Schumer Signals No on Gorsuch: ‘The Judge Today Avoided Answers Like the Plague’

[rangerrebew]

Schumer Signals No on Gorsuch: ‘The Judge Today Avoided Answers Like the Plague’

(CNSNews.com) – Nice guy, but…

Following his meeting with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) described him as “a very smart, polite and capable man who loves being a judge.”  But Schumer indicated he won’t vote to confirm him:

“I have serious, serious concerns about this nominee,” he told a news conference on Tuesday. “The judge today avoided answers like the plague.”

Given President Trump’s “deep contempt for an independent judiciary,” Schumer said the bar has “never been higher” for a Supreme Court nominee to prove that he can be independent.

 
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/schumer-signals-no-gorsuch-judge-today-avoided-answers-plague

[Jazzhead]

Reading between the lines,  Schumer is saying that Judge Gorsuch's primary disqualification is that President Trump nominated him.   And because of such assholery the nuclear option will be triggered,  and future Supreme Court Justices will determined based on two criteria alone (i) their stance on Roe v. Wade, and (ii) the political party in power.   

Nothing has been more destructive to the body politic than Roe v. Wade,  and the inability to craft a political solution to abortion.   That leaves the matter to the Supreme Court,  with both sides seeking a deus ex machina.  All other issues that ought to concern the citizenry regarding the reach of the law -  individual liberty,  property rights,   the separation of powers, you name it - are secondary.   

[Hoodat]

Schumer is upset that Gorsuch won't legislate for the Left from the bench.

Meanwhile, Kagan who had never spent a day wearing a judge's robe got Schumer's full support.

[libertybele]

When Gorsuch was nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals by W. Bush in 2006, he was confirmed unanimously with a 95-0 vote in the Senate. Chucky Schumer was among those voting. Other than Trump nominating him to the SCOTUS, what changed to give Chucky such serious concerns?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Reading between the lines,  Schumer is saying that Judge Gorsuch's primary disqualification is that President Trump nominated him.   And because of such assholery the nuclear option will be triggered,  and future Supreme Court Justices will determined based on two criteria alone (i) their stance on Roe v. Wade, and (ii) the political party in power.   

Nothing has been more destructive to the body politic than Roe v. Wade,  and the inability to craft a political solution to abortion.   That leaves the matter to the Supreme Court,  with both sides seeking a deus ex machina.  All other issues that ought to concern the citizenry regarding the reach of the law -  individual liberty,  property rights,   the separation of powers, you name it - are secondary.   

There is no such thing as "a political solution to Roe v. Wade".

The only possible solution to abortion is in the hearts and minds of the people.

The struggle between people who believe it is their right to make the choice to have an abortion, and those whose belief system drives them to try stopping others from making and carrying out that choice will exist irrespective of whether Roe v. Wade exists or not.

In fact, and this is a highly unpopular point of view, Row simply neutralizes the politics of the struggle over the issue of abortion. Under Roe, we live in a country where a woman can't be forced to either have an abortion, or not to have one.

The pro "get rid of Roe" argument insists that the decision of whether to allow for abortions to take place or not should fall to the States, but that only means that the search for that "political solution" to Roe v Wade would be passed along, since pro-life activists are not demanding Federalism, but prohibition.

The solution to abortion is for those activists to go to the people, and help them understand that abortion is wrong. By doing that, they would be rendering Roe v. Wade meaningless.

[Jazzhead]

There is no such thing as "a political solution to Roe v. Wade".

The only possible solution to abortion is in the hearts and minds of the people.

The struggle between people who believe it is their right to make the choice to have an abortion, and those whose belief system drives them to try stopping others from making and carrying out that choice will exist irrespective of whether Roe v. Wade exists or not.

In fact, and this is a highly unpopular point of view, Row simply neutralizes the politics of the struggle over the issue of abortion. Under Roe, we live in a country where a woman can't be forced to either have an abortion, or not to have one.

The pro "get rid of Roe" argument insists that the decision of whether to allow for abortions to take place or not should fall to the States, but that only means that the search for that "political solution" to Roe v Wade would be passed along, since pro-life activists are not demanding Federalism, but prohibition.

The solution to abortion is for those activists to go to the people, and help them understand that abortion is wrong. By doing that, they would be rendering Roe v. Wade meaningless.

Well said, Luis.   Whatever one may think of Roe v. Wade,  the fact that it's been the law for forty years is salient.  It used to be a respectable conservative position that a judge should respect stare decisis - but not on the abortion issue, where activism by unelected judges is seen as a litmus test.

I disagree, though, that Roe has "neutralized the politics of the struggle".  So long as one side insists on prohibition and the other side is afraid that the right hangs by the thread of a single Supreme Court justice,  the political struggle over abortion will dominate all others,  and obscure the myriad other issues that ought to define what makes a judge "liberal" or "conservative".     

 The solution isn't prohibition but (i) reconciliation on the existence of the right, (ii) persuasive advocacy that abortion, while legal, is profoundly wrong,  and (iii) real support - not mere words - for women facing the crisis of an unplanned pregnancy.



   

[Hoodat]

Nothing has been more destructive to the body politic than Roe v. Wade,  and the inability to craft a political solution to abortion.

There already is a political solution.  It is called the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Hoodat]

Whatever one may think of Roe v. Wade,  the fact that it's been the law for forty years is salient.

Democrats made that exact same argument about segregation in 1954.

[Jazzhead]

Democrats made that exact same argument about segregation in 1954.

I keep hearing this ridiculous argument.   Brown v. Board of Education clarified a right extended to black Americans by the 14th Amendment (and, of course, to the rest of us).   It wasn't the taking of a right away - a right hitherto deemed guaranteed by the Constitution.   Those who want prohibition (hat-tip to Luis; I like how he described this particularly coercive proclivity of many pro-lifers)  want to remove a right hitherto deemed guaranteed by the Constitution (and certainly relied on by the affected citizens for their entire adult lives).   

How can you compare the clarification of a right with the denial of a right?    Hell,  I'd be likely to support laws that clarify, but do not deny, the abortion right.   It's not that abortion isn't wrong - it is.   But the way to eradicate it shouldn't involve coercion.   

Out of curiousity - if you were on the SCOTUS in 1954, how would you have voted on Brown v. Board?   

[Jazzhead]

There already is a political solution.  It is called the Constitution of the United States of America.

  The abortion right is deemed guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.   What frosts you is that the issue wasn't decided politically, it was by the edict of "unelected judges".

So stop demanding that two wrongs make a right.   Pass a Constitutional amendment to declare that fetuses have the rights of citizens, with the rights of children against their own parents.    Do it the right way -  do it by the political mechanism called for in the Constitution.  Until then, non-viable fetuses aren't citizens,  and any court that would declare so would be acting as a deus ex machina.   

[Hoodat]

I keep hearing this ridiculous argument.

Hey, you're the one making it.  Regardless of how unconstitutional Roe is, we need to keep it because it has been in place for 40 years.  Just like segregation.

Brown v. Board of Education clarified a right extended to black Americans by the 14th Amendment (and, of course, to the rest of us).

That same amendment was in effect in 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson declared segregation 'constitutional'.

It wasn't the taking of a right away - a right hitherto deemed guaranteed by the Constitution.   

Plessy was.  Plessy is the complement to Roe.  And the decision that overturns Roe will be the complement of Brown.

Those who want prohibition (hat-tip to Luis; I like how he described this particularly coercive proclivity of many pro-lifers)  want to remove a right hitherto deemed guaranteed by the Constitution (and certainly relied on by the affected citizens for their entire adult lives).

What right would that be?  And where in the Constitution can I find it?  Because your blatant pro-life bigotry shows me that you do not see this as a Constitutional issue at all. 

How can you compare the clarification of a right with the denial of a right?   

I'm not.  You're the one putting up that strawman.

Roe = Plessy.  In 1954, segregationist argued that Plessy was settled law - that after 58 years, it would be wrong to take segregation away, despite what the Constitution said.  Today, you make the exact same argument for abortion.

Hell,  I'd be likely to support laws that clarify, but do not deny, the abortion right.   

Roe denies you that right.

It's not that abortion isn't wrong - it is.

The rights and wrongs of abortion are completely irrelevant to the constitutionality of Roe.  The fact that you keep injecting the moral argument is an admission that you do not have a legal leg to stand on.

Out of curiousity - if you were on the SCOTUS in 1954, how would you have voted on Brown v. Board?   

The same way that Justice Harlan voted in 1896.

But in the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.  There is no caste here.  Our Constitution in color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.  In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.   The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.

Justice John Marshall Harlan - Dissenting opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson

[Hoodat]

  The abortion right is deemed guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Deemed?  You sound like Nancy Pelosi.

What frosts you is that the issue wasn't decided politically, it was by the edict of "unelected judges".

Uh, no.  What frosts me is that the Constitution was discarded in favor of the tyranny of five men wearing black robes.  Men.  The primary beneficiaries of abortion on demand.

So stop demanding that two wrongs make a right.

Never have I demanded a second wrong.  Never.  My sole demand is for the Constitution be utilized as the foundation for a self-determined government.  And for some inexplicable reason, you oppose that.

Pass a Constitutional amendment to declare that fetuses have the rights of citizens, with the rights of children against their own parents.

'Pass a Constitutional amendment to deny States the right to establish their own laws regarding abortion.'

See how stupid that sounds?  If the Constitution is not being observed as is, what good will it do to amend it?

Do it the right way -  do it by the political mechanism called for in the Constitution.

There already is one.  It is called the Tenth Amendment.

Until then, non-viable fetuses aren't citizens 

Totally irrelevant to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of Roe.  But then you knew that already.

[Night Hides Not]

"The Plague" is nowhere near as dangerous as the space between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.

[Luis Gonzalez]

[RetBobbyMI]

Schumer is a clown and should be treated as such. His words, along with the likes of Lizzie "I'm an injun" Warren, are only out to wreck the country.