• Pence says Gorsuch will fill supreme court seat 'one way or the other'
    16 replies, posted
[Quote]Vice-President Mike Pence pledged on Saturday that supreme court nominee Neil Gorsuch will join the nation’s highest court “one way or the other”. Pence made the pledge during a speech in Philadelphia to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. His remarks echoed comments in which Donald Trump urged Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear” and scrap longstanding rules requiring 60 votes if Democrats move to block Gorsuch. A least one Democratic senator has vowed to try to block Gorsuch’s nomination as retaliation for McConnell’s decision to block any nominee put forward by Barack Obama, for months, until after the 8 November election. For more than 300 days, the opening created by the February 2016 death of justice Antonin Scalia has remained vacant. The Senate held no hearings or votes on Merrick Garland, the supreme court candidate that Obama put forward. On Tuesday, Trump announced Gorsuch, 49, and a judge on the Denver-based 10th US circuit court of appeals, as his choice to succeed the conservative Scalia. Pence said Gorsuch had already met 12 senators from both parties and was willing to meet with all 100 senators. The vice-president said a candidate to become an associate justice on the nation’s highest court had never faced a successful filibuster. “Judge Neil Gorsuch should not be the first,” he said. “Rest assured, we will work with the Senate leadership to ensure that Judge Gorsuch gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor – one way or the other,” Pence said. “This seat does not belong to any party or any ideology or any interest group. This seat on the supreme court belongs to the American people, and the American people deserve a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” Pence said the Senate had voted unanimously to confirm Gorsuch to his current post, and that nearly a third of the senators who voted then are still serving as senators. The Senate’s vote on Gorsuch in 2006 was by unanimous consent, or voice vote. It was not a recorded vote.[/quote] [URL=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/04/pence-says-gorsuch-will-fill-supreme-court-seat-one-way-or-the-other]Source[/URL] [Url=http://time.com/4660517/mike-pence-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/]Alternative Source[/url] Seems like wishful thinking to me. They need to win over 8 democrat to get the 60 required votes, and they have every reason to stall the vote while Trump inevitably appeals court decisions on the constitutionality of his Muslim ban until it reaches the Supreme Court. A split supreme court would be more favorable to them than one with a clear republican majority.
That is one extremely scary fucking statement though. Basically shows he doesn't care what the democracy wants.
[QUOTE]Vice-President Mike Pence pledged on Saturday that supreme court nominee Neil Gorsuch will join the nation’s highest court “one way or the other”. Pence made the pledge during a speech in Philadelphia to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. His remarks echoed comments in which Donald Trump urged Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear” and scrap longstanding rules requiring 60 votes if Democrats move to block Gorsuch.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's just me, but that sounds ominous AF. "Give us what we want or we'll change the rules to our liking."
[QUOTE]Pence made the pledge during a speech in Philadelphia to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. His remarks echoed comments in which Donald Trump urged Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear” and scrap longstanding rules requiring 60 votes if Democrats move to block Gorsuch.[/QUOTE] I find it interesting the Democrats didn't change the rules as the Republicans are planning to do when Obama's nominee was blocked for ten months. I hope the Republicans realise that changing the rules will be used against them.
These evil people don't care about anything besides pushing their own outdated agendas on progressive American citizens, and they don't care about the suffering of the country and its people thereby. They're not even fit to be referred to as anything but worms. I also love it when they keep using the law to their advantage, but screaming against it when it disadvantages them. One day, they'll reap the whirlwind for the crimes they're committing now. [editline]5th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51779543]I find it interesting the Democrats didn't change the rules as the Republicans are planning to do when Obama's nominee was blocked for ten months. I hope the Republicans realise that changing the rules will be used against them.[/QUOTE] Realization or not, they dont care about anybody other than republicans For them it doesnt matter what the dems do or dont do
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51779543]I find it interesting the Democrats didn't change the rules as the Republicans are planning to do when Obama's nominee was blocked for ten months. I hope the Republicans realise that changing the rules will be used against them.[/QUOTE] First off, the Democrats [URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cabinet-senate/513782/"]did change the rules in their own favor.[/URL] They did [I]not[/I] change those rules for the Supreme Court, likely because Antonin Scalia's death was exceptionally unexpected and to have changed those rules while fighting over his seat would have been a blatant and self-serving power grab. Second of all, [quote] A[B] split [/B]supreme court would be more favorable to them than one with a clear republican majority. [/quote] This is [I]not[/I] a split supreme court. This is a supreme court that definitely favors the Democratic party on essentially every issue with a 5-3 Progressive/Conservative slant. Never mind that the seat formerly occupied by the Arch-Conservative, the only genuine Constitutionalist, is the empty seat. [B]Any[/B] appointment of a non-Constitutionalist would only drive the court further in to the Progressive/Democratic lean. Which gets to the point. If the Democrats are going to stonewall this appointment (as they harangued the Republicans for doing) what do they intend? To stonewall for 4, potentially 8 years? To make up to 8 years of Supreme Court rulings fundamentally weaker, less meaningful, virtually pointless? Or do they intend to, by their passive action, just reform the number of seats to 8? What do the Democrats do if Ginsburg or Kennedy pass suddenly and unexpectedly as Scalia did? Do we got to a 7 man court? A 6? 5? When do we finally assent to let a seat be filled? At One justice? At no justices? At some point, either someone has to relent, or this partisinal bickering no matter how well-justified and righteous only serves to do more damage than victory would for either side.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51779587]First off, the Democrats [URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cabinet-senate/513782/"]did change the rules in their own favor.[/URL][/QUOTE] Huh, I didn't know that. Though I'm not surprised, they were the ones to start the whole "block a Supreme Court pick" thing back in the 90s, right?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51779597]Huh, I didn't know that. Though I'm not surprised, they were the ones to start the whole "block a Supreme Court pick" thing back in the 90s, right?[/QUOTE] Yes, and more to the point, the Democrats are the [URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/19/joe-bidens-filibuster-hypocrisy"]essential[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/"]architects[/URL] of every obstructionist move the Republicans are currently notorious for. So I advise everyone think at least twice before they simply decry the Republicans are the party of self-serving worms and vile bureaucratic bugbears, lest the unintentionally name-call their own running horse.
Stuff like this makes me think the administration should be removed along with Trump.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51779601]Yes, and more to the point, the Democrats are the [URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/19/joe-bidens-filibuster-hypocrisy"]essential[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/"]architects[/URL] of every obstructionist move the Republicans are currently notorious for. So I advise everyone think at least twice before they simply decry the Republicans are the party of self-serving worms and vile bureaucratic bugbears, lest the unintentionally name-call their own running horse.[/QUOTE] Republicans made the filibuster really really big though. They used it more than any other before them. [img]http://i.imgur.com/75aD3o2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51779601]Yes, and more to the point, the Democrats are the [URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/19/joe-bidens-filibuster-hypocrisy"]essential[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/"]architects[/URL] of every obstructionist move the Republicans are currently notorious for. So I advise everyone think at least twice before they simply decry the Republicans are the party of self-serving worms and vile bureaucratic bugbears, lest the unintentionally name-call their own running horse.[/QUOTE] Oh I know that most American politicians are scum. At-least, after Nixon (and probably a little bit before that). Vietnam really fucked your country up.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51779587]First off, the Democrats [URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cabinet-senate/513782/"]did change the rules in their own favor.[/URL] They did [I]not[/I] change those rules for the Supreme Court, likely because Antonin Scalia's death was exceptionally unexpected and to have changed those rules while fighting over his seat would have been a blatant and self-serving power grab. Second of all, This is [I]not[/I] a split supreme court. This is a supreme court that definitely favors the Democratic party on essentially every issue with a 5-3 Progressive/Conservative slant. Never mind that the seat formerly occupied by the Arch-Conservative, the only genuine Constitutionalist, is the empty seat. [B]Any[/B] appointment of a non-Constitutionalist would only drive the court further in to the Progressive/Democratic lean. Which gets to the point. If the Democrats are going to stonewall this appointment (as they harangued the Republicans for doing) what do they intend? To stonewall for 4, potentially 8 years? To make up to 8 years of Supreme Court rulings fundamentally weaker, less meaningful, virtually pointless? Or do they intend to, by their passive action, just reform the number of seats to 8? What do the Democrats do if Ginsburg or Kennedy pass suddenly and unexpectedly as Scalia did? Do we got to a 7 man court? A 6? 5? When do we finally assent to let a seat be filled? At One justice? At no justices? At some point, either someone has to relent, or this partisinal bickering no matter how well-justified and righteous only serves to do more damage than victory would for either side.[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree, Democrats would be showing a really ugly side if they legitimately threatened to boycott a nominee for 4-8 years. Any congressman who would do that is obviously not acting in the best interests of either the Supreme Court or the country. So let's talk about Mitch McConnell threatening to do that very thing last November when faced with the prospect of a Clinton Presidency. He had orchestrated the movement to obstruct any opportunity to even give Garland a hearing, even though everyone agreed he was a solid candidate. The obstruction was based on the idea that they didn't want the Democratic Executive Leadership to be able to do its job, which falls in line with the mission McConnell and countless other republicans had since Obama's election in 2008. As a democrat, I hope the Democratic leadership continues to stonewall. Republicans created this environment and fostered it during their congressional majority, using government shutdowns and supreme court seats to push the idea that Democrats should not be allowed to do anything, even when they occupy the executive branch. The whole point of our system is for the two parties to work together to accomplish legislative goals. Now, thanks primarily to Republicanism, it's turned into a tug-of-war where the only way people can accomplish things is by having 100% control. Short of compromising, or holding adequate hearings on topics of vital importance to the country, the Republicans are in a position where they can change the rules to rip away whatever voice the democrats have left in government. Welcome to the new America. Sources: McConnell on Supreme Court delay for four years: [URL="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court/"]PBS[/URL] McConnell and Boehner on obstructing every single thing Obama would try to do because he is a dem:[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311"]Politico[/URL] Republicans change rules to push through nominees to general vote: [URL="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317302-gop-changes-rules-to-push-through-nominees-after-dem-boycott"]The Hill[/URL] [editline]5th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51779601]Yes, and more to the point, the Democrats are the [URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/19/joe-bidens-filibuster-hypocrisy"]essential[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/"]architects[/URL] of every obstructionist move the Republicans are currently notorious for. So I advise everyone think at least twice before they simply decry the Republicans are the party of self-serving worms and vile bureaucratic bugbears, lest the unintentionally name-call their own running horse.[/QUOTE] Republicans aren't the self-serving party? Have you actually taken the time to see the actions they've taken in congress since the election? Hell, since Obama's election? Have you seen the countless pieces of legislation that actually hurt their constituents in order to help corporate interests? We're back on track to focus on trickle-down economics, which the Bush Administration economic record can show doesn't work, based on the crisis we had in 2008.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51779601]Yes, and more to the point, the Democrats are the [URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/19/joe-bidens-filibuster-hypocrisy"]essential[/URL] [URL="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/22/joe-bidens-1992-opposition-to-lame-duck-supreme-co/"]architects[/URL] of every obstructionist move the Republicans are currently notorious for. So I advise everyone think at least twice before they simply decry the Republicans are the party of self-serving worms and vile bureaucratic bugbears, lest the unintentionally name-call their own running horse.[/QUOTE] It's not blocking itself that's bad, what determines it is what's being blocked.
If anyone has a short memory, as stated in your source about Biden, it's Republicans, who are now crying foul about democrat "obstructionism" (it's not obstruction because they have the votes to do basically anything they want), when just a few short years ago they were engaging in much more intense, partisan obstruction by promising to do whatever it takes to prevent the executive and legislative branch from functioning. Now, after stealing away a supreme court seat, republicans are mad that Democrats won't turn the other cheek.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51779648]Oh I know that most American politicians are scum. At-least, after Nixon (and probably a little bit before that). Vietnam really fucked your country up.[/QUOTE] Yeah no shit. The government or the those interests that influenced government at the time spent the faith, trust and good will of the citizens. Before people naively trusted the state always did what was right. After? Holy shit, the state had very little credibility since then.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;51779535]That is one extremely scary fucking statement though. Basically shows he doesn't care what the democracy wants.[/QUOTE] I mean, it shouldn't surprise anyone. The democrats already did the exact same rules change for all court appointments other than the Supreme Court. They even passed the rule change with a simple majority. People were warning democrats from day one that they shouldn't open pandora's box because republicans will do the exact same thing when they get in power, and to no one's surprise they're going to do exactly that.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51779543]I find it interesting the Democrats didn't change the rules as the Republicans are planning to do when Obama's nominee was blocked for ten months.[/QUOTE] They couldn't have, and even if they had scrapped them before, it wouldn't have changed anything. One needs a majority in the Senate to accomplish this, even with the rules change. By the time Scalia died and the vacancy opened up, the Republicans had a 54-46 majority in the Senate. The Democrats would've needed four Republican senators to vote with them to break the filibuster rules, and then had those same four Republicans vote to confirm Garland in order to get him through. And, obviously, not a single Republican was going to vote with the Democrats, let alone four. [QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51779587] This is [I]not[/I] a split supreme court. This is a supreme court that definitely favors the Democratic party on essentially every issue with a 5-3 Progressive/Conservative slant. Never mind that the seat formerly occupied by the Arch-Conservative, the only genuine Constitutionalist, is the empty seat. [B]Any[/B] appointment of a non-Constitutionalist would only drive the court further in to the Progressive/Democratic lean. Which gets to the point. If the Democrats are going to stonewall this appointment (as they harangued the Republicans for doing) what do they intend? To stonewall for 4, potentially 8 years? To make up to 8 years of Supreme Court rulings fundamentally weaker, less meaningful, virtually pointless? Or do they intend to, by their passive action, just reform the number of seats to 8? What do the Democrats do if Ginsburg or Kennedy pass suddenly and unexpectedly as Scalia did? Do we got to a 7 man court? A 6? 5? When do we finally assent to let a seat be filled? At One justice? At no justices? At some point, either someone has to relent, or this partisinal bickering no matter how well-justified and righteous only serves to do more damage than victory would for either side.[/QUOTE] I have no idea where you get the idea that's a 5/3 Progressive/Conservative block on the court. There are four progressive justices, three conservatives justices, and one justice that's more of a centrist, but who leans conservative(Kennedy), even if he makes admirable votes once in a while, such as in Obergefell vs Hodges. Adding in Scalia's seat with a conservative, then we'll go back to a 5-4 conservative majority in most cases. The same majority that lead to Citizens United; or striking down parts of the voting rights act. Also, for reference, by any metric, Justice Clarence is considerably more conservative than Scalia. There is already an "arch-conservative" on the court, so the argument that we need another extremely conservative person to replace Scalia to get that role doesn't hold up. Plus, let's not pretend that, should Ginsburg or Breyer retire or pass away in the next few years, that the Republicans would be as kind as to nominate a progressive, or even a moderate, to replace them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.