Democratic opposition to Trump's court nominee grows

Good for Claire, and least Dems are being thoughtful about this, instead coming out with an all out "NO", like GOPers did during Obama's time.

Good for Claire, and least Dems are being thoughtful about this, instead coming out with an all out "NO", like GOPers did during Obama's time.

I hope you know her "No" vote is because she resides in a Democratic district, so her vote is purely political, just as Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp two Democrats that reside in Republican districts where Trump won, they will vote for Gorsuch and good on them and saying "YES" but in all seriousness, they are voting "yes" for the same political reasons. Neither wants to be in the position they are in, but both sides care more about being reelected than to vote their conscience.

So she's lying? Seems to be the status quo.

This is the undeniable reality: Democrats must be bipartisan, particularly when it comes to SCOTUS, but Republicans may simply refuse to consider a legitimate Democratic nominee with no consequences. Something I learned back in kindergarten tells me this is inequitable.

Is Sean Spicer a goldfish? - That is, does he not remember events older than a few days? Consider this:

Republicans in the past have allowed Democrat presidents to have their SCOTUS nominees voted on up or down. And for the most part, when you go back through President Obama or President Clinton…Republicans have joined with Democrats to allow people who are qualified to go onto the court.

Gursuch seems qualified except for this: Any GOP nominee for SCOTUS with even a scintilla of probity would refuse the nomination in favor of Merrick Garland. Gursuch will probably be confirmed, but in history, his name will always be accompanied by a scarlet asterisk. Where has the sense of honor gone?

Gursuch will probably be confirmed,

Not probably, will be.

but in history, his name will always be accompanied by a scarlet asterisk. Where has the sense of honor gone?

Went out the winder 8 years ago.

Republicans are furious at the Democrats’ plans, arguing that filibusters of Supreme Court justices have been exceedingly rare, and accusing Democrats of responding to political pressures from a liberal base that still hasn’t accepted Trump’s election win.

I think Democrats are upset that Republicans denied a president a Supreme Court pick for the simple fact that he was a Democrat. They should have more respect for our rules and institutions.

I think Democrats are upset that Republicans denied a president a Supreme Court pick for the simple fact that he was a Democrat.

And they have the right to do that, the left would have done the same if the roles were reversed, of course they would have.

They should have more respect for our rules and institutions.

There are No rules where it says, they have to vote in a nominee. Both Biden and Shumer did the exact same thing to both GH and GW Bush and now the Dems are crying foul. Hey, I got a box of tissues.

That's is what is happening now, not so difficult to understand, is it?

Tell that to the liberals, please.

I think Democrats are upset that Republicans denied a president a Supreme Court pick for the simple fact that he was a Democrat. They should have more respect for our rules and institutions.

Exactly. The Republicans essentially fillibustered for the entire last year on Merick Garland. Of course it wasn't a real fillibuster, they just refused to talk about it.

Picking one's battles is a smar thing, and Trump leaves open a lot of battles. But this is one that should be fought until the bitter end.

Tell that to the liberals, please.

Tell that to the Republicans please.

The GOP will go nuclear, I guarantee it. Whatever respect they have for our democracy comes in second to their view that America should be formed in their image.

Whatever respect they have for our democracy comes in second to their view that America should be formed in their image.

It's desperation - they know that they are supported by a very small percentage of the population, but they fee really strongly about their views, so they'll do whatever they can while in power, both to push their agenda, and also to try to retain power.

84 years old is not a intellect, 75 years should be the limit and under 60 to qualify for selection. Have a bunch of geriatrics can not function efficiently. By the time they make a decision 2/3 of the penal have forgotten what they were motioning.

Exactly. The Republicans essentially fillibustered for the entire last year on Merick Garland. Of course it wasn't a real fillibuster, they just refused to talk about it.

And they don't have to, it's their right, especially if they feel that nominee doesn't fall within their worldview perspective. Liberals would do the same, so I don't blame them for that. There is no way that were Hillary the president, she would choose to nominate a conservative judge, just wouldn't happen and even if she choose a moderate, she would be choosing a left leaning moderate and Garland was left leaning on many issues and this made hardcore conservatives very nervous. So they had every right to object the nominee, Biden and Shumer didn't want to even have hearings for any Bush nominee, I get it, that's the nature of the political beast.

Picking one's battles is a smar thing, and Trump leaves open a lot of battles. But this is one that should be fought until the bitter end.

Good luck, next time this year, he'll be on the bench.

Tell that to the Republicans please.

They know! They got the message, Gorsuch will ultimately be confirmed.

It's desperation - they know that they are supported by a very small percentage of the population,

Oh, I doubt that very much. But as far as the liberals in the US, you are right about that. Minorities, rich liberal Whites, they hate the man.

but they fee really strongly about their views,

As do the fringe loony left.

so they'll do whatever they can while in power, both to push their agenda, and also to try to retain power.

Worked for the Dems, in fact, they still believe they are in power, that's why they are so apoplectic about this president, I get it.

bass: And they don't have to, it's their right, especially if they feel that nominee doesn't fall within their worldview perspective.

Which you'd only know by interviewing him. The GOP said they would not consider any nominee by Obama, full stop. No interviews. Their position was that he did not have a legitimate position to pick a justice, not that they didn't like the justice. And a lot of Republicans did like the justice. He was liked by both sides during his career.

There is no way that were Hillary the president, she would choose to nominate a conservative judge

Obviously. A democrat is going to pick a left leaning candidate and a Republican is going to pick a right leaning candidate. Not sure what your point is. Obama won the election and had the right to choose the next nominee. Republicans decided he did not have that right.

"Democratic opposition"

They're going to be the opposition party for a long time.

Which you'd only know by interviewing him.

So let me get this straight, when Dems say, they won't consider nominating or hearing any Bush nominee for whatever reason, you would equally want them and think that the Dems under both Bush's were out of their mind for taking that route?

The GOP said they would not consider any nominee by Obama, full stop. No interview.

And Biden and Shumer did the same, so what's the difference?

Their position was that he did not have a legitimate position to pick a justice, not that they didn't like the justice. And a lot of Republicans did like the justice. He was liked by both sides during his career.

Ok, they didn't feel he was maybe good enough to stick up for conservative values more or less. Their choice, their right.

Obviously. A democrat is going to pick a left leaning candidate and a Republican is going to pick a right leaning candidate. Not sure what your point is.

My point is, neither side has to listen to any nominee or give a hearing if they choose not to.

Obama won the election and had the right to choose the next nominee. Republicans decided he did not have that right.

Trump won the election and the GOP felt that Garland is not what they want or trust. Their right.

bass4funk: "Ok, they didn't feel he was maybe good enough to stick up for conservative values more or less. Their choice, their right."

Not when the vote is on the man or woman, not the person who picked them. That's what you try to keep deflecting. The Dems here are at least looking at the man and what he represents instead of just saying "It's a Trump pick, so 'no'.

Not when the vote is on the man or woman, not the person who picked them.

Nonsense, they have every right to NOT hear any proposed nominee, both sides know this.

That's what you try to keep deflecting.

I'm not, if I did, I wouldn't be here. Arrow missed!

The Dems here are at least looking at the man and what he represents instead of just saying "It's a Trump pick, so 'no'.

But they didn't in 1992 and 2008 and what's your point?

Never saw a political message on Facebook until now. The globalists are pulling no punches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSeXU1gLfc&sns=fb

bass: So let me get this straight, when Dems say, they won't consider nominating or hearing any Bush nominee for whatever reason, you would equally want them and think that the Dems under both Bush's were out of their mind for taking that route?

I don't follow. Bush put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Under Reagan, Bork did not get enough votes to be put on the bench so he chose someone else and that person was nominated with a 97-0 vote. But there's never been a case where one party said a President doesn't have the right to choose a justice so they will not begin the process that would lead to a vote. That's what changed with the GOP.

And Biden and Shumer did the same, so what's the difference?

With Biden, you're confusing a statement made by a single representative and a process engaged in by the party as a whole. Biden's comments were said at a time when there was no vacancy, and what he said was never actually the platform for the Democratic Party. The GOP, as a party, made it their position that only the next President has the right to choose the justice, not the current one. It was always about the right to choose.

Schumer's position is that he'll vote against Gorsuch, and that the GOP should choose someone else. He never said that Trump doesn't have the right to nominate someone.

Ok, they didn't feel he was maybe good enough to stick up for conservative values more or less. Their choice, their right.

Of course they are free to make an opinion on Garland. The controversy is about not interviewing him or allowing a vote to happen, whether it was Garland or not. The GOP has every right to express their opinion during the voting process, and that hasn't been changed or denied.

Trump won the election and the GOP felt that Garland is not what they want or trust. Their right.

Again, see above. It didn't matter that it was Garland. Their position was that only the next President can choose the nominee. A political party had never made that their platform until Obama was to choose. And this was decided long before Trump was even in the picture, so not sure what his win has to do with it.

But they didn't in 1992 and 2008 and what's your point?

Can you tell us what happened in 1992 and 2008? There was no vote in 1992, so that's a mistake on your part.

And again, from the top, there is a difference between voting down a Supreme Court nominee, which is why we vote, and adopting a party platform that a sitting President doesn't have the right to nominate anyone.

The US needs someone who can overturn Citizens United vs. the People....please ! Over 80% of Americans oppose this ruling (which benefits the 1%ers).

With Biden, you're confusing a statement made by a single representative and a process engaged in by the party as a whole.

No, you're splitting hairs, you can't alter video, his words, it is evident what he meant.

Biden's comments were said at a time when there was no vacancy, and what he said was never actually the platform for the Democratic Party. The GOP, as a party, made it their position that only the next President has the right to choose the justice, not the current one. It was always about the right to choose.

Super, you don't need to explain to me and every other conservative out there, the Dems have double standards-period! In trying to make excuses makes you guys look pathetic, just leave it. It's like "OJ didn't do it, but he knows who did....yeeeah, ok..."

Schumer's position is that he'll vote against Gorsuch, and that the GOP should choose someone else.

Why? Because you guys don't like him, his record is pretty solid, votes pretty much according to the law, keeps his personal opinions out, perfect.

He never said that Trump doesn't have the right to nominate someone.

Stop!, jus stop! It doesn't matter who Trump would choose, the Dems and Shumer would never approve anyone he would nominate, never going to happen. The ONLY way the Dems would happily approve one of Trump's nominees is if that Judge would have a record in ruling more towards left wing causes, then they would unanimously vote "yes" other than that, they will oppose anyone Trump picks, we all know this, so spare me. Anyway, he will be confirmed by next week. Thank God!

No, you're splitting hairs, you can't alter video, his words, it is evident what he meant.

He meant exactly what he meant. And that was one guy's opinion, not a policy enacted by the Democrats. The GOP, as a party, made it their official policy and actually enacted it to actually change how our government functions. Biden just made a speech that changed nothing at all.

Why? Because you guys don't like him, his record is pretty solid, votes pretty much according to the law, keeps his personal opinions out, perfect.

Certainly you'll allow people to form their own opinions and vote how they choose to vote. But again, the key word is vote. He will have one vote to voice his opinion, which is different from the GOP's position with Obama, which was that he doesn't have the right to choose so there will be no vote, period.

Stop!, jus stop! It doesn't matter who Trump would choose, the Dems and Shumer would never approve anyone he would nominate, never going to happen.

Actually, according to the article at least two Democrats have come out and said they would vote for him. That option is possible since there will be a vote. That's the difference.

The ONLY way the Dems would happily approve one of Trump's nominees is if that Judge would have a record in ruling more towards left wing causes

Right. Which is obvious. And Republicans would vote against any left wing judge the Democrats would put up. But again, the key word is "vote." That's the democratic process that was denied to Obama's nominee.

So two things have happened/will happen: Number 1 is that the GOP party changed the process by enacting a policy which said a sitting president doesn't have the right to choose a nominee. That's what they did when Obama was president. Next up, they will change the process again by using the nuclear option to get their nominee approved. That's what they're doing with Trump's nominee. The first has no voting at all for the Democratic nominee, which stops the process, the second lowers the bar for the GOP nominee, which makes the process easier. All changes in policy and how the government elects Supreme Court justices now and in the future.

The only thing that you can point to on the Democrat's side is an opinion by a single Democrat in 1992, the effect of which changed nothing in terms of policy or procedure. On the other hand, Republicans actually changed how we nominate justices. Again, one was an opinion from one guy, one was a change in how we do things by the GOP party.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans against changing Senate rules, which could prove momentous for the chamber and would allow all future Supreme Court nominees to get on the court regardless of opposition from the minority party. He says President Donald Trump should just pick a new nominee if Gorsuch is blocked.

Changing Senate rules would not be unprecedented. In 2013, Democrats were in the majority and upset about appellate court nominees getting blocked. They pushed through a rules change lowering the vote threshold on all nominees except for the Supreme Court from 60 to a simple majority.

Schumer warned Republicans not to do what the Democrats have done. How kind of him. Hypocritical, but kind of him none the less.

However, if the Republicans expect to put a conservative justice on the Supreme Court, they will have to change the rules just as the Democrats did. It's obvious that the Democrats will not support any Republican nominee.

what the Democrats have done

The Democrats enacted the nuclear option for the specific purpose of filling lower level appellate court justices, not Supreme Court justices. They specifically left out language that would change the Supreme Court justices whereas Republicans are specifically including language to include Supreme Court justices. The Democrats could have just as easily enacted the nuclear option for the Supreme Court, but did not. The Republicans will.

In addition, even after the Republicans changed the process to deny Obama his pick, Obama could have appointed a judge during a Congressional recess with no vote at all. Perfectly legal and there's nothing the GOP could to do stop it. But he chose not to. That's two instances where the Democrats could have rammed through legislation to change the nomination process for Supreme Court justices, but chose not to. The GOP will.

Most people will look at attempts to claim they are the same as gross false equivalency, unless you think an appellate court judge carries the same weight as a Supreme Court justice. And remember, the Democrats could have made the same change but chose not to. Country before party.

The fact is that you guys will change the rules and get your Supreme Court justice. And no, you don't even need to justify it or explain it or say its fair, so why even bother? Does it make you sleep better at night or something? Just own it and say that you changed the rules in a way Democrats wouldn't and you will be rewarded with a conservative justice.

The end.

He meant exactly what he meant. And that was one guy's opinion, not a policy enacted by the Democrats. The GOP, as a party, made it their official policy and actually enacted it to actually change how our government functions. Biden just made a speech that changed nothing at all.

Right and there is nothing in the constitution that states either party HAS to give any nominee that's presented a hearing, they don't have to and are not obligated.

Certainly you'll allow people to form their own opinions and vote how they choose to vote.

Thank you, you just made my argument for me. The GOP didn't trust Garland and didn't like his record on certain issues so they felt No need to grant him an interview and that's their right. They feel more comfortable (as do I) with Gorsuch's record, he definitely votes more according to what the law states and NOT how he personally interprets it, sounds good to me.

But again, the key word is vote. He will have one vote to voice his opinion, which is different from the GOP's position with Obama, which was that he doesn't have the right to choose so there will be no vote, period.

And they can do that. The keyword here is, they can be patient about any nominee.

Actually, according to the article at least two Democrats have come out and said they would vote for him. That option is possible since there will be a vote. That's the difference.

The reason they're doing it because they reside in districts where Trump won and they know they are up for reelection next year, just like Murkowski will vote NO because she is in a heavy Democratic state where Hillary won. These three politicians are basically trying to save their political careers, I get it.

Right. Which is obvious.

Exactly, so why would they nominate someone that would be good for liberal causes? Even my 10 year old daughter can figure that one out.

And Republicans would vote against any left wing judge the Democrats would put up. But again, the key word is "vote." That's the democratic process that was denied to Obama's nominee.

Which is their right. Biden and Shumer did the same thing, eluded to it.

The only thing that you can point to on the Democrat's side is an opinion by a single Democrat in 1992, the effect of which changed nothing in terms of policy or procedure. On the other hand, Republicans actually changed how we nominate justices. Again, one was an opinion from one guy, one was a change in how we do things by the GOP party.

Keep digging, you're about to hit China. I don't fault either side, it's their right, the left is just extremely worried once Gorsuch is confirmed that many of these pending cases won't go their way and they may be right about that. This is not about fairness, this is all pure political. nothing more and the Dems can't do anything to stop the process. When they are in power, they do as they like and as they please and feel they don't need to answer to any Republican opposition on anything, ask Harry Reid, you can't get more unsympathetic than Reid, but now the tables are turned, the Dems are losing their mind and so what? They didn't care at all for 8 years how their conservatives colleges feel, so why should they feel something. The Dems get a taste of their own medicine and they don't like it all of a sudden, give me a break. The left can cry all they want, it's not going to change anything. Can't wait until Gorsuch is sworn in.

Right and there is nothing in the constitution that states either party HAS to give any nominee that's presented a hearing, they don't have to and are not obligated.

That's never happened before, so again, we are seeing a change in the system by the GOP. And that change was designed to deny a sitting President the right to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

The GOP didn't trust Garland and didn't like his record on certain issues so they felt No need to grant him an interview

McConnell, the man who refused to let the process happen, said, "the decision the Senate made weeks ago remains about a principle, not a person." There was no call to choose another candidate. He said that specifically because Garland has had a lot of support from the GOP in the past. His response was that he didn't care about that, he's sticking up for the principal that only the next President can choose the justice.

And they can do that.

And Obama could have chosen to appoint Garland during a Congressional recess, but he did not, because he wanted to preserve the integrity of the process. The GOP took the opposite course and changed the American process to benefit their party. Feel free to call Obama stupid for not taking advantage of it, but you can't say the GOP and the Dems are the same.

These three politicians are basically trying to save their political careers, I get it

Three politicians are evidence against your claim that the Democrats, as a party, will refuse to vote for any Trump candidate. Now they have 55 votes and there's still time to get more. Again, votes. They are voting. They are doing the very thing they denied to Obama.

Exactly, so why would they nominate someone that would be good for liberal causes? Even my 10 year old daughter can figure that one out.

Neither party does that. Republicans nominate justices that reflect their point of view, and Democrats nominate someone that reflects their point of view. The advantage is if a president from your party is in office when a new justice needs to be chosen. If he's a Republican, you get a right leaning candidate. If it's a Democrat, you get a left leaning one. No argument between us there.

The argument is that we had a Democrat in office and the Republicans decided to change the system by saying only the next President has the right to choose. No party had made that their official policy until Obama became President.

Biden and Shumer did the same thing, eluded to it.

Biden and Schumer did not enact a policy that stripped a sitting president from his right to choose a nominee. It only happened with the GOP. The GOP actually created a policy that changed how our government functions. Biden gave his personal opinion which isn't a change in policy (remember, that's the difference here), and Schumer is voting NO.

Remember, it's the voting that is key here. He can vote NO and still lose the vote overall. The GOP denied a vote from ever happening. And Schumer, as the head of the Democrats, isn't telling his party to say NO to every candidate, as evidenced by the three Democrats.

and the Dems can't do anything to stop the process.

Right, because the GOP are set to change the rules, something the Democrats and Obama didn't do. The change is what they are criticized for since it's done for the simple fact that it benefits the GOP and not America. You're going to win because of the rule changes, so be happy. It's like the win isn't good enough and you want to try to show that the GOP didn't do anything underhanded to get it. But you aren't required to do that.

They didn't care at all for 8 years how their conservatives colleges fee

You're doing a good job of keeping the sweeping criticisms of Democrats out of this conversation. Please do not start now. Let's stick to the facts of the case. If you don't have anything more to say abut the facts of the case then you don't have to respond.

And Schumer, as the head of the Democrats, isn't telling his party to say NO to every candidate, as evidenced by the three Democrats.>

Sure he is, they are just not dumb enough to listen to his hypocritical self. He was saying NO before the hearings were even over and said no to anyone Trump will appoint. This is not the fight the Dems should be fighting, it is so obvious that there is no reason not to confirm this guy. Save the fight for next time when there might be some plausible outrage about something else. They will need something new to replace the Russia narrative soon, so spend time looking for that would be my advice.

As long as you understand that the Democrat's policy isn't that the next president chooses the justice, then say what you'd like.

SuperLib - The Democrats enacted the nuclear option for the specific purpose of filling lower level appellate court justices, not Supreme Court justices. They specifically left out language that would change the Supreme Court justices whereas Republicans are specifically including language to include Supreme Court justices. The Democrats could have just as easily enacted the nuclear option for the Supreme Court, but did not. The Republicans will.

There is no actual "nuclear option". That's just a popular name for this particular Senate rule change. There is nothing "nuclear" about it. Whew!

The majority party, as decided by the voters (remember them?), can change the rules as to how bills are discussed, and voted on. The Democrats chose to toss aside the Senate rule requiring at least 60 votes for confirmation of federal judges. The modern-era filibuster was no longer considered an important feature of the Senate's legislative process. Five years ago it was important for the Democrats to push federal judge confirmations through the Senate and into the nation's courtrooms. Remember when Obama said elections have consequences, and I won? Back then, the Democrats were the majority party. The voters have changed that.

Now the Republicans are in the majority. Elections do have consequences. Is the filibuster, with it's 60 vote minimum requirement, still a valued feature when deciding Supreme Court Justices? If 60 votes is good enough for Supreme Court Justice confirmations, it should be good enough for lesser federal judges. Or, if 51 votes is good enough for lesser federal judge confirmations, it's good enough for Supreme Court Justices.