Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 22 Mar 2017, 10:40 am

What has changed since Gorsuch was approved for the US Court of Appeals by unanimous vote? That vote included Sen. Schumer, Feinstein, Franken and Durbin.

Doesn't this just seem like political grandstanding? Why would the Dems have a problem with Gorsuch now?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Mar 2017, 3:04 pm

bbauska wrote:What has changed since Gorsuch was approved for the US Court of Appeals by unanimous vote? That vote included Sen. Schumer, Feinstein, Franken and Durbin.

Doesn't this just seem like political grandstanding? Why would the Dems have a problem with Gorsuch now?


Two things have happened: 1) Garland did not receive a vote; 2) Clinton lost to Trump.

The Democratic base wants blood. They are not going to be satiated by tough talk. They want Gorsuch's head on a pike.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 23 Mar 2017, 7:25 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
bbauska wrote:What has changed since Gorsuch was approved for the US Court of Appeals by unanimous vote? That vote included Sen. Schumer, Feinstein, Franken and Durbin.

Doesn't this just seem like political grandstanding? Why would the Dems have a problem with Gorsuch now?


Two things have happened: 1) Garland did not receive a vote; 2) Clinton lost to Trump.

The Democratic base wants blood. They are not going to be satiated by tough talk. They want Gorsuch's head on a pike.


I don't think they expect blood. They feel that they were cheated out of a perfectly legitimate supreme court pick and that it wasn't fair.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 9:11 am

Exactly. Fairness demands that every Democrat vote against Gorsuch as retaliation for refusal to consider Garland. That was absurd and there is no simply no good reason to accept whoever Trump nominates until that is corrected.

By the way, Gorsuch's dissent in Maddin v.Transam where he refuses to grant deference to the DOL's construction of a federal statute--said dissent by Gorsuch would have forced truckers stranded in freezing temperatures to opt between risking death or leaving their vehicle and face being fired-is appalling.
Last edited by freeman3 on 23 Mar 2017, 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 9:31 am

That was articulately stated and to why a person could not support Gorsuch. Great job?

Who is Garnett?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 9:45 am

Corrected. I'm not sure what you are arguing by using the question mark though, Brad. Not considering Garland subverted the nomination process, Brad. If Republicans want to put things right they will install Garland. If they don't then Democrats should treat Gorsuch the same way. I am not even sure why Democrats are attending the hearing.

Try to imagine what Republicans would do if Democrats refused to consider a Republican nominee for a year. It's laughable to think they would vote for a Democratic nominee under the next president.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 9:51 am

I agree that the Garland issue was a reach. I was worried that Mrs. Clinton would have selected a more liberal justice than Garland. I think I would have accepted Garland. I guess that was the risk of having a more liberal justice.

We are all surprised that Pres. Trump won. I know I am. That being said, the President is allowed to select the Justice, just like Pres. Obama should have been afforded the same nomination process.

As for the question mark, I was miss typed. It should have been a period.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 9:52 am

Does the "Tit-for tat" attitude from the Senate Dems make them look like a petulant child?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 23 Mar 2017, 10:16 am

bbauska wrote:Does the "Tit-for tat" attitude from the Senate Dems make them look like a petulant child?


Generally, people have to understand that there are consequences for actions, don't you agree?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 10:59 am

I agree that the Senate Republicans were acting petulant. Are you saying the Dems are acting petulant, but it is OK because the have a reason? Are they not acting petulant in your opinion?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 11:17 am

Given your penchant for saying that people should be treated the same under similar circumstances, it seems like you would agree that Gorsuch should be treated as the same as Garland, Brad. Or are Republicans allowed to operate under a different set of standards than Democrats? The Republicans without justification refused to consider Garland. Why would it be wrong for Democrats to not allow Republicans to benefit from their wrong actions?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 12:11 pm

I think that people should be treated the same for their actions. What Gorsuch is being treated for is what the the Senate Republicans did to Garland. I will not try to defend what they pols did. I was asking what Gorsuch did.

I think you have answered by saying he is being treated this way because of how Garland was treated. If this is the case, then we will never have another Supreme Court appointment confirmed again.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Mar 2017, 1:24 pm

You can't hit a person and then claim that hitting is wrong so they shouldn't hit back. The moral here is simple: The Republicans abused the nomination process by refusing to nominate Garland. Democrats are chumps if they even consider Gorsuch. The attempt to distinguish what the Republicans did and Gorsuch's nomination, as if Gorduch should not be punished is unavailing. Republicans refused to consider a nominee for political gain. The Democrats have every right--no, they have the obligation--to treat Gorsuch the same way.At this point qualified Supreme Court nominees that are qualified are just political pawns. It's the behavior of each party that matters, the precedent that was set. Acting as if the treatment of Gorsuch matters is the relevant inquiry is silly in this context. I mean, what would be the penalty for the Republicans if Democrats are supposed to not treat Gorsuch like Garland was treated because it's not fair to Gorsuch. Answer: no penalty at all. That should tell you that assessing this as being a retalitatory, vindictive thing is the wrong way to look at it. It's simple fairness with respect to the parties having their nominees properly considered. The Republicans established the rule and Democrats should follow it. The Democrats did not seek to sabotage the nomination process but they sure as heck should not let Republicans walk all over them in a forlorn attempt to save the nominating process. The Republicans opened the barnyard door--it's up to them to close it, not the Democrats.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Mar 2017, 2:24 pm

geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:Does the "Tit-for tat" attitude from the Senate Dems make them look like a petulant child?


Generally, people have to understand that there are consequences for actions, don't you agree?


The "action" was not taking an action.

And, there was plenty of "precedent" for what the GOP did--see the quotes from Biden et al.

I say let the Democrats act like children. The GOP will go nuclear and we'll get Gorsuch.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 23 Mar 2017, 4:55 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:Does the "Tit-for tat" attitude from the Senate Dems make them look like a petulant child?


Generally, people have to understand that there are consequences for actions, don't you agree?


The "action" was not taking an action.


A distinction without a difference when it comes to politics.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, there was plenty of "precedent" for what the GOP did--see the quotes from Biden et al.


Was there another Supreme Court Justice that was comparable? I was not aware.

For the record, it seems like Gorsuch is a good guy and a reasonable choice, but I completely understand the D's desire to show the R's that there has to be payback. And how is that position childish? One of the most important thing a parent does is teach their kids that there are consequences . . .