The US Supreme Court Thread

Why?

 

Also, turns out Gorsuch is a Phi Gamma Delta.

Wonder if he shows up wearing purple Converses to the nomination hearing.

 

IMO, the smartest thing is to just abstain from voting and save the fillibuster for a truly egregious act in the next two years.

 

I don't think it's going to matter. McConnell doesn't give a shit and anything too politically dangerous for the GOP will be dealt with behind closed doors in committee meetings. Generally the party which occupies the WH loses seats in midterm elections so the republicans will be especially wary of looking like total Nazis during Trump's first two years of his first term. Now you might think I just contradicted myself but if democrats look like pure obstructionists then the GOP will easily be able to sell their killing of the filibuster to their base + R leaners. They will test the wind after midterms and then begin the really hard stuff if they have the mandate. If they lose a bunch of seats I think we will see them turn on Trump and try to save their skins for 2020.

 

So the invasion of neighbors and killing of millions of Jews won't happen until 2019?

 

Because of Obstructionism.

 

Also those people that voted Obama in 2012/2008, and then either didn't vote or voted Trump in 2016. The same people that disapproved of Trump, but voted for him anyways

 

How'd that turn out in 2010, 2014, and 2016? For that matter, how'd it turn out in 2012 and 2008?

Just once - just ONCE - somebody answer a data question I ask. Go through history and find one instance where minority obstruction resulted in consecutive electoral defeat.

 

Yea, that was more about an economy than anything else. They obstructed to make the economy worse, so they could make the people feel worse, who in turn punished the President's party.

You basically learned the wrong lesson

 

Maybe Bork, but I'm not going to the wall to defend that one. At least not until after I eat my lunch.

 

One time in history. Just one.

 

I think it's silly to think that one option has more benefits than the other. I see landmines regardless of what Dems do. The sooner people understand the fact that Dems have almost no leverage in Washington, the better.

Elections have consequences. If Dems want different outcomes, then show the fcuk up in 2018!

 

That wasn't the minority party, you ********ing idiot. Geez, get more protein at breakfast so your brain functions into the afternoon.

 

Also, there is a chance that the GOP will get 60 seats in the senate after the 2018 election, so if you want the Reps to go nuclear, it is better to do it now then when they may be able to force SC justices with a filibuster proof majority.

 

This is pure, partisan based obstructionism for no real reason other than being a sore loser.

 

Moderates are completely irrelevant in today's politics. Might as well talk about flat earthers' preferences.

 

Radley Balko argues that Democrats should let Gorsuch be confirmed, because it might help the country over the next four years from Trump's power grabs.


I think Trump presents a unique threat to American democracy. In fact, I think there’s small but not insignificant risk that he represents the end of American democracy. (If that sounds like hyperbole, remember that his top adviser Steve Bannon has compared himself to Lenin.) In that context, Gorsuch is something of a gift — although probably an unintentional one.

An opposition party should choose its battles carefully. Over the past several days, tens of thousands of people have taken to airports, streets and congressional offices to protest Trump’s odious immigration order and the reckless manner in which it was carried out. Draft orders leaked by the administration this week are more frightening still. I can’t say for certain that Gorsuch thinks those orders are unlawful, but he does have a history of ruling against the executive overreach in immigration cases. The Post reported yesterday that Jeff Sessions not only helped plan Trump’s first week in office but also wanted Trump to go a lot farther — and is the “intellectual godfather” of some of the ugliest facets of Trumpism. If the Democrats are going to muster the will and political capital to tank a nominee and send the Trump administration a message, Sessions seems like a far better target.


That makes sense to me.

 

The problem is that they have the tools currently to block Gorsuch, I don't think (correct me if I am wrong) democrats can not filibuster Sessions.

 

Fine. Show me an instance where it hurt the obstructionists.

 

I don't actually care about that. It's wrong.