×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PutinPaysTrump 472 points473 points  (156 children)

For the good of the nation, Gorsuch should step down.

[–]u2krazie 317 points318 points  (57 children)

Jurist with integrity will not even consider the nomination. It doesn't pass the smell test. Now Gorsuch has an asterisk next to his name.

[–]tenaciousdeev Arizona 160 points161 points  (50 children)

I was thinking about this the other night. If the Dems regain the senate and a SCOTUS seat becomes available, I hope they lead by example instead of taking the high road just once to balance things out.

Then there should be an amendment with explicit rules on nominations, timelines, etc. It's not right what they got away with.

[–]amedema 11 points12 points  (48 children)

I hate it, but it was perfectly legal. Scummy and deserving of all the hate they got. Also, 100% Constitutional.

[–]ChocolateSunrise 51 points52 points  (5 children)

It is perfectly legal and 100% Constitutional to add 2 new justices to balance it out once the Dems control the Presidency and Senate.

[–]clev3rbanana 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Or 20.

[–]Franks2000inchTV 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Do you really want to start that particular arms race?

[–]Runyn 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Race began. They had a head start.

[–]ChocolateSunrise 19 points20 points  (0 children)

McConnell and his Republican cohorts already started the arms race so I am not willing to lose it if that's what you mean.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The old FDR move

[–]Lord_Noble Washington 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Legality/illegality is relative to time. I hope no future generation has to bear witness to such slimy partisanship, and the loopholes enabling these airbags are closed around their necks.

[–]AJRiddle 24 points25 points  (36 children)

Also, 100% Constitutional.

Kinda, it creates a constitutional crisis because the Constitution of the US never set a procedure for what happens if congress ignores the Presidents nomination.

I'd argue they were constitutionally required to have a vote on his nomination.

[–]I_Am_Ironman_AMA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I said from the beginning that it is an unresolved constitutional crisis that we are just ignoring.

[–]Alexhasskills 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Definitely not. The constitution requires consideration of all nominations. He was loudly not considered.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I disagree. If you have integrity, and Trump offers to nominate you to a position for life, you should take it, because the next fucker is guaranteed to be worse than you.

[–]Samhq 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Wow, excellent point actually. I wonder if that thought crossed Gorsuch's mind though

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doubt it. Gorsuch is about as partisan and sociopathic as a jurist can be while still being taken seriously. I was just pointing out the logical flaw.

[–]LetterSwapper California 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never thought I'd see a Supreme Court Justice have something in common with Barry Bonds*.

[–]gsfgf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And he's been out campaigning for Republicans. A complete disgrace.

[–]Fuck_The_West 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'm sure that piece of shit is just going to give up on his power trip

[–]cat_treatz 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Lolz, I'm sure he'll get right on that. Arch-conservatives aren't exactly the type to put their country above themselves, no matter how many tiny versions of the constitution they keep in their back pocket so they can wave around when they aren't sitting on it or how many tiny American flags they wave at their Russian-organized fundraisers (or sometimes tiny Russian flags even, do you guys remember when some comedian passed them out at a conservative conference and the attendees didn't know the difference?)

[–]Route_du_Rhum 33 points34 points  (85 children)

I'm not a fan of how Gorsuch became a Justice of the Supreme Court, and he and I disagree on quite a few things. That said, I think his situation is a bit more nuanced than simply being yet another Trump stooge. For example, he very recently voted with the liberal justices to limit the kinds of crimes a legal resident alien can be deported for (see here). It's not super clear cut, like Pruitt, who is irredeemably corrupt, or Zinke, who's a complete clown fucker.

He's devoutly religious and a fervent fan of the first amendment, specifically as it pertains to religious freedom. That, I think, will be the part of his tenure that will cause the most controversy.

[–]Gay-_-Jesus Mississippi 60 points61 points  (21 children)

He could be the literal reincarnation of Jesus Christ and he still wouldn’t be legitimate. He needs to be removed.

[–]King_Loatheb 7 points8 points  (3 children)

But he won't be.

So the best path forward is to figure out what to do next.

[–]fobfromgermany 1 point2 points  (1 child)

We do the exact same thing right back to them. Time to start stealing SCOTUS seats baby

[–]hit_or_mischief 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hell hath no fury like a dem scorned.

[–]Mexter-Dorgan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s better to be upset about things that will literally never happen.

[–]Levitlame 1 point2 points  (15 children)

He needs to be removed

Not really. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. It should have been stopped THEN. It's too late now. The precedent it would set to remove him now would be terrible.

[–]Gay-_-Jesus Mississippi -2 points-1 points  (14 children)

I disagree. Republicans don’t give a shit about precedent and we shouldn’t either. Just today they shit all over precedent and repealed portions of fair auto lending laws.

[–]Levitlame 1 point2 points  (13 children)

That's insane. Your solution to them destroying this country is to destroy it before they can?

And they should be stopping them from doing these things NOW. The solution isn't to go BACK and do it. Republicans DO care about precedent. They take something small Dems do and abuse it 10 times worse. So if Dems do this, then Reps will remove the whole court of Liberals. It's too late on this one.

[–]Gay-_-Jesus Mississippi -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

No, my solution is to refuse to roll over and accept defeat.

This isn’t over until we give up and I refuse to rest while Gorsuch is on the SCOTUS. You can if you want, and hell, if you think our best option is to move on, then by all means argue for it, but I’m not letting this go. This is not how our government was meant to run and I’m not conceding the issue.

[–]theferrit32 North Carolina 0 points1 point  (11 children)

There is absolutely no legal basis to remove Gorsuch from his position. He was appointed and approved in a 100% legal way, given the powers of Congress set out in the Constitution. If a Democrat Senate wants to do the same thing to a Republican President the next time that situation arises, then that is also 100% legal.

[–]Levitlame 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And this is the problem. We should fight to end horrible practices like this. As you say, we can't make things illegal that already happened. But the fact that that happened and nobody is stopping it from happening again is horrendous.

[–]theferrit32 North Carolina -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Stop what from happening again? Stop the Senate from not voting on a Presidential appointment?

[–]Gay-_-Jesus Mississippi 0 points1 point  (7 children)

The Senate can’t ignore a president’s nomination. The constitution gives them the power to advise and consent, not ignore. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Additionally, Congress needs no “legal basis” as you put it, to impeach and remove a SCOTUS seat.

[–]theferrit32 North Carolina 0 points1 point  (6 children)

The Senate definitely can ignore nominations if they so choose, you are just incorrect on that. Look at any of the last 4 presidents, for whom data is more accurate and available. All of them had on the order of hundreds of appointments sent to the Senate which were never voted on. It is less common to have a Supreme Court nomination not be voted on, because it has a larger impact on future policy making, but it is just one of the many appointments that can be made by an administration. Currently Trump has over 100 nominations which have yet to be addressed by the Senate. Similarly, when Obama (D) had a Democrat majority in Congress, there were well over a hundred unresolved executive appointments.

Congress could remove a SCOTUS seat, which you are correct in saying they have the power to do, but that is a separate course of action to just temporarily not filling a seat with a particular nominee.

[–]Hal_Grayson 86 points87 points  (57 children)

It doesn't matter. The seat was stolen. He was appointed by a traitor and it was made possible by other obstructionist traitors. He should be removed and Garland put in his place. But I'm not an idiot. I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

[–]sonofaresiii 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Hey leave the clowns out of this. They bring joy and/or fear to plenty of children!

[–]no_talent_ass_clown Washington 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My bretheren and...sisteren?...appreciate your taking our side in our defense.

[–]dannyr_wwe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s actually true for most people on SCOTUS. Though they can have a clear ideological bent, they are all profoundly intelligent legal scholars, and they are far less political and partisan than many think. For example, in 2013, 65% of cases were 9-0. Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_2014_why_are_most_cases_either_9_0_or_5_4.html

[–]ICanLiftACarUp Missouri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For example, he very recently voted with the liberal justices to limit the kinds of crimes a legal resident alien can be deported for

A decision that is pretty easy to make if I do say so myself. But when it comes to the power of corporations, or the rights of disenfranchised citizens, he'll side with conservatives 100% while we should have had Merrick Garland who would have been another toss-up/moderate on the court. Way less questionable than Gorsuch.

The GOP's block of Garland was also incredibly political against the President, for a court that is in dire need of neutrality. They essentially said "Garland isn't good enough for us to get over ourselves, we'd rather not do our jobs". That doesn't excuse Gorsuch from being a taint on the SC, and it sets an extremely bad precedent that the Senate can just ignore Presidential nominations because of election years (which happen every other year....).

[–]BruceLee1255 Wisconsin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it sets a bad precedent if we start yanking justices off of the SC just for how they got on there. Personally, I think that we should acknowledge that it was illegitimate by having a reconfirmation vote. Make sure everyone from both parties is on board with it and that we're reconfirming not on ideological grounds but based on the illegitimacy of the presidency. Reconfirm the guy legit, then let's move on.

[–]denverbikeguy 1 point2 points  (6 children)

The dude is more than qualified. It should have been someone else and Obama should have made the nomination, but it's not like Gorsuch is some jaggoff that shouldn't hold the position.

[–]PutinPaysTrump 0 points1 point  (5 children)

He was appointed by a traitor who was elected via foreign interference. Regardless of his qualifications he has no business on the bench.

[–]denverbikeguy 0 points1 point  (4 children)

k, so what the fuck do you think will happen if he steps down?

[–]PutinPaysTrump 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Gotta get a Dem President first

[–]denverbikeguy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

So you want him to step down, but wait until we get a dem President...

rofl

[–]PutinPaysTrump 0 points1 point  (1 child)

...yes?

[–]denverbikeguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't tell if you're serious or just circlejerking

[–]IngsocInnerParty Illinois 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If Trump ends up being removed from office, I think you have to impeach Gorsuch too. How can a nomination by a tainted President be valid?

[–]Seanay-B 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no motivation to. It's not like someone else wouldn't get nominated, and who knows how bad that person will be? We could've had way worse than Gorsuch

[–]ReefOctopus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That won’t happen. Let’s hope he’s another Souter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter#Expected_conservatism