SCOTUS watch! Who is in the box?

[compuwiz1]

So, without reading the thread let me venture a guess. The left is unhappy with this pick and is making arguments based on them thinking they're still in charge and that everybody must kowtow to their wishes.

How'd I do?

The left is going to be unhappy with anyone this president picks. Don't tell me you're shocked. lol
Problem is, the dems don't have much power right now. The justice will be confirmed, but they'll fight hard, but in the end, he will be confirmed. In less than a year, there will probably be another vacancy to fill. At that point, Trump will have been instrumental in setting the course for the next 40 or 50 years, perhaps beyond. IMO, the country has devolved, too far left. It'll be pulled back in. Remember, Termites are also progressive. The exterminator has come and they won't be back, as long as the wood is maintained. Geeze, I'm getting wood.

 

[zinfamous]

So, without reading the thread let me venture a guess. The left is unhappy with this pick and is making arguments based on them thinking they're still in charge and that everybody must kowtow to their wishes.

How'd I do?

who do you think is in charge? It doesn't seem to be Trump, lol.

 

[compuwiz1]

who do you think is in charge? It doesn't seem to be Trump, lol.

Wrong!

 

[zinfamous]

Wrong!

really, you think so? good luck with that.

 

[Exterous]

Well his SCOTUS nominations were what worried me the most about Trump being president. A lot of things we can recover from but his picks will be able to exert influence long after hes gone. Granted this is only based on what I have read so far but he doesn't seem nearly as bad as it could have been. I don't agree with his stance on health care options for religiously owned companies and assisted suicide (and the likely relationship to abortion) but there are some positives. It appears he is against expansion of federal powers and has made some pro-immigration rulings against the federal government so that bodes well. He ruled against an oil company trying to use a dormant interstate commerce clause to oppose a renewable energy state law. He ruled against the federal government who went after a felon for gun possession when the felon had not been informed they were a felon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch#United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit

Positive reactions from Obama's solicitor general:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

So far many of the major points arguments for not nominating him have been more focused on the GOP blocking nominations compared to his actual rulings.

I've not yet run across the cases Warren was referring to:

“As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a leader in the party’s increasingly powerful progressive wing.

So not great but far better than I expected - at least so far. I mean William H. Pryor Jr was supposedly a consideration...

 

[PokerGuy]

Trump #winning again. Gorsuch was a good pick, because realistically there is no legit opposition to him. His qualifications are impeccable and his record shows him not to be an extremist in any way. Sure, radical lefty extremists will try to smear or label him, and of course the lefties will never be happy with any nominee who isn't a leftist activist, but saying "he's a conservative" isn't a legitimate reason to say he's not qualified. Heck, many of the democrat senators already confirmed him once before, so they're going to look even more dumb if they now oppose him with no reason other than "he's not a liberal".

Will be interesting to see which way the dems go. Go the path of the lib crazies on the street and stomp their feet like children, or just confirm the guy and wait to see if the next person Trump nominates is actually unqualified. If there are legit reasons to oppose a future nominee, then they have leverage. If they throw a full tantrum over a well qualified candidate, their objections to a really unqualified candidate down the line will go nowhere. It's the old "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Of course you also the whole "payback for what the gop did to Garland" angle. You do that, and you just prove that yes, you are really no better than the other side, just hypocrites.

 

[Sunburn74]

Meh... force the nuclear option, wake up the base, win the next 2 elections and then you can restore the nuclear option if you want it. Trump is not rescinding this pick and its not a bad pick at all, other than ideological differences (he may even help in curbing trump's gross over-reaches of power).

Basically, just play dirty politics.

 

[repoman0]

Trump #winning again. Gorsuch was a good pick, because realistically there is no legit opposition to him. His qualifications are impeccable and his record shows him not to be an extremist in any way. Sure, radical lefty extremists will try to smear or label him, and of course the lefties will never be happy with any nominee who isn't a leftist activist, but saying "he's a conservative" isn't a legitimate reason to say he's not qualified. Heck, many of the democrat senators already confirmed him once before, so they're going to look even more dumb if they now oppose him with no reason other than "he's not a liberal".

Will be interesting to see which way the dems go. Go the path of the lib crazies on the street and stomp their feet like children, or just confirm the guy and wait to see if the next person Trump nominates is actually unqualified. If there are legit reasons to oppose a future nominee, then they have leverage. If they throw a full tantrum over a well qualified candidate, their objections to a really unqualified candidate down the line will go nowhere. It's the old "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Of course you also the whole "payback for what the gop did to Garland" angle. You do that, and you just prove that yes, you are really no better than the other side, just hypocrites.

Your fantasy world of the evil radical lefty extremists out to get you is mindbogglingly delusional and the irony of this post (completely lost on you) is absolutely hilarious. "lib crazies" stomping like children trying to block an extremely well qualified nominee with no legit opposition, just LOL. PokerGuy, you are a partisan hack and a joke.

 

[vi edit]

He could have done worse. He's a state rights guy which is important to me. Some of his rulings are little righty tighty...but he could have been much more extreme. I'll trade him for a DeVos cabinet disapproval and the right to jettison Bannon from the NSC.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So, without reading the thread let me venture a guess. The left is unhappy with this pick and is making arguments based on them thinking they're still in charge and that everybody must kowtow to their wishes.

How'd I do?

You'd be wrong, this is a thread where the left is again throwing a tantrum for nothing with no cohesive argument about anything while they cry and whine that President Trump is a big, MEAN MAN.

 

[zinfamous]

Well his SCOTUS nominations were what worried me the most about Trump being president. A lot of things we can recover from but his picks will be able to exert influence long after hes gone. Granted this is only based on what I have read so far but he doesn't seem nearly as bad as it could have been. I don't agree with his stance on health care options for religiously owned companies and assisted suicide (and the likely relationship to abortion) but there are some positives. It appears he is against expansion of federal powers and has made some pro-immigration rulings against the federal government so that bodes well. He ruled against an oil company trying to use a dormant interstate commerce clause to oppose a renewable energy state law. He ruled against the federal government who went after a felon for gun possession when the felon had not been informed they were a felon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch#United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit

Positive reactions from Obama's solicitor general:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

So far many of the major points arguments for not nominating him have been more focused on the GOP blocking nominations compared to his actual rulings.

I've not yet run across the cases Warren was referring to:


So not great but far better than I expected - at least so far. I mean William H. Pryor Jr was supposedly a consideration...

Yes, the hope is that he turns out more like Roberts whom, while I often disagree with, has been more pragmatic in his decisions and even when he makes what I would call bad decisions, is very-well reasoned in those decisions. The complete opposite of assclowns like Thomas and Scalia.

Still, there is the chance that he turns into a Souter--darling of the insurgent social conservatives that does a 180 on the bench because he's actually a good judge--albeit remote.

 

[Sunburn74]

Devos is a disaster. Democrats are being criticized because they refused her nomination on the grounds that she couldn't answer and was unaware of the basic terms and established theories in regards to the monitoring and assessment of school children's educational progress.

Its like a city traffic director not knowing what red, green and yellow lights mean.

 

[zinfamous]

You'd be wrong, this is a thread where the left is again throwing a tantrum for nothing with no cohesive argument about anything while they cry and whine that President Trump is a big, MEAN MAN.

this was actually a light-hearted thread with more of a humor angle (that is clearly uncomfortable for you), until dipshits like you and PokerGuy and compwiz showed up with your brain diarrhea.

 

[vi edit]

Devos is a disaster. Democrats are being criticized because they refused her nomination on the grounds that she couldn't answer and was unaware of the basic terms and established theories in regards to the monitoring and assessment of school children's educational progress.

Its like a city traffic director not knowing what red, green and yellow lights mean.

Whoops...meant "disapproval". Have since edited to clarify my meaning.

 

[werepossum]

A mere 3 years and 9 months until the next presidential election, and Republicans want to shove this nominee down our throats at the last minute?

The nerve.

lol +1

The GOP learned from the senate trailblazer... Chuck Schumer.

Stolen seat.... liberals have become so over dramatic to the point that it is not a cute annoyance anymore.

I agree, it's in no way a stolen seat because the Senators are in no way required to accept the President's nominee. However, they ARE Constitutionally required to give advice and consent. Refusing to vet and vote a nominee up or down is intentionally and blatantly not doing their jobs while continuing to collect their pay and enjoy their privileges. That should have SOME consequences.

If they wish to convince me that they want to drain the swamp, let them enact legislation (with real teeth) requiring the Senate to vet, debate and vote on every nominee in a timely fashion, with non-lifetime nominees being appointed until the next Congress if not voted on within the prescribed time frame. This will still leave them one up on the Demmies since they flagrantly ignored their duties under Obama and now have President Cheeto Jesus. If that isn't enough advantage for them, then I will conclude that they do not want to drain the swamp, they just want to maximize their own reign over it. (Exactly like the Democrats.)

It's Neil Gorsuch. Off Donald Trumps Sept. 23 2016 list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks
"Neil Gorsuch is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He was appointed to the position in 2006. Judge Gorsuch previously served in the Justice Department as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Judge Gorsuch was a Marshall Scholar and received his law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy."

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/30/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-donald-trump/

So are we pleased or frightened?

Wait - forgot this was Trump. Are we outraged or horrified?

 

[werepossum]

Well his SCOTUS nominations were what worried me the most about Trump being president. A lot of things we can recover from but his picks will be able to exert influence long after hes gone. Granted this is only based on what I have read so far but he doesn't seem nearly as bad as it could have been. I don't agree with his stance on health care options for religiously owned companies and assisted suicide (and the likely relationship to abortion) but there are some positives. It appears he is against expansion of federal powers and has made some pro-immigration rulings against the federal government so that bodes well. He ruled against an oil company trying to use a dormant interstate commerce clause to oppose a renewable energy state law. He ruled against the federal government who went after a felon for gun possession when the felon had not been informed they were a felon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch#United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit

Positive reactions from Obama's solicitor general:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

So far many of the major points arguments for not nominating him have been more focused on the GOP blocking nominations compared to his actual rulings.

I've not yet run across the cases Warren was referring to:


So not great but far better than I expected - at least so far. I mean William H. Pryor Jr was supposedly a consideration...

What makes you believe that Warren is referring to any particular cases? Phocahontas now has an unexpected chance to run for President; she could simply be mouthing the things her foamy donor class requires her to say to achieve that dream. Remember that great architectural flaw in the Senate's offices: every time a Senator looks in the mirror, there's a President looking back at him or her.

 

[zinfamous]

What makes you believe that Warren is referring to any particular cases? Phocahontas now has an unexpected chance to run for President; she could simply be mouthing the things her foamy donor class requires her to say to achieve that dream. Remember that great architectural flaw in the Senate's offices: every time a Senator looks in the mirror, there's a President looking back at him or her.

that's the spirit! begin discrediting her before it even starts! She's clearly, already, worse than Trump. Never forget!

 

[Maxima1]

Trump #winning again. Gorsuch was a good pick, because realistically there is no legit opposition to him. His qualifications are impeccable and his record shows him not to be an extremist in any way. Sure, radical lefty extremists will try to smear or label him, and of course the lefties will never be happy with any nominee who isn't a leftist activist, but saying "he's a conservative" isn't a legitimate reason to say he's not qualified. Heck, many of the democrat senators already confirmed him once before, so they're going to look even more dumb if they now oppose him with no reason other than "he's not a liberal".

Will be interesting to see which way the dems go. Go the path of the lib crazies on the street and stomp their feet like children, or just confirm the guy and wait to see if the next person Trump nominates is actually unqualified. If there are legit reasons to oppose a future nominee, then they have leverage. If they throw a full tantrum over a well qualified candidate, their objections to a really unqualified candidate down the line will go nowhere. It's the old "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Of course you also the whole "payback for what the gop did to Garland" angle. You do that, and you just prove that yes, you are really no better than the other side, just hypocrites.

Quit being disingenuous. They never confirmed him for the highest court, and the circumstances are different, jack***. The nation has already moved away more than a decade ago from confirming on the basis of qualifications, btw, so what's the point there?

Also dafuq? Why do so many on here think that questioning obstruction somehow means that you have to oppose it at all times (which anyone making this argument doesn't even hold themselves)? That's just an asinine grasp at trying to claim someone is a hypocrite.

 

[Victorian Gray]

that's the spirit! begin discrediting her before it even starts! She's clearly, already, worse than Trump. Never forget!

That's part of the template. They've been doing it for decades.

 

[werepossum]

that's the spirit! begin discrediting her before it even starts! She's clearly, already, worse than Trump. Never forget!

She actually has some positions I like, but she's as politicianny as the rest of them. She was ethically challenged even before going into politics, so she doesn't deserve a free pass. (Not Trump-level ethically challenged, but most people can't afford that level of corruption.)

 

[werepossum]

That's part of the template. They've been doing it for decades.

Yeah, it's like we've learned nothing from your exemplary respect for Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Romney, McCain, Trump . . .

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah, it's like we've learned nothing from your exemplary respect for Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Romney, McCain, Trump . . .

Love the big red nose. Does it honk when you squeeze it?

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, it's like we've learned nothing from your exemplary respect for Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Romney, McCain, Trump . . .

eh, McCain is not so bad. He did make that one dumb choice...oh and he got captured. I like people that don't get captured. D:

 

[Maxima1]

It appears he is against expansion of federal powers

Yeah, so regulations have no teeth. You realize a lot of conservatives wish the federal government went back to the feckless central government of the Articles of Confederation?

Positive reactions from Obama's solicitor general:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

Gorsuch is obviously a mirror of Scalia for a lot of issues. I don't see the point on showcasing someone who was a part of the Obama administration. Look at Comey.

So not great but far better than I expected - at least so far. I mean William H. Pryor Jr was supposedly a consideration...

Pryor had a good point about him -- judicial deference (i.e. basically what Roberts resorted to when upholding Obummercare). People fixate too much on abortion and gays. If abortion was banned or stymied, it wouldn't last. I don't see why so many get freaked out over it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

really, you think so? good luck with that.

Yeah, just recycled crap for the Bush/Cheney days. Bush isn't really in charge, he's a puppet for the evil puppet master Darth Cheney. It's a cute joke, but I think some of you clowns really believed it.