It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's the point of Democrats Obstructing Neil Gorsuch confirmations?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I heard on the News it's because Republicans did the same thing to Obama's Nominee but the thing is I agree with the Republicans reasoning because it was the right thing to do since Obama was on his way out. Wait till the next guy comes to power which just happens to be Trump but if I recall everyone thought Hillary was going to win regardless so it would of been her SC pick today being confirmed. And let's just Hypothetically assume that the Democrats do succeed in stopping Gorsuch. Do they really want a uneven number of Justices on the Court? Trump is President for 4 years. Trump would just tap another Judge and then we start the process all over again.




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Why do you agree with Republicans' reasoning?

It was the longest confirmation blocking move ever - almost a year.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
"" What's the point of Democrats Obstructing Neil Gorsuch confirmations? ""

Just wishy washy nit picky jealousy.

Nothing more to it.




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

He was still well within the time to put a judge in there. The republicans just opposed it because they're power mad and opposed everything Obama did for 8 years.

There was no reason to deny him the position when it came up, but they did it because they don't give a sh*t about the rules.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Stevemagegod

He was still well within the time to put a judge in there. The republicans just opposed it because they're power mad and opposed everything Obama did for 8 years.

There was no reason to deny him the position when it came up, but they did it because they don't give a sh*t about the rules.


If Republicans Opposed everything he did we wouldn't have Obama Care. Also known as Obama's Legacy.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
To once again prove what petty hypocrites they are since many of them, including Schumer, already voted to make him a federal judge.

And ever since the the democrats helped vote him in, Gorsuch has performed his judicial duties impeccably.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

All Republicans voted against Obamacare. So your reasoning is flawed. And it's soon to be Trumpcare my friend.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

He only barely got that through after the Right did oppose it every chance they had. Now they want to repeal and replace it which they're doing a total sh*t job of doing.

They're doing what they always do though which is reward the super rich and hurt the poor and middle class.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Turn about is fair play.

There was nothing wrong with Obama's pick also.

I personally would make McConnell get rid of the filibuster for SC nominees. I would hold the vote up for all four years if I were a Dem. Let's wait till the next "legitimate" President is in office. Sound good? Why not?


a reply to: Deny Arrogance



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Stevemagegod

GOP really needs to just nuclear option this and get past this era of childish lawmaker temper tantrums preventing government business from occurring. It's time to be the adults in the room.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
For all with memory issues, the left side of DC has a long history of doing what they magically became butthurt over the GOP doing during the waning days of Obama's presidency...
aclj.org...

But, of course, the GOP was somehow "wrong" for adopting ideologies Biden and Reid had themselves authored decades earlier...



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
The vote to approve Gorsuch in 2006 was UNANIMOUS.





Uh Oh: Schumer Voted For Gorsuch in 2006 (And a Bunch of Other Democrats Did Too)

But in their extreme opposition, Senate Democrats' are already losing any credibility they had left on the issue. When Gorsuch was nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush in 2006, he was confirmed unanimously 95-0 in the Senate. Chuck Schumer, along with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and a number of other Democrats in the Senate, voted in approval.

townhall.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Partisan bullsh*t aside...

& whether Obama's pick should have been confirmed or not...



What's the actual problem with Gorsuch?
Can someone answer that for me.

Is he the type to go after Roe vs Wade or gay marriage?


Or will he simply uphold the COTUS... as it stands and not get political?


Obviously he is right wing but so was the last who passed, and gay marriage went through and Roe vs Wade wasn't appealed so what's the actual problem with confirming this guy and getting on with the rest of the jobs Congress is there to do?

Probably much more important than this.
edit on 20-3-2017 by Hazardous1408 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
You know why.

They've found a way to carry on lawfare through the lower courts. So long as they can judge shop their issues and reliably track their opposition to every measure of Trump's they don't like through the 9th Circuit, even if they get it taken to the COTUS, they have a reasonably good shot at an 4-4 split which bounces it back down to the 9th Circuit ruling.

That means the lefts own the judiciary.

But if they seat Gorsuch, the court has 9 again and the split ruling that reflects back down the the court of last decision doesn't happen. It can't.

It gets far less likely the less can rule through judicial fiat despite not owning any of the houses of Congress or the Presidency.
edit on 20-3-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


But if they seat Gorsuch, the court has 9 again and the split ruling that reflects back down the the court of last decision doesn't happen. It can't.


Then your democracy is dead in the water.

Because that contradicts the idea that the SCOTUS is non partisan.

It shouldn't matter if one has a 5:4 ratio because they should be judging based on the COTUS not their politics.



So again I ask, what's the actual problem with Gorsuch?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


There was no reason to deny him the position when it came up, but they did it because they don't give a sh*t about the rules.


Clearly there is no rules.


What's the problem with Gorsuch, mate?

And do you also have a problem with Dems blocking now like Reps did to Obama?

Something's gotta give eventually...

It's not the unstoppable force colliding with the immovable object...


This is getting in the way of important business.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: ketsuko


But if they seat Gorsuch, the court has 9 again and the split ruling that reflects back down the the court of last decision doesn't happen. It can't.


Then your democracy is dead in the water.

Because that contradicts the idea that the SCOTUS is non partisan.

It shouldn't matter if one has a 5:4 ratio because they should be judging based on the COTUS not their politics.



So again I ask, what's the actual problem with Gorsuch?


It's been that way for as long as I can remember. The court has 4 libs and 4 conservatives and 1 so-called swing voter.

Thing is that when a decision is coming up, you have all kinds of papers and columsn written opining about how this or that judge might decide to vote and they are nearly unanimously talking about the so-called conservative justices which indicates those justices are often less ideological and more about the rule of law. And if rule of law is now an ideological, left/right thing, then that tells you where our republic is headed.

What's irking the left is that had they not made the Gorsuch appointment an election issue and instead let Obama appoint the seat, it would have absolutely fallen to another ideologue in the mold of Kagan or Sotomayor. Making the seat an election issue guaranteed that voters knew the seat was also up for appointment when they went to vote, so it should have been in the back of their mind that the judgeship was part of the conversation. Certainly, Trump made it part of the campaign.

Did Hillary? I'm not sure, but the way the left is up in arms over this, maybe she didn't and they didn't think about it.

All that aside, Gorsuch himself has impeccable credentials and the tradition is that the president gets his appointments unless they are clearly unqualified. While some of the others might have some questions, Gorsuch is clearly of the first order from all I've seen and would be even if his jurisprudence were less originalist in leaning.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Well, there are some rules and there are some normal ways that things are done but the Right seems to not care about any of that when it's in their advantage.

But as to the rest of it. I think the Dems are just doing the same petty BS that the Right did to them a while back. I don't think they should though and as far as Gorsuch I'm not sure if there is a problem with him or not exactly.

He does seem pretty conservative though. I'm not real big on his literal classic view on interpreting the constitution either. But I don't know that much about him really.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Because screw the country. The dems would rather throw a hissy fit every day rather than allow for the new admin to finally be able to do it's job. It's quite simple. We are bordering on splitting the country one way or another. This just isn't working.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Thanks.

From what I recall Trump was definitely more avid about SC appointees than Hillary.

She spent much of her time repeating mantras about Flint water and helping children...
That seemed to be her push for the vote. Also nuclear arms in the hands of a crazy Twitter ranter.


But as far as I remember she didn't make that big a deal of the SC.


Was Scalia a swing voter?
Or conservative?

Because that's who they're replacing so again this 5:4 ratio thing still baffles me.

Personally, I have no say in the matter in little old London, I'm just very interested in politics on a whole.

I may appear outspoken, but I realise my opinion means less than nothing to USers. And rightly so.



I may also appear "Liberal", but honestly I just haven't seen one thing that leads me to believe the appointment of Gorsuch would be detrimental to America.

Time for congress to do their jobs.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join