President Trump nominates supreme court justice

[ruby59]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/31/president-trump-nominates-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states/21704505/

 

[ruby59]

Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.

Really??...

 

[ruby59]

Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.

Really??...

Apparently the protesters had two sets of signs protesting the pick - either pick.

 

[VRBeauty]

Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.

But... but... but... Groundhog Day is still two days away!

 

[AnnaH]

Yeees!

 

[ruby59]

"Payback" seems to be a common theme from the dems being interviewed.

 

[monarch64]

The only fault I can find with him so far is his stance on euthanasia (he's anti.) I had an acquaintance who wrote extensively about her terminal cancer and her wish to be able to speed up the dying process instead of having to suffer through it or medicate while she starved to death because her belly was full of tumors and she couldn't eat anything except Boost shakes. I just feel like humans should have rights over their own bodies and for the government to intervene seems cruel. Her loved ones were on board with the idea. She was a peaceful person who simply wanted a peaceful passing.

I'm not sitting here wishing negativity on him or anything, though. My personal bias doesn't have much to do with judgments he will make. I understand some think that his stance on euthanasia could point to the same as far as abortion, but he's never opined (is that the term? I can't remember) on that so we can't say for sure.

 

[E B]

As far as I've heard, he's a competent and intelligent judge, but a chart I saw put him past Scalia, even, on an ideological spectrum. Garland was a centrist- a good compromise. Trump went as conservative as possible.

Keep in mind, it isn't "payback" as much as it's lingering anger that this seat was essentially stolen. Obama had *every* right to nominate and have his choice considered, but Rs obstructed because they wanted "the people" to decide. Well, the people HAD decided on Obama TWICE, and Hillary this time around. That said, anyone with a better memory than a goldfish remembers this and sees the whining over "unprecedented Dem obstruction" as about as disingenuous as it gets.

 

[E B]

An interesting quote:

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said on WPHT Philadelphia radio in an interview first flagged by CNN. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority.”

 

[Maria D]

Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.

Whooooaaaaaa wait a minute.

It wasn't that Obama's pick wasn't confirmed.

It was that Republicans refused to even CONSIDER the president's pick. POTUS has the constitutional duty to nominate SC justices, with the job of the Senate to advise and consent. The Republicans REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB.

Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

I am not arguing that the Dems should now pull the same crap the Republicans did, and I don't think they will.

ruby59, it's obviously very important to you to have a biased view of the political climate; carry on.

 

[lovedogs]

As far as I've heard, he's a competent and intelligent judge, but a chart I saw put him past Scalia, even, on an ideological spectrum. Garland was a centrist- a good compromise. Trump went as conservative as possible.

Keep in mind, it isn't "payback" as much as it's lingering anger that this seat was essentially stolen. Obama had *every* right to nominate and have his choice considered, but Rs obstructed because they wanted "the people" to decide. Well, the people HAD decided on Obama TWICE, and Hillary this time around. That said, anyone with a better memory than a goldfish remembers this and sees the whining over "unprecedented Dem obstruction" as about as disingenuous as it gets.

I've read the same. I did a good amount of reading on him today, and my issue with him is that he's sided with corporations over women's rights in terms of birth control access (Hobby Lobby, etc). BUT, I've also read that he's very smart, and will be fair rather than letting his own ideologies get in the way of fair judgement. So I think as far as what Chump could have done, this is an ok choice (and an expected one given that he's trying to fill Scalia's seat).

My biggest problem is that somehow R's think that the Dems HAVE to accept this nomination, but somehow what R's did to Garland was ok. That's total BS, and very hypocritical. So I think that Garland should have been considered, but that doesn't automatically make me hate this nominee.

 

[E B]

Exactly, MariaD.

Don't think for a second Republicans wouldn't do the exact same thing if Hillary were president. More obnoxiously, I'm sure, since there are several Dems already calling to have Gorsuch considered. Merrick Garland was treated pretty appallingly.

 

[lovedogs]

Exactly, MariaD.

Don't think for a second Republicans wouldn't do the exact same thing if Hillary were president. More obnoxiously, I'm sure, since there are several Dems already calling to have Gorsuch considered. Merrick Garland was treated pretty appallingly.

Right, because there are many Dems who want to "do the right thing" rather than play the payback game. That said, there are some legitimate complaints from the left about this nominee. And Garland was excellent, so his treatment was/still is disgusting and shouldn't be ignored or forgotten.

 

[Maria D]

My biggest problem is that somehow R's think that the Dems HAVE to accept this nomination, but somehow what R's did to Garland was ok. That's total BS, and very hypocritical. So I think that Garland should have been considered, but that doesn't automatically make me hate this nominee.

As a group, modern day Republican legislators are hypocritical and fight dirty. They are not afraid of shutting everything down to get their way. This is what the majority of Americans have shown that they want. We can argue all day about Clinton getting the popular vote but Republicans have the house, the senate, and the majority of governorships.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but right now it's reality.

What amazes me is what sore winners the repubs can be!

 

[AnnaH]

President Obama appointed two justices without filibuster.

His cabinet appointments were approved much quicker than Trump's.

 

[bunnycat]

Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.

Whooooaaaaaa wait a minute.

It wasn't that Obama's pick wasn't confirmed.

It was that Republicans refused to even CONSIDER the president's pick. POTUS has the constitutional duty to nominate SC justices, with the job of the Senate to advise and consent. The Republicans REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB.

Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

I am not arguing that the Dems should now pull the same crap the Republicans did, and I don't think they will.

ruby59, it's obviously very important to you to have a biased view of the political climate; carry on.

This is entirely true. McConnell was the one in charge of scheduling confirmation hearings, and he refused to schedule them. So the guy never even got a hearing to even be voted down....but I'm sure as usual people didn't read the facts and assumed and will continue to say "la la la, I can't hear you la la la" because it certainly makes better drama than to actually read and listen....

 

[Calliecake]

President Obama appointed two justices without filibuster.

His cabinet appointments were approved much quicker than Trump's.

And you don't think that may have anything to do with the people Trump has chosen for his cabinet? Bannon, DeVos...why on earth would anyone question his picks?

 

[AGBF]

Obama was denied a Supreme Court Justice that was legally his. That is an enormous issue. I wouldn't let Gorsuch take Garland's seat without a BITTER fight. Not when I know how he's going to rule. He got Garland's/Scalia's seat unfairly. So if I were in The Senate I'd throw everything I can at him to stop his confirmation. Which may not be much from what I have read about the filibuster and its future if it is used now. But given public opinion on Trump, I'd play it all out in the Court of Public Opinion anyway.

AGBF

 

[Tekate]

Wow, watching MSNBC. They cannot say anything bad about this pick, but will oppose it because they cannot get over Obama's pick not being confirmed.

Well that is a difference in not being confirmed and not being considered. Being obstructed. Republicans should be ashamed, and will go down in history as being obstructionists and basically evil.

 

[Tekate]

President Obama appointed two justices without filibuster.

His cabinet appointments were approved much quicker than Trump's.

wonder why? I'd say because HIS picks were much more centrist. We have a country that is totally right or left, next election Trump will be out and many republicans, it's the way it goes.

What do you say about Obama's pick, he was not even considered, that was wrong.

 

[Tekate]

"Payback" seems to be a common theme from the dems being interviewed.

Do you think that the republicans were honest, fair and professional in not considering Judge Garland? who by the way is quite middle of the road, not a liberal (since Obama tried to be fair, so much for that). What if the democrats did what the republicans did? would you not be shocked and dismayed and pissed off?

 

[AnnaH]

On Garland, Republicans had the power and the legal right to block Garland, so they did. It was a gamble.
Unlike Obama's previous appointments, Garland isn't seemingly far left. President Obama wanted a last pick and thought Garland would be more acceptable to Republicans. We don't really know what kind of justice Garland would have been. Some Republican picks on the court haven't proved to be such originalists.
Given HRC was highly expected to win, I don't know why Republicans gambled but glad they did.

 

[bunnycat]

On Garland, Republicans had the power and the legal right to block Garland, so they did. It was a gamble.
Unlike Obama's previous appointments, Garland isn't seemingly far left. President Obama wanted a last pick and thought Garland would be more acceptable to Republicans. We don't really know what kind of justice Garland would have been. Some Republican picks on the court haven't proved to be such originalists.
Given HRC was highly expected to win, I don't know why Republicans gambled but glad they did.

They had the legal right to refuse to grant a hearing??? The did have the legal right to vote him down, but they didn't even grant a hearing.....I'd say they took advantage of ambiguous wording in the Constitution. I'd refer to that as opportunism myself.

 

[partgypsy]

On Garland, Republicans had the power and the legal right to block Garland, so they did. It was a gamble.
Unlike Obama's previous appointments, Garland isn't seemingly far left. President Obama wanted a last pick and thought Garland would be more acceptable to Republicans. We don't really know what kind of justice Garland would have been. Some Republican picks on the court haven't proved to be such originalists.
Given HRC was highly expected to win, I don't know why Republicans gambled but glad they did.

As lovedogs also said, no they did not have the power and right to prevent Obama from selecting a supreme court justice. What is required by the constitution is that the president selects a nominee, and the congress reviews and approves it. McConnell refused to schedule any hearings, obstructing the process, and quite unprecedented. But carry on.

Edited to add; I guess we can argue about the constitionality of it, but it is true that it was unprecedented how the republicans obstructed and delayed Obamas picks, leaving many empty seats. The supreme court nominee was the most egregious example of it. It has gotten to the point that government can barely function.

 

[AnnaH]

How did Republicans break the law in blocking Garland? I don't know, so I'm asking. Both sides push the envelope. It's really disingenuous to pretend that only Republicans do this.
Again, President Obama's first two justice appointments weren't filibustered, and his cabinet picks were much more quickly accepted. Of course, liberals disapprove of the Trump picks, just as Republicans disapproved of Obama picks.
Both sides push their agendas. Both sides resist. Nothing new.

 

[partgypsy]

The reason that Mitch McConnell gave, is that it was an election year. History and precedent show this is not correct.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?_r=0

 

[AnnaH]

Has there been a Justice appointment as late in a presidency as the Garland one would have been? I don't think so, at least in modern times. If not, there is no precedence.

 

[AnnaH]

The reason that Mitch McConnell gave, is that it was an election year. History and precedent show this is not correct.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?_r=0

Our posts crossed. I will read yout article.

 

[partgypsy]

The reason that Mitch McConnell gave, is that it was an election year. History and precedent show this is not correct.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html?_r=0

Our posts crossed. I will read yout article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0214/SCOTUS-nominations-in-election-years-What-does-history-tell-us

"On average, Including election and non-election years, it has taken Supreme Court nominees 67 days, on average, between formal nomination and Senate confirmation since 1975."

One of the most recent was Ronald Reagan's pick of Kennedy was confirmed 97-0 in February 1988, after being nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1987. Reagan left office in January 1989. However it should be noted that his previous pick Robert Bork was not approved, in part because of concerns of quid pro quo. "In his posthumously published memoirs, Bork stated that following the firings, Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court. Nixon was unable to carry out the promise after resigning in the wake of the Watergate scandal, but eventually, in 1987, Ronald Reagan nominated Bork for the Supreme Court."

Here is more information, from a NYT article:
"Since 1900, the Senate has voted on eight Supreme Court nominees during an election year. Six were confirmed. But several of those were for seats that had become vacant in the previous year.

The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term."