• 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!

If the Democrats try to Filibuster Gorsuch what should the GOP do

If Gorsuch is filibustered, what should the GOP do

  • Invoke the Nuclear Option and confirm him

    Votes: 33 56.9%

  • Try to convince some Democrats in purple states to vote for him

    Votes: 8 13.8%

  • Withdraw his nomination and find someone more left wing

    Votes: 9 15.5%

  • Try to reach a deal involving other issues

    Votes: 3 5.2%

  • Other-explain

    Votes: 5 8.6%
  • Total voters
    58
Both sides have done the math. Both sides play Hard Ball. Gorsuch cannot advance to the Supreme Court w/o the GOP using the Nuclear Option.

We can continue to speculate endlessly on how this plays out long term. In time, if we survive and stay interested, we get to find out. Meanwhile, let us enjoy today... and may our Best Times Lie Ahead!
 
Kobie said:
Who cares? It's a stolen seat, and nothing the Dems can do approaches anything the GOOPers pulled to deny Garland. So let 'em do whatever they want. The "rules" no longer exist.
Click to expand...

the dems did the same thing for Keisler-they refused to give him a hearing in the early part of the bush administration by filibuster and then they refused to give him hearing the last year Bush was in office
 
TurtleDude said:
the dems did the same thing for Keisler-they refused to give him a hearing in the early part of the bush administration by filibuster and then they refused to give him hearing the last year Bush was in office
Click to expand...

It's only outrageous when Republicans do it. That's true of anything. You know that.
 
I heard Spicer say yesterday that the Republicans always granted Obama an up and down vote on all his Supreme Court appointments.

Yes. He said that.

The Republicans have reached such "Stopped giving a damn" levels that they're going to do what they're going to do. Nobody's input stands for very much at this point.
 
TurtleDude said:
Gorsuch's nomination has upset the Dems who are mad that Merrick Garland was not given a vote. Some are threatening a filibuster because he apparently has more than enough votes to be confirmed. So what should the GOP do?
Click to expand...

TD, can we step away from the partisan head-butting in the matter of why the right is claiming that Gorsuch's appointment being blocked by the Dems is a revenge ploy...and talk more about Gorsuch's bench record. In other words the most notable cases that has been involved in while serving on the 10th Circuit (decisions, opinions, etc).

But first I'd like to offer a little trivia about Gorsuch:

In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.

I've been reading about various cases he's been involved in and I personally see his actions on the bench as concerning. I don't want inject my concerns, but rather hear what folks on the right find meritorious about his contributions while serving on the 10th and even prior.

Thanks...
 
Kobie said:
Who cares? It's a stolen seat, and nothing the Dems can do approaches anything the GOOPers pulled to deny Garland. So let 'em do whatever they want. The "rules" no longer exist.
Click to expand...

Stolen from who?
 
I can't decide if I think it will be funny or sad when the day comes that the GOP gets everything it wants and the people who made it happen realize that means they now live in a country by corporations and for corporations. It will be like the end of the Usual Suspects for half the voting public. But they'll be screwed, too.

The answer is the GOP should withdraw their nomination and appoint a judge that consistently sides for people and consumers rather than corporations.
 
Cardinal said:
I heard Spicer say yesterday that the Republicans always granted Obama an up and down vote on all his Supreme Court appointments.

Yes. He said that.

The Republicans have reached such "Stopped giving a damn" levels that they're going to do what they're going to do. Nobody's input stands for very much at this point.
Click to expand...

The Republicans did do that but they also followed the Biden rule.
 
Removable Mind said:
TD, can we step away from the partisan head-butting in the matter of why the right is claiming that Gorsuch's appointment being blocked by the Dems is a revenge ploy...and talk more about Gorsuch's bench record. In other words the most notable cases that has been involved in while serving on the 10th Circuit (decisions, opinions, etc).

But first I'd like to offer a little trivia about Gorsuch:

In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.

I've been reading about various cases he's been involved in and I personally see his actions on the bench as concerning. I don't want inject my concerns, but rather hear what folks on the right find meritorious about his contributions while serving on the 10th and even prior.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

The thing is, the left believes the Supreme Court should ignore law and vote with their hearts.
 
Mustachio said:
I can't decide if I think it will be funny or sad when the day comes that the GOP gets everything it wants and the people who made it happen realize that means they now live in a country by corporations and for corporations. It will be like the end of the Usual Suspects for half the voting public. But they'll be screwed, too.

The answer is the GOP should withdraw their nomination and appoint a judge that consistently sides for people and consumers rather than corporations.
Click to expand...

But that's the trouble with the left. They believe the Supreme Court should ignore law and vote for people over corporations. The fact is, people are an entity and corporations are an entity. They are both equal. The Court is not supposed to have an agenda of favoring either, merely interpret law.
 
Moderate Right said:
But that's the trouble with the left. They believe the Supreme Court should ignore law and vote for people over corporations. The fact is, people are an entity and corporations are an entity. They are both equal. The Court is not supposed to have an agenda of favoring either, merely interpret law.
Click to expand...

The court should not favor corporations. You said it. That's the problem with Gorsuch, who will be confirmed and who is not the worst human being in the world by any means. He simply is a former corporate law attorney who was brought up seeing the law from the perspective of corporations. His record shows that, his evasion of questions shows that (particularly the wonderful exchange where he looked like a moron in his exchange with Senator Franken), and that's why we have every expectation for him to be partial to corporate interests once he's on the bench.

I'm in favor of impartiality and the expectation that our courts will ensure that nobody can be railroaded by big business. Why the overworked and underpaid moderate but pro-Trump faction disagrees is beyond my comprehension.
 
Removable Mind said:
TD, can we step away from the partisan head-butting in the matter of why the right is claiming that Gorsuch's appointment being blocked by the Dems is a revenge ploy...and talk more about Gorsuch's bench record. In other words the most notable cases that has been involved in while serving on the 10th Circuit (decisions, opinions, etc).

But first I'd like to offer a little trivia about Gorsuch:

In 2002, Gorsuch penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate for delaying the nominations of Merrick Garland and John Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, writing that "the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated" by the Senate.

I've been reading about various cases he's been involved in and I personally see his actions on the bench as concerning. I don't want inject my concerns, but rather hear what folks on the right find meritorious about his contributions while serving on the 10th and even prior.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

Gorsuch is a well respected judge with better credentials than many other candidates to the federal benches. so what is your concern?
 
TurtleDude said:
Gorsuch is a well respected judge with better credentials than many other candidates to the federal benches. so what is your concern?
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. And I didn't post to voice my concerns.

What makes Gorsuch more meritorious, based on his experience in the 10th Circuit and prior

And do take notice in my post to you that Gorsuch has been strong proponent of Merrick Garland for a lot of years.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL, if hillary was elected, I doubt you would be claiming the same thing despite far more investigations of her

things have become poisonous. Right now it appears to be war. The GOP needs to do what it needs to do to win.

the russian nonsense is nothing more than the obstructionist dems trying to derail the winning administration because they are mad they lost
Click to expand...

There isn't enough tinfoil in Colorado for me to buy this crackpot theory of yours.
 
Harshaw said:
If the Schumer wing insists on filibustering a nominee as generally-acceptable as Gorsuch, they'll get the filibuster nuked, and will have no ability to stop any future nominee who might be REALLY objectionable.

So they're being stupidly short-sighted, entirely and completely out of childish spite. Last I heard, childish spite is why Trump is so unbearable.
Click to expand...

They already "have no ability to stop any future nominee" if you're saying they forfeit that ability by simply objecting to this one. You really don't seem to understand how logic works.
 
Mustachio said:
The court should not favor corporations. You said it. That's the problem with Gorsuch, who will be confirmed and who is not the worst human being in the world by any means. He simply is a former corporate law attorney who was brought up seeing the law from the perspective of corporations. His record shows that, his evasion of questions shows that (particularly the wonderful exchange where he looked like a moron in his exchange with Senator Franken), and that's why we have every expectation for him to be partial to corporate interests once he's on the bench.

I'm in favor of impartiality and the expectation that our courts will ensure that nobody can be railroaded by big business. Why the overworked and underpaid moderate but pro-Trump faction disagrees is beyond my comprehension.
Click to expand...

But the left wants someone who will favor people. Same difference.
 
Mustachio said:
The court should not favor corporations.
Click to expand...

They should if the law favors the corporation in that case.

He simply is a former corporate law attorney who was brought up seeing the law from the perspective of corporations. His record shows that, his evasion of questions shows that (particularly the wonderful exchange where he looked like a moron in his exchange with Senator Franken), and that's why we have every expectation for him to be partial to corporate interests once he's on the bench.
Click to expand...

You mean the part in that exchange with Franken where he mentioned the many other cases where he found against the corporation?

Maybe you're referring to his dissent in the trucker case where he presented the trucker in a very sympathetic light and made plain his disapproval of what the trucking company did, but said that nonetheless, the law being used in that case simply didn't fit the fact pattern?

You say you favor "impartiality," and that dissent is an excellent example of it. He wasn't swayed by emotion; the majority was swayed by it when they bent a law to justify an outcome that people considered emotionally more satisfying. Gorsuch was actually the impartial one in that case. The law in question simply did not apply.

I'm in favor of impartiality and the expectation that our courts will ensure that nobody can be railroaded by big business. Why the overworked and underpaid moderate but pro-Trump faction disagrees is beyond my comprehension.
Click to expand...

You just showed in this sentence that you're actually NOT in favor of "impartiality"; you see the role of the courts as taking the side of the "little guy" against "big business."
 
Harshaw said:
Maybe you're referring to his dissent in the trucker case where he presented the trucker in a very sympathetic light and made plain his disapproval of what the trucking company did, but said that nonetheless, the law being used in that case simply didn't fit the fact pattern?

You say you favor "impartiality," and that dissent is an excellent example of it. He wasn't swayed by emotion; the majority was swayed by it when they bent a law to justify an outcome that people considered emotionally more satisfying. Gorsuch was actually the impartial one in that case. The law in question simply did not apply.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're rambling about. In the trucker case, the law "did not apply"? Would you like me to tell you why every trucker in the United States would be furious at you if you said that to their face about this ruling - they know the laws - and they know that ruling was complete garbage.

And the sympathy reminds me of every time somebody says to you, "I get where you're coming from, but..." that's how corporations are trained to respond to complaints. Gorsuch makes his decisions like he's a CEO working for the corporation, he's just an "impartial arbitrator."
 
TurtleDude said:
Gorsuch's nomination has upset the Dems who are mad that Merrick Garland was not given a vote. Some are threatening a filibuster because he apparently has more than enough votes to be confirmed. So what should the GOP do?
Click to expand...

No SC justice should be confirmed with less than 60 votes...period.
 
Mustachio said:
That's why neither party should control all three branches of government.
Click to expand...

That's why there shouldn't be just two parties and courts that don't decide things based on law but by emotion and feelings.
 
NIMBY said:
DEMs should have forced Frist/McConnell to nuke the senate in 2005 instead of falling for the gang of 14 bull**** that GOPs are mentioning again.

Especially after GOPs filibustered 70 some judicial appointments during Clinton's last 2 years.

Knowing what McConnell pulled in 2013 and 2016, DEMs should have never approved Thomas when they were in the majority, let alone Kennedy in the presidential election year of 1988.

Since GOPs are going to kill the filibuster at some time, let's get it over now and turn McConnell into what GOPs turned Reid into .
Click to expand...

Dems are too nice and bites them in the ass every time.
 
SIAP. Make sure the dems successfully filibuster the nomination before the nuclear option is invoked. Let them decide which political issue to draw their line in the sand.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's why there shouldn't be just two parties and courts that don't decide things based on law but by emotion and feelings.
Click to expand...

You've added zero to this topic. Zero. Your partisanship is raging on like the flow of Niagra Falls.

Why can't you go ahead an admit that you prefer a single party, authoritarian government. Let's call "The Freedom Caucus National Government".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom