That's because he sucks at this.
Long term I think Gorsuch and Roberts are going to almost always be in lockstep on how they vote. Next summer when SCOTUS issues a bunch of 5-4 rulings with Roberts and Gorsuch siding with liberals, Trump s are going to be raging at Trump for nominating a “fake conservative” to the bench.
Regardless. The Dems enjoyed 8 full years of Senate majority, at points a very healthy majority. The window was 2007-2014 and they did replace two Republicans (Souter and Stevens) with two very liberal Democrats (Sotomayor and Kagan). The GOP's window only started in 2015 and will likely end in 2022 when Ron Johnson, Portman, Toomey etc. are up and have to defend losing battles.
Each side gets their eight-year window.
SCOTUS deaths are random but let's not forget, Obama did replace TWO Republicans, while Trump has also replaced 2 Republicans but no Democrats yet up until this point.
By that logic the dems can pack the court since they'll have the cons utional right to. Not advocating for that, because it would be a cluster without some kind of amendment
Roberts was a bad pick all along. Gorsuch is more conservative but not quite like Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh.
Yeah the logic acrobatics Republicans are attempting to rationalize how 2020 is different from 2016 is laughable on the surface. They should just say "We have the Senate Majority and this is what we want to do." It's what Democrats know they mean, and it's what Republicans want anyway.
Who exactly are they trying to convince and why does it matter anyway?
Souter and Stevens were Republicans? They were both considered on the liberal side of the bench. You don’t know what the you’re talking about.
the question is what is CFR for 2009 swine flu vs covid19?
Now you're haggling over value.
Gorsuch and Roberts never crossed at the same time on the big decisions, either by design or actual jurisprudence. But it does behoove the republicans to keep the social they disagree with, legal. So they can continue to the poor and also do their best to keep voting down.
Yeah they can accept or reject. But instead they decided Obama didn't have the authority to make a nomination when they never brought Garland up for a vote.
You can be arrested for solicitation, you don't need to make the transaction.
Even Kavanaugh wanted nothing to do with ruling on abortion issues this cycle. Trump went 0-2 on picking SCOTUS judges who want to overturn Roe v Wade (by design since as you said it’s better for them if Roe v Wade is a wedge issue) but his supporters give him credit for stacking the court with pro life judges.
Simple, they need to be the heroes in their own story and after convincing themselves it was right to do it in 2016 they need to now convince themselves that this is different because they've built this false narrative where it is them and only them who stands in the way of the evil libs.
This makes no sense.
They were both GOP appointees and both belonged to the Republican Party.
How did they typically rule, with the liberal judges or conservative judges?
Ann Coulter at one point said Stevens’ should be poisoned to death. Sounds like he was a real far right Republican!
No. Obama had the authority to make the nomination, and he did. But McConnell and Co. had the authority to confirm or reject, which they exercised the power to do so (reject).
Meh, Roberts is the same way honestly. I don't know what causes judges to turn to the left after they get in. Because liberal judges never seem to turn to the right post-appointment.
They never brought it for a vote because McConnell wanted to help senators like Toomey and Ron Johnson avoid casting s controversial vote in an election year. It was an unprecented move to not bring a SCOTUS nominee to the floor for a vote.
No he was one of the judges that voted to uphold the louisiana abortion law. He don't give a .
Its almost like being in a position where they have to impartially interpret the cons ution and law causes judges to become more liberal.
They didn't confirm or reject, which is why it was bull that he did what he did.
Their best chance at heroism is being as " the libs" as they can possibly be. The posturing is self serving. They're trying to convince themselves they have any conviction beyond winning.
well, that was one reason, the other being the more obvious not having 5 reliable liberal votes + 2 50/50 votes and only 2 reliable conservatives. Even if Garland was a 50/50, that would still be a strong advantage to the Democratic ideals.
toomey, portman and ron johnson are dead in 2022, hence why that was my prediction for the year the Dems take back the Senate.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
