• 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!

Is Gorsuch's confirmation as a SC justice an "accomplishment" for Trump?

Is Gorsuch's confirmation as a SC justice an "accomplishment" for Trump?

  • Total voters
    22
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
 
radcen said:
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
Click to expand...

No, it's an accomplishment for McConnell and a warning to partisans that precedents set in the Senate, in your favor today, may come back to haunt you, when you lose power.

Do you really think Trump even knew who Neil Gorsuch was last year?
 
radcen said:
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
Click to expand...

Yes. Donald Trump said he would nominate a conservative justice. Ted Cruz repeatedly lied and claimed that Trump wanted to nominate someone to the left of Sotomayor. Trump campaigned against these lies and many people voted for Trump because of his promise to nominate a Heritage Foundation recommended judge.
 
No, that is just him fulfilling his Constitutional obligation. I can see how it might be viewed as an accomplishment by conservatives as a whole, though.
 
reinoe said:
Yes. Donald Trump said he would nominate a conservative justice. Ted Cruz repeatedly lied and claimed that Trump wanted to nominate someone to the left of Sotomayor. Trump campaigned against these lies and many people voted for Trump because of his promise to nominate a Heritage Foundation recommended judge.
Click to expand...
That might qualify as a promise kept, but it's hardly an accomplishment. Not with a Rep Senate and a Committee that had already said prior to the election somebody would be confirmed... though they did have to be sketchy and change the rules mid-stream to do it.
 
Winston said:
No, it's an accomplishment for McConnell and a warning to partisans that precedents set in the Senate, in your favor today, may come back to haunt you, when you lose power.

Do you really think Trump even knew who Neil Gorsuch was last year?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, I certainly don't, anymore that I believe Obama knew who Sonya Sotomayor was before her name was placed in front of him. It's simply not possible for any president to know all the people in any particular discipline who may be qualified to fill specific positions within the government. That's not to say that a president may not know of this person or that person who they believe would fill the bill for a vacancy. But there's far more involved in filling a SC vacancy than anecdotal or even professional knowledge of a particular potential candidate.

I agree that if there's credit to be bestowed here, given the regularity of replacements, it's largely due to the system working after a fashion. We could say that such things are the spoils of victory, and a SC Justice appointment probably beats the hell out of raiding Schumer's house and taking the dishes.
 
humbolt said:
No, I certainly don't, anymore that I believe Obama knew who Sonya Sotomayor was before her name was placed in front of him. It's simply not possible for any president to know all the people in any particular discipline who may be qualified to fill specific positions within the government. That's not to say that a president may not know of this person or that person who they believe would fill the bill for a vacancy. But there's far more involved in filling a SC vacancy than anecdotal or even professional knowledge of a particular potential candidate.

I agree that if there's credit to be bestowed here, given the regularity of replacements, it's largely due to the system working after a fashion. We could say that such things are the spoils of victory, and a SC Justice appointment probably beats the hell out of raiding Schumer's house and taking the dishes.
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable point. Though Obama will probably remember Sotomayor's name now that she's a justice, whereas The Donald may very well forget Gorsuch's over time, given his attention span.
 
humbolt said:
No, I certainly don't, anymore that I believe Obama knew who Sonya Sotomayor was before her name was placed in front of him. It's simply not possible for any president to know all the people in any particular discipline who may be qualified to fill specific positions within the government. That's not to say that a president may not know of this person or that person who they believe would fill the bill for a vacancy. But there's far more involved in filling a SC vacancy than anecdotal or even professional knowledge of a particular potential candidate.

I agree that if there's credit to be bestowed here, given the regularity of replacements, it's largely due to the system working after a fashion. We could say that such things are the spoils of victory, and a SC Justice appointment probably beats the hell out of raiding Schumer's house and taking the dishes.
Click to expand...

Pretty much gurantees that the Supreme Court that gave the Koch's Citizens United, the gift that keep on giving, stays intact. The winners in this are the Kochs. I don't think Trump deserves much culpability. The president is interchangable with a blowup doll, and Gorsuch's name was probably drawn from a hat of 4-5 Koch approved SCOTUS picks. Despite Gorsuch being conservative on "single-issue" stuff like 2nd amendment or abortion.. Gorsuch got put there because he's pro-corporate.
 
radcen said:
That's a reasonable point. Though Obama will probably remember Sotomayor's name now that she's a justice, whereas The Donald may very well forget Gorsuch's over time, given his attention span.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I think Trump may be a little smarter than many give him credit for, but I think we'll all know the extent of that and his attention span in time. Anecdotally, I have known people who exhibited similar characteristics to those demonstrated by Trump regarding attention span, only to discover that they remembered everything, and quite remarkably so. Their explanation was that they simply chose to ignore such things until it suited their purpose to focus on them again. I concluded that their attention was more finely tuned than mine. No, that's not necessarily an endorsement. My attention span at times is challenged depending on my level of interest. I don't know that such a thing applies to someone who's job is to be interested in everything, but I suspect it does anyway.
 
radcen said:
That might qualify as a promise kept, but it's hardly an accomplishment. Not with a Rep Senate and a Committee that had already said prior to the election somebody would be confirmed... though they did have to be sketchy and change the rules mid-stream to do it.
Click to expand...

Given, that many people voted for Trump in part due to his campaign promise (turtledude for example). Trump made that promise because of accusations of his desire to appoint liberal justices, I see it as part of a strategy and thus an accomplishment.
 
radcen said:
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
Click to expand...

Nitpicking.

Who cares who "accomplished" it? It got done and it's a good thing.
 
reinoe said:
Given, that many people voted for Trump in part due to his campaign promise (turtledude for example). Trump made that promise because of accusations of his desire to appoint liberal justices, I see it as part of a strategy and thus an accomplishment.
Click to expand...
This presumes that, had Hillary won and the Reps retained the Senate, that the seat would have remained vacant for 4 more years. Does anyone really believe that?
 
Winston said:
Pretty much gurantees that the Supreme Court that gave the Koch's Citizens United, the gift that keep on giving, stays intact. The winners in this are the Kochs. I don't think Trump deserves much culpability. The president is interchangable with a blowup doll, and Gorsuch's name was probably drawn from a hat of 4-5 Koch approved SCOTUS picks. Despite Gorsuch being conservative on "single-issue" stuff like 2nd amendment or abortion.. Gorsuch got put there because he's pro-corporate.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch is pro-corporate. There's always a hat full of names given to any president in this regard. I imagine the Senate Judiciary Committee is the arbiter of who gets in the hat, and it's hard to tell what their influences might be. Surely the coming docket of likely cases has some influence as well. Beyond that, I'm too much the average citizen to have the knowledge to speak on the criteria. The Koch brothers weren't Trump supporters, so I'm not certain of the level of their influence here. If there was some influence, I believe it would necessarily have to be indirect.
 
humbolt said:
Gorsuch is pro-corporate. There's always a hat full of names given to any president in this regard. I imagine the Senate Judiciary Committee is the arbiter of who gets in the hat, and it's hard to tell what their influences might be. Surely the coming docket of likely cases has some influence as well. Beyond that, I'm too much the average citizen to have the knowledge to speak on the criteria. The Koch brothers weren't Trump supporters, so I'm not certain of the level of their influence here. If there was some influence, I believe it would necessarily have to be indirect.
Click to expand...

The Koch Bros own the Republican party. The Republicans don't do anything that isn't approved by the Kochs. Reinoe, even mentioned in post #3.. that Gorsuch is Heritage Foundation approved. The Kochs fund the Heritage foundation.
 
radcen said:
This presumes that, had Hillary won and the Reps retained the Senate, that the seat would have remained vacant for 4 more years. Does anyone really believe that?
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant to me because it's in the land of speculation. Focusing on the "we're here now and how did we get here": Trump used the "Heritage Foundation List" to get votes as a strategy which was successful. That nominating Gorsuch involved following through on a campaign promise is also not to be dismissed as a final move in a strategy. Trump following through on a promise is to help solidify his base.
 
humbolt said:
Gorsuch is pro-corporate. There's always a hat full of names given to any president in this regard. I imagine the Senate Judiciary Committee is the arbiter of who gets in the hat, and it's hard to tell what their influences might be. Surely the coming docket of likely cases has some influence as well. Beyond that, I'm too much the average citizen to have the knowledge to speak on the criteria. The Koch brothers weren't Trump supporters, so I'm not certain of the level of their influence here. If there was some influence, I believe it would necessarily have to be indirect.
Click to expand...

Trump asked for the Heritage Foundation to give him that hat, not the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate was completely irrelevant.
 
Winston said:
The Koch Bros own the Republican party. The Republicans don't do anything that isn't approved by the Kochs. Reinoe, even mentioned in post #3.. that Gorsuch is Heritage Foundation approved. The Kochs fund the Heritage foundation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the Republicans are completely dictated to by the Koch brothers. Like most of the extremely wealthy both left and right politically, most of the funding they provide is done through other foundations to Heritage, in this case. Much the same can be said of Soros. It's how such things work, and the level of funding is usually a pittance to the grantors. Heritage is surely influenced. To what degree is a matter of speculation because it can generally be stated that there is a commonality in belief from the very start. Thus, Soros can fund the Tides Foundation secure in the knowledge that they share certain objectives without explicitly requiring that they be adhered to, and no doubt Heritage functions in a similar fashion.

If you personally donate to charities and such, no doubt you do the very same thing. The difference is in scale, and the level of influence follows that scale to some extent. Of note is that Heritage and Tides would survive without the Kochs and Soros. Their objectives are shared by a wide portion of the populace.
 
reinoe said:
Trump asked for the Heritage Foundation to give him that hat, not the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate was completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I know, but I hardly think the Senate was irrelevant.
 
radcen said:
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
Click to expand...



To Trump who must bolster his own frail ego every nine minutes, it is a huge "accomplishment", especially since he seems to be hitting every wall but the one he promised to build.

I understand Muslims are still allowed to enter the country, and his negotiating style leave severyone hating him, yeah it is. But then some could say lasting this long in the Oval Office is an "accomplishment"
 
The confirmation of Gorsuch is a major accomplishment for the American people.
 
radcen said:
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
Click to expand...

Yes, to choose a highly qualified, highly respected, and constitutionally centered person that could be confirmed by the Senate for the high court was indeed an accomplishment as well as a campaign promise kept.
 
radcen said:
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
Click to expand...

I would say Gorsuch's nomination is an accomplishment for Trump. But that Donald Trump owes Senator Harry Reid a huge debt of thanks. If it weren't for the Senator Harry Reid's nuclear option, Gorsuch wouldn't have ever been confirmed. Gorsuch's confirmation probably has more to due with Senator Reid than Trump himself. Although Gorsuch would never be on the Supreme Court if Trump hadn't nominated him.

Whether Gorsuch is the conservative Trump supporters wanted, remains to be seen. I remember another SCOTUS justice that Bush the first nominated and took the bench where conservatives thought they had a winner. But Souter turned out to be quite liberal. In other words, it is much too early to be celebrating or patting oneself on the back. Wait four or five years and then look back at Gorsuch's voting record.

I do agree the Democrats opposition was just for show. Schumer who stood side by side when Senator Reid first utilized the nuclear option and had nothing but praise for it, knew this time he was on the receiving end. Schumer voted for first use of the nuclear option, so eliminating the check and balance, the need to get 60 senators to agree upon a SCOTUS justice agreeable to them, went out the window with Schumer's own vote back then.

But Gorscuh's appointment is about the only thing so far Trump has accomplished. Time will tell if that was a good or bad appointment.
 
For Trump? I guess.
But I could care less if it is victory for the Dems or the Reps...I care about the country.

And I believe politically motivated SCOTUS confirmations are irresponsible and bad for the country.

Imo, the ONLY things that a potential SCOTUS judge should be is talented at deciding what the Constitution/previous Constitutional decisions actually means (not what he/she wants it to mean) AND keeps their political views COMPLETELY out of all their decisions on the bench.

The SCOTUS is supposed to determine law based on the Constitution. Not try and make laws the way they want them to be.

And it is pretty obvious that most judges currently just try and twist the Constitution to fit their beliefs...which is HORRIBLE, imo.
 
radcen said:
Is Neil Gursuch's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice an "accomplishment" for President Trump?

I say 'no'. It's something that got accomplished, as in checking a mundane task off a checklist, but it's not a "Hey, look at what I overcame!" accomplishment.

The Senate Judicial Committee and the Reps said even before the election that they wouldn't hold the seat vacant forever if they didn't win the Presidency. The political posturing by the Dems that took place was more for show. While it was not guaranteed Gorsuch would be confirmed, either he or someone else would have been in due time, a fait accompli. A confirmation would have happened regardless.
Click to expand...

NeverTrumpers. You people just can't bring yourselves to give Trump credit if your life depended on it. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom