-
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.
Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
Silent Chief
Member
G or such? Pretty easy to remember.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
He isn't, straight up. He is only 'worse' (depending on your perspective) because of how long he is going to be on the court. People forget how 'right' Scalia was, this guy isn't to the right of Scalia.
Amory
Member
It's not a matter of goodwill. It's a matter of strategy.
Gorsuch is in either way, why also tear down your safety net in the process?
I see where you're coming from though. It's just different philosophies.
Diprosalic
Banned
(age 49)
fuck.
fuck.
Seth Enosh
Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-be-reconsidered-a-federal-judge-thinks-so/
Theres an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth. . . .
Scalia, by contrast, had stood by Chevron deference as a matter of precedent.
... Because there is no 'safety net'.
They're tear down the filibuster at the first opportunity. What more do we need to see?
He was referring to him providing a list before the election. It's a valid point. If you ignore the whole Garland thing.
BECAUSE THE SAFETY NET IS NOT A SAFETY NET. IT EXISTS ENTIRELY AT THE PRIVILEGE OF THE MAJORITY LEADER.
And he does not want to kill it because of what's in the White House.
And that can be exploited.
He's probably the best we could've gotten considering it's Trump.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
And I just realized why they picked him.
Because we're fighting internally over how to respond.
Gorsuch is basically the poison pill.
If Trump had picked someone totally batshit (and, again: Gorsuch isn't), Dems might actually unify and develop a cohesive opposition strategy. We're really one RBG missed flu shot away from something far worse.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
What safety net? How is it a safety net if it can be torn down at any time?
There's no reason to believe that the GOP will ever compromise with the Democrats, especially not before the 2018 primaries, and even more especially after those primaries if they make gains.
I'm seriously not understanding the arguments to not force the GOP to use the nuclear option. It would shed a lot of light on things for people who don't know what a filibuster is, and it would mean the democrats have more control in 2018 if they manage to gain the majority in the senate again.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Obama gave up this nomination with barely a fight. Be real.
It's not there anyway. If they're going to nuke the filibuster, they'll do it on the next pick even if the Dems roll over. You think the GOP is going to say to themselves, "Gosh the Dems were so nice last time, let's have a dialog about this."
Yeah, this is a really tough situation for Dems. It's essentially a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. They filibusterer, they run the risk of blow back and the GOP going after the filibuster option and eliminating it. If they don't, then they risk their own constituents turning on them for not fighting back against the GOP for Trump and what happened to Garland -- which is especially bad during a Trump presidency.
It's fucked, especially when this guy is fairly neutral, but still conservative. Yet, he's easily one of the tamer options they've put forth, which I'm glad for. I want the dems to keep fighting, but I do recognize they have to be smart and pick their battles since they're in the minority in congress. It sucks, but a part of me feels that this one is better left alone. But I still worry for Roe v Wade and Brown v Board of Education with this kind of SC under GOP leadership.
Yeah, it really sucks right now.
It's fucked, especially when this guy is fairly neutral, but still conservative. Yet, he's easily one of the tamer options they've put forth, which I'm glad for. I want the dems to keep fighting, but I do recognize they have to be smart and pick their battles since they're in the minority in congress. It sucks, but a part of me feels that this one is better left alone. But I still worry for Roe v Wade and Brown v Board of Education with this kind of SC under GOP leadership.
Yeah, it really sucks right now.
VendettaRed07
Member
If we aren't going to filibuster this pick .. then why are we scared of it going away?
What's the point of having it if we don't use it
I'd rather it be gone entirely if only republicans use it and democrats don't
What's the point of having it if we don't use it
I'd rather it be gone entirely if only republicans use it and democrats don't
Mackenzie 92
Member
if the dems resist, can't republicans just get rid of the filibuster using reconciliation?
kinda damned if they do, damned if they don't?
kinda damned if they do, damned if they don't?
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Politicians say a lot of stuff when it comes to the future, a lot of bullshit.
The GOP would have been in a losing position if they had lost against Clinton, whatever they might have said before. Imagine if Trump lost, they would have been in purge mode right now, they would have been utterly humiliated, and they would have had very little room to go crazy over Hillary's nominee for long enough other than to lose popularity. The narrative would have been that they are out of touch, need to go more progressive on various issues. The political landscape would have been very different.
dreamlongdead
Member
It's expected to have another right wing guy to fill the vacancy. Gorsuch doesn't seem completely horrible, though.
I guess this news could have been much worse.
I guess this news could have been much worse.
link1201
Member
Next Judge will be interesting, no list to see beforehand.
LiquidSword
Member
It has nothing to do with Obama not fighting. The people didn't fight. Most people didn't give a shit. There should have been massive protests when Republicans didn't even have a fucking hearing for Garland for a year. But it didn't happen. Trump is right about one thing, the people have spoken by not speaking. Pretty much the story of the election as well
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Then get rid of it and stop pretending it's there. If the GOP are the only ones who get to use it successfully because the democrats want to take the high road, then the democrats may as well force the GOP to lower that threshold so that future democratic majorities might be able to benefit from having more control.
VendettaRed07
Member
Nah this isn't true
The senate map in 2018 would have been killer if a democrat was in the whitehouse at the time. They could have just blocked Hillary for 4 years on a Scotus pick. There would have been nothing stopping them from doing it.
blame space
Banned
fuck everything
From the OP:
In one case, in 2010, Judge Hardiman's majority opinion allowed New Jersey officials to strip-search people arrested for any offense before admitting them to a jail, regardless of whether the authorities had reason to suspect the possession of contraband.
Edit, yeah I misread.
Keeping this here for the shame but will remove the red
Ginsberg should have retired after 2012, but I guess that's a lot to ask.
Which is why it's going to have to happen. If/when the Dems get back into power. They don't have to live under it either.
It really isn't.
Either they:
A) Resist from the word go, and watch the filibuster get defanged.
B) Wait until something that they really want to fight, and watch the filibuster get defanged.
Have the Democrats learned nothing? People like bravado, resistance, and solidarity. Be the party of 'no'- The Republicans are already calling the Dems that! Might as well fucking own it. He's already ridiculously unpopular... Take advantage of it.
LOL, exactly. If it's a safety net, it will work now or it will never work. Lets find out now so we know what the stakes are.
RPGCrazied
Member
Wrong guy, oops.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Four years guys...give me a break. You expect Dem's to filibuster this for four years and somehow not be busted up for four years? We are on the winning side right now and will be, blocking this melts our chances at 18/20.
Nuke it when they go for RBG, Bryer and turn them into the bad guy when there is six-months to an election. Not now...
We are replacing Scalia, nothing changes on the court.
bruh, that's the other guy
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
This is the most salient point.
As soon as it's expedient -- and by that, I mean politically expedient, in that it obtains results that benefits the Red Team -- the GOP will end the filibuster. It will suffer no negative blowback other than op-eds that its base will never read.
What people are missing is that institutional frameworks only endure as long as institutions themselves respect them. John McCain respects the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. Ted Cruz respects that role. Trump does not.
2 years, and try for the senate. Then vote him down.
I honestly don't understand this mentality. Explain what the thought process is here?
It's going to be busted up as soon as they use it. It's not a tool in their arsenal. It might as well not exist at all.
Why? The composition of the court will not change. I would worry once one of Kennedy, RBG and Breyer step down. Either way no one is reversing Brown v Board of Ed.
On the other hand Roe v Wade is a different kettle of fish.
Exactly. Blow it up now.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
I agree with you. I wish we weren't right. The biggest mistake that the Democratic Party has made is that it sincerely believes the GOP cares about political blowback.
It doesn't. It cares about winning.
No, dont get complacent.
Deny him every inch, It worked for the Republicans, use the same strategy only more aggressive.
You need to fight fire with fucking napalm at this point.
Amory
Member
How can you be so sure? I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just asking.
I doubt McConnell wants to lose the filibuster. Fact is, no one knows how many more justices Trump will get to appoint in the next 2 years before the midterms, or even before the end of his presidency. Maybe 2. Maybe none.
Republicans love the filibuster. Getting rid of it is a risk for them down the line.
Where are you getting that idea from? Some protests at airports does not mean we are winning any kind of ideological battle in the long term.
That's how I feel. The republicans use democrat dissent as an advantage. They tried to repeal Obamacare like 50 times knowing it wouldn't work, but as a symbolic gesture. Then they reference these attempts during election years and paint the democrats as evil, igniting their base
We should do the same. Filibuster this shit. Let repubs kill it if they want. But start fighting this republican nonsense. That is, if they really want to ignite their own base. Protesters will lose steam if they feel the Democratic Party aren't protesting with them through actual politics
It's expected at least another SCJ will retire or step-down within four years. That's what I worry for. Once that happens, and if the GOP is still in major leadership, then I can totally see them revisiting and targeting more progressive laws if they put in another conservative.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Because we are winning the narrative right now.
We accept that Gorsuch is going to get confirmed either way, yes? So why change the political narrative right now? If Dem's go nuke they get what out of it exactly?
Talking right now. Women's march and immigration ban. What do we gain by nuking the filibuster and end up having him get through anyways?
- Status