To be clear, I meant that I don’t think that notion will get traction with the public. And since the entire point of that type of position is to play to the public, I think it’s probably pointless.
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.
Democrats say lets hold off on rushing through a Supreme Court appointment while the Executive branch is under investigation for colluding with a foreign government.
You think the latter is a stretch, but no problem with the former? Don’t see the hypocrisy of how big a deal they made out of an investigation into the other side, but having no issue whatsoever when its their own side? “Lock her up!”? Anything similar being chanted about Trump now? Not seeing this (or refusing to admit it) is willful blindness and blatant partisanship.
I think the only thing stretching right now is the grey matter of Trump defenders while making these arguments, like pulling apart taffy that’s eventually going to snap.
I don’t think any position is likely to get traction with the public at large, considering the present level of polarization, which is why I think the smartest tactic is to work to motivate the base.
Check Trump’s approval ratings.
I don’t think you’ve exactly got your finger on the pulse of the public right now.
If by public, you mean supporters of trump and other conservatives, you are probably right.
You need to remember that, even though Trump did get an electoral college win, there are still other members of the public who do not worship him. These people may not find it pointless to oppose a nomination that was is only coming about because of republican patisan games.
In other words, while some of the public is fooled by the conservative’s games, not all of, and I would even argue that the majority of the public is not that gullible.
Not so clear. Sometimes the things that motivate the base also turn off the less political middle-of-the-road people.
In any event, I don’t see this attempt to tie Gorsuch to the Russia thing as a big base-motivator either. Keep pounding on Garland for that.
This and your other post are full of baseless assumptions about what I think of Trump or his popularity or Republican tactics etc. I’m not going to bother responding to any of this.
The base motivator will be the votes, not the reasons, IMO – it won’t matter what justification Democratic Senators use to vote against cloture, as long as they vote against cloture.
You made predictions about how the public would react to the tactics of the Democrats. You are the one assuming what the public thinks.
I was responding to that by saying that you may be overconfident in your assessment of how the public will react.
If you don’t want people to respond to the things that you post, then why are you posting on a message board? Just do a blog and disable comments.
The C-Span Transcript is hard to use, but I think this is the lead-in:
>>YOU’VE HEARD THAT FROM BOTH SIDES HERE LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION IN THIS RECORD. YOU ARE A PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. YOU SAID THAT BEFORE. IN DES, 2015, THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. DO ADOPTED THAT THE UNITED STATES “MUST NOT BAR INDIVIDUALS FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES BASED ON THEIR RELIGION.” ALMOST EVERY SENATOR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THEN-SENATOR SESSIONS, A COUPLE OTHERS, VOTED FOR IT. DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALLOW FOR A RELIGIOUS LITMUS TEST INTO THE UNITED STATES?
>> SENATOR, THAT’S AN ISSUE THAT’S CURRENTLY BEING LITIGATED ACTIVELY AS
>> WELL, I’M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE LITIGATION IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT OR ANYTHING ELSE. I’M ASKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT – IS A BLANKET RELIGIOUS TEST, IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
>> SENATOR, WE HAVE A FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE THAT PROTECTS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES BY ALL PERSONS IN THIS COUNTRY. IF YOU’RE ASKING ME HOW I APPLY IT TO A SPECIFIC CASE, I CAN’T TALK ABOUT THAT FOR UNDERSTANDABLE REASONS.
>> WELL, COULD THE PRESIDENT –
>> THE UNDERSTANDABLE REASONS, JUST SO – YOU KNOW, WE’RE – I’M FRANK AND CANDID WITH YOU AS I CAN BE, SENATOR, WHEN YOU ASK ME TO APPLY IT TO A SET OF FACTS THAT LOOK LIKE A PENDING CASE IN MANY CIRCUITS NOW – Show Less Text
>> WELL, TRY HYPOTHETICAL. WOULD THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BAN ALL JEWS FROM THE UNITED STATES OR ALL PEOPLE THAT COME FROM ISRAEL. THAT WOULD BE AN EASY QUESTION? Show
>> WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. AND IT DOES GUARANTEE FEAR FROM EXERCISE. IT ALSO GUARANTEES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND A WHOLE LOT ELSE BESIDES AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS EXTEND EVEN TO UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS IN THIS COUNTRY COUNTRY. I WILL APPLY THE LAW FAITHFULLY AND FEARLESSLY AND WITHOUT REGARD TO PERSONS.
>> HOW ABOUT WITH REGARD TO RELIGION?
>> ANYONE, ANY LAW IS GOING TO GET A FAIR AND SQUARE DEAL WITH ME. MY JOB AS A JUDGE IS TO TREAT LITIGANTS WHO APPEAR IN FRONT OF ME AS I WISHED TO BE TREATED AS A LAWYER WITH MY CLIENT LARGE OR SMALL. I DIDN’T WANT THEM DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THEY WERE A LARGE COMPANY OR SMALL INDIVIDUAL WITH AN UNPOPULAR BELIEF AND THAT’S THE KIND OF JUDGE I’VE TRIED TO BE SENATOR. AND I THINK THAT’S MY RECORD.
>> JUDGE, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE A RELIGIOUS TEST IN THE UNITED STATES?
Maybe that’s true in the main, but there’s a reason that politicians try to spin things. And as spin goes, I think this particular one is a weak one.
What I said was "This and your other post are full of baseless assumptions about what I think of Trump or his popularity or Republican tactics etc. I’m not going to bother responding to any of this."
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.
It strikes me as average, as far as spin goes, but I think it’s superior to basing it on Garland or Obama, since it’s much more “ordinary”, which I think is the key in this particular instance.
I accidentally hit post and missed the edit window. I’m having copy paste problems with C-SPAN, but they go in generalities “SENATOR, WE HAVE NOT JUST THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE IN THIS COUNTRY, VERY IMPORTANT PROTECTION. WE HAVE NOT JUST THE EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, GENDER, ETHNICITY, WE ALSO HAVE THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT SENATOR HATCH MENTIONED WHICH WAS A BIPARTISAN BILL PASSED BY THIS BODY WITH THE SUPPORT OF SENATOR KENNEDY AND SENATOR SCHUMER WHEN HE WAS IN THE HOUSE. AND THAT IMPOSES AN EVEN HIGHER STANDARD ON THE GOVERNMENT THAN THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION. IT SAYS THAT THERE IF THERE’S ANY SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF BELIEF, EARNESTLY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF THE GOVERNMENT MUST MEET STRICT SCRUTINY BEFORE IT MAY REGULATE ON THAT BASIS. STRICT SCRUTINY BEING THE HIGHEST STANDARD KNOWN IN AMERICAN LAW.”
I read the move to the fact that other presidents have claimed that national security decisions are unreviewable to be a clear shift from religious freedom to executive power more generally. (The fact they they then move to treatment of detainees by the executive seems to support that).
I disagree that I made any baseless assumptions about you, or that I made anything up. That’s pretty much calling me a liar btw. I was responding to the actual words you posted. I was replying to your predictions of how the public will react to Democratic tactics. You are being overly defensive and accusatory. You made a post, I responded to your words. The rest of what you are saying about me is what is actually baseless here.
If you’re uncomfortable addressing my responses, then that’s fine, but its pretty sad to make accusations of me to excuse yourself from having to respond to things that you’d rather just ignore. Just ignore then. Your lack of response will be telling enough.
I think Garland is something that gets the base a lot more worked up and also strikes the average person as a legitimate grievance. Claiming to be opposed to Gorsuch over Russia doesn’t get the base worked up and strikes the average person as bogus and hence just a cover for obstructionism. So I don’t see much point in it.
FTR, I don’t know if the Democrats will in fact go full bore on that line. But I saw some comments from Schumer and Warren along those lines, so it looked like they might be angling in that direction.
Not a huge deal in the larger scheme of things, in any event.
There seems to be little doubt that Gorsuch will be confirmed, in the end. Only question is whether the filibuster goes with it. Hard to predict.
I stand by what I said. Feel free to report it.
I think the point of not making it publicly about Garland/Obama is that the big story becomes how the Republicans changed/eliminated the filibuster. “We’ll consider any nominee, and we considered and disapproved of this one” is less of a story than “We won’t consider any nominee except Garland”.
No need. You’re the one accusing me of things anyway. I’m just calling it out for what it is.
I stand by all of my posts as well. Difference is I’m replying to yours, you’re just playing whatever this game is to avoid responding to mine.
If that’s the way you need to go, then so be it. I think I asked fair questions based on things that you claimed. I feel confident that our fellow posters will see it that way as well.
I don’t see how the Russia angle is about “this one”. It amount to a position that no nominees should be approved until the Russia thing is resolved.
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.
Well, it’s about this particular instance (I should have phrased that differently). I think it’s less of a story than it would be if it was about Garland, but perhaps I’d slightly prefer if the Democrats just made it about Gorsuch’s responses and qualifications. We’ll find out if there’s a unified strategy, and what it is, when the vote comes around and Senators try and justify their votes.
In any case, I’ll be heartily pleased if the Democrats muster enough to block cloture, and disappointed if they don’t, no matter their justification. There’s absolutely nothing to gain, and plenty to lose, by cooperating in any way with what most Democrats (and many independents, I believe) believe is an illegitimate hijacking of a supreme court nomination.
It is not gorsuch and russia, it is the Trump administration and Russia that is the issue.
And yes, it does seem as though, while the president is under investigation by the FBI for colluding with Russia to influence our elections, it would be a good idea to hold off on approving any of his nominations to lifetime appointments until we can find out what connections or influences the president may have.
If you thought it was ridiculous that the republicans would not approve any nominee until Obama was out of office, then you’d have a leg to stand on. If you agreed with the republicans that a supreme court justice shouldn’t even get a meeting, much less a hearing and a vote, then being upset about Gorsuch’s nomination being looked into while we determine if our president is colluding with a foreign power makes your argument a tad hypocritical.