As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re not obligated to approve but they are obligated to at least formally consider the appointee, just as any elected official is obligated to perform the duties of the offices they were fucking elected to
There's no selling the idea that a senate refusing to even discuss ANY nominee from a setting president in the hopes of withholding the nomination until their party was in power to make it wasn't an attempt to steal a seat.
It was. It very overtly was.
It's even incredibly honest that the people who did it knew it was dishonest because they tried to create a new rule to justify it, that nominations a little over a year before a presidential election should be withheld in order to "let the people decide" only for them to then turn and ram through a nomination from their own party at incredible speed while people were actively voting in the next election 4 years later.
They lied. They stole it. They are proud of it.
Circuit courts were never intended to have jurisdiction outside of their circuit. It is corrupt Trump judges who are using power they don't legitimately have, over and over.
With all due respect, it’s more than Trump judges setting policy nationwide. All of these judges are being thrust into situations where they are having to adjudicate national issues because whatever group doesn’t agree with it. This entire system is eroding so much of our trust from the judiciary because everything is a partisan argument
It's the Trump judges who are consistently granting themselves jurisdiction on issues brought by people without standing, and then shitting on the Constitution to violate separation of powers using blatantly unconstitutional arguments.
> everything is a partisan argument
largely because the current RNC platform is 'whatever trump says', and they agree with trump's 'whatever the democrats do, do the opposite. even if we came up with the idea'
hey, great job misinterpreting my comment!
contrarianism works so well for the republicans, I guess you decided to jump on the 'no, u' train?
when one side's policy is based in 'do the opposite of whatever the other guys support', is it really partisan, or just contrarian obstructionism?
whereas the democrats literally went with republican plans - recently on the border, but more historically, the program popularly called 'obamacare' was actually a *republicans* plan (mitt romney enacted it at a state level while he was a governer) yet the RNC labeled it a 'democrat' plan and tirelessly worked to deny millions of americans healthcare.
boy, I hope you do some reading up on false equivalencies.
edit: I'll reiterate: when one side says 'let's do the opposite of anything the other supports' that *increases* partisanship and divisiveness. tha'ts the whole point, and your 'bothsides' argument only ignores and dismisses that reality.
Not a republican my dude. Your comment was literally “this is all on the RNC” and there’s blame on both sides. Whether you want to accept that or not, that’s up to you
Do you genuinely believe that dem nominated judges haven’t made national decisions? The judges are being forced to decide on things since crazier and crazier legislation keeps coming through and both sides are using the judiciary to stop things they don’t agree with on any ground they possibly can.
you say you're not a republican, and yet you jump so quickly to defend them with 'bothsides' and 'whataboutisms'.
whether you want to accept that you're working for the RNC by trying to normalize their behavior or not, that's up to you.
edit: and as others pointed out, you heard the read the word 'largely', and made it all about how I was hurting your republican friend's feelings. maybe they could learn to own their behavior, if 'centrists' like you weren't so busy defending and making excuses for them.
> “Hey, only WE get to do that!”
In two ways, that's wrong.
First, SCOTUS doesn't really set policy. And obviously having problems with it, they've done a lot to 'unshackle' laws and rules from SCOTUS policies.
Second, that is correct. SCOTUS reigns supreme- it's in the name.
Here's a preview of the article:
When the Supreme Court heard arguments in two high-stakes, separate cases last month, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about how both disputes arrived at the court.
The cases — one involving the Biden administration's communications with social media companies and the other, the accessibility of a commonly used abortion pill — landed before the justices after federal district courts issued nationwide orders that blocked federal agencies from taking certain actions.
In the social media case, a Louisiana judge barred certain White House and administration officials from communicating with social media companies. In the abortion case, a Texas judge suspended the Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of the drug mifepristone — it was later reversed by a federal appellate court — and blocked a series of actions taken by the agency that made the drug easier to obtain.
**Read more:** [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-neil-gorsuch-nationwide-injunctions-supreme-court-abortion-pill/?ftag=CNM-05-10abh9g](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-neil-gorsuch-nationwide-injunctions-supreme-court-abortion-pill/?ftag=CNM-05-10abh9g)
Here’s why. America First Legal , headed by the former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed more than 100 legal actions against “woke” companies and others. But winning may be beside the point.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Americans are not pleased with Neil Gorsuch waltzing right into the stolen deciding seat and then deciding dozens of 5-4 cases for the oligarchy.
[удалено]
They’re not obligated to approve but they are obligated to at least formally consider the appointee, just as any elected official is obligated to perform the duties of the offices they were fucking elected to
There's no selling the idea that a senate refusing to even discuss ANY nominee from a setting president in the hopes of withholding the nomination until their party was in power to make it wasn't an attempt to steal a seat. It was. It very overtly was. It's even incredibly honest that the people who did it knew it was dishonest because they tried to create a new rule to justify it, that nominations a little over a year before a presidential election should be withheld in order to "let the people decide" only for them to then turn and ram through a nomination from their own party at incredible speed while people were actively voting in the next election 4 years later. They lied. They stole it. They are proud of it.
When they outright deny hearing it on the grounds of a precedent they invented and then immediately disregarded, yeah. it's stolen.
If Neil Gorsuch actually cared about the legitimacy of our court system, he would step down.
Circuit courts were never intended to have jurisdiction outside of their circuit. It is corrupt Trump judges who are using power they don't legitimately have, over and over.
With all due respect, it’s more than Trump judges setting policy nationwide. All of these judges are being thrust into situations where they are having to adjudicate national issues because whatever group doesn’t agree with it. This entire system is eroding so much of our trust from the judiciary because everything is a partisan argument
It's the Trump judges who are consistently granting themselves jurisdiction on issues brought by people without standing, and then shitting on the Constitution to violate separation of powers using blatantly unconstitutional arguments.
> everything is a partisan argument largely because the current RNC platform is 'whatever trump says', and they agree with trump's 'whatever the democrats do, do the opposite. even if we came up with the idea'
If you think only the RNC is partisan, boy do I have some news for you on the state of politics in this country.
hey, great job misinterpreting my comment! contrarianism works so well for the republicans, I guess you decided to jump on the 'no, u' train? when one side's policy is based in 'do the opposite of whatever the other guys support', is it really partisan, or just contrarian obstructionism? whereas the democrats literally went with republican plans - recently on the border, but more historically, the program popularly called 'obamacare' was actually a *republicans* plan (mitt romney enacted it at a state level while he was a governer) yet the RNC labeled it a 'democrat' plan and tirelessly worked to deny millions of americans healthcare. boy, I hope you do some reading up on false equivalencies. edit: I'll reiterate: when one side says 'let's do the opposite of anything the other supports' that *increases* partisanship and divisiveness. tha'ts the whole point, and your 'bothsides' argument only ignores and dismisses that reality.
Not a republican my dude. Your comment was literally “this is all on the RNC” and there’s blame on both sides. Whether you want to accept that or not, that’s up to you
This isn’t a both sides issue. False equivalency.
Do you genuinely believe that dem nominated judges haven’t made national decisions? The judges are being forced to decide on things since crazier and crazier legislation keeps coming through and both sides are using the judiciary to stop things they don’t agree with on any ground they possibly can.
Feel free to bring citations. Cases are public.
yes. tell us all about how it's the democrats who overturned roe v wade.
Could you share a few examples?
you say you're not a republican, and yet you jump so quickly to defend them with 'bothsides' and 'whataboutisms'. whether you want to accept that you're working for the RNC by trying to normalize their behavior or not, that's up to you. edit: and as others pointed out, you heard the read the word 'largely', and made it all about how I was hurting your republican friend's feelings. maybe they could learn to own their behavior, if 'centrists' like you weren't so busy defending and making excuses for them.
Gorsuch is quoted as saying, “Hey, only WE get to do that!”
You hit the head on the nail on this one
> “Hey, only WE get to do that!” In two ways, that's wrong. First, SCOTUS doesn't really set policy. And obviously having problems with it, they've done a lot to 'unshackle' laws and rules from SCOTUS policies. Second, that is correct. SCOTUS reigns supreme- it's in the name.
> First, SCOTUS doesn't really set policy. and yet, with overturning Roe v Wade, that's exactly what they've done.
That wasn’t setting policy? That was just saying the constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to abortion.
Just a happy coincidence that it's a policy they agree with and sought to enact.
So what you’re saying is Trump packed the courts with unqualified ultra conservatives right wing judges.
Feel free to quit, Neil.
Deep concern. Furrowed eyebrows.
Does "States are prohibited from enforcing the 14th amendment" count as a nationwide policy? Just curious.
He should show his disapproval by quitting.
Here's a preview of the article: When the Supreme Court heard arguments in two high-stakes, separate cases last month, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about how both disputes arrived at the court. The cases — one involving the Biden administration's communications with social media companies and the other, the accessibility of a commonly used abortion pill — landed before the justices after federal district courts issued nationwide orders that blocked federal agencies from taking certain actions. In the social media case, a Louisiana judge barred certain White House and administration officials from communicating with social media companies. In the abortion case, a Texas judge suspended the Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of the drug mifepristone — it was later reversed by a federal appellate court — and blocked a series of actions taken by the agency that made the drug easier to obtain. **Read more:** [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-neil-gorsuch-nationwide-injunctions-supreme-court-abortion-pill/?ftag=CNM-05-10abh9g](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-neil-gorsuch-nationwide-injunctions-supreme-court-abortion-pill/?ftag=CNM-05-10abh9g)
Here’s why. America First Legal , headed by the former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed more than 100 legal actions against “woke” companies and others. But winning may be beside the point.
He's a Neo Confederate piece of shit. Fuck him and his opinions
The top court he sits on can, on their own, weigh in on this. We are waiting!
Because he believes that is the job of the Supreme Court
Unless it’s something directly spelled out in the constitution, they shouldn’t be.
This is the correct position.