# 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:** 6
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/101 "2017-03-22T17:34:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. You predicted how the public will react to a Democratic tactic. I disagreed with that prediction. I cited the approval rating of the current regime as my reasoning that maybe you are not using an accurate picture of “the public” in your assessment. What implications am I making? Please specify what it was that I implied and exactly where. All I’ve asked you is questions and all you’ve done is made unfounded accusations of me, resulting in a mod telling you to watch it. I’ll ask again, please stop accusing me of things. Answer my questions or not, but this tactic of constantly accusing me of imaginary things is starting to get weird. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/102 "2017-03-22T17:38:38Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > You predicted how the public will react to a Democratic tactic. I disagreed with that prediction. I cited the approval rating of the current regime as my reasoning that maybe you are not using an accurate picture of “the public” in your assessment. What bearing does the approval rating of the current regime have on the accuracy of my picture of the public? > [@](#): > > What implications am I making? Please specify what it was that I implied and exactly where. I’ve already addressed this. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/103 "2017-03-22T17:49:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > What bearing does the approval rating of the current regime have on the accuracy of my picture of the public? My point was that I think you are overconfident that the public will reject the Democrats tactics on the Gorsuch nomination. The public that will be reacting to this is the same public that is decidedly against the Republican regime right now as per my reference to the current approval ratings. Is that clear now? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve already addressed this. You have not. You’ve lobbed plenty of accusations at me regarding “implications” that I’m making about you, but you have yet to actually spell out exactly what my implication was and exactly where it appears in my posts. Kind of like Trump accusing Obama of wiretapping him, but not offering any specifics of when or how, or any evidence. I guess the idea is that there is something to be gained by simply making accusations of those you disagree with? ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/104 "2017-03-22T17:52:52Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > My point was that I think you are overconfident that the public will reject the Democrats tactics on the Gorsuch nomination. The public that will be reacting to this is the same public that is decidedly against the Republican regime right now as per my reference to the current approval ratings. Is that clear now? No. > [@](#): > > You have not. You’ve lobbed plenty of accusations at me regarding “implications” that I’m making about you, but you have yet to actually spell out exactly what my implication was and exactly where it appears in my posts. Posts #86 & #96. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/105 "2017-03-22T17:55:55Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I’d say that this is a stolen seat, and it’s not a stretch to say a stolen presidency. You’d be wrong. Although maybe not. A base runner steals a base in baseball. Is that the sense of the word? Or maybe you mean “stole,” like, “Meryl Streep stole the 2012 Best Actress Oscar from Viola Davis?” When the word is used that way, then how can I call you wrong? It’s simply the opinion that Davis was, for whatever reason, a more appropriate or worthy winner than Streep, and that the Academy voters were foolish in their selection of Streep. It’s not a factual claim that Streep’s criminal plotting gained the award. That where you are with “stole?” ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/106 "2017-03-22T17:59:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. You misunderstood. When I said “there is no obvious and immediate payoff” I meant payoff to the voters to make them vote for Democrats in 2018 the way there was an obvious and immediate payoff to Republican base voters in the Garland case. There is no upcoming election in the near future and there is no hope for any near future Democratic SC nominees (the way it was with the Garland thing). Blocking of Garland motivated Republican voters because of these two factors. The charade of the attempt to block Gorsuch (that will obviously fail) completely lacks any such voter motivations. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/107 "2017-03-22T18:03:11Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > You misunderstood. When I said “there is no obvious and immediate payoff” I meant payoff to the voters to make them vote for Democrats in 2018 the way there was an obvious and immediate payoff to Republican base voters in the Garland case. Sure there is, at least potentially – a principled stand (I understand you don’t see it as principled, but Republican supporters are very rarely going to see anything any Democrat does as principled, unless it helps Republicans) could motivate Democrats and make them believe that their Senators actually are interested in fighting for progressive political causes. Plus the potential elimination of the filibuster, or Gorsuch being actually stopped. > [@](#): > > There is no upcoming election in the near future and there is no hope for any near future Democratic SC nominees (the way it was with the Garland thing). Blocking of Garland motivated Republican voters because of these two factors. The charade of the attempt to block Gorsuch (that will obviously fail) completely lacks any such voter motivations. Perhaps from the point of view of Republican supporters, but I find that Republican supporters very rarely actually understand what really motivates Democratic supporters (and vice versa). ---
**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 22, 2017, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/108 "2017-03-22T18:06:02Z")
I still baffled, iiandyiiii, by your belief that getting the filibuster removed is some prize. Since it won’t be useful for Dems until they control the Senate -at which point they could simply remove it themselves- you must think the Republicans will take some political damage for doing it. But I really don’t understand why you would think that. ---
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/109 "2017-03-22T18:09:10Z")
I get where he’s coming from. He thinks going all out against Gorsuch will motivate the base, and that’s the “prize”. The loss of the filibuster is itself a positive, so it’s not a reason to refrain from going all out against Gorsuch in order to motivate the base. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/110 "2017-03-22T18:10:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The key is not to present this as a vote about Obama, or Garland (even if that is my actual biggest objection), but just for 41+ Democrats to assert that they found Gorsuch’s answers and history troubling enough that they oppose him strongly. Which of Judge Gorsuch’s answers are “troubling” in your view? ---
**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 22, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/111 "2017-03-22T18:15:40Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I get where he’s coming from. He thinks going all out against Gorsuch will motivate the base, and that’s the “prize”. The loss of the filibuster is itself a positive, so it’s not a reason to refrain from going all out against Gorsuch in order to motivate the base. But he said “The loss of the filibuster would be an immediate payoff (though the benefits might not be seen for a little while).”. So it’s not just something to not worry about, it’s a goal. A prize that can only be used but simultaneously easily achieved when the Dems gain the Senate. So the only motive I can imagine is that he thinks being the party that removes it will take political damage. ---
**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, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/112 "2017-03-22T18:17:48Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I still baffled, iiandyiiii, by your belief that getting the filibuster removed is some prize. Since it won’t be useful for Dems until they control the Senate -at which point they could simply remove it themselves- you must think the Republicans will take some political damage for doing it. But I really don’t understand why you would think that. Removing the filibuster will have some political cost, or it would have already been done. I believe that the Democrats, in the long run, benefit more from no filibuster than the Republicans, since the Democrats generally are more likely to support big sweeping legislation that’s hard to repeal (minimum wage increase, universal health care, etc.) – if the filibuster is gone, or mostly gone, by the next time the Democrats control both houses, then it will be significantly easier to get such legislation passed. And they won’t have to take the political damage from doing it themselves. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/113 "2017-03-22T18:18:53Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Which of Judge Gorsuch’s answers are “troubling” in your view? Personally, that he said “yes” to Trump’s request to nominate him. But I’m discussing political strategy, not my beliefs about 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, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/114 "2017-03-22T18:22:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Removing the filibuster will have some political cost, or it would have already been done. Not necessarily. Some are resistant to removing the filibuster because they think they might need it themselves one day. Certainly the current speculation about which Republicans might be reluctant to remove the filibuster has focused on those Republicans with these types of concerns and/or “traditionalists”, and not on concerns about paying a political price for it. Do you think the Democrats have paid a political price for whittling it down significantly? ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/115 "2017-03-22T18:23:54Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No. I don’t believe that you don’t understand my point. You may disagree, but I can’t believe that you are unable to comprehend it. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Posts #86 & #96. Post #86 is where you altered my post when quoting me to turn a question that I asked into what you were then describing as an implication. You had to remove the question mark from the end of my sentence, and even after doing that it was still an incredibly weak justification for your accusation of whatever it is I supposedly implied about you. Post #96 is you backpedaling on the original accusation when I called you out on removing the question mark, then illustrating your lack of comprehension on my approval ratings remark, which you are still trying to claim you don’t understand, and finally you selectively quoted me again when you removed the first part of the sentence with the words you didn’t like that put them into context. The entire sentence is: “Not seeing this (or refusing to admit it) is willful blindness and blatant partisanship.”. That is in no way an implication being made about you. I’m stating an opinion about those that can ignore the sins of their side while lambasting the other side for the exact same thing. So no, you have not justified your accusations toward me in any way. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/116 "2017-03-22T18:25:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Personally, that he said “yes” to Trump’s request to nominate him. But I’m discussing political strategy, not my beliefs about Gorsuch. So you would object to any nomination made by President Trump? ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/117 "2017-03-22T18:48:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 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. No, it was stolen inasmuch as those things actually happened. Much of the hillary and Dem bashing has a russian origin by the way. ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/118 "2017-03-22T18:54:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’d be wrong. > > Although maybe not. A base runner steals a base in baseball. Is that the sense of the word? Or maybe you mean “stole,” like, “Meryl Streep stole the 2012 Best Actress Oscar from Viola Davis?” > > When the word is used that way, then how can I call you wrong? It’s simply the opinion that Davis was, for whatever reason, a more appropriate or worthy winner than Streep, and that the Academy voters were foolish in their selection of Streep. > > It’s not a factual claim that Streep’s criminal plotting gained the award. > > That where you are with “stole?” It was a strategy to undermine the system, and was a major selling point in their quest to defeat the injured party. If the seat was stolen, then the presidency must be considered stolen as well. The connection is too tight and preeminent. Stolen, as in felony, not stolen base. I don’t think it will redound to the actual benefit of the thieves though. It was short sighted. ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/119 "2017-03-22T18:54:52Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Post #86 is where you altered my post when quoting me to turn a question that I asked into what you were then describing as an implication. You had to remove the question mark from the end of my sentence, and even after doing that it was still an incredibly weak justification for your accusation of whatever it is I supposedly implied about you. > > Post #96 is you backpedaling on the original accusation when I called you out on removing the question mark, then illustrating your lack of comprehension on my approval ratings remark, which you are still trying to claim you don’t understand, and finally you selectively quoted me again when you removed the first part of the sentence with the words you didn’t like that put them into context. The entire sentence is: “Not seeing this (or refusing to admit it) is willful blindness and blatant partisanship.”. That is in no way an implication being made about you. I’m stating an opinion about those that can ignore the sins of their side while lambasting the other side for the exact same thing. I’ve not backpedaled on anything. I’ve explained why I removed the question mark. I don’t assume that remarks directed to me and purporting to respond to my posts are attacks on the position of other people - I assume they’re attacks on mine. But in the event that you indeed meant some other people - as you now appear to be trying to claim - it would still mean that having such discussions with you would be pointless. It would be extremely confusing, at best, and would involve constant clarification as to whether the point you’re responding to was mine or that of some other people that you’ve decided to drag in. So no real difference. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/120 "2017-03-22T19:09:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve not backpedaled on anything. I’ve explained why I removed the question mark. > > I don’t assume that remarks directed to me and purporting to respond to my posts are attacks on the position of other people - I assume they’re attacks on mine. But in the event that you indeed meant some other people - as you now appear to be trying to claim - it would still mean that having such discussions with you would be pointless. It would be extremely confusing, at best, and would involve constant clarification as to whether the point you’re responding to was mine or that of some other people that you’ve decided to drag in. So no real difference. You purposely removed the question mark to change the meaning of what I said, then you backpedaled when called out on it and tried to alter your justification rather than just admit the accusation was incorrect. This is all clear in the history of this thread, so I’m not sure why you are persisting in this. You admit removing my punctuation. Why else would you do that if not to change what I said to fit your accusation. Why are you still hanging on to this? You made erroneous accusations. You altered my quotes. The only one of us that is utilizing questionable debating tactics here is you. You are not new to this message board, so its very hard to believe that you are so surprised by, and unprepared to deal with, very common rhetorical techniques that are employed all over the place here by many different posters. You can’t seriously be claiming that I’m doing something unique here. I really don’t know why you can’t just directly respond to the things I’ve said and have to keep up with this charade at this point. Nothing I’ve said should be unclear or confusing. I’ve certainly not seen anyone else express the difficulties that you are anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=7)