Sunday, April 2, 2017
A NEW JUDGE HAS ARRIVED?!
This week I wanted to highlight one of the units we talked about this past month which was the justices and the open positon in the supreme court. The current supreme court nominee Neil Gorsuch is scheduled to have a hearing within the next week or such. One of the major criticisms so far that Gorsuch faces is that he is a Trump nominee, which so far has not produce the best candidates for their respective positions. Gorsuch is nominated to take the seat of the recently deceased supreme court judge Antonin Scalia , with whom he shares an "originalist" philosophy in terms of a constitutional interpretation and making decisions on new amendments. With three liberals four conservatives and a swing judge, Gorsuch taking Scalia's position should not tip the power balance either way. Even with all the pros and cons the Democrats are positive that the republicans can not get the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster even in a republican dominated senate. This is the same thing we have been seeing so far this year of republican nominees being voted against by the democratic party. The situation with the open seat on the supreme court has been long standing since president Obama's term when the seat originally opened. The republicans stood against the democratic nominee and now the democrats are doing the same but will their ever be a decision made? Do you believe that the democrats are justified in withholding the supreme court seat or are they being immature and trying to get back at the republicans. Do you believe that Gorsuch is a good replacement or should there be new perspective brought to the court even if he shares the same ideals as Scalia?https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/home-stretch-for-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-could-forever-alter-the-senate/2017/04/02/2d1fdfb8-17a2-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html?utm_term=.6253cb73f8ef
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that they are justified in withholding the SCOTUS seat. The GOP intentionally refused to do their constitutional duty to even meet to confirm President Obama's appointee. They basically stole President Obama's right to pick the next SCOTUS justice. If the GOP even cares about doing anything right, they should tell 45 that they will not confirm his pick until they at least have the confirmation hearings for Merlick Garland. This is nothing personal against Gorsuch but right is right.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right Ms.Harris but what could be done to prevent this or end situations like this in the future. We can not have a vacant seat in the supreme court forever so sooner or later a choice will need to be made to restore the supreme court or risk not being able to solve and costitutional problems. What do you belive would be a good law or punishment for when the government can not agree on a nominee?
DeleteI would like to agree with Ms. Harris. The GOP has withheld a constitutional power of the president, which puts limitations of his power as an elected official. Just because you are for the other party doesn’t mean that you have the right to deny people of their decisions that they can make that is ultimately going to affect the constituents. The justice that Obama elected into office was more moderate than liberal which would already help a more conservative judge. Put rather being adults and tackling an issue or set aside their political affiliation on a bipartisan issue, they rather let 293 days pass with no justice because they didn’t like the president or agree with his views. How can our government run with fruition if there is great party polarization. This is not fair to the people who vote for legislators when they don’t even do their job.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question, I would like to restate what Ms. Harris said in class. She stated that none of them are going to retire because they haven't met a president that they fully trust. To answer your second question, if you say that it should be the same no matter if Sarah or Gorsuch stays. The other thing that you have to keep in consideration is his moral stand points.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though this issue is honestly very immature on both sides. We are all under one government(or we should be) but they are splitting it up to the point where we can't get things done. Parties make it difficult to move on when they do things like hold hearings back because the nominee is of an opposite party. It shouldn't be about the party a person is from or is supported by but it should be about that persons ideas and views. To answer one of your questions I don't think having a person with the same views as Scalia is beneficial or detrimental. It depends on how you look at the situation. With someone that has the same views as Scalia the job would be done just as it would if Scalia was still present so there's no real negative to that. The only thing I have to say is that because the justices are appointed for life their ideas are circulated for a lifetime and we should get new ideas into circulation instead of the same old ones. With a judge that has a similar"original" mindset as Scalia there is no new ideas so we won't really progress but we might not necessarily degress.
ReplyDeleteImmature is a ture statement and is a accurate description of the whole problem. Regarding your response to the my question i believe that you are right in saying that there would not be a major change in the way things are done but what would you like to see change in the mindsets of the judges. What type of person do yu believ would bette replace Scalia in the supreme court
DeleteAlthough it may seem immature, like Ms. Harris already stated, President Obama was given similar treatment during his presidency. Now that they are deciding to return the favor, we cannot complain. Along with that argument, I feel as though there should be a more liberal nominee. If Gorsuch is successfully placed, there will be more conservative judges. This would make final opinion less fair when it comes to supreme court cases. If anything, they should try to place someone who is in between or a swing voter. Even if Gorsuch would replace Scalia with similar views and ideology, this would make things much more reasonable.
ReplyDeleteI believe that someone does need to fill the seat. The fact that they prolonged the appointment of a new judge until Trump's presidency is somewhat immature. It would be even immature if Democrats try to prolong the process now. I think we need to be mindful of who TRUMP appoints and make sure they are fit for the job. This is a lifetime position and it shouldn't be taken lightly.
ReplyDelete