That sounds pretty idealistic to me.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
That sounds pretty idealistic to me.
How?That sounds pretty idealistic to me.
The GOP did something horribly wrong when they refused to vote on Garland. I'll never support doing the same thing out of spite.
This country needs its offices filled. That is more important than party politics. And I say this as someone who spent years working in national party politics.
And look how well your approach did!
It's not spite to refuse to confirm Gorsuch. It's just a recognition that the norms of governing have changed. Last year the GOP made clear that the new standard is that a president without 60 Senators cannot appoint Supreme Court Justices. Lindsay Graham said yesterday that he believes Democrats would have done the same thing, so it's clear they'll expect this behavior regardless of what Dems actually do, and no reason to expect that caving in will somehow lure Republicans back to the path of good behavior.
There is no benefit to playing Weekend at Bernie's with Senate comity. Wake up to the world we live in. The GOP is a fifth column for foreign agitators and white supremacists. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and the American people deserve to be represented fearlessly instead of fecklessly.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Gorsuch on the court will only mean the continued erosion we've faced to our rights as the court remains friendly to big business and against consumers and workers. He poses a threat to same sex marriage and a women's right to choose. His position is stolen, a seat that should be filled by Merrick Garland.The GOP did something horribly wrong when they refused to vote on Garland. I'll never support doing the same thing out of spite.
This country needs its offices filled. That is more important than party politics. And I say this as someone who spent years working in national party politics.
What exactly does helping put him onto the court accomplish, other than the moral hazard of letting the GOP steal a seat with no negative consequences?
Mercury Fred
Banned
That's ludicrous. The seat was stolen as was the election and now a criminal who's colluding with a foreign power to undermine our democracy wants to fill it. Nope. The country was able to function without a full court for the last year. We can wait until T****p is gone to fill offices.The GOP did something horribly wrong when they refused to vote on Garland. I'll never support doing the same thing out of spite.
This country needs its offices filled. That is more important than party politics. And I say this as someone who spent years working in national party politics.
How?
It's choosing the moral high ground over actually achieving your political ends. And the SCOTUS is an inherently political position. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
But...we need Supreme Court justices. That is the important element your argument is missing. The governments needs to function.And look how well your approach did!
It's not spite to refuse to confirm Gorsuch. It's just a recognition that the norms of governing have changed. Last year the GOP made clear that the new standard is that a president without 60 Senators cannot appoint Supreme Court Justices. Lindsay Graham said yesterday that he believes Democrats would have done the same thing, so it's clear they'll expect this behavior regardless of what Dems actually do, and no reason to expect that caving in will somehow lure Republicans back to the path of good behavior.
There is no benefit to playing Weekend at Bernie's with Senate comity. Wake up to the world we live in. The GOP is a fifth column for foreign agitators and white supremacists. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and the American people deserve to be represented fearlessly instead of fecklessly.
Voting against someone simply because they were nominated by Trump is simply not good enough a reason.
But...we need Supreme Court justices.
wapo said:LOVELAND, Colo. Speaking to reporters after a campaign rally for a Republican U.S. Senate candidate here, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said that there was precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election.
You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue, said Cruz, when he was asked whether a Republican-controlled Senate should hold votes on a President Hillary Clintons nominees. There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. Thats a debate that we are going to have.
Eh.
soundahfekz
Member
Dems better not fucking budge. Republicans need to understand that this will not be tolerated. You think they won't pull this shot again even if Gorsich gets through? Get fucking real
TheExecutive
Member
Why is that?Safe to assume his position on anything is squarely on his knees in front of the current "president".
No, we can't. That's ridiculously naive.That's ludicrous. The seat was stolen as was the election and now a criminal who's colluding with a foreign power to undermine our democracy wants to fill it. Nope. The country was able to function without a full court for the last year. We can wait until T****p is gone to fill offices.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Yes we can, and your absurd appeal to authority isn't helping your argument.No, we can't. That's ridiculously naive.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
But...we need Supreme Court justices. That is the important element your argument is missing. The governments needs to function.
Voting against someone simply because they were nominated by Trump is simply not good enough a reason.
We somehow managed for an entire year while the Republicans blocked Garland, I think we'll be okay for a little while longer.
Why would I care what Ted Cruz had to say?
No, we can't. I was in DC. This country suffered from the lack of positions filled under Obama because of Republican obstruction.Yes we can, and your absurd appeal to authority isn't helping your argument.
TheExecutive
Member
I wouldn't bother.No, we can't. That's ridiculously naive.
Why would I care what Ted Cruz had to say?
As I understand it, he's still a card-carrying member of the Republican Party.
If the GOP doesn't believe we ever need a ninth justice then I think we should just go ahead and give that a shot. If there's a problem with ties, maybe Justice Thomas can retire.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
Dems better not fucking budge. Republicans need to understand that this will not be tolerated. You think they won't pull this shot again even if Gorsich gets through? Get fucking real
If they dont, the filibuster gets nuked, Trump gets his pick, and you best pray to whatever god you belive in that Ginsburg doesn't faceplant into her soup because then the court will really be leaned to the right and there won't be a damn thing the democrats can do about it for probably another what, 20 years at best?
Pick your fights, this one isn't worth wasting what little political capital they have on. They can't win, and they run the risk of losing even more down the line.
I don't care what the GOP thinks. I care about the proper function of the nation.As I understand it, he's still a card-carrying member of the Republican Party.
If the GOP doesn't believe we ever need a ninth justice then I think we should just go ahead and give that a shot. If there's a problem with ties, maybe Justice Thomas can retire.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Yes we can. I don't care if you were in the Oval Office. Your DC "experience" isn't relevant to this conversation.No, we can't. I was in DC. This country suffered from the lack of positions filled under Obama because of Republican obstruction.
No, we can't. I was in DC. This country suffered from the lack of positions filled under Obama because of Republican obstruction.
That obstruction happened because the GOP had given up any pretense of being a legitimate goverrning party.
Now they're in charge. Why do you want to give them the Sudetenland, exactly?
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
I don't care what the GOP thinks. I care about the proper function of the nation.
Then you'd probably not want the GOP to exist altogether, because they've done everything they can to disrupt the operation of the country and the well-being of its citizens.
I don't care what the GOP thinks. I care about the proper function of the nation.
How is only one party being allowed to nominate SC justices the proper function of the nation?
Based on what? Why don't you think government positions need to be filled?Yes we can. I don't care if you were in the Oval Office. Your DC "experience" isn't relevant to this conversation.
What's the point of the filibuster still existing if you don't use it?If they dont, the filibuster gets nuked, Trump gets his pick, and you best pray to whatever god you belive in that Ginsburg doesn't faceplant into her soup because then the court will really be leaned to the right and there won't be a damn thing the democrats can do about it for probably another what, 20 years at best?
Pick your fights, this one isn't worth wasting what little political capital they have on. They can't win, and they run the risk of losing even more down the line.
America is fighting a civil war for its soul, and you want one side to unilaterally disarm.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
We've gone a full year without this seat filled and the country hasn't imploded. Why is it so critical that we get a ghoul in that seat just so it isn't empty?Based on what? Why don't you think government positions need to be filled?
Well, that's a ridiculous thing to say, and really not worth responding to.That obstruction happened because the GOP had given up any pretense of being a legitimate goverrning party.
Now they're in charge. Why do you want to give them the Sudetenland, exactly?
Nope. But I do not want us to be lowered to their level. Someone needs to mind the shop.How is only one party being allowed to nominate SC justices the proper function of the nation?
Mercury Fred
Banned
Why don't you demonstrate in detail why it's so urgent, specifically why filling that SC seat now is so urgent.Based on what? Why don't you think government positions need to be filled?
Because another justice could die. And even if not, the court needs a 9th member to function properly. We have had too many ties.Why don't you demonstrate in detail why it's so urgent, specifically why filling That SC seat now is so urgent.
Mercury Fred
Banned
And?Because another justice could die.
Because another justice could die.
Great! That will make ties less likely.
Then hopefully all but one die and we could make this whole government thing real easy. Ugh.Great! That will make ties less likely.
TheExecutive
Member
True. In any case, the Republicans actions will have long term repercussions on the political climate. Nuclear options work both ways.Are we suddenly forgetting that the GOP was fully prepared to block ANY justices had HRC won? Norms aren't norms if only one side feels like that they're obligated to follow them.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Well, that's a ridiculous thing to say, and really not worth responding to.Then hopefully all but one die and we could make this whole government thing real easy. Ugh.
OK.Well, that's a ridiculous thing to say, and really not worth responding to.
Then hopefully all but one die and we could make this whole government thing real easy. Ugh.
Hey, man, I understand that you spent a decade going along to get along, but the Republicans have made it clear that they view me as an illegitimate outsider in the country I was born in. I'm not going to cosign your desire to work together with them to persecute minorities more efficiently than they currently do. Things have changed.
Your frustration should be with the people who put these norms of non-governance into place (the Republicans) and with the people who allowed them to become normalized (Obama and Reid), not with those of us who can see straight.
TheExecutive
Member
Actually the numbers would work better.Because another justice could die. And even if not, the court needs a 9th member to function properly. We have had too many ties.
Making numbers adjustments to the supreme court is straight up bad for democracy. Idealistic or not, a lot of these offices need to be filled and the transition needs to be relatively peaceful even if it's done begrudgingly.Great! That will make ties less likely.
Making numbers adjustments to the supreme court is straight up bad for democracy. Idealistic or not, a lot of these offices need to be filled and the transition needs to be relatively peaceful even if it's done begrudgingly.
That's another excellent argument for confirming Merrick Garland immediately.
Gorsuch can have the next seat.
Until Garland is seated, nobody should be seated.
And if a nominee express a desire to persecute minorities, that's a good reason to stand against him.Hey, man, I understand that you spent a decade going along to get along, but the Republicans have made it clear that they view me as an illegitimate outsider in the country I was born in. I'm not going to cosign your desire to work together with them to persecute minorities more efficiently than they currently do. Things have changed.
Your frustration should be with the people who put these norms of non-governance into place (the Republicans) and with the people who allowed them to become normalized (Obama and Reid), not with those of us who can see straight.
But "because he's nominated" isn't enough. Not even the Republicans were that bad for most of Obama's administration.
Mercury Fred
Banned
In this case, not at all. This is an illegitimate presidency under federal investigation for collusion with perhaps our greatest enemy. Filling vacancies needs to grind to a halt until it's sorted out.Making numbers adjustments to the supreme court is straight up bad for democracy. Idealistic or not, a lot of these offices need to be filled and the transition needs to be relatively peaceful even if it's done begrudgingly.
And if a nominee express a desire to persecute minorities, that's a good reason to stand against him.
But "because he's nominated" isn't enough. Not even the Republicans were that bad for most of Obama's administration.
The fact that you have to qualify that sentence with "for most of Obama's administration" really tells the tale here.
Unfortunately, until that collusion is proven, this Presidency is not illegitimate.In this case, not at all. This is an illegitimate presidency under federal investigation for collusion with perhaps our greatest enemy. Filling vacancies needs to grind to a halt until it's sorted out.
And if a nominee express a desire to persecute minorities, that's a good reason to stand against him.
But "because he's nominated" isn't enough. Not even the Republicans were that bad for most of Obama's administration.
Republicans broke the normal proceedings of Supreme Court nominations with Garland. It doesn't matter how they were with Obama's earlier nominees.
Not really. The way the GOP acted was awful, but we still got 2 SC justices, cabinet heads, lower court judges (not enough), etc.The fact that you have to qualify that sentence with "for most of Obama's administration" really tells the tale here.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.