Slashdot Mirror
Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch To Supreme Court (washingtonpost.com)
halfEvilTech quotes a report from Washington Post: The U.S. Senate confirmed Neil M. Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. On a vote of 54 to 45, senators confirmed Gorsuch, 49, a Denver-based judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He will become the 113th person to serve on the Supreme Court and is scheduled to be sworn in Monday. Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of a rule change in the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used the power of his position to change the rules of the Senate to lower the threshold on Supreme Court nominations to end debate from 60 to 51 votes. Therefore, "all presidential nominees for executive branch positions and the federal courts need only a simple majority vote to be confirmed by senators," reports Washington Post.
It is unclear as to what exactly Gorsuch's confirmation means for the tech industry. However, it is certain that Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises, from copyright and privacy to intellectual property rights and data storage," writes Issie Lapowsky via Wired.
It is unclear as to what exactly Gorsuch's confirmation means for the tech industry. However, it is certain that Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises, from copyright and privacy to intellectual property rights and data storage," writes Issie Lapowsky via Wired.
"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."
They really didn't steal it. Would you have rather them just vote every person President Obama nominated down? Wasting their time and our money? Because Democrats didn't have the votes to stop that, and that's what would have happened. (Alternatively, keeping him in limbo was a way to get someone semi-moderate in case of a Clinton *shudder* win.)
Don't forget, Joe Biden pulled the same thing during the Bush presidency. Sure, length of time was different.
Any event suck it up. Your party lost. To quote your god, "Elections Have Consequences." Your party alienated most (in terms of land mass) of the nation around 2010 and that's why you had a congress that obstructed. The majority of people in the majority of states hate you now. So go have some wine with your whine and better luck next time!
Anyway, this shouldn't be on Slashdot. This place is becoming more like /r/politics than Tech News...
"A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to re-fight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal."
- President Barack Obama Nov. 2013 when Reid used the nuclear option for the first time on all federal judges except for the supreme court.
"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."
"Officials at the White House and on Capitol Hill noted that Mr. Biden had also said in the 1992 speech that he would support a future Supreme Court nominee by Mr. Bush as long as the president consulted with the Senate or chose a moderate. Mr. Biden made that observation (the one quoted above, ed.) as he discussed how the confirmation process could be changed “in the next administration,” should he remain as chairman."
Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of a rule change in the Senate.
Nah, Gorsuch's confirmation was the result of Mitch McConnell refusing to do his Constitutional duty last year.
As annoying as it as it is, the Advice and Consent Clause is a limit on the President, not a mandate on the Senate to take action:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Yes. Because then they would have to justify that decision to their constituents. By refusing to schedule a vote, they were able to blame the people at the top and avoid taking any responsibility for their failure to do their constitutionally mandated duty. They chose the cowards' way out rather than face the voters. Make no mistake. Every single Republican in Congress who did not have the courage to demand a vote last year is a pathetic coward, and deserves no respect whatsoever.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Perhaps it is you who needs to learn the meaning of the word:
complicit : helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way
I believe the word you are looking for is complacent: "marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies".
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
That’s quite a revision of history you have there. The Democrats removed the filibuster for judicial nominees because the Republicans were blocking hundreds of President Obama’s appointments.
Since 1979, Republicans have obstructed nearly 50% more often than Democrats: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/11/21/chart-a-recent-history-of-senate-cloture-votes-taken-to-end-filibusters/
Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.
That is bullshit. Nearly 3 in 10 of all cloture motions filed in the history of the Senate were filed during McConnell’s tenure as Minority Leader. The filibuster existed before the Age of McConnell, but McConnell made them commonplace.
The two parties aren't the same: one wants authoritarian control by the 1% of the entire planet, and the other is the Democratic Party.
Keep telling the people in the middle that they don't matter and they'll keep voting against you.
Obama and his appointees simply do not represent the American people.
[Citation needed.] Let's look up some stats, shall we?
-- Polls of Sotomayor nomination: 54-55% approve, 25-26% disapprove, 20% don't know/no opinion.
-- Polls of Kagan nomination: 46-48% approve, 30-34% disapprove, 20-22% don't know/no opinion
Gorsuch falls in this general range, a bit higher than Kagan, but lower than Sotomayor. Notably, polls for Alito and Roberts had significantly lower approval numbers (though also higher "don't know" numbers).
Also, ~50% of Americans approved of Garland's nomination for what it's worth, and depending on which poll you believe, somewhere between about 50 and 65% of Americans thought he deserved a hearing.
So, I'd say there's little evidence to support your assertion that Obama's appointees "do not represent the America people" when polls about the nominees suggest more people approved than disapproved of all of them.
Or you have real world examples like the head of the Idaho Democratic party that stated un-ironically: "shut other white people down".
Perhaps you should step outside of your echo chamber.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Because the GOP was filibustering pretty much every nominee for purely partisan reasons. Funny how you left that part out.
I wasn't making a statement about whether majorities like them, I was making a statement about whether their beliefs actually align with the beliefs of the American people, and I don't believe they do. Nevertheless, if you do want to talk about polls, look at the page: in 2016, 37% say the court is "too liberal", vs 20% saying that it is "too conservative", and SCOTUS approval ratings have dropped sharply under Obama. The only reason approval ratings are still as high as they are is because courts and decisions are strongly distorted by the MSM.
If you check the news stories from last year and this year, you'll also see that people widely perceive SCOTUS nominations as a reason why people are might be/are/have been voting for Trump.
And you need to realize that polls tend to be biased in favor of the left because conservatives, libertarians, and/or independents rather hang up than voice a negative opinion to an anonymous stranger that has their personal information. People don't get fired, attacked, or beaten up for approving of Obama or progressive causes, but they do get fired, attacked and beaten up for supporting Trump or opposing affirmative action or opposing gay marriage. Keeping quiet in RL about conservative, libertarian, or independent viewpoints is pretty much ingrained now in many people.
I can only speak for my own experience there. I'm a gay atheist and I used to be a vocal "progressive liberal Democrat" for a couple of decades. I never experienced threats of violence or even nastiness from conservatives; occasionally, they'd express their pity for me for being a sinner, others would just have me over for dinner. On the other hand, when I told progressives or Democrats that I couldn't in good conscience support Hillary and was just not going to vote, the amount of abuse, ostracism, and vitriol I was subjected to was just astounding.