Gorsuch & the Nuclear Option

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,840
Title says it all. So your thoughts on:

1) Should the Dems filibuster Gorsuch?

I personally think the answer is no they should not. He is a very well qualified jurist and even if they are mad that this was a "stolen" seat, it was also Scalia's seat so the balance of the court will not change much.

2) If they do, should the GOP invoke the Nuclear Option to confirm him?

They will have no choice. And this will be the best nominee to do it with. That is another reason for the Dems to not filibuster Gorsuch. The next one may not be as acceptable to some of the RINO's so they might not note to change the rules. Gorsuch will get it, save your ammo for a later fight when you might get help.

3) And will the MSM go ******* over it after they ignored Reid doing it?

They will be in full blown panic/outrage.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,772
USA
I'm of two minds on this. I think Gorsuch IS qualified. However, if you look at his record - he has pretty much always sided with big business over small business or individuals. And some of those cases are just crazy to have been in favor of the big business.

I think the Repubs will have no choice but to go nuclear. However - the more they use brute force, the bigger or more out of control they can look - resorting frequently to the last option. There's a quote an old boss shared with me that has stuck - the more power you use, the less you have.
 

Zwopple

macrumors regular
Dec 27, 2008
118
466
The filibuster is dead for Supreme Court nominees and the Democrats want the Republicans to take the fall for it. It would happen with the next nominee regardless of party in power due to increased polarisation and partisan politics. Why wait and why not have the other side take the heat for doing it?

Likely what we're going to see next is the filibuster being destroyed for legislation. It's slowly been whittled away at (Reid first, now McConnell) I don't doubt for one moment that it's gone entirely in 4-8 years.

Long term I think that screws the GOP, the progressive agenda is very hard to pass without a super majority and very very hard to repeal even with a simple majority (see Obamacare) where as I feel the conservative agenda is much easier to both pass and repeal.

Lets say in 2024 the Democrats have the White House, 52 Senators and the House and no filibuster and they enact Single Payer, paid parental leave, national minimum wage, student loans etc… and all of those things last 4-8 years, do you really think the GOP will be able to repeal most of those new entitlements afterwards without massive public backlash?

Again I have no idea how this is going to go down, but long term I think this screws the GOP more than the Democrats as far as passing agendas goes.
 

Zwopple

macrumors regular
Dec 27, 2008
118
466
The other reality is that the Democrats are basically gambling here, if a few GOP senators hesitate to go Nuclear it will be a MASSIVE blow to Trump and weaken his entire presidency even more.

If the Democrats just let him slide through, next potential nominee who thinks they wouldn't just go Nuclear then?

The Democrats have absolutely nothing to lose by filibustering and a small slim chance of winning a massive setback to Trump.
 

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,840
If the Democrats just let him slide through, next potential nominee who thinks they wouldn't just go Nuclear then?

The Democrats have absolutely nothing to lose by filibustering and a small slim chance of winning a massive setback to Trump.
I'm going to disagree with you here. The GOP Senators like Gorsuch and as such are willing to vote to change the rules and go nuclear. So he is probably in no matter what. But what if the next nominee is not quite so well like by the GOP and you could find a few defectors who don't like the next one. They may like him/her enough to vote for him/her, but maybe not enough to change the rules.

I think the Dems should keep their powder dry for such a scenario.
 

Zwopple

macrumors regular
Dec 27, 2008
118
466
I'm going to disagree with you here. The GOP Senators like Gorsuch and as such are willing to vote to change the rules and go nuclear. So he is probably in no matter what. But what if the next nominee is not quite so well like by the GOP and you could find a few defectors who don't like the next one. They may like him/her enough to vote for him/her, but maybe not enough to change the rules.

I think the Dems should keep their powder dry for such a scenario.
I really doubt it, if they're willing to vote the nominee in why would they vote against the nuclear option down the road? After all this is the party that wouldn't even hold a vote on the previous nominee. Partisan politics are far strong their personal preference these days sadly.
 

unlinked

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2010
695
1,199
Ireland
I'm of two minds on this. I think Gorsuch IS qualified. However, if you look at his record - he has pretty much always sided with big business over small business or individuals. And some of those cases are just crazy to have been in favor of the big business.
Do you think it should be a judges job to side with one side or the other or to adjudicate based on what the law says?
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,772
USA
Do you think it should be a judges job to side with one side or the other or to adjudicate based on what the law says?
Have you examined any of the court cases Gorsuch has presided over? I haven't looked at a lot - but some definitely were odd decisions given the case.

I think a judge should look at the facts of the case. However, when a judge - any judge - has a lengthy history of awarding big business (for example) the "win" - it calls into question if that is coincidence or not.
 

unlinked

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2010
695
1,199
Ireland
Have you examined any of the court cases Gorsuch has presided over? I haven't looked at a lot - but some definitely were odd decisions given the case.
What percentage of the presumably thousands of cases he has been involved with as a judge do you consider odd?
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,772
USA
What percentage of the presumably thousands of cases he has been involved with as a judge do you consider odd?
In full disclosure - not a large %. But articles that have reported as such. But what about you? How many have you looked at? And the ones that you have - did you agree with the outcome?
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
In full disclosure - not a large %. But articles that have reported as such. But what about you? How many have you looked at? And the ones that you have - did you agree with the outcome?
Which cases have you looked at that you found it odd that the big corporation won?
 

unlinked

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2010
695
1,199
Ireland
In full disclosure - not a large %. But articles that have reported as such. But what about you? How many have you looked at? And the ones that you have - did you agree with the outcome?
I have looked briefly at a few and would have instinctive views one or the other about what the result should have been but without actually considering what the pertinent laws say (and presumably a whole lot of legal context in how applying laws should work) it is impossible to say how a judge should rule.

As an example, I think recently there is some move to include sexual orientation in the Civil Rights act. To me judicially whether sexual orientation is covered by the act and legislatively whether it should be are 2 different questions. Judges shouldn't be inventing law just because they wish someone had passed them differently. If a judge isn't at least occasionally unhappy with their own rulings it is a bad sign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
992
2,733
Connecticut, USA
My own view is that the Advise and Consent provision granted to the Senate in Article I is really a secondary function of the Senate's powers. The primary source of authority for the Advise and Consent clause comes from the Executive where the nominations originate under Article II ("...The President SHALL nominate, the President SHALL appoint..."). As such, I believe, as many do, that once a nominee is being considered, they should not be subjected to the filibuster and should get an up or down vote.

Here, remember that back in 2013, Harry Reid et al. have already changed the rules to eliminate the filibuster for executive appointments and judges, with the exception of Supreme Court nominees. McConnell will make the rule complete when he changes the rule to exclude Supreme Court justices. I think this is as it should be.

Have you examined any of the court cases Gorsuch has presided over? I haven't looked at a lot - but some definitely were odd decisions given the case.

I think a judge should look at the facts of the case. However, when a judge - any judge - has a lengthy history of awarding big business (for example) the "win" - it calls into question if that is coincidence or not.
No it doesn't. It doesn't tell you anything. You have to look at the law as well as the facts of the case. If the law points to a certain outcome, the judge should apply that law impartially and without favoritism to one party or the other. Just because you believe he sides with big business doesn't mean the rulings were wrong or that he is biased. If that's what the law calls for, then that's the correct outcome.

A better measure of the integrity of his opinions would be the number of decisions that were appealed and/or overturned or otherwise changed. From my review of his record, it's pretty low, in the single digits, and all of those were for reasons unrelated to misapplication of the law.
 
Last edited:

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,436
United Kingdom
Have you examined any of the court cases Gorsuch has presided over? I haven't looked at a lot - but some definitely were odd decisions given the case.

I think a judge should look at the facts of the case. However, when a judge - any judge - has a lengthy history of awarding big business (for example) the "win" - it calls into question if that is coincidence or not.
Maybe the law is what favours big business, not the judge?
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
Title says it all. So your thoughts on:

1) Should the Dems filibuster Gorsuch?

I personally think the answer is no they should not. He is a very well qualified jurist and even if they are mad that this was a "stolen" seat, it was also Scalia's seat so the balance of the court will not change much.

2) If they do, should the GOP invoke the Nuclear Option to confirm him?

They will have no choice. And this will be the best nominee to do it with. That is another reason for the Dems to not filibuster Gorsuch. The next one may not be as acceptable to some of the RINO's so they might not note to change the rules. Gorsuch will get it, save your ammo for a later fight when you might get help.

3) And will the MSM go ******* over it after they ignored Reid doing it?

They will be in full blown panic/outrage.
1) It was not Scalia's seat. He does not own it, and there is no requirement to replace a dead judge with someone of similar ideology. It was Obama's seat to replace, period.

2) They have no choice? That's total BS. They absolutely have a choice. They have the choice of not doing it. They can do what the filibuster is designed to encourage, which is work with the minority, negotiate, and figure out a bipartisan way forward. For example, they could give Garland the process he was supposed to receive. Hold hearings on Garland, vote yay or nay on him, and if he is not confirmed, then more on to Gorsuch. Or they can get creative and find some other way to work together.

3) Yes, the democrats removed the filibuster once for lower court nominees. I won't go into how that situation was different, but they were not the first. To be clear, Republican senator Bill Frist is the one who came up with this idea. The "nuclear option" is 100% an Republican invention.

Here is my stance: Eventually Democrats will be in power again. The pendulum swings back and forth. Is getting Gorsuch today worth it to Republicans as a trade to getting some super left-leaning judge in the near future? All the nuclear option will do is remove any reason to cooperate with the minority party and thus lead to more extremism in the court. Conservatives seem to hate activist judges, but that is exactly what they will get: more activist judges, pulling for one side or the other. So again, is Gorsuch worth this today? Is this the hill they are willing to die on?
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
814
15,173
Thank you, Harry Reid.
No, thank you obstructive Republicans, which is why Reid did what he did. And there's no need for Republicans to follow down the same road. It's funny to hear them complain about it yet willing to do it anyway. If they are willing to pull the trigger, then I think they've lost the right to complain about the choice they have made.
 

webbuzz

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2010
1,522
5,635
No, thank you obstructive Republicans, which is why Reid did what he did. And there's no need for Republicans to follow down the same road. It's funny to hear them complain about it yet willing to do it anyway. If they are willing to pull the trigger, then I think they've lost the right to complain about the choice they have made.
Again. Thank you, Harry Reid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgara

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
Maybe the law is what favours big business, not the judge?
The issue isn't how he ruled exactly, but rather his reasoning. Gorsuch has gone out of his way to go above and beyond what was required of him as a judge to make his pro-business views crystal clear. His radical concurrences and dissents, which are entirely optional to write, are what provide insight into his mind.
[doublepost=1491490916][/doublepost]
Again. Thank you, Harry Reid.
Thank you Republican Bill Frist.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
814
15,173
Again. Thank you, Harry Reid.
Was Harry Reid a sitting Republican and I didn't get the memo? Or is this just yet another example of the "party of personal responsibility" blaming someone else and not taking that personal responsibility? What a surprise. :rolleyes:
 

webbuzz

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2010
1,522
5,635
The issue isn't how he ruled exactly, but rather his reasoning. Gorsuch has gone out of his way to go above and beyond what was required of him as a judge to make his pro-business views crystal clear. His radical concurrences and dissents, which are entirely optional to write, are what provide insight into his mind.
[doublepost=1491490916][/doublepost]

Thank you Republican Bill Frist.
Oh well. Dimwits would have used it against Republicans had they won the White House.
[doublepost=1491491638][/doublepost]
Was Harry Reid a sitting Republican and I didn't get the memo? Or is this just yet another example of the "party of personal responsibility" blaming someone else and not taking that personal responsibility? What a surprise. :rolleyes:
snicker
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk and tgara

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
992
2,733
Connecticut, USA
1) It was not Scalia's seat. He does not own it, and there is no requirement to replace a dead judge with someone of similar ideology. It was Obama's seat to replace, period.
Perhaps, but rightly or wrongly, Mr. Biden set up the precedent of the Senate not considering nominees in the last year of a president's term.

2) They have no choice? That's total BS. They absolutely have a choice. They have the choice of not doing it. They can do what the filibuster is designed to encourage, which is work with the minority, negotiate, and figure out a bipartisan way forward. For example, they could give Garland the process he was supposed to receive. Hold hearings on Garland, vote yay or nay on him, and if he is not confirmed, then more on to Gorsuch. Or they can get creative and find some other way to work together.
You're conflating two Senate powers. In the first, you are arguing that with respect to executive appointments, the filibuster causes the parties to work together and find a bipartisan way forward. I would argue that the Senate's role here is merely of advise and consent. The nominations themselves do not originate in the Senate, they originate from the President, and as such the filibuster should not apply, else it frustrates the duties of the President and of the government more generally. The filibuster should apply to legislation only, not executive appointments.

On the second, there is no affirmative duty on the Senate to consider any nominations by the executive. As a political matter, the Senate can simply decline to provide its advise and consent.

3) Yes, the democrats removed the filibuster once for lower court nominees. I won't go into how that situation was different, but they were not the first. To be clear, Republican senator Bill Frist is the one who came up with this idea. The "nuclear option" is 100% an Republican invention.
Perhaps, but Harry Reid pulled the trigger and fired the first shot. That counts for A LOT and changed everything.