Schumer calls for delaying Gorsuch vote because of Trump-Russia probe - Polidicks

[quote] Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a delay of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation Tuesday given the ongoing FBI investigation into potential collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian officials. “You can bet, if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI, the Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances,” Schumer said on the floor. His call was later echoed by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who tweeted that FBI Director James Comey "testified @realDonaldTrump's campaign is under investigation for collusion with Russia. Lifetime court appointments can wait." The emerging Democratic demand is highly unlikely to gain traction with Senate GOP leaders, who are planning a vote on Gorsuch early next month. But the move illustrates Schumer's interest in using the stain of an FBI probe to undercut the rest of Trump’s agenda and echoes entreaties by liberal groups that have pressured Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch. The GOP blocked former President Barack Obama from naming Judge Merrick Garland to the high court last year when Obama faced no long-running federal inquiry, the New York Democrat added. “It is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment while this big gray cloud of an FBI investigation hangs over the presidency,” Schumer said. [/quote] [url="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/chuck-schumer-delay-neil-gorsuch-vote-236315"]Politico[/url] I agree with Schumer. If proceedings continued and Trump was found to be guilty, Russia would have succeeded in placing a Supreme Court justice that would affect future generations of Americans.

I thought this was a different Schumer for a second, got confused. Anyway this is interesting.

Seems reasonable.

[QUOTE=AutismoPiggo;51993929]I thought this was a different Schumer for a second, got confused. Anyway this is interesting.[/QUOTE] It certainly is more entertaining of a thought than the reason as to why the GOP blocked Garland.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51993938]It certainly is more entertaining of a thought than the reason as to why the GOP blocked Garland.[/QUOTE] "B-But the lame duck!"

I would hope that if Russia is found to have manipulated the Presidency, all of Trump's actions and decisions would be scrutinized harshly. Like the wall -- what a great way to drain American government programs, which many taxpaying voters depend on, of most of their budget and dump it all into a pointless monument to that time Russia puppeted the POTUS. Whether or not he had anything to do with it, Putin must be overjoyed at the chaos since the inauguration.

Its an absolute shame people are so blinded by power and ideology that they cant muster the integrity to think beyond the short term in this case. This whole episode is shaping up to be a major shitstorm with unpredictable results.

This is the height of senseless conspiracy theory.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994124]This is the height of senseless conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] How?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994124]This is the height of senseless conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] I dunno, I think I'd say that "he's under investigation by the FBI for an extremely heavy crime" is a much better justification than "Obama is our trigger word."

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994124]This is the height of senseless conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] Wow, imagine being completely okay with obstructing Garland, but not wanting to hold off on Gorsuch because the President that chose him is under FBI investigation. [editline]21st March 2017[/editline] I'll give you a 8.5/10 for those mental gymnastics.

snip

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994124]This is the height of senseless conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] Ain't a conspiracy if the FBI is investigating the claims

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51994217]Ain't a conspiracy if the FBI is investigating the claims[/QUOTE] Clearly the FBI is controlled by the deep state, the MSM, and probably a pizza chain or something.

Anyone that supported blocking Obama's SCOTUS nomination [U]has[/U] to support this as well. If you don't, you're a god damn fucking idiot.

[QUOTE=da space core;51994129]How?[/QUOTE] Neil Gorsuch has demonstrated in his career and his hearing that he has nothing but the interests of the law at heart, so much so that he would be willing to go against the administration's views to do his job. The way I see it, Schumer and his pals in Congress are just seizing an opportunity to stall the formation of the administration for partisan gain. Maybe the FBI will turn up some mind-boggling evidence that invalidates the whole election, maybe they won't. Regardless, I think Schumer knows very well that Neil Gorsuch has nothing to do with any of this Russian nonsense. [QUOTE=Anti Christ;51994256]Anyone that supported blocking Obama's SCOTUS nomination [U]has[/U] to support this as well. If you don't, you're a god damn fucking idiot.[/QUOTE] Only a sith deals in absolutes.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994282] Only a sith deals in absolutes.[/QUOTE] I don't have the time or willpower to tell you all the ways this is wrong. You, Chonch, are beyond help.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994282]Neil Gorsuch has demonstrated in his career and his hearing that he has nothing but the interests of the law at heart, so much so that he would be willing to go against the administration's views to do his job. The way I see it, Schumer and his pals in Congress are just seizing an opportunity to stall the formation of the administration for partisan gain. Maybe the FBI will turn up some mind-boggling evidence that invalidates the whole election, maybe they won't. Regardless, I think Schumer knows very well that Neil Gorsuch has nothing to do with any of this Russian nonsense.[/QUOTE] But of course blocking Garland was a totally logical, non-partisan decision that was completely justified.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994282]Neil Gorsuch has demonstrated in his career and his hearing that he has nothing but the interests of the law at heart, so much so that he would be willing to go against the administration's views to do his job. The way I see it, Schumer and his pals in Congress are just seizing an opportunity to stall the formation of the administration for partisan gain. Maybe the FBI will turn up some mind-boggling evidence that invalidates the whole election, maybe they won't. Regardless, I think Schumer knows very well that Neil Gorsuch has nothing to do with any of this Russian nonsense. Only a sith deals in absolutes.[/QUOTE] Chonch, it's not that he directly has to do with the Russian [i]investigation[/i] (not nonsense), it's that he was nominated by a President who might be under Russia's influence. Were you against Garland, by chance? If so, why?

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;51994302]But of course blocking Garland was a totally logical, non-partisan decision that was completely justified.[/QUOTE] no it's fine there's no double standards or hypocrisy read this funny star wars quote "I hate sand, it's coarse and rough and gets everywhere"

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51994309]Chonch, it's not that he directly has to do with the Russian investigation, it's that he was nominated by a President who might be under Russia's influence. Were you against Garland, by chance? If so, why?[/QUOTE] Merrick Garland is a fine and upstanding judge. I'm not sure if I would have been okay with him on the SCOTUS; he seems to lean a little too far left of center to properly balance out the court ideologically, in my opinion. I have a feeling Obama nominated him due to his record of pro-EPA rulings and the potential reinforcement that could give to his climate change policy campaign, and that just doesn't sit well with me. That said, the rationale behind the unwillingness of Congress to even hold a hearing for him was utter garbage. Like a defendant in court, all appointees should be given a chance to make their case.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994347]Merrick Garland is a fine and upstanding judge. I'm not sure if I would have been okay with him on the SCOTUS; he doesn't seem to lean far enough to the right to balance out the ideological scales of the court. I have a feeling Obama nominated him due to his record of pro-EPA rulings and the potential reinforcement that could give to his climate change policy campaign, and that just doesn't sit well with me. That said, the rationale behind the unwillingness of Congress to even hold a hearing for him was utter garbage. Like a defendant in court, all appointees should be given a chance to make their case.[/QUOTE] Okay, so we at least agree on that. Gorsuch is having a hearing for his candidacy as a member of SCOTUS. With the possibility of Trump being compromised by Russia, do you think that Congress proceeding with the nomination hearing, despite Trump being under FBI investigation (and many GOP members using an attach vector on Clinton stating how the country cannot be ran effectively with a leader under FBI investigation) is at least a bit of a red flag? A SCOTUS judge influences law for generations. If Russia did compromise Trump, that effectively means, by extension, that Russia chose a SCOTUS judge.

at this point its pretty obvious that mcconnel will use the nuclear option at any chance, be it this SC seat or the next one, might as well put up a fight before he pulls the trigger, itll only piss off the left even further garland is as far as things go, supprisingly moderate considering who nominated him, but hes just as contradictory as scalea was, take the transam driver case, he argues that originalists shouldnt be writing words into the law, but he also held that the word opperate meant drive and so a driver ditching his trailer to drive to safety violated his employment and was rightfully fired, in writing a discenting oppinion he outright contradicted himself. the same holds true in a lot of other rulings. when asked if he would look out for workers he said its a case by case basis but he tends to go out of his way to protect companies in his opinions because they have large volumes of statutes to twist and work around while workers usually have a handfull of legal defenses ontop of all this is how wr ended up here with the republicans getting away with depacking the courts by holding up every judge obama put forth and outright ignoring their constitutional duty to give a hearing. the judicial nomination process will never be the same again because everybody will now hold up judges until they can get their way basically rigging the judicial branch to collapse

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994347]Merrick Garland is a fine and upstanding judge. I'm not sure if I would have been okay with him on the SCOTUS; he seems to lean a little too far left of center to properly balance out the court ideologically, in my opinion. I have a feeling Obama nominated him due to his record of pro-EPA rulings and the potential reinforcement that could give to his climate change policy campaign, and that just doesn't sit well with me. That said, the rationale behind the unwillingness of Congress to even hold a hearing for him was utter garbage. Like a defendant in court, all appointees should be given a chance to make their case.[/QUOTE] If he's a fine and upstanding judge then he should be more than understanding of letting a FBI investigation come to term before his confirmation, because there's literally nothing for him to loose by doing so. If bad shit is found, well he was clearly onboard with an investigation so he would be less likely to be seen as part of the problem, distance from the fire puts him in a better position to get his seat. If nothing comes up, well proceed as normal and guess what, he earns the respect of more people for his due diligence for making sure everything is legally correct.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994282]Only a sith deals in absolutes.[/QUOTE] of course this is an absolute statement said by a jedi, so they at least dabble in absolutes.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51994374]Okay, so we at least agree on that. Gorsuch is having a hearing for his candidacy as a member of SCOTUS. With the possibility of Trump being compromised by Russia, do you think that Congress proceeding with the nomination hearing, despite Trump being under FBI investigation (and many GOP members using an attach vector on Clinton stating how the country cannot be ran effectively with a leader under FBI investigation) is at least a bit of a red flag? A SCOTUS judge influences law for generations. If Russia did compromise Trump, that effectively means, by extension, that Russia chose a SCOTUS judge.[/QUOTE] Red flag, no. This is standard Congressional procedure--not part of some grand conspiracy. We must remember and trust that Congress has the facts on the Russian fiasco they've started, likely more than you or I. I have yet to see the subject broached in Gorsuch's hearing (granted I have not watched it all) but if the danger is as bad as you imply I think it would have interrupted the procedure in some way long ago. So far, Gorsuch has presented himself as an extremely well read student of the law, with an almost unsociable preference for political neutrality. If you want my opinion, I think this is the last guy who could possibly be involved in such an accusation as what's been levied against him here. If a compromising discovery is made in the next few weeks I would honestly not be surprised if the man just resigned or withdrew his name. But ultimately, this isn't for me to judge; the inquiry is still ongoing.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994282]Neil Gorsuch has demonstrated in his career and his hearing that he has nothing but the interests of the law at heart, so much so that he would be willing to go against the administration's views to do his job. The way I see it, Schumer and his pals in Congress are just seizing an opportunity to stall the formation of the administration for partisan gain. Maybe the FBI will turn up some mind-boggling evidence that invalidates the whole election, maybe they won't. Regardless, I think Schumer knows very well that Neil Gorsuch has nothing to do with any of this Russian nonsense. Only a sith deals in absolutes.[/QUOTE] So basically you're saying that you follow the sith, but you're okay with calling out the flaws in the other party because reasons? Dude, you've been playing at this game for a long time, but this whole "Absolutes" deal you just spit out really kinda goes against your own behaviour. If only a sith deals in absolutes, and the people you follow have only dealt in absolutes up to this point, what's the point of your complaints? [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chonch;51998783]Red flag, no. This is standard Congressional procedure--not part of some grand conspiracy. We must remember and trust that Congress has the facts on the Russian fiasco they've started, likely more than you or I. I have yet to see the subject broached in Gorsuch's hearing (granted I have not watched it all) but if the danger is as bad as you imply I think it would have interrupted the procedure in some way long ago. So far, Gorsuch has presented himself as an extremely well read student of the law, with an almost unsociable preference for political neutrality. If you want my opinion, I think this is the last guy who could possibly be involved in such an accusation as what's been levied against him here. If a compromising discovery is made in the next few weeks I would honestly not be surprised if the man just resigned or withdrew his name. But ultimately, this isn't for me to judge; the inquiry is still ongoing.[/QUOTE] So why is it okay for them to have done this to Garland? I know for a fact during that time period you didn't lambast the republicans holding off that nomination like it was their sworn duty for god and country, so why do you get to now? Explain that to me as "reasonable" [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chonch;51994347]Merrick Garland is a fine and upstanding judge. I'm not sure if I would have been okay with him on the SCOTUS; he seems to lean a little too far left of center to properly balance out the court ideologically, in my opinion. I have a feeling Obama nominated him due to his record of pro-EPA rulings and the potential reinforcement that could give to his climate change policy campaign, and that just doesn't sit well with me. That said, the rationale behind the unwillingness of Congress to even hold a hearing for him was utter garbage. Like a defendant in court, all appointees should be given a chance to make their case.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the environment? Not really worth protecting. Of course.

I remember sgman arguing that the blocking of merrick garland was justified in order to maintain ideological balance between liberals and conservatives on the supreme court. Which I still think is a stupid opinion. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] Garland was a moderate nomination and anyone who says otherwise is drinking the right wing flavor-aid

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51998840]Garland was a moderate nomination and anyone who says otherwise is drinking the right wing flavor-aid[/QUOTE] Or they actually looked at his record and previous statements ;) About Garland: Yes, I think the situations are totally different. Garland would have swung the balance to the left for who knows how long, until the next justice retired or passed away, the Republicans were given control of both houses of congress in the last election, and an election was coming up. The political situation was vastly different between then and now. With that said, I don't think I would hold it against the democrats if they did everything they could to stop him getting affirmed. It won't do any good, but they're welcome to try.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51998893]Or they actually looked at his record and previous statements ;)[/QUOTE] what was so objectionable about his record