|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 2, 2017 7:14:44 GMT -5
Well that's the dig isn't it? I remember when trying to get both parties to work together was a 'thing'.
Now, people don't even want that. People seem to want the rank partisanship, at least from their own side. I know the GOP acted and will act like little kids throwing a temper tantrum. I guess I'd just like to see some sort of end.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 2, 2017 9:22:20 GMT -5
I like that here, people are actually discussing Gorsuch's qualifications and saying "Well, I don't like a lot of his positions, but he is qualified and probably as good a pick as you could expect from Trump," etc.
Everywhere else it's "OMG TRUMP APPOINTED A RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST WHO WILL END ALL CIVIL LIBERTIES!!!"
Sigh.
And yeah - we are at a point where there is no such thing as bipartisanship, and maybe shouldn't be. The party that is not in power has no choice but to fight guerilla actions against the party that is in power, because there will be no concessions, no gentlemen's agreements, no "We'll be fair to you if you're fair to us when the situation is reversed." If the Democrats roll on Gorsuch, they'll just keep getting rolled.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 2, 2017 11:47:57 GMT -5
Maybe Trump should nominate Garland for the next open seat after he gets Gorsuch in. It would be a nice, magnanimous gesture and will heal all wounds, and from then on, Trump will be known as the Great Unifier... Sorry, I've got to run and feed my unicorn. Be back soon.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 2, 2017 12:45:45 GMT -5
I remember reading somewhere that if Clinton had won, the GOP might have considered a deal like that, give them Garland and if another judge retired someone not to the left of center, but it never came to pass.
Of course, I don't know how you enforce something like that. They have what? A gentlemen's agreement? Even if it's public, and Ginsburg say retired in 6 months, how can the democrats force Trump and the GOP to accept him?
Unless Ginsburg retired now, and they did both appointments at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 13:11:45 GMT -5
If the thing with Garland hadn't happened, I'd say Gorsuch should by rights be a shoo-in.
I'd love to see a gesture by Trump that Garland gets the next seat, but I kinda doubt it would happen. Indeed, I fear that his motivation for choosing Gorsuch (IMO, very much an establishment choice) might be to get other justices to relax enough to retire -- and then appoint someone far more controversial.
I will say that if all Trump's appointments were of the caliber of Gorsuch, I'd feel a lot better. It's not just his fancy resume -- from what I hear, he has integrity, and will be driven by the law, not an ideological agenda.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 2, 2017 14:29:43 GMT -5
If the thing with Garland hadn't happened, I'd say Gorsuch should by rights be a shoo-in. I'd love to see a gesture by Trump that Garland gets the next seat, but I kinda doubt it would happen. Indeed, I fear that his motivation for choosing Gorsuch (IMO, very much an establishment choice) might be to get other justices to relax enough to retire -- and then appoint someone far more controversial. I will say that if all Trump's appointments were of the caliber of Gorsuch, I'd feel a lot better. It's not just his fancy resume -- from what I hear, he has integrity, and will be driven by the law, not an ideological agenda. Please tell that to Nancy Pelosi. www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/nancy-pelosi-town-hall-highlights/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 15:45:37 GMT -5
Pelosi is giving a purely partisan take, one she almost must take for political reasons. Neal Katyal and I are looking at it from a rather elitist lawyer/geek point of view.
Note that I'm with Rob (and Pelosi, no doubt) that Dems in the Senate almost have to give Gorsuch a hard time after the Garland fiasco; I will not blame them. But from my perspective as a law geek, I find it rather sad -- as I found Garland. In my opinion, if our political system weren't hopelessly broken, both of these brilliant men would be confirmed unanimously.
Alas, our political system IS hopelessly broken.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 2, 2017 16:33:05 GMT -5
We should have elected Evan McMullin. As an independent, neither side would have to try and do to him what the other side did to them,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 17:26:30 GMT -5
Oh, I get it, Ohio. As I said above, I expect Democrats in the Senate to fight it and after Garland, I don't blame 'em a bit. Indeed, I think it's what they've got to do.
By "no grounds not to confirm him", I meant that the guy isn't some unqualified yahoo or someone with scary skeletons in his closet that would, in less partisan times, provide grounds for challenging him. Absent the Garland fiasco, I think he'd be a shoo-in. And from Trump, I cannot imagine we'll do better.
But the Garland stuff did happen. It was a crime and infuriates me every time I think of it. And, yes, payback is a bitch.
I do fear, though, that we'll end up with someone worse.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 2, 2017 17:34:59 GMT -5
Nah, Gorsuch will eventually be confirmed. Again. 2018 is around the corner. Some of the Dem Senators will eventually cave, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 23:55:39 GMT -5
so. speaking of Trump and Gorsuch, WTF is up with this handshake?
Trump practically yanked poor Gorsuch off his feet, and it looks quite deliberate. Seriously -- watch the video. I've never seen a handshake quite like it.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 3, 2017 1:33:55 GMT -5
Trying to pull him in for a photo-op hug?
Man, intimacy looks awkward on him.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 3, 2017 6:54:53 GMT -5
I don't disagree. As I said already, the Dems doing everything they can to block Gorsuch is fully justifiable imo, it's perfectly fair, perfectly reasonable. I'm just noting that at the end of the day, any such efforts are going to fall short. Unless some of those Senators are willing to sacrifice their careers on this. And I doubt that's the case. And I'm noting it response to the idea that we may get "something worse" than Gorsuch. We're not. We're going to get Gorsuch. It's just going to take a while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 8:02:08 GMT -5
Trying to pull him in for a photo-op hug? Man, intimacy looks awkward on him. You know, that may be exactly what he was trying to do. And if so, Gorsuch was having none of it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 3, 2017 9:41:47 GMT -5
Here's some info and graphics on the potential for a filibuster: www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/senate-filibusters-democrats-donald-trump/The more I look at it, the more I think a filibuster of Gorsuch may be a non-starter, especially if Coons and Durbin are not on board. Manchin is already gone, right? If those three won't sign on, there's very little room for error. I guess the question might be which is worse: allowing Gorsuch through or surrendering 4+ Senate seats to the Republicans? Because if the latter happens...
|
|