Yes. But not with the guy he wanted.
No.
But this formulation seems to suggest Democrats are permitted to break established custom, and in response the MOST Republicans can do is break it to the same extent. Democrats got to Bork Bork, and that’s not only acceptable but also defines the limits of future boundary pushes?
Why would I possibly agree to that rule, Miller?
Not the first guy he wanted. But he did get his guy in there.
I thought your argument was that Republicans are, in fact, breaking custom to the same extent Democrats did when they blocked Bork? Are you now admitting that this really does represent a significant escalation of the politicization of the Supreme Court?
A guy that was a compromise.
Not his guy.
“Significant?” Not at all. I agree it was an escalation. But my point with respect to the Bork catastrophe is that you, or Democrats generally, can’t escalate and then object to escalation in turn. Why should only Democrats be the ones to escalate, and Republicans required to respond only to the limits the Democrats have set? Asking again why you think I would possibly agree to such a rule?
Maybe the Democrats deserve a lot of criticism for Bork, but that was decades ago, and few involved are still around. On the other hand, the Republicans just did this. Seems to me that it’s entirely reasonable for Democrats who weren’t involved with Bork to harshly criticize the actions of the Republicans.
As should you, IMO.
I disagree. Bork changed things forever. It’s not like the Democrats had a change of heart after Bork and were never going to do that again. Everyone on both sides knew that the rules had changed, permanently.
The real seat the Democrats “stole” with the Bork vote wasn’t the Bork/Kennedy seat. It was David Souter. This guy has been a reliable liberal vote on the court for decades, appointed by a Republican president. Because GHWB knew he couldn’t get a true conservative past the Senate - because of Bork - and had to appoint a stealth candidate with no record. So that’s how the Democrats ended up with a liberal (though of course, they mostly opposed him at the time).
This doesn’t refute what I wrote, even if it’s true.
You’re both considerably more charitable than I would be.
I’ve said that I believe that not only should Garland have been given a hearing, but confirmed.
I said it when he was nominated and when the Senate stonewalled him.
But I absolutely understand the tactical decision not to. I don’t agree it’s the right way to approach things, but I don’t regard it as a horrid excursion into new territory.
And I absolutely reject this idea that Democrats can escape the payback by merely pointing to the age of the offense; Kennedy is still on the bench.
But let me ask you: in thirty years, will you likely find yourself agreeable to not regarding the Garland shafting as relevant in decision-making?
See, iiandyiiii, I think that much of your “acceptable,” calculus derives from a flexible standard where the Democrats are generally doing the right thing, and so transgressions of procedure and practice are regarded leniently, as peccadillos in service of the Good; Republicans are generally doing the wrong thing and so their transgressions are to be strictly accounted and their actions strictly weighed.
Just a sense I have, based on your posts.
Don’t be too hard on K9. It seems that since the last election, (and probably before), facts are no longer required in Great Debates.
Who was mainly done in by the Republicans themselves: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/08/us/ginsburg-withdraws-name-as-supreme-court-nominee-citing-marijuana-clamor.html?pagewanted=all
Well, that’s a game that someone can always play, i.e., to claim that a difference is not significant. However, you seem to be one of the only people who is unable to see the significance of the difference.
He nominated him, right?
His guy.
When you say, “you,” who exactly do you mean? If you mean me personally, well, I was all of twelve years old when Bork’s nomination went down in flames. My ability to influence events was pretty sharply limited, as was my general knowledge of what was going on at the time. From my perspective, the level of politicization represented by blocking the Bork nomination has been the status quo for my entire life as an adult, plus six years. But, apparently, because someone with a D after their name did something back when I was in grade school, I can’t hold a particular position without being labelled a hypocrite?
Sure, sounds fair.
Anyway, if your position is that the Republicans had no choice but to escalate (thirty years) after the Bork affair, it obviously follows that the Democrats are similarly bereft of choice, right? So, let’s say that the Dems do really well in 2018, and in 2020 regain control of congress. You would have no objection to, I dunno… impeaching Gorsuch, just because we can? That’s fair, right? Just so long as we can point to the other side and say, “They do it, too”?
This line of reasoning appears to rest on an assumption that the act of finding that a judge-designate to the court of Appeals is fit to serve on that court tantamount to finding that the same judge-designate, now an actual judge with an eleven-year judicial record, is fit to serve on SCOTUS. Speaking for myself, I would not be eager to defend such an assumption.
To be sure, I proudly state my position that no Trump nominee should be confirmed to ANYTHING. But that’s just a time-saver. Finding him unsuitable based on his judicial philosophy (as expressed by his judicial record, his published writings, and his responses to the Judiciary Committee’s questioning) is perfectly valid.
It doesn’t matter. You and Schumer are entitled to your opinions, for sure, they just don’t matter. Dems don’t have the votes to prevent Gorsuch from being nominated.
If this goes like your pre-election “decree that it is unacceptable for a Republican to ever be elected POTUS,” I expect Gorsuch to be confirmed quite swiftly.
So what about Franken’s “absurd result” point?
As far as I can tell, Gorsuch made no effort to defend his ruling on those grounds. Why not, if that was his logic? Why did no other judges see fit to agree with him? He was the only one doing the right thing?
Is there an extant example of a “cruel” law staying on the books and being applied cruelly because hey, it says what it says? What happened as a result?
It’s possible, as the reverse characterization is for you.
As for 30 years from now, my judgment will depend on what the Senate does between now and then.
What other choice did the driver have? Quod est necessarium est licitum. (What is necessary is lawful.)
Of course not. He’s already BEEN nominated.
I believe it does. What you wrote is that Bork is no longer relevant. I explained why Bork is still relevant today.
I think it was imprecise in that Gorsuch wasn’t directly being overturned, and lacking context in that it didn’t contain the info that Gorsuch was relying on an earlier standard versus creating his own. But it was technically OK, in that Gorsuch’s ruling was presumably overturned in the process of the SC decision, since the “more than dimininus” standard that he used in that ruling was rejected.