President Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

[BroadwayConcierge]

Fabulous pick.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html

[kdogg36]

Trump's remarks were completely incoherent.

[madbrian]

I fully support the Dems filibustering this pick. He is well outside the political mainstream of Americans. 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Nah, this guy is one of those loons who think corporations have religious beliefs. Pass.

Y'know who would have been great though, is this Merrick Garland fellow- respected judge, praised by both Republicans and Democrats. Shame someone like that hasn't been considered to fill Scalia's seat. 

[yankeefan7]

"I fully support the Dems filibustering this pick. He is well outside the political mainstream of Americans. "

"Back in 2006, when Gorsuch was nominated by then-President George W. Bush to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate -- which at the time included Sen. Schumer. Also listed on the roll call of those who voted in his favor was Diane Feinstein of California, along with former senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry."

[Jay Lerner-Z]

^ A whole decade has passed since then, and his record of religious fanaticism has grown. Plus the Republicans loved Merrick Garland up until last year, so they can eat sh!t.

[UncleCharlie]

yankeefan7 said: ""I fully support the Dems filibustering this pick. He is well outside the political mainstream of Americans. "

"Back in 2006, when Gorsuch was nominated by then-President George W. Bush to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate -- which at the time included Sen. Schumer. Also listed on the roll call of those who voted in his favor was Diane Feinstein of California, along with former senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry."

 

Merrick Garland had very broad support during his confirmation hearing to the DC Circuit as well. Both R's and D's supported him. There was absolutely no reason to refuse to even consider his nomination let alone vote on it. It was a full freakin' year before Obama's term was up. Disgraceful. He was also a centrist as opposed to an extremely conservative judge ideologically like Gorsuch. 

I'm getting just a little bit tired of the right wing being so outraged and shocked with the Democrats now doing to them what the Republicans did to Obama for 8 long years. I am diametrically opposed to Gorsuch's ideology, but in terms of the actual qualifications necessary to serve on the Supreme Court, he does check a lot of the boxes. But it should be Garland's seat, not his. And that will be made clear. Karma's a bitch, baby.

[wonderfulwizard11]

"Back in 2006, when Gorsuch was nominated by then-President George W. Bush to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he was confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate -- which at the time included Sen. Schumer. Also listed on the roll call of those who voted in his favor was Diane Feinstein of California, along with former senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry."

Before Obama picked Merrick Garland, multiple prominent Republicans had listed him as an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, including John McCain and Orrin Hatch. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

[Luscious]

I don't like his horse face or the sound of his name. Filibuster!

[yankeefan7]

"Merrick Garland had very broad support during his confirmation hearing to the DC Circuit as well. Both R's and D's supported him. There was absolutely no reason to refuse to even consider his nomination let alone vote on it. It was a full freakin' year before Obama's term was up. Disgraceful. He was also a centrist as opposed to an extremely conservative judge ideologically like Gorsuch. "

 

Yes, Garland should have been given a vote but when Democrats make statements like Senator Biden did their words come back to haunt them. Also, McConnell did this knowing full well that Hillary Clinton might become POTUS and make the next selection. Really, do you honestly think he thought Trump was going to win when he did that. 

"As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

[yankeefan7]

:"Before Obama picked Merrick Garland, multiple prominent Republicans had listed him as an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, including John McCain and Orrin Hatch"

 

Understood but those two are not the Senate majority leader.

[adamgreer]

Yes, determining that a corporation didn't have to provide its female employees birth control because of a "religious belief" is well outside of the mainstream. 

His "religious liberty" advocacy will be just another way to get discrimination enshrined into law.  

No, Democrats must oppose him by any means possible.  The man who should be sitting in that seat is poor Merrick Garland. Now it's time for Republicans to get a taste of their own medicine. 

[kdogg36]

I'm certainly sympathetic to those who say the Democrats should filibuster. But what's the plan here? Is it to keep the seat open for four or more years, or to force Trump to nominate someone acceptable to progressives? Because I don't think either of those outcomes is as likely as a change in rules to end filibusters for Supreme Court nominees, which would render Democrats powerless.

Frankly, I'm inclined to think that it might be prudent to play along with Gorsuch, who after all won't change the previous balance of the Supreme Court, and then play hardball if Trump gets a chance to replace Kennedy or one of the liberal justices. Once again, I wouldn't blame Democrats for attempting to avenge Merrick Garland; I just don't see it turning out very well.

ETA: Full disclosure, I don't think Gorsuch is that much worse than Garland, who sides with the government position in almost every case and is not a great defender of the Bill of Rights.

[Petralicious]

Mr Gorsuch used to clerk for Justice Kennedy. Does anyone know what his thoughts on him are?

[madbrian]

Those on the fringe compare Gorsuch to Scalia.  Taking them at their word, that's enough for me to reject him.  The last thing this country needs is another Scalia - a racist and bigot who always put corporations ahead of individuals.

[LarryD2]

"Fabulous pick."

If you support replacing the Bill of Rights with Leviticus, sure.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Political realities are being flagrantly ignored here. Vacant SCOTUS seats are obviously volatile during election years. Senate Republicans took a big risk last year—and it paid off for them. The seat doesn't belong to President Obama or to Merrick Garland. What are you gonna do? Filibuster Gorsuch until the 116th Congress? Give me a break.

[wonderfulwizard11]

"Yes, Garland should have been given a vote but when Democrats make statements like Senator Biden did their words come back to haunt them. Also, McConnell did this knowing full well that Hillary Clinton might become POTUS and make the next selection. Really, do you honestly think he thought Trump was going to win when he did that. "

Except Biden didn't actually do it, so as far as I'm concerned the comparison doesn't work like you want it to. McConnell not only denied someone even a hearing for almost an entire year, but several Republicans stated their intention to filibuster whoever Clinton would nominate. Republicans do not have the right to act morally outraged when Democrats use the exact same tactics.  And Republicans can go on all they want about SCOTUS seats being volatile, but the Constitution doesn't say a word about election years. Congress has a responsibility to fill Supreme Court vacancies, and McConnell and his crew failed spectacularly to even do a basic aspect of their jobs- they deserve no courtesy. 

Democrats need to grow a spine and start fighting these people hard. They are facing an extremely unpopular President who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. He doesn't have a mandate and they need to sop acting like he does. 

[madbrian]

If the GOP was OK with having a vacant seat for a year, I have absolutely no problem with the Dems filibustering Gorsuch until Trump withdraws his nomination in favor of a more mainstream nominee.

If Gorsuch will allow Hobby Lobby to deny women contraceptive under the bogus excuse of "religious liberty," how do we think he will rule when another company uses "religious liberty" as an excuse to fire someone who is LGBTQ?

[kdogg36]

madbrian said: "If the GOP was OK with having a vacant seat for a year, I have absolutely no problem with the Dems filibustering Gorsuch until Trump withdraws his nomination in favor of a more mainstream nominee."

Well, I don't think that's what will happen. The Republican majority can change the rules to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Why do you think they wouldn't, if it came to that?

 

[newintown]

"The Republican majority can change the rules to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Why do you think they wouldn't, if it came to that?"

I could say that they shouldn't do it, because we'll be one step closer to a Roman Empire status, where each leader changes the very nature of the system to suit their own ends, causing total instability from regime to regime.

But I don't think we have any leaders presently who are smart enough (or unselfish enough) to care about stability. Our government is currently in a state (where it's been before) of separate groups of underdeveloped children all trying to get the sandbox for themselves (with a very slight minority of adults who are interested in governing for the best for the populace as a whole).

[adamgreer]

BroadwayConcierge said: "Political realities are being flagrantly ignored here. Vacant SCOTUS seats are obviously volatile during election years. Senate Republicans took a big risk last year—and it paid off for them. The seat doesn't belong to President Obama or to Merrick Garland. What are you gonna do? Filibuster Gorsuch until the 116th Congress? Give me a break.

 

According to Republicans themselves, the Court functions "just fine" with only 8 justices.  So there should be no problem doing exactly what Republicans did last year. Why, exactly, do you think Democrats should extend Republicans the courtesy they didn't extend to President Obama, who nominated a justice much more in line with "mainstream America" than Gorsuch?

 

[kdogg36]

Let's not romanticize Merrick Garland. As many have noted, he has a strong tendency to side with the government on most issues. This makes him seem moderate, because it results in some decisions that can be called "liberal" and some that can be called "conservative." But the best label is "authoritarian," which actually would have made him as natural a fit for Trump as for Obama.

[theaterdrew]

Frankly, I'm inclined to think that it might be prudent to play along with Gorsuch, who after all won't change the previous balance of the Supreme Court, and then play hardball if Trump gets a chance to replace Kennedy or one of the liberal justices. Once again, I wouldn't blame Democrats for attempting to avenge Merrick Garland; I just don't see it turning out very well.

This observation is very astute.  There's more at stake than the Dems, responding to angry progressive supporters in the moment, may realize until it's too late.  Kennedy is rumored to be retiring, setting up a battle over his incredibly important seat.  If the Dem's blow all of their political capital on an unsuccessful challenge to Gorsuch, it will embolden the current administration to nominate someone even more to the right than Gorsuch next time.  

Right now, it's thought they did not nominate a candidate they otherwise really wanted because he has been too vocal about his belief Roe v. Wade should be overturned on morality grounds (William Pryor).  If the Dems fail to make a dent despite an all out assault on Gorsuch, then the concerns that kept them from nominating Pryor may be swept away.  The Dems will prove themselves impotent, and it's hard to mount two successive battles.  In the long game, the Dems need to keep the administration wary, so letting Gorsuch go but keeping the threat of derailing the next nominee may be the smarter choice.

[South Florida]

This is the strategy I heard on NPR today, they can't stop Gorsuch so why bother.

 

[brdlwyr]

If appointed he will be a illegitimate Justice and outside the Constitution.  Filibuster is the only choice.