Support NeoGAF

[shinra-bansho]

What are the #optics if the unthinkable happpens and Trump unfettered by any threat if filibuster gets to nominate William Pryor or someone worse to replace RBG?

And the Democrats can do absofuckinglutely nothing to prevent it as the minority. Because they killed the filibuster over a nomination that maintains the status of the Supreme Court.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

This feels like an "if you amplify everything they hear nothing" situation, to me. Surely this isn't where we expend our energy.

 

[JP_]

What are the #optics if the unthinkable happpens and Trump unfettered by any threat if filibuster gets to nominate William Pryor or someone worse to replace RBG?

And the Democrats can do absofuckinglutely nothing to prevent it as the minority. Because they killed the filibuster over a nomination that maintains the status of the Supreme Court.

Again, if we save the filibuster for Pryor they can just nuke it then and get Pryor anyway. The filibuster isn't some one time use get out of jail free card. Whether or not it actually blocks anyone from the bench is entirely up to republicans and they've shown no sympathy for dems.

 

[kmag]

So wait, Trump picked a constitution originalist? Isn't he pretty blatantly violating the constitution all over the place? Or is this like people saying they're pro life while they're deporting Americans out to die in the Middle East?

There's no such thing as a constitutional originalist.

Scalia, the supposed constitutional originalists constitutional originalist, threw that shit out of the window the minute it it conflicted with his social or political world view. He was a constitutional originalist when it suited his prejudice or politics. This guy will almost certainly be the same.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Again, if we save the filibuster for Pryor they can just nuke it then and get Pryor anyway. The filibuster isn't some one time use get out of jail free card. Whether or not it actually blocks anyone from the bench is entirely up to republicans and they've shown no sympathy for dems.

I mean sure. As long as in a year or two or three if the GOP still holds the majority and e.g. Anthony Kennedy retires, people aren't pissing in the wind in anger about how the Dems aren't doing anything about Trump's second nominee - like some people seem to be about Cabinet now.

 

[Chezzymann]

I keep seeing people say that the supreme Court isn't supposed to create legislation and that's why they like this guy, is that a legitimate point or is "creating legislation" just a fancy way to say they like conservative rulings and not liberal ones

 

[Muppet of a Man]

So basically womens rights and protection of gay rights is now gone from large parts of America, all because "religious freedom".

Maybe the "being an aethiest is not a religion" people should change tactics? Yes it is a religion, protect our views and give us money!

Why not create a Church of Women's Rights, Gay Rights, and Gay Marriage? Once a recognized religion, its views would be protected.

 

[Phouglas]

So I saw on Huff Post that Senate Dmeocrats all voted unanimously for this guy in circuit court appointment in 2006 including Obama and Schumer and a bunch of others. Is that going to be a problem with voting no now? I mean it looks illogical and stupid to say he's okay then but somehow now he's awful but they could still do it right?

 

[Kill3r7]

So I saw on Huff Post that Senate Dmeocrats all voted unanimously for this guy in circuit court appointment in 2006 including Obama and Schumer and a bunch of others. Is that going to be a problem with voting no now? I mean it looks illogical and stupid to say he's okay then but somehow now he's awful but they could still do it right?

Obama and Gorsuch were classmates at Harvard Law. They were on Law Review together. He is qualified to do the job hence the unanimous vote in 2006. All of that does not matter now. A fight needs to be had and this is as good a time as any.

 

[Branduil]

What are the #optics if the unthinkable happpens and Trump unfettered by any threat if filibuster gets to nominate William Pryor or someone worse to replace RBG?

And the Democrats can do absofuckinglutely nothing to prevent it as the minority. Because they killed the filibuster over a nomination that maintains the status of the Supreme Court.

I don't understand how you can have watched the events of the last 8 years, and somehow think that the Dems not filibustering now means that they can do it in the future. The Republicans will nuke the filibuster immediately in that hypothetical. So there's zero actual reason to "save" the filibuster for later.

 

[SURGEdude]

What are the #optics if the unthinkable happpens and Trump unfettered by any threat if filibuster gets to nominate William Pryor or someone worse to replace RBG?

And the Democrats can do absofuckinglutely nothing to prevent it as the minority. Because they killed the filibuster over a nomination that maintains the status of the Supreme Court.

Then the next election the democrat adds 5 justices to the court. And if he has support in the legislature then we take America back from these degenerate creeps.

It's fucking war and the right has been waging it for 8 years.

After Garland I don't give a fuck about "tradition"

 

[takriel]

Why can people just not realize that the values Democrats stand for are objectively better than the ones of the Republicans? It really has become good vs. evil more or less. Do I have to assume that half of Americans are just evil in that case?

 

[SURGEdude]

Why can people just not realize that the values Democrats stand for are objectively better than the ones of the Republicans? It really has become good vs. evil more or less. Do I have to assume that half of Americans are just evil in that case?

I think you need to take a breath an realize not everyone actually believes in the "benefit" of empathy.

People in it for themselves at all costs will burn this motherfucker down, and then blame it on something else.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Any Democrat that backs this bigot has no backbone.

They should stall his appointment for 4 years.

I think that's impossible

 

[Mimosa97]

Impeach my ass if old

 

[Rocketz]

Guess I learned he was a Fiji

 

[poppabk]

I don't understand how you can have watched the events of the last 8 years, and somehow think that the Dems not filibustering now means that they can do it in the future. The Republicans will nuke the filibuster immediately in that hypothetical. So there's zero actual reason to "save" the filibuster for later.

If it's going to get nuked anyway, may as well save it for a controversial decision or further down the line when they possibly could have enough seats to prevent it being nuked.

 

[SURGEdude]

Impeach my ass if old

That's reassuring.

 

[AuthenticM]

What is this guy's position on gerrymandering?

 

[slit]

If it's going to get nuked anyway, may as well save it for a controversial decision or further down the line when they possibly could have enough seats to prevent it being nuked.

They're not going to have enough votes down the line unless they retake the majority in the Senate anyway. The GOP go lock step with each other. Trump basically called McCain a weak, ineffective soldier and despite a little push back from him he'll toe the party line too. The Democrats don't do that and it's going to be their downfall if it doesn't change.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So I saw on Huff Post that Senate Dmeocrats all voted unanimously for this guy in circuit court appointment in 2006 including Obama and Schumer and a bunch of others. Is that going to be a problem with voting no now? I mean it looks illogical and stupid to say he's okay then but somehow now he's awful but they could still do it right?

At first glance, it might look like they're just being partisan hacks (but what else would we expect of politicians?), but it's not really illogical or stupid for Democrats to oppose a candidate for the Supreme Court that they supported for a court of appeals a decade ago.

In the first place, the Supreme Court is not a court of appeals. It makes final judgments that affect the entire nation, whereas courts of appeals make judgments that affect certain states and are subject to reversal by the Supreme Court. Only the Supreme Court can overrule its own prior decisions. The Supreme Court is also a nine-member body, whereas there are nearly 200 federal courts of appeals judges.

Second, Democrats can point to the evidence of Gorsuch's opinions while on the 10th Circuit to distinguish their current opposition from their past support. That is, there is more and different evidence of his fitness for office and judicial philosophy now than there was a decade ago.

 

[Dr.Acula]

There's no rule that the Scotus has to have 9 members. What are the odds the GoP pushes it to 11 over the next 4-8 years?

 

[Rentahamster]

I said this back in September. You guys probably don't think it's such a bad idea now, do you?

What if we just left the Supreme Court at a 4-4 liberal conservative split so that a majority decision requires consensus rather than one side overpowering the other through numbers.

 

[frogger]

Democrat senators need to grow some balls.

 

[Brinbe]

Dems not gonna do shit.

 

[Branduil]

I said this back in September. You guys probably don't think it's such a bad idea now, do you?

Consensus is no longer possible in America. Republicans are currently doing everything they can to ensure one-party rule through the removal of all democratic norms and voter suppression. It is not possible to coexist with them.

 

[onadesertedisland]

They're not going to have enough votes down the line unless they retake the majority in the Senate anyway. The GOP go lock step with each other. Trump basically called McCain a weak, ineffective soldier and despite a little push back from him he'll toe the party line too. The Democrats don't do that and it's going to be their downfall if it doesn't change.

The Democratic cohort has allowed dissent for too long. They played a game where electing a republicunt-lite Dem was more important than running a strong liberal Democrat. So when it comes time to unite, there are always a few willing to sell their soul to stay in office.

 

[SixStringFanatic]

I think he was a good pick, but I lean more conservative as unpopular as that may be on these forums.

 

[Dispatch]

I think he was a good pick, but I lean more conservative as unpopular as that may be on these forums.

He's a good pick for Trump, really. He's got very traditional qualifications. If you're an independent (and I'm a deep blue Democrat), then I think watching the Democrats obstruct this pick would look awful.

 

[minor effort]

He's a good pick for Trump, really. He's got very traditional qualifications. If you're an independent (and I'm a deep blue Democrat), then I think watching the Democrats obstruct this pick would look awful.

Republicans were not punished due to the bad optics of blocking Merrick Garland for a year.

 

[sangreal]

I keep seeing people say that the supreme Court isn't supposed to create legislation and that's why they like this guy, is that a legitimate point or is "creating legislation" just a fancy way to say they like conservative rulings and not liberal ones

both

constructionists have a legitimate point but it is inherently conservative because it doesn't allow for any interpretation beyond the strict text of the original law as it would have been intepreted when written. So you can't apply old laws or protections to modern concepts. It also tends to be selectively applied when needed for a conservative ruling

It really wouldn't be a problem if this country wasn't so dysfunctional that we can't make any constitutional amendments

 

[Rentahamster]

Consensus is no longer possible in America. Republicans are currently doing everything they can to ensure one-party rule through the removal of all democratic norms and voter suppression. It is not possible to coexist with them.

It is always possible to coexist with your fellow humans. Especially your fellow citizens.

 

[Trey]

It is always possible to coexist with your fellow humans. Especially your fellow citizens.

Tell that to the Republicans.

 

[Green Yoshi]

Consensus is no longer possible in America. Republicans are currently doing everything they can to ensure one-party rule through the removal of all democratic norms and voter suppression. It is not possible to coexist with them.

I understand why people didn't vote for Clinton, but how could they vote for Republican congressmen and senators? After what they did during Obama's second term?

 

[Linkark07]

He's a good pick for Trump, really. He's got very traditional qualifications. If you're an independent (and I'm a deep blue Democrat), then I think watching the Democrats obstruct this pick would look awful.

It isn't about being good or bad, it is about paying back what Republicans did to Garland.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It is always possible to coexist with your fellow humans. Especially your fellow citizens.

Tell that to minorities that dare move into a white suburb. See how much "coexisting" is going on there.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Impeach my ass if old

That's a great quote though

 

[Mercury Fred]

It is always possible to coexist with your fellow humans. Especially your fellow citizens.

I'm having a very hard time conceptualizing Republicans as humans anymore.

 

[GYODX]

It isn't about being good or bad, it is about paying back what Republicans did to Garland.

I don't think you realize how powerless Democrats are right now.

 

[LosDaddie]

Damn. I was hoping the nominee would be that one conservative black female judge that was being considered for GWB's appointment. That would've made a lot of heads explode.

As far as qualifications go, Neil is solid on that front. I don't expect his opinions/ideology to be any different than Scalia.

 

[appaws]

I have to say this is a good strategic pick by Trump. This guy is so eminently qualified that it is going to make him really difficult to oppose without it looking purely ideological.

Of course, that applied to Garland as well....

I don't think the Democrats want to spend a lot of capital on this....unless opposition to him gains some traction with the public outside of the Salon/MSNBC/Neogaf crowd.

 

[Brandon F]

Blowing your own brains out so as not to witness what America is becoming.

Zelda is only a month away...just need to survive until then.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Impeach my ass if old

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

 

[Burt]

Paraphrasing Sean Spicer - "He believes judges should not make decisions based solely on the law.. wait.. the law his decisions should not... wait... err... hmm... messed that up. Ha!"

You sure did, Sean.

 

[Tregard]

Apparently Trump is having breakfast with Harley Davidson higher-ups tomorrow, what on Earth?

 

[dragonfart28]

As someone who is a Canadian progressive looking in, I think the best option for Dems is to let this one go.

He will ultimately be a 'status quo' judge.

Take the higher ground and pick your battles elsewhere.

 

[theechrisfox]

What is this guy's position on gerrymandering?

Safe to assume his position on anything is squarely on his knees in front of the current "president".

 

[creatchee]

I don't think you realize how powerless Democrats are right now.

This. When you're in the pickle that Democrats are in, you have to choose your battles very carefully. We're getting a conservative judge whether anybody likes it or not. Save the good fight for when it has at least the possibility of making a tangible difference. And yes, Republicans were terrible with their opposition and obstruction of everything during Obama's last term, but they had the numbers to do it. Dems don't right now.

 

[uncredited male]

There's no rule that the Scotus has to have 9 members. What are the odds the GoP pushes it to 11 over the next 4-8 years?

Pretty low I would think. FDR tried it last and it was shot down as the blatant power grab that it was. If it starts up again we would potentially have every new session changing the number to give or take away appointments for the president.

 

[Alcoremortis]

You know, there might be a silver lining to Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

Apparently, he has a hate boner for executive orders, so he might vote to cancel any of Trump's EOs that are challenged in court.

Now, I don't know if he only hates them when Democrats use them, but if he hates them unconditionally, that could make him a good candidate for keeping Trump in check. Bad for keeping Congressional laws in check, but we'll never get a nominee that's good for that.