I've had Neil Gorsuch's confirmation hearings on in the background all day and I have to say I'm not very impressed with the Democrats. Everything they say seems to boil down to one of the following:
"Please answer for this person or group who isn't you."
"I hate Trump and everything he touches, so isn't it sinister that he nominated you?"
"Don't you care about the impact of this law or opinion on X Y or Z group?"
"This opinion you wrote makes me think you're a big meany who doesn't care about people I care about."
It's rather depressing. Lots of grandstanding, showing off how much they hate Trump. And everything is consequentialist with them. The law itself doesn't matter, only whether its outcome is positive for their favored groups.
Gorsuch confirmation hearings
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
Maybe if they quit televising these things they wouldn't be so ugly.
Haven't watched the Gorsuch hearings but I caught bits and pieces of some other confirmation hearings while channel flipping and it was obvious to me that the Dem strategy was to just throw as much mud on the nominee as they could before taking office, even though they knew they would be confirmed.
I don't know if this kind of thing went on before they started televising it or not.
Haven't watched the Gorsuch hearings but I caught bits and pieces of some other confirmation hearings while channel flipping and it was obvious to me that the Dem strategy was to just throw as much mud on the nominee as they could before taking office, even though they knew they would be confirmed.
I don't know if this kind of thing went on before they started televising it or not.
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
What's really depressing to me is that there is such a thing as a "liberal" or "conservative" judge to begin with. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the other two branches of government and the authority on overriding legal principles that are supposed to guide and limit political power. What's happening now is a travesty.
Never mind me, just having some naive thoughts this morning....
Never mind me, just having some naive thoughts this morning....
-
Libertarian666
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
It is impossible for anyone to resist the might of the government.WiseOne wrote:What's really depressing to me is that there is such a thing as a "liberal" or "conservative" judge to begin with. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the other two branches of government and the authority on overriding legal principles that are supposed to guide and limit political power. What's happening now is a travesty.
Never mind me, just having some naive thoughts this morning....
If they could, it wouldn't be a government.
That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
IMHO, "not a real president" is just lame left-wing marketing by people who can't seem to comprehend where votes come from. That measurable Democratic disconnect from such a large portion of the country that voted for him is why he'll probably win reelection.Desert wrote:Most of the country doesn't accept Trump as a real president.
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
So much of life is a Rorschach test.Most of the country doesn't accept Trump as a real president.
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
Maddy, I really enjoy your posts. So often very funny and/or thought provoking.
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
Moving on from the irresolvable question of whether or not Trump is a legitimate president...
I keep hearing Republicans (rightly IMO) chiding their Democratic colleagues about their desire to have the courts enact their agenda; if they want something done, they should pass a law. They are lawmakers, after all.
But then, it strikes me that a lot of the Democrats' fear is legitimate. Several major victories of the modern Democratic platform are perenially at risk because they didn't pass a law. Roe v. Wade is an obvious one, becausethere's no durable federal law, and they realize that it was a pretty slipshod decision. They like the result, but understand how easy it would be to undo--hence the abortion litmus test for nominees. It's the same thing with immigration: for the last 25 years, they encouraged south-of-the-borderers to come here illegally instead of managing to pass some kind of legitimate, lawful immigration expansion like they wanted to. So now we have families that are half here illegally, and enforcing the law against them is cruel--even though it's perfectly legally justified. If they'd just done this the right way in the first place, we wouldn't be here, and why it's so important to them that we never have an executive who wants to actually enforce immigration law (a major reason why Trump makes them panic).
Of course it's not just the left anymore. Ever since the Heller decision, gun rights have hung by a 5-4 thread in the Supreme Court. Now I happen to think that Heller rests on stronger legal ground than, say Roe, because of the second amendment being actually in the bill of rights. But it's the same thing: since 2008, every election has been an opportunity for a hostile liberal president to appoint someone who wants to undo Heller, just like how the left fears Republican-appointed justices undoing Roe. I used to be really on board this bandwagon when I was a gun rights zealot, but today I hold a dimmer view of what we called "strategic civil rights litigation." This inherently encourages consequentialism rather than principle in judge selection. And it's fragile and unpredictible: the SCOTUS can and does reverse itself, and it's something that the public doesn't have input on.
If we want abortion to be legal countrywide, we should pass a damn law, and if we can't, then it should be left up to the states. I think it's the same with guns, frankly. Since the second amendment seems to confuse a lot of people, let's pass a constitutional amendment clarifying it. And if we can't, then let's let the states take the lead within some broad limits (e.g. can't ban all guns). People will be happier this way, and it will let state residents go farther in the directions they want to go in, for whatever issue.
This country is just too big and diverse to have national agreement on these kinds of controversial issues anymore.
I keep hearing Republicans (rightly IMO) chiding their Democratic colleagues about their desire to have the courts enact their agenda; if they want something done, they should pass a law. They are lawmakers, after all.
But then, it strikes me that a lot of the Democrats' fear is legitimate. Several major victories of the modern Democratic platform are perenially at risk because they didn't pass a law. Roe v. Wade is an obvious one, becausethere's no durable federal law, and they realize that it was a pretty slipshod decision. They like the result, but understand how easy it would be to undo--hence the abortion litmus test for nominees. It's the same thing with immigration: for the last 25 years, they encouraged south-of-the-borderers to come here illegally instead of managing to pass some kind of legitimate, lawful immigration expansion like they wanted to. So now we have families that are half here illegally, and enforcing the law against them is cruel--even though it's perfectly legally justified. If they'd just done this the right way in the first place, we wouldn't be here, and why it's so important to them that we never have an executive who wants to actually enforce immigration law (a major reason why Trump makes them panic).
Of course it's not just the left anymore. Ever since the Heller decision, gun rights have hung by a 5-4 thread in the Supreme Court. Now I happen to think that Heller rests on stronger legal ground than, say Roe, because of the second amendment being actually in the bill of rights. But it's the same thing: since 2008, every election has been an opportunity for a hostile liberal president to appoint someone who wants to undo Heller, just like how the left fears Republican-appointed justices undoing Roe. I used to be really on board this bandwagon when I was a gun rights zealot, but today I hold a dimmer view of what we called "strategic civil rights litigation." This inherently encourages consequentialism rather than principle in judge selection. And it's fragile and unpredictible: the SCOTUS can and does reverse itself, and it's something that the public doesn't have input on.
If we want abortion to be legal countrywide, we should pass a damn law, and if we can't, then it should be left up to the states. I think it's the same with guns, frankly. Since the second amendment seems to confuse a lot of people, let's pass a constitutional amendment clarifying it. And if we can't, then let's let the states take the lead within some broad limits (e.g. can't ban all guns). People will be happier this way, and it will let state residents go farther in the directions they want to go in, for whatever issue.
This country is just too big and diverse to have national agreement on these kinds of controversial issues anymore.
Re: Gorsuch confirmation hearings
Beyond laws vs decision, seeing democrats continuously obsessed with rearranging the deck chairs on the "middle class wage/wealth" titanic by pitting pregnant women against often middle class income and low-wealth employers continues to disappoint.
I'm convinced it's just regulatory captured social signaling with minimal cost to the plutocracy that serves to divide the masses while the truly wealthy take over more and more of the world's resources.
I'm convinced it's just regulatory captured social signaling with minimal cost to the plutocracy that serves to divide the masses while the truly wealthy take over more and more of the world's resources.