President To Announce Supreme Court Pick

[formerkywrestler]

From a practical standpoint I agree with you. I don't even completely hate the appointment. Aside from my own opinion that originalism is a total fraud as a legal principle, he's at least going to be thoughtful, professional, and serious, which was honestly more than I expected from this president's appointments. I've seen some of his work already and I think the court will be fine with him on the bench.

 

But the Republicans have been richly rewarded for obstinacy the last few years. I'm less confident that Democrats will be rewarded for pragmatism.

 

In the end, the worst thing that can happen is for just enough Democrats to support the nomination while the rest carry out a campaign of meager resistance. It would give the president a victory while making the Democrats look weak, divided, and petulant. Schumer's first big test as leader will be to ensure the party puts up a united front, whatever that front may be.

 

Here's the thing. I think President Trump actually did real well here. Had he nominated Judge Pryor I think the Democrats would be able to make a case based on qualifications/fitness/etc. But, by all accounts Judge Gorsuch is a fantastic nominee. Any protest will be looked at as petty. I acknowledge that's what the GOP has been for about 8 years now. But, the big problem here is...the Democrats hold so little cards. And the cards they have aren't the "trump cards".

 

I just don't see where putting up a big fight here furthers their cause at all. In fact, I could see it weakening it. The GOP will pounce on the Senators who are up for re-election in states won by Trump. They most certainly cannot afford to lose anymore seats in two years.

[LIPTON BASH]

Here's the thing. I think President Trump actually did real well here. Had he nominated Judge Pryor I think the Democrats would be able to make a case based on qualifications/fitness/etc. But, by all accounts Judge Gorsuch is a fantastic nominee. Any protest will be looked at as petty. I acknowledge that's what the GOP has been for about 8 years now. But, the big problem here is...the Democrats hold so little cards. And the cards they have aren't the "trump cards".

 

I just don't see where putting up a big fight here furthers their cause at all. In fact, I could see it weakening it. The GOP will pounce on the Senators who are up for re-election in states won by Trump. They most certainly cannot afford to lose anymore seats in two years.

 

Exactly where I'm at. The Republicans were without a doubt obstructioning when they could with Obama. But they also picked their battles . Obama got two Supreme court nominees through. Whether you agree or disagree with what the GOP did the previous 8 years it worked politically by choosing the right battles. This just isn't the battle.

[All Tell]

From a practical standpoint I agree with you. I don't even completely hate the appointment. Aside from my own opinion that originalism is a total fraud as a legal principle, he's at least going to be thoughtful, professional, and serious, which was honestly more than I expected from this president's appointments. I've seen some of his work already and I think the court will be fine with him on the bench.

 

But the Republicans have been richly rewarded for obstinacy the last few years. I'm less confident that Democrats will be rewarded for pragmatism.

 

In the end, the worst thing that can happen is for just enough Democrats to support the nomination while the rest carry out a campaign of meager resistance. It would give the president a victory while making the Democrats look weak, divided, and petulant. Schumer's first big test as leader will be to ensure the party puts up a united front, whatever that front may be.

 

Maybe, just maybe the Republicans were "richly rewarded" as you put it because a large percentage of America didn't like what the Dems were doing?

 

Want to talk about obstinate, how about the Dems pushing out a terrible candidate and actively sabotaging her primary opponent?

 

It's my opinion that the Dems have no one to blame but themselves for being in this position and it dates back to 2000 when they feel they were robbed of the presidency. They were openly hostile to GWB and blocked many of his picks to various courts. The Dems at that time called a Republican threat to eliminate the filibuster of judicial nominees a threat to Democracy. One of the most outspoken Dems was Senator Barack Obama. Forget the righteous indignation over Garland, Joe Biden flat out said that had a vacancy on the Supreme Court during GWB's final year wouldn't be filled and Chuck Schumer agreed. The Dems eliminated the filibuster when the tables were turned and promised to eliminate it for Supremes if as they planned Hillary had won and they had taken control of the Senate.

 

During his presidency Obama was less then willing to work with congress, he more then once boasted to Republicans that he and won and elections had consequences. ObamaCare was pushed through is a very backhanded manner. The list goes on.

 

Neither side is pure as the driven snow when regarding how we got to this place, but the Dems are certainly not blameless and absolutely not victims.

[rockmom]

Seems your political party in Wash DC disagrees. Maybe you should talk to them.

 

Independents are objecting? Even if "we" are, I highly doubt we cause much concern for anyone. That's right...I'm a registered Independent

[ggclfan]

What will really bother me on this appointment is if the Dems try to smear him PERSONALLY during the process just to make political points...like they did with Bork and Thomas. From all appearances, Gorsuch is very qualified and seems to be a very good man. The first thing I heard from Pelosi is that if "if you want to breathe air", etc., he is a bad choice...

 

Really, are we really going down that road of trying to personally ruin a man for political points?

 

I actually think if they do try to destroy him personally, it will backfire as most of the electorate will see through it and the mid terms will be here before you know it...I guess we will see.

[rockmom]

In the end, I don't think this is a battle to devote much energy to. It's a 4 year war...Pick battles that mean something. This one just doesn't, in my opinion.

[Hatz]

What will really bother me on this appointment is if the Dems try to smear him PERSONALLY during the process just to make political points...like they did with Bork and Thomas. From all appearances, Gorsuch is very qualified and seems to be a very good man. The first thing I heard from Pelosi is that if "if you want to breathe air", etc., he is a bad choice...

 

Really, are we really going down that road of trying to personally ruin a man for political points?

 

I actually think if they do try to destroy him personally, it will backfire as most of the electorate will see through it and the mid terms will be here before you know it...I guess we will see.

 

Bork hurt himself by being Nixon's hatchet man

[Habib]

This is one of my top issues when it comes to the Court.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-fourth-amendment.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

 

Although Judge Gorsuch has a decidedly conservative record on the bench, by at least one measure — his view of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches — he has been relatively moderate, according to legal scholars and a review of his rulings.

 

Orin S. Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who specializes in Fourth Amendment and technology issues, said Judge Gorsuch’s opinions suggested that he was “not a knee-jerk vote for the government.” That is important, Mr. Kerr said, because the Supreme Court has yet to resolve many questions about how the Fourth Amendment applies to 21st-century communications.

 

FWIW, this is an area Garland was thought to be more pro-government.

[formerkywrestler]

This is one of my top issues when it comes to the Court.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-fourth-amendment.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

 

Although Judge Gorsuch has a decidedly conservative record on the bench, by at least one measure — his view of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches — he has been relatively moderate, according to legal scholars and a review of his rulings.

 

Orin S. Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who specializes in Fourth Amendment and technology issues, said Judge Gorsuch’s opinions suggested that he was “not a knee-jerk vote for the government.” That is important, Mr. Kerr said, because the Supreme Court has yet to resolve many questions about how the Fourth Amendment applies to 21st-century communications.

 

FWIW, this is an area Garland was thought to be more pro-government.

 

That's really refreshing.

[Clyde]

Gorsuch said that POTUS continued attacks on the judicial system are abhorrent , demoralizing , and disheartening.

 

 

 

Gorsuch: Trump's Attacks on Courts Are 'Abhorrent' | 7