Thursday, February 2, 2017

SCOTUS Nomination - A stolen seat?

There is still a bias, and a "negative narrative" being pushed to the American public, that Neil Gorsuch will take away the right to choose abortion, and that he will be an "enemy" to atheists. He's also being accused of "only being a friend to giant corporations'. I just saw something about him being a "fascist" even. Which is all just fake news, click bait and attempts to smear his reputation to make an excuse for a filibuster. The reason I think this is, because I can prove that Gorsuch has bipartisan appeal.

The Democratic Party made up their minds before they even knew who the nominee was that they were going to block it.

The Republican Party has done something similar to The Democratic Party in the recent past however, there's is a lot of hypocrisy going on from everywhere. Let's take a closer look at what's really going on.

At the end of former President Barack Obama's term, (2016,) there was a seat on the Supreme Court that opened when, Antonin Scalia died.
According to History News Network 
"Within hours of the announcement of Justice Scalia's death Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate Majority Leader, poured cold water on the idea of replacing the justice in 2016. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell wrote in a public statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) insisted that Obama should nominate a replacement for Scalia." - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/13194

This is something you may not know. It's a well accepted opinion, that if a Supreme Court spot opens up in an election year, that the seat should be filled by the new president, so that the people of America have the chance to elect someone that will choose a nominee, that will reflect the citizens values at that current time.

Here is a video of Democrat Joe Biden from 1992. He's expressing this opinion.



Joe Biden - No Supreme Court Pick Until After Election (1992) - "The Joe Biden Rule"

This is the reason that the Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama's nomination to fill Scalia's seat in 2016.

Via an article from the USA News about Barack Obama's nominee in 2016 -Joe Biden, with a little contradiction to the video above says:
"No one is suggesting individual senators have to vote yes; voting no is always an option," Biden said. "But deciding in advance to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open. It's quite frankly an abdication of duty, and one that has never happened in our history."
The Democrats are still very mad that the Republicans blocked Obama's 2016 SCOTUS Nominee, even though they have previously argued, that the spot should be filled by the next president, if the spot is open in an election year. (As seen in the video of Joe Biden above. This is often called "the Joe Biden Rule".) 

Hypocrite Alert: Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee



Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said... - via The Washington Examiner 2/14/16 6:29 PM
(Hmmm, so when the Republicans did it in 2016 for 11 months it wasn't ok. But when Democrats did it for 19, it was? This is hardly a "stolen seat," like I've been seeing in a lot of headlines the past few days.) 

Schumer Warns Trump on SCOTUS Pick - US News
The top Democrat in the Senate is warning President-elect Donald Trump about his eventual Supreme Court choice: Name a 'mainstream' nominee or Democrats will oppose the individual 'with everything we have.' Jan. 4, 2017, at 1:34 p.m.
After Democrats had their SCOTUS blocked by Republicans for so long in 2016, both sides were frustrated. Now Democrats want to push back for a little revenge. They do not like the fact that, not only did they lose the election, and the SCOTUS spot, but they also lost it all to President Donald J. Trump. They had already made up their minds, no matter who he were to nominate, they were ready to "oppose the individual with everything we have." Chuck Schumer - source US News

But did you know?????
Flashback: These Current Democrat Senators All Voted To Support Gorsuch In 2006
Source: https://gop.com/flashback-these-current-democrat-senators-all-voted-to-support-gorsuch-in-2006/

On July 20, 2006, Neil Gorsuch Was Confirmed By The Senate On A Voice Vote As A Judge On The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit. (PN1565, Gorsuch Nomination , Approved By Voice Vote, 7/20/06)
There Are 12 Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch's Nomination In 2006 And Are Still In The Senate: Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Maria Cantwell (D-OR), Tom Carper (D-DE), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), And Ron Wyden (D-OR). ("Senators Of The 109th Congress," U.S. Senate , Accessed 7/27/06)
Other Democrat Senators That Supported Gorsuch In 2006 Included Harry Reid (D-NV), John Kerry (D-MA), Barack Obama (D-IL), Joe Biden (D-DE), And Hillary Clinton (D-NY). ("Senators Of The 109th Congress," U.S. Senate , Accessed 7/27/06)
No Senate Democrats Objected To Gorsuch's Confirmation Or Demanded A Recorded Vote. The Congressional Record , 7/20/06, S8036)
This is quite a different narrative, than Democrats and Mr. Schumer would like you to believe about Neil Gorsuch. It would seem that just a decade ago he had full bipartisan support. How did he go from that, to this horrible narrow minded "fascist" that I keep hearing about on most news sources?

Here is more proof of Neil Gorsuch's bipartisan support.
Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch - via The New York Times
"I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration," wrote acting solicitor general in the Obama administration Neal Katyal in the pages of The New York Times. "Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court."
I don't think any of this is actually about Gorsuch. If he had been nominated by any other Republican president, he would be having a completely different reception right now. In my opinion, this is more about revenge and a distaste for President Donald J. Trump.
Democrats announce plans to filibuster Gorsuch nomination -source Washington Times 
Democrats have already decided they will force a filibuster on Judge Neil Gorsuch, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Tuesday, just minutes after President Trump announced the pick.
“The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement.
Republicans could counter with the so-called “nuclear option,” using a shortcut to change the rules and eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold. But GOP leaders have been circumspect on that option.


"When the Senate previously confirmed him to the appellate court, the bipartisan support in the Senate was so overwhelming, a roll call vote was not even required," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "I hope members of the Senate will again show him fair consideration and respect the result of the recent election with an up-or-down vote on his nomination, just like the Senate treated the four first-term nominees of Presidents Clinton and Obama."
Some Democrats have said they are especially wary of Gorsuch's apparent lack of support for abortion rights and freedom of religion. I can't say much on the abortion, because he has yet to judge on a case like that, however he has proved to be a judge that will uphold our Constitution and preserve rights for all Americans, including freedom of religion.

Trump's SCOTUS Pick Neil Gorsuch: On Abortion, Religion, Immigration And More -Source Forbes
Photo Credit: Forbes
Abortion
Gorsuch attends an Episcopal church and cited his faith in his nomination speech, but he hasn’t ruled directly on abortion rights.

He wrote a book on assisted suicide that concluded “intentional taking of human life …is always wrong” and his originalist stance is hard to square with the reasoning in Roe v. Wade, but he also says it is important to respect precedent.

Religion
Gorsuch has ruled consistently in favor of religious rights, joining the Hobby Lobby decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court allowing religious employers to avoid paying for contraceptives.

Everyone is making speculations and causing hysteria. But in my opinion, I don't think that people should "freak out," about speculations. I see a lot of that lately.

A fascist would not have had such strong bipartisan support in 2006, by such respected Democrats with in their party.


Here’s What Happened Last Time An Outgoing President Made A Supreme Court Nomination via The Huffington Post

Via an article from The Huffington Post from 02/13/2016 08:58 pm ET | Updated Dec 19, 2016
Just minutes after news broke Saturday afternoon, (2-13-2016), that Antonin Scalia had died at 79, Republicans said they would not confirm President Barack Obama’s nomination to replace the conservative Supreme Court justice — no matter who it is. “Justice Scalia was an American hero,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a presidential candidate and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted Sunday. “We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.”
(So as you see they hypocrisy comes from both sides.)

From the same article...
No president in recent memory has faced a Supreme Court vacancy that opened during his final year in office. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s current swing vote, took office during Ronald Reagan’s final year in office. But Reagan had nominated him the previous November. He was Reagan’s third choice — after Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew from consideration. And the vacancy he was filling had opened the previous July.

The most recent broadly similar situation occurred in June of 1968 (an election year), when President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had said he would not run for re-election, nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to take over as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Republicans and conservative southern Democrats filibustered Fortas’ nomination, and Johnson eventually withdrew it.
The differences between Fortas situation and Scalia's passing are:

Fortas was already on the court. The nomination was to make him chief justice. Which would not have changed the court’s ideological makeup. (When Johnson nominated Fortas, he also nominated Homer Thornberry, a judge and former congressman, to fill Fortas’ seat. But when the Senate rejected Fortas for chief justice, Thornberry’s nomination died, too.)

There were also ethical concerns involved. Fortas was criticized for accepting $15,000 for speaking at American University’s law school — money that was provided by corporations

The hypocrisy is pretty thick. My opinion, as a female Libertarian, that seems to lean more right by the day, I think that there are some people being very unreasonable.  It seems more and more everyday, I feel pushed to think Republicans are bad and Democrats are victims. Which is ridiculous. There are no bad guys and no victims. 

If their are any victims they are the taxpayers and voters.  We are paying these people big bucks to go argue like children, instead of getting it done and moving to the next important order of business.  We are paying them to throw temper tantrums and disrespect the president that was FAIRLY elected by the country's electoral process. 

America voted for greatness and change. We won't get any where, without cooperation. It's time to put the revenge aside and the "coulda shoulda wouldas" of the election away for a few years and do the work that the American people need, and asked to have done. 


Democrats have nothing to worry about withNeil Gorsuch, he has a dazzling resume and is more than qualified. They should be ecstatic. 

Watch out for the crap news out there everyone!



Not everyone knows how this process even works so I thought I'd include this for you. 
How the Nomination Process for Supreme Court Justices Works
Who selects the Supreme Court justices?
 



No comments:

Post a Comment