Gorsuch Confirmed; SCOTUS Back to Nine Justices

**HoustonRaven** · 04-07-2017, 03:44 PM

In the midst of the Syria hoopla, Gorsuch was confirmed today, filling the seat left behind by the passing of Scalia.

I, for one, am glad the Senate rules were changed to accomidate his confirmation. The long standing tradition in this country for quite some time was that elections had their consequences and one of those consequences was the President getting what he wanted in terms of judicial appointments.

Then Sen Kennedy and the Democrats came along and decided to make political hay of the process by blocking Judge Bork and committing the "high tech lynching" on Clarence Thomas. Ever since, both the Dems and the GOP have been sticking it to one another. Changing the requirement to a simple majority removes the politics surrounding SCOTUS appointees.

Elections will have more meaning going forward with both sides being far more careful who they support and put in office. That's a win for the people.

**steelerhater** · 04-07-2017, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

In the midst of the Syria hoopla, Gorsuch was confirmed today, filling the seat left behind by the passing of Scalia.

I, for one, am glad the Senate rules were changed to accomidate his confirmation. The long standing tradition in this country for quite some time was that elections had their consequences and one of those consequences was the President getting what he wanted in terms of judicial appointments.

Then Sen Kennedy and the Democrats came along and decided to make political hay of the process by blocking Judge Bork and committing the "high tech lynching" on Clarence Thomas. Ever since, both the Dems and the GOP have been sticking it to one another ever since. Changing the requirement to a simple majority removes the politics surrounding SCOTUS appointees.

Elections will have more meaning going forward with both sides being far more careful who they support and put in office. That's a win for the people.

It'll still be political in the future. If the GOP controls the Senate, it could still be difficult for a Democratic President to get theit choice confirmed and vise versa. The nuclear option makes ot easier, but its no guarantee.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

**HoustonRaven** · 04-07-2017, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by steelerhater

It'll still be political in the future. If the GOP controls the Senate, it could still be difficult for a Democratic President to get theit choice confirmed and vise versa. The nuclear option makes ot easier, but its no guarantee.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I never argued the process would be free of politics anymore.

And of course the make up of the senate matters. I figured that went without saying.

**wickedsolo** · 04-07-2017, 04:07 PM

Best thing about Trump's presidency IMO.

Justice Gorsuch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**NCRAVEN** · 04-07-2017, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Best thing about Trump's presidency IMO.

Justice Gorsuch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:word

**CptJesus** · 04-17-2017, 06:16 PM

Changing the rules doesn't remove the politics at all. It makes it far worse. The filibuster forced both sides to nominate appointees closer to the middle, because the opposing party could just block extremist appointees. All that changes now.

Now the majority party can nominate whoever they want and there's nothing the opposing party can do to dissent. Expect the court to swing far far far far more to each extreme in the near future (which isn't a good thing). The pendulum swings both ways, and there's nothing stopping the Democrats from doing exactly the same thing later.

Don't get me wrong, Gorsuch is actually a pretty decent appointee. They could have done a lot worse. But the repercussions of this are going to be felt in the future, not now.

**HoustonRaven** · 04-18-2017, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by CptJesus

Changing the rules doesn't remove the politics at all. It makes it far worse. The filibuster forced both sides to nominate appointees closer to the middle, because the opposing party could just block extremist appointees. All that changes now.

Now the majority party can nominate whoever they want and there's nothing the opposing party can do to dissent. Expect the court to swing far far far far more to each extreme in the near future (which isn't a good thing). The pendulum swings both ways, and there's nothing stopping the Democrats from doing exactly the same thing later.

Don't get me wrong, Gorsuch is actually a pretty decent appointee. They could have done a lot worse. But the repercussions of this are going to be felt in the future, not now.

Which was the way things used to be. Pre-1987, it didn't matter who was nominated to SCOTUS. Congress confirmed that person without resistance. It was agreed upon amongst both parties that elections had consequences and one of those consequence was the President gets to fill SCOTUS vacancies. Things were less partisan then, not more, and the process was seamless.

But then the Dems decided to filibuster and block Robert Bork and the process ever since has been filled with political posturing and one of the end results is now a more hyper partisan process. BOTH parties now play the game and it's creating an environment on the Hill that's partisan like we have never seen.

Removing the super majority rules returns the process to what is was. It removes some of the political gamesmanship and with time will remove some of the nasty partisanship that goes along with it.

**CptJesus** · 04-18-2017, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Which was the way things used to be. Pre-1987, it didn't matter who was nominated to SCOTUS. Congress confirmed that person without resistance. It was agreed upon amongst both parties that elections had consequences and one of those consequence was the President gets to fill SCOTUS vacancies. Things were less partisan then, not more, and the process was seamless.

But then the Dems decided to filibuster and block Robert Bork and the process ever since has been filled with political posturing and one of the end results is now a more hyper partisan process. BOTH parties now play the game and it's creating an environment on the Hill that's partisan like we have never seen.

Removing the super majority rules returns the process to what is was. It removes some of the political gamesmanship and with time will remove some of the nasty partisanship that goes along with it.

A lot of what happens in the Senate is based on fair play and "don't be an asshole." Pretty sure that all went out the window. Things were less partisan then. Do you really expect things to magically revert back to the way they were? Now we have a far far far more partisan government and have removed the ability for the minority party to dissent. Amusingly, the Republicans have used the filibuster at a rate far higher than the democrats ever did, so this will probably just hurt them in the long run.

**HoustonRaven** · 04-18-2017, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by CptJesus

A lot of what happens in the Senate is based on fair play and "don't be an asshole." Pretty sure that all went out the window. Things were less partisan then. Do you really expect things to magically revert back to the way they were? Now we have a far far far more partisan government and have removed the ability for the minority party to dissent. Amusingly, the Republicans have used the filibuster at a rate far higher than the democrats ever did, so this will probably just hurt them in the long run.

No, we wont ever go back but that's not what I claimed. I chose my words carefully that it returns the 'process' to what it was and removes 'some' of the gamesmanship.

The minority can still dissent, they just had a lot of the their political angles removed. Before, a staunch group of partisans can hold up a SCOTUS nominee. Now, they have to get a broader coalition in order to hold things up. That's a win IMO.