I think it is unfortunate that the Senate Dems chose to filibuster a candidate who is within the judicial main stream. And I think it is unfortunate that the GOP Senators did not give Garland a hearing and a vote last year. I guess we keep getting the government we vote for... Oh well...
CNN Senate to Change Rules
MP Why Dems Should Take Stand Against Gorsuch
All Things SCOTUS
CNN Senate to Change Rules
MP Why Dems Should Take Stand Against Gorsuch
All Things SCOTUS
12 comments:
It's fascinating that the Democrats are seemingly always to blame when these sorts of things happen. Even though it's Republicans that are voting to make this change today.
I am sorry but I don't think there is anything so terrible about Gorsuch that ~8 Dems could not vote for him. This time it is on the Dems.
I really don't know how to get back to a point where the politicians represent their voters and the country instead of this voting in lock step with their party.
And yes I understand that both sides are guilty of it.
During the Obama Administration, Republican Senators engaged in unprecedented levels of judicial obstruction. They filibustered more judicial nominees from 2009-2013 than had been filibustered from 1949-2008, and then refused to even give Merrick Garland a hearing. But, yes, please tell me more about how Democrats are the ones busting the norms of the Senate.
Do 2 wrongs in some way make a right?
I agree that the behavior of the politicians in both parties is poor.
"Do 2 wrongs in some way make a right?"
When you start urging Republicans to give up their leverage, then come back to me with such questions.
Last year, you said you had "no problem" with Republican behavior regarding Garland.
Not again... Our discussion regarding Garland.
Here were my last 2 comments. I agree that getting a mix of justices is important... But I also said they should have hearings... So I am not I said "No Problem"...
"Sean,
I am fine with the Senate tossing him on his not supporting the 2nd amendment. Most voters like with me will be fine with it also. So I agree, let's schedule the hearing !!!"
"I mentioned that over at MP that it sure would nice to have a SCOTUS ruling where we did not know how 8 of the 9 Justices would rule... Imagine how powerful that Centrist Justice's ruling is?
1 or 2 humans gets to decide how ~320 million people will behave. That has to be a great rush or a great burden depending on the Justice's personality and attitudes.
In the case of LGBT marriage, that justice was able to over rule the view 100+ million people and dozens of states who were against it.
In the case of Citizens United that justice was able to change politics in America against the will of 100+ million people and I assume many States.
Yes I think is worth a big drawn out fight... "
So from my "keep it balanced" view, we lost Scalia... We should replace with someone a bit like Scalia.
Please remember that Garland would have tipped the balance somewhat to the Left.
Personally I liked the option proposed that the Dems should have convinced one of the gray haired Lib Justices to retire and negotiated to get Garland and Gorsuch both added to the court.
"Please remember that Garland would have tipped the balance somewhat to the Left."
That's how the system works. When Democrats win 4 of 6 Presidential elections, the courts should reflect that -- just as when Reagan nominated Rehnquist to replace Burger and when Bush nominated Thomas to replace Marshall. I assume, then, that you opposed those attempts to move the court to the right?
Back then I was more interested in when I could go out partying next... :-) Who the next Justice mattered even less to me back then than it does now...
Well it is official. Gorsuch is in...
Post a Comment