# Supreme Court Nomination Thread



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 4, 2017)

Since the Neil Gorsuch nomination could end up taking a life of it's own with the "nuclear" option, I'd like to begin a thread dedicated to the topic. 

First, what is this nuclear option everyone is talking about:
What is the Senate's 'nuclear option'?

Personally I am not a fan, people in politics have long memories and the lead from this editorial at The Star Tribune gives a good example as to why:

_"It could make the court safe for extremists. Are we ready for Justice Rudy Guiliani? Justice Keith Ellison? "_

'Nuking' the filibuster for the Supreme Court could be damaging

I am a fan of checks/balances - blowing something up just because you can, is eventually going to come back 360 degrees and give you a very unpleasant taste of your own medicine.

What say you?

And why?


----------



## Grunt (Apr 4, 2017)

I'm 100% against "anyone or any side" believing they can change the rules in order for them to win. That's the reason we have a government set up the way it is. Seriously, we have a bunch of delinquents running our country.

What do the Republicrats think is going to happen after they call the "Nuclear Option" this time and then the Democans take over and do the same thing. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth while calling the other side out for their actions.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 4, 2017)

The problem is that the nuclear option genie is out of the bottle, and it can't get put back in.  There is a chess match right now in DC, and I know, surely as I know I am a handsome bastard, the Republicans are thinking, "if we don't invoke it now for this, the Democrats will whenever they get the chance."  The Dems did it first, now the repubs are going to do it, and the dems will do it again.

What I think the Republicans should do is, remove Gorsuch from consideration and nominate someone else.  REALLY back the Democrats into a corner, make them prove it is entirely ideological.  Then when THAT candidate is turned down by the Democrats they could claim the high road and THEN invoke the nuclear option.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 4, 2017)

Seems like short-term disaster for Democrats and long-term disaster for everyone.  But, both sides are caught in a problem of their own making forcing them down this path.  It's one of those times in politics where real courage is doing something that will hurt you in the short term but help the institution in the long term.  The days of politicians making decisions like that, if they ever existed, are long gone.

It's doubly frustrating to me because I don't know who you blame.  Democrats are pushed to obstruction by their frustrated base while Republicans have to make the draconian rule changes or be unable to wield the power to push through the agenda they've been touting for the last 8 years.  If either one backs down they risk primary challenges and electoral losses - but staying on this course means irrelevance and loss of power for Democrats and a situation for Republicans where they have to be terrified of losing power and getting the same (or worse) fucking over done to them.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 4, 2017)

I have to find it, but I saw video of Feinstein saying once, a few years ago, that disagreeing with a SC nominee is not cause to filibuster, contrasted with a recent video of her saying because so many democrats disagree it is their duty to filibuster.

For the life of me I don't understand why they think we (the electorate, the citizens) aren't smart enough to see through them.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 4, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> For the life of me I don't understand why they think we (the electorate, the citizens) aren't smart enough to see through them.



Because they keep getting elected by that same electorate. That proves they aren't smart enough to know better or they simply agree with their elected officials ways.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 4, 2017)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The electorate is willfully ignorant.  But I'm so glad I'm out of California for good. 

All of you guys who think it's awesome have schmucks like the dishonorable Feinstein and Harris in the Senate for you.  But in the end, Mark Twain was right oh so long ago when he called Congress the only criminal class of people in America.

Gorsuch is qualified, vote him in.  Merrick Garland was qualified, but you didn't have the votes and the the majority advised the President against a nomination that in their eyes shift the court drastically.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 4, 2017)

When was the last time both parties semi worked together on issues and weren't so polarized....late 80's?


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 5, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> When was the last time both parties semi worked together on issues and weren't so polarized....late 80's?



Bush the Elder.  Some decent legislation with Clinton, but not a ton.  Things really went south with Bush Junior.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 5, 2017)

Kraut783 said:


> When was the last time both parties semi worked together on issues and weren't so polarized....late 80's?


then, or immediately after 9/11?


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 5, 2017)

I wish I had saved it, but there was a handy graphic that charted how members of the senate voted in line with the president at the time.  It was essentially as @Devildoc said - the senate was still semi-independent all the way up to Clinton.  Around the time of GW Bush, the senate began to vote in lockstep with the president, and by the Obama administration it was virtually a 100% vote.  Really wish I could find that graphic because it presents a very clear visual representation of polarization.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 5, 2017)

There was once a time when the Republicans were the opposition and the Senate was the Enemy.  Not no mo.


----------



## Kraut783 (Apr 5, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> then, or immediately after 9/11?



Yeah, I guess they aren't on the steps of the capital singing together anymore....


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 5, 2017)

I thought this was a pretty good summary of the institutional pressures leading to the current Senate fiasco in a reasonably short read: Analysis: This is why the Senate is at a nuclear brink


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 6, 2017)

Here's a different perspective - that maybe the loss of the filibuster is not such a disaster: Why I'll Be Glad to See the Filibuster Go


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 6, 2017)

Had some really cool facts, but his disdain for Wyoming makes his slip show.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 6, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Here's a different perspective - that maybe the loss of the filibuster is not such a disaster: Why I'll Be Glad to See the Filibuster Go



Well, at least you know where the author stands.  He gets his history correct, but his interpretation of it is a bit skewed.  He also cherry-picks history to support his position.  Wyoming and California on equal footing?  Uh, yeah.  It's that _other_ chamber, you know, the House of Representatives, where seats are doled out by population.  He also fails to mention that until 1913 and the 17th Amendment senators were appointed by state legislatures, the 17th Amendment was instituted to correct for "pay-for-play" and corrupt senators.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Apr 6, 2017)

Despite the dialogue of "well if we nuke this... the Dems could nuke THAT down the road if they get control"

Human beings will always act on the high-incentive option. However the most utility is acquired, Humans will follow that particular COA. Dems would not give a shit if Reps didn't nuke this if they had an opportunity to nuke something down the road. Simple fact.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 6, 2017)

The President is the President for the full 4-year term, not 3.5. Garland should have received a hearing and a vote. The Senate brought this upon themselves. 

As older men have told me, the U.S. has survived worse.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Apr 6, 2017)

We can learn from History but it will never justify the present. Citing a poor decision to shed light to a correctable COA is a waste of time and money.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 6, 2017)

I am on the fence about Merrick.  There is ample history where Congresses have chosen not to push a SCOTUS nominee during a POTUS last year.  So while Congress sitting on its hands was both political and historical, the precedent is set, and followed the rules if not _du jure_ then _de facto_.

I never cared for super-majority to begin with; it holds up too much legislation.  And if bad legislation passes because of a simple majority, then just rewrite a new piece and vote again.  There would be a lot more compromise when Congress isn't so lopsided with Republicans or Democrats.

The other thing is, none of what's going on is in the Constitution.  The Constitution does spell out that the Senate can make its rules of operation, and it has, for over 200 years.  So McConnell changed a rule of operation.  Not the first; certainly won't be the last.

What bugs me about this whole thing is just how utterly entrenched both sides are.  I mean, you have Democrats who have said they would not vote for _any_ nominee of Trump.  Then you have short-sighted Republicans who can claim a tactical victory now but will likely suffer a strategic defeat later on when the roles are reversed.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 6, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> I am on the fence about Merrick.  There is ample history where Congresses have chosen not to push a SCOTUS nominee during a POTUS last year.  So while Congress sitting on its hands was both political and historical, the precedent is set, and followed the rules if not _du jure_ then _de facto_.


This is not true

The failure to hold a hearing for Garland was pure McConnell obstruction.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 6, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> This is not true
> 
> The failure to hold a hearing for Garland was pure McConnell obstruction.



It is true.  You are correct that presidents can nominate right up until January 19 of their last year.  I am not saying it wasn't politics; I am saying that there's precedent, and followed the rules set by the Senate (which they can change, as evidenced by today).  I am also not saying it's a good idea.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 6, 2017)

They call them lame ducks for a reason.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 6, 2017)

Both sides are wrong, both sides have been wrong, both sides will be wrong.  I do not know what the answer is.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 6, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> It is true.  You are correct that presidents can nominate right up until January 19 of their last year.  I am not saying it wasn't politics; I am saying that there's precedent, and followed the rules set by the Senate (which they can change, as evidenced by today).  I am also not saying it's a good idea.


There isn't "ample history" of the practice because it's happened exactly once before in the past 100 years during a lame duck session, as the article outlines.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 6, 2017)

Apropos of absolutely nothing at all, whatsoever: Biden in 1992 on Supreme Court Vacancy

Deja vu, anyone?


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 6, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> Apropos of absolutely nothing at all, whatsoever: Biden in 1992 on Supreme Court Vacancy
> 
> Deja vu, anyone?


Apropos of this, there was no actual nominee under consideration.  Nor was there a vacancy to consider.
The Biden speech requires some context: In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 6, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Apropos of this, there was no actual nominee under consideration.  Nor was there a vacancy to consider.
> The Biden speech requires some context: In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year


That's digging too much, it's pot kettle black.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 6, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> Apropos of this, there was no actual nominee under consideration.  Nor was there a vacancy to consider.
> The Biden speech requires some context: In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year



You are correct on that. However, given the advanced ages of several sitting justices at any time during most administrations (newspeak for "old fuckers"), retirement or death is always a concern. Campaigns are run with this as a talking point. Justices time their retirement to coincide with their favorable administration in power to maximize the likelihood of a like minded successor getting the nom/confirmation. That then-Sen. Biden essentially said "don't even try it, because this is what will happen," is, in my opinion, telling. 

Is it right? No. But it has happened before, and will again.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 6, 2017)

Salt USMC said:


> There isn't "ample history" of the practice because it's happened exactly once before in the past 100 years during a lame duck session, as the article outlines.



The Scalia vacancy was the seventh time the Senate held a vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee.  Again, not agreeing with it, merely citing that it has happened and the Senate sets its own rules. 

The Garland Precedent Should Not Stop Gorsuch


----------



## CDG (Apr 7, 2017)

Judge Gorsuch is confirmed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/...170407&nl=breaking-news&nlid=79207956&ref=cta


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 7, 2017)

54-45-1

The one abstention was a Republican from Georgia, three Democrats.  Makes me think they could have made it work to get the 8 votes if they got those three...but whatever.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> 54-45-1
> 
> The one abstention was a Republican from Georgia, three Democrats.  Makes me think they could have made it work to get the 8 votes if they got those three...but whatever.



They just set a precedent that they will complain about when it happens to them....professional clownery at its finest.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 7, 2017)

Oh it's clown shoes time fore sure.  But it would have been interesting if he said we're ending the filibuster to take a vote to see if they had them and if they'd had 60 the Dems would have really taken a beating.


----------



## Centermass (Apr 7, 2017)

Funny how he (Gorsuch) was unanimously confirmed in 2006 w/o objection to replace Scalia in the 10th Circuit. I guess sometime between then and now, he went Jekyll Hyde on everyone........

No other SCOTUS nominee has ever been filibustered. 

Thanks Harry.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 7, 2017)

Agoge said:


> They just set a precedent that they will complain about when it happens to them....professional clownery at its finest.



They only set the precedent of using the Reid option in a SCOTUS scenario. Harry Reid birthed this Zika-infested botched abortion of a procedure in 2013; the R's have already bitched about it being used against them.


----------



## Grunt (Apr 7, 2017)

racing_kitty said:


> They only set the precedent of using the Reid option in a SCOTUS scenario. Harry Reid birthed this Zika-infested botched abortion of a procedure in 2013; the R's have already bitched about it being used against them.



Good post! I had forgot about that!


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 14, 2017)

Generally not a huge fan of Vox, this was a good article:

How to fix the Supreme Court


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 14, 2017)

Devildoc said:


> Generally not a huge fan of Vox, this was a good article:
> 
> How to fix the Supreme Court


Well...he's completely incorrect about who came up with the rule.  

But not a horrible piece, just a bad start.


----------

