A Great Choice for Justice - Now Things Get Ugly
Senator Jeff Merkley, Oregon’s junior (do we even have to say Democrat?) senator, now has his task in hand: block Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Filibustering, sit-in’s in the senate. Whatever it takes, surely the hard left politician from Portland is up for the job.
Because with chief crocodile Chuck Schumer crying tears of anger at executive orders, the word is out. Democrats had better obstruct, obfuscate, and delay any single action that the Trump administration takes or attempts. Their increasingly radical base is screaming out demands that they do. And Jeff Merkley is already signaling to his colleagues that they had better fight Neil Gorsuch's nomination with any tactics necessary.
It is fitting that those who have followed Gorsuch's career describe the appeals court judge as a thoughtful and careful jurist, and a defender of religious liberty. But more importantly, a defender of precedent and history, and not forward-gazing judicial activism. The letter of the law, over the mystical suppositions of intent.
Senator Merkley is, on the other hand, all about activism and looking forward to the day America is a European-style socialist state. He was one of the first out of the box to back Sanders run for his party's nomination. And he cannot forgive the fact. along with the rest of the minority, that the GOP senators refused to take up Garland's nomination in the last months of Obama's presidency. How dare they obey precedent?
So what is minority leader Schumer to do? He has 10 Democrat colleagues up for re-election in 2018 in red states that strongly voted for Trump. They will be targeted by the GOP in an effort to bring their votes to bear in the event of a filibuster. And if they refuse, then there's the option of a simple majority vote. After the GOP re-writes the senate rules to kick open the door Harry Reid unlocked a few years ago.
But clearly what Schumer and his colleagues will do - whether they filibuster or not - is attack Gorsuch on abortion. Even if he does not have the same record, or unabashed bluntness, of a William Pryor. He will be subjected to Gestapo like questioning on theoreticals about how he would rule if a challenge to Roe V. Wade ever came before the Supreme Court. Over, and over again. Any little pause, any blustering soundbite, to be endlessly replayed by mainstream media.
And you can be sure that the opposition research files on Gorsuch are being frantically expanded in progressive think tanks and activistsÂ´ basement offices right this moment; even as we sleep and even as we wake up to the headlines on Wednesday.
President Trump has made a wise choice. Now things will get ugly, really ugly. For at least several months. But the battle to nominate Gorsuch will be worth it. How will President Trump react to the poison darts and manipulated facts? Only Twitter knows. So what? He has made a worthy choice that reflects well on his administration.
Posted by Keeley at February 1, 2017 11:26 PM
The dems would have used the nuclear option if one of Obamas nominees were filibustered. khaine even suggested as much if they were to take back the senate. I don’t see a scenario where the dems can stop his appointment, or any other for that matter as long as they are the minority party.
Lindsey laid out the situation perfectly just after the nomination ceremony:
1. Saying the seat was stolen means a Senator thought that a Republican was going to win the White House in the spring of 2016. That was not likely in anyone’s mind. In fact a persuasive argument was made at the time that taking Garland would be a better deal than a future Clinton pick.
2. Gorsuch will be confirmed. It’s just a matter of how it is done.
3. It will be sad if they have to go nuclear, but see No. 2 above. I don’t necessarily agree with Lindsey that it will be a bad thing as it might spur a better agreement on Senate rules than they have now.
Gorsuch will be filibustered for two reasons: 1) he takes extreme views on controversial issues; for example, he disagrees with assisted suicide, which is legal in Oregon. Gorsuch thinks the federal government should make that decision for you. If there is one thing I am sure of, it is that I do NOT want this guy getting involved in the most personal matters of life and death that a person goes through. He needs to just butt out. It is government interference of the worst kind, and 2) That seat should have gone to Obama’s nominee. The nominee was not given the Senate’s advice and consent, a constitutional requirement. That seat is being stolen. It is theft, pure and simple, and the GOP will NEVER hear the end of it.
My Senator, Merkley, will filibuster, and I do not think the Senate will do away with the filibuster unless a second seat opens. In that case, it might be worth it, but in the meantime, doing away with the filibuster diminishes the power of the Senators of both parties, and they will be reluctant to give it up.
Passing this nominee will delegitimize the Supreme Court.
As if Scalia wasn’t bad enough. That little troll was corrupt to the bone, taking free airline flights and vacations in exchange for rulings. Notice how no one will say anything about him? What a crappy guy.
phx8, You forget who controlled the Senate the last year of the Obama admin. Even if he was allowed a hearing doesn’t mean he would be even get to the Senate for conformation. If your Senator does filibuster and the nuc. option happens and a second seat, which is HIGHLY likely and even a third, goes into effect. Your side has to realize both Ginsberg and Kennedy may retire.
Extreme views on controversial issues? lol
Guarantee that thinking the federal government should make the decision whether or not to kill yourself, is nowhere as extreme or controversial as thinking the federal government should make the decision whether your young daughter should or should not shower with grown men.
You guys are a hoot.
As far as Gorsuch and filibuster, if the voters elected a representative to push for an anti-American European-style socialist state, than it is that representatives job to do so.
“Even if he was allowed a hearing doesn’t mean he would be even get to the Senate for conformation.”
Correct. However, the Senate had a constitutional duty to “advise and consent.” The Senate did not fulfill its mandated function. That was wrong. Perhaps they would have voted down the nominee. That’s fine. Everyone would understand that. But they refused to perform their duty, and that was as wrong as wrong can be.
“… an anti-American European-style socialist state…”
Meanwhile, keep pushing for that conservative authoritarian white supremacist state. Putin will thank you. Based on reality, I can not help but notice that our allies-Australia, Germany, the UK, and others- seem to offer a MUCH better alternative to the Trump/Putin form of government.
You do realize that the new Secretary of State was awarded the Order of Friendship by Putin, the highest honor the Russians can give to foreigner, right? Want to see pictures of Tillerson and Putin yukking it up? They are good buddies.
Sorry Phx8, but there is nothing “white supremacist” or “authoritarian” about our Representative Republic or its Constitution. And a judge like Gorsuch doesn’t appear to be much of threat either.
Based on reality? You have to resort to some ridiculous “conservative authoritarian white supremacist state” and Putin conspiracy theories, in order to defend your politics that were rejected by the voters. You are offering pictures with Putin the same way the far-right offered pictures of Obama bowing to muslim leaders, as proof of those crazy ideas.
But I am the one not living in reality? lol
I know you are just trying to set the stage for the next elections with all this nonsense, but attacking people who disagree with your politics with such hate and all the authoritarian and supremacist BS is not going get you their votes.
phx8 They did “Advise and consent”, They advised that they would not consent to any nominations in an election year.
There is nothing white supremacist about our Constitution? You sure?
Fun fact: Among the slave owning Founding Fathers, only Washington gave his slaves their freedom at his death. He did not have any children (although he looked after many for other relatives), so it was easier for him to do. Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founding Fathers from Virginia and points south specifically designed the Constitution to protect slavery, not only by describing blacks as property with 3/5 of a vote, but through the electoral college, and by ensuring militias could own guns in order to put down slave uprisings.
Women and Native Americans did not have any say; in fact, the majority of Americans were excluded from the Constitution.
Fortunately, liberals have been fighting for expanded rights ever since.
As for Gorsuch, some interesting writing by him is coming to light. Apparently he supported the Iran-Contra deal back in the day because, in his opinion, the executive could by definition not do anything illegal.
Hey, you’ll like this. You know how Trump and his people recorded the phone calls for transcripts of all those conversations with head of states, such as Australia, Germany, and others? That is routine. Guess what? They turned off the recorder for the one with Putin. No transcript.
Yes, RF. Notice how Clinton did NOT refer to Mexico as sending its criminals and rapists to the US? It is one things to call for border security. That is a legitimate debate. Personally, I favor more open borders, but there are certainly two sides to the issue. However, when the issue of border security becomes virulently racist and based in bigotry, xenophobia, and hatred, then that is another thing entirely.
That kind of hatred is what people like Trump and Congressman Steve King (R-IA) bring to the table, and those kind of people are utterly despicable.
I approve of President Clinton’s message regarding illegal immigration.
Way back then, in 1995, both Liberals and Conservatives could agree to enforcing our laws. Today, insisting that laws be enforced becomes an opportunity for the Left to begin the nauseous name-calling.
Frankly phx8, I don’t buy into your belief that President Bill Clinton was, or is “virulently racist and based in bigotry, xenophobia, and hatred…”
Saying it will get ugly, or is getting ugly, is pretty naive. It got ugly the moment that Mitch McConnell decided to keep a Supreme Court appointment for conservatives by denying Obama his right. You could have seen this coming if you simply asked, “okay, if I do this to the Democrats, what incentive do they have to cooperate with the appointment of the successor by a Republican President?”
The answer is absolutely nothing. Republicans showed they just don’t observe any rules about how to gain such appointments. They’re hoping to get away with it unscathed. Personally, I hope the Democrats in the Senate force you to burn down the filibuster in order to get what you want. If you want better than that outcome… well, you can stop playing Calvinball, stop stealing appointments that don’t belong to you.
I pointed exactly the same thing out on WB many times before the election. If the GOP won, why would the Democrats simply not fill the seat? Not one conservative ever answered that question.
And I am fine with burning down the filibuster. Go for it. See how that works out for conservatives.
Gorsuch will be confirmed with or without the lefts participation.
“And I am fine with burning down the filibuster. Go for it. See how that works out for conservatives.”
We can see how it’s working out for democrats already. Thanks to Harry Reid. Democrats would have seated Garland by changing the rules before the end of Obamas term, if they had won back the senate, and will do it immediately if the cards line up for them in future years. Republicans have no reason to play nice, nor should they.
“It got ugly the moment that Mitch McConnell decided to keep a Supreme Court appointment for conservatives by denying Obama his right.”
He did what he had to do to stop the court from tilting left. Get over it. Schumer would have done the exact same thing if given the chance. On another note the republicans could have filibustered both Sotomayor, and Kagen. They are both hard core leftists. But they didn’t. Democrats only preach harmony, and reaching across the aisle when they are in the minority. When they’re not, they do as they choose, because for them the end will always justify the means.
phx8 again in March 2016 Obama had just crossed the 50% approval threshold, Clinton had just locked up the Democratic nomination, the Senate was polling to swing Democrat, and the House was a stretch but still in reach.
Even you were fine with the blocking of Garland because he was too conservative:
The Republicans blocking Garland is actually a win for liberals, and I’m fine with it. I hope they keep it up. The court will remain 4-4, which is workable in the short term. HRC will probably win in November and the Democrats will most likely take the Senate. We can put up a better, more reliably liberal nomination next year.
Some have observed that Democrats cannot prevent Gorsuch from becoming confirmed if the GOP employs the nuclear option. Personally, I think that route is the best one for Democrats to take. In today’s polarized environment, the GOP has spent the last eight years playing Constitutional hardball. Niceties such as norms surrounding the employment of the filibuster went by the wayside long ago. Let the GOP own the entire mess we are in. If they want to burn things down, let them. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer will dutifully repair the damage in 2019.
Wishful thinking Warped, With the way Democrats are acting do you really think people will vote for your side?
Fun fact: It’s 2017.
Americans are absolutely fed up. Trump finds new ways to outrage them every day. Notice how many are pining for the days of Obama to return; it’s not a surprise he left office with a 60% approval rating. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval rating has already tanked after the briefest of honeymoons. Just wait until they see what Republicans are going to do with Obamacare. Anything that doesn’t renew and expand the program is going to cause hell for the GOP. All polling in 2017 indicates that the PPACA is supported by a plurality of Americans. Loss aversion is a powerful human motivator, as Democrats discovered 8 years ago.
Obamacare is a disaster for all but a handful who are getting subsidies.
“Just wait until they see what Republicans are going to do with Obamacare.”
I look forward to it. Being able to choose a plan with things I need, and competition across state lines will be great. The young will be able once again to buy a plan that just covers catastrophic, or not buy one at all if they choose.
Trump has been in there @ 2 weeks and you guys are already freaking out. He’s doing exactly what he said he’d do. That’s why he was elected.
“the PPACA is supported by a plurality of Americans”
No it isn’t. It is a piece of crap that is costing middle class americans a fortune. If you comply you are raped by the premiums, if not you are raped by the IRS. Time to end this socialist disaster.
Obamacare is a disaster for all but a handful who are getting subsidies.
Wrong! Should I give you anecdotes from many people I know who enjoy the benefits of PPACA or should I cite polling showing a plurality supporting the law?
No it isn’t.
Looks like you prefer to look at the polls! I will certainly oblige you:
Q44. From what you’ve heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the health care law that was enacted in 2010? IF APPROVE: Do you strongly approve or somewhat approve? IF DISAPPROVE: Do you somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove?
Total Approve = 48%
Total Disapprove = 47%
Q32. From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family are, in general, better
off, worse off or about the same since the major provisions of the health care
law have taken
Q33. Do you think other families in this country are better off since the major provisions of the health
care law have taken effect, or do you think that legislation has not helped anyone in the country?
Total Better Off: 22%
Total Other Families Better Off: 42%
Not helped any families: 30%
may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country’s health care system became law
in 2010. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or
generally oppose it?
Total Favor: 49%
Total Oppose: 47%
Funny thing is, everyone I know or have talked to complains about the premium increases. I’ve seen mine increase every year, and my deductibles as well. Now my co pays have gone up another 25%. Yeah, great law. Smfh
Several district attorneys said they were disappointed, because they were painted as “bad” in this matter, because they ask tough questions. “I think that a lot of blame is paid to district prosecutors.