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. 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

- 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.

6 Republicans voted against him /shrug.

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. 

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.

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.

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.