Gorsuch - Go Nuclear?

[Terraceth]

Link please. But the real question is, was he following the law?

Starlight is goofing up again. Here is a source, but the "21 out of 23" doesn't seem to be every employee vs. employer case he's ever handled (there'd probably be a ton), just the ones that were "disputes over the U.S. pensions and benefits law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA." So in that specific subset, he sided with employers 21 out of 23. Which seems high (still not the claimed 100% though), but the article does also note the following:

[Sparko]

He's sided with corporate management against employees 100% of the time, even ruling an employee should have frozen to death on behalf of his corporation. That's Republican nirvana right there, so he's perfect in the minds of their lobbyists and donors.

IMO he should be jailed for perjury, since during the Senate confirmation hearings he said repeatedly that he doesn't mix politics in with his judgments, yet he is a judge who has a reputation for repeatedly writing huge political rants into his judgments. Even that aside, the way he evaded and dodged almost 100% of the questions asked of him during the confirmation hearings, rather than answering them honestly, should have rendered him instantly ineligible. What is the point of the confirmation hearings if the guy spends a quarter of the time telling outright lies and the entire remainder of the time flatly refusing to answer the questions?

I haven't studied that much on Gorsuch, but if you are that much against him then he must be good. I am for him. Nuke him in!

BTW, how about some citations on those claims, like saying an employee should have frozen to death on behalf of his corporation?

[Terraceth]

I do question what the purpose of this filibuster is. If they filibuster, the Republicans go nuclear, and that's that. I can't even say that the Democrats are doing this figuring that when it becomes their turn to govern (it's always a back and forth), it'll mean the Republicans can't filibuster their judges, because if that event happens (Democrats have control, Republicans threaten filibuster) the Democrats can just do the nuclear option themselves.

I've concluded the purpose isn't anything other than it being a ploy to get re-elected, calculating that the dislike they'd get from the filibuster would be outweighed by the support they'd get from their constituents (this may or may no be actually true, but it's presumably what they think is the case). Granted, I'm sure politicians reason like that about a lot of things, "will doing X get me more dislike or more support?" but normally that's about something that actually has some kind of effect, like a policy position or something. This is basically nothing more than a meaningless PR move.

[JimL]

Yea? Nay?

Nay, its a dumb shortsighted move no matter what party you're in. Republicans may be happy now, but they'll be changing their tune if in 4 years the democrats are in charge and 2 or 3 justices retire. There is good reason for the 60 vote rule for supreme court justices. They are lifetime seats. I'm not at all sure that republicans are stupid enough to use the nuclear option, but I'm not at all sure that they are not that stupid either, after all they were stupid enough to start down that slippery slope by changing the rules and refusing to even give a vote to M. Garland.

[rogue06]

Nay, its a dumb shortsighted move no matter what party you're in. Republicans may be happy now, but they'll be changing their tune if in 4 years the democrats are in charge and 2 or 3 justices retire. There is good reason for the 60 vote rule for supreme court justices. They are lifetime seats. I'm not at all sure that republicans are stupid enough to use the nuclear option, but I'm not at all sure that they are not that stupid either, after all they were stupid enough to start down that slippery slope by changing the rules and refusing to even give a vote to M. Garland.

This was pretty much what was being said when Harry Reid first pushed the nuclear option through except no rules were changed when they didn't "give a vote to M. Garland." It was exactly what the Democrats proposed (pushed by their current Senate leader Chuck Schumer) under George W. Bush.

[Terraceth]

Nay, its a dumb shortsighted move no matter what party you're in. Republicans may be happy now, but they'll be changing their tune if in 4 years the democrats are in charge and 2 or 3 justices retire.

In what way would not invoking the nuclear option here change that? If the Republicans opt not to do so, and the scenario you suggest occurs (vacancies open with Democrats in control, but they don't have enough for 60 votes), then all that would happen is that the Democrats would be the one pushing the button if the Republicans opt for a filibuster, with the same result.

There is good reason for the 60 vote rule for supreme court justices. They are lifetime seats.

Except that "60 vote rule" applies to everything, not just supreme court justices. Laws certainly aren't for lifetime because they have no life. Also, supreme court justices absolutely can get through with less than 60% of the Senators voting, as some have in the past.

Indeed, you seem to refer to the "60 vote rule" as if it's a rule to require 60 votes to get something passed, and while that is what it ends up functionally being, the actual purpose is to make it harder to perform a filibuster. It used to be there wasn't really much of any limit to the potential of a filibuster (you could have just a handful of people filibuster into oblivion even if something had extremely strong support in the Senate), so they introduced a rule that any filibuster could be thwarted by having 2/3 of Senators agree to make it stop, which was later reduced to 3/5 (hence 60 Senators due to us having 100).

I'm not at all sure that republicans are stupid enough to use the nuclear option, but I'm not at all sure that they are not that stupid either, after all they were stupid enough to start down that slippery slope by changing the rules and refusing to even give a vote to M. Garland.

If you want to talk slippery slope, then the Republicans using the nuclear option here is merely the natural progression of the Democrats invoking it beforehand; they invoked it for all appointees other than the supreme court, and this would merely extend it to the supreme court.

As for Merrick Garland, there was no actual "changing of the rules" there. Avoiding a vote on a nominee in an election year due to the possibility of new president (who might nominate someone more to their liking) is hardly anything new; it just got attention this time around because it was for a more high-profile appointment than normally this occurs for. You don't have to like it, but it was within the rules.

[Mountain Man]

As for Merrick Garland, there was no actual "changing of the rules" there. Avoiding a vote on a nominee in an election year due to the possibility of new president (who might nominate someone more to their liking) is hardly anything new; it just got attention this time around because it was for a more high-profile appointment than normally this occurs for. You don't have to like it, but it was within the rules.

Even Senator Joe Biden passionately argued against election year appointments in a 1992 speech.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...-rule-n2306918

[Starlight]

Even Senator Joe Biden passionately argued against election year appointments in a 1992 speech.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...-rule-n2306918

Biden's argument was that the nomination should be held off until the day after the election so that it didn't affect the election itself. He was still assuming that the current lame-duck president would be allowed to fill the vacancy and wasn't suggesting that it be left open until the president-elect took office. You basket cases are deluding yourselves with the claims that the unprecedented and unconstitutional Republican obstructionism of Garland was in any way normal.

[Trout]

Biden's argument was that the nomination should be held off until the day after the election so that it didn't affect the election itself. He was still assuming that the current lame-duck president would be allowed to fill the vacancy and wasn't suggesting that it be left open until the president-elect took office. You basket cases are deluding yourselves with the claims that the unprecedented and unconstitutional Republican obstructionism of Garland was in any way normal.

Y'all can't tell boys from girls in New Zealand, pipe down, starry.

[rogue06]

Even Senator Joe Biden passionately argued against election year appointments in a 1992 speech.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...-rule-n2306918

And let's also not forget that back when the Democrats were confident of not only winning the White House but taking back the Senate, then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who first instituted the "nuclear option" while Senate Majority Leader so that Obama could pack the courts) talked openly of using it to also push through Supreme Court nominees.

Source: Reid: 'I have set the Senate' for nuclear option

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Tim Kaine: Democrats Will Nuke Filibuster For Supreme Court Nominees If GOP Won’t Cooperate

Vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine warned on Thursday that his party would move to eliminate rules allowing a minority of Senate Republicans to block Supreme Court nominees should they refuse to consider those nominated by a future president Hillary Clinton.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

The Huffington Post article quotes Kaine as proclaiming "We will change the Senate rules to uphold the law."

[Terraceth]

Biden's argument was that the nomination should be held off until the day after the election so that it didn't affect the election itself. He was still assuming that the current lame-duck president would be allowed to fill the vacancy and wasn't suggesting that it be left open until the president-elect took office. You basket cases are deluding yourselves with the claims that the unprecedented and unconstitutional Republican obstructionism of Garland was in any way normal.

It wasn't unprecedented for a supreme court justice (though even if it was unprecedented, it's worth remembering unprecedented simply means "it hasn't happened yet"). The Senate didn't do anything with Millard Fillmore's nominations of Edward Bradford or William Micou either. Nor was it unconstitutional, despite your continual squawking about it. The statement in the constitution of the advice and consent of the senate is a restriction on the president's power, not a requirement for the senate to perform a vote.

It is true it wasn't exactly "normal" but it's not exactly normal for a vacancy to happen to open up during a lame duck year of a president to begin with.

[Sparko]

anyone else find it strange that someone like Starlight and Tassman, who live on the other side of the world are so obsessed with internal politics in the USA? Especially Starlight who claims that the USA is irrelevant and thinks it tries to make itself more important in the world than it really is.

I could not even tell you who the leaders of Australia or New Zealand are, or anything about their politics. Mainly because I just don't care.

[Sparko]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b05894715eabda

[Bill the Cat]

I could not even tell you who the leaders of Australia or New Zealand are,

Kwickie Koala and Taz, of course!

kwicky7.jpg x9nGSUX.gif

[EvoUK]

Kwickie Koala and Taz, of course!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21769[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]21770[/ATTACH]

Aren't both of those technically Australian?