SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
More than a decade ago, many Democrats still in office now went along with Gorsuch as he was unanimously confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006. Things are different today, ahead of his hearing for the highest court in the land.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed deep doubts during a press conference last Wednesday about the nominee and asserted Gorsuch "may act like a neutral, calm judge," but "his record and his career clearly show he harbors a right wing, pro-corporate, special interest agenda."
[...] Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy said he would demand "real answers" to questions he has about Gorsuch's judicial philosophy.
"I hope next week, when the president's Supreme Court nominee will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he provides transparent, truthful answers to Senators' questions," Leahy said in a statement. "I will insist on real answers from Judge Neil Gorsuch, because there are real concerns about his record and his judicial philosophy."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday March 22 2017, @02:55PM (2 children)
If Trump had done something as mind mindbogglingly stupid as nominate a frickin' Progressive activist to the court to attempt the impossible task of getting a single Democrat to vote for a single Trump initiative, he would have been toast. He would have gained zero friends on the left and every supporter would have questioned his very sanity. You know in your heart this is true, there is absolutely nothing Trump could possibly do to move a single Prog into his camp. You must be defeated, not reasoned with, not bargained with. Exactly as your side has treated us for a hundred years.
You guys now know fear. You know you can't actually stop this nomination, you know that if you try too hard you will only get the end of the filibuster for nominations and if you keep it up the end of the filibuster entirely. Apparently neither side is willing to consider the obvious solution to filibuster abuse, returning to actual filibusters instead of the modern silent ones.
One more retirement and you lose the SCOTUS for a generation and several of your worst monsters are very old as is the always unpredictable Justice Kennedy. You were so close to absolute power and see it slipping away and the more you rage the faster it slips away. I drink your tears of unfathomable sadness.
I want a boring SCOTUS. I want one that rarely needs to accept a 'landmark' case because the lower courts all know what the SCOTUS would do and does the right thing on their own to avoid being overturned on the whim of Kennedy. That is what a super majority of Originalists would give, certainty. Read the text of the Constitution or the law controlling the decision and know with 99% certainty what should happen. Then courts can know, lawyers can know and most importantly any educated person can know what the laws they are expected to obey actually mean. With the "living law" neither side knows what the law of the moment is until Kennedy decides, so they roll the dice and more often than not the Progressive side wins but not with enough reliability to plan around. I want a SCOTUS toiling away on cases involving boring aspects of obscure laws and such. If we decide we do not like the laws, change them through the LEGISLATURE.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:48PM
I want a SCOTUS toiling away on cases involving boring aspects of obscure laws and such
That is what the lower courts are for... Sounds like you want to gut the third branch of our government. I am not surprised.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:10PM
> If Trump had done something as mind mindbogglingly stupid as nominate a frickin' Progressive activist to the court
Garland was no progressive activist.
He was about as middle of the road as you can get.
Furthermore if Trump started acting like president of all of us, rather than just the president of the tea party, he would have get crazy amounts of cooperation. Just look at how much praise he got for that one state-of-the-unionish speech he made. He kept his shit together for just ONE hour and everybody was falling over themselves to say how great it was, how he was now a real president.
All the sane people are desperate for a president that behaves like a president. Democrats so want to believe that a neo-hitler is not sitting in the white house that just one substantial act of conciliation would have them bending over backwards to reward him.
Of course he won't make any conciliatory gestures because he is a neo-hitler. So the question is moot. But don't fool yourself, democrats would give anything for even the appearance of normalcy.