fillibuster? Based on your explanation and what's happening here, the fillibuster can be easily nullified by the majority party.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Your confusion is that you seem to think the nuclear option is a one time thing. It is not. It is a permanent rule change. Historically, although the filibuster has been continually weakened, no one has been willing to do away with it. The filibuster serves two important purposes: First, at some point you are going to be the minority party and you want some say. Second, it allows the Senate majority to deflect when the House majority passes a terrible bill while claiming it was the Senate minority holding up things. Finally, in the past leaders have been unwilling to do away with the filibuster because there is a perception that the public cares about the institutional health of American democracy and will punish people who cease power by unilaterally changing the rules to hurt their political opponents. So I guess we can expect country-wide general strikes in protest of this change. *crickets chirping*
CrunchyFrog
Member
I don't care what your political ideology is this is bold-faced hypocrisy, plain and simple. And that interview with McConnell the other day scoffing about instituting an election year rule for SCOTUS noms is the smoking gun.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
And if he wasn't sure then he would have caused an even bigger rift in the public, hurting her chances even more. Conservative radio, Fox News and now conservative sites have been shaping American politics and they would have thrown everything at Obama and Dems if Obama pulled a similar stunt. Also Obama didn't have the votes to do this anyways.
Americans stupidly rewarded frivolous obstruction, and are now mad about obstruction. The conservative propaganda arm is that good, and no one has found a way to cut through it.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Conservative radio/Fox News was going to lambast Obama no matter what he did, he made the most critical error in history in thinking Trump had zero chance. Just raising the issue to the public would have greatly hurt Trump's chances
he should've listened to Michael Moore who correctly predicted Trump's victory many months before
I was reading this page. It said Bush brought fourth 11 nominees?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies
Jesus Fucking Christ even on this too eh?
Always his fucking fault for everything. These assholes show hypocrisy in the most embarrassing and shameless way and steal a fucking SC seat but somehow its still Obamas fault.
Nobody should listen to Michael Moore, even when he's right.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Pathetic, isn't it?
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
OriginofHysteria
Banned
0%.
Whether or not you like what happened with Garland, Gorsuch is probably the only well qualified pick Trump has made.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It's not hypocrisy if you realize that no one actually has any opinions about procedural or process issues, only policy issues. No one actually had opinions about minting trillion dollar coins during the debt ceiling crisis. No one actually has opinions about the filibuster. No one actually has opinions about reconciliation. No one actually has opinions about presidential debate rules. No one actually has opinions about bills being long or short, about amendments being germane or irrelevant, about earmarks. Literally all of these opinions are just illusory projections of someone's overall ideology and party ID; people support whatever rules they think help them achieve their goals. I suspect this goes even further: no one actually has an opinion about federalism (i.e. whether decisions should be made locally or nationally); no one actually has an opinion about direct democracy or ballot initiatives.
Even Supreme Court justices, who you might believe are the most likely humans on earth to have opinions about process separate from their opinions about ideological goals, seem to do a very good job of reconciling this tension in a way that their process opinion almost always supports their ideological opinion. You very very rarely, very rarely, see justices voting against their own policy preferences because the strictures of process bind them to do so.
Of course all these "no ones" and "nevers" are actually "few people" and "rarely". And it's not even insincere. I'm sure Mitch McConnell literally believes there's a difference between what he's doing now and what he was doing then. Even when people do recognize they've been caught switching positions, they rationalize that they've grown and changed their minds. But very few people can be introspective about what is actually motivating their thinking. So when someone claims they do have an opinion about process, I would discount it and assume it is primarily motivated by justifying whatever outcome they want.
- Status