Lots of discussion this week about Trump’s accomplishments in his first 100 days in office. One thing that I keep hearing touted as a “significant accomplishment” is getting his SCOTUS nominee confirmed.
Really? It seems to me that once Trump was elected, his SCOTUS nominee was a given. Mitch McConnell basically threw out every precedent when he refused to even hold hearings on Obama’s nominee, and still had to change Senate rules eliminating the filibuster in order to get Gorsuch confirmed. If anything, it seems to me that it’s McConnell’s accomplishment, not Trump’s. So why does Trump get the credit and why is everyone acting like it is such a big deal?
For Trump, actually following through on a stated plan is a significant accomplishment. There was always a little cause for someone to worry that he’d shred the list and nominate his sister or Judge Judy or a random Fox News host.
Really, though, the people I’ve seen issuing that praise are the kind of people who really love form over function. The same kind of people who were endlessly thrilled by George W. Bush declaring mission accomplished on the carrier, and who thought Trump “really became president” when he successfully read a speech to Congress.
Well,it is a big deal in and of itself. But you’re right that it is not in any way shape or form, an “accomplishment” for President Trump. It’s not an accomplishment for McConnel either. A Republican President signs off on a Republican justice and send the nomination to a Republican Senate for confirmation.
I am reminded of an old sports joke/insult joke. Two teams, each representing a group who everyone thinks poorly of, play football against each other. They both struggle mightily but ineptly for three quarters. Then a railroad train goes through town nearby and blows it’s whistle, and one of the teams is so idiotic that they think the games over, and they leave. Five plays later, the other team scores.
While I am no fan of Gorsuch and appalled at how the republicans stole that seat (not hyperbole…they stole it) I was amazed that Trump nominated someone almost normal which for Trump seems to be an accomplishment (I think it is inarguable that the bar is set very, very low when it comes to Trump and what we would consider an accomplishment of his. Kinda like how you gush over the stick figure drawings that your five year old gives you as fine art worthy of posting on the refrigerator. No Rembrandt but then we don’t expect them to be.)
If Gorsuch had been nominated by Bush in the middle of his presidency I wouldn’t be thrilled but would say he deserves confirmation to the court.
As is I think Gorsuch should be impeached and removed from office at the earliest opportunity. Not because of qualifications but because it was stolen. Put Garland in his place. If a future republican president wants to nominate Gorsuch in the normal course of events fine.
Another metric I hear over and over from the talking heads on TV media is that Trump has “re-engaged” the US on the international stage.
Frankly, I’m baffled by the suggestion that the US was ever not engaged with the world outside its borders in any meaningful way prior to Trump. Even more so at the suggestion that Trump’s “engagement” with the world is being evaluated as a net positive. Especially since the majority of non-US talking heads appear to have a pretty negative opinion of Trump and his foreign policies.
Is US based media reaching here? Desperately grasping for some positive spin in light of the largely failed domestic policy and accomplishments to date? I think so.
Though Trump has a Republican majority Senate, it is not a 60 seat Republican advantage.
Trump faced quite a bit of public resistance from within the Republican ranks with several Senators openly opposing him. Several publicaly stated they were not voting for Trump in the general election in November. It was not a forgone conclusion that these same Senators would not break ranks and refuse to kill the filibuster.
In the end Trump put forward a nominee who was acceptable to the never-Trump subset of Republican Senators, enough so that they were willing to kill the filibuster in order to seat the nominee. So Trump accomplished something by making an acceptable choice.
If it was any other Republican president, even given the stonewalling of the Garland nomination, I don’t think making the “right” choice (one acceptable to the party) would have been considered any accomplishment at all.
I have to wonder how much input Trump even had into the choice of Gorsuch in the first place. Yeah, they said he was on the list of prospective nominees that Trump had put together between the election and the inauguration, but I seriously doubt Trump put that list together himself, or even had any input into it at all. I would suspect it was delegated to some staffer, because I don’t see Trump being detail oriented enough – and have enough of an attention span – to research and assemble a list himself. And when it came time to pick a nominee, it’s easy to believe someone just pointed to Gorsuch’s name on the list and that’s who Trump went with.
Is there any record of Trump and Gorsuch interacting, or even being in the same room, prior to the announcement of the nomination? I have to assume they met at least once
I think you’ve just shown how the judicial nominations can escalate further still. Maybe one day in the future it will become routine for a party and President of the same party to impeach all the justices that weren’t nominated by his party and replace them with judges more to their liking.
It would be interesting to hear what grounds Whack-A-Mole thinks could be used to impeach Gorsuch. Judges are supposed to hold their offices during good conduct - presumably their own. I am not clear on how “the Senate didn’t hold hearings on someone else” constitutes bad conduct on Gorsuch’s part.
I love all the riled up folks on the stolen SCOTUS seat. A concept 1st suggested by Biden and Schumer back in the Bush days.
Does anyone here, anyone, have any doubt whatsoever if the tables were turned and it was the last 6 months of the Bush Administration, with the strong potential of Obama coming into office, that Reid and Schumer would have hesitated for even a nanosecond to block the Bush nominee in the same manner?
If so progressives state your case and I’ll try and hold back my laughter reading it. Sorry your fake anger does not cut it with me.
If Gorsuch had not been confirmed, Trump would be getting the blame. So it’s not unreasonable for him to get the credit when Gorsuch was confirmed. I don’t really see it as an accomplishment, but for whatever it’s worth, it’s his success story.
I do, to an extent. They’d at least have kept up the appearance of exercising their discretion to advise and consent, rather than openly admitting that they weren’t going to consider any nominee.
While there would be many problems with him nominating a blood relative who is nearly 80, you seriously think a woman who was an Assitant US Attorney, Federal District Judge for 15 years and Court of Appeal Judge for near 20 is the same level as Judge Judy or Hannity? She would be more qualified than Kagan was at least and at least as qualified as Alito.