Trump Names Neil Gorsuch as His Supreme Court Nominee

Comments

1
It's weird when bad news is sort of good news because it's not batshit crazy news. I fully expected him to nominate Hulk Hogan.
3
@2

You mean like ones in 2008 and 2012?

It doesn't matter who was named. They deserve the same consideration as Garland.
4
To ensure a functional democracy, we need optimally compact equal population voting districts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk…
6
This Supreme Court seat has been stolen from Barack Obama and the Americans who voted for him just as surely as Vladimir Putin stole territory from the sovereign state of Ukraine, just as surely as Saddam Hussein stole the oil from Kuwait. So while Neil Gorsuch was a particularly bad nominee, there can be no good nominee to come from Donald Trump unless that nominee is Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee.

I realize Democrats have to pick and choose their fights with Trump, that there actually are some good things he wants to do for the nation, and that there gets to be a "boy who cried wolf" quality if everything he does and everyone he chooses is compared to Kristallnacht and Goebbels. But this is the one case where Democrats have to be utterly obstructionist if only for the sake of our democracy. Any Democratic senator who doesn't vote to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination is betraying our American experiment.
8
We don't need 9 justices. An odd number would be ideal but we've survived a year now with 8. No need to the rush.
9
I sincerely hope the democrats obstruct this, and all, justices nominated by Trump. The SCOTUS doesn't have to have 9 members. Just leave it at 8 for now, and when it's down to 7, keep it there for a good few decades or so.

I don't believe the democrats WILL obstruct it though, unfortunately, since they still haven't figured out what they need to do to get back in the game.

If they want to win over the "rural" voters or whatever they're called who voted for Trump out of spite, they should obstruct EVERYTHING. Those people want the system to explode. So let it. It'll hurt those people more than anyone else, but that's what they want anyway, so have at it.
10
I would love nothing more than for the GOP Senate to find the balls to use the nuclear option. Then, at last, elections would have consequences. But seriously. Look at those guys. They have so many reasons to be terrified of a Senate that could change the course of the country with nothing more than the popular will of the people.

The thing is, progressives have an agenda and a plan for where they want the country to go. The filibuster is the only thing that has prevented that. Conservatives haven't even written a plan to replace the ACA because they have no agenda. The don't know where they want to go; only that they're afraid of so many things.

There's method to Trump's mad obsession with poll numbers and TV ratings and crowd counts. He knows those numbers determine whether the Democratic caucus will hold firm, and whether the Republicans will crack. Trump's approval is dismal, his ratings and his crowds stink, and that gives the Democrats the courage to filibuster as long as it takes. Republicans don't have anyone or anything to rally them to step into the void they see in a world where they can pass anything with only 51 votes.

The only way to change that equation is for a widely popular President to lead them, with the people behind him, out of the impasse. In other words, never.

Elections have consequences. Yeah, good luck with that. Not this president.
12
When Dems return to office and have control of the Presidency and the Congress, I think it's time to expand the Supreme Court by two memebers (this should be easy once the GOP pulls the nuclear option) and expand the House considerably to adjust for the population changes that have happened since 1913 (the last time the size of the House increased).
13
@9: Reducing the number of justices would require the statute requiring 9 justices to be changed, something I doubt would go through the GOP held congress considering the only reason to change that law would be to reduce their power over the judicial branch in the short term.
14
Aside from religious freedom, this list of why the Justice nominee is terrible and should be obstructed at all costs is not so compelling. I'd trade away abortion rights for wage equity, environmental protections, keeping First Amendment rights intact any day of the week.
15
@14 - Of course you do; you're a collaborator.
16
The democrats should take the high road and break the cycle of gridlock and vote on the judge as soon as possible. We had a 5-4 court before and still got great rulings. We can return to the status quo and give the American people what they deserve, a fully stocked US Supreme Court.
17
@16 IS JUST SO DAMN CONCERNED. WHY WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE?
18
@17: Oh, so you prefer to go 4-8 years with a 4-4 court, and if the democrat's win the WH next time the republican's will return the favor, and so on, forevermore.

This is not good government. If you prefer all decisions to remain decided by the appellate courts then you have no maturity in anything you say about politics or government.
21
ITMFA!!! Leiliani Polk and Dan Savage--I want a pin, and will wear it with my pink Womxn's March hat.
22
I like him. Smart, intelligent, an originalist which offsets the living constitution onterlretation pretty well. Hes young, which is a smart move on the administration part and very familiar with constitutional law and has worked for many years starting as a congressioonal page. But so is Sotomeyer and Roberts are also young-ish. Ive read Books by both Justices Scalia and Beyer and both are facinating reads because in real life, and beyond the yellow journalism The Stranger and "alternative" news sources, most mere mortals have no clue of how the court works and how the decisions have ramifications not only in the US, but globally. Hell - most have never actually read the constitution from start to finish, nor fully understand its language both defined and implied. Oddly enough, whereas certainly disagreements ensue in interpretation, most would be surprised at how consensus is developed and how dissenting opinions are acknowledged and respected. Justice Beyers book "The Court and the World" is an excellent treatise of our court system and its relationship in the world. Frankly, I'd rather have Judge Gorsuch as justice than some clueless social justice warrior nazi with no foundational experience of our government in the chair just so womens right advocates can abort future women (which frankly, has been settled and unlikely to ever be readdressed given the docket of cases the court must hear each each session).
23
Great choice.
24
#22 said it all. Thank you. Onward!