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

a reply to: mOjOm

Thanks for the full and frank response, fella.

Appreciate it.


I hope you don't think I was trying to hit you with a gotcha question, I just actually really enjoy your posts and wanted to know what you thought of all this.

a reply to: Wookiep

The left is complaining about stuff they shouldn't be, this is true.

But the Right is praising things they shouldn't be also.

It's just one side has the sky falling and the other says it's a beautiful day.

But there are some things Trump is doing which are horrible. But the Right refuse to admit it. TrumpCare is total sh*t. The muslim ban is just bad and dumb.

There are valid reasons for people to complain about Trump but they are being drowned out with all the other pointless complaints that are happening. But I understand the frustration on the left because even their valid complaints go unheard by the Trump Cult.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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...

Are you kidding me -- citing ACLJ?

How about this - NO SENATE HAS EVER BEFORE REFUSED TO HOLD A CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR SO LONG.

Normally, they hold a hearing and confirm or reject confirmation.

The previous record delay between nomination and confirmation hearing was 125 days.

The AVERAGE delay is 60 days, so it's somewhat reasonable that 125 days could happen.

However, we're over a year now.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

It's all a big waste of time IMO.

It serves no purpose other than political d*ck measuring as far as I can tell.

The real problems get lost in the noise and there are real problems happening along with all this other stuff.

In the end regardless of who wins these arguments, the people and Americas image in the world will suffer greatly.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Scalia was a staunch originalist.

So they are very upset. Had Obama picked, it would have made 5 leftists on the court because they already have Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayer. That block was balanced by Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia. Kennedy is the swing voter who can go either way, although he and Roberts seem to be switching off in that role.

So had Obama made that pick in the final months pre-election, he would have gotten three picks, all young, and a five justice leftist block on the court for as long as Ginsberg can hold on (she looks like death warmed over these days).

It bears repeating, often, that everyone expected Hillary to win and for this to happen anyway.

originally posted by: mOjOm
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.

Actually, Republicans were just following the "Biden Rule". I don't know what the democrats are doing, just throwing yet another hissy-fit I guess.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The thing with this SCOTUS issue that gets me is that everyone on the right is so worried about getting a liberal judge in there because it will tip the scales to the liberal side. That's their big issue, that it can't be allowed to lean more liberal.

But that is exactly what they're trying to do, only tip it the other way instead.

It's so f*cking hypocritical for them to cry foul at something they are doing too. Apparently tipping the scales on the conservative side is just the right and noble thing to do, meanwhile tipping it the other way to them is n outrage. It's just blatant double standard and nobody points that out.

a reply to: Greven

Not even close to the longest....

By far the longest gap – 841 days, or more than two years – came in the mid-1840s. Justice Henry Baldwin died in April 1844, but the mutual antipathy between President John Tyler and the Whig-controlled Senate (the Whigs actually expelled Tyler from their party) made filling the vacancy all but impossible

www.pewresearch.org...

As a matter of fact it doesn't even garner top 5 consideration. As recently as Nixon it took 391 days to fill a seat due to political posturing. Stop with the nonsense already.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: mOjOm
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.

Actually, Republicans were just following the "Biden Rule". I don't know what the democrats are doing, just throwing yet another hissy-fit I guess.

Biden Rule my ass.

Biden, on June 25th 1992 (the election being less than 5 months later), suggested Bush not nominate - nor the Senate hold a hearing. The average hearing delay is about 2 months, and it commonly takes awhile to figure out someone.

Oh, and here's the kicker - THERE WAS NO SPOT ON THE SUPREME COURT THAT WAS VACANT AT THE TIME.

Moreover, Biden DID NOT argue to NOT HOLD a confirmation AT ALL, rather that a confirmation hearing - if someone were to be nominated to a theoretically vacant seat - that the confirmation ought to be held AFTER THE ELECTION.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

The Biden rule isn't a rule. That is yet another BS claim about something that isn't even a real thing.

a reply to: Greven

I submit John Tyler's history with SCOTUS appointments for you edification.

John Tyler[edit]
John Tyler experienced difficulty in obtaining approval of his nominees due to his lack of political support in the Senate. Tyler took office in 1841 after the death of Whig President William Henry Harrison. Tyler had been Harrison's running mate in the 1840 election, but Tyler clashed with the Congressional Whigs over issues such as the national bank, and these clashes extended to judicial nominees.[8]

John C. Spencer was nominated on January 9, 1844, and his nomination was defeated by a vote of 21–26 on January 31, 1844. Reuben H. Walworth was nominated on March 13, 1844, and a resolution to table the nomination passed on a 27–20 vote on June 15, 1844. The nomination was withdrawn from the Senate on June 17, 1844. Edward King was nominated on June 5, 1844. A resolution to table the nomination passed by a vote of 29–18 on June 15, 1844. No other action was taken on this nomination.[8]

The same day that Walworth's nomination was withdrawn, Spencer was re-submitted, but there is no record of debate and a letter from the President withdrawing the nomination was received on the same day. Walworth was then re-nominated later that same day, but the motion to act on the nomination in the Senate was objected to, and no further action was taken.[8]

Walworth and King were re-nominated on December 10, 1844, but both nominations were tabled on January 21, 1845. Walworth's nomination was withdrawn on February 6, 1845, and King's two days later. John M. Read was nominated on February 8, 1845, and there was a motion to consider the nomination in the Senate on January 21, 1845, but the motion was unsuccessful and no other action was taken.[8]

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Greven

Not even close to the longest....

By far the longest gap – 841 days, or more than two years – came in the mid-1840s. Justice Henry Baldwin died in April 1844, but the mutual antipathy between President John Tyler and the Whig-controlled Senate (the Whigs actually expelled Tyler from their party) made filling the vacancy all but impossible

www.pewresearch.org...

As a matter of fact it doesn't even garner top 5 consideration. As recently as Nixon it took 391 days to fill a seat due to political posturing. Stop with the nonsense already.

You don't understand the difference between CONFIRMATION HEARING and VACANCY.

Here's the difference: President has to nominate someone before a confirmation hearing can take place.

Seriously read the damn difference, because it is substantial.

a reply to: mOjOm

Leftist rulings - Rule by "penumbras and emanations"

Originalist rulings - Rule by plain text

a reply to: ketsuko

Lol..just pointed the same out to him

a reply to: Arizonaguy

How dare you bring facts into any discussion about political temper tantrums and partisan one-upmanship?

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Because the Democrats actually have some power here. Votes are a commodity and must be bought. The Democrats don't have enough leverage to get someone they approve of on the court, but they do have enough that they can get a concession elsewhere in exchange for letting Gorsuch or someone else through the process.

How the Democrats will spend this political capital, I don't know, but that's the idea behind it. This happens with literally every vote. It's the system working as it should. I assume you support Gorsuch but this process is actually a good thing since it means we're not yet in a one party state... and eventually (likely before the court convenes for the next year) you'll get your person anyways.

a reply to: Greven

Duh...Tyler Nominated people...so did Nixon.

The point is that they still can.

When they can't is when we have to worry.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

The Biden rule isn't a rule. That is yet another BS claim about something that isn't even a real thing.

It's a precedent that the Vice-President tried to create (Senator at the time). If democrats weren't trying to obstruct Bush Sr., Republicans couldn't have used it as an excuse against Obama.

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.

On the flip side, I think it proved how weak Obama was, that he couldn't make something like that happen.