View Full Version : Trump releases list of 3 possibilities for Supreme Court vacancy
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511493397/3-judges-trump-may-nominate-for-the-supreme-court
President Trump says he plans to announce his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court next week.The Trump administration has begun to float specific names for the high court's vacancy. The consensus seems to be that among the finalists on Trump's shortlist are Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the federal appeals court based in Denver; Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, who served on the federal appeals court based in Atlanta; and Judge Thomas Hardiman of Pittsburgh, who serves on the 3rd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.
All were appointed to their current positions by President George W. Bush and are considered hardcore conservatives, but there the similarity ends.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/24/gettyimages-632586204_sq-86735951c9cd973da9766f6ed8ef72eb60dfd077-s400-c85.jpg (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511402501/trump-to-give-green-light-to-keystone-dakota-access-pipelines)POLITICS (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/)Trump Gives Green Light To Keystone, Dakota Access Pipelines (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511402501/trump-to-give-green-light-to-keystone-dakota-access-pipelines)
Gorsuch, 49, is considered a cerebral proponent of "originalism," the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as the Founding Fathers would have more than 200 years ago, and of "textualism," the idea that statutes should be interpreted literally, without considering the legislative history and underlying purpose of the law. The Colorado native is Ivy League-educated, and while in undergraduate school at Columbia University, co-founded a newspaper aimed at rebutting what he considered the dominant liberal and "politically correct" philosophy on campus. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he also earned a doctorate in legal philosophy at Oxford University, where he studied as a Marshall scholar.
In private practice, he represented mostly corporate clients, and in 2005 he became principal deputy associate attorney general in the Bush administration Justice Department. A year later he was nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he has earned a reputation as a scholarly conservative with a flair for writing vividly that is similar to — though perhaps not as sharp in tone as — Justice Antonin Scalia, the conservative icon whose death last year created the current Supreme Court vacancy.
Though Democrats would very likely oppose a Gorsuch nomination in large numbers, he is seen as less of a lightning rod than Judge Pryor, who famously called Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 abortion decision, "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history."
Educated at Northeast Louisiana University and Tulane Law School, Pryor, 54, is a protege of Trump's nominee for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions. When Sessions served as Alabama state attorney general, Pryor was his deputy and succeeded him when Sessions was elected to the U.S. Senate.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/24/gettyimages-514653578_sq-73a664ecb5eabce38ac4f21067220888f42473a4-s400-c85.jpg (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511407042/republicans-once-in-a-generation-chance-at-tax-overhaul)POLITICS (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/)Republicans Eye 'Once In A Generation' Chance At Tax Overhaul (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511407042/republicans-once-in-a-generation-chance-at-tax-overhaul)
As state attorney general, Pryor filed a brief that supported the right of states to make consenting private homosexual conduct a crime. "The states should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences," Pryor wrote in the brief.
Pryor's nomination to the federal appeals court in 2003 was blocked by Senate Democrats until President Bush gave him a temporary appointment while the Senate was in recess. Thereafter, he was confirmed in a deal brokered by centrist Republicans and Democrats that allowed some pending nominees to go through, but not others.
Pryor, a devout Roman Catholic, is a particular favorite among evangelicals and other social conservatives, but he was criticized by some conservative activists when, as state attorney general, he led the charge in removing Alabama's chief justice for refusing to obey a federal court order to take a Ten Commandments monument out of the courthouse.
A Pryor nomination would undoubtedly spark a major confirmation fight — a fight that Democrats are itching for. They are angry over the nearly yearlong refusal by Republicans to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, a stalling tactic that set a historic precedent.
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/20/gettyimages-632201254_sq-f84a656253c8597f46ece91dfa4512528874cc35-s400-c85.jpg (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510629447/watch-live-president-trumps-inauguration-ceremony)POLITICS (http://www.npr.org/sections/politics/)President Trump's Inaugural Address, Annotated (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510629447/watch-live-president-trumps-inauguration-ceremony)
A third short-lister is Judge Hardiman, educated at Notre Dame and Georgetown Law School. Like other potential nominees on the short list, the 51-year-old has a conservative record, in his case with particular emphasis on the rights of gun owners.
Regardless of which judge is picked by President Trump for nomination to the nation's highest court, none would change the 5-to-4 conservative majority that has prevailed, for the most part, for decades; anyone Trump nominates would be replacing Justice Scalia — in short, a conservative for a conservative.
It is the next Trump Supreme Court nomination that very likely would change things dramatically, converting a conservative 5-to-4 majority that sometimes flips the other way when one of the conservatives, usually Justice Anthony Kennedy, votes with the court's four liberals to make a more liberal majority. With one more appointment, there would be a 6-to-3 majority, a vote to spare. And lots of long-standing precedents could fall, including Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, the actuarial possibility of that happening is considerable. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court's leading liberal, will turn 84 in March; Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's so-called swing justice, is 80; and Justice Stephen Breyer, another of the liberal justices, is 78. So it is entirely possible that Trump could get two or three more appointments, leaving just two liberal justices on the court and providing conservatives with an overwhelming majority that could dramatically change the law for generations to come.
No issues with any of them.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I think my order of preference would be Gorsuch, then Hardiman. I lean more libertarian than social conservative, and believe that the less the government is involved in our daily lives, the better, so judges that legislate from the bench on social issues from either side of the aisle kind of piss me off. Thus, Pryor is a no-go for me.
A 7-2 court. It almost sends a tingle up my leg. [Flower]
A 7-2 court. It almost sends a tingle up my leg. [Flower]
That's a far sight better than sending a trickle down your leg.
A 7-2 court. It almost sends a tingle up my leg. [Flower]
This!!!!
Great-Kazoo
01-25-2017, 00:03
I think my order of preference would be Gorsuch, then Hardiman. I lean more libertarian than social conservative, and believe that the less the government is involved in our daily lives, the better, so judges that legislate from the bench on social issues from either side of the aisle kind of piss me off. Thus, Pryor is a no-go for me.
Double check.
Aloha_Shooter
01-25-2017, 05:59
A 7-2 court will be hard to get to. Replacing Scalia with a like mind will just keep it at 5-4 or 4-5 depending on the case. Getting to 7-2 would require getting past Ginsburg (who could go at any time) to replace Kennedy (who shows no signs of infirmity or wanting to retire) or -- even more unlikely -- Kagan or Sotomayor -- plus we need to keep Thomas' seat firmly conservative. At this point, I'll just be happy with replacing Scalia with a like minded Constitutionalist or originalist and the prospect of replacing Ginsburg with any of the aforementioned prospects. Getting to replace Kennedy or Kagan or Sotomayor with a conservative (or hell, even a moderate as none of those three is even remotely moderate) would just be gravy.
Great-Kazoo
01-25-2017, 08:43
Forget about Ginsberg. With Trump in office Ginsberg's stance now is, to quote C. Heston.
From My Cold Dead Gavel
I think my order of preference would be Gorsuch, then Hardiman. I lean more libertarian than social conservative, and believe that the less the government is involved in our daily lives, the better, so judges that legislate from the bench on social issues from either side of the aisle kind of piss me off. Thus, Pryor is a no-go for me.
Agree. However, I also believe that the defense of marriage act, forcing states to accept homosexual marriages and several other issues are powers that should have been left to the States, not mandated by the Federal Government.
I strongly believe that the grandstanding by the Dems on Trumps Nominees, and the marches on Saturday were more about the SCOTUS nominees and Roe V. Wade than any other issue. I believe Morals are personal (Religious if you will) and can not be legislated. But any activity that actually harms another free person can be restricted by laws.
EDIT: Gorsuch and Hardiman just announced to be the final two from which Trump will choose.
Agree. However, I also believe that the defense of marriage act, forcing states to accept homosexual marriages and several other issues are powers that should have been left to the States, not mandated by the Federal Government.
I strongly believe that the grandstanding by the Dems on Trumps Nominees, and the marches on Saturday were more about the SCOTUS nominees and Roe V. Wade than any other issue. I believe Morals are personal (Religious if you will) and can not be legislated. But any activity that actually harms another free person can be restricted by laws.
This is the law.
It's funny (sad) how so much has been done without explicitly granting these powers to FedGov. Abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, drug laws/enforcement all done with a phone and pen or judicial activism rather than a Constitutional Amendment as required to grant the power.
It's no wonder the county is confused on social issues.
Skip, totally agree except Abortion. I will grant there is a difference of opinion, but if you believe a human life is created at conception, then why would they not have constitutional protection? The issue, at least in my opinion, is the definition of "human life". Some think at conception, some at 20 weeks, some later, some earlier. The science is clear it is living at conception, and clear that it is human...so the question is really one that comes down to choice of a woman and a man to engage in intercourse that can result in the production of a human life. Takes both, so I reject the concept that it is a "woman's health" issue. It is a choice two people made, with consequences.
It is also clear that that "Roe" (Norma McCorvey) regrets the case and wants it overturned. She never wanted (or had) an abortion and is now a pro-life advocate. She is now dedicated to reversing the Supreme Court case that bears her fictitious name, Jane Roe.
“Back in 1973, I was a very confused twenty-one year old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy. At the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had an abortion.”
“I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie…. I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name,” McCorvey says.
“You read about me in history books, but now I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”
She has been blocked from having the case reheard. As the original petitioner, she can have the case reheard under certain circumstances, one of which is new scientific evidence. In the original case, science was not able to be used to determine life, or human, it was only assumed. With the change in technology, that is no longer the case and that is one way in which the original case can be reheard.
I will admit that I have a harder time with the Rape and Incest arguments and I do believe that it would rightly be a State rights issue.
Rucker61
01-25-2017, 11:21
I think my order of preference would be Gorsuch, then Hardiman. I lean more libertarian than social conservative, and believe that the less the government is involved in our daily lives, the better, so judges that legislate from the bench on social issues from either side of the aisle kind of piss me off. Thus, Pryor is a no-go for me.
I'm with you. The government has no business in anyone's "spiritual consequences".
Replacing Scalia with a like mind will just keep it at 5-4 or 4-5 depending on the case.
This. I don't understand why so many are excited about Trump appointing a Scalia replacement. Even if the appointment is a solid conservative, the court will still lean liberal. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket I'll start to get excited.
I will bet a dollar to a donut that the old liberal justices will have amazing health care over the next 4 years. Put them on Obamacare and the SCOTUS goes 7-2. :)
Skip, totally agree except Abortion. I will grant there is a difference of opinion, but if you believe a human life is created at conception, then why would they not have constitutional protection? The issue, at least in my opinion, is the definition of "human life". Some think at conception, some at 20 weeks, some later, some earlier. The science is clear it is living at conception, and clear that it is human...so the question is really one that comes down to choice of a woman and a man to engage in intercourse that can result in the production of a human life. Takes both, so I reject the concept that it is a "woman's health" issue. It is a choice two people made, with consequences.
It is also clear that that "Roe" (Norma McCorvey) regrets the case and wants it overturned. She never wanted (or had) an abortion and is now a pro-life advocate. She is now dedicated to reversing the Supreme Court case that bears her fictitious name, Jane Roe.
“Back in 1973, I was a very confused twenty-one year old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy. At the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had an abortion.”
“I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie…. I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name,” McCorvey says.
“You read about me in history books, but now I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”
She has been blocked from having the case reheard. As the original petitioner, she can have the case reheard under certain circumstances, one of which is new scientific evidence. In the original case, science was not able to be used to determine life, or human, it was only assumed. With the change in technology, that is no longer the case and that is one way in which the original case can be reheard.
I will admit that I have a harder time with the Rape and Incest arguments and I do believe that it would rightly be a State rights issue.
They (unborn humans) have a Constitutional protection inherent in the Fifth Amendment which is incorporated against the states in the Bill of Rights. This is often intentionally ignored. The BoR, and it's incorporation, are the only legitimate means FedGov can interfere for the benefit of the individual. That's why the 10th Amendment caps it off with "powers not expressly delegated."
It is illegal to deprive a person of their life absent due process (criminal proceeding). We can argue when life begins (I agree with you) but it is irrelevant in this context because the illegal intervention (abortion) is depriving a person of 75/78 years of life that would happen absent the intervention. Murder isn't the highest crime just because it's painful (so is assault) but because it deprives a human of life.
Had abortion been the norm in 1791, I guess we could look critically and wonder why it isn't spelled out. But we have this same struggle with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and gun grabbers or the classic "they only meant muskets" to which we aptly respond "then the First Amendment only applies to manual presses."
The Roe case is a tragedy on multiple levels and illustrates the perils of judicial activism and being useful. They lied about it being rape and it wasn't. If abortionists wanted to legalize abortion, or even put it under the purview of the states, they should have asked for an open debate, and a Constitutional amendment to resolve the conflict inherent in the Fifth Amendment. They could also define the scope; first, second, third trimester, European ethicists are exploring "post birth abortion." Of course they would never have gotten this because the public was, and remains, very uncomfortable with abortion.
Rape and incest are certainly hard, I agree. But I've asked myself to think of example of any other crime in which we justly assign the consequences to a third party and I can't find a single one. Thinking more about this I've come to realize that the assignment of blame/consequences is really a Marxist construct no different than the distribution of property/poverty. So I reject it.
The only time I see a genuine moral dilemma is when the mother's life is in jeopardy and continuing the pregnancy means two people die instead of one. This one isn't hard for me because the baby dies in all outcomes.
One cannot do evil that good may result. One can do good even if the double effect of potential evil is foreseen (but this is pretty much a non-problem, as by the time such a case would incur the life of the mother being at risk, the child would be viable outside the womb and/or an attempt could be made to save the child.)
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/abortion-and-double-effect
Actual cases where a decision must be made between the mother’s life and the baby’s are rare, but they do occur, and there is always a moral response. Morally mature, ethical doctors are equipped to handle these difficult situations in the rare instances that they arise.
Legislation to regulate these rare occurrences has opened the door to abortion on demand. Statistics bear this out. The National Right to Life Committee reports that 93 percent of abortions are performed for "social reasons," while the mother’s health is cited in only 3 percent of the cases. (In another 3 percent the baby’s health is cited, and 1 percent cites rape or incest.) "Saving the life of the mother" never came up in the report (www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html).
The principle is simple: The direct killing of an innocent life is a grave evil and is never allowed, but when the mother’s life is in danger, medical ethics have always recognized the principle of double effect.
Aloha_Shooter
01-25-2017, 19:37
This. I don't understand why so many are excited about Trump appointing a Scalia replacement. Even if the appointment is a solid conservative, the court will still lean liberal. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket I'll start to get excited.
The excitement is because the liberals were salivating at the prospect of flipping the court from meandering to solidly left-wing while conservatives are happy that Trump is looking at an appointment that keeps the court from sliding further to the left. Stop the decay then worry about fixing what it's done wrong for the past 10-25 years (IMO Souter and Kennedy were huge mistakes and the GOP should have protested Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor -- the President has the right to nominate but it doesn't mean the Senate has to roll over like lap dogs).
Singlestack
01-26-2017, 13:45
My sense is the dems will filibuster any of the potential 2 or 3 that trump nominates. In general, I'm not a fan of changing the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominees since it would definitely be used by dems in the future - but I think it could also be argued that dems would do that, anyway - even if the republicans didn't change the rule.
The thing I'm upset about the republicans is in the past how crappy they have been at vetting SCOTUS nominees and not filibustering obvious losers like the 3 women on the court.
They say there is political capital that is spent by hard line actions like filibustering - but that doesn't seem to be the case with democrats. They seem to suffer no real consequences by "obstructing". Maybe with the Yuge bully pulpit of Trump that won't be the case?
Down to 2, to be announced one week from today. The liberals will do any and everything they can to keep Trumps pick off the bench. It will be interesting to see how he will fight their obstruction. Especially in light of the fact that they see the Rs as obstructing Obama's pick.
What happens if there are only 7 justices?
Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[67] where it has since remained.
So, if the Ds hold up Trumps Nominee, Congress could pass a law lowering the number to 7. Scalia, and next retiree or death not replaced either. All 4-4 splits would be reheard by a 7 justice court which would be quick as those on the bench had already voted. It would be largely procedural instead of rehearing entire cases. There are some on both sides of the aisle in favor of such a piece of legislation.
Only downside to Gorsuch is what our liberal pot smoking state/governor will appoint in his place.
[From someone currently litigating in the 10th]. I kind of need Gorsuch [Beer] any major firearms cases can end up in the 10th as well, shifting it even more liberal doesn't help. Still, he'd be a good appointment for SCOTUS.
Agreed, i wrote an expert report on one headed there.
Honey Badger282.8
01-26-2017, 19:01
Only downside to Gorsuch is what our liberal pot smoking state/governor will appoint in his place.
How does the Governor get to pick a replacement to a federal court?
Honey Badger282.8
01-26-2017, 19:35
Man you caught me in a moment of stupid. Thank you! [LOL][ROFL3] And yes, I should and do know that. However, on like my eigth day of legit flu while single parenting (masks and gloves for several days while wife is quarantined) I tthink drunk posting would be safer right now.
I've read your posts and can tell you're pretty savvy with this stuff. You had me second guessing mysel. Lol
Honey Badger282.8
01-31-2017, 19:31
Gorsuch is the nominee.
Bailey Guns
01-31-2017, 20:56
All the "experts" are pretty much saying this is Scalia 2.0. Outstanding.
Even better, countless liberal heads are exploding all over the country tonight.
still has to get approved, though
Honey Badger282.8
01-31-2017, 22:17
Some Democrat Senators will oppose him based on what happened with Merrick Garland but I believe Gorsuch will get more than eight Democrats to vote in favor of him. If not, the Reid Nuke will be applied to SCOTUS from here on out. I think both sides would like to avoid that.
1&3. Sorry #2 but if all you can fly on is abortion rights, buh bye! Been down that road and pro and 2A are at the core.
1&3 what? #2? Sorry just reread the thread and still not trackin'.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
He maybe good for the country but colorado is a little bit weaker because of it.
Shooter45
02-01-2017, 06:56
Liberal heads rolling....
Bailey Guns
02-01-2017, 07:39
He maybe good for the country but colorado is a little bit weaker because of it.
Not necessarily. He was a federal judge. His replacement will be appointed by Trump, too. And if he sticks to his model, it should be a good pick.
DireWolf
02-01-2017, 07:54
All the "experts" are pretty much saying this is Scalia 2.0. Outstanding.
Even better, countless liberal heads are exploding all over the country tonight.
My gut tells me that Scalia was assasinated specifically to allow shitface to replace him and further skew the SC before leaving (which is why details of that don't make sense, no autopsy for a powerful gov official, etc.), and that is also why the fuktards are freaking out and claiming that the seat was "stolen"....
I hope the President opens a new investigation into that whole mess, my guess is quite a few people (including several loudmouth senators) would likely be spending their remaining days in a cell).
Also hoping that they nuke the fillibuster for this, drop a few more conservative justices in place over the next few years, then change the rules back to allow full the full fillibuster once that's done...
My gut tells me that Scalia was assasinated specifically to allow shitface to replace him and further skew the SC before leaving (which is why details of that don't make sense, no autopsy for a powerful gov official, etc.), and that is also why the fuktards are freaking out and claiming that the seat was "stolen"....
[snip]
That's crazy talk. People die with a pillow over their face all the time.
My gut tells me that Scalia was assasinated specifically to allow shitface to replace him and further skew the SC before leaving (which is why details of that don't make sense, no autopsy for a powerful gov official, etc.), and that is also why the fuktards are freaking out and claiming that the seat was "stolen"....
I hope the President opens a new investigation into that whole mess, my guess is quite a few people (including several loudmouth senators) would likely be spending their remaining days in a cell).
Also hoping that they nuke the fillibuster for this, drop a few more conservative justices in place over the next few years, then change the rules back to allow full the full fillibuster once that's done...
^^^This, somewhat, DW beat me to the punch...hold on while I don my triple-layer tinfoil toque.
While reading through this thread this morning, I was wondering just how much political capital the progressive left had invested/expended to "hasten the demise" of the Honorable Justice Scalia (if we are to entertain such theories), and how scathing this appointment must be to their tender sensibilities, since they couldn't install another of their ilk in his place, and have now lost the presidency and the opportunity to do so. If this is/were to be the case, I would hope that reputations and futures were put on the line, and will be duly slapped down for the failure to produce.
While much of the unwitting lefty commoners are screeching over the pick, I would hope there are individuals in the upper echelons of the left that are downright terrified.
I'm sure the Dems are just saying to themselves how easy it would be to just start rounding up their enemies and throwing them into a prison or just killing them outright.... Then they will have no opposition to creating a utopia that they always read about in college. But they are stopped short of climaxing to their Karl Marx book when they are reminded that the poor unwashed masses still keep and bear arms and their armies are well equipped but still lack the numbers needed to take on all of the country. Their most loyal idiots would get wiped out pretty quick and the less useful idiots would lose the will to fight. Leaving them to hold the bag for a failed fundamental transformation of the country into a despot dictatorship. They must be really insane to even want to run everyone's lives like that let alone think it would work. It hasn't before and it has been tried to death.
ETA: Hows that for tinfoil hat time? But the left isn't stupid just evil and they might have killed Scalia for no other reason then to protect Obamacare.
I saw him speak Friday at a Federalist event, no questions though. It was very good, he tied legal ethics to the Fugitive Slave Act, ie how much would you object to the act.
Any chance Bennet will vote for him, being a fellow Coloradan?
Or is being a Democrat more powerful than being from the same state.
Any chance Bennet will vote for him, being a fellow Coloradan?
Or is being a Democrat more powerful than being from the same state.
Depends on what he is told to do. A muppet like Bennet doesn't think for himself.
I pick up my dogs poop with more respect than I have for Bennet.
Aloha_Shooter
02-03-2017, 21:05
Any chance Bennet will vote for him, being a fellow Coloradan?
Or is being a Democrat more powerful than being from the same state.
Bennet won't give a damn what other Coloradans think for another 5 years.
DireWolf
02-03-2017, 21:09
Bennet won't give a damn what other Coloradans think for another 5 years.
^^^this.
Bennet is another piece of shit that somehow keeps getting reelected in spite of all reason....
BlasterBob
02-04-2017, 14:37
We have a bunch of Bennet type ding bat politicians here in Illinois. What a bunch of "sad sacks".
We have a bunch of Bennet type ding bat politicians here in Illinois. What a bunch of "sad sacks".
So they are corrupt too?
The Senate Democrats chose to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee for the first time in the 230 year history of the Senate. The Republican majority has exercised the "nuclear option". There will be an up/down vote on Gorsuch tomorrow requiring a simple majority to confirm.
Senate speeds up Gorsuch confirmation vote (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-speeds-up-gorsuch-confirmation-vote/ar-BBzvdA7?li=BBnb7Kz)
But wait. The so called nuclear option is the only option detailed in the Constitution.
Gorsuch has been confirmed and will be sworn in on Monday.
"Its just a damn piece of paper." Al Gore.
Actually its animal skin and its more than that its the written version of an idea for a Government that before then has never been tried before. With rules to keep power hungry people from making up rules as they go along once they are in power. And a list of rights that restrict a Government over its people its meant to serve humbly. With even a provision to rebel and tear it all down and start over if it becomes too corrupt. In its pure form its like the best like the best drug. Its words fill the soul better than the best song. Its only flaw is that it cares too much for the people and lets the people speak through voting even when there are 45 Senators that don't want to hear from the unwashed masses who they believe exist to provide them with wealth and power. When the reality is they aren't worth the suit they are wearing.
Now we wait for case to come before the court to see if they can unhold the constition and make all of our efforts to get them there worth the trouble. Or if they are going to be seduced by the power and kick the can down the road until the total fall of America and then the Constitution will be nothing more than a piece of paper. Far less important finding something to eat or protecting your family from roaming gangs that take over after the Government falls apart. With no laws to protect us I'm sure it would be something like that. Dibbs on Al Gores mansion BTW.
Anyway. Sorry about the rant. I'm glad to hear about the gears of government moving and that we have a full Supreme Court again.
Gorsuch has been confirmed and will be sworn in on Monday.
This is excellent news!
We win in spite of the communists attempts to derail Gorsuch and put another constitutionally and ethically deficient "judge" like Sotomayor or Kagen on the bench.
Bailey Guns
04-08-2017, 07:18
Great day for America.
Great-Kazoo
04-08-2017, 07:53
Great day for America.
The great day for America will be when the media actually confronts Susan Rice about the latest round of media P.R denials.
Aloha_Shooter
04-08-2017, 08:45
The great day for America will be when the media actually confronts Susan Rice about the latest round of media P.R denials.
There will be great days when Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton are prosecuted and convicted for violating the Anti-Espionage Act and violating the civil liberties of American citizens, when Chelsea and Hillary Clinton are both prosecuted and convicted for tax fraud in the conduct of the so-called Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative, when Billy Boy goes to prison for rape and sexual assault and is pillored in the press like Bill Cosby has been, when Obama's and Clinton's lies about Benghazi and their abandoning of Americans to their deaths in order to preserve political fictions are not only exposed but embraced by the MSM and public at large ...
I'm just afraid I won't be holding my breath for any of the above to occur ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.