Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Gorsuch Won Broad Democrat Support in 2006 – Now Things Are Different

posted by on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the supreme-court-positions-are-different dept.

MrPlow writes:

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."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/20/gorsuch-won-broad-dem-support-in-2006-now-things-are-different.html

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Gorsuch Won Broad Democrat Support in 2006 – Now Things Are Different | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 73 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:39AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:39AM (#483042)

    Well, we have a more than 100 year old precedent of not confirming anyone to the supreme court nominated by a president who lost the popular vote.

    That's bullshit. The numbers are almost equally split.

    11 Important Numbers to Remember About How the GOP Stole Obama’s Supreme Court Appointment [alternet.org]

    8: Vacancies filled during election year. Eight times in our history, Supreme Court vacancies occurred during an election year and the elected presidents’ nominees were approved.

    6: Number of unelected presidential Supreme Court vacancy nominations denied. Supreme Court vacancies were denied when the sitting president was not elected: Vice President John Tyler’s nominations after death of President William Henry Harrison; VP Millard Fillmore’s nominations after the death of President Zachary Taylor; and VP Andrew Johnson’s nominations after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. President Obama was elected by the people, twice.

    3: Lame-duck nominations denied. There were also three nominations made by sitting presidents post-election day, after the new president had been elected. John Quincy Adams tried after Andrew Jackson was elected; James Buchanan tried after Lincoln was elected; and President Hayes tried after James Garfield was elected. All were denied. President Obama made his nomination of Garland long before the election of Donald Trump.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:33AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @04:33AM (#483081)

    What does any of that have to do with nominations by a president who lost the popular vote?
    Bush did not nominate anyone for the court during his first term (when he lost the popular vote).
    The last president to lose the popular vote before Bush was Harrison in 1888, well over 100 years ago.
    Ergo a 100+ year precedent of no appointments by any president that lost the popular vote.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:13AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:13AM (#483090)

      Clearly, you didn't look at the article.

      ...and I left off the next item (which I meant to include).

      84: Years since last election-year nomination. The last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year, President Hoover’s nomination was approved.

      For those weak on History, Hoover got creamed. [wikipedia.org]
      I make that to be a 16 percent error in the claim.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @07:07AM (#483110)

        Again what does that have to do with presidents who lost the popular vote?
        Hoover won the popular vote in 1928 so any nominations he made were made by a president who won the popular vote.