The debate "Niel Gorsuch is well qualified to be on the Supreme Court." was started by
April 6, 2017, 11:47 pm.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 1 person is on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Alex, thereal, SirIntegra and 6 visitors agree.
1 visitor disagrees.
what do you mean the media hates trump?
are you implying the media loved clinton? or obama? or bernie?
are you implying the media is a unified force? either the left or the right has 0 "media"
the avengers movies are also media, as is music radio.
you mean the news media, as in the press. not really all the entertainment, and I'm sure you'd Agee there is plenty of press on both sides. you also agree there is only one truth.
so, shall we have a lie show down between cnn and nyt vs whatever you want to line up from the right?
and do name a president/candidate who the media "loved".
He claimed Obama had his phones tapped, he claimed none of his people had contact with Russians, his claim of an 800 billion $ trade deficit, repeatedly talking about terrorist attacks and massacres that have never happened, claims of widespread voter fraud, claiming he had more people attend his inauguration than Obama, claiming various nations "owe money to NATO", claimed that "Obamacare covers very few people".
I can list some more if you'd like, but hopefully this small selection is sufficient.
"I haven't seen any actions that would change politics other than his being caught lying repeatedly without the backlash any other politician would have faced for lying to the people."
if by "he" you mean Hillary then yes. Trump it's the opposite the media hates him.
Trump has his very different from past president. Everything from his campaigning style to the way he meets forieghn officials. One can easily say he is doing things differently. And that's could because the past couple presidents standard styles haven't worked.
Changing congress for the better will require more then just Trump. congress has been gradually changing for the worse and needs radical change.
What lies has Trump made while being President?
How is Trump trying to change the game? I haven't seen any actions that would change politics other than his being caught lying repeatedly without the backlash any other politician would have faced for lying to the people.
I definitely don't see the Dems giving the GOP another nomination if they take control in 2018. The same goes for the GOP if there is a Democratic president in 2020 or 2024. getting rid of the filibuster means that no one is required to reach across the aisle any more. This effectively kills bipartisanship.
The filibuster forced the two sides to work together. The only saving grace may be the extreme portions of both parties forcing the moderates on each party to work together. however, if the electorate chooses to keep sending more and more extreme representatives to Congress this won't actually happen. Bipartisanship and compromise in the interest of the nation unfortunately took a huge hit during the Obama administration and may very well see it's death during the Trump administration.
good to be back.
Dr. Carson grew up in poverty and saw firsthand what it is like to be in a poor urban area. he knows how to be successful in those circumstances. his experience there makes him commited to fixing the inner cities. being a doctor proves he is very intelligent. Who better to be in charge of housing and Urban Development? Trump saw all of this and picked him.
Rex Tillerson is not a politician, nor is Mattis, or Dr. Carson. Trump does have some experienced politicians in his cabinet, but his cabinet is much lower then others in terms of politicians.
Republicans did attempt to block many of Obama's picks due to partisanship. Only 2 democrats are voting for Gorsuch. a higher amount of rebublicans supported Obamas picks. The Republicans were only successful in the last one, letting the people chose. the loss of the popular vote is explained easily. Trump did not campaign to get the popular vote. he campaigned for delegates. Had he wanted the popular vote he would have gone to big cities in California, and along the east cost.
Do you think if Bush had a pick with almost a year left the dems would have confirmed him? they wouldn't. It's how politics works, like it or not. if you don't like it, Trump is trying to change the nature of the game
btw, welcome back Alex :)
if the president is in good relations then yes he can
also, you say they are only blocking his picks to make him "look bad" (as opposed to what McConnell did to all of Obamas picks?)
but the guy appointed a Banker to the health agency and a doctor to the housing agency. how much more backwards can it get?
drain the swamp and "Hillary is in bed with Wallstreet" turned into a cabinet full of Goldman sachs.... are you saying that there is absolutely no justification to question these appointments!?!
reasoned by who? people playing political power games? this didn't happen a month or 2 before the election, it was an entire year! a term is only 4 years long, Obama still had a quarter of his time remaining. he should have been allowed to do the job he was elected for.
and as for "the people speaking"... he lost the popular vote. he and his administration hardly have any mandate.
and so far liberals blocking nominations because of "saltiness"...you must have forgotten what happened when Obama was making appointments, both to the courts and his own administration. Republicans blocked and filibustered EVERY SINGLE ONE, no matter how qualified or moderate. rather than being salty over the elections, perhaps they are just returning the favor over obstructionism that was done for no reason by your party.
Do you think if there is a republican president with a democrat senate, the president could get no picks confirmed?
and if there is a democratic president with a rebublican senate, the president could get no picks in?
The Vetting process now is more partisan then ever, and nothing ever gets done in Congress with pure partisanship.
Garland was not considered by the Senate because they reasoned it would be better to give the American people more control over who the next pick was. faced with 2 not ideal candidates, many Americans voted for the person they wanted to pick the Supreme Court nominee.
The circumstances were different in the Garland case as if with the Gorsuch case. What do the Democrats gain from not voting for Gorsuch? He will be confirmed using the "nuclear option" that It will make Trump's future picks easier to confirm. honestly they look like a bunch of salty liberals still mad over the Trump win that will do anything to make Trump look bad
I for one feel Gorsuch should be nominated. it's not like we can go without confirming anyone for 4 years... and as with torture, I don't believe in stooping to the level of savages and traitors for the sake of idealism and spite. I don't want to see the nation suffer for the same of political power games.
I feel the left should lead by example and have faith in this increasingly disappointing nation. don't blindly go along with the agenda of the right or of trump, but don't sabotage everything blindly either.
this Gorsuch debacle is more about McConnell than trump.
let me ask you this:
There is a high amount of resistance to Garland being on the court. the job of the Senate is too see if Garland is qualified then confirm him if he is. It is not supposed to be if one likes his political views, they vote for him, if one doesn't they don't. what seems to be happening is republicans are not even allowing for voting in him.
the The American Bar Association gave Garland their top rating - Well Qualified when he was nominated for the 10th circuit court of appeals.
today he still has a "well Qualified" rating to serve on the Supreme Court. why the opposition? especially when many Republicans expressly praised him for being moderate and an excellent judge.
The only reason they are not voting for him is because he is an Obama pick, and leans extremely slightly liberal, far more centrist than Gorsuch. But that is not the basis on which to vote for him or not. correct?
the Senate's job is to vet a potential supreme Court nominee on the basis of their integrity and to see if their philosophy on the law squares with their constituents.
the law (at the level of the supreme Court) is mostly an interpretive dance, thus one's qualifications only give you a small idea on how they will actually utilize that office. You have to look at political and legal ideologies and philosophies to gain an actual insight into how one nominee will rule vs another. It is thus the Senate's job to look beyond mere qualifications and debate philosophy rather than just discuss a candidate's resume.
if the Senate were to just look at qualifications, then no hearings would be necessary, you could simply have a committee that verifies a person's resume and go on about your day.
I would also argue that there are other reasons (besides being Trump's pick) to vote against Gorsuch. First and foremost is the political reality that the Democratic base feels like this is a stolen nomination. So, to please their constituents (the main job of a senator) they are obliged to vote against him.
Then there is his judgement record. While he is slightly more progressive on land protection issues than normal for a conservative judge, he also has a record of being extremely pro-capital. He very much sides with corporate interests as opposed to the public interest.
I will grant you that he is far from the worst pick that Trump could have chosen, and in most years he would have been a fairly uncontested choice, however the GOP's actions during the Obama years compounded by the Russia allegations make it hard for the Dems to play ball here.
now for the rant:
We have to also look at the GOP here. Garland was similar to Gorsuch in that he was relatively moderate and during any other presidency would have easily passed.
The blocking of Garland forced the parties into their respective corners. The main concern here is that no president will likely get a supreme Court nominee through unless they hold the Senate majority in days to come, and that the ideologies of judges nominated in days to come will be much more extreme (on both sides) I don't see the GOP trying to extend on olive branch with this pick which will lead to the Dems also going more hard left once they're in power again.
I would also say that if Trump looses the Senate in 2018, he will be denied any further appointments by the Dems.
There is a high amount of resistance to Gorsuch being on the court. the job of the Senate is too see if Gorsuch is qualified then confirm him if he is. It is not supposed to be if one likes his political views, they vote for him, if one doesn't they don't. what seems to be happening is nearly all democrats are not voting for him.
the The American Bar Association gave Gorsuch their top rating - Well Qualified when he was nominated for the 10th circuit court of appeals.
today he still has a "well Qualified" rating to serve on the Supreme Court. why the opposition?
The only reason they are not voting for him is because he is a Trump pick, and leans conservative. But that is not the basis on which to vote for him or not. correct?