# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/81 "2017-03-22T16:26:32Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Exactly my point. Everyone knows that Democrats’ principle right now is not to confirm **any** Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. If they said that clearly (and stated the reason - whether it’s Garland or the FBI investigation), and as a result just didn’t show up to the confirmation hearings, that would actually be a principled stand. > > Pretending that they are objecting to Gorsuch’s views or judicial decisions when (as I pointed out already) not one Democrat objected to Gorsuch’s previous confirmation as a federal judge just exposes their hypocrisy. Hypocrisy allegations against the Democrats alone are laughable. I think there’s plenty of hypocrisy in the Senate, and it’s not a new characteristic, but Republican refusal to consider Garland after some Republican Senators had specifically cited Garland as a good SCOTUS pick was far more hypocritical, IMO. Of course, I generally agree with the Democratic party more often than the Republicans, and am probably conditioned to see behavior that I disagree with as more hypocritical. But I’m only human, as I assume you are as well. ---
**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 22, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/82 "2017-03-22T16:27:33Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Exactly my point. Everyone knows that Democrats’ principle right now is not to confirm **any** Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. If they said that clearly (and stated the reason - whether it’s Garland or the FBI investigation), and as a result just didn’t show up to the confirmation hearings, that would actually be a principled stand. > > Pretending that they are objecting to Gorsuch’s views or judicial decisions when (as I pointed out already) not one Democrat objected to Gorsuch’s previous confirmation as a federal judge just exposes their hypocrisy. So, if not one republican objected to Garland’s confirmation as a federal judge, and then they refused to even hold meeting, much less hearing or a vote on him, how much conservative hypocrisy is being laid open for the world to see? ---
**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 22, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/83 "2017-03-22T16:35:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s pointless to respond to people who just make things up and attribute them to you. But it can be more worthwhile to discuss things with other people. Let’s not go down this path of trying to ferret out others’ intentions. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/84 "2017-03-22T16:35:38Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, if not one republican objected to Garland’s confirmation as a federal judge, and then they refused to even hold meeting, much less hearing or a vote on him, how much conservative hypocrisy is being laid open for the world to see? I think: none. They said they wouldn’t confirm any Obama nominee, and they didn’t. What’s their contradictory stance? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/85 "2017-03-22T16:42:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, if not one republican objected to Garland’s confirmation as a federal judge, and then they refused to even hold meeting, much less hearing or a vote on him, how much conservative hypocrisy is being laid open for the world to see? That’s a principled stand (principle being that Obama doesn’t get to nominate a SC justice as a lame duck president). You may disagree with the principle, but it is a principled stand. If Democrats’ principle is “no one but Garland” or “no one that Trump nominates”, or “no one while FBI investigates” and they stated that and adhered to it, it would be a principled stand, even if someone disagrees with the principle. Attending the confirmation hearing and going through the theater of asking questions etc. while not caring what the answers are and not ever intending to confirm is not a principled stand. I know you will never understand that. But that’s the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/86 "2017-03-22T16:43:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Let’s not go down this path of trying to ferret out others’ intentions. > > [/moderating] I don’t know what “intentions” you’re referring to. In post #62, Airbeck suggested that I “_think the latter is a stretch, but no problem with the former_”, “the former” being “_Republicans said Hillary shouldn’t be elected while under FBI investigation, and they also said an open Supreme court seat shouldn’t be filled in the last 25% of a President’s term._” I’ve not said anything in this (or any other) thread which would indicate that I had no problems with these things, and Airbeck had zero basis for these implications. There’s no ferreting out of intentions involved in this. Etc. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/87 "2017-03-22T16:56:02Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I know you will never understand that. But that’s the truth. “Truth” for political partisans can be very hard to separate from opinion. As someone who leans towards one side, I try to recognize and account for the possibility that what seems like truth to me might actually just be opinion. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/88 "2017-03-22T17:02:59Z")
How many times did you hear a republican say “But the Supreme Court!” during the election, while they were refusing to have hearings on a legitimate appointee? How many votes did this gain against the democrats? This was a strategy by republicans to undermine the workings of their own government. They were promising to stonewall the process in exchange for votes. I’d say that this is a stolen seat, and it’s not a stretch to say a stolen presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/89 "2017-03-22T17:07:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Truth” for political partisans can be very hard to separate from opinion. As someone who leans towards one side, I try to recognize and account for the possibility that what seems like truth to me might actually just be opinion. You may consider it an “opinion” that pretending to have one motivation while hiding another is not a “principled stand”. I consider it fairly axiomatic. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/90 "2017-03-22T17:08:41Z")
Stolen SCOTUS seat to be sure, but no, not a stolen Presidency. Trump won this one the old fashioned way: his opponent was determined to run a worse campaign. ---
**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 22, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/91 "2017-03-22T17:11:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think: none. > > They said they wouldn’t confirm any Obama nominee, and they didn’t. > > What’s their contradictory stance? I was responding to Okrahoma’s contention that any democrat who approved Gorsush for federal court, but denied him for SC, was a hypocrite. > [@okrahoma](#): > > That’s a principled stand (principle being that Obama doesn’t get to nominate a SC justice as a lame duck president). > > You may disagree with the principle, but it is a principled stand. You are right that I don’t agree that it is a principle that a president can’t nominate someone in their last year. As shown on other threads, many other presidents had done so, so the republicans were creating a new precedent with their new principle. That’s not principle, that’s just justifying partisanship. I am quite sure that should trump (or pence) make it into year 4, and a SC seat opens up, the republicans will have no problem at all in confirming his pick. Obviously, the hard thing to predict in this scenario is the set-up, that a Sc spot opens up in his last year of this term, but if it does, are you going to take a principled stance and call the republicans hypocrites if they do? > [@](#): > > If Democrats’ principle is “no one but Garland” or “no one that Trump nominates”, or “no one while FBI investigates” and they stated that and adhered to it, it would be a principled stand, even if someone disagrees with the principle. After the democrats complained that the republicans refused to hold meetings about garland, I would think it would be much more of a hypocritical move to then refuse to attend meetings on Gorsuch. > [@](#): > > Attending the confirmation hearing and going through the theater of asking questions etc. while not caring what the answers are and not ever intending to confirm is not a principled stand. Why do you think they don’t care about the answers to the questions? Not only do they have ideological reasons to vote against him, but the answers that he gives are further reasons to vote against him. Some of the answers may even cause republicans to second guess the nomination. Many of the answers may cause voters of both sides to question the nomination. It is likely that this guy is gonna get nominated, regardless of what the democrats do, so we may as well know what we are getting into. I for one am quite happy that he has to answer questions asked of him by the opposition party, rather than just the softball questions the republicans would be asking him. > [@](#): > > I know you will never understand that. But that’s the truth. Your petty insults aside, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/92 "2017-03-22T17:15:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know what “intentions” you’re referring to. > > In post #62, Airbeck suggested that I “_think the latter is a stretch, but no problem with the former_”, “the former” being “_Republicans said Hillary shouldn’t be elected while under FBI investigation, and they also said an open Supreme court seat shouldn’t be filled in the last 25% of a President’s term._” > > I’ve not said anything in this (or any other) thread which would indicate that I had no problems with these things, and Airbeck had zero basis for these implications. There’s no ferreting out of intentions involved in this. > > Etc. Actually you selectively edited me there. You conveniently left out the question mark, which changes the context of what I actually posted. What I said was: “You think the latter is a stretch, but no problem with the former?” That is a question that I asked you. How is that assuming what you think when it’s literally asking you what you think? If you also had a problem with that, then just cite where you posted that objection. You are wrong here. I have not done what you accused me of, and I’d appreciate it if you stop accusing me of it. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/93 "2017-03-22T17:16:41Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > How many times did you hear a republican say “But the Supreme Court!” during the election, while they were refusing to have hearings on a legitimate appointee? How many votes did this gain against the democrats? It makes sense to block a SC nominee in the hopes that your candidate wins in near future and will get to nominate a different person. (Again, you will not agree with the tactic, but you can’t disagree that it makes sense). And yes, that tactic probably brought in some Republican votes that hoped that the Republican president will get to nominate someone other than Garland. It makes no sense whatsoever to **try** unsuccessfully to block another party’s nominee to the SC when you neither have real objections to the nominee himself or any hope of actually blocking him for almost 4 years it will take you to get to the point where you could replace the nominee with yours. And it cannot bring you votes in four years that would have the same motivation that Republicans did - namely, that the Democratic President will get to nominate someone instead of Gorsuch. It’s a lose-lose-lose tactic. You show yourselves to be hypocrites, the nomination still goes through, and you don’t give the base the clear motivation to vote for you because there is no obvious and immediate payoff. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/94 "2017-03-22T17:20:46Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It’s a lose-lose-lose tactic. You show yourselves to be hypocrites, the nomination still goes through, and you don’t give the base the clear motivation to vote for you because there is no obvious and immediate payoff. Your concern is noted. By the way, what color is the sky in your world? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/95 "2017-03-22T17:22:06Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Your concern is noted. It’s not a “concern”. I am actually delighted at Democrats’ bumbling tactical mistake in trying to block Gorsuch. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/96 "2017-03-22T17:23:43Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Actually you selectively edited me there. You conveniently left out the question mark, which changes the context of what I actually posted. What I said was: > > “You think the latter is a stretch, but no problem with the former?” > > That is a question that I asked you. How is that assuming what you think when it’s literally asking you what you think? It was a rhetorical question, as indicated by your final sentence in that post which showed no ambivalence. Similar also applies to the implications of your subsequent post about Trump’s approval ratings. > [@](#): > > If you also had a problem with that, then just cite where you posted that objection. I don’t need to do that. As it happens I’ve posted here on both subjects that you reference, and if you’re legitimately interested, then you can look it up. Find something inconsistent, by all means whip is out. But I don’t need to defend against accusations of “_willful blindness and blatant partisanship_” that are entirely based on self-serving speculation on your part. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/97 "2017-03-22T17:25:18Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > You may consider it an “opinion” that pretending to have one motivation while hiding another is not a “principled stand”. > > I consider it fairly axiomatic. The second-to-last paragraph in your post #85 was opinion, as was your assertion about any unique or one-sided hypocrisy. Further, the position requires mind-reading – sure, Senators may be lying about their motivations to vote a certain way, but there’s no way to know for sure. But in general, I’m just riffing on your certainty – lately, certainty about anything political amuses me. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/98 "2017-03-22T17:29:03Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It’s not a “concern”. I am actually delighted at Democrats’ bumbling tactical mistake in trying to block Gorsuch. Your viewpoint of the intelligence or stupidity of a tactic appears to be directly correlated to what party is using it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/99 "2017-03-22T17:31:29Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It makes no sense whatsoever to **try** unsuccessfully to block another party’s nominee to the SC when you neither have real objections to the nominee himself or any hope of actually blocking him for almost 4 years it will take you to get to the point where you could replace the nominee with yours. They have plenty of “real objections” to the nominee – the same sort of objections Democrats usually have to Republican SCOTUS nominees (and similar to the sort Republicans usually have to Democratic SCOTUS nominees). > [@](#): > > And it cannot bring you votes in four years that would have the same motivation that Republicans did - namely, that the Democratic President will get to nominate someone instead of Gorsuch. It’s not just about 2020 – it’s about motivating and exciting Democrats to vote in 2018. > [@](#): > > It’s a lose-lose-lose tactic. You show yourselves to be hypocrites, the nomination still goes through, and you don’t give the base the clear motivation to vote for you because there is no obvious and immediate payoff. The loss of the filibuster would be an immediate payoff (though the benefits might not be seen for a little while). Or if the Republicans don’t have the stomach to kill the filibuster, then stopping Gorsuch from being confirmed is the payoff. ---
**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 22, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/100 "2017-03-22T17:33:20Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I know you will never understand that. But that’s the truth. > [@Airbeck](#): > > Your concern is noted. > > By the way, what color is the sky in your world? Both of you, and everyone else - dial back the sniping. [/moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=6)