The Donald Trump Thread

Hm. What makes you say that Neil Gorsuch is occupying Merrick Garland's seat?

He's referring to how obstructionist the Republicans were in Congress during Barack Obama's presidency.
The Republicans always said they wanted to wait until a new president took office, but I just wonder what would've happened had that person been Hillary Clinton.
 
He's referring to how obstructionist the Republicans were in Congress during Barack Obama's presidency.
The Republicans always said they wanted to wait until a new president took office, but I just wonder what would've happened had that person been Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, they were pretty obstructionist. First, they used the filibuster to prevent any of Obama's liberal justices, but when Neil Gorsuch got filibustered, they used the nuclear option to get him in. If I were a liberal, I would be angered deeply by this decision. The Republicans in the Senate clearly used double standards to keep that position conservative. But on the flip-side, it was reasonable to do so. Whatever they were trying to protect was Scalia's position, which was conservative. What Obama was trying to do was to flip that seat liberal. This was what the Republicans didn't want. Had it been Ginsburg or Breyer that died under Obama, they wouldn't use filibuster to block his picks. As for that nuclear option, the Democrats didn't want Gorsuch in, even if it was a conservative replacement to a conservative. I felt that this was fair because it's to keep the court in balance. Though a truly balanced Supreme Court would have one liberal-locked justice, one conservative-locked justice, one very liberal justice, one very conservative justice, one normally liberal justice, one normally conservative justice, one slightly liberal justice, one slightly conservative justice, and a moderate chief justice that is not leaning to either side. In addition, I mentioned the failure to compromise several times. Either we get along, or just stick to simple majority on the decisions.

I also agree with the conservatives on their handling of Garland because in times past, when a Supreme Court justice dies in an election year, they had to wait until the next president takes office to pick or confirm a justice. But Obama here was overly progressive. While Trump was a worse person morally, Obama did a terrible job on stuff like this. He ignored the separation of powers and the rights to states to get his actions done. Not only I disagree with his politics or political actions, but the way he tried to accomplish them is bad for the constitution. But I also believe that he's not the worst executive leader in the 2010's decade on the Democratic Party. Just the worst president.

To sum this up, I do feel fair that we should have a conservative replace a conservative, or a liberal replace a liberal, but the way the Republicans handled Garland and Gorsuch was not fair.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they were pretty obstructionist. First, they used the filibuster to prevent any of Obama's liberal justices, but when Neil Gorsuch got filibustered, they used the nuclear option to get him in. If I were a liberal, I would be angered deeply by this decision. The Republicans in the Senate clearly used double standards to keep that positiom conservative. But on the flip-side, it was reasonable to do so. Whatever they were trying to protect was Scalia's position, which was conservative. What Obama was trying to do was to flip that seat liberal. This was what the Republicans didn't want. Had it been Ginsburg or Breyer that died under Obama, they wouldn't use filibuster to block his picks. As for that nuclear option, the Democrats didn't want Gorsuch in, even if it was a conservative replacement to a conservative. I felt that this was fair because it's to keep the court in balance. Though a truly balanced Supreme Court would have one liberal-locked justice, one conservative-locked justice, one very liberal justice, one very conservative justice, one normally liberal justice, one normally conservative justice, one slightly liberal justice, one slightly conservative justice, and a moderate chief justice that is not leaning to either side. In addition, I mentioned the failure to compromise several times. Either we get along, or just stick to simple majority on the decisions.

To sum this up, I do feel fair that we should have a conservative replace a conservative, or a liberal replace a liberal, but the way the Republicans handled Garland and Gorsuch was not fair.

Still, it makes you wonder how the Republicans in Congress would've acted had Hillary won.
 
I think if Hillary won and GOP still control the senate they would prob block any SCOTUS pick Hillary would pick. I think Ted Cruz was thinking about it.

Plus, even a narrow Democratic majority could've still made it difficult (i.e., 2013 government shutdown).
 
Yeah, they were pretty obstructionist. First, they used the filibuster to prevent any of Obama's liberal justices, but when Neil Gorsuch got filibustered, they used the nuclear option to get him in. If I were a liberal, I would be angered deeply by this decision. The Republicans in the Senate clearly used double standards to keep that position conservative. But on the flip-side, it was reasonable to do so. Whatever they were trying to protect was Scalia's position, which was conservative. What Obama was trying to do was to flip that seat liberal. This was what the Republicans didn't want. Had it been Ginsburg or Breyer that died under Obama, they wouldn't use filibuster to block his picks. As for that nuclear option, the Democrats didn't want Gorsuch in, even if it was a conservative replacement to a conservative. I felt that this was fair because it's to keep the court in balance. Though a truly balanced Supreme Court would have one liberal-locked justice, one conservative-locked justice, one very liberal justice, one very conservative justice, one normally liberal justice, one normally conservative justice, one slightly liberal justice, one slightly conservative justice, and a moderate chief justice that is not leaning to either side. In addition, I mentioned the failure to compromise several times. Either we get along, or just stick to simple majority on the decisions.

I also agree with the conservatives on their handling of Garland because in times past, when a Supreme Court justice dies in an election year, they had to wait until the next president takes office to pick or confirm a justice. But Obama here was overly progressive. While Trump was a worse person morally, Obama did a terrible job on stuff like this. He ignored the separation of powers and the rights to states to get his actions done. Not only I disagree with his politics or political actions, but the way he tried to accomplish them is bad for the constitution. But I also believe that he's not the worst executive leader in the 2010's decade on the Democratic Party. Just the worst president.

To sum this up, I do feel fair that we should have a conservative replace a conservative, or a liberal replace a liberal, but the way the Republicans handled Garland and Gorsuch was not fair.

to be fair the republicans were justified in nuclear optioning Gorsuch. Dems already did that for their justices
 
Back
Top