• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Neil Gorsuch

Gorsuch has all the trappings of an American Statesmen & will make a terrific supreme Court Justice.
Columbia, Harvard & Oxford what an academic resume. The cherry on the Sundae is this; for over 210
years there was always a Protestant on the Supreme Court, for 190 years Protestants were in the majority of the
supreme court. Since 2010 there has not been a protestant on the court for the first time in history
at that time there were 6 catholics & 3 jews. Protestants comprise 47% of this country, Catholics 21% & Jews 2%.


It's nice to see Gorsuch is an Episcopalian Protestant and that the majority of the country is finally represented again on the SC.
 
I think the Repubs were desperate not to confirm an Obama appointee because that would have replaced a conservative with a liberal changing the make-up of the court for years. (I sure know that's the biggest reason I personally voted for Trump.) Trump's appointee will keep the same balance in the court as before... much better from the GOP standpoint. Dems wouldn't be too happy with his age, being a relatively young man. And, of course, there's the possibility that Trump will get to name another one before his term is up. THAT then would set back the liberals' agenda for years.

I suppose it's always possible they won't risk political fallout and the nuclear option at this point and won't filibuster, but I personally don't think they're apt to be conciliatory.

Quite true Maggie. I wouldn't be at all bothered should Trump nominate another Textualist after Gorsuch is appointed to SCOTUS. The founding constitutional principals don't change with the passage of time, and shouldn't be contorted, twisted, or corrupted to suite any particularly popular at the time political agenda, so no, no judicial activism.

It doesn't bother me in the least that the liberal agenda will be turned back and / or held in place with little further advancements, these next few years. It's not one I agree with, nor believe to be best for the nation.
 
Quite true Maggie. I wouldn't be at all bothered should Trump nominate another Textualist after Gorsuch is appointed to SCOTUS. The founding constitutional principals don't change with the passage of time, and shouldn't be contorted, twisted, or corrupted to suite any particularly popular at the time political agenda, so no, no judicial activism.

I'd never heard that term before. Now that I have, as a conservative, I'm very comfortable with that.
 
lots of Democrats decided to oppose Fortas who was so corrupt he not only didn't get moved to CJ, he resigned as an AJ

It still doesn't make it right. And to your credit, you supported Garland getting a fair hearing and a vote. McConnell broke the Senate and gambled on winning the Senate, the Presidency, and now the USSC. You know he won't be remembered well in 100 years .
 
Gorsuch has all the trappings of an American Statesmen & will make a terrific supreme Court Justice.
Columbia, Harvard & Oxford what an academic resume. The cherry on the Sundae is this; for over 210
years there was always a Protestant on the Supreme Court, for 190 years Protestants were in the majority of the
supreme court. Since 2010 there has not been a protestant on the court for the first time in history
at that time there were 6 catholics & 3 jews. Protestants comprise 47% of this country, Catholics 21% & Jews 2%.


It's nice to see Gorsuch is an Episcopalian Protestant and that the majority of the country is finally represented again on the SC.

Your voice is appreciated, Slick. Welcome to Debate Politics.
 
At least I support your guy getting a fair hearing and a vote. TD is the only GOP I know who also supported the same.

Given his life history in law, I think I'll side with him and be an American first .

Someone once said "Elections have consequences". It wasn't easy to stomach then, any more so than now, but it is / was the truth in both instances.

I guess that means the it's the Democrat's turn 'in the back'.
 
At least I support your guy getting a fair hearing and a vote. TD is the only GOP I know who also supported the same.

Given his life history in law, I think I'll side with him and be an American first .

The past is just that, the past. If Hillary had won she would have picked someone, probably not Garland. What is the point is debating 1992 or 2016? We can move forward or just kill the filibuster forever. My sense is that the filibuster can't survive much longer in this hyper partisan environment. Either McConnell will kill it or whomever the democratic majority leader in 2020 is will.

My sense is that most people on this site know the filibuster is doomed. Now they are just positioning for whom to blame. If I had to bet, McConnell doesn't have the guts to make the change, so this might have to wait until 2020 and someone like Warren is in charge.
 
I think the Repubs were desperate not to confirm an Obama appointee because that would have replaced a conservative with a liberal changing the make-up of the court for years. (I sure know that's the biggest reason I personally voted for Trump.) Trump's appointee will keep the same balance in the court as before... much better from the GOP standpoint. Dems wouldn't be too happy with his age, being a relatively young man. And, of course, there's the possibility that Trump will get to name another one before his term is up. THAT then would set back the liberals' agenda for years.

I suppose it's always possible they won't risk political fallout and the nuclear option at this point and won't filibuster, but I personally don't think they're apt to be conciliatory.

You're right about the Republicans being desperate. There's nothing in the Constitution about a conservative seat staying conservative, liberal seat staying liberal, as we saw with Thomas replacing Marshall, though DEMs were demanding an AA seat, or you have to be from Yale or Harvard .
 
At least I support your guy getting a fair hearing and a vote. TD is the only GOP I know who also supported the same.

Given his life history in law, I think I'll side with him and be an American first .

I didn't figure that McConnell could stall a SCOTUS hearing for as long as he did. When Scalia died, I thought for sure that Obama would have the chance to appoint another.

I wasn't thrilled about it, but I wasn't going to fight it either. Things have their order.
 
Well that's ****ing rich.

GOP obstruct a nominee for 10 months, Dems done nothing yet and you're accusing them of a campaign of personal destruction?

From a vindictive perspective, I would be for blocking an R nominee after the whole Garland episode, but there's no way that the Dems are going to be able to block Gorsuch for however many years without a majority, especially given his credentials and the fact he was confirmed by voice vote to the circuit.

There are better hills to die on for the Dems, methinks.

Here's hoping that RBG has a few more years left in her.

Joe Biden argued for this very thing back in 1992.
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.amp.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
 
The past is just that, the past. If Hillary had won she would have picked someone, probably not Garland. What is the point is debating 1992 or 2016? We can move forward or just kill the filibuster forever. My sense is that the filibuster can't survive much longer in this hyper partisan environment. Either McConnell will kill it or whomever the democratic majority leader in 2020 is will.

My sense is that most people on this site know the filibuster is doomed. Now they are just positioning for whom to blame. If I had to bet, McConnell doesn't have the guts to make the change, so this might have to wait until 2020 and someone like Warren is in charge.

Hmm. Maybe, maybe not WRT the filibuster. Once thing for sure, this hyper-partisanship can't / shouldn't continue unabated. I still hope that congress and the parties can abate that, and perhaps re-instill some statesmanship into congress.

Warren in a charge? She's going to have to survive her next reelection. From what I recall / have heard, she's going to have a hard midterm campaign ahead of her.
 
My sense is that most people on this site know the filibuster is doomed. Now they are just positioning for whom to blame. If I had to bet, McConnell doesn't have the guts to make the change, so this might have to wait until 2020 and someone like Warren is in charge.
Unlikely.

If they do away with the filibuster then a President may find reason to invoke his own nuclear option. Adjourn the Senate, make recess appointments, and then let them consider his appointments after the fact. Heck, the way partisan politics is going, we may have such an action regardless.
 
You keep repeating this Biden nonsense without answering who did it first.

GOPs were ready to pull their nuclear trigger in 2005 when the gang of 14 averted a constitutional crisis.

McConnell refused to let the gang reform in 2013 and Reid/Obama had no choice, based on unprecedented obstruction of appointments by guess who? McConnell

 
I prefer originalists like Scalia and Gorsuch, but what I am hearing is that Gorsuch is soft on the 2nd and 4th, and especially the 14th. Still, Trump could do much, much worse.
 
after Bork, the Democrats have no ground to stand on

Exactly. Scalia, Gorsuch, Thomas, you name it--it would be hard to find anyone who was better qualified to sit on the Court than Judge Bork. But his enemies were determined to block his appointment for political reasons, and they succeeded. The same kind of jackals also tried to lynch Clarence Thomas, again for political reasons.
 
Just to be on the record, I think it was wrong what the Republicans did on Garland. He should have got a hearing and unless there was some legitimate reason not to he should have been appointed because it was Obama's right to select the person for that position.

Having said that I think it would be foolish to block this pick. If they force the nuclear option now that could hurt them should a next pick come up. As it stands right now Republicans have the power to strike down the filibuster, should the Democrats win a few more seats in the 2018 elections they could team up with some Republicans that would be against taking out the filibuster and prevent a later pick. If the filibuster is taken out now then Democrats would have to pick up a Senate Majority to stop any more picks.
 
Just to be on the record, I think it was wrong what the Republicans did on Garland. He should have got a hearing and unless there was some legitimate reason not to he should have been appointed because it was Obama's right to select the person for that position.

Having said that I think it would be foolish to block this pick. If they force the nuclear option now that could hurt them should a next pick come up. As it stands right now Republicans have the power to strike down the filibuster, should the Democrats win a few more seats in the 2018 elections they could team up with some Republicans that would be against taking out the filibuster and prevent a later pick. If the filibuster is taken out now then Democrats would have to pick up a Senate Majority to stop any more picks.

The Democrats probably won't block it because he is qualified, but they might make it a headache for the GOP given how the GOP acted like children over the Garland nomination. Democrats are probably going to put more energy into the DeVos vote.
 
The Democrats probably won't block it because he is qualified, but they might make it a headache for the GOP given how the GOP acted like children over the Garland nomination. Democrats are probably going to put more energy into the DeVos vote.

One would hope but:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a town hall that Gorsuch is a “very hostile nominee.” She called the nominee “a very bad decision, well outside the mainstream of American legal thought,
Trump's Supreme Court nominee - live blog - CBS News
 
In case anyone is interested, here is the announcement.





He seems like a good guy. So far I don't see any major objections.
 
After reading some about the guy, I have to say I like him and think the entire SC should judges like him. I'm not saying that because he is a conservative, I say that because he thinks SCOTUS judges have become politicians with robes, even though their role should truly be apolitical.

"If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong."

I like this quote from him, to me it sounds like he is someone that will hold up the law as it is written instead of twisting it to fit an agenda.

We currently have all 3 branches effectively writing laws when there is only 1 branch with the legitimate power to do so. I believe it is imperative we restrain both the Executive and Judicial branches from the current path they are on.
 
Just to be on the record, I think it was wrong what the Republicans did on Garland. He should have got a hearing and unless there was some legitimate reason not to he should have been appointed because it was Obama's right to select the person for that position.

Having said that I think it would be foolish to block this pick. If they force the nuclear option now that could hurt them should a next pick come up. As it stands right now Republicans have the power to strike down the filibuster, should the Democrats win a few more seats in the 2018 elections they could team up with some Republicans that would be against taking out the filibuster and prevent a later pick. If the filibuster is taken out now then Democrats would have to pick up a Senate Majority to stop any more picks.

It is my understanding for 80 years the Senate has followed a rule that if a Supreme Court seat should become vacant during an election year the seat would be filled by the next administration whomever the people elect.
 
McConnell broke the Senate in 2016, 2013, and 2005. This political hatred is on you guys .
Your argument is political hatred. Good luck selling that to the public

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
It is my understanding for 80 years the Senate has followed a rule that if a Supreme Court seat should become vacant during an election year the seat would be filled by the next administration whomever the people elect.

I have heard that before but unless there is some law that states that then it doesn't matter. Trust me, if there were a legitimate argument for it I would be defending it. If it were between the election and inauguration I could see some debate on the issue.

This was a huge political gamble that just happened to pay off.
 
Quite true Maggie. I wouldn't be at all bothered should Trump nominate another Textualist after Gorsuch is appointed to SCOTUS. The founding constitutional principals don't change with the passage of time, and shouldn't be contorted, twisted, or corrupted to suite any particularly popular at the time political agenda, so no, no judicial activism.

It doesn't bother me in the least that the liberal agenda will be turned back and / or held in place with little further advancements, these next few years. It's not one I agree with, nor believe to be best for the nation.

If it wasn't for a conservative justice, we wouldn't be dealing with Obamacare now. Remember that.
 
Seems like a good guy to me. He has good educational pedigree, and experience serving two Supreme Court justices.

Thoughts?

I thought Roberts was a great pick too till he got confirmed and went hollywood liberal on us
 
Back
Top Bottom