• 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 .
Common Sense 1 said:
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
Click to expand...

The rules have been the rules since the beginning, only now after hundreds of years have republicans changed them just to get their man in office.
 
Floridafan said:
The rules have been the rules since the beginning, only now after hundreds of years have republicans changed them just to get their man in office.
Click to expand...

Talk to Harry Reid about changing Senate rules..... he laid the ground work for what happened.

Why did the Democrats break with Senate norms with the first-ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee? Which caused the rule change!
 
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...

I voted yes but I don't understand how he overcame great odds. I also don't understand how the lefties say that Trump hasn't accomplished anything and then give him zero credit for what he actually has accomplished. You guys are not fair at all, but then again, when it comes to Trump, it is all about being anti-Trump with absolutely anything and everything you can. If he doesn't repeal and replace Obamacare then you blast him for not accomplishing anything and if he were to repeal and replace Obamacare you would say the only thing he accomplished was in moving the country backwards. If you want to be unbiased then you have to blast him for the things he doesn't accomplish and give him credit for the things he does accomplish. Otherwise, you are just being part of the biased partisan resistance.
 
TurtleDude said:
the choices were pretty poor-but Yes was the closest to what I would answer. Dingy Harry opened the door with his ending the filibuster for other things so it didn't take Trump too much effort to seat the guy. I'd say it was one of the few really good things Trump has done once he has been in office.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and as for it being one of the really good things, to be honest it's one of the only things he has been able to accomplish.

For the supposed master of the art of the deal he really knows how to alienate people, **** even people in his own party.
 
MSgt said:
The manner in which these judges get appointed is such an insult. The fact that the political parties get to choose who gets to sit on a throne until he dies defies the very nature and purpose of a judge.

"I'm going to appoint you a Supreme Court Judge. Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me..."
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't, he may have to play ball for a little bit but once he's on the SCOTUS there's absolutely nothing the other two branches can do to him, he's free to rule based on his own reasoning.

It's actually one of the best systems in place and does well in isolating the judiciary as much as possible.
 
radcen said:
Is Gorsuch's appointment to the SC an accomplishment for Trump?
Click to expand...

First, an Accomplishment is generally considered something positive.

Second, it's not really something Trump deserves credit for. Republicans stole the seat by fudging the constitution and intentionally failing to do their jobs. President Obama had the right to appoint that seat, and by law Merrick Garland should have been approved. Republicans have now created a constitutional crisis which has the potential to leave the supreme court completely empty and incapable of doing it's duty so long as 51 Senators don't like the president.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Talk to Harry Reid about changing Senate rules..... he laid the ground work for what happened.

Why did the Democrats break with Senate norms with the first-ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee? Which caused the rule change!
Click to expand...

The Democrats were very careful NOT to change the rules regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges. In case you forgot so quickly, the ONLy reason they made the changes they did was because republicans refused, to back any Obama appointments
 
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...

Which was no major accomplishment either since nutcases are now in charge.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Talk to Harry Reid about changing Senate rules..... he laid the ground work for what happened.

Why did the Democrats break with Senate norms with the first-ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee? Which caused the rule change!
Click to expand...

Spin to the point of outright lying is not exactly credible.
 
calamity said:
Spin to the point of outright lying is not exactly credible.
Click to expand...

This is what started the downhill slide in the Senate(2011). Then when Dems filibustered Gorsuch that was the last straw. Rule change! Now do you understand?


In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

Reid triggers ?nuclear option? to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters | TheHill
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since 1962 Democratic leaders have sent up Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Ginsberg, Stephan Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor & Elena Kagan.
One African, one puerto rican & 5 jews. This is the Democratic idea of diversity on the Court. It might also be labeled no white Christians been apply.

Getting a white christian man back on the supreme court, an institution designed & framed by white christian men,yet most of the democrats were
vehemently opposed to him. Funny stuff, what ever happened here!
 
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...

Yes, it's an accomplishment, but I wouldn't say he "overcame great odds".
 
Luftwaffe said:
Actually it doesn't, he may have to play ball for a little bit but once he's on the SCOTUS there's absolutely nothing the other two branches can do to him, he's free to rule based on his own reasoning.

It's actually one of the best systems in place and does well in isolating the judiciary as much as possible.
Click to expand...

I guess that's true.

I just don't like the idea of any president, announcing his nomination with this arm around a future Supreme Court judge's shoulder.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
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
Click to expand...

The "brawl" wasn't even remotely about Gorsuch. Talk about hyperbole.
 
MSgt said:
I guess that's true.

I just don't like the idea of any president, announcing his nomination with this arm around a future Supreme Court judge's shoulder.
Click to expand...

The congress wields the power of approval anyways. If there's anyone Gorsuch needed to ass until he got into SCOTUS it was them.

And now that he's guaranteed his position for life, he doesn't have any ass to kiss other than his own.
 
The Heritage Foundation gave Trump a list of justices they would support. I doubt Trump was even the one that selected Gorsuch from that list.

Pretty pathetic if you need to point to that as a Trump accomplishment. Even I name better things that Trump did, was there for, err, "accomplished". The SC appointment was Trump signing something. Zilch credit from me for that.
 
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...

With the Senator Reid nuclear option it was a foregone conclusion that whomever Trump nominated would be confirmed. That confirmation should belong to and be credited to Senator Reid who changed the rules of the senate during mid session. That made it all possible. Without the use of the Senator Reid nuclear option there would had to have been 60 votes for cloture on a Democratic filibuster. No way would Gorsuch been confirmed without Senator Reid.
 
Perotista said:
With the Senator Reid nuclear option it was a foregone conclusion that whomever Trump nominated would be confirmed. That confirmation should belong to and be credited to Senator Reid who changed the rules of the senate during mid session. That made it all possible. Without the use of the Senator Reid nuclear option there would had to have been 60 votes for cloture on a Democratic filibuster. No way would Gorsuch been confirmed without Senator Reid.
Click to expand...

:lol: I really can't disagree with that. Reid gets as much, if not more, credit as anyone else.

I do believe it still would have happened anyway, and still with less acrimony than instances like Bork, but yeah it would have been relatively more difficult than it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom