Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.
For the good of the nation, Gorsuch should step down.
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.
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.
I hate it, but it was perfectly legal. Scummy and deserving of all the hate they got. Also, 100% Constitutional.
It is perfectly legal and 100% Constitutional to add 2 new justices to balance it out once the Dems control the Presidency and Senate.
Do you really want to start that particular arms race?
Race began. They had a head start.
McConnell and his Republican cohorts already started the arms race so I am not willing to lose it if that's what you mean.
The old FDR move
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.
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 said from the beginning that it is an unresolved constitutional crisis that we are just ignoring.
The president nominated a Justice and the Congress refused to even give a hearing. If they did not want Merrick Garland, the proper channel was to give a hearing and vote no. It was disgraceful, unprecedented, and in my honest opinion unconstitutional to abdicate that responsibility. It has set a horrendous precedent that will only continue to be abused as we get more partisan.
Are you kidding? The Constitution of the United States clearly states that when the President nominates a Supreme Court Justice then the Senate votes on said nominee.
Not doing that is not following the Constitution. They are always free to vote no.
It's not a flimsy argument at all - constitutional crisis means a point where the constitution doesn't have a clear outcome predefined.
You are ignoring the fact that the constitution is 100% unclear on this issue and pretending that means they can just do (nearly) whatever they want.
He should have nominated, and when Congress was silent, appointed. The Constitution does clearly give the President the power to appoint. I would argue that silence is consent. If they had a problem with the nominee, they'd say something. Otherwise, the President appoints. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
What do you mean? Wasn't there a vote in the Senate that decided 54-45 in favour of his nomination?
We are talking about Merrick Garland who never even got a committee meeting let alone a vote.
Definitely not. The constitution requires consideration of all nominations. He was loudly not considered.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2
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.
Wow, excellent point actually. I wonder if that thought crossed Gorsuch's mind though
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.
Never thought I'd see a Supreme Court Justice have something in common with Barry Bonds*.
And he's been out campaigning for Republicans. A complete disgrace.
Yeah I'm sure that piece of shit is just going to give up on his power trip
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?)
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.
He could be the literal reincarnation of Jesus Christ and he still wouldn’t be legitimate. He needs to be removed.
But he won't be.
So the best path forward is to figure out what to do next.
We do the exact same thing right back to them. Time to start stealing SCOTUS seats baby
Hell hath no fury like a dem scorned.
It’s better to be upset about things that will literally never happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stop what from happening again? Stop the Senate from not voting on a Presidential appointment?
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.
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.
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.
It wasn't stolen. It was given away to a qualified candidate in a fully legal manner.
This is only true if we conveniently ignore Obama's own appointee, Merrick Garland. AKA, this is only true if you deliberately exclude the evidence that proves it not to be true.
Stop doing that.
Obama nominated Merrick Garland. If you actually read the US Constitution, you will see that the president does indeed have the power to nominate people, but Congress is explicitly given the final say on any Supreme Court nomination and whether that person gets the seat. If it was a case of a Democrat Congress denying a Republican president nominee to the Supreme Court I would be saying the exact same thing.
If it was a case of a Democrat Congress denying a Republican president nominee to the Supreme Court I would be saying the exact same thing.
And I would also be saying the same thing, that the seat was stolen.
If you actually read the US Constitution, you will see that the president does indeed have the power to nominate people, but Congress is explicitly given the final say on any Supreme Court nomination and whether that person gets the seat.
I'm not sure if you've read the Constitution - Congress doesn't "have final say", they have a duty to confirm or deny the nominee. That, of course, comes with the hearings and other procedure that goes with reviewing a nominee.
They never did any of those. They refused to even hear the nomination. They were functionally denying Pres. Obama the right to make a nominee on the basis that "it was an election year".
You're portraying this as though Judge Garland had gone through the process only to be rejected. If that were the case, I'd be perfectly fine with everything you're saying, but that's not what happened. Turtle Man actively denied the nominee even a chance to be heard, which is counter to the duties that the Senate have:
"[the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law"
Article 2, Section 2, US Constitution.
Neither Advice nor Consent were given, therefore the seat was stolen. You should note that this obligation of the Senate is listed under the duties and powers of the President - this is not a leisure or privilege of the Senate, but a duty they have to the Executive Office.
If the Senate does not consent to a Supreme Court appointment, the person doesn't get the job. There is literally nothing else to discuss. Nothing in the Constitution requires that the Senate explicitly vote to deny a nominee. The only requirement is that in order for an appointee to get the job, that the Senate vote affirmative on it.
I've gone into this in the other comment chain, but TL;DR - I cannot read that excerpt as anything other than defining what the Senate's role in confirming appointments is, and a role is a duty. The Senate has a duty to give Advice and Consent when filling appointments.
They don't have any duty to give consent. An appointment requires Senate approval. If an appointment does not receive Senate approval, it does not go through. I don't know how many times I'm going to need to repeat this to you and others in this thread. Any insinuation that the GOP was acting maliciously or that most of the country would have been okay with Garland on the SCOTUS is really not relevant to the discussion. The Senate is elected, and can choose to approve an appointment, or to not.
Did the Senate ever give Advice on Merrick Garland? No, they didn't. The only person who did anything close to Advice or Consent was the Senate turtle, Mitch McConnell. The Senate never officially gave advice or consent, and therefore were prevented from doing their duties. Hell, I'd even be okay if there had been a vote as to whether they should even bother with hearing the nomination at all and all the Republicans had voted it down - that would qualify as "Advice", that the Senate as a body (or at the last the majority of the body) is not going to hear this nomination. But the Senate never did anything.
If you think otherwise, feel free to explain your side. I'm open to changing most of my positions given a cogent and convincing argument as opposed to a personal attack with no substance to it. Though somehow I doubt you have any greater constitutional knowledge and just think yourself superior.
They never exercised their right and duty to a final say. The never held a hearing. Rejecting the nominee requires a hearing.
Wrong. Presidential appointment to the Supreme Court requires Senate approval. Lack of Senate approval means no appointment. That is what the Constitution says. There is no requirement anywhere in the law that they go through a full voting process.
What about the one who was elected in 2012 and was denied his legal right as President to appoint a Justice?
Congress has the power to deny or approve.
They abdicated this responsibility by refusing to hold hearings. They violated the Constitution.
Wrong. Nowhere doesn't say that Congress must vote on nominations. It says that to be finalized, a nomination must be approved by Congress. Consider it like a pocket veto by Congress.
he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...
And if the Senate doesn't consent, the person doesn't get the job. That's all there is to it. Nothing else matters. The Senate is elected, and is given the power to decide on Supreme Court justices. The president's further opinion on whether Congress should have approved his nominee is entirely irrelevant.
You're correct in that Congress has the final say, however they failed their job in that they refused to vet any of the nominations the president made, going so far as to say that they would continue the blockade if Hillary had won the presidency.
Their excuse was "the American people should decide who gets the seat" and were holding it hostage for the election. The American people had already decided, by voting for a president who in turn made a nomination. Congress owns that failing for refusing to do their job out of spite and malice, directly spitting in the face of the American people.
The people also elected Congress, and the US Constitution does and always has given Congress the final say on nominations. You claim Congress failed their job by not approving Garland, but in their job description, they are explicit given the power to reject nominations. I agree that Garland would have been a good Justice, however I also recognize it is fully Congress' power to override the president.
Much of your comment is unnecessary opinion spewing and can be ignored. The core issue is what is the power of the president, and what is the power of Congress, which you do not seem to care about
I also find it funny that you state I don't seem to care about the powers respective to the president and those respective to Congress, and state that the majority of my comment is unnecessary opinion. There is only a single sentence of opinion in the comment, the rest being stated fact.
Moreso, it seems to be you who does not care about the actual powers and job of Congress, specifically when it comes to their role in the assignment of a supreme court justice. They didn't do their job and reject the nomination. They just didn't do their job at all and refused to hear any of the nomination, full stop.
If I went in to work and didn't do the tasks I was hired for because I didn't like the boss, I would be fired. Why are you giving Congress a free pass for doing the exact same thing?
The president can pocket veto things by neglecting to approve them. Congress can do the same, and does it all the time. The vast majority of motions and bills that exist in Congress never see a vote, and in fact never make it out the the committee that they originated in.
They never rejected the nomination. They refused to hold a hearing to exercise their right and duty to approve or reject. They blocked having a hearing and that’s what’s held against them.
They didn't reject Garland. They refused to have any hearing on the nomination and, by their own words, planned to refuse to hear the nominations that Hillary presented, had she won.
That is not them utilizing their power to override the president, nor is it then doing their job as laid out in the Constitution. That's them refusing to do the job they were elected to do, that people elected them to do.
There is a difference between "we, as elected officials, do not agree with the president nomination and as such will reject the nomination, as is our job" and "we, as elected officials, will not hear any nominations unless they come from a Republican president."
There is no opinion or conjecture in these words, it's just the facts.
If congress does not approve a nominee, they don't get the job. It is really as simple as that. There is nothing else to discuss. If you want Congress to approve a nominee, then put pressure on Congress to do so or vote other members in.
That being said, it shouldn't cause any controversy if Dems take control of the Senate and block Trump from any future judicial appointments.
Sure, that's fully within the powers given to Congress by the Constitution. People can complain and put pressure on Congress if they disagree, but to argue that Congress is violating the law or the judge is stealing from other candidates is untrue. I would have no problem with a Democratic majority Congress denying Republican SCOTUS candidates.
They did it maliciously. There was no attempt to consider the nomination. That is not in the spirit of the power they are afforded. So call it what you will, legal, etc. It's an abuse of power, just like every slimy loophole Trump finds or creates.
It's not an abuse of power. It's an explicit power granted directly to the US Senate by the US Constitution. You may consider it malicious because you liked the nominee, however nothing about the situation constituted a loophole or abuse of power.
Congress has the final say on Supreme Court nominees. Full stop. There is absolutely no ambiguity about that. A Democrat majority Congress would have the exact same power over SCOTUS nominations done by a Republican president.
Congress never exercised their right and duty to a final say, since no hearing was ever held.
Then why did this current Senate specifically state that it is the next president's duty to select a nominee, despite all 103 other nominations being headed by the sitting president? They seemed to reach common ground in the past? This is unprecedented... But go ahead and say they had to power to. That's not the point. Maybe the Senate was continuing their unprecedented blockade of many things Obama touched. Maybe they were complicit in the Russian meddling and expected Trump to win.
Your comment is complete speculation and irrelevant to the fact that Congress has absolute and unlimited power to oversee presidential appointments. This is true regardless of the party of anyone involved. Congress has also never removed a sitting president from office through impeachment. That doesn't mean if they were to do it now that the unprecedented-ness means they're malicious and breaking the law. Congress also has the absolute power to remove a president from office, even though it is difficult to do so.
Thank you. Certain subreddits foster communities that are largely unable to accept exceptions to their narrative because so few people take the time to calmly present challenges to it. Unfortunately many posts and topics (not all) on r/politics are like that, though they are certainly not the only one.
Hey leave the clowns out of this. They bring joy and/or fear to plenty of children!
My bretheren and...sisteren?...appreciate your taking our side in our defense.
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
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....).
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.
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.
He was appointed by a traitor who was elected via foreign interference. Regardless of his qualifications he has no business on the bench.
k, so what the fuck do you think will happen if he steps down?
Gotta get a Dem President first
So you want him to step down, but wait until we get a dem President...
I can't tell if you're serious or just circlejerking
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?
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
That won’t happen. Let’s hope he’s another Souter.
/r/Politics is for news and discussion about U.S. politics.
Welcome to r/politics! Please read the wiki before participating.
Our Full Rules
AMA with Sonam Sheth
AMA with Chris Rogers
AMA with Mike Warren
AMA with Connor McCoy
AMA with Aplus
AMA with Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog
Here are some external resources that might be useful.