Other Resources The Political Joe » SCOTUS Nuclear Option Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2017-01-30 10:27 AM

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
I remember saying the democrats will rue the day they used the nuclear option to change the rules in the Senate to get around republicans blocking judges. What goes around, comes around. My bet is they will hold hearing and debate and dems will speechify and tell everyone he alone will overturn Roe V Wade and homosexual marriage! And then in the end, I think they will confirm the man (or woman) rather than 'force' the republican from going nuclear and totally marginalizing democrats.


2017-01-30 11:23 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Although it depends upon who is nominated, I think there will be some saber rattling but ultimate confirmation without the nuclear option.  Several of the justices on Trump's shortlist garnered unanimous confirmation for their lower court benches.  

It won't happen, but I'd love to see Justice Willett (on Trump's original list) on the SCOTUS.  His writing style is colorful and he doesn't take himself too seriously. 

2017-01-30 11:46 AM
in reply to: Hook'em

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
Originally posted by Hook'em

Although it depends upon who is nominated, I think there will be some saber rattling but ultimate confirmation without the nuclear option.  Several of the justices on Trump's shortlist garnered unanimous confirmation for their lower court benches.  

It won't happen, but I'd love to see Justice Willett (on Trump's original list) on the SCOTUS.  His writing style is colorful and he doesn't take himself too seriously. 




Who is the one they call Scalia 2.0? I think that ought to be a no-brainer for confirmation since it will be replacing what they lost. Of course it won't be.....dems have already said they will fight whomever Trump nominates.
2017-01-30 12:30 PM
in reply to: 0

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Hook'em

Although it depends upon who is nominated, I think there will be some saber rattling but ultimate confirmation without the nuclear option.  Several of the justices on Trump's shortlist garnered unanimous confirmation for their lower court benches.  

It won't happen, but I'd love to see Justice Willett (on Trump's original list) on the SCOTUS.  His writing style is colorful and he doesn't take himself too seriously. 

Who is the one they call Scalia 2.0? I think that ought to be a no-brainer for confirmation since it will be replacing what they lost. Of course it won't be.....dems have already said they will fight whomever Trump nominates.

We wouldn't need to worry about filibusters if we'd confirm moderate judges instead of trying to ram ideologues down the other guys' throats.  No one thinks long-term on this stuff.

Justice Kennedy was unanimously confirmed when he was nominated by Reagan, just for example.  I thought Garland might've passed muster if he got to a vote.  But things are so polarized these days it sucks.



Edited by spudone 2017-01-30 12:33 PM
2017-01-30 12:59 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Hook'em

Although it depends upon who is nominated, I think there will be some saber rattling but ultimate confirmation without the nuclear option.  Several of the justices on Trump's shortlist garnered unanimous confirmation for their lower court benches.  

It won't happen, but I'd love to see Justice Willett (on Trump's original list) on the SCOTUS.  His writing style is colorful and he doesn't take himself too seriously. 

Who is the one they call Scalia 2.0? I think that ought to be a no-brainer for confirmation since it will be replacing what they lost. Of course it won't be.....dems have already said they will fight whomever Trump nominates.

We wouldn't need to worry about filibusters if we'd confirm moderate judges instead of trying to ram ideologues down the other guys' throats.  No one thinks long-term on this stuff.

Justice Kennedy was unanimously confirmed when he was nominated by Reagan, just for example.  I thought Garland might've passed muster if he got to a vote.  But things are so polarized these days it sucks.




Yes, it all boils down to how one views the constitution.

1. You view it as a document that is to be interpreted based on evolving times as society changes

2. You view it as it was written and believe the constitution should be changed to account for evolving times and society changes.


Scalia believed the second.
2017-01-30 1:34 PM
in reply to: 0

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Hook'em

Although it depends upon who is nominated, I think there will be some saber rattling but ultimate confirmation without the nuclear option.  Several of the justices on Trump's shortlist garnered unanimous confirmation for their lower court benches.  

It won't happen, but I'd love to see Justice Willett (on Trump's original list) on the SCOTUS.  His writing style is colorful and he doesn't take himself too seriously. 

Who is the one they call Scalia 2.0? I think that ought to be a no-brainer for confirmation since it will be replacing what they lost. Of course it won't be.....dems have already said they will fight whomever Trump nominates.

We wouldn't need to worry about filibusters if we'd confirm moderate judges instead of trying to ram ideologues down the other guys' throats.  No one thinks long-term on this stuff.

Justice Kennedy was unanimously confirmed when he was nominated by Reagan, just for example.  I thought Garland might've passed muster if he got to a vote.  But things are so polarized these days it sucks.

Yes, it all boils down to how one views the constitution. 1. You view it as a document that is to be interpreted based on evolving times as society changes 2. You view it as it was written and believe the constitution should be changed to account for evolving times and society changes. Scalia believed the second.

Scalia *said* he believed in the second option but I think that was only when it was convenient to his views.  He was completely partisan on Bush v. Gore, as opposed to a strict constitutionalist.  Same with Citizen's United where you could say *striking down existing law* to give corporations the same "rights" as people is a big dose of judicial activism.

But Chief Justice Roberts walked the walk when he allowed the ACA to be upheld -  leaving it up to Congress to decide whether it should be law or not.  I'm pretty sure that's not what he personally wanted.



Edited by spudone 2017-01-30 1:35 PM


2017-02-01 8:13 AM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
According to Senate republicans, Trump knocked this one out of the park. Lindsey Graham said to democrats, "You lost the election, don't lose your minds too. There is no good reason to oppose this man."

So what will happen for the next month or two is pure, 100% politics. The result is a given, he will be confirmed one way or another. Democrats need to go on record as 'opposing' him so they can tell their base they tried to stop it. Some democrats come from districts that Trump won handily and will need to tread lightly.....oppose but don't come off as being an obstructionist opposing for the sake of opposing.

I heard a good suggestion for dems last night. Let this one go easy and keep your powder dry for the next one. This one is not going to change the balance on the court as a conservative will be replacing a conservative. But the next one (or maybe two) might be replacing liberals and could absolutely change the balance on the court for decades.
2017-02-01 10:20 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
Pelosi is having a cow, again. This alone confirms that it is a good choice for our country.

I keep hearing the argument that we shouldn't listen to the extreme (far left or right) fringe. Let's apply that thinking to everything and see how it pans out. Lets take pelosi for what she is, extreme left and therefore a caricature of of what the democrat party supposedly stands for. Every time she squawks about something, you guys need to call her your representatives and tell them you don't want fringe elements to control your party. Seems logical since I keep hearing that we don't need the extreme right controlling the Republican party. Or is that another one way street?
2017-02-01 10:24 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
Originally posted by Rogillio

According to Senate republicans, Trump knocked this one out of the park. Lindsey Graham said to democrats, "You lost the election, don't lose your minds too. There is no good reason to oppose this man."

So what will happen for the next month or two is pure, 100% politics. The result is a given, he will be confirmed one way or another. Democrats need to go on record as 'opposing' him so they can tell their base they tried to stop it. Some democrats come from districts that Trump won handily and will need to tread lightly.....oppose but don't come off as being an obstructionist opposing for the sake of opposing.

I heard a good suggestion for dems last night. Let this one go easy and keep your powder dry for the next one. This one is not going to change the balance on the court as a conservative will be replacing a conservative. But the next one (or maybe two) might be replacing liberals and could absolutely change the balance on the court for decades.


lindesy graham is a turnip…
2017-02-01 10:33 AM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

This is the kind of stuff that is not even worth discussing......and a perfect example of what the "news" does.   This confirmation is an absolute slam dunk.  The vote on his confirmation to a federal post was something like 95-0.  He will be confirmed, there is no controversy other than the media created controversy.  It COULD possibly be a story of the dems try to block him......but it certainly WON'T be a story if the nuclear option is used.......Republicans control govt. right now.....get used to it.

2017-02-01 10:35 AM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Master
2946
200050010010010010025
Centennial, CO
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

I heard an interesting take on the idea of a nuclear option.  Do the dems 1.  Force the pubs to take the nuclear option on this first appointment and set precedent for Supreme Court, or 2.  Don't block this so that next time when they fillabuster, they can claim that the 60 vote precedent by this congress should be maintained...

I think either way the dems are in trouble here.  The fact is that the pubs are not going to ever nominate a liberal judge and on every show I watched the dems were saying they won't accept a conservative judge.    Hmmmm what is wrong with that though process. 



2017-02-01 10:36 AM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
Originally posted by mdg2003

Originally posted by Rogillio

According to Senate republicans, Trump knocked this one out of the park. Lindsey Graham said to democrats, "You lost the election, don't lose your minds too. There is no good reason to oppose this man."

So what will happen for the next month or two is pure, 100% politics. The result is a given, he will be confirmed one way or another. Democrats need to go on record as 'opposing' him so they can tell their base they tried to stop it. Some democrats come from districts that Trump won handily and will need to tread lightly.....oppose but don't come off as being an obstructionist opposing for the sake of opposing.

I heard a good suggestion for dems last night. Let this one go easy and keep your powder dry for the next one. This one is not going to change the balance on the court as a conservative will be replacing a conservative. But the next one (or maybe two) might be replacing liberals and could absolutely change the balance on the court for decades.


lindesy graham is a turnip…


Lindsey Graham is a RINO.
2017-02-01 10:39 AM
in reply to: velocomp

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
Originally posted by velocomp

I heard an interesting take on the idea of a nuclear option.  Do the dems 1.  Force the pubs to take the nuclear option on this first appointment and set precedent for Supreme Court, or 2.  Don't block this so that next time when they fillabuster, they can claim that the 60 vote precedent by this congress should be maintained...

I think either way the dems are in trouble here.  The fact is that the pubs are not going to ever nominate a liberal judge and on every show I watched the dems were saying they won't accept a conservative judge.    Hmmmm what is wrong with that though process. 




I agree. The best chance we (republicans) have of staking the deck is for Trump to get a second term. That allows for 8 years an increases the chances of a liberal justice resigning or passing away.
2017-02-01 10:42 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.
2017-02-01 12:54 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.

2017-02-01 1:00 PM
in reply to: 0

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.


Yes everything is cut & dry in your world I know :p

I predict he will get confirmed, but a sure thing?  Nope.  But, when I read up on Gorsuch and his record, I think he has more liberal tendencies than even Garland, so if the Democrats reject him, they'll probably be even less happy with his replacement.

Edit: put simply, he's no Scalia.



Edited by spudone 2017-02-01 1:05 PM


2017-02-01 1:10 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.


Yes everything is cut & dry in your world I know :p

I predict he will get confirmed, but a sure thing?  Nope.  But, when I read up on Gorsuch and his record, I think he has more liberal tendencies than even Garland, so if the Democrats reject him, they'll probably be even less happy with his replacement.

Edit: put simply, he's no Scalia.

I'd be interested to hear what you have found to be liberal tendencies.

2017-02-01 1:13 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.


Yes everything is cut & dry in your world I know :p

I predict he will get confirmed, but a sure thing?  Nope.  But, when I read up on Gorsuch and his record, I think he has more liberal tendencies than even Garland, so if the Democrats reject him, they'll probably be even less happy with his replacement.

Edit: put simply, he's no Scalia.

Get ready.....because that's next.   

The Dems still don't get it.....and by the time they do, it's going to be over for them.  Watch and see.

2017-02-01 1:29 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.






bork

/bôrk/

verb
USinformal

past tense: borked; past participle: borked; past tense: Borked; past participle: Borked

obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification.


bork. v. 1987, "to discredit a candidate for some position by savaging his or her career and beliefs," from name of U.S. jurist Robert H. Bork (1927-2012), whose Supreme Court nomination in 1987 was rejected after an intense counter-campaign. Slang definitions & phrases for bork Expand.


2017-02-01 1:41 PM
in reply to: Hook'em

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by Hook'em

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.


Yes everything is cut & dry in your world I know :p

I predict he will get confirmed, but a sure thing?  Nope.  But, when I read up on Gorsuch and his record, I think he has more liberal tendencies than even Garland, so if the Democrats reject him, they'll probably be even less happy with his replacement.

Edit: put simply, he's no Scalia.

I'd be interested to hear what you have found to be liberal tendencies.

- He's been consistently pro-religious-freedom and not just Christianity (e.g. Yellowbear v. Lampert)
- He favors states' rights by default (not necessarily a liberal thing, but important, I think, when we have a president who would like to be more authoritarian).
- Constitutionally sound (U.S. v. Krueger 2015).
- Favored defendant's rights against imprisonment w/o trial, even when that person is pretty obviously shady (U.S. v Games-Perez, dissenting)
- Evenhanded on gender discrimination cases.

2017-02-01 1:49 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by Rogillio
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.

bork /bôrk/ verb USinformal past tense: borked; past participle: borked; past tense: Borked; past participle: Borked obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification. bork. v. 1987, "to discredit a candidate for some position by savaging his or her career and beliefs," from name of U.S. jurist Robert H. Bork (1927-2012), whose Supreme Court nomination in 1987 was rejected after an intense counter-campaign. Slang definitions & phrases for bork Expand.

6 Republicans voted against him /shrug.



2017-02-01 2:38 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Hook'em

Originally posted by spudone

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by spudone There have been plenty of nominees that were withdrawn - sometimes due to filibuster. And a few extreme cases where they couldn't even carry votes from their own party (Robert Bork). I don't know what will happen here but anyone saying it's automatic is not remembering the history of this process.

It's automatic.......and I well remember Bork.


Yes everything is cut & dry in your world I know :p

I predict he will get confirmed, but a sure thing?  Nope.  But, when I read up on Gorsuch and his record, I think he has more liberal tendencies than even Garland, so if the Democrats reject him, they'll probably be even less happy with his replacement.

Edit: put simply, he's no Scalia.

I'd be interested to hear what you have found to be liberal tendencies.

- He's been consistently pro-religious-freedom and not just Christianity (e.g. Yellowbear v. Lampert)
- He favors states' rights by default (not necessarily a liberal thing, but important, I think, when we have a president who would like to be more authoritarian).
- Constitutionally sound (U.S. v. Krueger 2015).
- Favored defendant's rights against imprisonment w/o trial, even when that person is pretty obviously shady (U.S. v Games-Perez, dissenting)
- Evenhanded on gender discrimination cases.

That's a good analysis.  Everyone likes to put labels on leaders, but, as I can tell you know, jurists don't often fit well into liberal/conservative.

Two things I really like about Gorsuch:  (1) he is strong on protecting the rights of the accused (much like Scalia) and (2) he is less likely to adhere to judicial deference for the sake of deference (quite unlike Scalia - something I predict will come back to bite the Trump administration).  

IMHO, the executive branch has become way too powerful over the last several decades, including power grabs in both the Bush and Obama administrations.  Much of this is due to the executive branch reaching for more and more power, much of it is due to the legislature abdicating its power to the executive branch, and even more is due the the judiciary given too much deference to the agencies under the executive branch.  My hope is that Gorsuch will, though judicial engagement, help re-balance the power between the three branches. 

2017-02-01 2:50 PM
in reply to: 0

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

There was another case - I'll have to look at my list again - where he mentioned how the law Congress enacted was *clearly* written.  And that while he felt it didn't quite match their intent, he wasn't going to overturn a ruling.  He said it was on Congress to update the law.

In other words, not a judicial activist.

Edit: he would also be the only Protestant on the court, which is sorta interesting.  I'm not in favor of any particular religion on the court, but diversifying the religious backgrounds of our justices is probably a good thing.



Edited by spudone 2017-02-01 2:53 PM
2017-02-01 3:12 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Expert
852
5001001001002525
Evergreen, Colorado
Bronze member
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

I think the Dems need to pick their battles, and this should not be one of them. If they fight him, I agree - they will end up with much worse.

2017-02-01 3:38 PM
in reply to: spudone

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: SCOTUS Nuclear Option

He's also a wildcard on the abortion issue.  He could be a raging pro-lifer, but he has no cases under his belt on the issue. 

It's hard to guess what the Dem's do, but IMHO their best tact is to approve him and try to pull the 60 card down the road if necessary.  He'll be approved no matter what they do, so why look like petulant children through the process and further harm an already tarnished brand.
On a side note there are 12 Democratic Senators up for election in states that went solid red for Trump.  Going hard left on judicial nominees is likely not in their best interests politically speaking. 

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » SCOTUS Nuclear Option Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

IMNorth Carolina sent emails options to backout => HB2

Started by strykergt
Views: 1481 Posts: 13

2016-05-09 1:51 PM 3mar

Iran nuclear agreement Pages: 1 2 3

Started by mdg2003
Views: 2403 Posts: 58

2015-09-13 8:49 PM jeffnboise

Nuclear Option

Started by jeffnboise
Views: 1989 Posts: 19

2013-11-25 11:34 AM mr2tony