Write Review
1,938,514 Total Reviews 3,443 New Reviews
9,066 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Judge Neil Gorsuch: Here’s what is going to happen. . .
ed2000 31 Reviews 928 reads
posted

Judge Neil Gorsuch: Here’s what is going to happen. . .

The Democrats will put on a Oscar winning performance to oppose him. It’s already started. For a little levity, I saw a sign carried in front of the Supreme Court tonight with the word OPPOSE professionally printed at the top and then the name Goursuch (sic) handwritten with a sharpie or crayon, direct from the OPPOSE “fill in the blank” printer, LOL.  

The Democrats know they can’t stop the nuclear option and given the seat was Scalia’s, they aren’t really changing the balance of the court now (but they are extending it another 30 years) they realize this is not the hill to die on. So how to maximize their chess moves before resigning the board? Here are the moves they will make:

1)  They will spend the next 3 or 4 of months in extreme bluster, threatening filibuster

2) They get to spend maximum time reinforcing to their base their opposition and maximizing political damage to Trump and Gorsuch.

3) Eventually enough Democrats will vote in favor such that the final vote will meet or exceed 60 (maybe 62).

4) The Democrats get to be the ones to set the precedent, for the time being, that the 60 vote threshold was kept and honored. If they force the nuclear option now then it’s a fait accompli when Kennedy, Ginsburg or Breyer leaves in a year or two.

5) When one of the next vacancies is addressed they get to say to everyone then the 60 vote threshold was honored. Why end it now? So when it is nuked, the Dems maximize their image.

6) The following Senator's get the kudos from their (as of the 2016 election) RED state electorate. They are all up for election (2 have not announced) and of the 33 seats in 2018 25 are being defended by Democrats while only 8 by Republicans.

Here’s the Democrat Senators that will join the Republicans:

For sure:
Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Jon Tester, Montana
Joe Donnelly, Indiana
Joe Manchin, West Virginia
Bill Nelson, Florida
Claire McCaskill, Missouri

Most likely
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania
Tammy Baldwin , Wisconsin

Probably (although these 2 have not declared their intent to run again)
Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan

Bookmark this post.

-- Modified on 1/31/2017 11:06:19 PM

earlweaver164 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
JakeFromStateFarm170 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
saltyballs259 reads

....the following, Judge given your fealty to constitutional originalism and your past statements, do you believe Judge Garland should have received a confirmation vote for the seat you now aspire to fill on the Supreme Court?

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd147 reads

And, we all, if we are really, really honest, know his answer! ;)

ReplyQuoteReport
earlweaver194 reads

a young Scalia

for 30+ years

yup, I believe in God now! ;)

ReplyQuoteReport
JackDunphy150 reads

"Elections have consequences."

The R's gambled and won hugely. They made the election, in part, a referendum on the SCOTUS. It was well within their right to do so and the D's would have done the same thing had this been reversed.

ReplyQuoteReport
GaGambler313 reads

Personally, I do agree that Garland should have gotten a hearing, but that ship has sailed and Judge Gorsuch is not a member of the Senate and had nothing to do with what happened to the Garland nomination.

ReplyQuoteReport
ed2000182 reads

I’m curious, in your opinion, what Constitutional standard or tenet the Senate “violated”.

For reference, here’s what the U.S. Constitution reads [Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2]:

(The President) shall have Power (to make treaties),. . .  and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . , Judges of the Supreme Court, . . .  

The word “shall” seems to appear 99 times in Article I regarding the Legislative . Most of these simply confer power to the Senate or House, a few instances restrict power. Only a very few mandate that action must be taken. None of those touch upon advice or consent to the Executive.

Article II states the President must obtain consent of the Senate. Nowhere does it state the Senate MUST give it. Withholding consent is in fact a form of negative consent. Silence is also a message. All legal. Was there a rule of the Senate violated by not holding a vote?

This is no different than a situation where a President will chide or deride Congress for not taking up a cause or issue he believes is important. Not passing any legislation and letting the status quo remain is in fact an action and totally within the prerogative of the Senate (or House).

-- Modified on 2/1/2017 8:14:31 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
JackDunphy253 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
bigguy30218 reads

Posted By: JackDunphy


-- Modified on 2/1/2017 1:06:01 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
earlweaver161 reads

it be payback time

Posted By: bigguy30
Posted By: JackDunphy
-- Modified on 2/1/2017 1:06:01 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
borabora190 reads

There is no point in forever fighting battles you can't win if Vietnam has made us any wiser.

I hope Bryer won't retire soon. He is my favourite after Stevens retired.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!