What would it take?

[JoeRedskin]

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Nailed it...everything ive read he is unbiased to the letter of the law type. I think the most important thing he said was...a good judge should never be happy with all his rulings.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.

That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In terms of court balance, I think Garland or a unifying pick would have increased the chance that Ginsburg steps down. She's here forever now.
That said, Garland was nominated by a sitting president. He should have had a hearing, and Trump would have been a better man to nominate him, even if the Republicans shot him down in the first week. It was wrong, AND sets a very bad precedent, to hold a nominee for nearly 1 whole year basically because you can.

Could you have imagined if Scaila would have criticized Obama as a nominee for President like Ginsburg did?

Funny, didn't hear liberals say a peep about this when it happened several months ago.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.

Lord knows you guys know how I feel about Trump but from what I have read and info I have seen an heard about this guy he is the best that we can expect from Trump and honestly he seems fine with me .The Dems need to pick their battles with Trump ....this one they should let go.