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.
so much. Whatever else you think about Gorsuch's politics (and unless you own a large corporation they're awful) it's a fact the Republicans just stole that seat. It really angers me to see them doing so much wrong and getting away with it again and again...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Trump's the man! Day by day he wipes out the resistance.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The rule making this possible was introduced by the Democratic Party in 2013, also used first by them. Blaming the GOP for now taking advantage of this is kind of hypocritical.
on McConnell's part, regardless of how you feel about the outcome. Passing a left-leaning centrist with polling showing a Democrat in the White House and the Senate a toss-up, and the chance of a far more partisan left-leaning judge. I guess stopping everything that black guy tried to do was the primary objective.
Because the Republicans were keeping a nominee from being confirmed just like how they stole the seat from Garland.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
The GOP cited that in their rule change for Supreme Court justices. Before it was limited only to lower courts.
The rule was in place after the GOP refused to hear any Obama nominees. It was warned back then that it will come back to bite them in the ass and sure enough it did.
The one thing not coded in the constitution though is how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. That is actually in the Judicial Act of 1869 which set the number of justices to 9. It had been as high as 10 previously. But there is nothing stopping them if they have the votes to create a bill allowing more justices to be on the court and start flooding the court with them.
"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.
https://qz.com/950828/neil-gor...
love is just extroverted narcissism
the only thing enforcing the fillibuster was tradition. which both parties supported. then the democrats killed it in 2013.
Your assertion is objectively false. The rule change in 2013 was a direct result to GOP intransigence and obstructionism. They refused to confirm any Obama nominees purely out of party loyalty; their objections had literally nothing to do with qualifications. It was pure party-line bullshit. Then there's the fact that there was a nominee for SCOTUS staring LAST March which Republicans refused to even having hearings on.
So you can drop the "both sides are equally bad" fallacy.
If you can't beat the hare, well....you just change the rules of the race. Um....yep.
Because the Republicans were keeping a nominee from being confirmed just like how they stole the seat from Garland.
Circuit Court Judges. Yet the Republicans passed the majority of nominees without any problem. You should at least consider the possibility that the few (it was more than one) being held up were of particular concern. Instead of changing nominees, as Schumer demanded the Republicans do, they changed the rules and packed courts with additional judges. (The DC Circuit gained 3 more judges)
The Democrats are the last people allowed to bitch about it when they introduced bypassing cloture when it suited their needs. Reap what you sew sound familiar? If it suits their interests they can introduce a rule change to require cloture on both all Judges again. I certainly hope that the Senate moves back in that direction, but have no hopes that the Democrats want such a thing.
Schumer also forgot about demanding President Bush not dare introduce a Supreme Court nominee in his last 18 months in office. Then got upset after President Obama did exactly that and could not get a hearing on his candidate. You know what they say, "Karma is a b**ch!".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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!
>> Gorsuch will "face cases that demand a solid command of the complex issues digital technology raises..."
If you think a 49-year old justice will be bad at tech, you should look up the ages of the rest. There's even one on there named "Ginsburg" who was 35 when Gorsuch was born - probably time for her to finally head out to pasture, right?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
O look, a completely binary, un-nuanced view of the situation. IF the Dems do something wrong, and then the Repubs also do it, its not hypocritical to call one or both out on it. You might not have the right perspective to see both sides, you might have had bad information passed along to you, etc etc. Saying its all ok because they are both turds helps no one.
Good-bye
the only thing enforcing the fillibuster was tradition. which both parties supported. then the democrats killed it in 2013.
Before than the filibuster was used sparingly to block only the most extremes of appointments, The Republicans turned it into a WMD and blocked appointments en masse so they could use the confirmations as barganing chips to get concessions.
The Obama noamnie, Garland was a centrist the GOP should have been more than happy to accept rather then roll the dice on the Presidental election (especially once Trump became the nomanniee and most professional pollers called the election lost) but in todays political reality where people scream treason even for as little as their representatives talking to the "enemy" accross the aisle, there is little room for compromise.
you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.
https://aclj.org/supreme-court...
i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion
http://www.economist.com/blogs...
i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws. vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.
i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers. i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that... not a single person, and not 9 unelected life-time appointments. the men and women who have to go back to THE PEOPLE every two years and make the case that they're not fucking up, and sometimes those fuckers in the senate.
and not President. But nice Strawman there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The conservatives know demographics are running against them, that's why they're dropping all pretense of playing ball and doing things like this. Gorsuch gives them decades of a reliable conservative vote on the supreme court, which they need because during those decades the power of the old, white conservative party will be fading. Despite the cat-bird seat they find themselves in now, they lost seats in both houses last time and only stomach the guy in the white house so he can do things like bump up the defense budget and nominate guys like Gorsuch. It's been a good strategy. Take state houses, gerrymander, be the ultimate party of obstruction. But it's breaking down because they empowered the wacko right, which is making them unable to govern and they really don't want to deliver what the voters want anyway. So they had some of the people some of the time, but they need to do something new.
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.
The "majority" Trump got was the goddamn electoral college. 71% of eligible voters, and 78% -- SEVENTY-EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT -- of the American People as a whole, did NOT vote for her!
Two can play the bullshit math rhetoric games, and guess who wins? TRUMP YOU CRY BABY!
I'm sorry that your understanding of history only starts in 2013.
You really should look up the way the Democrats threatened it repeatedly back during the Bush-43 era... but then that would ruin your narrative.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Perhaps those numbers have more to do with the types of judges nominated than the actual parties doing the blocking. Democrats tend to want to pack courts with activists while Republicans trend more towards actual judges. There's much more reason to object to ideological activists being appointed to life time positions on courts than to object to those that actually try to follow the law and not their feelings when ruling.
That's a matter of perception. "activists" vs "actual". Others may see the issue exactly the opposite way as you. Both side can shout "You're WRONG!" at each other until they're blue in the faces.
Really, at the end of the day, Global Warming will be a litmus test on this. If the Republicans are right on this issue, things will continue similarly to the way they've been, with minor variations. If the Democrats are right, we're in a heap of trouble unless we take corrective action. But on this matter, Nature will be the judge, and all the shouting and blue faces won't make a speck of difference.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Schumer also forgot about demanding President Bush not dare introduce a Supreme Court nominee in his last 18 months in office.
Liar.
And before you trot out Schumer's speech, please keep in mind that voting "No" on a nominee is not the same as blocking a nominee from getting a hearing and a vote.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Lol, no, the oceans could literally be stating to boil off and you'd probably have at least half of the Trump base blaming it on Democrats. They'll kill us all and they'll never face consequence for it.
People are being interrogated for hours entering the country because of their nation origin. You can call it 'religion' if you like, but that's just your racism emerging.
Pro death penalty I can see, the other two not so much. He has complained about liberals trying to legislate in the court room when they can't get laws passed, including on gay rights issues. He has also commented that abortion rights are dependent on the court's finding that a fetus does not qualify as a person, which even the most liberal judge should agree with.
Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.
My fuck do I wish I had such a simplistic world view as you. Nothing is black and white, you'll learn that when you become an adult.
He has complained about liberals trying to legislate in the court room when they can't get laws passed, including on gay rights issues.
Is that because he isn't familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? That's rather disturbing for a Supreme Court Justice.
Since I'm a little slow, do you mind explaining to me exactly how that contradicts my statement that "the filibuster was used sparingly?" Perhaps I'm just not very good with the distinction between threats and action
Yet the Republicans passed the majority of nominees without any problem. You should at least consider the possibility that the few (it was more than one) being held up were of particular concern. Instead of changing nominees, as Schumer demanded the Republicans do, they changed the rules and packed courts with additional judges.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 68 presidential nominees for various positions filibustered between 1949 (basically when the Senate began allowing filibusters on nominations) and 2008. The Republicans had filibustered 79 of President Obama's nominees between 2008 and 2013 when Reid used the nuclear option.
In other words, in a little over 4 years, the Republicans filibustered more presidential nominees than had been filibustered in the preceding 60 years. That doesn't sound like selecting just a few people "of particular concern" to me.
By the way, I strongly disapproved of the nuclear option back then, as I still do now. There are Rules of the Senate, and this is using a ridiculous parliamentary loophole with no Constitutional foundation to override previous Rules of the Senate (which normally require a 2/3 majority to amend).
Frankly, I'd first prefer to see the federal judiciary self-destruct to the point that it actively went to war against Congress itself because of staffing issues... as with the Civil Rights Act (which eventually passed after 60+ days of filibustering) eventually someone will give. Eventually there would be some compromise. No longer. Now it's party line forevermore. Just wait -- in a few decades that Senate will be voting to take away Constitutional rights by party vote.
Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.
Communists were fighting for the "right" for the people against the "evil" capitalists, and ended up causing more death, destruction, and misery than any other ideology in the 20th century.
The nuclear option will come back to haunt them.
You would think that the party of the filibuster as a basic tactic would have figured this out, because as that "commie bitch" on the Supreme court noted, the situation is a pendulum, and if you do a little math and dating, the Democrats are poised for ramming some supreme court nominees who are not going to be appreciated by the Republicans.
That's so obvious that it qualifies not as the law of nintended consequences, but more like plain old unfixable stupid.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
hes talking about muslims, not republicans
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The GOP didn't "roll the dice". They knew what was going to happen because Trump has a time machine
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
....lets be clear: aside from USSC judges, Democrats had already in 2013 used 'the nuclear option' to remove the filibuster-ability for pretty much every OTHER appointment:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
-Styopa
> 31% of Americans are white men. The rest are definitely affected by "social justice."
White males need a catchy phrase, too. Women of Color... meet Clitorally Challenged Persons Of Palor
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Compared to Patton Oswalt^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^... I mean Elena Kagan and the 'wise latina', Garland was practically a right winger.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Yes, seven Muslim majority countries chosen under Obama because of their, once again, majority Muslim populations. Meanwhile American muslims are being interrogated for travelling WITHIN the country, including a former police chief. So to say it's not over religion is either naiive or disingenuous.
every democrat judge currently on the court has been a moderate with broad bipartisan support.
every republican judge currently on teh court other than Kennedy has been a conservative ideologue with little bipartisan support.
care to try again?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"Culture of radicalization"? You mean, like.... Saudi Arabia? Care to tell me why the one country that gave us the 9/11 highjackers, which initiated all this bullshit security theater, would be exempted when it comea to "radicalization"? Your bigotry is so massive, you can't see around it.
Because the GOP was filibustering pretty much every nominee for purely partisan reasons. Funny how you left that part out.
Those people don't have to come here. For instance, they could go to Germany instead. If it's ok to target white men for 'privilege' because they're white and male, then it's perfectly ok to target people with muslim backgrounds for indications of terrorist involvement.
The 'racist', 'nazi', and 'fascist' name calling got stale a long time ago, btw.
Please regail me as to how you personally have been "targeted".
Lenin killed an estimated 15 million Russians, Stalin is estimated to kill between 40 and 50 million Russians, Mao killed between 50 and 80 million Chinese, Pol Pot killed an estimated 2 million Cambodians, Castro killed an estimated million, and on and on and on. Those are Leaders^Wevil shitlords that KILLED THEIR OWN PEOPLE! Simple source here. If you can't understand why the numbers are big ranges, there is only so much estimating you can do from mass graves.
If you believe that those Communists are better, or even "not so bad" prove it! Have the intestinal fortitude to commit to your beliefs! Go be a communist. If you live for twenty or so years, come back and tell us how great it is. People from those countries today do everything they can to get out, I'm sure there are people happy to switch countries with you.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Judges who believe that law is only what society perceives it to be at the moment are the activist judges. The overwhelming majority of those people have been leftists. Telltale signs are things like believing in a "living" Constitution. Such a claim requires ignoring not just the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers for history, but the US Constitution itself (Article 5).
These are the same "activist" judges that have been consistently overturned, even by other judges that lean left, including those on the Supreme Court.
I'm going to bet that you can find some Judges on the Right who meet the same criteria, but they are far more rare. They would tend to be the extreme Religious types, who don't last long due to Article I in the Bill of Rights.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Eat Bananas? Drink Coke? Then yeah, you kinda did. America uses it's military and CIA to maintain an empire that lets you do those things for a price you can afford at a profit margin tolerable to mega-Corprations. Or do you actually believe we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and meddled in South American politics for freedom's sake? You're complicit in it. Probably more so given your vehement denial of it.
I'm not saying the weight of the world needs to be on your shoulders alone. But I am saying you had a hand in it going to shit. Want to get rid of that guilt that made you speak up on a random internet forum? Push for public transportation and renewables. Demand an end to drone strikes. Demand the government take real action on poverty, disease and ignorance. Or don't, and keep deflecting that guilt on forums. It's worked for this long.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
was a) Hilary didn't campaign in the eastern swing states. I mean that. Not at all. And b) Trump advocated for solutions to people's problems while Hilary had nothing but platitudes and insults. Nobody believes Trump, but like he said: What have you got to lose? For the 60-70% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, not a whole lot.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You wouldn't have been able to use the Phrase if there wasn't. Nice Straw Man though. You managed to completely ignore the real issue, which is that America isn't really a democracy and that our entire system was built from the ground up by wealthy oligarchs watching out for themselves. I mean, look at who wrote the Constitution. I mean _all_ of them. Not just the ones from 5th grade. They were a bunch of Rich assholes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Affirmative action law affects quite a bit actually (eg how people are considered for job applications).
2. 'hate speech' law and its hypocritical advocates who want to silence criticism of socjus as bigotry.
The Democrats really thought that we'd accept a 60-vote threshold for our candidates and a 51-vote threshold for theirs. Maybe if JEB! had won, but it appears that Trump's fighting spirit is spreading. It is catching on in unexpected places, like Congress.
So please, tell me more about how this is a "stolen seat". I need something to laugh at while I wait for Kennedy and Ginsburg to retire.
See that "Preview" button?
Yes, Obama didn't want to offend one of the largest foreign donors to Obama's party. That's why Obama didn't put Saudi Arabia on Obama's list.
See that "Preview" button?
Mr. AC, as you stand before the Court today, it is clear in your case the law as written does not support a conviction. But morally, I find a perosn who has stated what you have stated as reprehensible and not worthy of integration into society. Given that I believe it is more important to follow my moral belies than the law as written, I sentence you to death. Case closed.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Senate is to provide any advice and consent they deem for Presidential appointments. Refusing to provide consent is completely legal and ethical. Or do you also condemn Schumer et al. for running the filibuster against Gorsuch?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because we have diplomatic relations with the functions by government of Saudi Arabia. If we need a background check we can get it. You'll lose every debate if you fail to educate yourself about your opponents positions.
No, idiot. They were chosen because they have hostile or non functional governments and getting of their citizens is impossible. Unlike the other 43 majority Muslim nations.
Vetting
Six of the seven banned countries were among general Wesley Clark's list of countries the Pentagon planned to topple after 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... There was one other country in Clark's list that isn't among the travel ban countries, and--big surprise--it's majority Muslim too (Lebanon), not to mention another enemy of Israel. You are delusional if you think the travel ban list is some sort of unbiased evaluation of extremism: once again, why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list when bin Laden and almost all the hijackers were saudi? Or if it's an evalutation of stability, Egypt went through a military coup, why aren't they on the list?
The countries were supposedly decided under Obama, but had been chosen for destruction since the early 2000s.
We sure performed great background checks on the hijackers, didn't we? Oh, but that was just a boo boo, right?
It's been shown in multiple studies that black-looking names on school and work applications result in lower response rates, so it's more than a bit paranoid to think the deck is stacked against you because of affirnative action.
How has your speech been limited in real life? Have you been harassed, taunted or threatened for things you say due to race differences?
No. It's not an evaluation of extremism. It's an evaluation of our ability to get people from those countries.
Vet
It was a different time. But thanks for acknowledging I'm right.
More than tech issues, this selection threatens to set society back with his stance on abortion, and other Rights issues!
Get your gun! You will likely need it for the coming revolution!!!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
From your own link: "The move came shortly after most Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court." So do you condemn Schumer et al. for filibustering Gorsuch?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I didn't acknowledge anything, my point was that your excuse as to why we exempt Saudi Arabia is bullshit. Now you're backpedaling to implying that we once didn't have good background checks back then? "It was a different time" my ass, we had six of the seven banned countries on the list for destruction right after 9/11.
Oh, that's right, I mentioned that elsewhere and you failed to even respond to it--actually addressing what the other person says is a good technique if you like to win arguments, otherwise your talking points look paid.
I love how you keep getting vaguer as to precisely what our definition of countries worth banning would be, all the while acting more and more certain about the rationale. Just today there were terrorist bombings of Coptic cathedrals in Egypt. I repeat--why then is Egypt not on the list as well? Oh, that's right, you didn't have a response to that question the first time. It makes me wonder, are these your talking points, or someone else's?
No, I understood what you said. There was a vote AFTER the Republicans ended the filibuster. The ONLY reason Schumer voted is his filibuster was ended. That's it. If the GOP didn't end the filibuster, Schumer would have never voted. So you are completely cool with filibustering USSC judges, right?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because we can vet Egyptian citizens.
So let me get this straight: 15 years ago was "a differemt time", but six of the seven countries the pentagon wanted to invade back then just miraculously happened to all entail vetting issues now, in thos very different time 15 years later, such that we could still justify banning their people? Where did you even read about this vetting issue that you're so attached to it?
That was the reason given by the Obama Administration for selecting those 7 countries. You seem to be saying we should just put a travel ban on all the Muslim nations including the ones we have decent relations with.
Again, the two parties are not the same: one fights for right, and one fights for evil.
*BLINK* *BLINK*
...
*golf clap* Well done sir. Well done indeed. lol
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen