Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Curious what the legal minds here think of the two finalists - Neil Gorsuch (the rumored favorite) and Thomas Hardiman. Obviously both are more like a Scalia than a Ginsburg. Gorsuch has all the Ivy and Oxford credentials, kinda like a blue-blood among judges, and Hardiman, from Notre Dame and then Georgetown Law (no Ivy League), would worry staunch conservatives that he could be another Souter.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/ ... index.html

Definitely need a conservative who follows the Constitution.

Get the hard Right guy in now and use the nuclear option.

Later, you can replace the old bag of bones with another right leaning conservative and flip the court.

Hopefully, Trump will get to replace Breyer as well...and then Kennedy.

Speaking of which, who has Ginsburg in their death pool?

Cluck U wrote:Definitely need a conservative who follows the Constitution.

Get the hard Right guy in now and use the nuclear option.

Later, you can replace the old bag of bones with another right leaning conservative and flip the court.

Hopefully, Trump will get to replace Breyer as well...and then Kennedy.

Speaking of which, who has Ginsburg in their death pool?

The left will make a suit out of Ginsberg's skin and send in an impostor when she kicks the bucket

They'll go nuclear now to get this one (thanks Harry Reid!). And then I can't wait for the remaining lefty heads to explode when the next nomination is this guy

HI54UNI wrote:They'll go nuclear now to get this one (thanks Harry Reid!). And then I can't wait for the remaining lefty heads to explode when the next nomination is this guy

As a White American Male lefty I ain't scared one bit!

HI54UNI wrote:They'll go nuclear now to get this one (thanks Harry Reid!). And then I can't wait for the remaining lefty heads to explode when the next nomination is this guy

It won't just be lefty heads if he ever came up as a nomination. That's one guy I'd hit the streets and protest about, assuming that such protesting was worth doing in the first place.

Gorsuch seems like a good judge. I won't agree with him on everything, but he should be confirmed easily. I hope Democrats don't step on their dick on this. Choose a different battle.

-Academic credentials Columbia, Harvard (classmate of Obama's), Oxford.
-Clerked for a DC circuit judge and 2 middle of the road SCOTUS judges (White & Kennedy).
-Private practice for a decade in a DC law firm.
-Served for a year as Deputy to the Associate Attorney General.
-Over a decade on the 10th Circuit (W nominee).

Reporteldy an originalist, which sounds good. Hopefully will turn out be be another Scalia and not another Souter.

If the donks fillibuster him, as they seem to indicate, the conks should go nuclear.

Democrats better not filibuster.

But, if they do... Republicans and Trump should let them drag it out. It will hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans and Trump in the long run. And, he'll be confirmed regardless.

Going nuclear would be a terrible decision by Republicans (worse than Democrats filibustering)

He's an originalist and a strict constructionist.

The 2nd Amendment will be supported and almost as importantly, the Chevron Deference will be weakened.

Scene from Elizabeth Warren's press conference after Trump made the nomination

HI54UNI wrote:Scene from Elizabeth Warren's press conference after Trump made the nomination

Cluck U wrote:Definitely need a conservative who follows the Constitution.

Get the hard Right guy in now and use the nuclear option.

Later, you can replace the old bag of bones with another right leaning conservative and flip the court.

Hopefully, Trump will get to replace Breyer as well...and then Kennedy.

Speaking of which, who has Ginsburg in their death pool?

That would be me...

I liked the news reports of the protesters with Block "blank" and Filibuster "blank" signs waiting to fill in the name prior to the announcement.

BDKJMU wrote:-Academic credentials (Columbia, Harvard (classmate of Obama's), Oxford.

You left off Georgetown Prep. That's somewhat of a rival school to 89Jr's HS, also where a lot of my friends around here went. Was texting with them last night and apparently Trump's next pick could also be a Prep grad, Brett Kavanaugh.

HI54UNI wrote:Scene from Elizabeth Warren's press conference after Trump made the nomination

89Hen wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:-Academic credentials (Columbia, Harvard (classmate of Obama's), Oxford.

You left off Georgetown Prep. That's somewhat of a rival school to 89Jr's HS, also where a lot of my friends around here went. Was texting with them last night and apparently Trump's next pick could also be a Prep grad, Brett Kavanaugh.

Yeah my HS way back in the day played them 3 of my 4 years in football..

Rob Iola wrote:

Cluck U wrote:Definitely need a conservative who follows the Constitution.

Get the hard Right guy in now and use the nuclear option.

Later, you can replace the old bag of bones with another right leaning conservative and flip the court.

Hopefully, Trump will get to replace Breyer as well...and then Kennedy.

Speaking of which, who has Ginsburg in their death pool?

That would be me...

HI54UNI wrote:Scene from Elizabeth Warren's press conference after Trump made the nomination

CID1990 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Scene from Elizabeth Warren's press conference after Trump made the nomination

I knew you'd like that one!

Fauxcahontas!

Skjellyfetti wrote:Democrats better not filibuster.

But, if they do... Republicans and Trump should let them drag it out. It will hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans and Trump in the long run. And, he'll be confirmed regardless.

Going nuclear would be a terrible decision by Republicans (worse than Democrats filibustering)

No it wouldn't- the donks have already gone nuclear on judicial nominees in 2013. And I don't think the conks would go nuclear until they were literally forced to after a long donk fillibuster (there are pussies like McLame and Graham who are against the nuke option and probably wouldn't go for it until after a long donk filibuster).

Your're right in that it would be a bad decision by the donks, and Gorsuch will be confirmed regardless.

I guess I would now say its less likely the donks will filibuster:
-I heard Pence say that 7 donk senators have apparently stated that there should be an up or down vote.
-The donks might not want to take a chance on inducing the conks to get rid of the filibuster on a conservative nominee to replace a conservative Scalia, and keep the filibuster available for when/if one of the 4 lib judges dies/steps down and Trump nominates a conservative replacement.
-CNN yesterday before the nomination was announced:
"...The decision for Democrats depends partly on who Trump names. If he picks a conservative that Democrats consider "mainstream" -- such as Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch -- Democrats could hold off on a fight, according to the aides. But if he picks someone they consider outside the mainstream -- such as Appeals Court Judge William Pryor -- a major battle could ensue...."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/ ... index.html
-Despite the donks whineing about Garland not getting a vote, he wasn't filibustered. The conks didn't filibuster Kagan or Sotomayor. A filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee would be a new precedent. The filibuster has never been used on a SCOTUS nominee to the court before (In 1968 conk and southern donk senators filibustered Johnson's pick of associate SCOTUS jutice Abe Fortas to chief SCOTUS justice, and it took 67 votes for cloture then).

On the other hand, Politico was predicting 2 days ago that whoever Trump nominated would be filibustered..

If the Dems did decide to go the filibuster route with Gorsuch, which unless it comes out that he literally has skeletons in his closet doing so would be a phenomenal error on the Dems part, they should go to the old filibuster rules and make them speak the entire time. See how long they can stretch this thing out with 48 Dem senators taking turns, even go a couple of weeks of not getting anything else done but blocking the vote on Gorsuch. And then, at the end, go nuclear anyway.

I don't think it'll come to that, though. I think the Dems decide not to filibuster, or at least they just do a mock one to show they could've, and they let the vote go through and he'll end up with somewhere between 53 and 60 votes in his favor and both parties leave the theatrics for the next nomination.

I'm not a legal mind but I think that's a good pick. My son is a legal mind and he thinks so also even though in general he thinks Trump is an atrocity. So he and I are in agreement on that.

It's the silver lining with respect to us having an absolute embarrassment as President and the only reason for "understanding" people voting for that atrocity.

And let's be clear: Trump doesn't care. He has no legal philosophy. He is just doing what he thinks advances his interest. It's one positive but we still have a mentally ill President.

GannonFan wrote:If the Dems did decide to go the filibuster route with Gorsuch, which unless it comes out that he literally has skeletons in his closet doing so would be a phenomenal error on the Dems part, they should go to the old filibuster rules and make them speak the entire time. See how long they can stretch this thing out with 48 Dem senators taking turns, even go a couple of weeks of not getting anything else done but blocking the vote on Gorsuch. And then, at the end, go nuclear anyway.

I don't think it'll come to that, though. I think the Dems decide not to filibuster, or at least they just do a mock one to show they could've, and they let the vote go through and he'll end up with somewhere between 53 and 60 votes in his favor and both parties leave the theatrics for the next nomination.

Here's the rub - if they DO try to block Gorsuch (I don't think they will, but many of them have lost their minds lately so who knows?) I don't think they'll go nuclear. I think Trump will withdraw Gorsuch and nominate a real firebrand and THEN he'll demand the nuclear option. It will be a "next time, you better confirm my damn nominee" moment. It would be pure Trump

JohnStOnge wrote:I'm not a legal mind but I think that's a good pick. My son is a legal mind and he thinks so also even though in general he thinks Trump is an atrocity. So he and I are in agreement on that.

It's the silver lining with respect to us having an absolute embarrassment as President and the only reason for "understanding" people voting for that atrocity.

And let's be clear: Trump doesn't care. He has no legal philosophy. He is just doing what he thinks advances his interest. It's one positive but we still have a mentally ill President.

He is not embarrassing to me so quit with the blanket statements.

He needs to be on Rushmore simply because libs like you have lost what little minds they had left.