╌>

Dems struggle to stir up energetic opposition to Gorsuch

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  7 years ago  •  11 comments

Dems struggle to stir up energetic opposition to Gorsuch

President Trump's choice to sit on the Supreme Court will get his turn in the political spotlight Monday after laying low for weeks. But what has traditionally been a high-profile confirmation fight is approaching with barely a whimper from the opposition party.


While Democratic leaders have revived their public criticism of Neil Gorsuch in recent days, liberal advocacy groups have all but abandoned efforts to defeat his nomination through public opinion -- with scant paid issue advertising or public rallies.

Many progressives lament Democratic senators have been distracted by other ideological fights.

A group led by NARAL Pro-Choice America recently sent a blistering letter to Senate Democrats slamming lawmakers for not putting up more of a fight against Gorsuch ahead of Monday's confirmation hearing.

"Democrats have failed to demonstrate a strong, unified resistance to this nominee despite the fact that he is an ultra-conservative jurist who will undermine our basic freedoms and threaten the independence of the federal judiciary," said the letter. "We need you to do better."

The justices themselves hope the arrival of Gorsuch will end what court sources say has been a tense 13-month period since Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden passing. The current 4-4 ideological divide has kept the court off its internal workplace rhythms -- operating in something of a judicial vacuum, reluctant to tackle hot-button issues that would lead to precedent-setting impact.


Tough talk

Despite the criticism from some on the left, the Senate minority promises tough questions for the nominee.

"If he shows in his answers that he is out of the mainstream as his opinions indicate he very well may be," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., "I will use every tool available, including the filibuster, to oppose him."

And some progressive groups support the low-key strategy being led by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"I think Senate Democrats are paying attention in the way that the American people want all senators to pay attention which is to have a robust hearing and really ask Judge Gorsuch these really difficult questions," said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "Whether he will be a truly independent judge, whether he will apply the law fairly to all."

But while left-leaning groups may be less than engaged, conservative legal advocates have put their money behind their message.

A $10 million ad campaign spearheaded by the Judicial Crisis Network has targeted vulnerable Senate Democrats facing re-election in two years.

"Jon Tester is creating gridlock, threatening to obstruct Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch," says one ad, focusing on the Montana senator seeking a third term. "Tell Jon Tester: stop the obstruction and confirm Gorsuch."

Other JCN ads tout Gorsuch's credentials, and friends of the nominee said he is prepared to face the tough questioning of senators.

His conservative supporters also point to bipartisan support among the legal communities in academia and the government.

"There are going to be people who are ideologically opposed to this nomination come hell or high water, and I think ... once [the] American public sees Judge Gorsuch, they realize what a terrific nomination this is," said Thomas Dupree, a former Bush deputy assistant attorney general. "It's been difficult for the opponents of Judge Gorsuch to really stir up resentment and opposition to this nomination precisely because he is so eminently qualified."

Hearings strategy

Party sources say Democratic senators will focus much of their attention on seeking Gorsuch's views on abortion, since he has not ruled directly on the right to the procedure.

"I will not support any candidate who intends to turn back the clock on civil rights, including women's reproductive rights and LGBT equality," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who has not said whether she would ultimately vote for Gorsuch.

Other areas of Democratic interest:

Separation of powers, and whether Gorsuch would be an independent voice to strike down excesses in Trump's executive authority, including the president's revised order banning travel for immigrants from certain countries.
Voting rights and campaign finance reform, specifically whether the nominee thinks current unlimited corporate donations to PACs are permissible.
Workers’ rights, and challenges over pay equity, pension benefits, job discrimination claims, and family and medical leave.
Some progressives have actually urged Democrats not to ask any questions at the hearings, as a dramatic rebuff for Republicans refusing to give former President Barack Obama's high court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing or vote.

And they demand a filibuster to prevent Gorsuch from ever getting a floor vote.

Bitter feelings linger. "This is a stolen seat being filled by an illegitimate and extreme nominee," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., "and I will do everything in my power to stand up against this assault on the court." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/18/dems-struggle-to-stir-up-energetic-opposition-to-gorsuch.html

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Old Hermit
Sophomore Silent
link   Old Hermit    7 years ago

The kind of judge Gorsuch might be is not the problem, not where the fight should center.

 

Sue the Judges record should be thoroughly vetted but the Dem's should also contend that if he takes the job he'll be breaking the law and could be going to prison for up to 7 years.

After all the theft of this seat from President Obama is a crime against the Constitution unmatched in its vileness since President Reagan's horrid Iran–Contra desecration of it.

 

 

§ 22–3232. Receiving stolen property.

(a) A person commits the offense of receiving stolen property if that person buys, receives, possesses, or obtains control of stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe that the property was stolen.

(b) It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section, alone or in conjunction with § 22-1803, that the property was not in fact stolen, if the accused engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as the accused believed them to be.

(c)(1) Any person convicted of receiving stolen property shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or imprisoned not more than 7 years, or both, if the value of the stolen property is $1,000 or more.

(2) Any person convicted of receiving stolen property shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both, if the stolen property has some value.

(d) For the purposes of this section, the term “stolen property” includes property that is not in fact stolen if the person who buys, receives, possesses, or obtains control of the property had reason to believe that the property was stolen.

 

 

 

 

But that's just my take.

 

 

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Old Hermit   7 years ago

+1.

That was legitimately funny.

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

And at the same time sad if he believes a word of his post.  Only once since the 1880's or so has a Supreme Court nominee sent up due to an opening in a presidenti election year been confirmed by the senate.  Nothing was stolen.  

 
 
 
Old Hermit
Sophomore Silent
link   Old Hermit  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

  Nothing was stolen.

No vote = stolen seat.

Constitution says, Senators will Advise the President on his Judaical picks and then decide, (with their vote), if they consent to his choice or not.

No vote, spitting on the Constitution, though I will admit it's not as bad as embezzling American tax payers founds, (converting weapons into cash), in order to wage an off the books, illegal war like Reagan did but still....

 

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Old Hermit   7 years ago

I agree. Stolen seat. Since Trump is obviously headed for impeachment and that this is his last year in office we should wait and let the next president nominate someone...or just leave the seat open permanently. If there was any justice or honor in Washington (which there is not) the seat would stay open until the next Democratic President is elected because the choice was stolen from the last one by dirty tricks by McConnell.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Do you really think a President Pence would nominate someone else? Leave it vacant and when Ginzburg can't work longer than the end of Pence's 2nd term we get a 4-3 majority.  Kennedy is a 50/50 and Breyer is where retirement may be imminent.  We will have a majority as members get older right down to 3-2.  

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Nope. If the Senate had processed, they would simply have voted him down. Liberals are forever obsessed with "stolen" elections and "stolen" seats. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Believing that the seat was "stolen" seems to go hand in hand with alot of bizarre, conspiracy type thinking.

Precedent and the plain language of the Constitution are solidly on the side of the Republicans.   

Notice how Republicans didn't demand Democrats hold a seat on the DC Court of Appeals for Republicans to fill after Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada for being Hispanic? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

Yep.  They blackballed him because he was Hispanic and would have been the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court in the future had he been confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals.     

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Old Hermit   7 years ago

I'll play. The physical "seat" belongs to the federal government. The seat is where it has always been so it was never stolen. 

The right to fill the seat is not a property right but an appointment privilege of the president, subject to the advice and consent of the senate. Under Obama, the republican senate advised obama that they do not consent to any of his appointees. I don't see anything that requires them to actually vote.

If democrats can own the right to fill a seat (which they cannot), then one can own a right to sit in the seat. Therefore, the seat belonged to Scalia (a republican). Upon his death, the seat passed to his republican heirs. Obama and democrats conspired to steal the seat before republicans could gain possession of it. So obama and all the democrats are guilty of engaging a criminal conspiracy.

But Trump can save the day by using his authority to pardon everybody for any crime committed under D.C. Law. The senate can either vote the nominee in with 60 votes or the senate can change the vote rules (as democrats would have done if the situation were flipped) and vote him in by simple majority. That way, democrats don't have to go to jail and everybody can be happy.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  1ofmany   7 years ago

Even better.

 
 

Who is online