-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Neil Gorsuch Will Be The Next Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
His history on the Circuit Court indicates that he will make an excellent Justice on the Supreme Court.
I don't understand why Democrats have to be such idiots.
Possibly because the USA electorate voted for someone who promised a different SCOTUS nominee.
Tom
That fact doesn't make what Senate Democrats did any less idiotic.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
You're right.
Democrats missed a golden opportunity to set themselves apart from the rhetoric on this issue and rise above the partisan ****-fest that has become modern decision making. It would have been ammunition in their corner on future ventures. Now, they've created a Senate culture in which really important decisions can now come down to just a simple majority. That's dangerous.
No amount of filibustering was ever going to bring Merrick Garland back. It's a hollow cause - and shows them for what they are. Vapid.
I'm pretty Left politically and I have no real arguments about Gorsuch.
esmith
Veteran Member
In my opinion what the Democrats did was basically throw a temper tantrum over the Republicans not giving Merrick Garland a hearing. However, one must remember the statement “Elections have consequences.” that Obama made.
I really don't see any excuse for the Republicans not doing so, there was no way Garland would be confirmed. Some say because it would have been a waste of time, but when doesn't a political body waste time.
I think by forcing the Republicans to invoke the "nuclear option" the Dems have probably shot themselves in the foot. The possibility that another Supreme Court judge will be nominated is fairly high and this will allow a considerably more conservative judge to be confirmed. That is unless the wheels fall off the Republican party and of the 33 Senators up for re-election in 2018 the Senate is flipped to the Democrats and the nomination of a justices is after the 2018 election. Then we will be back to 8 judges until the 2020 elections and a new side show.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I think. You said it better than I could.
Agree, agree, agree.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
One should not speak of the Dems being idiots when the GOP has been consistently so for the past 8 years. There was already a highly eminently qualified candidate that should have been appointed. Period. He wasn't because of the GOP's persistent partisan b.s.
Contrary to your assertion, the Dems are actually showing far more regard for the integrity of the court and country than the GOP is on this matter. It's absolutely asinine to approve a Trump nominee for a lifelong appointment when the POTUS is under investigation.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is correct when she stated, "it is crazy that we are considering confirming a lifetime Trump nominee to the Supreme Court at a moment when the president's campaign is under the cloud of an active, ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation, [which] could result in indictments and appeals that will go all the way to the Supreme Court, so that Trump's nominee could be the deciding vote on whether Trump or his supporters broke the law."
And given how evasive Gorsuch was in his testimony, once again the GOP has shown a total lack of working for the good of the country.
Which I think is fair. It was obstruction HOWEVER, the Democrats are going the exact same thing. As a democratic voter I do not support this.
I agree. Let's face it, the Republicans have the Oval Office and this is a duty of the president (the appointment). I would much rather see this put to rest so we can move on to more pressing matters. Despite the media throwing angery fits.
Good post and this just illustrates that the Democrats haven't learned much from the general election. They had an opportunity to take the high road and put party politics aside and chose not too.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Correct, republicans in congress didn't even give Garland a hearing. Which is unprecedented and odd. What goes around comes around. The supreme court should be balanced, not a conservative leaning dominionist mess which it's been for decades. Do you agree with Gorsuch's previous record? Which stands out to you?
esmith
Veteran Member
As your beloved Obama said "Elections have consequences" and your party is paying for their constant ignoring of the majority of their constituents.
Do I agree with all of Gorsuch's opinions? Probably not, but I agree with his stance on what is important to me.
What stands out about him. He isn't a believer that the Constitution is a living organism
You have got to be kidding me with your comment "conservative leaning dominionist(no such word) mess which it's been for decades"
below from: Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Sadly, I do not foresee either party taking the "high road" anytime soon.
esmith
Veteran Member
what do you object to?
Not to me it wouldn't have done.
It would be yet more evidence that they are weak and ineffective.
What this event means to me is that the Republicans put their own partisan interests over the interests of the USA. They could have chosen someone to nominate that had clear bipartisan support instead of further eroding the institutions.
Someone like Merrick Garland.
But they have demonstrated, yet again, that they are Republicans first and Americans second.
Tom
leibowde84
Veteran Member
They were merely reacting to what Republicans did last year with Merrick Garland. They refused to even bring him up for a vote at all. So, the Republicans share just as much of the blame for the nuclear option.
esmith
Veteran Member
Any nominee that President Trump put forward would have received the same treatment as Neil Gorsuch.
The Dem's true objection was with who made the nomination not the nominee.
Gorsuch was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the 10th District on July 20, 2006, Gorsuch was confirmed by unanimous voice vote in the Senate.
It's about time that there are those of you that should hearken to your beloved Obama when he said "Elections have consequences".