March 7, 2017

"A Democrat that votes for cloture on Gorsuch is a Democrat voting to overturn Roe... This is absolutely a fight they should be fighting and that we will hold them accountable if they don’t fight it."

A quote from an article at The Hill about threats to primary Senate Democrats who don't fight the Gorsuch confirmation.

70 comments:

traditionalguy said...

There they go again. The Marxist Resistance Party threatens their own soldiers who chose peace agreements. All they want is Dead Men Walking.

jimbino said...

Overturning Roe means that abortion will return to state rule,abortions will be available on offshore ships and in Mexico and Canada, and self-defense will still be available to women and docs.

Michael K said...

Roe was a mistake and overturning it will return the issue to the states where it was legal before the decision.

Some states may not make it legal but I doubt there will be many holdouts.

If this takes place, it would be a good time to end filibusters.

They are not the same as they were anyway. It used to be 2/3 and the filibusterer was required to hold the floor.

David Begley said...

Go right ahead. He gets confirmed by 52 votes. And so does the next person.

Henry said...

From the article:

But now that Trump is in office and has nominated someone who could become the most conservative member of the court...

Well that's a fact-free assertion. It's technically true. Gorsuch could become the most conservative member of the court. He could also become the most liberal. Or the oldest. Or the heaviest. There's an infinite number of things he could become.

But at the time of nomination, in no way would he be the most conservative member of the court.

stever said...

Over dramatize much?

SGT Ted said...

Live by the court ruling, die by the court ruling.

That's what a "living breathing" Constitution can do when medical science makes fetus viability earlier and earlier in a pregnancy. If it's a survivable human at 6 or 7 months, then that's what it is.

Roughcoat said...

Despite being a steadfast Catholic and entirely against abortion, I used to hold the view that we ought to let Roe stand and not make an issue of it; to seek an end to abortion by winning hearts and minds rather than a legislated solution. But in the past few months I've come to so thoroughly hate the Democrats, liberals, and the left that now I think, fuck it and fuck them, let's go for a repeal of Roe and let the states, i.e. the people, decide on abortion and hopefully put an end to the holocaust that resulted in the murder of tens of millions of innocent lives since Roe v. Wade took effect. They've always played for keeps and they've upped their game since Trump's election. I'm doing the same.

traditionalguy said...

And we know Gorsuch is a liberal in carefully crafted Intellectual clothing. If the Dems do force him out, we win. Then they face real conservative Justices.

AprilApple said...

Is the fake pubic hair coke can brigade on the case? Should be easy to fabricate something negative, right left-o-fascists?

Original Mike said...

Big, big mistake for the Dems. McConnell will be forced to pull out the nuclear option, which will then be available for replacing Ginsburg et al. with people who believe the Constitution means what it says. I hope the Dems make this blunder.

Rick said...

I'm old enough to remember when threats to primary your own party were a sign of extremism.

Gahrie said...

Why are the Left still holding on to Roe? It is an embarrassment and no longer needed to protect the "right" to kill your unborn child.

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

Well abortion is wildly disproportionately performed on black kids. So if you are a KKK member in good standing, then you are all for it.

Trumpit said...

Trump specifically stated that he'd appoint judges who would overturn Roe. God knows how many women he knocked up and then helped get abortions. You cannot concede an inch to the hypocritical Rethuglicans. This is total war, and they must be opposed at every turn. Look how they stonewalled Judge Garland. Look how they shamelessly lie all the time. They only want massive tax cuts for the rich. No Republican is a good Republican. They all must be crushed, defeated, and destroyed. Turnabout is fair play.

Bob Ellison said...

Roe poisoned politics for going on two generations. Such a stupid decision, so stupidly written and laughable, still going strong.

Chuck said...

traditionalguy said...
And we know Gorsuch is a liberal in carefully crafted Intellectual clothing. If the Dems do force him out, we win. Then they face real conservative Justices.


So you are saying that Donald Trump made a terrible mistake, in nominating Gorsuch?

I have to ask (well, no, I don't have to, but I like bright, loud explosions) you who should be nominated for the Scalia vacancy?


tcrosse said...

Why are the Left still holding on to Roe?
It keeps the pussy-hat brigade on board.

Rick said...

Turnabout is fair play.

This is why you're about to lose Roe.

Is Trumpit Inga also? The factless bitterness is memorable.

AlbertAnonymous said...

First of all, confirming him will NOT overturn Roe. It'll still be 5-4 in favor of keeping it in place (for now).

But I'm with the traditional guy on this one. If the Dems pull this, it'll mean an end to the filibuster, and then Trump will nominate Pryor for the Ginsburg seat when it opens up. And the Dems' heads will explode because there'll be nothing they can do to Bork him.

Roughcoat said...

Turnabout is fair play.

Bring it on. Let's rumble.

Bring. It.

Chuck said...

Trumpit said...
Trump specifically stated that he'd appoint judges who would overturn Roe.


To the extent that Trump actually promised that (I won't argue whether or how he may have made that promise), it (a) would have been a violation of judicial ethics on the part of Judge Gorsuch, had he agreed to promise to rule a certain way on a potential future case; (b) would need to be exposed in a confirmation hearing (rest assured, it won't be), (c) would be grounds for everyone in the Senate to vote against Gorsuch's confirmation, and finally (d) is thereby exposed as a promise Trump could never credibly make, and should never have made.

I like the Gorsuch nomination; don't take this as criticism of him, and certainly not any criticism of Leonard Leo and all of my colleagues in the Federalist Society who crafted Trump's list(s) of judges for possible elevation to SCOTUS.

Chuck said...

AlbertAnonymous said...
First of all, confirming him will NOT overturn Roe. It'll still be 5-4 in favor of keeping it in place (for now).

But I'm with the traditional guy on this one. If the Dems pull this, it'll mean an end to the filibuster, and then Trump will nominate Pryor for the Ginsburg seat when it opens up. And the Dems' heads will explode because there'll be nothing they can do to Bork him.


+1.

Achilles said...

David Begley said...
Go right ahead. He gets confirmed by 52 votes. And so does the next person.

There are at least 5 dems that will cross over and 5 more that will switch if they can get away with it. Manchin is probably going to switch parties. McCaskill will probably just give up any hope of getting re-elected and go scorched earth though soon.

After 2018 it wont matter whether there is a democrat philibuster or not.

mockturtle said...

I suspect there are some Democrats who would also like to see Roe overturned and the abortion issue turned back to the states. Whether or not they will have to balls to support Gorsuch depends a lot on their individual constituencies.

Achilles said...

Trumpit said...
Trump specifically stated that he'd appoint judges who would overturn Roe. God knows how many women he knocked up and then helped get abortions. You cannot concede an inch to the hypocritical Rethuglicans. This is total war, and they must be opposed at every turn. Look how they stonewalled Judge Garland. Look how they shamelessly lie all the time. They only want massive tax cuts for the rich. No Republican is a good Republican. They all must be crushed, defeated, and destroyed. Turnabout is fair play.

This is a moby people.

mockturtle said...

This is a moby people.

More like a troll, IMO.

mikeski said...

A trollby.

Chuck said...

I just want to remind everybody that Roberts and Alito were both confirmed with less than 60 votes. They weren't popular among Dems, but they also weren't filibustered.

If Gorsuch is filibustered, it can only be on the basis of, "It should have been Obama's pick, or at least a compromise choice." And not on anything relating to Gorsuch's qualifications.

Also; Kagan and Sotomayor had Republican votes, on the basis that "the President gets to pick; a qualified nominee ought to get votes regardless of party." They both would have beaten any attempt at a filibuster. Not because they weren't partisan; but rather because Senate Republicans have historically been a little bit better-behaved than Senate Dems on federal judicial confirmations. Until Garland.



JAORE said...

Well, let's hope there ARE crossovers. Let's hope they ARE primaried. These would be sitting Senators who are 1) not crazy, and 2) probably in center to center right states. Net result will likely be a few Democrat Senators that fall who could have been re-elected.

Scorched earth is most often used when in full retreat.

JAORE said...

" Until Garland."

Oh crap, THIS again.

See Biden 1992..... but Moby (Moby dick?) knew that.

hombre said...

Sane people in WVa, Mont and Mo will reject the moonbat left, but McCaskill is in trouble either way.

If McConnell keeps sitting on his fat ass to preserve the swamp, however, the midterm curse might jump up to bite him on it. Sane people need to see a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

n.n said...

The Roe ruling legalized abortion chambers as a rite. The social liberals normalized their general use. Capital punishment (and clinical cannibalism) of the wholly innocent is not a State issue. It is an unprecedented violation of human rights, corruption of social morality, and denial of human evolution.

mockturtle said...

Agree, hombre! The SPS [Swamp Preservation Society] will continue to be obstructionist at their own peril in 2018.

traditionalguy said...

Yes Chuck...DJT made a mistake because he is so over educated himself that he sees education credentials as all men need in a war. Actually courage is the sine qua non. And Gorsuch, unlike Scalia, has never had to fight anyone. John Roberts will show him how to surrender with class, and he will be the next Kennedy.

Achilles said...

mockturtle said...
This is a moby people.

More like a troll, IMO.

Trolls don't typically go to such lengths to make the side they purport to represent look bad. Trumpit is clearly trying to make progressives look like stupid jackboots.

Achilles said...

traditionalguy said...
Yes Chuck...DJT made a mistake because he is so over educated himself that he sees education credentials as all men need in a war. Actually courage is the sine qua non. And Gorsuch, unlike Scalia, has never had to fight anyone. John Roberts will show him how to surrender with class, and he will be the next Kennedy.

I agree with this. Gorsuch has apparently avoided confrontations during his career. Given the actions of the leftists in the judiciary this would be impossible for a constitutional originalist.

Michael K said...

You cannot concede an inch to the hypocritical Rethuglicans

When you lose everything, the USSC, affirmative action, The NEA and "Piss christ, NPR, Student Loans for Gender Studies, and six Senators next year, I hope you remember this.

You radical lefties think you are Bolsheviks. You're not.

You are not Paris in the Terror either.

You are just a bunch of precious snowflakes who think you deserve to live off the rest of us.

Chuck said...

JAORE;

You presume that I take the Dems' side on the refusal to confirm Garland. You think you know what I am thinking. And you'd be wrong.

That was Mitch McConnell's choice. And I'm an acolyte of McConnell.

But it's just a fact, that it was Republicans playing hardball the way that Dems have, on judicial nominations.

Your citation of "Joe Biden" and the Biden Rule is spot-on.

buwaya said...

"Trumpit is clearly trying to make progressives look like stupid jackboots."

Trumpit is doing an excellent job then, because that entity is indistinguishable from hordes of similar ones on comment threads and social media across the internet. The attitudes are typical and common.

Chuck said...

Haha!

So do we have a growing group of Trumpkins who think that Gorsuch was a bad, weak choice by Trump?

Can we see a show of hands on that one?

Nobody has yet said who the choice should have been.

buwaya said...

To be clear, Trumpit fooled me because its imposture is so true to life.

buwaya said...

"Can we see a show of hands on that one?"

From the first day I said that his religious affiliation (Episcopal) raised my suspicions.
And it seems that his particular church is well known as a rather "liberal" one.
You have to consider what stuff a man gets thrown at him every Sunday; or more importantly what his women are told to think.

Achilles said...

buwaya said...
To be clear, Trumpit fooled me because its imposture is so true to life.

I will concede it is possible that Trumpit is just really stupid and authoritarian in he/she/it's core. There are many sch people on the left. They just usually try harder to hide it.

David said...

I do not believe that the Court will overturn Roe. I base this not on any insight into Gorsuch but on my assessment of Roberts. Roe is a precedent that is nearly half a century old now. Overturning it would make the nomination process into even more of a political battleground. It would intensify the divide in the country and put the Court in the center of the controversy. I doubt that Roberts wants that. I think the Court might well loosen up on things like parental involvement in decisions regarding minors, waiting periods, limitations on abortion after (say) a certain number of months of pregnancy and the like. But a flat reversal? That would surprise me.

Another way to look at it is that the lefty making the comment is projecting her willingness to ignore precedent in search of desired result on the conservative members of the court.

Sebastian said...

"From the first day I said that his religious affiliation (Episcopal) raised my suspicions. And it seems that his particular church is well known as a rather "liberal" one." Prediction: on social issues, he's gonna be a squish.

mockturtle said...

Achilles asserts: Trumpit is clearly trying to make progressives look like stupid jackboots.

Not very challenging, is it?

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

So do we have a growing group of Trumpkins who think that Gorsuch was a bad, weak choice by Trump?

A democrat here in bad faith.

Can we see a show of hands on that one?

Someone told Trump to pick someone "less objectionable" to draw the democrats out. Gorsuch will be viewed as a failure of his administration just like Roberts.

Trump was never an ideologue. I don't really care about abortion except that Roe was probably the worst decision written in the last 50 or so years. That includes Roberts finding a way to allow congress to force us to buy a product while simultaneously flushing his soul down a toilet.

damikesc said...

Please, Dems, filibuster him.

McConnell will then nuke the filibuster.

SCOTUS Justice Ted Cruz will be so much damned fun.

Trump specifically stated that he'd appoint judges who would overturn Roe.

And? Clinton stated she'd appoint judges who would overturn Citizens United which, unlike Roe, actually involved her directly.

This is total war, and they must be opposed at every turn. Look how they stonewalled Judge Garland.

Would you have preferred him losing? He wasn't going to win confirmation anyway.

Chuck said...

David said...
I do not believe that the Court will overturn Roe. I base this not on any insight into Gorsuch but on my assessment of Roberts. Roe is a precedent that is nearly half a century old now. Overturning it would make the nomination process into even more of a political battleground. It would intensify the divide in the country and put the Court in the center of the controversy. I doubt that Roberts wants that. I think the Court might well loosen up on things like parental involvement in decisions regarding minors, waiting periods, limitations on abortion after (say) a certain number of months of pregnancy and the like. But a flat reversal? That would surprise me.


Right. That's pretty much the way that law school elites forced homosexual marriage on the nation. First do Lawrence, and strike down state laws on homosexual sodomy. Then, let that one percolate in law reviews, and district courts, and on television and the movies. Then, do the cautious federalism thing and deal with limited federal questions like Windsor and DOMA. Then, lastly, confirm what Scalia had warned of from the start, and supplant popularly-enacted state constitutional provisions and just pretend that the Constitution, written and amended when "buggery" was a crime in almost every jurisdiction, didn't need to be amended, in order to find a 14th amendment right to a homosexual marriage.

And for all of the critics of Chief Justice Roberts; read his dissent in Obergefell if you think he is a weakling tool of the liberal elites.

Then, google the photos of Trump waving the gay rights political flag.


Bob Loblaw said...

Ah, we must have a Republican president. If he were a Democrat the opposition would be described as "intransigent" or "the party of no". As it is, they're apparently the last bulwark of freedom and the constitutional order.

Bob Loblaw said...

I do not believe that the Court will overturn Roe. I base this not on any insight into Gorsuch but on my assessment of Roberts. Roe is a precedent that is nearly half a century old now. Overturning it would make the nomination process into even more of a political battleground.

I agree with you, but I wish they would overturn it. First, because it was wrongly decided. But also because the living constitution crowd needs to discover why we have written constitutions.

Krumhorn said...

Well that's a fact-free assertion. It's technically true. Gorsuch could become the most conservative member of the court. He could also become the most liberal. Or the oldest. Or the heaviest. There's an infinite number of things he could become

So true! Anyone remember how David Souter was sold to us by GHW Bush and the idiot Sununu who promised us a conservative justice? That didn't turn out well. The only thing that one can count on is that a librul will generally remain true to form. There was no risk that the Wise Latina would suddenly become an originalist.

- Krumhorn

Chuck said...

Krumhorn said...
Well that's a fact-free assertion. It's technically true. Gorsuch could become the most conservative member of the court. He could also become the most liberal. Or the oldest. Or the heaviest. There's an infinite number of things he could become

So true! Anyone remember how David Souter was sold to us by GHW Bush and the idiot Sununu who promised us a conservative justice? That didn't turn out well. The only thing that one can count on is that a librul will generally remain true to form. There was no risk that the Wise Latina would suddenly become an originalist.

- Krumhorn


Quite a lineup, today, of "things I wish I had written."

AprilApple said...

*femo-whacker say* Hands off my uterus! Pay for my abortion, you stupid tax payer!

buwaya said...

"And for all of the critics of Chief Justice Roberts; read his dissent in Obergefell if you think he is a weakling tool of the liberal elites."

Note - "dissent".
Which matters not one thing in the real world. It may please the legal aficionados on points of style and bravura. Thats nice in the legal hobbyist-world.

Brando said...

Nonsense. Even if Gorsuch turns out to be a mirror-image Scalia, why does anyone think that means the end of Roe? When we still had Scalia on the court that didn't mean the end of Roe!

Even if you had Gorsuch, Alito (maybe) and Thomas (more likely) voting to overturn Roe, you'd still need both Kennedy and Roberts to go along with it. Maybe one of them would, but does anyone think Roberts or Kennedy would want to be the deciding vote in overturning Roe? No way. Instead, they'd do some "split the baby" decision like they did with the Casey decision.

Chuck said...

Well what the heck did you want from Roberts in Obergefell, buwaya? What could he do, other than dissent? He couldn't change Kennedy's vote; a process that began before Roberts was a judge. Dissent is what Scalia, Thomas and Altio did, too. Roberts didn't have to write a dissenting opinion. But he did, and it was a doozy.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”



buwaya said...

"What could he do, other than dissent?'

Nothing. And you applaud - nothing.
When he did have a chance to push back, he failed, with grave consequences.

chickelit said...

This will end with Pope Francis coming out to support Roe v. Wade in order to spite Trump.

tim in vermont said...

Please primary them! Don't throw us in the brier patch!

Have they looked at the 2018 map?

Unknown said...

And yet, the vote for him as federal judge was unanimous. Another case of "if a republican does the exact same thing we used to do we now hate it"

mockturtle said...

chickelit suggests: This will end with Pope Francis coming out to support Roe v. Wade in order to spite Trump.

Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't already done so.

n.n said...

Democrats fight for the right to a final solution. Denial of life unworthy.

Combined with social justice adventurism, redistributive change, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, [class] diversity (i.e. racism, sexism), selective exclusion ("="), Planned Parenthood/clinical cannibalism, and their Pro-Choice quasi-religion, social liberals, left, right, and center, have more than a few conflicts of interest.

The optics are clouded from the twilight fringe.

readering said...

This is the corollary of Republican base threat to primary anyone calling for hearings on Garland nomination. That worked out pretty well for R base.

I personally think the Dems should slow walk this to confirmation after April but hard to get worked up. It's the Scalia vote being replaced. Roe not in danger . . . yet.

Bay Area Guy said...

This is a joy to behold -- because it smokes out the serious, honorable folks from the non-serious, non-honorable folks.

Neil Gorsuch is to American Jurisprudence what Mickey Mantle was to baseball -- the top of the heap.

Nobody on the planet can deny that Gorsuch is qualified for the Supreme Court.

At best, a few left-wing yahoos can say,"The most important thing for me is upholding Roe v. Wade. Judge Gorsuch is a potential vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, so therefore I oppose him. Further, if any Dem Senator refuses to oppose Judge Gorsuch, we will try to end his/her career."

That is called "power," not "justice."

And, it is joyous to see the masks come off our left-wing brethren so that one can clearly and truthfully see what they've become.

** caveat: yes, Merrick Garland was qualified for SCOTUS too. That's a separate issue, though.

SukieTawdry said...

Oh, stop it. Gorsuch or no Gorsuch, they're not going to overturn Roe.

n.n said...

they're not going to overturn Roe

Not without moral and education reform. Meanwhile, the abortion chambers remain open under a cloak of privacy, and abortion rites are congruent to human rights.

Bruce Hayden said...

The absurdity here is that probably any of the ten or so Trump state Senate seats in play the next election, where the incumbent is forced out, or to the left, by a primary challenge, will end up a Republican pickup. In the past, they have managed to keep their seats by pretending to be moderate Dems, have a lot of name recognition, and a lot of power when the Dems control the Senate. If they lose their primaries to a challenger on the left, the nominee is going to get clobbered in the general election by being far too liberal. And if they survive the primary, they will still be hanging out there to the left of their constituencies, who would all now know it. Best thing that they could do to get reelected in 2018 is to vote for cloture, and give Trump some support, because they really don't want AF-1 anywhere near their state during campaign season, if Trump is campaigning for their Republican opponent.

damikesc said...

Well what the heck did you want from Roberts in Obergefell, buwaya? What could he do, other than dissent? He couldn't change Kennedy's vote; a process that began before Roberts was a judge. Dissent is what Scalia, Thomas and Altio did, too. Roberts didn't have to write a dissenting opinion. But he did, and it was a doozy.

No argument.

But, to me, it's a lot like Congressional Republican attempts to overturn Obamacare. When their goal had no chance of success, they had zero problem voting for total overturn.

When the goal did have a chance to succeed, they generate the shit burger they unleashed this week.

It's easy to have "strong moral views" when your side cannot win in the first place. His Berwick decision has him as a constant questionable decision in all close, major cases.