The judicial nomination war started with Bork. Let’s end it with Gorsuch.

The Republicans come out shining on that political maneuver by the way. Refusing to allow Obama to seat the judge to replace Scalia, Trump then wins the Presidency....and seats his own Justice. Voters responded positively to the tactic of just not holding the vote on Garland at all.

To the victors go the spoils and we certainly come of that chaos smelling like roses.

 

Nope and the reason is obvious, it was perfectly constitutional.

Now are you going to discuss THIS issue or not?

 

I already addressed it. You can claim it is perfectly Constitutional for the Senate not give "advise and consent" even though it says so in black and white. You can take this position only by ignoring the original intent of the drafters.

You conservatives claim that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the intent of the founders.

But only when it suits your political agenda.

 

Sorry, Biden '92 rule.

 

I thought it ended when the Republicans let Sotomayor and Kagen through with ease. Neither was a good choice, and one was a horrible choice, but the Republicans stepped back. However, here were are today with an strong candidate and the Democrats are playing games and acting like total scumbags again.

 

Sorry, Garland '16 rule.

 

The left has always believed that the low road belongs only to them; as though those who live by the sword aren't subject to dying by the sword as well.

What makes the road of the left so low is their obsession with using the judiciary to impose their own political ideology; whereas the right simply wants a judiciary governed by constitutional restraint, as was the intent of the founding fathers. Therein lies the difference.

 

No you didn't and the founding fathers intent was the Senate make it's own rules and set it's own procedures. Show me where in the constitution the Senate cannot delay a hearing on a nomination. Show me where the founding fathers set a deadline and what is to occur when that deadline is met. Show me where is says they are required to give consent to a Presidential nominee. Not voting on a nominee is not giving consent which is the prerogative of the Senate.

This was all debated in the Garland threads. You can go there and participate on this issue in that one.

This is about whether Gorsuch should be Borked which is an all out personal attack by the Democrats and media to smear him.

 

Gorsuch will be confirmed. Soz.

 

Nah.

The real difference between the right and the left...

...is that the right has almost exclusive rights to paranoia.

The right owns the, "Mommy, make him stop" mentality.

 

Yup, he will be.

 

The problem for them is that they have been revealed for what they are, and their plans to completely ignore the Constitution in court. They don't need to even amend it if they have enough liberal judges.

Our courts are in a Constitutional crisis, and aren't even using the law as the litmus test anymore, it's their feelings they're ruling on.

Time for that to change.

 

The only way to improve the judiciary significantly...is to replace some of the more consistently conservative judges with less consistently conservative judges.

 

Right. So we can have federal judges that rule against matters already settled at SCOTUS.

We have federal courts ruling against plenary power, giving non-US citizens the right to enter the US, ignoring the Constitutional authority of the executive and legislative branches, and ruling against SCOTUS Heller decision, as examples.

When a court is overturned by SCOTUS in 80% of the cases presented to them, the court system is no longer ruling based on the Constitution.

Congress has the ability to gut those courts, and I suspect that is exactly what we will see in the next few years.

 

He'll still be there the next time you guys win a presidential election.

 

Exactly what I said.

You figure the founders when the put with the advice and consent of the Senate meant that the Senate didn't have to advise and consent?

That was the question you dodged, remember?

Conservatives are all about original intent. Except when it doesn't suit their political agenda.

 

What goes around comes around.

 

What you are really saying is that you want to replace some of the more constitutionally judicious judges with less constitutionally judicious judges. In other words, pack the court with more left-wing ideologues; as though we didn't have enough of them already.

That is exactly what the founding fathers did not want to happen.

 

No, actually I am saying exactly what I wrote.

I expect to be disappointed. I expect the SCOTUS and appeals courts will be peopled by more conservatives.

Gotta hope for the best, but I'd much rather it were Hillary making the nominations.

 

It's hard to say what Gorsuch will bring to the table. He could be a type of John Roberts, one who puts the "image" of the court ahead of the constitution it is supposed to uphold. The reality is that there are only two reliable constitutional judges currently on the court, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas. My hope is that Gorsuch becomes the third.

 

Not when Democrats have the lowest support and seats in government since the Reconstruction period.

Progressivism, open borders, and 26 pronouns have been rejected soundly.

 

You are absolutely correct.

The GOP has almost complete control of the United States right now.

Gonna be interesting to hear them explain how things got so much worse after they get so much worse.

 

Once Gorsuch is on the bench in a few weeks, then the senile and corrupt Justice Ginsberg can be interviewed by Congress and given the boot.

With her gone, that leaves only 3 Progressive Activists left on the bench---until Beyer---who is an ancient 78 now, leaves. That would make it an insignificant 2.

 

Losing the Supreme Court is really what the liberals are seething about. They had a chance to destroy the Constitution and now it's gone. Hopefully, Trump starts a 8-20 year reign of Republicans owning all of the Branches of government. It will take a long time to undo the damage from Obama.

 

Oh, is that the excuse you guys will use?

It will take a long time!

It's gonna take a lot more than a long time...doing what you guys want to do. Unless you are talking about making us into a third world country.

Then you might have a shot at doing it...and may it won't take you a "long time."

With Trump at the helm...you can drive us up on the rocks in no time at all.