President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, 49, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to the Supreme Court.
What does this board think?
While I don't know him personally, I know people who do -- but I have not yet heard from them what their impressions are.
In yesterday's New York Times article, Judge Gorsuch is quoted as follows:
"It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands."
And as a fellow Episcopalian, I think this observation in the article, while not important, is kinda cool:
"As an Episcopalian, Judge Gorsuch would be the only Protestant seated among five Catholics and three Jewish jurists."
Full article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/po...trump.html
It sounds like he is more than qualified and has a good reputation of ruling based on how he interprets the Constitution.
I also posted this to the Administration thread, but will copy it here:
He's not technically part of the admin, but Trump nominated "his" Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. From what I've read he is basically a clone of Scalia, so the horrible Republican obstruction of Obama's replacement nominee works out in the end.
Now we wait and see if Democrats return the favor and try and hold up this nominee. I hope that we do not see a concerted effort due to the obvious hypocrisy of doing so after complaining loudly (and rightfully) about the Republican party's decision to stonewall Garland. At some point one party has to decide to be the bigger person and get over this pissing match that is hamstringing the government and keeping elected officials from doing the job they were elected to do. I hope that the Democrats take a step in that direction here.
However, my hope does leave me wondering. If there is no concerted Democratic opposition to the pick, doesn't it let the Republicans off the hook for such a unprecedented, crass, and obviously partisan obstruction? Does it not, in some way, encourage Mr. Turtle and Co. to continue being partisan bumps on the logs when it doesn't suit their interests?
I like him so far.
I hope the inevitable NO!!! from the Democrats will be relatively short lived, but i doubt it.
It is a little disconcerting to have a SCOTUS nominee who is younger than my son. I feel so old.
(02-01-2017 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I like him so far.
I hope the inevitable NO!!! from the Democrats will be relatively short lived, but i doubt it.
It is a little disconcerting to have a SCOTUS nominee who is younger than my son. I feel so old.
Well, based on the length of time the Republican's sat on Garland's nominee, I'd say you have about a year before you can start complaining.
(02-01-2017 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2017 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I like him so far.
I hope the inevitable NO!!! from the Democrats will be relatively short lived, but i doubt it.
It is a little disconcerting to have a SCOTUS nominee who is younger than my son. I feel so old.
Well, based on the length of time the Republican's sat on Garland's nominee, I'd say you have about a year before you can start complaining.
I don't think the Democrats will insist on equal time, but maybe you are right.
I view the tactic used by the Republicans re: Garland as just that - a tactic. I am sure there will be no hesitation for the Dems to delay on a SCOTUS nomination if it occurs late in trump's term, now that the tactic has been used, and when that happens, the left will praise the tactic and the right will condemn it. Business as usual.
I find the the outrage to be similar to the outrage opposing coaches had to the first forward pass. NO FAIR!! You have to run it! It's always been done that way.
I think delaying confirmatiions late in a term will be the new normal - for both parties.
(02-01-2017 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2017 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2017 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I like him so far.
I hope the inevitable NO!!! from the Democrats will be relatively short lived, but i doubt it.
It is a little disconcerting to have a SCOTUS nominee who is younger than my son. I feel so old.
Well, based on the length of time the Republican's sat on Garland's nominee, I'd say you have about a year before you can start complaining.
I don't think the Democrats will insist on equal time, but maybe you are right.
I view the tactic used by the Republicans re: Garland as just that - a tactic. I am sure there will be no hesitation for the Dems to delay on a SCOTUS nomination if it occurs late in trump's term, now that the tactic has been used, and when that happens, the left will praise the tactic and the right will condemn it. Business as usual.
I find the the outrage to be similar to the outrage opposing coaches had to the first forward pass. NO FAIR!! You have to run it! It's always been done that way.
I think delaying confirmatiions late in a term will be the new normal - for both parties.
Which is disgusting.
Like I said in my other post, I hope the Dems do not do this. At some point we have to move past "Well, the other side did it" mentality. There is no rationale reason why a POTUS should not nominate their own Justice just because an election is coming up.
(02-01-2017 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I also posted this to the Administration thread, but will copy it here:
Yes, thank you for re-posting. It was your post on the "Trump Administration" thread that prompted me to start a thread just on this topic, and I was hoping you would re-post your comment.
He seems qualified and thoughtful, so in the abstract it's hard to complain. He probably won't reach certain results I'd prefer he reach, but his legal process seems generally sound. I also agree with his quote that a judge shouldn't necessarily like the result in every case. Scalia had a joke about how he wished he had a stamp that said, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL," because it would have made his job go so much faster. There's a lot of truth/wisdom in that. (Of course, the battlefield often is whether a particular statute is appropriately judged to be constitutional.) Anyway, elections have consequences, as we all know.
My only real gripe (and it is a significant one) is the manner in which this election got to have a consequence on this Supreme Court seat. This should have been an Obama pick, and the next open seat should have been Trump's to fill with Gorsuch (or whomever). It's a bit galling to see that the Republican strategy here worked. I honestly can say I would have actually really loathed it if the Democrats had done the same thing. It's just dirty pool.
(02-01-2017 10:53 AM)Barrett Wrote: [ -> ]He seems qualified and thoughtful, so in the abstract it's hard to complain. He probably won't reach certain results I'd prefer he reach, but his legal process seems generally sound. I also agree with his quote that a judge shouldn't necessarily like the result in every case. Scalia had a joke about how he wished he had a stamp that said, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL," because it would have made his job go so much faster. There's a lot of truth/wisdom in that. (Of course, the battlefield often is whether a particular statute is appropriately judged to be constitutional.) Anyway, elections have consequences, as we all know.
My only real gripe (and it is a significant one) is the manner in which this election got to have a consequence on this Supreme Court seat. This should have been an Obama pick, and the next open seat should have been Trump's to fill with Gorsuch (or whomever). It's a bit galling to see that the Republican strategy here worked. I honestly can say I would have actually really loathed it if the Democrats had done the same thing. It's just dirty pool.
Agreed.
Which is why I hope to God they don't try and do the same thing now with this nominee (or future ones). It's also why I can't stand the call from some liberals to say "No" on ALL of Trump's political appointees just because Trump picked them.
(02-01-2017 11:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2017 10:53 AM)Barrett Wrote: [ -> ]He seems qualified and thoughtful, so in the abstract it's hard to complain. He probably won't reach certain results I'd prefer he reach, but his legal process seems generally sound. I also agree with his quote that a judge shouldn't necessarily like the result in every case. Scalia had a joke about how he wished he had a stamp that said, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL," because it would have made his job go so much faster. There's a lot of truth/wisdom in that. (Of course, the battlefield often is whether a particular statute is appropriately judged to be constitutional.) Anyway, elections have consequences, as we all know.
My only real gripe (and it is a significant one) is the manner in which this election got to have a consequence on this Supreme Court seat. This should have been an Obama pick, and the next open seat should have been Trump's to fill with Gorsuch (or whomever). It's a bit galling to see that the Republican strategy here worked. I honestly can say I would have actually really loathed it if the Democrats had done the same thing. It's just dirty pool.
Agreed.
Which is why I hope to God they don't try and do the same thing now with this nominee (or future ones). It's also why I can't stand the call from some liberals to say "No" on ALL of Trump's political appointees just because Trump picked them.
I agree, too. The Court has traditionally been the least politicized branch and needs to remain so.
The frustrating thing is McConnell et al. haven't suffered any real consequences for Garland.
(02-01-2017 12:00 PM)JSA Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2017 11:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2017 10:53 AM)Barrett Wrote: [ -> ]He seems qualified and thoughtful, so in the abstract it's hard to complain. He probably won't reach certain results I'd prefer he reach, but his legal process seems generally sound. I also agree with his quote that a judge shouldn't necessarily like the result in every case. Scalia had a joke about how he wished he had a stamp that said, "STUPID, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL," because it would have made his job go so much faster. There's a lot of truth/wisdom in that. (Of course, the battlefield often is whether a particular statute is appropriately judged to be constitutional.) Anyway, elections have consequences, as we all know.
My only real gripe (and it is a significant one) is the manner in which this election got to have a consequence on this Supreme Court seat. This should have been an Obama pick, and the next open seat should have been Trump's to fill with Gorsuch (or whomever). It's a bit galling to see that the Republican strategy here worked. I honestly can say I would have actually really loathed it if the Democrats had done the same thing. It's just dirty pool.
Agreed.
Which is why I hope to God they don't try and do the same thing now with this nominee (or future ones). It's also why I can't stand the call from some liberals to say "No" on ALL of Trump's political appointees just because Trump picked them.
I agree, too. The Court has traditionally been the least politicized branch and needs to remain so.
The frustrating thing is McConnell et al. haven't suffered any real consequences for Garland.
Agreed about the frustration. In fact, it may have even helped them as they could pull the SC nominee card in the general election, which I think allowed a not insignificant amount of people to hold their nose and vote for Trump.
(02-01-2017 10:53 AM)Barrett Wrote: [ -> ]It's a bit galling to see that the Republican strategy here worked. I honestly can say I would have actually really loathed it if the Democrats had done the same thing. It's just dirty pool.
And I'm pretty sure the democrats would have done the same thing if the roles had been reversed. Aren't you?
There's a bit of poetic justice in that a conservative seat appears destined to remain conservative instead of upsetting the balance. I think the appropriate move for Trump would be to make Garland the nominee-designate for the next leftist seat to come open--when Ginsburg croaks or Breyer hangs them up--in exchange for democrats agreeing to move this one along. That would tend to preserve the balance.
The move I would like to see made, and Gorsuch is a move in that direction at least on the geographic side, is more intellectual and geographic diversity. Everybody on the court attended one of two law schools--Harvard and Yale--and with the exception of Kennedy came to the court from the northeast corridor. I'd like to see 11 justices, one from each federal judicial circuit. And I'd like to see an effort to bring in graduates of more law schools.
(02-01-2017 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]And I'm pretty sure the democrats would have done the same thing if the roles had been reversed. Aren't you?
There's a bit of poetic justice in that a conservative seat appears destined to remain conservative instead of upsetting the balance. I think the appropriate move for Trump would be to make Garland the nominee-designate for the next leftist seat to come open--when Ginsburg croaks or Breyer hangs them up--in exchange for democrats agreeing to move this one along. That would tend to preserve the balance.
I don't think the Democrats would have done the same thing, actually. But we can argue that point all day long, and there'd be no way to know for sure. I can just categorically say that I would not be in favor of any party doing it.
As for making Garland the next pick, that's an interesting approach. It actually would have been pretty deft if Trump had nominated Garland this time around. That would have really pulled the rug out from Democrats and left them off balance. Then it would have arguably given him some cover to go completely nuts with his next pick.
(02-01-2017 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]And I'm pretty sure the democrats would have done the same thing if the roles had been reversed. Aren't you?
No. They've been a lot more reticent about destroying norms, especially in the Senate. Before you point out the nuclear option on the filibuster - that's the exception that proves the rule. It took the Rs basically trying to refuse to fill any jobs in the executive branch to bring it to that. But, as Barrett points out, we could debate this point all day.
Regardless, McConnell attempted to steal a SC pick from Obama and succeeded. I'd still like the Dems to try and take it back.
If the Republicans think we've forgotten that they threatened during the campaign to block ALL of Hillary Clinton's SC picks for the full four years, they are wrong.
I would personally have rather had Garland than Gorsuch, but Gorsuch is extremely well qualified and I think will do fine. Would be nice if Trump did make Garland the nominee-designate for the next seat.
And yes, the Democrats (and Republicans) have had this exact same attitude in the past. In fact, our recently departed buffoon of a VP, Joe Biden, argued in 1992 that Supreme Court nominees should be delayed until after that fall's election, arguing that it was "essential" that any openings (as there were currently none in 1992) be left alone until the next election. The Republicans failed to confirm LBJ's pick for Supreme Court Justice, Abe Fortas, in 1968 after LBJ announced he would not run for re-election.
(02-01-2017 01:37 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2017 12:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]And I'm pretty sure the democrats would have done the same thing if the roles had been reversed. Aren't you?
No. They've been a lot more reticent about destroying norms, especially in the Senate. Before you point out the nuclear option on the filibuster - that's the exception that proves the rule. It took the Rs basically trying to refuse to fill any jobs in the executive branch to bring it to that. But, as Barrett points out, we could debate this point all day.
Regardless, McConnell attempted to steal a SC pick from Obama and succeeded. I'd still like the Dems to try and take it back.
If the Republicans think we've forgotten that they threatened during the campaign to block ALL of Hillary Clinton's SC picks for the full four years, they are wrong.
I want to see them strike a deal in which they don't even attempt to block the pick in exchange for something. Maybe either the next Supreme Court nominee being philosophically aligned with who they replace or perhaps the rejection of an appointee or two that the Dems can't support.
However, if those options aren't on the table, I say that they just move along with the approval process so the wheels of government can keep moving.
Already today (yesterday?) the R's have changed a longstanding rule that at least one member of the opposite party be present to move forward a nomination. Do I like that we are in a period of "institutional hardball"? No. But there's a difference between taking the high road and being a sucker. Dems will be the latter if they don't start playing just as hard.
This article sums up where I am on the filibuster:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...r-share-di
"Democrats are reportedly tempted to abandon the filibuster, so that it remains in place for a future Court fight. “Preserving the filibuster now could give Democrats more leverage in the future,” some Democrats tell CNN. But this is fantastical. There is no “leverage” gained by a weapon one’s opponent can disarm at will. The Supreme Court filibuster is like a pair of handcuffs in which the handcuffed person is holding the key.
It was clear to some of us several years ago, and has become clear to almost everybody else since, that the rules of politics have changed completely. The old norms presumed that a president can fill a Supreme Court vacancy with a jurist of his own broad philosophical bent, and that the opposing party is only entitled to block a candidate they consider especially unqualified or extreme. (These norms allowed for bitter fights over individual candidates, such as Robert Bork, without questioning a president’s right to nominate somebody qualified from his own team.) Those norms are gone. The new norm is that a president needs 50 Senate votes to fill a seat, or it will go unfilled.
It would be better for the health of American democracy to change the rules to something more stable. But pretending otherwise delays rather than hastens the day when some formal rule change comes about. In the meantime, Democrats have an extremely simple choice: They can make McConnell abolish the filibuster, or wait for the day when McConnell attacks them for doing it. It is McConnell, with his extraordinary blockade tactic, who has functionally changed the rules of the game. He should be forced to do it in name."
(02-01-2017 02:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Schumer's thoughts on the matter
To be fair, Schumer did have ideological reasons for this:
Quote:Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.
"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," Schumer said at the time.
Sounds like he picked a really bad way to say he didn't think any Justice should be confirmed if they held extreme ideologies. But based on that quote, it's different than Mr. Turtle's decision to obstruct for no good reason.
Ultimately, these delays and endless bickering are a stark reminder of why we need to impose term limits on members of Congress. There are enough people whose entire lives are subsidized by the American taxpayer, so term limits would at least decrease that number by a small amount.