# Gorsuch confirmation hearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653 "2017-03-20T22:05:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/21 "2017-03-21T13:53:12Z")
Not sure the Gorsuch nomination is the one for the Dems to go all out on. Accepting the “stolen” seat argument, it doesn’t really change the status quo ante Scalia breakdown of the court. Conventional wisdom is that Trump may likely get one or two more chances to make a nomination to the court and those would have a higher likelihood of tipping the ideological balance. Moreover, if such an opening arises due to retirement or death of a justice before this time next year then that nomination battle would be the one fresh in the minds of voters. I think the Gorsuch goes through on a party line vote and the filibuster stays intact, at least for now. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/22 "2017-03-21T13:56:27Z")
The republicans need to get the Gorsuch nomination pushed through before they can start impeachment hearings. Try justifying not holding meetings on a justice because the nominating president has about a year left in his term, but confirm the justice of nominated by president under impeachment hearings, and even the right wing base will see that something is up. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/23 "2017-03-21T14:31:12Z")
They also need to get Gorsuch confirmed before space aliens invade from the planet Zork. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/24 "2017-03-21T14:34:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They also need to get Gorsuch confirmed before space aliens invade from the planet Zork. > > Regards, > Shodan Has Trump been tweeting about Zork again? I asked him not to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/25 "2017-03-21T14:39:48Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Be that as it may, by this time, the public and news cycle has moved so far beyond Garland at this point that any Democratic Senator who said, “I refused to vote for any SCOTUS nominee not named Merrick Garland” would end up portraying \*himself/herself \*as unreasonable, as opposed to the obstructionist GOP being portrayed as unreasonable for blocking Garland in the first place. I don’t think that’s true at all. People are still pretty aware that this was merrick garland’s seat. If I were the Democrats, I would spend the entire hearing process reminding the American public about Merrick Garland. I would ask Gorsuch if he has ever met Merrick garland and what he thinks about him as a jurist. I would ask him what he think is the proper role of advice and consent. I would ask him if a president can nominate a justice to SCOTUS during his last year in office. I would spend the entire fucking time embarrassing the Republicans by bringing it up over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/26 "2017-03-21T14:54:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yes. Democrats have every right to pull out all the stops to keep this seat vacant or leverage their votes to get a more moderate choice. > > However, ending the SCOTUS filibuster is not really in their interests. They kept it there for a reason. Since Bork, Republican nominees have tended to be more likely to have trouble getting confirmed than Democratic nominees. Ending the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees lets Republicans nominate Bork-type candidates at will if they control the Senate. > > I really don’t know what I’d do if I were in their position. I guess the best option is to say, “New rule: any nomination in the year before an election gets held up until after the election.” Where I come from, that’s called letting them make up the rules as the fly. Do we keep letting the Republicans make up new rules that benefit them without pushing back? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/27 "2017-03-21T14:58:14Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Not sure the Gorsuch nomination is the one for the Dems to go all out on. Accepting the “stolen” seat argument, it doesn’t really change the status quo ante Scalia breakdown of the court. > > Conventional wisdom is that Trump may likely get one or two more chances to make a nomination to the court and those would have a higher likelihood of tipping the ideological balance. Moreover, if such an opening arises due to retirement or death of a justice before this time next year then that nomination battle would be the one fresh in the minds of voters. > > I think the Gorsuch goes through on a party line vote and the filibuster stays intact, at least for now. What does it benefit them to keep it intact? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/28 "2017-03-21T16:18:00Z")
So strange to see that the Republicans are interested in nominating someone to the Supreme Court, when last year they wanted no part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/29 "2017-03-21T16:20:27Z")
Gorsuch just made a fairly significant error. He said that the key precedent on assessing the Muslim Ban would be _Youngstown_, a case about the scope of executive authority. In fact, _Youngstown_ is inapplicable to claims under the Establishment Clause. He had to have prepped that answer, so I’m not quite sure what to make of it. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/30 "2017-03-21T16:33:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What does it benefit them to keep it intact? The fear that Democrats will have the same advantage when they return to power. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/31 "2017-03-21T16:40:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If I were the Democrats, I would spend the entire hearing process reminding the American public about Merrick Garland. I would ask Gorsuch if he has ever met Merrick garland and what he thinks about him as a jurist. I would ask him what he think is the proper role of advice and consent. I would ask him if a president can nominate a justice to SCOTUS during his last year in office. I would spend the entire fucking time embarrassing the Republicans by bringing it up over and over again. While I think Garland should have had a vote, harping on this now I think would merit no more than a "ha ha’ Nelson Muntz style. I don’t think it would be seen as anything more than sour grapes. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Gorsuch just made a fairly significant error. He said that the key precedent on assessing the Muslim Ban would be _Youngstown_, a case about the scope of executive authority. In fact, _Youngstown_ is inapplicable to claims under the Establishment Clause. > > He had to have prepped that answer, so I’m not quite sure what to make of it. I can’t find the transcript - can you elaborate on this a bit? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/32 "2017-03-21T17:38:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I can’t find the transcript - can you elaborate on this a bit? I don’t have a transcript either. I was just watching live. He and Sen. Leahy talked about religious bans and tests for about five minutes, and Gorsuch mentioned some potentially applicable constitutional and statutory provisions (though Gorsuch troublingly omitted the most relevant one, the Establishment Clause). Then Sen. Leahy asked whether the President’s national security judgment on this is even reviewable. And Gorsuch said he thought the relevant precedent “here” was Youngstown. Maybe Gorsuch meant to address the question of the scope of executive power in the abstract and not in the context of a constitutional challenge to the particular exercise of that power. That would be the most charitable explanation, because it’s pretty clear that Youngstown isn’t applicable to the question a court faces when the President claims that some national security justification means that his decision cannot be challenged under the Establishment Clause. (And, indeed, Youngstown does not speak to reviewability at all, but instead goes to the merits of that review.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/33 "2017-03-21T18:46:07Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t have a transcript either. I was just watching live. > > He and Sen. Leahy talked about religious bans and tests for about five minutes, and Gorsuch mentioned some potentially applicable constitutional and statutory provisions (though Gorsuch troublingly omitted the most relevant one, the Establishment Clause). Then Sen. Leahy asked whether the President’s national security judgment on this is even reviewable. And Gorsuch said he thought the relevant precedent “here” was Youngstown. > > Maybe Gorsuch meant to address the question of the scope of executive power in the abstract and not in the context of a constitutional challenge to the particular exercise of that power. That would be the most charitable explanation, because it’s pretty clear that Youngstown isn’t applicable to the question a court faces when the President claims that some national security justification means that his decision cannot be challenged under the Establishment Clause. (And, indeed, Youngstown does not speak to reviewability at all, but instead goes to the merits of that review.) Is it possible that Gorsuch was (implicitly, _sub silentio_) arguing exactly what you’re deeming a mistake: that the Establishment Clause is somehow inapplicable or irrelevant to the Presidential exercise of war/national security powers, and that the President has plenary and unreviewable power in such matters? Because that seems to be the Trump Administration position re. the controversial immigration executive orders, informally if not formally. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/34 "2017-03-21T18:51:11Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t have a transcript either. I was just watching live. > > He and Sen. Leahy talked about religious bans and tests for about five minutes, and Gorsuch mentioned some potentially applicable constitutional and statutory provisions (though Gorsuch troublingly omitted the most relevant one, the Establishment Clause). Then Sen. Leahy asked whether the President’s national security judgment on this is even reviewable. And Gorsuch said he thought the relevant precedent “here” was Youngstown. > > Maybe Gorsuch meant to address the question of the scope of executive power in the abstract and not in the context of a constitutional challenge to the particular exercise of that power. That would be the most charitable explanation, because it’s pretty clear that Youngstown isn’t applicable to the question a court faces when the President claims that some national security justification means that his decision cannot be challenged under the Establishment Clause. (And, indeed, Youngstown does not speak to reviewability at all, but instead goes to the merits of that review.) I thought it went to how much power the president could exercise in the absence of congressional authority. If congress (under the same circumstances) couldn’t do it either then how does Youngstown apply? I mean if Congress couldn’t pass a law excluding muslims based on their religious affiliation as the cases conclude Trump did, then I don’t see how Trump could under any form of Youngstown analysis. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/35 "2017-03-21T18:55:24Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > Is it possible that Gorsuch was (implicitly, _sub silentio_) arguing exactly what you’re deeming a mistake: that the Establishment Clause is somehow inapplicable or irrelevant to the Presidential exercise of war/national security powers, and that the President has plenary and unreviewable power in such matters? Because that seems to be the Trump Administration position re. the controversial immigration executive orders, informally if not formally. By omitting it, he was arguing it was irrelevant? That strains credulity. If “He and Sen. Leahy talked about religious bans and tests for about five minutes” then it’s unreasonable to think he wouldn’t directly address the Establishment Clause’s irrelevance. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/36 "2017-03-21T19:29:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Maybe Gorsuch meant to address the question of the scope of executive power in the abstract and not in the context of a constitutional challenge to the particular exercise of that power. The reason that this strikes me as the most likely explanation is that Gorsuch is going to do what he can to avoid expressing an opinion on anything not in the abstract. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/37 "2017-03-21T19:47:43Z")
Do the Democrats even have to filibuster? Unless the Senate goes into nuclear option, they need 60 votes to confirm. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/38 "2017-03-21T20:00:58Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Do the Democrats even have to filibuster? Unless the Senate goes into nuclear option, they need 60 votes to confirm. Gorsuch can be confirmed with 50 votes plus the VP tiebreaker. If there’s a filibuster, you’d need 60 votes to stop the filibuster. Unless you vote to change the rules to not allow a filibuster, and the rule change would only take 50 votes plus the VP tiebreaker. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/39 "2017-03-21T20:44:21Z")
Considering Trump’s administration is currently under FBI investigation for colluding with a foreign nation… “I believe the overwhelming view of the [del]Republican[/del] Democratic Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/40 "2017-03-21T20:47:18Z")
Yeah, that doesn’t work so well for the minority party. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=3)