• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS. Good choice or Bad?

Curious George

Veteran Member
Didn't see a thread on it. But what are your thoughts?

I think the Republican obstructionist was awful, I hope the Democrats do not do the same.

That said, I need to read more of his opinions. Of course he is an originalist but that is to be expected. The idea that we won't get an originalist leaning judge is not a reality.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
We need to do what McConnell asked and treat this nominee the way they treated President Obama's last year.

2016: “The question is, will [Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland] have a hearing, and will it be taken up by the Judiciary Committee. He will not be. [...] This nominee is not going to be considered. [...] The president initiates the appointment, the Senate decides whether or not to consider it at all.”

2017: “Apparently there’s yet a new standard now, which is to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. [...] I think this is something the American people simply will not tolerate [...] Our hope would be that our Democratic friends would treat President Trump’s nominees in the same way we treated Clinton and Obama.”
 

esmith

Veteran Member
He will be confirmed, one way or another. If the Dem's attempt to stop confirmation..........
images
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
No idea. Republicans will probably regret not going with Garland and the constitutional process
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The Dems need to resist when it's appropriate (which I fear it often will be), not out of revenge. This guys seems too young and too far from center to confirm.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Great replacement for Scalia.

The fight will be over Ginsburg or Breyer if it happens.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
He will be confirmed, one way or another. If the Dem's attempt to stop confirmation..........
images
Lol. Well, that is not the point. The point is do you think it is a good choice, regardless of who nominated him. We will look back and say something went wrong when we let a small group of right-wing fanatics into congress who began an unprecedented level of obstructionism. This led to parliamentary procedure changes by the then democratic majority to use the nuclear option. There was an outcry from the right over this. (I wonder if that outcry will be silent if the Republicans are forced to invoke the nuclear option). The option was invoked when Republicans indicated that they were fillibustering for no other reason than to prevent Obama's appointments and retain control. I sadly must agree with you that if this is the case with Democrats, then a nuclear option should be invoked. If the Democrats, for merit worthy reasons obstruct an appointment, I do not think that such an option should be used. But if it is, so be it. We seem to be reaping seeds already sown and traveling down a path that was set in place a while ago by a small group of right wing fanatics put in Congress. I do not think I like where the path leads, bit I do not see another course.

But the question still stands, is this a good appointment? Trump has made some questionable ones. Though this time, it seems he has made an appointment that is good, even not if in-line with my beliefs.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
The Dems need to resist when it's appropriate (which I fear it often will be), not out of revenge. This guys seems too young and too far from center to confirm.
Scalia wrote some good opinions and was a smart man, even if I disagree with some of what he wrote. Would this be different?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
We need to do what McConnell asked and treat this nominee the way they treated President Obama's last year.

2016: “The question is, will [Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland] have a hearing, and will it be taken up by the Judiciary Committee. He will not be. [...] This nominee is not going to be considered. [...] The president initiates the appointment, the Senate decides whether or not to consider it at all.”

2017: “Apparently there’s yet a new standard now, which is to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. [...] I think this is something the American people simply will not tolerate [...] Our hope would be that our Democratic friends would treat President Trump’s nominees in the same way we treated Clinton and Obama.”
The treatment of Obama's judiciary appointments was deplorable. I would hope we as a nation do not have to endure that and I would further hope that history tells of someone with good sense and not that both parties were so entrenched in partisianship as to ignore the country. If one reviews Sanders record they can see him warning against many mistakes that have been made. McConnell seems to be the flip side of that coin. When he finally leaves office, the nation and Kentucky will be hopefully be able to heal the wounds he has inflicted.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
The problem with electing conservatives to office is they'll put corporations before people. Think he'll overturn citizens united? That's a good place to start draining the swamp.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
No idea. Republicans will probably regret not going with Garland and the constitutional process
Why would they regret it.
They are going with the Constitutional process. Just because they wouldn't accept the Obama's nomination does not go against the Constitution. You seem to rail against certain media sources for putting forth "fake news", yet you do not seem to have any problem making things up. Why don't you try facts?
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. He refers to the President.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein other- wise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Do you not understand what "with the advice and consent of the Senate" means? They, the Senate did not give their consent, whether refusing to consider or even vote. If you have any Article or Section of the Constitution that says they have to, please bring it forward.
Oh by the way. Did Obama make a Treaty with Iran with the Advice and Consent of the Senate?
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Why would they regret it.
They are going with the Constitutional process. Just because they wouldn't accept the Obama's nomination does not go against the Constitution. You seem to rail against certain media sources for putting forth "fake news", yet you do not seem to have any problem making things up. Why don't you try facts?
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. He refers to the President.
Garland got a hearing? Nope.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
But the question still stands, is this a good appointment?

The people voted for Obama twice. Presumably Obama's candidate would be "the good appointment". If another judge leaves during trump's term then we can ask whether this guy is a good conservative candidate.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Lol. Well, that is not the point. The point is do you think it is a good choice, regardless of who nominated him. .

But the question still stands, is this a good appointment? Trump has made some questionable ones. Though this time, it seems he has made an appointment that is good, even not if in-line with my beliefs.
Yes the appointment is an excellent choice. Oh by the way, his appointment to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was approved by a voice vote in the Senate
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
So what's your point. The Senate doesn't have to do so. Haven't found anything to backup your invalid argument yet have you.

I believe the "intent" of the framers was clear (for a timely vetting process), and I'm not alone:

From wikipedia:

In a letter sent to President Obama on March 3, 2016, a different group of scholars of American history, politics, and the law wrote to President Obama to "express our dismay at the unprecedented breach of norms by the Senate majority in refusing to consider a nomination for the Supreme Court made by a president with eleven months to serve in the position."[31] The scholars wrote that:

It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous...
The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate’s best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history.[31]

Signatories to this letter included, among others, Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School; Yale Law School professor Harold Hongju Koh; Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School; and historian James M. McPherson of Princeton University.[31]

On March 7, 2016, a group of 356 law professors and other legal scholars released a letter (organized through the Alliance for Justice) to the Senate leadership of both parties urging them "to fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote." The letter-writers argued that Senate Republicans' announcement that they would refuse to consider any Obama nominee was a "preemptive abdication of duty" that "is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government."[32]Among the signatories to this letter were prominent law professors Charles Ogletree, Kenji Yoshino, and Laurence Tribe.[32]

On March 9, 2016, in a letter to Obama and Senate leadership, a group of almost 250 prominent corporate lawyers urged the Senate to hold hearings on the president's nominee.[33] The letter stated that "When a vacancy on the court arises, the Constitution is clear ... Article II, Section 2 states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court' ... Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee, it would be unprecedented for the senate to refuse to perform its ‘advice and consent’ role in this context. Not only does the Constitution direct the sitting president to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the court no matter whether it is an election year, nearly one third of all presidents have nominated a justice in an election year who was eventually confirmed."[33] The letter, organized by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,[34] also expressed concern about the "profound effect" about the effects of an under-staffed Court on the national economy, particularly in close cases.[33] Signatories to the letter came from a number of national law firms, and well as counsel for Google Inc..[34]
 
Top