Democrats Oppose Trump's Gay Nominee to the Federal Bench

Nov 2016
7,695
7,196
USA
#21
Since when has support for a presidential nominee become required, as appears to be the suggestion? It’s not like the GOPers supported nominees of Dem presidents. I’d say that the GOPers, conservatives and trump supporters are in no position to whine over this.
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
32,276
26,162
Kansas
#23
The reason Bumatay is being opposed is because of his ideology, not his sexuality, and the fact that he's 40 years old and would impose a significant influence on the Ninth Circuit that is significantly out of step with most people who live there, for the next 30 to 40 years. He is a dedicated "originalist" who will adopt a hard conservative line from the bench. There has been no confusion about this.

This thread is hot, flaming bullshit. Democrats aren't worried about Trump in this context, they're worried about the future.
 
Last edited:

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
32,276
26,162
Kansas
#26
Ms. Isalexi,

Are you saying the Democrats are acting like liberals say Republicans do whenever a gay person is mentioned?
Democrats tend to oppose right-wing originalist judges, particularly when they are to be seated in California, yeah.

Indeed, such judges previously would not have been allowed. In yet another act of extraordinary Republican hypocrisy, Grassley and now Graham have overturned decades of Senate precedent and removed the right of senators to kill nominees from their home state.

Against all these facts, insisting on conversation about the nominee's sexuality is actually discriminatory. He deserves to be weighed on his merits alone.
 

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
32,276
26,162
Kansas
#28
You'd think a judge would just judge, not lean to a side so much it changes the results of law.
Thank you for acknowledging that inherently "liberal" and "conservative" judges are equally problematic.

It has been said, far too often, that "originalist" or "constructionist" right-wing judges aren't compromised by their ideology, because after all, they're just "upholding the Constitution as written." That's bullshit. They have consistently applied ideological goals toward the decisions they want courts to make. Regarding "activist" courts as purely those which lean left allows this highly motivated, political organization to operate unchecked.

There are various ways to address this, for both liberals and conservatives. The most attractive idea I've heard is to allow federal judges to continue serving on the basis of lifetime appointments, subject to periodic retention votes in Congress. If both houses reject them by majority vote, they should go. Furthermore, the right of senators to unilaterally stop someone from their own state from taking a lifetime position should be restored.
 
Jul 2013
39,537
25,634
On a happy trail
#29
You'd think a judge would just judge, not lean to a side so much it changes the results of law.
Well we can only hope his originalist intentions goes even further back to the Articles of Confederation where only mandated state militias were mentioned and firearms were not an enumerated individual right. And no federal military........ yippeee!

Think of all that money we can save!!!
 
Likes: labrea