This old thread has lost its luster. And we'll be needing a new on on this topic. Trump will nominate Judge Neil Gorsuch, whose philosophy resembles that of Justice Scalia, to the Supreme Court. https://t.co/FcxdiOp0OA— Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) January 31, 2017
I'll give credit to Trump for this one, while he's not progressive, he's certainly not a socially conservative firebrand - which is what you'd have gotten with Ted Cruz. He seems to be far more moderate than the GOP party in fact.
From my very quick reading, Hardiman seems much more deferential to government than Gorsuch, so if the speculation is true that would be nice.
They should. He seems starkly less partisan than ScaLia, being an originalist isn't terrible. He's a nominee by a Republican President. About the best one could have hoped for all things considered
They'll be charmed by him. They'll hang their hat on the White and Kennedy clerkships. And they won't see him as "Trump's guy," which counts for something in terms of how deferential he'll be to the Trump administration.
There it is: @SenSchumer Stmt: "The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee..." pic.twitter.com/YOmbyTE1zB— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) February 1, 2017 Maybe they're learning ...
He's the son on Ann Gorsuch - Burford, she was the administrator of EPA under Reagan and charged with contempt of Congress for something like grazing rights. I hated her then and geeze, I hate her son now...
I have a feeling the supreme court nominees were asked specifically by the transition team on how they would vote when faced with the most likely supreme court cases coming up from likely laws/orders passed. The only good news is that they can't get fired if they rule in a way that opposes a branch of government or political party.
I wasn't familiar with her. Tonight by chance I happened to catch the end of the Rachel Maddow show where she talked about her short and disastrous tenure with the EPA. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...ion-revives-reagan-era-epa-story-867292227635
I've decided that the Dems should oppose this nomination simply because it was brazenly stolen from the previous administration.
Gorsuch is NOT a Scalia clone. He's slightly more conservative than either Scalia or Alito, but less conservative than Thomas. Additionally, he's 49 - he's gonna be there for forty years. This is why you people keep me here: basic game theoretic models suggest Democrats ought to fight this now. Here's why: 1) Mitch McConnell is likely to end the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees the second they realize they cannot get Gorsuch on the Court without doing so. 2) Forty-one Democrats will oppose Gorsuch (because we'll find out he has $5 million in Trump bucks or something slightly disqualifying from a liberal perspective). 3) Trump is going to have at least one more nominee before his four years are up. 4) Forty-one Democrats are going to oppose that nominee as well. If the Democrats do nothing here, and let Trump notch a bloodless win, Mitch will still take the filibuster away in a year, or two, or three. By obstructing now, when Merrick Garland is still fresh, they can force the death of the filibuster in a way that benefits them electorally. Moreover, they're not stopping either nominee, so what's the rush in waiting? Third, when Trump doesn't even have his Cabinet together, they can ask why he's trying to jam a SCOTUS nominee down our throats? After all, weren't Republicans okay with waiting all of last year? What's a little while longer? And where's the rush to stop talking about Trump's "excellent-working" Muslim ban? No, the strategy is to obstruct completely, and politically it's brilliant. Engaging in repeated play right now will do nothing for the Democrats because Trump does not engage in repeated play. Time for grim trigger all around.
The senate dems should tell Trump no justices until the final year of his first term period. This would serve two functions: 1)Republicans will be forced to nuke the filibuster 2)If they do not nuke the filibuster it will likely keep the damage to one justice because I don't think Trump is getting a second term. Either way they prevented Obama's nominee from getting a hearing simply because of partisan politics. If the dems do not stand up to them and are always the party of compromise, the republicans will just keep doing this shit and taking advantage of their willingness to bend. How long is it going to take for democrats to learn to play hardball?
Most Americans don't give a crap about Senate parliamentary rules, and most moderates probably don't care that this is a stolen Obama pick. You'll have three outcomes of Dems making this a filibuster fight: A) Gorsuch gets nominated B) Dems lose public approval from political moderates C) Dems cheer their base