I'd totally support the next democrat adding a seat and using the Garland debacle as a rationale.
-
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.
Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
I'd totally support the next democrat adding a seat and using the Garland debacle as a rationale.
rokkerkory
Member
I don't really know the history of this man but will reserve judgement until later.
So far he sounds kinda meh or just OK
So far he sounds kinda meh or just OK
This is what we'll hear for battle, after battle, after battle. It's not just the SC nominee either. "They'll be other battles to fight. Don't let the conservatives paint us as obstructionists, etc." This is why the Dems lose EVERY F'ING time.
Vinsanity.
Member
EDIT: post history being stalked
He is? I thought I saw someone say that he doesn't go after LGBT issues that much. Huge bummer for me. I think any of his picks are going to be anti-gay though, considering Pence probably came up with half the list. Our lives are a constant struggle...
And this is why I spent election night vomiting on the floor and sobbing.
I'm actually quite serious about that
Please. The average American doesn't follow this... They'll have no idea.
uncredited male
Member
In addition to the three mentioned, Clarence Thomas has been rumored to be thinking of stepping down for a while now.
This really isn't an option anymore. The longer Democrats wait to "fight" the more political capital they lose.
Congress and the Senate, as others have mentioned, is results driven right now. If a filibuster will get results, the Congress or Senate (or both) need to filibuster.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
You really don't a have clue what you're talking about, this pick would have been made by ANY republican that became president. This isn't some extreme out of wack decision
RPGCrazied
Member
Religious freedom, that is all you need to know about that. And if they wanted they now can overturn gay marriage since they have more conservatives on the court?
that was back when people cared about propriety though
Yup, packing will be the only way to fix the Trump court if he gets more picks than this.
Not sure if it was posted already, but the vox article on Gorsuch goes into great neutral detail on him and his judicial history:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14450024/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
a few highlights:
"Gorsuch is a widely acclaimed jurist, a favorite of conservatives and libertarians but also very respected by liberal colleagues."
"Like Scalia, he has shown a willingness to occasionally side with defendants on criminal law matters"
"Gorsuch argues for the position that "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." He insists this is a secular principle that one need not be religious to embrace. It's not hard to infer what this implies for Gorsuch's attitudes on abortion, despite his never stating clearly his views on Roe v. Wade and the like in the book."
"Gorsuch takes a very broad view of religious freedom, and in two separate cases (one of which was the famous Hobby Lobby case) backed religious challenges to the Affordable Care Act. "
"In a trio of cases, Gorsuch has argued for the constitutionality of religious expression in public spaces, including in cases where only one religious tradition is represented "
"Like Scalia, he has shown a willingness to occasionally side with defendants on criminal law matters."
"The biggest difference between Gorsuch and Scalia is on matters of administrative law. Gorsuch has suggested that he thinks Chevron v. NRDC, a foundational decision that gives regulatory agencies broad deference in determining rules, was wrongly decided. That could give plaintiffs whether theyre businesses wanting laxer rules or advocacy groups wanting tougher ones more say in the rulemaking process."
"But more than his individual decisions, what sets Gorsuch apart from other Supreme Court hopefuls is the high intellectual esteem in which hes held by fellow judges and legal academics. That raises hopes among conservatives that whatever his jurisprudential overlap with Scalia, he would bring the same literary flair and intellectual firepower to the Court that Scalias admirers believe he did."
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14450024/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
a few highlights:
"Gorsuch is a widely acclaimed jurist, a favorite of conservatives and libertarians but also very respected by liberal colleagues."
"Like Scalia, he has shown a willingness to occasionally side with defendants on criminal law matters"
"Gorsuch argues for the position that "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." He insists this is a secular principle that one need not be religious to embrace. It's not hard to infer what this implies for Gorsuch's attitudes on abortion, despite his never stating clearly his views on Roe v. Wade and the like in the book."
"Gorsuch takes a very broad view of religious freedom, and in two separate cases (one of which was the famous Hobby Lobby case) backed religious challenges to the Affordable Care Act. "
"In a trio of cases, Gorsuch has argued for the constitutionality of religious expression in public spaces, including in cases where only one religious tradition is represented "
"Like Scalia, he has shown a willingness to occasionally side with defendants on criminal law matters."
"The biggest difference between Gorsuch and Scalia is on matters of administrative law. Gorsuch has suggested that he thinks Chevron v. NRDC, a foundational decision that gives regulatory agencies broad deference in determining rules, was wrongly decided. That could give plaintiffs whether theyre businesses wanting laxer rules or advocacy groups wanting tougher ones more say in the rulemaking process."
"But more than his individual decisions, what sets Gorsuch apart from other Supreme Court hopefuls is the high intellectual esteem in which hes held by fellow judges and legal academics. That raises hopes among conservatives that whatever his jurisprudential overlap with Scalia, he would bring the same literary flair and intellectual firepower to the Court that Scalias admirers believe he did."
I love how people think that this is some calculated maneuver... What?
If they don't nuke the filibuster now, they'll do it later. Make them put their cards on the table. Show a goddamn spine.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Not true. Establishment conservatives are thrilled with this choice. This is what would've happened had Kasich/Rubio/etc. won instead of Trump.
jellies_two
Member
this is someone who posted "Tim Cook believes in nothing. He'll say and do anything to advance the agenda of his company and his business community, which is the enslavement of the human race.". So, uh. hmm.
Mr. Blonde
Member
He's not. Don't believe everything RPGCrazied says.
Goro Majima
Kitty Genovese Member
I feel like the implications wouldn't be lost in the areas that are already protesting. Definitely not expecting Tulsa, Oklahoma to have riots but allowing Trump to get enough judges to get Roe vs Wade overturned? That would make me think we haven't seen anything yet in terms of civil unrest.
jellies_two
Member
It is true if President Bannon desperately needed to ensure the GOP didn't impeach his "imperfect vessel" before the long term plan was unstoppable. Bwahaha.
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
I sincerely don't believe that political capital exists anymore. I want to hear your theory on this, because I hope that you're right.
Let me say this again: a filibuster won't get results. Gorsuch will be confirmed, and he's not terrible. The only thing it might do is show that the Democratic party treats this like an existential fight worth fighting. Republicans have been in team sports mode for longer now.
I'm not happy right now. I won't be happy until (hopefully) 2020. But I'm not as nauseated as I could be. Trump could have, just as easily, appointed a literal fucking horse (or a far-right zealot) to the Supreme Court and had it confirmed.
As far as the Senate goes, the only check on Trump's picks is Trump himself.
Or, otherwise stated, the only check on Bannon is Donald Trump.
RPGCrazied
Member
No. Obergefell was passed w/ scalia on the bench. If Trump gets another SC pick, then possibly.
Respectfully disagree.
People will be up in arms after such a ruling is made... Not merely because Conservative justices were chosen.
LegendofJoe
Member
The GOP losing the Roe v. Wade feather in their cap would depress turnout of religious voters. That's the silver lining.
Ethical Hedonism
Banned
Just watched the announcement.
When they introduce him "Ladies and gentleman, the President of the United States" and then he enters... chills.
When they introduce him "Ladies and gentleman, the President of the United States" and then he enters... chills.
Bolivar687
Banned
Great credentials, love of the law outside of his docket, someone who can potentially fill Scalia's shoes as a legend in jurisprudence. I look forward to reading his opinions.
As far as a win for Trump, I'm just going off of the cable news spin, that this is one of the rare early moments where Trump actually looks Presidential, and this is what his base elected him to do. Delivering on promises like this in a presidential way is huge for his optics for a party that doesn't really like him all that much.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Can you just link were you pulled the graph from.
I'm simply talking about how absurd the graph is, not the data that might or might not reflect it.
modernlifeisANDY
Member
Lol what the hell
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
Did you see my post referencing the LGBT Nation article? Go read that if you haven't already. I'm not saying not to fight or not to be vigilant, mind you, but it might help things a little, maybe.
Will the Thrill
Banned
er no? Kennedy sided with gay marriage for 5-4 and that was with Scalia, this just brings us back to that
I heard something like this on TV earlier, and the issue comes from how courts and lawsuits work, as someone said "The issues and cases come to you, you don't choose what issues you work on." I don't remember exactly what it was, but I think it was something like we just don't have rulings from him as it applies to LGBT issues.
LiquidSword
Member
Yep and people that aren't following politics and the news basically don't give a shit. I tried to impress how crazy it was to some family that is liberal leaning but generally stay out of politics. They just don't really think it's important. When someone doesn't know how an important civics institution or precedent works, they basically just dismiss it as being important because well they didn't know about it before and it doesn't affect them in a direct way so they shrug.
Seth Enosh
Member
As that page notes 'The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[5] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency.'
Needless to say, there is no federal court that would find that enforcing the 13th and 14th amendments which abolish slavery isn't a compelling interest. Your religion would get no more protection under RFRA than Osama bin Laden's brand of Islam did.
For what it's worth I agree with Scalia that RFRA is a pretty questionable idea. It throws too much discretion into the hands of federal judges to decide what should get an exemption or not, the same problem that the SCOTUS free exercise clause jurisprudence pre-Scalia had. Nevertheless, right now it's the law of the land (except for the parts applying to state laws which the SCOTUS struck down as a power grab against states' rights).
Meh, Scalia was a scumbag the kind which makes me wish I bought into the heaven and hell thing.
I think people constantly forget what country this is
We voted trump. We voted down ballot republican. Half of us like these trump executive orders.
There would be the same unrest you see now. No more. No less. Most people won't even know anything happened until they are told they have to travel to California to have an abortion
If you want to define it as an existential fight, then that's fine as a matter of discourse. Regardless of definition, they need to have a fight and the more they roll over the less likely they are to be able to bring people to bat when they need them.
I disagree that political capital is gone because the systems of influence that build up political capital, including those who are heinous, is still very much in place and it is the reason the USA is currently living through an ideological crisis. In essence, it is political capital that is defining both of these groups (Democrats/Republicans), why they are so insular and why they are also so incapable of change outside of what they can force.
Fox Mulder
Member
Let them kill the fillibuster. Dems need to fight and get people fucking pissed to go vote in 2018.
Rolling over in hopes it will get goodwill or some shit from the GOP for next time will never work.
American Propaganda. This past election fucked our country.
LiquidSword
Member
Advocatus Diaboli
Member
I agree that rolling over depresses the base.
And I hope you're right re: political capital. The most dangerous thing about Trump isn't the conservative ideology, it's the lack of respect for institutional norms and the rule of law. I have no doubt that the likes of Ted Cruz would follow an order from a federal judge: he'd simply publicly disagree and work to stack the deck following standard processes.
I don't have the same confidence with Trump, at all.
I suppose the real question is: "How can Democrats (or maybe one or two sane Republicans on an issue-by-issue basis) achieve victory without eroding the rule of law entirely?" Trump, and some Republicans, are perfectly willing to thrash against long-settled norms as long as it means victory.
Not sure how you can say that- Political capital has meant nothing even for Trump. He has done whatever he wants his own party be damned.
And the Democrats? They have gotten *nothing* from them. Give them the same.
cpp_is_king
Member
I know people are saying he's crazy right and more right than Scalia, can anyone cite some court judgements or statements he's made that point to this? I can't really find much and I'm wondering what the basis of these claims are
It means Trump is full of bullshit and likes to claim he's the best at doing everything.
The democrats seem to have somehow still not learned how to use every tool at their disposal in the hope that the opposition returns the courtesy. Republicans don't give a shit about playing honest.
Because republicans in office care only about stripping people of their wealth, health, and education and transferring the "savings" to corporate America, and in doing so the handing it to the super wealthy. Then they tell everybody it's about tax cuts and efficiency. Bullshit.
The whole religious horseshit is just a strategy, they know most of those people who vote based on their religion are rubes. But they can't rally enough dumbfucks if they ran just on the first part. Combine the 2 pillars of the greedy, foolish, and or degenerate, and bam you've got the modern republican party.
If you're smart or informed enough to understand what their policies lead to then you have a moral defect.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked