# Trump's First Supreme Court Nominee **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665 "2017-01-31T15:33:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/161 "2017-02-09T00:34:54Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19832307&postcount=343), **DrDeth** , is the exact post by **Iggy** where he already disproved your complaint (he has quite a few excellent ones throughout that whole thread). I don’t know if you didn’t read it the first time, or just dismissed it, as, like, his opinion, man. Great…So, I am supposed to be reassured that there are some somewhat parallel cases back in the times when slavery was still legal? I really hope the Senators ask Gorsuch a lot of questions, both hypothetical and not hypothetical, about the treatment of Garland. It seems like a good thing to probe: If Gorsuch is not willing to condemn this sort of thing, then I think it is a good reason to vote against him. And, if he is, then at least he can help show what total scumbags the current Republican crime syndicate is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/162 "2017-02-09T00:45:12Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Great…So, I am supposed to be reassured that there are some somewhat parallel cases back in the times when slavery was still legal? > > I really hope the Senators ask Gorsuch a lot of questions, both hypothetical and not hypothetical, about the treatment of Garland. It seems like a good thing to probe: If Gorsuch is not willing to condemn this sort of thing, then I think it is a good reason to vote against him. And, if he is, then at least he can help show what total scumbags the current Republican crime syndicate is. If I were the nominee, I’d decline to answer that question. My opinions on the political machinations of the Senate are irrelevant to my role as a federal judge. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/163 "2017-02-09T00:54:08Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Great…So, I am supposed to be reassured that there are some somewhat parallel cases back in the times when slavery was still legal? > > I really hope the Senators ask Gorsuch a lot of questions, both hypothetical and not hypothetical, about the treatment of Garland. It seems like a good thing to probe: If Gorsuch is not willing to condemn this sort of thing, then I think it is a good reason to vote against him. And, if he is, then at least he can help show what total scumbags the current Republican crime syndicate is. It is not remotely Gorsuch’s place to comment on the political gamesmanship between the President and the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/164 "2017-02-09T01:15:51Z")
So far, nine Democratic Senators have said they will not filibuster Gorsuch (unless they are weaseling on what “a vote” means, and will later claim that filibuster is a “vote”) Durbin: “I will meet with Judge Gorsuch and support a hearing and a vote for him” Blumenthal: “I will support having a hearing and a vote” McCaskill: “We should have a full confirmation hearing process and a vote on any nominee for the supreme court” Coons: “I will push for a hearing and I will push for a vote.” Manchin: "I’m not going to filibuster anybody.” Heitkamp: “Asked if the nominee should also get a straight up-or-down vote rather than be blocked by a filibuster, she replied: ‘Absolutely.’” Tester: “Have a hearing and vote.” Donnelly: "As I have said part of our job as Senators includes considering, debating, and voting on judicial nominations, including the Supreme Court. I will carefully review and consider the record and qualifications of Neil Gorsuch.” Shaheen: “Everybody I’ve talked to agrees he should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.” ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/165 "2017-02-09T01:19:51Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > So far, nine Democratic Senators have said they will not filibuster Gorsuch (unless they are weaseling on what “a vote” means, and will later claim that filibuster is a “vote”) Is that like weaseling on what “advice and consent” means, and later claiming that means “doing nothing”? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/166 "2017-02-09T01:21:15Z")
_Shaheen: “Everybody I’ve talked to agrees he should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.”_ Exactly how can this mean a filibuster? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/167 "2017-02-09T01:23:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I were the nominee, I’d decline to answer that question. My opinions on the political machinations of the Senate are irrelevant to my role as a federal judge. He did comment previously on the treatment of judges in the confirmation process, as it turned out, coincidently, one being the treatment of Garland when he was nominated for a lower Court: [http://www.slate.com/blogs/the\_slatest/2017/01/31/trump\_supreme\_court\_pick\_gorsuch\_lamented\_treatment\_of\_merrick\_garland.html](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/31/trump_supreme_court_pick_gorsuch_lamented_treatment_of_merrick_garland.html) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/168 "2017-02-09T01:40:49Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Great…So, I am supposed to be reassured that there are some somewhat parallel cases back in the times when slavery was still legal? Maybe you didn’t read from the beginning, but this isn’t about reassuring you. It’s about correcting factual inaccurate info form another poster. > [@](#): > > I really hope the Senators ask Gorsuch a lot of questions, both hypothetical and not hypothetical, about the treatment of Garland. It seems like a good thing to probe: If Gorsuch is not willing to condemn this sort of thing, then I think it is a good reason to vote against him. And, if he is, then at least he can help show what total scumbags the current Republican crime syndicate is. I agree with **Bricker**. I would decline to answer. What the Senate does is up to the Senate. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2017, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/169 "2017-02-09T06:23:40Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Great…So, I am supposed to be reassured that there are some somewhat parallel cases back in the times when slavery was still legal? > > _ **I really hope the Senators ask Gorsuch a lot of questions, both hypothetical and not hypothetical, about the treatment of Garland. It seems like a good thing to probe: If Gorsuch is not willing to condemn this sort of thing, then I think it is a good reason to vote against him. And, if he is, then at least he can help show what total scumbags the current Republican crime syndicate is** _. Just had this idea today too. I’m bolding for emphasis. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/170 "2017-02-09T14:22:57Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > _Shaheen: “Everybody I’ve talked to agrees he should get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.”_ > > Exactly how can this mean a filibuster? The “up-or-down vote” is exactly where the filibuster would happen. Gorsuch can’t be filibustered until he’s cleared the committee. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/171 "2017-02-09T16:22:40Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [Gorsuch ‘Demoralized’ by Trump Bashing ‘So-Called Judge’](http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/02/08/gorsuch-demoralized-by-trump-bashing-judiciary.html) > Good move, Cheeto. > > CNN just reported that the White House confirmed Judge Gorsuch’s remarks. Reuters reports that Trump says Gorsuch didn’t say those things. “Trump disputes account of remarks by U.S. Supreme Court pick” - [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-idUSKBN15O1K4](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-trump-idUSKBN15O1K4) > [@](#): > > U.S President Donald Trump on Thursday disputed multiple accounts that his nominee for the Supreme Court had expressed dismay over his attacks on judges, saying without evidence that Judge Neil Gorsuch’s comments had been misrepresented… Well, dang-- who ya gonna believe? 😕 :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/172 "2017-02-09T17:44:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe you didn’t read from the beginning, but this isn’t about reassuring you. It’s about correcting factual inaccurate info form another poster. > > . Yes, I correct the factual inaccuracies from other posters by cites from reputable sources. Thank you for acknowledging that! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/173 "2017-02-09T17:51:22Z")
Definitely unprecedented: No other US black president has had his SCOTUS nominee blocked in this manner. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2017, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/174 "2017-02-09T22:10:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, I correct the factual inaccuracies from other posters by cites from reputable sources. Thank you for acknowledging that! 😛 What was factually inaccurate in my post? Cite please. Are you disputing the timeline of the SCOTUS nominees in the Tyler administration I discussed? Boil it down and my post really entails congressional records combined with a calendar. Not a lot of analysis. Nomination for candidate X was put forth on date Y. The Senate tabled/voted on/ignored in Z manner. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/175 "2017-02-09T22:23:46Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > When you say “just before” do you mean in two years? Well, for example, West Virginia’s primary date is May 8, 2018. If Joe Manchin invites a left-wing challenger by refusing to go along with most Dems in sustaining a filibuster, that’s a problem he’ll be dealing with in March / April of next year, so it’s more like 13 months away. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2017, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/176 "2017-02-09T22:31:16Z")
But that’s the opposite of the concern you raised. You said filibustering Trump’s choice would be dangerous in Trumpland. I doubt there’s going to be a li’l Trump in the Dem primaries. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/177 "2017-02-10T18:15:33Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > What was factually inaccurate in my post? Cite please. > > Are you disputing the timeline of the SCOTUS nominees in the Tyler administration I discussed? > . I am not disputing- _recognized legal scholars_ are disputing. \*Legal experts \*say it was “unprecedented” . Altho I appreciate your \*opinion \*that it wasn’t, allow me to accept the opinion of actual experts. And when you state your \*opinion \*as fact, and it is contradicted by experts, you are _factually inaccurate_. ---
**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:** [February 10, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/178 "2017-02-10T19:58:18Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I am not disputing- _recognized legal scholars_ are disputing. \*Legal experts \*say it was “unprecedented” . > > Altho I appreciate your \*opinion \*that it wasn’t, allow me to accept the opinion of actual experts. > > And when you state your \*opinion \*as fact, and it is contradicted by experts, you are _factually inaccurate_. Gotcha. You got nothing. Unprecedented is a label that could be applied to damn near any nomination if only you qualify it enough. By failing to specify in what way you, or in your stead some legal scholars, consider the nomination battle to be unprecedented you make a meaningless assertion. ---
**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:** [February 10, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/179 "2017-02-10T20:48:51Z")
More Supreme Court history… Let’s meet George Henry Williams, nominated to the US Supreme Court by President Grant on December 1, 1873. On the surface his resume looks good. He was the former Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court and current Attorney General of the United States at the time of his nomination to the US Supreme Court. A surefire winner, right? Not exactly. Some rumors started circulating that Williams had drawn upon the credit of the Justice Department to cover some personal purchases. And though he repaid those sums in full with his own funds it was enough to earn him a Senatorial snub. And so when it came time for the Senate to act on the nomination… they didn’t. The Senate did nothing. Williams asked President Grant to withdraw his nomination and Grant sent a [letter to the Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Henry_Williams#/media/File:Williams_Withdrawal.JPG) to that effect. Now to the grand rule espoused by law professors Robin Bradley Kar and Jason Mazzone that \*\*Dr Deth \*\*is relying upon… > [@](#): > > Whenever a Supreme Court vacancy has existed during an elected President’s term and this President has acted prior to the election of a successor, the sitting President has been able to both nominate and appoint someone to fill the relevant vacancy—by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. We see that it is full of qualifiers. [ul][li]Only applies to \*elected \*presidents, not those who assumed office on the death of their successor.[/li][li]Only applies to nominations made prior to the election of the next president[/li][li]Nominates and appoints _someone_, but fails to mention that it was not always the president’s first choice.[/li][li]Does not apply to recess appointments.[/li][/ul] So let’s ignore nominations made by Presidents Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ. That’s 15% of our presidents. Let’s ignore the nomination of Read by Tyler since that was after the election. Let’s ignore nominees who were ignored or rejected by the Senate like George Williams under Grant since Morrison Waite was eventually confirmed. Let’s ignore John Rutledge, appointed Chief Justice by George Washington. The Senate rejected the nomination once they were again in session. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665/180 "2017-02-11T05:36:44Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Gotcha. You got nothing. > > Unprecedented is a label that could be applied to damn near any nomination if only you qualify it enough. By failing to specify in what way you, or in your stead some legal scholars, consider the nomination battle to be unprecedented you make a meaningless assertion. I gave you the cites by legal scholars. You gave us your opinion. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html?\_r=1](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html?_r=1) \*That categorical stance is new in the nation’s history, the professors, Robin Bradley Kar and Jason Mazzone, wrote in a study published online by The New York University Law Review. The Senate has never before transferred a president’s appointment power in comparable circumstances to an unknown successor, they said — an argument that many Democratic lawmakers have also made. In every one of the 103 earlier Supreme Court vacancies, the professors wrote, the president was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement with the Senate’s advice and consent. This did not always happen on the first try, they wrote, but it always happened.\* > **[Senate hold on Merrick Garland nomination is unprecedented, almost](https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/senate_hold_on_merrick_garland_nomination_is_unprecedented_almost/)** > > The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. [http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/%20NYULawReviewOnline-91-Kar-Mazzone.pdf](http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/%20NYULawReviewOnline-91-Kar-Mazzone.pdf) That is a 106 page peer reviewed study with cites and charts. That makes _your opinion=_ “You got nothing.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-first-supreme-court-nominee/778665.md?page=10)