Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Merrick Garland

Merrick Garland
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2017, 09:11 PM
 
Please help me understand why Gorsuch should receive a hearing before Garland?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2017, 11:45 PM
 
He shouldn't.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2017, 11:50 PM
 
Because the GOP's gamble to break with tradition and common decency paid off — in the short term at least. McConnell might just have opened Pandora's box, and if he did, that'll poison the political process for a generation. After all, shouldn't you at the very least have a hearing for someone as qualified as Gorsuch?

I think upholding democratic traditions should be more important, though. Trying to block Gorsuch would give the Democrats a won battle, but IMHO you should opt for winning the war, and just to be clear, the war is upholding the Constitution in word and spirit.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 05:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
upholding the Constitution in word and spirit.
Wouldn't that mean insisting on Garland?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 10:04 AM
 
I think stonewalling a nominee for four years is an absurd proposition
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Because the GOP's gamble to break with tradition and common decency paid off — in the short term at least. McConnell might just have opened Pandora's box, and if he did, that'll poison the political process for a generation. After all, shouldn't you at the very least have a hearing for someone as qualified as Gorsuch?

I think upholding democratic traditions should be more important, though. Trying to block Gorsuch would give the Democrats a won battle, but IMHO you should opt for winning the war, and just to be clear, the war is upholding the Constitution in word and spirit.
That happened when Reid instated the "nuclear" option, Gorsuch will be confirmed.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 12:27 PM
 
It may be inevitable, but I think Dems have to use every delay possible to stand up for what's right, for their voters.

Mitch is a hypocrite.

This was interesting. See what the nominee has to say about Garland!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...7sM/story.html
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 01:47 PM
 
I suppose you should count yourselves lucky Trump didn't nominate Tomi Lahren on the basis she'd be there for 60+ years.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Wouldn't that mean insisting on Garland?
Look, I don't think what the GOP did to Garland is right, but you have to know when you lost.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That happened when Reid instated the "nuclear" option, Gorsuch will be confirmed.
Reid didn't invoke the "nuclear" option for Supreme Court nominees or legislation. Only Cabinet appointments and federal judges.

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees | WashingtonPost.com

The Dems could very well try to filibuster Gorsuch out of principle given the downright shameful behavior of the Senate GOP conference towards Garland. There was no constitutional justification of not even giving the man a hearing let alone an up or down vote. They did it for no other reason than because they could. It was a naked power grab that denied Obama a SCOTUS appointment that was constitutionally his to fill. So there is an argument to be made for exacting a "pound of flesh" from the GOP by sinking Trump's first nomination regardless of the merits. Just like a schoolyard bully will think twice before continuing to mess with you as soon as you "open up a can of whoop ass" on him ... so too would the GOP if they know in no uncertain terms that there will be "consequences and repercussions" if they pull some shenanigans like this in the future.

That being said, there are other considerations. The best case scenario for the Dems is that the Senate GOP foregoes their SCOTUS "wet dream" candidate and throws Gorsuch under the bus. And future Trump nominees would be someone acceptable to enough Dems to garner 60 votes. But the worst case scenario is that the Senate GOP invokes the "nuclear" option for SCOTUS nominees (as Trump has already publicly called for them to do if necessary) to enable their conference to jam through anyone Trump sends them. So the million dollar question is are the Senate Dems prepared to live in a "post-filibuster" world with a GOP majority? And conversely, is the Senate GOP prepared to create such an environment when they know that the day will eventually come when the Dems have the majority? A day that may come sooner rather than later if the intense backlash to Trump continues unabated?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 2, 2017 at 06:37 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Look, I don't think what the GOP did to Garland is right, but you have to know when you lost.
A snooker player will forfeit a frame they can still technically win if they are far enough behind in the frame. They don't tend to do so if its the final frame of the match.

Having a liberal majority on the Supreme Court would be a pretty decent check/balance against Trumps majority everywhere else no? Not to mention the conservatives have had the majority there for a long time and it would have been nice to try to overturn a few of their ridiculous pro-corporation rulings.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
A snooker player will forfeit a frame they can still technically win if they are far enough behind in the frame. They don't tend to do so if its the final frame of the match.
I completely understand where you are coming from, and if I come across as non-plussed by what the GOP did to Garland, you are taking my attitude the wrong way. Yes, the Republicans “won” by going against the spirit of the US Constitution, and I think it is better to accept that and carefully pick my next issue with the Trump Administration. Insisting on hearings of Garland is a waste of time and energy.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Having a liberal majority on the Supreme Court would be a pretty decent check/balance against Trumps majority everywhere else no? Not to mention the conservatives have had the majority there for a long time and it would have been nice to try to overturn a few of their ridiculous pro-corporation rulings.
Gorsuch is akin to all other recent Supreme Court nominees: he is well-educated and has plenty of experience. He was confirmed in his previous position with broad bi-partisan support. Of course, all of this applies also to Garland. Most of the support and opposition to Gorsuch is due to his stances on a select few political issues such as abortion and “religious freedom laws”. I understand the implications, and Gorsuch's stance on these issues certainly does not reflect my own. I also understand that if Clinton had become President, the GOP would stick to its promise of continuing its stance of simply not holding any confirmation hearings. But let's look at it in context: on Trump's list, I think he is one of the more liberal choices (as crazy as that sounds). Certainly, if Cruz were President we might have seen worse. And Trump did not nominate his lawyer like Bush 2 did.

If I were a Democrat, I'd probably choose my avenues of criticism very carefully, and I think I would prioritize lack of diversity along the different axes (not just skin color, but the lack of criminal defense attorneys on the court and the lack of non-Ivy League educated lawyers).

I think Democrats focus on the long game: How about an initiative that limits the terms of Supreme Court justices and also gives a mandatory retirement age? In Germany the term limit is one term of 12 years, and you need to retire when you turn 68 (although you continue to serve until a successor is named). This cuts down a lot on the drama, and gives the German Supreme Court more diversity.

I find it hard to believe that Americans don't complain that Supreme Court judges stay on until their late 70s and 80s — well past their prime. Don't get me wrong, I know 80-year olds who are sharp as a tack, but they have nowhere near the stamina they used to have in their 40s and 50s. And I have the impression that many judges simply don't want to retire because depending on the political landscape they would be replaced by “someone from the other side”. All of the bipartisan drama and angst in the US is partly due because, say, Gorsuch might spend the next 25, 30 years on the Court. Making terms shorter and more deterministic makes it easier. If phrased right, this could be something where they can come to an agreement with Republicans in the next 10, 15 years. Right now they won't be very eager to make such a deal, but what happens if the Democrats gain majorities in Congress?

A second observation is that this singular focus of Americans on the Supreme Court, and especially a few select, old topics such as abortion, makes people forget about everything else that is up for decision (e. g. privacy and “new” technology) and happens outside the court room. The Trump Administration's haphazard approach to foreign policy could really endanger the US for a generation. Its singular focus on Iran and China as “bad hombres” while forgetting about close allies such as Germany (strongest power in Europe) and Australia (member of the Five Eyes) and the awkward relationship to Russia will have far more significant implications on Americans than who will replace Scalia on the Supreme Court.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2017, 12:35 AM
 
A good article outlining the case for the Dems filibustering Gorsuch. It basically boils down to the following ..,

Simply put: The filibuster may be a precious parliamentary tool that protects our democracy from a tyranny of the majority. And we can argue over who is a fault for diminishing the filibuster in 2013—Republicans for abusing the rules or Democrats for changing the rules. But we can’t turn back the clock. We have to deal with the present. And if the present majority won’t let the minority use the filibuster, there’s no filibuster to save.
Democrats Should Not Fear the Nuclear Option - POLITICO Magazine

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2017, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Reid didn't invoke the "nuclear" option for Supreme Court nominees or legislation. Only Cabinet appointments and federal judges.
So? Tough titties. It's only on the table because of Reid and the Left's abuse of power in the first place.

A good article outlining the case for the Dems filibustering Gorsuch. It basically boils down to the following ..,
Indeed, they shouldn't fear it, there's no reason to fear the inevitable.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2017, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
A good article outlining the case for the Dems filibustering Gorsuch. It basically boils down to the following ..,



Democrats Should Not Fear the Nuclear Option - POLITICO Magazine

OAW
It's not a bad point. I don't think filibustering for four years is reasonable, let alone possible, but I doubt the GOP have the patience to wait out the Dems on this one.

Of course I'm sure in the aftermath we'll see some hypocritical spin.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,