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.
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.
"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."
https://qz.com/950828/neil-gor...
love is just extroverted narcissism
Oh wake up. It's nobody's "party" who lost. It's the American people.
An R or a D next to your name means nothing when the only difference between the two is specifically which corporation lobbying for the same particular deregulation bought you out.
All this "party" crap is little more than an artificial wedge issue created to keep all of you at eachother's throats to notice it's someone else strangling you both.
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.
Speaking as a white man, fuck you. I didn't wrong anyone.
SJW believe that your mere existence is wrong'ing everyone else, no matter of what you actually did.
I'm not a Republican, but the whole "stolen seat" thing is kind of overstating it because it implies that Garland would have become a justice for the SCOTUS, which is unlikely. It was stupid for the GOP to refuse a vote for Garland (stupid on multiple levels but even just strategically - they could have blocked Garland just via voting, there was no need to take it a step further and refuse a vote altogether and cause so much rancor), but regardless Garland was most likely not going to be on the SC, so the seat was not stolen. Legally it doesn't appear that they did anything technically wrong, but I think it's fair to say that having a vote would have been the right thing to do (notwithstanding some cases in the past where people such as Biden suggested a different course of action).
But let's be clear: both sides have, are, and continue to behave like children. Is what the GOP did stupid? You bet! Is the Dem handling of Gorsuch stupid? Most definitely. It's worth noting that the GOP senators in the past voted to seat justices that were quite liberal, but in the end relented because the candidate was qualified and there was not a good reason not to. With Gorsuch there's no real debate that he is very qualified, and yet few Dems voted for him - they voted against purely as retaliation.
And so the Dems did something stupid in retaliation for something stupid the Reps did. And the Reps did that stupid thing because of what Dems did to them before that. And the Dems did that thing because of what the Reps did even earlier. It's been going on for so long that we're at the point where neither side can claim any sort of moral high ground - it's pure, deep-rooted, partisan politics, and anyone who tries to argue that one of those two sides is better-behaving than the other is turning a blind eye to past events.
To everyone who is frustrated by this, you have to realize that Dem and Rep are two sides of the same coin. Both are almost comically hypocritical and neither consistently acts in the best interest of the USA. They have reached the point where so much of their identity is defined by not being the other side that I don't think there is any way for either party to fix themselves.
I watched a lot of the Gorsuch hearings and I came away with two main conclusions: (1) Gorsuch would make a great justice - I don't agree with him on various points, but he's sane and sincere and intelligent and it's not hard to imagine him being a fair judge. (2) The senators from both major parties are complete morons. So much pettiness and shallow posturing. So much snide smirking and pretentiousness. It was embarrassing for both parties.
It's time we moved the conversation away from "Reps are bad" vs "Dems are bad" because that will get us nowhere. Both are terrible and possibly beyond repair. But as long as we allow ourselves to believe that one side is acting in good faith while the other side is not, we will make zero progress. Both are incredibly corrupt. Both major parties have a list of "sins" so long that neither should be allowed in power.
"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."
Yeah, yeah. What he *meant* was that if a Democrat was coming into office the next year, they should delay. If a Republican were coming in to office, they need to do it right away.
Same way Obama can bomb the shit out of the Middle East for years and it's no big deal. But Trump does the same thing and he's "starting another war in the Middle East!!!"
Do you have ESP?
>> 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?
Whatever you may think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's politics or decisions, she is an intellectual giant, much smarter and sharper than the vast majority of people half her age. There's a good reason she and Scalia were such good friends. Despite almost polar opposite politics, there were few others in the world that were their intellectual equal. And they were both wise enough to understand that associating yourself only with those whose political beliefs are aligned with yours is really self-limiting, and ultimately rather boring.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Actually, there was little risk in his gamble, with all up-side. If Clinton had won, they would have just immediately confirmed Garland, so the court would shift marginally to the left. By waiting, they kept the same mix as before Scalia's death.
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.
We're all getting fucked over. And what is frequently blamed on racism is usually classism. And please don't act like people aren't openly hostile to white men. I constantly hear people blaming "rich white men" for everything. In movies, white men are constantly depicted as the milquetoast suburbanites who are bullied by their wives and are sexually unappealing. Wait, I know what I'll do, I'll check my privilege because my middle class self is swimming a Olympic sized pool of money along with my fellow white male conspirators...perhaps we can fellate each other later.
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.
There is no such thing as a 'popular vote.' The votes in every state in our Federal Republic all count only within the self-contained boundaries of each state.
The only thing a 'popular vote' represents is journalists running around gathering up numbers from all the states. Numbers which have no meaning outside of state boundaries.
Deal with it.
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.
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.
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.
We're all getting fucked over. And what is frequently blamed on racism is usually classism. And please don't act like people aren't openly hostile to white men. I constantly hear people blaming "rich white men" for everything. In movies, white men are constantly depicted as the milquetoast suburbanites who are bullied by their wives and are sexually unappealing. Wait, I know what I'll do, I'll check my privilege because my middle class self is swimming a Olympic sized pool of money along with my fellow white male conspirators...perhaps we can fellate each other later.
Racism is never classism. Plenty of white people have it hard. But the fact is that if they were black, they would have it even harder. Imagine that you are having the worst day of the worst week of your life. Now imagine that on top of all the other BS you have to deal with, random people treat you like a thug or a criminal as soon as they see you. Or just based on your name before they see you at all. Black people have all the problems of poor whites, and all the problems of all blacks.
Poor whites struggle against classism and that is BS which should be shut down. Poor blacks struggle against classism and rasicm and that is double BS that should be shut down. But even if black people make it rich (or are born rich), they will still have to deal with the racism BS, like being harassed by every cop who thinks black people only drive nice cars if they have stolen them.
Think it is hard being depicted as a "milquetoast suburbanites who are bullied by their wives and are sexually unappealing"? First world problems. Try getting through your day with random people reacting to you like you were a dangerous animal.
Privilege is a relative thing.
Why are you angry at me? I'm just telling you what happened. I didn't vote for either of them.
But your reaction shows why Democrats keep losing politically: instead of facing reality, their supporters just become rude and throw temper tantrums.
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.