Wednesday, March 22, 2017
#VoteNoGorsuch
I don't want to be a posting hog ... maybe this post will being some of the others out to post in opposition, given that I doubt my opinion on this is the norm here.
I've been watching the confirmation hearing for Neil Gorsuch. I've seen much in the press about how the Democrats should fall in line and vote for him. I say they should not, that instead they should fight tooth and nail to keep him from being named a Supreme Court Justice. Why? Well, for so many reasons ....
- Because the Senate refused to consider President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland.
- Because the Trump administration is under investigation for colluding with the Russians to disropt our elections.
- Because Gorsuch seems to be for torture .... Where Does Gorsuch Stand on Torture? It’s Hard to Say ... and ... Neil Gorsuch was instrumental in defending George W. Bush’s torture program
- Because of Gorsuch's opinions in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases ... What we really know about US Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch based on his controversial Hobby Lobby decision ... and ... Gorsuch's Selective View of 'Religious Freedom' ... and ... What Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS Pick, Means for American Women
- Because he is no friend to LGBT rights ... Neil Gorsuch’s Disturbing Record on LGBTQ Rights
- Because of his view of Planned Parenthood ... Neil Gorsuch’s crusade against Planned Parenthood ... and ... Neil Gorsuch’s Nomination Is Bad News For Planned Parenthood
- Because he's against physician assisted suicide ... High court pick Gorsuch is harsh critic of assisted suicide
- And then there's the question of what he might do about Roe v. Wade .... Gorsuch: Roe v. Wade Is the 'Law of the Land'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If the Senate rejects Gorsuch, who will be the next nominee from Trump? And if that nominee is rejected, what about the next one? Are the Democrats to keep trying to get all nominees rejected until they control both the White House and the Senate? I would much prefer a liberal nominee, but it does not seem to me Gorsuch is outside the "mainstream" of conservative judges.
ReplyDeleteI would add that I consider myself very liberal, and I have grave concerns about physician-assisted suicide. (And of course the Catholic Church is unequivocally opposed. I think it would be a disaster to repeal Roe, but I think even many liberals would admit that it was wrongly decided. I will defend Planned Parenthood if it is attacked, but I will not contribute to it, and I rather wish it would get out of the abortion business. Religious freedom is a tricky issue, and I find it difficult to be objective about it when it comes to ACA and other healthcare matters. Am I perhaps less liberal than I think?
ReplyDeleteYes, you are :) Or at least less than me, I guess.
DeleteThe church is against assisted suicide but it has been Catholics - California governor Jerry Brown and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - who have recently championed it.
Planned Parenthood can't get out of the abortion business because it is almost the last and only place that hasn't been terrorized out of doing them. They used to be an accepted part of the regular gyn practice and were done at doctors' offices and hospitals, etc, and then the pro-life movement started murdering doctors and bombing clinics.
As a middle of the road type of person, I have mixed feelings about Gorsuch. As David points out, if not him, who would be the next nominee? Certainly Garland was treated shamefully. But tit-for-tat partisan politics is how we got to our present sorry state. To Gorsuch's credit, he has refused to be litmus tested on specific issues which (might) come before the court. I am concerned about his previous record on labor related issues; he seems to favor management and corporations over the rights of workers. But I think he would consider the life issues carefully. Overall, I am much more impressed by his credentials than I am with those of the Chief Executive who nominated him.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think many believe that since it's inevitable that we end up with a Trump appointee, the Dems should just accept Gorsuch instead of dragging it out. But dragging it out is all we can do now and "being nice and reasonable" was put to rest by the Repubs when they wouldn't give Obama's nominee a chance. 'Do not go gently ...'
DeleteGorsuch, although a well-groomed smoothee, is a pro-corporate fascist. His principle that corporations have more rights than humans will motivate him throughout his tenure. Anything that will block him is fine with me, even if eventually futile. The democrats should vote against him if only to prove they have some principles left. Let the republican apocalypse remain a REPUBLICAN apocalypse.
ReplyDeleteAll of which is true. But here is the real deal: Confirm him with 60 votes -- which means at least eight Ds have to go into the tank. Or let Addison Mitchell McConnell exercise the nuclear option and confirm with 50 votes and the vice president's, and then all of Comrade Trump's future appointments go on the court unstoppably with 50 + a VP votes.
DeleteYeah, I agree completely.
DeleteI agree with David N. It is likely that any new nominee would be far "worse" than Gorsuch. He is conservative, but, although raised RCC and educated at a Jesuit prep school, he is a member of a mainstream Episcopalian congregation.
ReplyDeleteI would be far more concerned if he was a conservative Catholic or evangelical Protestant. It seems he values being seen as being willing to be independent and not simply automatically to be counted on to serve Trump's agenda. I don't think Trump cares about abortion one way or another, but he is making a show of keeping his promises to the conservative religious supporters.
He may be Episcopalian now but he is a conservative Catholic in his stance on women's health care, on physician assisted suicide, marriage equality for LGBT people, religious liberty, etc.
DeleteI understand the fear, though, that we might get someone worse if he is rejected.
Talk about damning with faint praise!
DeleteHerpes is better than the other possible range of social diseases, so I'll settle for herpes.
I don't know if politicians have totally lost the art of working across the aisle. But right now I can think of an instance where some good could be accomplished by doing so. We all have expressed some misgivings about Gorsuch, some more so than others. However, we do recognize that we could get a worse nominee, and very likely will, if he is not approved. Meanwhile we have the House Republicans are rushing to ram through a repeal of the ACA, and bait-and-switching in Trumpcare, even though a lot of Republicans don't want it, for both good reasons and bad. You probably see where I'm going with this. Surely some deals could be worked out with wavering Republicans to trade approval of Gorsuch for help in blocking the repeal of the ACA and the hasty passing of the AHCA. I would trade herpes for not having Ebola, since we're talking diseases. 20-plus million people losing healthcare could inflict a lot more suffering and damage than Gorsuch is likely to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteThe art of working across the aisle died with when Ted Kennedy died - also ending the working partnership of John McCain and Ted Kennedy. No other pols have been able to work together the way they did to bring their respective sides to compromises.
ReplyDeleteRight now the battle over health insurance lies within one party, and in the House. If passed in anything like its current form, or even worse, with the Freedom Caucus demands added, it is very unlikely to pass the Senate anyway. The Gorsuch battle is between the two parties, unlike the House healthcare battle. The Gorsuch nomination will probably be voted on before the Senate gets the healthcare legislation, so there would be no room to bargain. No Dem Senator would even consider voting for the current healthcare proposal and enough Republican Senators have already said they oppose it that even Pence couldn't save it in the Senate. The Repubs in the House wanted a symbolic victory today (which they had to give up on) since it is seven years to the day since Obama signed the Affordable Care Act.
I don't think there will be much working together between the two parties. The Republicans have all the power and with it they are trying to pass a health care bill that will take away the insurance of millions of people, including the most vulnerable, while at the same time passing a budget that will profit the rich at the expense of the elderly, the poor, children, women, and the environment. And all this while they are backing up a lying, pussy-grabbing, nuke loving psycho as their leader. They are beyond working with.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer that the Democratic Party pick its battles strategically. That means maintaining the social safety nets now in place, such as they are. A Gorsuch filibuster looks like revenge politics, and I think the Democrats would do better making nice with the GOP members who can block the health care replacement rather than pissing them off about Gorsuch.
ReplyDeleteJean, I agree about the revenge politics, it seems counterproductive. The social safety nets need to stay in place.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's revenge. It's about standing up for their values and protecting the people who voted for them. I don't think if Gorsuch fails that they will find someone worse, and in fact they might be moved to find someone better instead.
ReplyDeletePS - for those interested, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gives his reasons why he and other Dems won't vote for Gorsuch ... video
ReplyDelete"And all this while they are backing up a lying, pussy-grabbing, nuke loving psycho as their leader. They are beyond working with."
ReplyDeleteWell, there is that. Always that.
My news feed says Trump is insisting on a Ryancare vote tomorrow and that if they can't get the thing passed, he will let Obamacare stand.
Interesting development, though I realize we're not talking about that.
Neither are we talking about meals on wheels, though my mother is freaking out about that. I always set aside portions of whatever we're having, freeze it in tins, and take four or five meals to her every couple of weeks. But I can't do this on a daily basis without quitting my job and moving in with her.
We are trying to help her age in place, but this is going to be harder to do as senior services get cut.
Jean, if it's any comfort, it appears that it varies a lot how much Meals on Wheels gets in federal funding in a given location. Here's a good link on the subject: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/20/520848721/could-meals-on-wheels-really-lose-funding-yes-but-its-hard-to-say-how-much
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKatherine, I commented on another post of a way to do that. Maybe it will help ...
DeleteTo get this ... Google
and where ( and ) = < and > ... if I actually use <> instead of () you won't be able to see it
write this ... (a href = "https://www.google.com/")Google(/a)
Thanks, Crystal!
DeleteI wrote the post Links and Other HTML in Comments to address the question of how to handle links. Please let me know if it is not clear.
DeleteI'll try to post the link again: here
DeleteJean, yes, the new budget proposes cuts to programs that fund Meals On Wheels and also school lunches for poor children. I was appalled when, at the White House Press Briefing, Mulvaney said those programs had to be cut because they "weren't showing any results" ... news video. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteKatherine is right that Meals on Wheels gets funding from multiple sources, so I don't think MoW will go away or that Mom couldn't afford to pay more for it (there's a suggested donation).
ReplyDeleteCrystal, yes, and talking about cuts to SS, Medicare, and other programs the elderly rely on makes them stressed out and insecure.
So, right now, it appears that the ACA is spared. Who knows what will happen going forward. But for supposedly being so unpopular, it garnered a lot of support. And I think it is funny that the Repubs couldn't agree among themselves enough to sink it.
ReplyDeleteIn their haste to replace the bill with something, anything, the GOP messed this up. I wonder if Trump will now, as mentioned on a previous thread, throw the Freedom Caucus to the wind and try to build a coalition of Democrats and Republicans to work on the problems in the ACA, which include increasing premiums (and more people falling into the donut hole), employer mandates that inadvertently encourage cutting workers to part-time, and the excessive bureaucracy needed to run the many state and federal health care programs, from CHIPs to Medicare to Medicaid, to the ACA. Mandating that everyone have insurance through their employer or through a public option on a sliding scale through contract insurers strikes me as a possible alternative.
Delete