Trump picks conservative judge to shift Supreme Court balance

Here's the thing: This was a choice that was for, under the constitution, for president Obama to make. The Democrats would be foolish -- and weak-- to approve this seat. I say, give the GOP a taste of their own medicine and keep this seat open for 4 years. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This nomination will need 60 seats to be confirmed.

Damn rights. Throw the Republican game right back in their faces. And watch them complain non-stop about it.

Sorry Lefties. To quote former President Obama, "Elections have consequences." Shouldn't have cheated Bernie out of the nomination. Republicans had to take when the Left defeated Robert Bork. Dems are just going to have to suck it up and take it. Now just waiting on Ginsburg and Kennedy to retire.

Dems are just going to have to suck it up and take it.

Why do we have to do that? We can protest and call out Trump's lies and bad policies as much as we want.

There was a protest in place before it was even know who was picked. When asked who they were against, the spokesperson said everyone on the list. Then once they heard who it was specifically, they started trying to find out what were the best reasons to start protesting him. Thats all that needs to be said about this from me.

Finally you're not playing teams. It's nice that you accurately described the republican response after the guy died.

shift Supreme Court balance

Okay I guess the MSM is just in the business of blatantly lying now? How does replacing a conservative justice (Scalia) with a conservative justice (Gorsuch) "shift Supreme Court balance"?

When Obama replaced two liberal justices with two liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor) did that also shift the Supreme Court balance? If not, why the double standard? Where was the article decrying Obama when he nominated Garland to replace Scalia, something that would have ACTUALLY shifted the SC balance?

Yeah, the US Supreme Court has been 5-4 conservative for the longest time

It'd be the next SC vacancy that'd be the real fight

@illys Okay I guess the MSM is just in the business of blatantly lying now?

Is your point that this particular article from this particular news provider (in this case AFP) doesn't reflect your personal opinion?

Maybe you're not from a country that has free press. Free press means just that, that any media outlet is free to report what it chooses when it chooses. What they report could be bang on Truth with a capital T, it could be fake news, or it could be anything in between. Whatever they report is subject to issues of legality and the laws of the marketplace. And readers are free to ignore what's been reported, question it, find other sources, or write a post to an online board.

Why are rightists and Russians so afraid of a free press? Why do rightists and Russians want to undermine public confidence in media? I have to think anyone who makes blanket attacks on media and uses a term like MSM is either a person incapable of sorting information for themselves (i.e someone with low level reasoning skills), or a person with a negative political agenda.

Technically that seat is for a Democrat to fill so I have no problem with Democrats going scorched earth and blocking every single GOP nominee, or at least every nominee who is to the right of Garland. I think Republicans were pretty naive to think the Democrats would simply forgive and forget and be nice about the whole thing.

Even then we wouldn't come close to the destruction the GOP has brought on the judicial branch. It got so bad that some GOP actually voted against judges they recommended in the past if Obama tried to appoint thim....just because they wanted to stop Obama. Think about that level of insanity......I support him unless Obama supports him, then I'm against him. That was actually a thing.

Republicans have a pretty tall order countering this. Expect high levels of false equivalency.

I agree the Dems should have had this choice. Obama and the leadership should have negotiated on something else to get that choice to a confirmation hearing. But they chose not to for whatever else they thought was more important. (Well honestly, they thought Hillary was gonna win and that it wouldnt matter....oops, should have negotiated)

Dems are going to have a hard time justifying delay on this one. He was confirmed 10 years ago by a lot of the same people who are still there. It was a voice vote with not even one Democrat even trying to speak out anything negative about him. So they cant really launch the character attacks that they love to use, so it is going to have to be entirely about his actual cases as a judge and if his decisions followed the law or not.

With this choice for our nation's highest court, Donald Trump has secured his legacy in U.S. history. Bravo, Mr. President. . .

Where was the article decrying Obama when he nominated Garland to replace Scalia, something that would have ACTUALLY shifted the SC balance?

You mean that same Garland, that the right endorsed right up to the point that Obama actually nominated him?

There is the choice that you can accept when your opponent is choosing. Then there is who you would choose when it is your own choice. Two different sets of criteria for the thought processes behind what is acceptable (opponent choice) or excellent (your own choice). Obama and the Dems horribly mishandled the process of getting their nominee to an actual hearing. If he had gotten there, would have been an easy confirmation based solely on his skill as a judge.

Obama and the Dems horribly mishandled the process of getting their nominee to an actual hearing.

They never had the chance. The day Scalia died, the Republicans were already announcing their intention to refuse any choice of Obama's.

Somehow they seem to expect the democrats to not do the exact same thing back to them.

What do you expect the left to say? Not sure why they are concerned. Obama picked left leaning judges and not a word. Heck he can authorize 100,000 bombs dropped and the NSA to spy their butts off and not a peep from the left.

I like Blacklabel's thinking. What should Democrats negotiate in return for a Supreme Court Justice?

If the choice proves to be moderate then I don't see any reason why he can't be appointed, so don't forget that. The parties are married to an ideology, not one person. But the Democrats have no reason to see the GOP benefit from scorched earth policies.

Excellent choice! He will likely be approved. Even the leotard pundits on CNN recognize that fact. No president has had a SCOTUS nominee approved in his final year in 8 decades.

The Democrats can filibuster, and the only GOP response would be to go nuclear. Which I don't put past them. They are working hard to alter the structure of the government as a way to combat their demographic problem.

“I am a man of my word. I will do as I say—something that the American people have been asking for from Washington for a very, very long time.”

Ha ha! What a gaseous individual Trump is. There is no doubt that Gorsuch will eventually be approved, but there is also no point for the Dems to make this easy. If the Repubs can suddenly pull out of their @ss a rule that a Democratic president cannot appoint a Supreme in his final year, all bets are off. Force the Repubs to amend Senate rules that allow a filibuster to block the nomination - the so-called "nuclear option" that the Dems used to fill urgently needed judicial seats that the Repubs were blocking. Of course, when the Dems used "nuclear option" to clear the backlog, it was for the national good and exempted Supreme Court nominees, yet it drew heavy criticism from the right. Okay, let's see how hypocritical this cabal is. My guess is the only way Gorsuch will be appointed is if Repubs amend Senate rules in a way that just a moment ago they were castigating.

Okay, let's see how hypocritical this cabal is. My guess is the only way Gorsuch will be appointed is if Repubs amend Senate rules in a way that just a moment ago they were castigating.

They seem to be ok with hypocrisy. In their mind, Being consistent isn't what matters, their team winning no matter what, is all that matters.

Looking forward to the day when the left are routed from the Supreme Court. Can't come soon enough.

Is your point that this particular article from this particular news provider (in this case AFP) doesn't reflect your personal opinion?

It's not a personal opinion. The seat being filled was ultraconservative Scalia's, and so this wouldn't shift the pre-existing balance of 5-4, with Kennedy being more liberal on social issues.

Why are rightists and Russians so afraid of a free press?

I love how you go from me calling out the AFP for blatant bias in their reporting to me somehow being afraid of the free press. Oh and throw in a Russian insinuation to top it off. McCarthy much? Is this really what the left has devolved into?

IllyasFEB. 01, 2017 - 06:44PM JST Oh and throw in a Russian insinuation to top it off.

Your apologism for the Russians is well documented on JT.

That the Russians helped Trump get elected should send a chill down the spine of a real patriot. I'm sure Don Putin is pretty happy with Trump's fundie judge choice too....

I love how you go from me calling out the AFP for blatant bias in their reporting to me somehow being afraid of the free press.

I was reacting to your:

Okay I guess the MSM is just in the business of blatantly lying now?

Instead of questioning the article and its source, you blanketed the MSM. (Please re-read your quote.) MSM is a pejorative used by rightists (and Russians on this board) to assail media reporting messages they disagree with.

McCarthy was anti-communist. I'm anti-oligarchy/kleptocracy/authoritarian nationalism, whatever you call the current Russian system that I fear - realistic or not - Trump and the Republicans are trying to establish. Trump is trying to limit free press. Russia does not have a free press. I support a free press. Every time I read someone make attacks on the press I question their fear of a free press.

Originally the court had an even number of justices. I think an odd number makes the court too powerful. To easy to influence laws. With an easy to reach majority we get the ideological split and it becomes equivalent to the legislature. Politicians competing for seats. It is so politicized. If they stay with an even number the justices will have to convince the other side if they want to over turn a law. Or reinterpret the constitution. What a breath of fresh air that would be.

I hope they fight over this ninth justice for a generation, or until the country learns to cooperate with each other again.

Anybody hoping the Democrats will come back to assign their favorites to the court will have to keep dreaming. The Democratic party is dead. And it will stay dead as long as the current crop refuse to admit they are dead, preventing change.

The problem with representing narrow special interest groups is that they don't constitute a very large vote. Once the Dems lost the working class, they were left with gay rights, the extremely wealthy and Hollywood. Influential as those groups may be, together they still make up a unimposing minority of Americans.

Please overturn Citizens United vs. the People. Please...over 85% of Americans are against it...

America seems to be in decline faster than anyone could imagine.

"Crazy: The Democrats would be foolish -- and weak-- to approve this seat."

No, Gorsuch is an excellent choice. They should get with the program and vote to confirm him.

Gorsuch is a refreshing change:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG1xY5nYU-U

Laguna: "There is no doubt that Gorsuch will eventually be approved"

Whew!

Why should Democrats approve him?

The Democrats can filibuster, and the only GOP response would be to go nuclear. Which I don't put past them.

Don't you think it would be self defeating if they did not to go nuclear? Democrats already showed their propensity to go nuclear with all other court nominations and for cabinet positions. If Dems had a chance to shift the balance of the Supreme Court to the Left they would go nuclear in a split second. And every Lefty on this site would be screaming for them to do so. Republicans usually never put up much of a fight. Every Dem nominee has received at least 63 votes in favor anyway.

Sen. Schumer warned Bush he would not be allowed to get through a new justice in the last 18 months of his second term. This isn't bean ball. Republicans should go nuclear the minute Schumer begins his fillabuster.

I think Wolf is trying to say that there's no point breaking into the bank unless you go all the way and steal the money.

If Dems had a chance to shift the balance of the Supreme Court to the Left they would go nuclear in a split second.

The right does this all the time. "We are going to do this, so we know the left would too".

It's about as illogical an argument as it gets. They are trying to project their own failings as if the left would do the same thing.

But I have the perfect counter:

"No they wouldn't."

And there is no counter to that.