She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.
He should get a confirmation hearing only after Garland does.
There is no way to do that. The reason garland did not get a hearing is because republicans had the majority in the senate so they set the calendar. The dems still do not control the senate so they have no way to prevent a hearing from happening. The only option they have is filibuster but I believe that would happen after the hearings as it would be filibustering the vote.
My understanding is that, when you consider the full set of Gorsuch's opinions, he is even more of an ideological extremist than Scalia was; Scalia at least had anxieties about 4th Amendment abuses
So I'm pretty concerned about Gorsuch himself, even if I set aside the strategic problem of rewarding naked obstructionism
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Gorsuch is very much a problem. He's a right wing ideologue with terrible views on almost everything.
He is a problem in himself, but he is not a problem from a constitutional crisis perspective. Trump is President, and should have broad leeway to nominate who he wishes to the court. The Democrats could, and should, in normal circumstances consider a filibuster to demand a candidate who is more tolerable to a wider range of people. However, if their legal experts view him as a tolerable candidate who will uphold the constitution and the law, he should be approved.
But this all goes out the window right now, since the court itself and our government is more important than the man. All those norms have failed. Noone can be accepted, and that has nothing to do with their own views.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
Ahh, but to me thats only the right position because of what the Republicans did. That needs to be made clear. Just because our opponents are children, does not mean we should copy their irrational behavior and motivations.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
Ahh, but to me thats only the right position because of what the Republicans did. That needs to be made clear. Just because our opponents are children, does not mean we should copy their irrational behavior and motivations.
We've fucking gone over this multiple times already. I believe one of the analogies before was "Grabbing the wheel while I am driving because you are throwing a tantrum because I am taking you to school is not appropriate. Me grabbing the wheel while you are driving because you are deliberately trying to drive off a cliff is appropriate."
Also, it's not a direct analogy because the Republicans never fillibustered Garland.
She's not opposing a confirmation hearing? That's not saying she's gonna vote for him.
I think she should have more than enough information to oppose the confirmation hearing of anyone but Mr. Obama's appointee, Merrick Garland. The unconstitutionality of Merrick Garland's appointment process is that information.
However, this IS a Politico article, and there are decent odds that I am giving it too much credit.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
So your argument is that the fight is now, and that this is the time to blow up the filibuster. Some Dems have suggested that this isn't the one; that perhaps Healthcare is the one or that the next Justice, who will tilt the court solidly 6-3, is the one.
I think I agree with you thpugh, because Senate confirmation here, even if every Democrat votes no, is still a recognition that the vote should have been held. Political considerations have to be at least mentioned though, because this is not going to be the big fight in the grand scheme of things. This is not the fight that saves the most people the most pain.
I think it is the right one, but it's also the most academic one. You all know how I feel about that sort of argument (I love it) but it's still worth mentioning.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
So your argument is that the fight is now, and that this is the time to blow up the filibuster. Some Dems have suggested that this isn't the one; that perhaps Healthcare is the one or that the next Justice, who will tilt the court solidly 6-3, is the one.
I think I agree with you thpugh, because Senate confirmation here, even if every Democrat votes no, is still a recognition that the vote should have been held. Political considerations have to be at least mentioned though, because this is not going to be the big fight in the grand scheme of things. This is not the fight that saves the most people the most pain.
I think it is the right one, but it's also the most academic one. You all know how I feel about that sort of argument (I love it) but it's still worth mentioning.
McConnell can kill the filibuster for appointments but leave it for legislation, which would probably have more support in his caucus than straight abolition.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
So your argument is that the fight is now, and that this is the time to blow up the filibuster. Some Dems have suggested that this isn't the one; that perhaps Healthcare is the one or that the next Justice, who will tilt the court solidly 6-3, is the one.
I think I agree with you thpugh, because Senate confirmation here, even if every Democrat votes no, is still a recognition that the vote should have been held. Political considerations have to be at least mentioned though, because this is not going to be the big fight in the grand scheme of things. This is not the fight that saves the most people the most pain.
I think it is the right one, but it's also the most academic one. You all know how I feel about that sort of argument (I love it) but it's still worth mentioning.
The argument that "this other hill is the one to die on" is dumb. If they blow up the filibuster then they get what they want. If you give them what they want so that they don't blow up the filibuster and also get what they want then you've gained nothing except that they blow up the filibuster next time.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
So your argument is that the fight is now, and that this is the time to blow up the filibuster. Some Dems have suggested that this isn't the one; that perhaps Healthcare is the one or that the next Justice, who will tilt the court solidly 6-3, is the one.
I think I agree with you thpugh, because Senate confirmation here, even if every Democrat votes no, is still a recognition that the vote should have been held. Political considerations have to be at least mentioned though, because this is not going to be the big fight in the grand scheme of things. This is not the fight that saves the most people the most pain.
I think it is the right one, but it's also the most academic one. You all know how I feel about that sort of argument (I love it) but it's still worth mentioning.
I don't understand what you're getting at
You're saying maybe this is the right time to see if McConnell is bluffing and maybe it isn't? But I'm not seeing an explanation for why it might make any sense to wait
If McConnell is bluffing, then we win when we call the bluff
And if it turns out he is not bluffing, then we don't lose any battle we weren't going to lose any ways, and McConnell looks a bit bad, and we energize our base
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
I don't disagree with this, but as someone not following the thread I'm not sure what the ultimate goal would be.
They filibuster and then...what? We're going to run with 8 for the next 4 or 8 years? Is it just intended to be a protest - that Republicans are going to get a Justice appointed eventually?
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I don't really care what Democrats wants to say right now. Their only acceptable move is to filibuster. Whether that's something they say out loud or let it be their super duper secret position is up to them.
I don't disagree with this, but as someone not following the thread I'm not sure what the ultimate goal would be.
They filibuster and then...what? We're going to run with 8 for the next 4 or 8 years? Is it just intended to be a protest - that Republicans are going to get a Justice appointed eventually?
The Republicans control the legislature. The only thing the Democrats can do is protest. The filibuster is a very visible protest vote.
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
They will need more than this but I have no doubt things will be very contentious during the hearings. I found it interesting that Roberts took three, Alitio three, Sotomayor four and Kagan five weeks from first day of hearings to swearing in. Had no idea it happened that fast. I'm guessing if this ends up going down, Court will be back to nine by May.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
0
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
It seems like the height of male privilege to make women choose between independence and a career or motherhood. Then again from what's coming out about Gorsuch, he probably thinks all women should behave like June Cleaver in 50s style Pleasantville suburbia.
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
Appointments end with the Session.
Does it actually say that anywhere?
business of the previous congress is null and void at the end of the session. Everything would have to be started over.
0
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
Appointments end with the Session.
Boooo hiss.
On a side note Gorsuch is not the worst person Trump could have nominated... So there is that?
It helps to understand that each Congress is technically a clean slate. They don't even have to adopt the same rules as previous congresses though they almost always do.
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
Appointments end with the Session.
Boooo hiss.
On a side note Gorsuch is not the worst person Trump could have nominated... So there is that?
Well, Kennedy is 80 so there's plenty of opportunity to see where that goes.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
0
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
Appointments end with the Session.
Boooo hiss.
On a side note Gorsuch is not the worst person Trump could have nominated... So there is that?
I mean, it's all relative. He's probably slightly worse than Scalia, but the court will still be the same 5-4 nonsense for the foreseeable future. The real problem comes if the R part of the court solidifies into 6-3, making Kennedy mostly irrelevant.
+3
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
Appointments end with the Session.
Boooo hiss.
On a side note Gorsuch is not the worst person Trump could have nominated... So there is that?
Well, Kennedy is 80 so there's plenty of opportunity to see where that goes.
I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
This thread is much better than the throwaway tagline from @JoeUser or this goosey comment from you. Did either of you read the article?
"A group of 11 female former law clerks for Gorsuch have also submitted a letter to the committee in support of the nominee.
"We each have lived long enough and worked long enough to know gender discrimination when we see it. Some of us have experienced it professionally on occasion," they write. "When we collectively say that Judge Gorsuch treats and values women fairly and without preference or prejudice based on their gender, we do not say that in a vacuum. We say it with the perspective of those who know that unfortunately, even in 2017, female lawyers are not always treated as equals."
The letter goes on to detail how the former clerks say Gorsuch mentored them in their careers. "The judge has spoken of the struggles of working attorneys to juggle family with work obligations; not once have we heard him intimate that those struggles are, or should be, shouldered by one gender alone," they write."
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
It seems like the height of male privilege to make women choose between independence and a career or motherhood.
Please don't shit up the thread with this sort of thing. I'm sure there are other places to take this opinion, and since it's utterly disconnected from the nominee or the SCOTUS in general, it really doesn't belong here.
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
This thread is much better than the throwaway tagline from @JoeUser or this goosey comment from you. Did either of you read the article?
"A group of 11 female former law clerks for Gorsuch have also submitted a letter to the committee in support of the nominee.
"We each have lived long enough and worked long enough to know gender discrimination when we see it. Some of us have experienced it professionally on occasion," they write. "When we collectively say that Judge Gorsuch treats and values women fairly and without preference or prejudice based on their gender, we do not say that in a vacuum. We say it with the perspective of those who know that unfortunately, even in 2017, female lawyers are not always treated as equals."
The letter goes on to detail how the former clerks say Gorsuch mentored them in their careers. "The judge has spoken of the struggles of working attorneys to juggle family with work obligations; not once have we heard him intimate that those struggles are, or should be, shouldered by one gender alone," they write."
But if his legal interpretation is more like the alleged classroom discussion and he rules based on that belief, who fucking cares about his individual treatment of women. This is the whole problem with conservative views of sexism and racism making it all about an individual character flaw. It's the systemic stuff that's really the problem, especially when we're considering people for high office like a Supreme Court justice.
If his inclination is to rule against workplace protection for women, that's something we need to know about. And the line about manipulating maternal leave is indicative of that far more than how he treated his clerks.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"He may believe/say some weird stuff but he's a good person when you know him, i swear" should only apply for people you're inviting to a wedding or some other party. Otherwise it's a red flag.
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
This thread is much better than the throwaway tagline from @JoeUser or this goosey comment from you. Did either of you read the article?
"A group of 11 female former law clerks for Gorsuch have also submitted a letter to the committee in support of the nominee.
"We each have lived long enough and worked long enough to know gender discrimination when we see it. Some of us have experienced it professionally on occasion," they write. "When we collectively say that Judge Gorsuch treats and values women fairly and without preference or prejudice based on their gender, we do not say that in a vacuum. We say it with the perspective of those who know that unfortunately, even in 2017, female lawyers are not always treated as equals."
The letter goes on to detail how the former clerks say Gorsuch mentored them in their careers. "The judge has spoken of the struggles of working attorneys to juggle family with work obligations; not once have we heard him intimate that those struggles are, or should be, shouldered by one gender alone," they write."
But if his legal interpretation is more like the alleged classroom discussion and he rules based on that belief, who fucking cares about his individual treatment of women. This is the whole problem with conservative views of sexism and racism making it all about an individual character flaw. It's the systemic stuff that's really the problem, especially when we're considering people for high office like a Supreme Court justice.
If his inclination is to rule against workplace protection for women, that's something we need to know about. And the line about manipulating maternal leave is indicative of that far more than how he treated his clerks.
Except that the line is disputed in the first place. Others in the article say that it never happened, or wasn't meant in the way this one person says.
What we're reading is a single person misinterpreting something as "problematic" (her word), and nearly a dozen other people saying "no, the class didn't happen like that, and this guy understands women's struggles in the workplace". Cue confirmation bias and "just asking questions". I mean, sure, ask him: "Justice Gorsuch, one person said you were problematic and even though eleven others refuted that claim, do you have an inclination to rule in a way that you have not hinted might be your legal opinion?"
We all know that the character assassination is a sad part of every confirmation now. We ought to rise above though! There are already good reasons to oppose him (any anyone else) without resorting to progressive scarlet letters.
A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
This thread is much better than the throwaway tagline from @JoeUser or this goosey comment from you. Did either of you read the article?
"A group of 11 female former law clerks for Gorsuch have also submitted a letter to the committee in support of the nominee.
"We each have lived long enough and worked long enough to know gender discrimination when we see it. Some of us have experienced it professionally on occasion," they write. "When we collectively say that Judge Gorsuch treats and values women fairly and without preference or prejudice based on their gender, we do not say that in a vacuum. We say it with the perspective of those who know that unfortunately, even in 2017, female lawyers are not always treated as equals."
The letter goes on to detail how the former clerks say Gorsuch mentored them in their careers. "The judge has spoken of the struggles of working attorneys to juggle family with work obligations; not once have we heard him intimate that those struggles are, or should be, shouldered by one gender alone," they write."
But if his legal interpretation is more like the alleged classroom discussion and he rules based on that belief, who fucking cares about his individual treatment of women. This is the whole problem with conservative views of sexism and racism making it all about an individual character flaw. It's the systemic stuff that's really the problem, especially when we're considering people for high office like a Supreme Court justice.
If his inclination is to rule against workplace protection for women, that's something we need to know about. And the line about manipulating maternal leave is indicative of that far more than how he treated his clerks.
Except that the line is disputed in the first place. Others in the article say that it never happened, or wasn't meant in the way this one person says.
What we're reading is a single person misinterpreting something as "problematic" (her word), and nearly a dozen other people saying "no, the class didn't happen like that, and this guy understands women's struggles in the workplace". Cue confirmation bias and "just asking questions". I mean, sure, ask him: "Justice Gorsuch, one person said you were problematic and even though eleven others refuted that claim, do you have an inclination to rule in a way that you have not hinted might be your legal opinion?"
We all know that the character assassination is a sad part of every confirmation now. We ought to rise above though! There are already good reasons to oppose him (any anyone else) without resorting to progressive scarlet letters.
This is why we have confirmation hearings. Someone should ask him about this directly in front of cameras and stuff.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
There is no way to do that. The reason garland did not get a hearing is because republicans had the majority in the senate so they set the calendar. The dems still do not control the senate so they have no way to prevent a hearing from happening. The only option they have is filibuster but I believe that would happen after the hearings as it would be filibustering the vote.
So I'm pretty concerned about Gorsuch himself, even if I set aside the strategic problem of rewarding naked obstructionism
He is a problem in himself, but he is not a problem from a constitutional crisis perspective. Trump is President, and should have broad leeway to nominate who he wishes to the court. The Democrats could, and should, in normal circumstances consider a filibuster to demand a candidate who is more tolerable to a wider range of people. However, if their legal experts view him as a tolerable candidate who will uphold the constitution and the law, he should be approved.
But this all goes out the window right now, since the court itself and our government is more important than the man. All those norms have failed. Noone can be accepted, and that has nothing to do with their own views.
Ahh, but to me thats only the right position because of what the Republicans did. That needs to be made clear. Just because our opponents are children, does not mean we should copy their irrational behavior and motivations.
We've fucking gone over this multiple times already. I believe one of the analogies before was "Grabbing the wheel while I am driving because you are throwing a tantrum because I am taking you to school is not appropriate. Me grabbing the wheel while you are driving because you are deliberately trying to drive off a cliff is appropriate."
Also, it's not a direct analogy because the Republicans never fillibustered Garland.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think she should have more than enough information to oppose the confirmation hearing of anyone but Mr. Obama's appointee, Merrick Garland. The unconstitutionality of Merrick Garland's appointment process is that information.
However, this IS a Politico article, and there are decent odds that I am giving it too much credit.
So your argument is that the fight is now, and that this is the time to blow up the filibuster. Some Dems have suggested that this isn't the one; that perhaps Healthcare is the one or that the next Justice, who will tilt the court solidly 6-3, is the one.
I think I agree with you thpugh, because Senate confirmation here, even if every Democrat votes no, is still a recognition that the vote should have been held. Political considerations have to be at least mentioned though, because this is not going to be the big fight in the grand scheme of things. This is not the fight that saves the most people the most pain.
I think it is the right one, but it's also the most academic one. You all know how I feel about that sort of argument (I love it) but it's still worth mentioning.
McConnell can kill the filibuster for appointments but leave it for legislation, which would probably have more support in his caucus than straight abolition.
The argument that "this other hill is the one to die on" is dumb. If they blow up the filibuster then they get what they want. If you give them what they want so that they don't blow up the filibuster and also get what they want then you've gained nothing except that they blow up the filibuster next time.
It might fail but the stand is whats important
I don't understand what you're getting at
You're saying maybe this is the right time to see if McConnell is bluffing and maybe it isn't? But I'm not seeing an explanation for why it might make any sense to wait
If McConnell is bluffing, then we win when we call the bluff
And if it turns out he is not bluffing, then we don't lose any battle we weren't going to lose any ways, and McConnell looks a bit bad, and we energize our base
I would have expected they'd need at least 247 more days to prepare for confirmation hearings from recent performance.
I don't disagree with this, but as someone not following the thread I'm not sure what the ultimate goal would be.
They filibuster and then...what? We're going to run with 8 for the next 4 or 8 years? Is it just intended to be a protest - that Republicans are going to get a Justice appointed eventually?
The Republicans control the legislature. The only thing the Democrats can do is protest. The filibuster is a very visible protest vote.
Former Law Student: Gorsuch Told Class Women 'Manipulate' Maternal Leave
Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.
They will need more than this but I have no doubt things will be very contentious during the hearings. I found it interesting that Roberts took three, Alitio three, Sotomayor four and Kagan five weeks from first day of hearings to swearing in. Had no idea it happened that fast. I'm guessing if this ends up going down, Court will be back to nine by May.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?
Appointments end with the Session.
Does it actually say that anywhere?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It seems like the height of male privilege to make women choose between independence and a career or motherhood. Then again from what's coming out about Gorsuch, he probably thinks all women should behave like June Cleaver in 50s style Pleasantville suburbia.
business of the previous congress is null and void at the end of the session. Everything would have to be started over.
On a side note Gorsuch is not the worst person Trump could have nominated... So there is that?
Well, Kennedy is 80 so there's plenty of opportunity to see where that goes.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I mean, it's all relative. He's probably slightly worse than Scalia, but the court will still be the same 5-4 nonsense for the foreseeable future. The real problem comes if the R part of the court solidifies into 6-3, making Kennedy mostly irrelevant.
Technically no. But functionally yes.
This thread is much better than the throwaway tagline from @JoeUser or this goosey comment from you. Did either of you read the article?
"A group of 11 female former law clerks for Gorsuch have also submitted a letter to the committee in support of the nominee.
"We each have lived long enough and worked long enough to know gender discrimination when we see it. Some of us have experienced it professionally on occasion," they write. "When we collectively say that Judge Gorsuch treats and values women fairly and without preference or prejudice based on their gender, we do not say that in a vacuum. We say it with the perspective of those who know that unfortunately, even in 2017, female lawyers are not always treated as equals."
The letter goes on to detail how the former clerks say Gorsuch mentored them in their careers. "The judge has spoken of the struggles of working attorneys to juggle family with work obligations; not once have we heard him intimate that those struggles are, or should be, shouldered by one gender alone," they write."
Please don't shit up the thread with this sort of thing. I'm sure there are other places to take this opinion, and since it's utterly disconnected from the nominee or the SCOTUS in general, it really doesn't belong here.
But if his legal interpretation is more like the alleged classroom discussion and he rules based on that belief, who fucking cares about his individual treatment of women. This is the whole problem with conservative views of sexism and racism making it all about an individual character flaw. It's the systemic stuff that's really the problem, especially when we're considering people for high office like a Supreme Court justice.
If his inclination is to rule against workplace protection for women, that's something we need to know about. And the line about manipulating maternal leave is indicative of that far more than how he treated his clerks.
Edit: It's still a charge he has to answer though
Except that the line is disputed in the first place. Others in the article say that it never happened, or wasn't meant in the way this one person says.
What we're reading is a single person misinterpreting something as "problematic" (her word), and nearly a dozen other people saying "no, the class didn't happen like that, and this guy understands women's struggles in the workplace". Cue confirmation bias and "just asking questions". I mean, sure, ask him: "Justice Gorsuch, one person said you were problematic and even though eleven others refuted that claim, do you have an inclination to rule in a way that you have not hinted might be your legal opinion?"
We all know that the character assassination is a sad part of every confirmation now. We ought to rise above though! There are already good reasons to oppose him (any anyone else) without resorting to progressive scarlet letters.
I absolutely reject that "a student said I was problematic one time" is a charge he needs to answer.
This is why we have confirmation hearings. Someone should ask him about this directly in front of cameras and stuff.
Well he's going to be asked about it, so he'll have to say something