Seems like a good guy to me. He has good educational pedigree, and experience serving two Supreme Court justices.
Thoughts?
But there will be serious questions of racism/sexism/ homophobia that democrats will put forth after former grade school chums recall unfortunate remarks he made during 5th grade recess.
Certainly that's quite pertinent. It must be thoroughly investigated. Sharpton should be consulted. :2razz: All joking aside, hopefully the Dems won't go there.
You know damn well they will. I feel bad for the guy, hes in for a campaign of personal destruction like nothing we have ever seen. Liberals are in a state of complete meltdown and will not tolerate a Trump nominee of any kind. The Senate will have to revoke the filibuster to get anyone on the court.
You know damn well they will. I feel bad for the guy, hes in for a campaign of personal destruction like nothing we have ever seen. Liberals are in a state of complete meltdown and will not tolerate a Trump nominee of any kind. The Senate will have to revoke the filibuster to get anyone on the court.
I don't know if either Shumer or McConnel is prepared for that...
Seems like a good guy to me. He has good educational pedigree, and experience serving two Supreme Court justices.
Thoughts?
You know damn well they will. I feel bad for the guy, hes in for a campaign of personal destruction like nothing we have ever seen. Liberals are in a state of complete meltdown and will not tolerate a Trump nominee of any kind. The Senate will have to revoke the filibuster to get anyone on the court.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...l-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-courtDuring his tenure on the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch has demonstrated his belief that the Constitution should be applied as the framers intended. To that end, he has supported the individual right to self-defense. Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly."
Explainer: What you should know about Judge Neil Gorsuch | ERLCGorsuch sided with Christian employers and religious organizations in the Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor Supreme Court cases. In the Hobby Lobby case, Gorsuch wrote, “The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.”
Explainer: What you should know about Judge Neil Gorsuch | ERLCJudge Gorsuch is considered a proponent of originalism, a manner of interpreting the Constitution that begins with the text and attempts to give that text the meaning it had when it was adopted, and textualism, a method of statutory interpretation that relies on the plain text of a statute to determine its meaning.
Certainly that's quite pertinent. It must be thoroughly investigated. Sharpton should be consulted. :2razz: All joking aside, hopefully the Dems won't go there.
Well that's ****ing rich.
GOP obstruct a nominee for 10 months, Dems done nothing yet and you're accusing them of a campaign of personal destruction?
From a vindictive perspective, I would be for blocking an R nominee after the whole Garland episode, but there's no way that the Dems are going to be able to block Gorsuch for however many years without a majority, especially given his credentials and the fact he was confirmed by voice vote to the circuit.
There are better hills to die on for the Dems, methinks.
It would certainly seem so, but I'll wait until they do so before blaming them for that.
Shumer and the Democrats appear to be slow walking the cabinet. Why is a SCOTUS appointment any different?
Oh the great irony! Reid's nuclear option used by Republicans to appoint a Constitutional Textualist. Betcha he and the Dem's didn't see that one coming.
The SC is Obi Wan Kenobi for democrats--their last hope. They will do everything they can to destroy this mans character. Why? Because that is what they do. If they cant call someone a racist, sexist, homophobe, fascist, then they have nothing to say at all. You see it here on DP all the time and you will see it all unfold within 24-48 hours
The SC is Obi Wan Kenobi for democrats--their last hope. They will do everything they can to destroy this mans character. Why? Because that is what they do. If they cant call someone a racist, sexist, homophobe, fascist, then they have nothing to say at all. You see it here on DP all the time and you will see it all unfold within 24-48 hours
I know nothing about the guy but i hope he really is cut from the same intellect as scalia. I thought scalia was a very fair man i hope this guy is too.Seems like a good guy to me. He has good educational pedigree, and experience serving two Supreme Court justices.
Thoughts?
Dirty Harry was warned. He was just to egotistical and short sighted to take heed.
Yeah, a miserable, POS excuse for a human being. Nevada, be not proud for that one.
Harry Reid Gives Shameful Response to His Attack on Mitt Romney’s Taxes
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made an outrageous allegation that GOP nominee Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years.
Reid, who recently announced that he will not seek re-election in 2016, first made the claim in an interview with the Huffington Post on July 31, 2012. “He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years,” he said. “Now do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain, but obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”
This was not a slip of the tongue, it was a calculated lie that Reid repeated several times in an attempt to pressure Romney into releasing tax returns for years prior to 2010.
A few days later, on Aug. 2, Reid doubled down in a speech on the Senate floor. “If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns,” he said. “So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not.”
He tripled down on the accusation later that day in a statement saying that he was told by an “extremely credible source” that Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years.
The bogus claim created a media firestorm at the time, and earned Reid a “pants on fire“ rating from PolitiFact and “four Pinocchios“ from Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler, who wrote that Reid “has no basis to make his incendiary claim” and should “hold himself to a high standard of accuracy when making claims about political opponents.”
Well that's ****ing rich.
GOP obstruct a nominee for 10 months, Dems done nothing yet and you're accusing them of a campaign of personal destruction?
From a vindictive perspective, I would be for blocking an R nominee after the whole Garland episode, but there's no way that the Dems are going to be able to block Gorsuch for however many years without a majority, especially given his credentials and the fact he was confirmed by voice vote to the circuit.
There are better hills to die on for the Dems, methinks.
Here's hoping that RBG has a few more years left in her.
I will have yet another profound problem with the left if they push it to the point thst they force the right to use the nuclear option. They better have a damn good reason for blocking his nomination because creating this orecedent as a means to pass presidental nominees is bad for both sides. The filibuster is an important tool to defend the integrity of our republic and if it should never be evoked a partisan weaponYou know damn well they will. I feel bad for the guy, hes in for a campaign of personal destruction like nothing we have ever seen. Liberals are in a state of complete meltdown and will not tolerate a Trump nominee of any kind. The Senate will have to revoke the filibuster to get anyone on the court.
dems obstructed APPELLATE picks Estrada and Keisler. so Don't be crying over Garland getting blocked
I hope your right that the dems dont choose this battle.Well that's ****ing rich.
GOP obstruct a nominee for 10 months, Dems done nothing yet and you're accusing them of a campaign of personal destruction?
From a vindictive perspective, I would be for blocking an R nominee after the whole Garland episode, but there's no way that the Dems are going to be able to block Gorsuch for however many years without a majority, especially given his credentials and the fact he was confirmed by voice vote to the circuit.
There are better hills to die on for the Dems, methinks.
Here's hoping that RBG has a few more years left in her.
I think if he was anything other than a Scalia replacement there would be a deep furore. As things are? I think he's a decent fit.
I hope your right that the dems dont choose this battle.
RGB is an amazing woman. I profoundly disagree with her but i respect her enourmously and it will be a sad day that the court loses her voice. I will mourn with the left when we lose her. She is the yin to the yang of scalia.
Keeping a balanced court is essential to us all.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Did they use different color crayons for each letter in his name. I hear children often like to write things in a way that resembles rainbows.I love the USSC protest signs showing up at court houses: " OPPOSE _________" with "Gorsuch" filled in in crayon. If he had nominated Pelosi they would have filled in her name just because they would oppose ANYBODY that Trump nominates. I am guessing that Soros paid for the "empty signs" for the "empty minds" out there protesting.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?