Scotus

[Meenah]

I think he is a good choice (my limited knowledge) and I hope this doesn't turn into a circus.

[spotty_dog]

I find the reluctance of the Republican majority even to *consider* this nominee to be just…insane. It's their JOB. This is not a "lame duck" president. You don't get to completely brush aside the POTUS and suspend all executive function of the government for huge swaths of their time in office. This president is THE PRESIDENT, the one the American people voted into office in 2012. If they want to put up a stink, by considering and rejecting his appointees until they force him to choose someone adequately conservative, then fine, we can reap what we've sown in terms of having a Republican majority in the Congress. But if they're going to be petulant toddlers then for heaven's sake PLEASE let the American people call them on it and vote them out. >.< Anyway I thought the Republican establishment pretty much disliked Clinton and Trump equally. How is it any better to have one of them make the next appointment (with hopefully more Dems in the Congress) than to have Obama do it while legitimately faced with a conservative Congress and having to make a compromise choice?

NB: I know little about politics and less about the law. But this just all seems SO STUPID.

[SoonerTexan]

I hope they do their job...he seems like someone everyone can be happy with. But I have to point it out--their hissy fit pretty much got them what I think they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrsK]

A friend of mine posted this on FB:

😂 I just heard da judge and da Ducey of Fox say that Obama made his Supreme Court nomination "just for political gain" and to "beat up on the Senate." They said he did it hoping that when the Republican Senate refuses to hold a hearing, it will cost some Rebublican senators their seats which will lead to a Democratic Senate and maybe a Democratic president who will nominate a more left-leaning Justice. (From your lips....) Their point? How dare Obama play politics against the principled Senate!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[MrsK]

Seems appropriate to bump this.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[GrayMatterWife]

First, to be clear, I was NOT impressed and NOT supportive of what the Republicans did to Garland. I think he should have gotten a vote. And I can't imagine a legitimate reason that he could not have been confirmed (the fact that he may DISAGREE with your political views is NOT a valid reason. One can be an excellent jurist and serve the Constitution well and NOT happen to interpret the law and the Constitution as you would prefer. A truth that is intellectually lost upon or deliberately ignored by all these people who politicize the confirmation process.)

That being said: there is a big difference between the stunt that the Republicans pulled on Garland and the crap the Dems are slinging at Gorsuch. The Senate Republicans (at least none that I saw) did not disparage Garland's judicial acumen. No one denied that HE was qualified. No one claimed that he was not confirmable. Likely because they couldn't, if they were going to have a shred of intellectual honesty. But some (not all) of the Senate and House Dems, however, are calling Gorsuch unqualified and are making up unproven (and unchallenged--by the media) claims. Nancy Pelosi just looked insane last night on CNN, claiming that Gorsuch was against water, good, and medicine. The notion that Gorsuch is not qualified is nuts and just factually wrong. It is actually hard to imagine a person more qualified, looking at his educational and training pedigree. He is deeply respected by his brethren on the bench (we, in the 8th Circuit, were definitely familiar with his work) and even the (often very liberal) ABA has given him an unqualified recommendation as a jurist.

The Dems may not like his judicial philosophy and reasoning, but that does not make him unqualified. It makes him undesirable for the political purposes of the Dems. Undesirable does not mean unqualified.

Again, before anyone starts flaming or suggests I am making this argument for political purposes (since I am generally a conservative): I made the EXACT same argument with Garland. There was no question that he was qualified, which I believe is the real question for confirmation.

[MrsK]

First, to be clear, I was NOT impressed and NOT supportive of what the Republicans did to Garland. I think he should have gotten a vote. And I can't imagine a legitimate reason that he could not have been confirmed (the fact that he may DISAGREE with your political views is NOT a valid reason. One can be an excellent jurist and serve the Constitution well and NOT happen to interpret the law and the Constitution as you would prefer. A truth that is intellectually lost upon or deliberately ignored by all these people who politicize the confirmation process.)

That being said: there is a big difference between the stunt that the Republicans pulled on Garland and the crap the Dems are slinging at Gorsuch. The Senate Republicans (at least none that I saw) did not disparage Garland's judicial acumen. No one denied that HE was qualified. No one claimed that he was not confirmable. Likely because they couldn't, if they were going to have a shred of intellectual honesty. But some (not all) of the Senate and House Dems, however, are calling Gorsuch unqualified and are making up unproven (and unchallenged--by the media) claims. Nancy Pelosi just looked insane last night on CNN, claiming that Gorsuch was against water, good, and medicine. The notion that Gorsuch is not qualified is nuts and just factually wrong. It is actually hard to imagine a person more qualified, looking at his educational and training pedigree. He is deeply respected by his brethren on the bench (we, in the 8th Circuit, were definitely familiar with his work) and even the (often very liberal) ABA has given him an unqualified recommendation as a jurist.

The Dems may not like his judicial philosophy and reasoning, but that does not make him unqualified. It makes him undesirable for the political purposes of the Dems. Undesirable does not mean unqualified.

Again, before anyone starts flaming or suggests I am making this argument for political purposes (since I am generally a conservative): I made the EXACT same argument with Garland. There was no question that he was qualified, which I believe is the real question for confirmation.

I agree. 100%

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[SoonerTexan]

In general, attaching political affiliation to our judicial system really bothers me. I'm not old enough to know, but I feel like it wasn't always this way.

During the last election, I spent hours looking up the judges on my ballot and trying to make the "right" decision. It was impossible. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not familiar with their casework and decisions. The resources I had were paltry, at best. I tried to do my best and my ballot had judges from all "parties." It really drove home to me that the average voter really is completely unequipped to make judicial appointments and I now firmly believe they should be appointed and not voted on in a process that ties them to some arbitrary party.

So I kind of wonder if this is how it is playing out at the highest level :/