Home | About | Donate

Blocking Gorsuch Matters Now More Than Ever


Blocking Gorsuch Matters Now More Than Ever

Miles Mogulescu

Trump and the Republicans are doing so many things so fast to hurt ordinary Americans, it’s hard for the resistance movement to keep up.

But nothing is more consequential than Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which was fast-tracked to the president’s desk by the Koch Brothers-backed Federalist Society.


Mogulescu telling us that "nothing is more consequential" than blocking Gorsuch is the understatement of the month.

Blocking Gorsuch and all other Trump SCOTUS nominees is of greater consequence than all the other issues Congress will address during Trump's POTUS stint COMBINED !

While the GOP's regressive legislation can be undone, Gorsuch is one of the youngest SCOTUS nominees in history and we and our descendents will be stuck with him beyond mid-century. With Bill Clinton's two SCOTUS appointees likely to retire or expire during Trump's tenure, SCOTUS is on the verge of becoming the lever the right wing has dreamed of for decades to turn the US into a theocratic, neofeudal state.

While Congressional Republicans may have failed to ditch the ACA, a more right wing SCOTUS will be able to ditch the ACA post haste, and that would just be the start of their push to neofeudalism. Murkins who put effort into stopping the GOP replacing the ACA therefore need to put at least twice that effort into stopping Gorsuch or all that effort to save ACA will have been for naught..


I think that it is imperative that every claim that Gorsuch should be blocked make the case for that claim. What is the case? I will listen to what you say.


Republicans blocked Garland and Democrats should block Gorsuch. However, expect Dems to come up with some miserable, cowardly excuse for even going to his confirmation hearing. Something like "we're better than mean Republicans so we'll confirm him to show we are so good..." or similar bullshit excuse.

As long as Big Money rules politics, that's what we can expect.

Online Direct Democracy


Every Democrat should filibuster every nominee from Trump for the SCOTUS with the argument that properly Scalia's successor should have been nominated by Obama and so the seat must remain empty until another Democrat can re-nominate Merrick Garland.

But they won't do this.

So a compromise. They'll let Trump's nominee get a vote if the nominee is in his or her late 80s or older.


They are blocking him. Schumer said this week he'll need 60 votes like Obama's nominees.


Yes, Schumer is planning a filibuster, which is a good thing.

But will all the Democrats vote against closure? That's the big question.


Why did they even attend a confirmation hearing for Gorsuch if Republicans refused to even hold a hearing for Garland? Bodes ill...


I don't know how many Democrats will vote for cloture, if any, but I don't think Schumer would say what he said if he didn't count first. The Republicans need 8 defections and I'm not sure they'll get them.


It sounds to me like you trust Schumer.

I don't. If I was buying a used car and I pulled into the car lot and Schumer started walking towards me, I'd peel out of there as fast as I could and never consider it again as a place to buy a good used car.

The man drips slime and insincerity.

I hope your right. But I doubt it.


When it comes to Senate procedure, I trust him. The only one better is McConnell now that Reid's gone. If he didn't have the not-votes, I don't think he'd say they need 60. He'd say something about Republicans not respecting the institution or that Dems are opposed to the way Republicans are doing the nomination. He was unequivocal which tells me he's got the numbers.

Of course, McConnell will change the rules then.


Based on his record, Gorsuch will resist any and all attempts to overturn the "Citizens United" decision that has resulted in ever-increasing amounts of Korporate money corrupting our elections.  IMHO, Gorsuch not only be- lieves that Multi-NaZional Korporations are "People" but that they are "UberMenshen" (Special People), who should have unquestioned authority over our economy.  Again, based on Gorsuch's record, it is extremely un- likely that he would support ANY reinstatement of the Voting Rights Act, but would instead vote to enhance "States Rights" that allow korporate-dominated state legislatures to determine eligibility requirements, further removing democracy from a fair vote by our human population. The Repooplican agenda to roll back Women's Rights, abolish the ACA, limit our First Amendment Rights, etc., etc., etc. would be given the green light if Neil Gorsuch is approved.


When John Paul Stevens (appointed by GOP POTUS Ford in 1975) retired from the SCOTUS in 2010 media across the spectrum concurred that he was the most left leaning justice on the SCOTUS, more left leaning than Bill Clinton's two appointees and Obama's single appointee at that time (note that POTUS Carter, Ford's successor, is the only full term POTUS to never have an opportunity to make a SCOTUS nomination).

The SCOTUS has moved so far to the right during the past four decades that additional GOP SCOTUS appointees will make it an extreme right wing organization. The SCOTUS takes much longer to turn around than the Congress or White House. Pulling it back from the extreme right is not likely to occur in the lifetime of anybody reading this post.

If that doesn't "make the case" for stopping Gorsuch, what does ?


On Chuck Schumer's (D-Wall St) grasp of having the votes lined up:

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”


That was regarding the election, not Senate procedure, and that was prior to the results. Right now, I think the Dems have over 40 to hold up the Gorusch nomination. That could change of course, or McConnell will just change the rules.


'Prior to the results,' and after the results, Chuck Schumer was, is and will be a Wall St tool.

You want a poster child for everything wrong with the Democratic Party? I nominate Schumer.


It is worth noting that no SCOTUS nomination has ever been filibustered in history. With this coming filibuster and the definite "nuclear option" to follow, the once proud US Senate is sinking lower into the abyss of ugly divisive politics. It's like the Butter Battle Book being played out between Democrats and Republicans. Everybody loses.