• 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 appointment to the SC an accomplishment for Trump?

Is Gorsuch's appointment to the SC an accomplishment for Trump?

  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
radcen said:
Is Gorsuch's appointment to the SC an accomplishment for Trump?

First up, dictionary definition of "accomplishment"...

I suppose you can pick and choose which definition you want, if you're a hopeless partisan hack, but most people speak of something having been done exceptionally, or above average, when speaking of accomplishments for Presidents, akin to #2.

Anyway, was it an accomplishment, something achieved against negative odds, or was it just a mundane accomplishment not unlike what almost every other President has done as a matter of routine?
Click to expand...

Any Monkey wearing an elephant pin could have and should have picked him. So Trump listened to his handlers, one time. Big deal! He hasn't, Since.
 
radcen said:
I'm one who does not believe the Constitution is crystal clear (in many areas). If it were, there wouldn't be as much debate about what it means, there's just be debate on whether what it means is good or bad.
Click to expand...

True, the constitution didn't necessarily anticipate the everything in the modern world, but from my view, it didn't attempt to and didn't need to. From my view its more the principals on which the nation is founded.

Also, your previous post said a textualist doesn't interpret based on intent, but here you talk about other documents and philosophies and ideas beyond the Constitution itself. Wouldn't a textualist ignore that other stuff?
Click to expand...

Principals tempered by philosophies? Perhaps I shouldn't have included philosophy in my comment on that. On second thought, I think your observation is more 'on it' than I in that post. A textualist wouldn't include philosophy as much as principals, perhaps. I call your observation on that count as fair.
 
Gorsuch was a fine choice.

But Trump has had a lot of success in his first 10 months getting a number of his nominations confirmed.
So far besides Gorsuch, 8 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 4 judges for the United States district courts, and there are currently 46 nominations awaiting Senate action, including 10 for the Courts of Appeals and 36 for the District Courts. According to Wiki there are 20 vacancies on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 119 vacancies on the U.S. district courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade, and 17 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term.

I believe it was just last week 4 were confirmed, 3 women and one man.
 
vesper said:
Gorsuch was a fine choice.

But Trump has had a lot of success in his first 10 months getting a number of his nominations confirmed.
So far besides Gorsuch, 8 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 4 judges for the United States district courts, and there are currently 46 nominations awaiting Senate action, including 10 for the Courts of Appeals and 36 for the District Courts. According to Wiki there are 20 vacancies on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 119 vacancies on the U.S. district courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade, and 17 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term.

I believe it was just last week 4 were confirmed, 3 women and one man.
Click to expand...

6th Circuit Judge Amul Thapar was some brilliant thinking by Trump. He had listed AT, who was sitting on a KY district court as a surprising member of his potential USSC picks. I have worked with Judge Thapar and that was a shrewd choice by Trump.
 
TurtleDude said:
6th Circuit Judge Amul Thapar was some brilliant thinking by Trump. He had listed AT, who was sitting on a KY district court as a surprising member of his potential USSC picks. I have worked with Judge Thapar and that was a shrewd choice by Trump.
Click to expand...

Wasn't he the one that the Progressives wet their pants over and strongly opposed his nomination? Yep he was a darn good choice. I hear he is a member of the Federalist Society. :)
 
TurtleDude said:
6th Circuit Judge Amul Thapar was some brilliant thinking by Trump. He had listed AT, who was sitting on a KY district court as a surprising member of his potential USSC picks. I have worked with Judge Thapar and that was a shrewd choice by Trump.
Click to expand...

Seems like this keeps happenin dont it, where Trump makes an unusually good choice, as the so -called experts who have failed over a long period of time keep insisting that he is a rube....

I find this dynamic to be spectacularly amusing.

How Bout U?
 
vesper said:
Wasn't he the one that the Progressives wet their pants over and strongly opposed his nomination? Yep he was a darn good choice. I hear he is a member of the Federalist Society. :)
Click to expand...

He also clerked for two liberal judges: the Late S Arthur Spiegel of the Southern District of Ohio and the very liberal former Judge for the Six Circuit, Hon. Nathaniel Jones
 
TurtleDude said:
He also clerked for two liberal judges: the Late S Arthur Spiegel of the Southern District of Ohio and the very liberal former Judge for the Six Circuit, Hon. Nathaniel Jones
Click to expand...


In September 2016, Thapar was included in a second list of individuals presidential candidate Trump "would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court." That second list was composed by Ted Cruz. Thapar was one of his choices as was Gorsuch.

Did you know that Thapar was the first Indian American to be confirmed to the federal judiciary? George Bush nominated him.
 
eohrnberger said:
True, the constitution didn't necessarily anticipate the everything in the modern world, but from my view, it didn't attempt to and didn't need to. From my view its more the principals on which the nation is founded.



Principals tempered by philosophies? Perhaps I shouldn't have included philosophy in my comment on that. On second thought, I think your observation is more 'on it' than I in that post. A textualist wouldn't include philosophy as much as principals, perhaps. I call your observation on that count as fair.
Click to expand...

Principles. Jesus Christ. English is not a hard language for a native speaker.

Even the philosophy of the constitution is up for debate, which is why interpretation of the constitution is always contentious. "literalist" or "textualist" generally means "the guy who votes Republican 100% of the time."
 
vesper said:
In September 2016, Thapar was included in a second list of individuals presidential candidate Trump "would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court." That second list was composed by Ted Cruz. Thapar was one of his choices as was Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

"Would consider" = "be told to consider." Does anyone here really think Trump knows anything about his judicial candidates? That strikes me as one duty he's perfectly willing to hand off to a subordinate.

"Composed by Ted Cruz" sounds like the credit to the world's longest fart.

vesper said:
Did you know that Thapar was the first Indian American to be confirmed to the federal judiciary? George Bush nominated him.
Click to expand...

And Thapar's parents first question was why wasn't he on the federal judiciary of doctors.

*BA DUM TSS*
 
radcen said:
Is Gorsuch's appointment to the SC an accomplishment for Trump?

First up, dictionary definition of "accomplishment"...

I suppose you can pick and choose which definition you want, if you're a hopeless partisan hack, but most people speak of something having been done exceptionally, or above average, when speaking of accomplishments for Presidents, akin to #2.

Anyway, was it an accomplishment, something achieved against negative odds, or was it just a mundane accomplishment not unlike what almost every other President has done as a matter of routine?
Click to expand...

An achievement would be two more appointments.
 
vesper said:
Wasn't he the one that the Progressives wet their pants over and strongly opposed his nomination? Yep he was a darn good choice. I hear he is a member of the Federalist Society. :)
Click to expand...

Yes. He is quite progressive in that he wants to fix badly misled judicial practices creepingly undermining the Constitution in preference of passing the laws and making the Ammendments liberal ideologies would require and for which their advocates did not want to wakl the walk.
 
radcen said:
Is Gorsuch's appointment to the SC an accomplishment for Trump?

First up, dictionary definition of "accomplishment"...

I suppose you can pick and choose which definition you want, if you're a hopeless partisan hack, but most people speak of something having been done exceptionally, or above average, when speaking of accomplishments for Presidents, akin to #2.

Anyway, was it an accomplishment, something achieved against negative odds, or was it just a mundane accomplishment not unlike what almost every other President has done as a matter of routine?
Click to expand...

It's no big effort or accomplishment to appoint a hardline Rightie when your congress is filled with hardline righties. He was ratified by purely partisan votes. And, the nutcases hold the majority.
 
lurchadams said:
Gorsuch told a sad story about how he learned of Scalia's passing. Gorsuch said he was at the top of a ski run in Colorado when he received the call. He said he then wept the whole way down to the bottom of the hill. This is a true story. What it lacks is my commentary. So here goes.

Gorsuch skiing down the hill, mourning:

<swish! swish! swish! waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!> <swish! swish! MOGUL FIELD! SKI JUMP! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!>
<aggressive parallel stop at the bottom of the run by the beer garden spraying snow on some liberals! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!>
Click to expand...

You hate the guy so you mock his feeling he shares about a close friend dying. Really classy!!
Condition normal from the tolerant left.
 
vesper said:
Gorsuch was a fine choice.

But Trump has had a lot of success in his first 10 months getting a number of his nominations confirmed.
So far besides Gorsuch, 8 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 4 judges for the United States district courts, and there are currently 46 nominations awaiting Senate action, including 10 for the Courts of Appeals and 36 for the District Courts. According to Wiki there are 20 vacancies on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 119 vacancies on the U.S. district courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade, and 17 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term.

I believe it was just last week 4 were confirmed, 3 women and one man.
Click to expand...

How are picking judges an accomplishment? Seriously it's like you guys are actively promoting dictatorship. I saw a debate with a panel on CNN last night, and this one guy was basically saying that he wishes Trump was directly in charge of independent institutions like the FBI
 
radcen said:
The answer must be seriously inconvenient for you. But I do give you credit for not lying and just expressing faux indignation instead. At least that's something.
Click to expand...

There's nothing inconvenient about it at all. Of course it's an accomplishment, only an idiot would think otherwise. Or, a partisan hack. ;)

Thanks for confirming that your only goal is to disseminate the issued talking point. Congratulations on the successful regurgitation, I hope you didn't hurt yourself.
 
It's a plus for the GOP and conservative ideology, but with the GOP controlling both houses of Congress, the confirmation of Gorsuch hardly a Trump accomplishment.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
How are picking judges an accomplishment? Seriously it's like you guys are actively promoting dictatorship. I saw a debate with a panel on CNN last night, and this one guy was basically saying that he wishes Trump was directly in charge of independent institutions like the FBI
Click to expand...

It is part of the duties in being president. The accomplishment is in the types of jurists the president chooses to nominate. 90% of Republicans cast a vote in the 2016 election for Trump. The overwhelming #1 reason was because of the type of jurists he promised to choose. Early on he published one list of names and in September 2016 he added another list to the original of those he would consider as a nominee for the SC vowing to only choose from his published list.

The judiciary has always been important to the majority of Republican voters in that those being confirmed are Originalists and have a strong respect for the Rule of Law. Today more than ever because of decades of judicial activism it is a priority for many. Not only did he choose Gorsuch from that list to replace Scalia, he has been choosing others from the same list to fill key positions grooming them for a possible nomination to the SC in the next couple of years. He is also choosing jurists who are relatively young so they are going to likely serve for decades. For anyone who has deep concerns over the Judiciary, see this as a huge accomplishment.

I don't know what you watched on CNN. But there are a lot of talking heads on shows regardless of political affiliation that say a lot of worthless garbage.
 
calamity said:
It's no big effort or accomplishment to appoint a hardline Rightie when your congress is filled with hardline righties. He was ratified by purely partisan votes. And, the nutcases hold the majority.
Click to expand...

The ONLy way this man got confirmed was to change the rules that had been in effect almost since the nation began.
 
vesper said:
In September 2016, Thapar was included in a second list of individuals presidential candidate Trump "would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court." That second list was composed by Ted Cruz. Thapar was one of his choices as was Gorsuch.

Did you know that Thapar was the first Indian American to be confirmed to the federal judiciary? George Bush nominated him.
Click to expand...

I know him well and yes
 
WASHINGTON — Judge Neil M. Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate on Friday to become the 113th justice of the Supreme Court, capping a political brawl that lasted for more than a year and tested constitutional norms inside the Capitol’s fraying upper chamber.

The moment was a triumph for President Trump, whose campaign appeal to reluctant Republicans last year rested in large part on his pledge to appoint another committed conservative to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016. However rocky the first months of his administration may have been, Mr. Trump now has a lasting legacy: Judge Gorsuch, 49, could serve on the court for 30 years or more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html
 
Floridafan said:
The ONLy way this man got confirmed was to change the rules that had been in effect almost since the nation began.
Click to expand...

Republicans argued that changing the rules to push through the nomination was their only option, accusing Democrats of razing Senate norms with the first-ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Allowing this obstruction to stand, Republicans said, would have caused more damage than overriding Senate precedent to turn back the filibuster.

“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet,” Mr. McConnell said, after describing Democratic opposition in the past to Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. “And it cannot and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards: one for the nominees of the Democratic president and another for the nominees of Republican presidents.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom