• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Tom Brokaw advises Democrats not to block Gorsuch: ‘Why pick that as a fight?’

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw advised the Democratic Party on Friday against trying to block President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch.

During during a panel discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about recent violent protests at the University of California, Berkeley, Brokaw noted that “rage is not a policy.”

“You’ve got to figure out what you want to do,” Brokaw said. “For example, there is going to be a big pushback about Judge Gorsuch on the part of the Democrats, they’re going to make that one of their testing places for them.”

He said that Gorsuch “has a very distinguished background in the judicial world.”

“I have friends in the federal judiciary who don’t agree with his philosophy but say there is not a better judge in the federal circuit right now than him, so why pick that as a fight?” Brokaw said. “Because who are you going to get next?”

NBC’s Katy Tur concurred, saying that the party should choose its battles more “wisely” rather than opposing “anything” Republicans do.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ot-to-block-gorsuch-why-pick-that-as-a-fight/
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw advised the Democratic Party on Friday against trying to block President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch.
I agree. The Democrats should not do what the Republicans did when Obama nominated his candidate.
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree. The Democrats should not do what the Republicans did when Obama nominated his candidate.
But of course you mean they shouldn't go against the President's choice for Supreme Court.

In actuality the Democrat's CAN'T do what Republican's did because they don't (and didn't) control the Senate at the time of nomination.

The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to approve OR disapprove of a President's Supreme Court nominations.
The Republican Senate merely decided to let the people choose who would nominate the next Justice.

Rob
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.

1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.

“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”

3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”

The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.

4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.

There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.

Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.

“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.

5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.

6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.

“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.

7. The AFL-CIO union vowed to block then-President Ronald Reagan’s nominee Robert Bork by soiling his public reputation so badly that any Democratic senator who voted in favor of confirming him would have to explain it to his constituents. Kennedy continued this line of rhetoric in a well-known floor speech. He infamously said:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.

8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.

Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.

9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.

“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

10. In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, urged Senate Democrats to “stand up and fight as they have been doing with Miguel Estrada.”

“At this time of global turmoil, we don’t need extremists in the courts willing to make a Dred Scott decision in the area of women’s fundamental rights,” she said.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw advised the Democratic Party on Friday against trying to block President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch.

During during a panel discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about recent violent protests at the University of California, Berkeley, Brokaw noted that “rage is not a policy.”

“You’ve got to figure out what you want to do,” Brokaw said. “For example, there is going to be a big pushback about Judge Gorsuch on the part of the Democrats, they’re going to make that one of their testing places for them.”

He said that Gorsuch “has a very distinguished background in the judicial world.”

“I have friends in the federal judiciary who don’t agree with his philosophy but say there is not a better judge in the federal circuit right now than him, so why pick that as a fight?” Brokaw said. “Because who are you going to get next?”

NBC’s Katy Tur concurred, saying that the party should choose its battles more “wisely” rather than opposing “anything” Republicans do.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ot-to-block-gorsuch-why-pick-that-as-a-fight/

I'm shocked! You watch NBC News?
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But of course you mean they shouldn't go against the President's choice for Supreme Court.
I think it is quite fair to point out that our current President should not even have this pick and they should really be talking about Merrick Garland, but once that point is made, they need to set it aside and consider the current candidate.

He appears to be an outstanding scholar and highly-qualified for the Court. Those who think that he is going to be a rock solid "conservative" voice, might be disappointed. Judges who are fine scholars don't usually follow party lines - think Souter.

In actuality the Democrat's CAN'T do what Republican's did because they don't (and didn't) control the Senate at the time of nomination.
RIght. They can't play obstructionist power games like the Republicans did. I was no fan of Obama, but elections really do mean something. The Republicans ceded all moral authority to complain about obstructionism for a very long time. In less than two years, the Republican President may not have those majorities anymore.

The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to approve OR disapprove of a President's Supreme Court nominations
Absolutely.

The Republican Senate merely decided to let the people choose who would nominate the next Justice.
The people did chose who would nominate the next Justice back in 2012 - President Obama. Elections mean something. Claiming that "the people" chose the Republican inaction is dishonest.

My vote lost when Obama was elected in 2012. The Republican Senate went against my will in 2015-2016 when they did not undertake hearings for Merrick Garland. My vote lost when I voted against Trump in 2016. Neither the Republicans or Democrats represent my views. Congress does not represent my views, except for my Republican Representative much of the time. The Executive Branch does not represent my views. The Supreme Court is not intended to represent anyone's views.

Let's not try to deceive ourselves and others by claiming that "the people choose" the next Justice. That's simply not how it works and the Republican Party completely corrupted the process last year.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.

1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.

“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”

2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.

“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”

3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.

In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”

The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.

4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.

There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.

Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.

“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.

5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.

6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.

“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administration withdrew Estrada’s nomination.

7. The AFL-CIO union vowed to block then-President Ronald Reagan’s nominee Robert Bork by soiling his public reputation so badly that any Democratic senator who voted in favor of confirming him would have to explain it to his constituents. Kennedy continued this line of rhetoric in a well-known floor speech. He infamously said:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government.

8. Joe Biden wrote the playbook for how to “bork” a Supreme Court nominee, a descriptive verb that now means to publicly pillory a nominee’s reputation to make it politically difficult for senators to vote for them. It’s named, of course, after what Democrats did to Robert Bork.

Then-Senator Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee, and he put together what’s now been deemed a “Biden report,” a document detailing Bork’s judicial history and personal background. The judiciary committee voted against Bork’s confirmation by a vote of 9-5.

9. Democratic groups vowed to “bork” Justice Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They failed, but the personal attacks on Thomas were brutal.

“We’re going to bork him,” said National Organization for Women’s Flo Kennedy. “We need to kill him politically.”

10. In 2008, Democrats banded together to filibuster Bush’s decision to nominate Priscilla Owen to a federal circuit court.

Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, urged Senate Democrats to “stand up and fight as they have been doing with Miguel Estrada.”

“At this time of global turmoil, we don’t need extremists in the courts willing to make a Dred Scott decision in the area of women’s fundamental rights,” she said.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/
Blah Blah Blah......Schmuck Schumer is your typical NY Democrat Politician with Plugs & Crybaby/ Spoiled throw a tantrum if you don't get your own way, tactics.

Remind you of anyone else from NYC?
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thank you for the list. Your point is well taken.

So should Republicans stoop to those tactics?

Should we stoop to allowing extremists who hate the founding of this country and want to fundamentally change it by abusing the courts system instead of the consitutional means to make changes. Should we stoop to stoping extremists who want to see the constitution as a living doctument instead of interpreting it according to its original intent? Should we stoop to stoping marxists who arfe idealogues who want to approve of sick and perverted behaviors?

Yea we should stoop.
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thank you for the list. Your point is well taken.

So should Republicans stoop to those tactics?

Why not? Democrats will stomp them into the ground if they do the "honorable" thing. It's been proven time and time again.

Republicans are stupid and weak, but they have learned their lesson on a few things.
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think it is quite fair to point out that our current President should not even have this pick and they should really be talking about Merrick Garland, but once that point is made, they need to set it aside and consider the current candidate..

Not really, The pick wasn't 0bama's, It was for whomever the Senate allowed to be placed there.
The President nominates... the Senate has complete and final discression in whether to accept or approve a nomination.

He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. (Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2)
Rob
 
Top