Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Well, Republicans, you got your 30 silver coins. Congrats.
Gorsuch It Is
- Thread starter BedellBrave
- Start date
striker42
Well-known member
She'd retire if she was physically unable to do the job. At least she's always said that. If she had a debilitating stroke or was diagnosed with dementia I think she'd retire.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I bet she said that while Obama was in office.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
I'm not sure what we're both saying is all that far apart. You seem to be saying let him breeze through, I"m saying take your time, go through all the hoops, then if he checks out, which seems very likely, then approve him. The thing I'm not advising is to just fold (like the Dems often do) like Superman on laundry day. Find that happy medium.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Rising in your esteem doesn't exactly put food on the table. Unless it would cause you to vote for a D over an R. Would it?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
1000X this.
57Brave
Well-known member
Merrick Garland
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Speaking of tactical, I am shocked that this worked for the Republicans. I thought blocking Garland was a huge mistake tactically and was sure it would just result in Hillary getting to appoint another justice even farther to the left. It's amazing that Donald freakin' Trump is what kept that from happening.
sturg33
I
So none? You just hate him bc the Rs picked him?
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Must be nice.
striker42
Well-known member
If Ginsburg had died in the last year of Bush's term, does anyone actually think that the Dems in control of the Senate would have let Bush get a third pick? I don't. I think they'd have pulled this exact same trick.
I agree that it's sad that we've come to this. That Supreme Court nominations have become such a political fight where every trick is fair game. However, I have to lay the blame at the feet of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch said something last night that I hope he believes and I wish more judges believed. He said that a judge that agrees with the results of every one of his decisions is likely a bad judge. This is because it's not the job of a judge to say what the law should be. It's the job of a judge to say what the law is.
A judge who rationally analyzes what the law demands will find that he doesn't always agree with the law. However, a good judge will not engage in legal acrobatics in an attempt to torture an interpretation into leading to a desired result. A good judge will follow the most rational interpretation of the law, not the one that leads them to the result they most want. There will of course be plenty of times where multiple interpretations can be equally valid but judges should be wary in those situations and constrain their decisions.
SCOTUS justices have for far too long let their decisions be shaped by their political leanings and not the law. The result has been a politicization of the branch intended to be insulated from politics. A justice's most important qualification should be their dedication to impartial application of the law but by clinging to political leanings the justices have made a candidate's ideology to be their most important qualification.
All of this leading to a situation where the parties pull every trick in the book has been inevitable. The Court has made their nominations a weapon and the parties of course were going to use it. So check your anger with the parties. They're just acting according to their nature. Turn your ire toward the justices who have made the Court a political creature. Ask yourself why you can't remember the last time one of the Court's four liberals broke rank on a major case. Ask why Kennedy and sometimes Roberts are the only justices people watch. That's the root of the problem.
I agree that it's sad that we've come to this. That Supreme Court nominations have become such a political fight where every trick is fair game. However, I have to lay the blame at the feet of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch said something last night that I hope he believes and I wish more judges believed. He said that a judge that agrees with the results of every one of his decisions is likely a bad judge. This is because it's not the job of a judge to say what the law should be. It's the job of a judge to say what the law is.
A judge who rationally analyzes what the law demands will find that he doesn't always agree with the law. However, a good judge will not engage in legal acrobatics in an attempt to torture an interpretation into leading to a desired result. A good judge will follow the most rational interpretation of the law, not the one that leads them to the result they most want. There will of course be plenty of times where multiple interpretations can be equally valid but judges should be wary in those situations and constrain their decisions.
SCOTUS justices have for far too long let their decisions be shaped by their political leanings and not the law. The result has been a politicization of the branch intended to be insulated from politics. A justice's most important qualification should be their dedication to impartial application of the law but by clinging to political leanings the justices have made a candidate's ideology to be their most important qualification.
All of this leading to a situation where the parties pull every trick in the book has been inevitable. The Court has made their nominations a weapon and the parties of course were going to use it. So check your anger with the parties. They're just acting according to their nature. Turn your ire toward the justices who have made the Court a political creature. Ask yourself why you can't remember the last time one of the Court's four liberals broke rank on a major case. Ask why Kennedy and sometimes Roberts are the only justices people watch. That's the root of the problem.
57Brave
Well-known member
First off, I don't "hate him"
Secondly, there was a nominee in place for over a year that never was given a hearing let alone an up down vote based solely on partisan politics
For that reason alone, I am opposed to Gorsuch.
Based on 250+ years of tradition it was not Trumps appointment to make
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Hard to feel sorry for people who support the party whose main playbook is Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
sturg33
I
So no specific objections to the pick itself? Just partisan politics?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
I'm not sure Julio - I'm increasingly a man without a party. Neither seem much interested in my ilk. I suppose I should go on to say, why should they be interested in me. But I am up for grabs, fwiw.