Neil Grouch nominated (now confirmed) for SCOTUS
- Thread starter LA4Bama
- Start date
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
You don't give it up. You just go inactive so you don't have to do the CLE every year and pay a fraction what you would for an active license.
You don't give it up. You just go inactive so you don't have to do the CLE every year and pay a fraction what you would for an active license.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
On Gorsuch, there is actually a good bit of relief behind the scenes on both sides of the aisle. Gorsuch is well respected in legal circles, and I've been involved in a couple matters that have come before him, and, while I think textualists can get pretty goofy in their reasoning, I respect the way he lays out his reasoning and actually listens and addresses your points in court.
But, back to why both parties are relieved, Gorsuch has been very critical of executive overreach through both Repub and Dem administrations. Dems are strenuously objecting publicly because that's the position they've been put in by McConnell. It is what it is, but I agree with others that this is probably a battle they shouldn't put too much energy into.
On Sessions, I can say there is significant concern on both sides of the aisle, at least among senior staff, because it is no secret that Sessions will be a rubber-stamp AG for President Bannon, which could lead to some concerning consequences - not just bonehead executive actions but creating some pretty bad SCOTUS rulings for GOP causes.
On Gorsuch, there is actually a good bit of relief behind the scenes on both sides of the aisle. Gorsuch is well respected in legal circles, and I've been involved in a couple matters that have come before him, and, while I think textualists can get pretty goofy in their reasoning, I respect the way he lays out his reasoning and actually listens and addresses your points in court.
But, back to why both parties are relieved, Gorsuch has been very critical of executive overreach through both Repub and Dem administrations. Dems are strenuously objecting publicly because that's the position they've been put in by McConnell. It is what it is, but I agree with others that this is probably a battle they shouldn't put too much energy into.
On Sessions, I can say there is significant concern on both sides of the aisle, at least among senior staff, because it is no secret that Sessions will be a rubber-stamp AG for President Bannon, which could lead to some concerning consequences - not just bonehead executive actions but creating some pretty bad SCOTUS rulings for GOP causes.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Hey man, I hate the offseason.
Yes and no. For starters....Democrats whining about someone not taking action on something is hilarious in light of how many years this country operated without an official budget because Harry Reid and his truckling sycophants refused to pass one. You know - actually get on the record what you're for and against.
But the other thing is this: while I can sit here and basically agree with what you're saying in principle everyone knows deep down that if President McCain was finishing his eighth year and the Democrats had both houses of Congress that this EXACT SAME THING would have happened. In other words, they don't really care about anything - except the fact they lost. And what makes this sort of strange is the fact the Democrats thought they had the Presidency in the bag and on Election Day the NYT declared they had a 52% chance of winning the Senate.
They really, truly thought that the White House (at a minimum) was in the bag, and they no doubt thought their odds were higher than average they'd take the Senate. Btw - I thought the same thing, but I'm not the one who now is complaining when we all know they'd have done the same thing.
We both agree it was a strident jackass move - but it would have been the same if the opposite situation presented itself so nobody in DC really cares. And in all honesty - how many people even know the President makes these appointments? I realize we do but most folks don't even know the name of their Senator.
While 'Remember Merrick' won't resonate, they are literally showing they can be just as childish as Trump. We had a bunch of them skip the inauguration and make sure the whole world knew about it and then they boycott hearings. The GOP minority that was much smaller in 2009 wasn't even this arrogant. Yeah, there was that idiot Republican who shouted "you lie" at Obama - which was accurate but also stupid and disrespectful.
But trying to act like you're Trump when you're NOT Trump is insanely stupid. Marco Rubio learned this the hard way and you'd think up to a point so did HRC.
We basically agree on the rest of this.
But here's the thing and where it gets interesting: Democrats have cried about every single Republican nominee to the Supreme Court since Reagan wanted Rhenquist as the Chief. And it's just like their tendency to literally see 'racism' behind every election loss. They have now 'cried wolf' so many times that nobody believes them even when they can present real cases of racism or concerns for a judge. They cried about Bork, Douglas Ginsburg (who, ironically, was blown up by the right), Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Alito. OK, not a lot of screaming about Roberts - and to be fair, the right destroyed Miers but the left was only upset because they'd like to have a chance to do it.
(Side note: one of my classmates that fall at Dallas Seminary was a tax attorney - I think that was his specialty - who clerked for Roberts and knew Harriet Miers, too. When Roberts was nominated for the seat that O'Connor was leaving, this guy told us that Roberts had a brilliant mind and the potential to go down as one of the giants of the judiciary. He was very excited when Roberts was moved into the CJ spot upon Rhenquist's death. I figured he was just blowing smoke - we all know someone who's great. But when Bush chose Miers, he said she was a walking disaster, a politician, and her only selling point to conservatives was that she was staunchly anti-abortion - he flat did not like her and predicted the right would destroy her before the left got the chance. Needless to say, I never questioned his knowledge again on that subject).
And in what must be the most delicious irony...if they'd only put Bork on the Court in 1987 then PROBABLY today they have a strong liberal in his seat (as opposed to the moderate conservative Kennedy) and the balance is different. Granted - there's no way to know that for sure - but would he have tried to leave the Court in 2006 when he would have been 79? If not then we probably would have endured what we are now. And there simply would not have been an overly substantial difference in where he ruled and where Kennedy ruled. If Obama had replaced him then it's an entirely different world.
That's not to let the Republicans off the hook, however - I thought the one adult in the whole thing was Obama offering up Sandoval early, a sort of moderate conservative who was pro-choice.....and he got attacked by both sides, the left who figured they should get a nominee they well knew the Senate would vote down and the right who had a "how dare you" audacity.
Gorusch is not a fight worth having, and in all sincerity neither is the Cabinet. It's the next one - esp if it's Ruth Ginsburg - they're going to have to arm for but guess what? If it happens in the next year or so, expect the political equivalent of a nuclear war.
The thing is - while a lot of us here no doubt care, the average person doesn't even take this into consideration. That's part of why the GOP knew they'd get away with it.
Hey man, I hate the offseason.
Yes and no. For starters....Democrats whining about someone not taking action on something is hilarious in light of how many years this country operated without an official budget because Harry Reid and his truckling sycophants refused to pass one. You know - actually get on the record what you're for and against.
But the other thing is this: while I can sit here and basically agree with what you're saying in principle everyone knows deep down that if President McCain was finishing his eighth year and the Democrats had both houses of Congress that this EXACT SAME THING would have happened. In other words, they don't really care about anything - except the fact they lost. And what makes this sort of strange is the fact the Democrats thought they had the Presidency in the bag and on Election Day the NYT declared they had a 52% chance of winning the Senate.
They really, truly thought that the White House (at a minimum) was in the bag, and they no doubt thought their odds were higher than average they'd take the Senate. Btw - I thought the same thing, but I'm not the one who now is complaining when we all know they'd have done the same thing.
We both agree it was a strident jackass move - but it would have been the same if the opposite situation presented itself so nobody in DC really cares. And in all honesty - how many people even know the President makes these appointments? I realize we do but most folks don't even know the name of their Senator.
While 'Remember Merrick' won't resonate, they are literally showing they can be just as childish as Trump. We had a bunch of them skip the inauguration and make sure the whole world knew about it and then they boycott hearings. The GOP minority that was much smaller in 2009 wasn't even this arrogant. Yeah, there was that idiot Republican who shouted "you lie" at Obama - which was accurate but also stupid and disrespectful.
But trying to act like you're Trump when you're NOT Trump is insanely stupid. Marco Rubio learned this the hard way and you'd think up to a point so did HRC.
We basically agree on the rest of this.
But here's the thing and where it gets interesting: Democrats have cried about every single Republican nominee to the Supreme Court since Reagan wanted Rhenquist as the Chief. And it's just like their tendency to literally see 'racism' behind every election loss. They have now 'cried wolf' so many times that nobody believes them even when they can present real cases of racism or concerns for a judge. They cried about Bork, Douglas Ginsburg (who, ironically, was blown up by the right), Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Alito. OK, not a lot of screaming about Roberts - and to be fair, the right destroyed Miers but the left was only upset because they'd like to have a chance to do it.
(Side note: one of my classmates that fall at Dallas Seminary was a tax attorney - I think that was his specialty - who clerked for Roberts and knew Harriet Miers, too. When Roberts was nominated for the seat that O'Connor was leaving, this guy told us that Roberts had a brilliant mind and the potential to go down as one of the giants of the judiciary. He was very excited when Roberts was moved into the CJ spot upon Rhenquist's death. I figured he was just blowing smoke - we all know someone who's great. But when Bush chose Miers, he said she was a walking disaster, a politician, and her only selling point to conservatives was that she was staunchly anti-abortion - he flat did not like her and predicted the right would destroy her before the left got the chance. Needless to say, I never questioned his knowledge again on that subject).
And in what must be the most delicious irony...if they'd only put Bork on the Court in 1987 then PROBABLY today they have a strong liberal in his seat (as opposed to the moderate conservative Kennedy) and the balance is different. Granted - there's no way to know that for sure - but would he have tried to leave the Court in 2006 when he would have been 79? If not then we probably would have endured what we are now. And there simply would not have been an overly substantial difference in where he ruled and where Kennedy ruled. If Obama had replaced him then it's an entirely different world.
That's not to let the Republicans off the hook, however - I thought the one adult in the whole thing was Obama offering up Sandoval early, a sort of moderate conservative who was pro-choice.....and he got attacked by both sides, the left who figured they should get a nominee they well knew the Senate would vote down and the right who had a "how dare you" audacity.
Gorusch is not a fight worth having, and in all sincerity neither is the Cabinet. It's the next one - esp if it's Ruth Ginsburg - they're going to have to arm for but guess what? If it happens in the next year or so, expect the political equivalent of a nuclear war.
The thing is - while a lot of us here no doubt care, the average person doesn't even take this into consideration. That's part of why the GOP knew they'd get away with it.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
And the idle speculation as to what the Democrats might have done with President McCain is just that--idle speculation.
I disagree on the cabinet. Part of the problem in general is the way that McConnell has limited the length of hearings--even after concerning information came to light. But some of the cabinet nominees are truly disturbing, and they are worth challenging.
And the idle speculation as to what the Democrats might have done with President McCain is just that--idle speculation.
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Here is what should happen but probably won't.
Shrumer and McConnell make a deal for McConnell to convince a number of republicans to vote No on Devos, and schrumer to convince democrats to atleast hear gorsuch. Everyone gets something.
Here is what should happen but probably won't.
Shrumer and McConnell make a deal for McConnell to convince a number of republicans to vote No on Devos, and schrumer to convince democrats to atleast hear gorsuch. Everyone gets something.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
That would be a rational approach. As such, it will never occur to McConnell.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Whatever the dems do with Gorsuch the reps have it coming to them. I still cant understand why the reps wimped out on Merrick Garland. They should have simply treated him with the respect he deserved and then put on their big boy pants and voted. We would be where we are today anyway and they wouldn't have come off looking like petulant little brats.
Whatever the dems do with Gorsuch the reps have it coming to them. I still cant understand why the reps wimped out on Merrick Garland. They should have simply treated him with the respect he deserved and then put on their big boy pants and voted. We would be where we are today anyway and they wouldn't have come off looking like petulant little brats.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Almost nobody besides Selma is going to remember who Merrick Garland is in 5 years, or that he got borked. And the verb borked is already coined, so even his name will go unused. The point is that the reps had no motive to vote when they could simply let the event pass into oblivion, which it will shortly.
On the other hand, everyone is going to remember who Gorsuch is one way or the other, just as we remember Bork. The only way Gorsuch isn't ultimately approved or rejected by a vote is if Trump is impeached, which is probably what the establishment wants anyway, so it can't be ruled out.
Whatever the dems do with Gorsuch the reps have it coming to them. I still cant understand why the reps wimped out on Merrick Garland. They should have simply treated him with the respect he deserved and then put on their big boy pants and voted. We would be where we are today anyway and they wouldn't have come off looking like petulant little brats.
Almost nobody besides Selma is going to remember who Merrick Garland is in 5 years, or that he got borked. And the verb borked is already coined, so even his name will go unused. The point is that the reps had no motive to vote when they could simply let the event pass into oblivion, which it will shortly.
On the other hand, everyone is going to remember who Gorsuch is one way or the other, just as we remember Bork. The only way Gorsuch isn't ultimately approved or rejected by a vote is if Trump is impeached, which is probably what the establishment wants anyway, so it can't be ruled out.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Feel free to cite the constitutional provision that requires them to vote on every matter.
Article I, Section 5:
Feel free to cite the constitutional provision that requires them to vote on every matter.
Article I, Section 5:
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Even Bork got committee hearings and a vote on the Senate floor.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Well, that's not what you said. You said you didn't understand why they wimped out. Their motive is easy to discern; whether it was their duty is another matter.
Well, that's not what you said. You said you didn't understand why they wimped out. Their motive is easy to discern; whether it was their duty is another matter.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Look, if a woman and I have been on several dates then I would be considerate enough to call and offer some excuse as to why I no longer want to go out. If we've only ever texted or had a coffee, I'm just going to stop texting her. She doesn't want to hear the explanation anyway. Merrick Garland had a cup of coffee; he's not going to get a long hearing when they already know there's no relationship.
Look, if a woman and I have been on several dates then I would be considerate enough to call and offer some excuse as to why I no longer want to go out. If we've only ever texted or had a coffee, I'm just going to stop texting her. She doesn't want to hear the explanation anyway. Merrick Garland had a cup of coffee; he's not going to get a long hearing when they already know there's no relationship.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
The Senate withheld consent. If only Obama had sought Senate advice before he made his nomination.
The Senate withheld consent. If only Obama had sought Senate advice before he made his nomination.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
This isn't the right analogy either....but it might be close....
As a former Heisman winner....you are asked to vote each year on that year's candidates.
Because "your preferred" choice isn't selected as a candidate....not only don't you vote.....you don't even show up at the ceremony.
This isn't the right analogy either....but it might be close....
As a former Heisman winner....you are asked to vote each year on that year's candidates.
Because "your preferred" choice isn't selected as a candidate....not only don't you vote.....you don't even show up at the ceremony.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
Sure it does; whether you understand it is another matter.
Bork got a vote because he got through committee, and he got through committee because he got to committee. There was already a process initiated by the time the Democrats decided to do away with him. Garland never had a single hearing on any level, so there was no process and no vote.
Was that the "right" thing to do? Probably not from an objective standpoint. But the fact remains that the Republicans played their cards very well and got what they wanted with almost no long lasting scandal. Had they given him hearings and then voted him down, he'd have become a some kind of martyr, as Bork is for the right.
Sure it does; whether you understand it is another matter.
Bork got a vote because he got through committee, and he got through committee because he got to committee. There was already a process initiated by the time the Democrats decided to do away with him. Garland never had a single hearing on any level, so there was no process and no vote.
Was that the "right" thing to do? Probably not from an objective standpoint. But the fact remains that the Republicans played their cards very well and got what they wanted with almost no long lasting scandal. Had they given him hearings and then voted him down, he'd have become a some kind of martyr, as Bork is for the right.
Re: Neil Gorsuch nominated for SC
He's a martyr nonetheless, but his sacrifice blessed Republicans in November.
He's a martyr nonetheless, but his sacrifice blessed Republicans in November.
Last edited:
New Posts
-
-
Keelon Russell A-Day Film Study by JD Pickell - Me? I see Tua Flashbacks???- Latest: CaliforniaTide
-
-
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Good luck dealing with a pandemic, depending on this administration...'- TIDE-HSV
Replies: 8K -
-
-
Latest threads
-
Keelon Russell A-Day Film Study by JD Pickell - Me? I see Tua Flashbacks???
- Started by BamaMoon
- Replies: 4
-
-
ESPN: Riddick's favorite players in the NFL draft class, from first-round locks to exciting sleepers- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: 10 NFL scouts predict the first 10 draft picks
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Forget the 40: The true measure of Carnell Tate
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
No. 11 Alabama’s Saturday Matchup at No. 4 Texas Moved to 12 p.m. CT First Pitch
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0