# 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:** 7
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/121 "2017-03-22T19:09:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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? Yes, I think the Democrats have paid a price to some degree – but it was probably worth it to get the confirmations and such that wouldn’t have proceeded without whittling it down. But yes, there are other reasons to resist getting rid of the filibuster – most notably that each party finds it useful when in the minority. ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/122 "2017-03-22T19:10:51Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > So you would object to any nomination made by President Trump? I would not object to Merrick Garland. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/123 "2017-03-22T19:11:55Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > 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. OK. FTR I stand by everything I’ve said in this thread, and have nothing further to add at this time. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/124 "2017-03-22T19:15:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK. FTR I stand by everything I’ve said in this thread, and have nothing further to add at this time. As do I. My original posts anyway, not the stuff of mine that you altered to fit your needs. I’m fine with letting things stand as they are. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/125 "2017-03-22T19:42:02Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > 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. I don’t agree the seat was stolen, except, again, in the sense that Viola Davis’ Oscar was stolen by Meryl Streep. Streep won under the rules. So too did Trump, both with respect to the Presidency and to being able to nominate his own justice. Your use of “stolen,” here is semantically identical to a strong opinion that you wished things had gone your way. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/126 "2017-03-22T19:50:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree the seat was stolen, except, again, in the sense that Viola Davis’ Oscar was stolen by Meryl Streep. > > Streep won under the rules. So too did Trump, both with respect to the Presidency and to being able to nominate his own justice. Your use of “stolen,” here is semantically identical to a strong opinion that you wished things had gone your way. I’m sympathetic to the notion that the seat was “stolen” in the sense that Republican actions represented a break with prior accepted approach, which would have dictated a vote on Garland. (That said, so did Democratic treatment of Bork, as we’ve discussed previously.) It was obviously completely legal, but was not the way things were done. Of course, it doesn’t follow that it was therefore a stolen presidency in any sense at all. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/127 "2017-03-22T19:53:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It was obviously completely legal, but was not the way things were done. “Stolen” in that context implies illegality. “Legally stolen” is an oxymoron. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/128 "2017-03-22T19:55:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m sympathetic to the notion that the seat was “stolen” in the sense that Republican actions represented a break with prior accepted approach, which would have dictated a vote on Garland. (That said, so did Democratic treatment of Bork, as we’ve discussed previously.) > > It was obviously completely legal, but was not the way things were done. > > Of course, it doesn’t follow that it was therefore a stolen presidency in any sense at all. I assume Garland would have lost, if a vote had been taken. That rejection of a qualified judge, however, may have swayed the presidential election to Clinton (or may not have). ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/129 "2017-03-22T20:01:53Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “Stolen” in that context implies illegality. “Legally stolen” is an oxymoron. Good news, everyone! Black people didn’t have property, family, and labor stolen of them for years and years, since it was all legal! ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/130 "2017-03-22T20:02:20Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “Stolen” in that context implies illegality. “Legally stolen” is an oxymoron. I think “stolen” has a broader meaning, encompassing something which “by rights” should have gone one way and went the other. E.g. to “steal victory from the jaws of defeat”. > [@Procrustus](#): > > I assume Garland would have lost, if a vote had been taken. That rejection of a qualified judge, however, may have swayed the presidential election to Clinton (or may not have). I think Garland would probably have won. All he needed was 5 Republican defectors; both of Obama’s other nominees got at least that many, and Garland was probably more qualified and to the right of both of them. (Although the Republicans had decided on this approach before Garland was nominated.) ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/131 "2017-03-22T20:03:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m sympathetic to the notion that the seat was “stolen” in the sense that Republican actions represented a break with prior accepted approach, which would have dictated a vote on Garland. (That said, so did Democratic treatment of Bork, as we’ve discussed previously.) Correct. I don’t agree that there was any major break with prior accepted practice, considering the Bork precedent. At best, the refusal to even hold a hearing, as opposed to holding a meaningless hearing with a foreordained result, is something I argue is relatively trivial. I certainly don’t accept the notion that this constitutes a “stolen,” seat, unless we’re also calling Bork’s seat stolen. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/132 "2017-03-22T20:05:28Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “Stolen” in that context implies illegality. “Legally stolen” is an oxymoron. Just so you know, since you like literal definitions, the [dictionary](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/steal) does not agree with you. The third definition is the most appropriate, but the first two are relevant as well, and none of them imply anything about legality. ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/133 "2017-03-22T20:06:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. I don’t agree that there was any major break with prior accepted practice, considering the Bork precedent. At best, the refusal to even hold a hearing, as opposed to holding a meaningless hearing with a foreordained result, is something I argue is relatively trivial. I certainly don’t accept the notion that this constitutes a “stolen,” seat, unless we’re also calling Bork’s seat stolen. And thus SCOTUS has been successfully politicized, as God intended (though maybe not as the framers did). ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/134 "2017-03-22T20:10:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m sympathetic to the notion that the seat was “stolen” in the sense that Republican actions represented a break with prior accepted approach, which would have dictated a vote on Garland. (That said, so did Democratic treatment of Bork, as we’ve discussed previously.) The part of it that was new was the announcement prior to the nomination that they would not consider a nominee. The practice of withholding consent on a judicial nominee by not holding a vote is not uncommon, particularly in an election year. ---
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/135 "2017-03-22T20:14:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And thus SCOTUS has been successfully politicized, as God intended (though maybe not as the framers did). The framers probably didn’t anticipate _Marbury v. Madison_, and certainly didn’t anticipate the Warren Court. Once you had those, the rest was probably inevitable. > [@Falchion](#): > > The part of it that was new was the announcement prior to the nomination that they would not consider a nominee. > > The practice of withholding consent on a judicial nominee by not holding a vote is not uncommon, particularly in an election year. But that’s the whole point. The Republicans said they wouldn’t hold a vote on a nominee simply because he was nominated by a lame duck president. That broke some new ground (in terms of actually doing it, versus just talking about it). ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/136 "2017-03-22T20:16:56Z")
IMHO, the Democrats (and, you know, people with empathy in general) would be justified in voting against Garland based on his dissenting opinion in _TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board_. The gist of the case: one cold January day, the brakes on a truck driver’s trailer locked up and froze. The truck could drive, but the trailer was essentially being dragged. He called a dispatcher for help, and waited on the side of the road for assistance. Two hours later, no one had arrived, and due to a heater failure, the trucker was growing numb. He called again for service, and was ordered to stay with his trailer. He waited another 30 minutes, then unhitched the trailer and drove to a gas station to warm up. He was subsequently fired for abandoning his trailer. The dispute: the driver said he was wrongfully fired, because by law an employer may not terminate an employee for refusing to operate a vehicle where the employee reasonably believes that doing so would cause serious injury to the employee or the public. His employer countered that the law doesn’t apply because he did “operate his vehicle”, just not the whole thing (he left the trailer behind instead of dragging it). The Department of Labor agreed with the trucker, and so did two of the three judges reviewing the decision. Gorsuch dissented, siding with the trucking company, and likening the situation to an employee “operating” an office computer by writing a novel rather than working. Not exactly the same situation as our trucker. The opinion is very coldly indifferent to the Sophie’s Choice-like situation the trucker found himself in: drag the trailer, which was unsafe and illegal, or sit there and freeze. Reminds me of Stallone’s **Judge Dredd** : > [@](#): > > Fergee: I had no choice! They were killing each other in there! > > Judge Dredd: You could have gone out the window. > > Fergee: 40 floors? It would have been suicide! > > Judge Dredd: Maybe, but it’s legal. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/137 "2017-03-22T20:18:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But that’s the whole point. The Republicans said they wouldn’t hold a vote on a nominee simply because he was nominated by a lame duck president. That broke some new ground (in terms of actually doing it, versus just talking about it). Sure. I just quibble with your notion that prior practice “would have dictated a vote on Garland.” (Although I also see no reason to view the advise and consent power differently for Supreme Court justices versus other Article III judges). Prior practice (at least, for other judges) would have supported allowing the nomination and then just not acting on it. The “theft” was in announcing that you were going to do it in advance. ---
**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 22, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/138 "2017-03-22T20:31:39Z")
[The Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Gorsuch ruling in the middle of his confirmation hearings.](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3/22/1646072/-Unanimous-Supreme-Court-overturns-a-Gorsuch-decision-in-the-middle-of-his-confirmation-hearing) ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/139 "2017-03-22T21:03:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I think “stolen” has a broader meaning, encompassing something which “by rights” should have gone one way and went the other. E.g. to “steal victory from the jaws of defeat”. “Steal victory from the jaws of defeat” applies to Trump’s winning the presidency, I agree. ---
**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 22, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/140 "2017-03-22T21:07:55Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#): > > IMHO, the Democrats (and, you know, people with empathy in general) would be justified in voting against \*\*Garland \*\*based on his dissenting opinion in _TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board_. > … \*\*emphasis \*\*mine Uh… slip of the keyboard? That was Gorsuch in dissent, not Garland. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=8)