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

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51998967]what was so objectionable about his record[/QUOTE] In the words of the NYT: "Political scientists say the answer is clear. Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the member of the court at its ideological center and the one who often holds the controlling vote. A Supreme Court including Judge Garland would contain a five-member liberal bloc and put either him or perhaps Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the most conservative liberal, in what had been Justice Kennedy’s pivotal spot." ([url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html[/url])

[QUOTE=sgman91;51998989]In the words of the NYT: "Political scientists say the answer is clear. Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the member of the court at its ideological center and the one who often holds the controlling vote. A Supreme Court including Judge Garland would contain a five-member liberal bloc and put either him or perhaps Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the most conservative liberal, in what had been Justice Kennedy’s pivotal spot." ([url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html[/url])[/QUOTE] Like I get that you don't want liberals to have a stronghold on the court, but Trump is just aiming to stack it for your side of the fence There was partisan screams from the children that run the nation for months about how Garland was an illegitimate nomination, which wasn't true. While your point may stand, I didn't know that was a good enough grounds to obstruct him.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51998998]Like I get that you don't want liberals to have a stronghold on the court, but Trump is just aiming to stack it for your side of the fence There was partisan screams from the children that run the nation for months about how Garland was an illegitimate nomination, which wasn't true. While your point may stand, I didn't know that was a good enough grounds to obstruct him.[/QUOTE] Gorsuch would make a balanced court. Kennedy, although nominated by a Republican, is right in the middle when it comes to his decisions. Who said that Garland was illegitimate?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51998989]In the words of the NYT: "Political scientists say the answer is clear. Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the member of the court at its ideological center and the one who often holds the controlling vote. A Supreme Court including Judge Garland would contain a five-member liberal bloc and put either him or perhaps Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the most conservative liberal, in what had been Justice Kennedy’s pivotal spot." ([url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html[/url])[/QUOTE] "He's a liberal" is a poor justification for the republican congress refusing to even bring it up for debate

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999003]"He's a liberal" is a poor justification for the republican congress refusing to even bring it up for debate[/QUOTE] It's not "he's a liberal." It's that he would create a "liberal bloc" of votes. Those are not the same thing. There's also the consideration that Republicans had been given a landslide control of congress in the last election, and should be expected to try and get what they were elected to do. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] It's hard for me to hit them too hard on blocking the hearing because they would have been lambasted to the same degree if they had allowed the hearing and not accepted the nomination. There was no way of going about it that both blocked a left wing controlled court and made the left wing be OK with it.

The republicans were not elected to not do their job and to waste taxpayer money but they did it anyway.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999021]The republicans were not elected to not do their job and to waste taxpayer money but they did it anyway.[/QUOTE] Part of "doing their job" is to give, or not give, consent on judge nominations. I get that you don't like what they did, but it seems silly to say they didn't do their job. There's no constitutional obligation to have the hearing. Having the hearing and then not giving consent would have wasted even more money.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51999033]Part of "doing their job" is to give, or not give, consent on judge nominations. I get that you don't like what they did, but it seems silly to say they didn't do their job. There's no constitutional obligation to have the hearing. Having the hearing and then not giving consent would have wasted even more money.[/QUOTE] Those mental gymnastics wow.

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51999046]Those mental gymnastics wow.[/QUOTE] Care to point out which part isn't literally true? I'm not even spinning the facts in that post. That's just the way it is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51999033]Part of "doing their job" is to give, or not give, consent on judge nominations. I get that you don't like what they did, but it seems silly to say they didn't do their job. There's no constitutional obligation to have the hearing. Having the hearing and then not giving consent would have wasted even more money.[/QUOTE] There kind of is a obligation since the supreme court was unable to make decisions for the rest of Obama's. I understand that you're a libertarian and you don't think government is a efficient means to help the average person but I don't know why you would support the folks why actively made the govenment less able to do their job.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999051]There kind of is a obligation since the supreme court was unable to make decisions for the rest of Obama's. I understand that you're a libertarian and you don't think government is a efficient means to help the average person but I don't know why you would support the folks why actively made the govenment less able to do their job.[/QUOTE] Personally, I would rather them be unable to make controversial decisions than have every controversial decision go to the left. The common idea of judging effectiveness by number of decisions made or number of laws passed seems comically dumb to me.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51999065]Personally, I would rather them be unable to make controversial decisions than have every controversial decision go to the left. The common idea of judging effectiveness by number of decisions made or number of laws passed seems comically dumb to me.[/QUOTE] Party over country alright, glad to know you're shamelessly partisan.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999071]Party over country alright, glad to know you're shamelessly partisan.[/QUOTE] What? I explicitly don't want them all going to the left because I think it would be bad for the country. [editline]22nd March 2017[/editline] I don't even understand your accusation. Are you saying that I think having all left leaning decisions would be good for the country, but because of my "shameless partisanship" I still don't want it to happen?

We might get terrible things like gay marriage

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999091]We might get terrible things like gay marriage[/QUOTE] ... We already have gay marriage?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51999095]... We already have gay marriage?[/QUOTE] Which was due to a liberal majority

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999071]Party over country alright, glad to know you're shamelessly partisan.[/QUOTE] It really seems more like he's giving reasonable (if not necessarily agreeable) arguments and you're just personally attacking him.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999102]Which was due to a liberal majority[/QUOTE] 1) It was from the balanced court, not a "liberal majority." 2) It's irrelevant to the blocking of Garland or the election of Gorsuch. Neither had anything to do with that decision and neither would cause it to be overturned. You seem to be straying from the topic at hand.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;51999104]It really seems more like he's giving reasonable (if not necessarily agreeable) arguments and you're just personally attacking him.[/QUOTE] Nah I think this culture of obstructionism that the republicans have cultivated over the past 6 years is far from reasonable. Garland was part of this obstructionism and sgman seems to support that, which I don't see as reasonable. and also I think interpreting court decisions purely on a left/right spectrum is dumb but the politicization of the court system is a issue that's been around longer than any of us have been alive. but fair enough, I'll go cool off.

It's odd to me when being an originalist, someone who wants to have an extremely strict interpretation of the law, is considered being political.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51999156]It's odd to me when being an originalist, someone who wants to have an extremely strict interpretation of the law, is considered being political.[/QUOTE] you claim to be apolitical but your objection was purely on partisan grounds

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999160]you claim to be apolitical but your objection was purely on partisan grounds[/QUOTE] "Left" is a very short and quick way to refer to a huge number of specific issues, and everyone knows what they are. It's not some arbitrary title. OBVIOUSLY, my disagreement isn't based on them being on the "left." It's based on all the issues that are associated with it. Pick any random issue and defining one side as left and one as right will be easy, especially when it comes to the big issues of our day.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51999164]"Left" is a very short and quick way to refer to a huge number of specific issues, and everyone knows what they are. It's not some arbitrary title. OBVIOUSLY, my disagreement isn't based on them being on the "left." It's based on all the issues that are associated with it. Pick any random issue and defining one side as left and one as right will be easy, especially when it comes to the big issues of our day.[/QUOTE] Not ever random issue should be divided so simply. Like Climate Change or Reproductive Rights. [QUOTE=sgman91;51999178]What you think should or should not be is fairly irrelevant. At this point in time, they are split like that, generally because of fundamental disagreements that lead to many differing conclusions about a range of issues. (I'm not sure how the split on climate change applies to the court, though.)[/QUOTE] You said any random issue, I chose some random issues

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51999172]Not ever random issue should be divided so simply. Like Climate Change or Reproductive Rights.[/QUOTE] What you think should or should not be is fairly irrelevant. At this point in time, they are split like that, generally because of fundamental disagreements that lead to many differing conclusions about a range of issues. (I'm not sure how the split on climate change applies to the court, though.)

The Dems should keep blocking Justices until their next presidency regardless of the whole Russia ordeal - any less would be allowing Republicans to steal a seat.

[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;51999341]The Dems should keep blocking Justices until their next presidency regardless of the whole Russia ordeal - any less would be allowing Republicans to steal a seat.[/QUOTE] They won't be able to block it. The republicans will just do the same rule change that the dems did last time, which makes it only require 51 votes.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51994282]Only a sith deals in absolutes.[/QUOTE] you're conflating flexibility with outright hypocrisy

I don't get the argument that Garland shouldn't be appointed because it would take the SC "too much to the left". Who decides what is too much to the left or to the right? The American people? But then any appointment by the president is neither too much to the left or the right because he was elected by the American people and is their representative. Claiming a SC appointee is "too much to the left" and then claim that you're just trying to keep the SC apolitical is disingenuous when your definition of what constitutes "too much to the left" or "too much to the right" is political.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52000203]I don't get the argument that Garland shouldn't be appointed because it would take the SC "too much to the left". Who decides what is too much to the left or to the right? The American people? But then any appointment by the president is neither too much to the left or the right because he was elected by the American people and is their representative. Claiming a SC appointee is "too much to the left" and then claim that you're just trying to keep the SC apolitical is disingenuous when your definition of what constitutes "too much to the left" or "too much to the right" is political.[/QUOTE] Well, let's do some simple 1st grade math to figure it out! If we have 4 judges with liberal interpretations, one swing judge, and 3 judges with conservative interpretations, what do you add to balance the court? Bonus points: What is the outcome if we add in Garland, who has a liberal interpretation of the constitution?

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html[/url] Looks like they're gonna filibuster.