Gorsuch - Go Nuclear?

[seer]

Yea? Nay?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is headed for a tense showdown over President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee that could have far-reaching consequences for Congress, the high court and the nation.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republicans are determined to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch within the week. But to do so, they will likely have to override Democratic objections and unilaterally change Senate rules so that Gorsuch can be confirmed with a simple majority in the 100-seat chamber, instead of the 60-voter threshold.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-01-19-00-51

[Darth Executor]

Yes, and hopefully the democrats are dumb enough to try and filibuster him.

[KingsGambit]

The Republicans wasted their chance on a guy who says the fetus isn't a person and you want to use the nuclear option on him?

[Darth Executor]

The Republicans wasted their chance on a guy who says the fetus isn't a person and you want to use the nuclear option on him?

The nuclear option is an option for Republicans, not Democrats.

This misinfo pairs well with your false claim regarding Gorsuch.

[One Bad Pig]

Yea? Nay?

The Republicans could have nominated Barack Obama himself, and the Dems would've filibustered. The Dems effectively put it on the table a couple years ago - may as well use it.

[Starlight]

The Republicans wasted their chance on a guy who says the fetus isn't a person and you want to use the nuclear option on him?

He's sided with corporate management against employees 100% of the time, even ruling an employee should have frozen to death on behalf of his corporation. That's Republican nirvana right there, so he's perfect in the minds of their lobbyists and donors.

IMO he should be jailed for perjury, since during the Senate confirmation hearings he said repeatedly that he doesn't mix politics in with his judgments, yet he is a judge who has a reputation for repeatedly writing huge political rants into his judgments. Even that aside, the way he evaded and dodged almost 100% of the questions asked of him during the confirmation hearings, rather than answering them honestly, should have rendered him instantly ineligible. What is the point of the confirmation hearings if the guy spends a quarter of the time telling outright lies and the entire remainder of the time flatly refusing to answer the questions?

[NorrinRadd]

He's sided with corporate management against employees 100% of the time, even ruling an employee should have frozen to death on behalf of his corporation. That's Republican nirvana right there, so he's perfect in the minds of their lobbyists and donors.

IMO he should be jailed for perjury, since during the Senate confirmation hearings he said repeatedly that he doesn't mix politics in with his judgments, yet he is a judge who has a reputation for repeatedly writing huge political rants into his judgments. Even that aside, the way he evaded and dodged almost 100% of the questions asked of him during the confirmation hearings, rather than answering them honestly, should have rendered him instantly ineligible. What is the point of the confirmation hearings if the guy spends a quarter of the time telling outright lies and the entire remainder of the time flatly refusing to answer the questions?

So you're saying that Darth Bader Ginzberg should be impeached, and all of her decisions retroactively revoked.

[NorrinRadd]

In general, I'm kind of hoping the Demoncraps do their sillybuster, and Mitch nukes 'em. Frankly, I think they should do away with the filibuster altogether. It is inherently undemocratic. It has at times served a noble purpose, but now it is mostly a tool to enable tyranny of the obstructionist minority.

I'd like the Senate to drop some of the pretentious, "Oh, WE are the more DELIBERATIVE chamber" stuff, and be more straightforward, smash-mouth, victor-gets-the-spoils.

[Yttrium]

Even that aside, the way he evaded and dodged almost 100% of the questions asked of him during the confirmation hearings, rather than answering them honestly, should have rendered him instantly ineligible.

Evading questions became the norm for Supreme Court candidates ever since Bork. Bork was the last candidate who was honest about his political beliefs, which sunk his nomination. Hence the term "borked". No one wants to be borked.

[seer]

He's sided with corporate management against employees 100% of the time, even ruling an employee should have frozen to death on behalf of his corporation. That's Republican nirvana right there, so he's perfect in the minds of their lobbyists and donors.

100% of the time? Where did you get that?

[RumTumTugger]

100% of the time? Where did you get that?

From wikia or Buzzfeed most likely his favorite places to go on the internet because they say what he wants to hear instead of the truth.

[Terraceth]

He's sided with corporate management against employees 100% of the time,

Are you being intentionally or unintentionally stupid here? He even pointed out cases where he ruled for employees in the hearing when someone challenged him on that.

It'd be one thing if you were trying to argue he favored employers, but instead you burst out with this completely laughable claim that even a tiny amount of research would have proven incorrect.

As a side note, I believe employees usually don't win against employers often due to underestimating the amount of evidence they need for their claim. Even if you can demonstrate he ruled more frequently for employers, that doesn't mean any kind of extra bias; you have to show he did so noticeably more than your average judge.

even ruling an employee should have frozen to death on behalf of his corporation.

No, that is not what he said. What he said was that however unfortunate it might have been, the employers' firing didn't violate the law. Even if you disagreed with his argument, it's completely nonsensical to somehow twist that into saying he said the employee should have frozen to death.

IMO he should be jailed for perjury, since during the Senate confirmation hearings he said repeatedly that he doesn't mix politics in with his judgments, yet he is a judge who has a reputation for repeatedly writing huge political rants into his judgments.

I'd ask for a source, but given how much you misrepresented him in just your first paragraph, I'm going to guess you don't have much of one. Even if your claim is true, it's a hard sell to call that perjury, because you have to prove he was being willfully dishonest when (and again, this is assuming your unsourced claim of his 'huge political rants' is true to begin with) he may not have simply considered that a case of mixing them up. It's only perjury if you're being intentionally untruthful.

Even that aside, the way he evaded and dodged almost 100% of the questions asked of him during the confirmation hearings, rather than answering them honestly, should have rendered him instantly ineligible.

This is pretty par for the course for a supreme court nominee, liberal or conservative.

More to the point, many of those questions that were evaded were questions no judge should answer. Questions like "how would you rule on ________?" are stupid questions to begin with because without the proper context of an actual court case and arguments, judges shouldn't give an answer because they don't have the actual context with which to make a ruling.

[Starlight]

100% of the time? Where did you get that?

Sorry, it does appear that my source for that information was incorrect in this instance. He's ruled in favor of employers the vast vast majority of the time, but not 100%. For example in employment dispute cases, he's ruled 21 times of 23 in favor of employers over employees, and has a similar history of pro-corporation rulings in other cases.

[seer]

Sorry, it does appear that my source for that information was incorrect in this instance. He's ruled in favor of employers the vast vast majority of the time, but not 100%. For example in employment dispute cases, he's ruled 21 times of 23 in favor of employers over employees, and has a similar history of pro-corporation rulings in other cases.

Link please. But the real question is, was he following the law?

[rogue06]

Sorry, it does appear that my source for that information was incorrect in this instance. He's ruled in favor of employers the vast vast majority of the time, but not 100%. For example in employment dispute cases, he's ruled 21 times of 23 in favor of employers over employees, and has a similar history of pro-corporation rulings in other cases.

21 outta 23? And yet he sided with employees in Orr v. City of Albuquerque (2006), Williams v. W.D. Sports N.M. (2007), Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 578 v. NLRB (2010), Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. NLRB (2012), Barrett v. Salt Lake County (2014), Walton v. Powell (2016). Looks like you suck at math.