• 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!

Republican Supreme Court Nominee

Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Agreed. Just as the GOP did with Obama, trump should not be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, in his last year of office.
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
idav said:
From the article regarding a very conservative Supreme Court nomination.

"Many Democrats make the argument that the only way to punish the Republicans for their nearly year-long obstruction to their nominee last year would be to filibuster the nomination this year," said Smith.
Showdown over Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch sign of hyper-partisan era | Americas | DW.COM | 23.03.2017
Click to expand...
I believe that would be very unwise for the Democrats to do. I have read at least a hundred of his opinions (both majority and dissents) on the 10th Circuit. There is less than a handful that I disagree with. I do not at all find him to be partisan. And I read an article just a few days ago from a colleague of his who noted instances where he had an opinion on a case, listened to the arguments of others on the court, and changed his mind. Reading his opinions, one can easily see that Gorsuch will be one of the many Justices on the Court who were appointed by a Republican and quickly moved to the left.

I think Gorsuch will be confirmed, and I think his time on the Court will be the one good thing to come out of the Trump administration.
 
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The Republicans tried to stop just about everything that President Obama did during 8 years including refusing to consider any court nominations until the rules were changed. It's past time for payback and to demonstrate that Republican bullying will be opposed to the best of our ability. "They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind".
 
Mindmaster

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
In the absence of substantive reasons to oppose his nomination, he should be approved.

See: The Gorsuch confirmation drama is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

This is something I can agree on, and despite the GOP opposition to Obama appointees we are ultimately the ones that suffer when seats are not filled at the SCOTUS. The whole tit for tat is childish, and Trump's appointee is actually a really moderate choice.
 
Thumper

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
Jayhawker Soule said:
In the absence of substantive reasons to oppose his nomination, he should be approved.

See: The Gorsuch confirmation drama is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...
True. There is of course the $10 million dollars he received, but I'm sure that's nothing.

The one question I wish someone would ask (of any potential SCOTUS judge) would be --

Everybody has biases, it's part of being human. A judge's job is to recognize their own bias and try as best they can to judge the case in front of them strictly by the law. Please describe for me a case where your personal desired outcome and the outcome required by your understanding of the law differed and what you did to resolved this personal conflict?
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I was inclined to believe that we should just let him slip through and approve him, but then I heard Bernie Sanders speak last night why he will not do this and is now in favor of a filibuster. He had a private conversation with the nominee and was not at all pleased by his responses.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
metis said:
I was inclined to believe that we should just let him slip through and approve him, but then I heard Bernie Sanders speak last night why he will not do this and is now in favor of a filibuster. He had a private conversation with the nominee and was not at all pleased by his responses.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're referring to his appearance on MSNBC? I heard it as well and was disappointed that he did not offer anything more probative.
 
Nous

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Thumper said:
True. There is of course the $10 million dollars he received, but I'm sure that's nothing.
Click to expand...
What are you referring to?

The one question I wish someone would ask (of any potential SCOTUS judge) would be --

Everybody has biases, it's part of being human. A judge's job is to recognize their own bias and try as best they can to judge the case in front of them strictly by the law. Please describe for me a case where your personal desired outcome and the outcome required by your understanding of the law differed and what you did to resolved this personal conflict?
Click to expand...
That is an excellent question. Someone should ask it. I suspect Gorsuch would have little problem answering it--in fact, I recall that he says as much in one of his opinions, that he didn't like the opinion he was giving, but it was the result he was compelled by the case law to reach.
 
idav

idav

Being
Premium Member
I get that dems probably shouldn't stoop to their level but this shouldn't even be a conversation, there should be no vacant seat in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top