Gorsuch

[jimnyc]

Politically speaking... what is wrong with him? Schumer, and others, are promising to filibuster his nomination. But outside of "politics", what is bad about this man/judge?

[Black Diamond]

Nuke em. Then when Ginsberg dies, nuke em again.

[Black Diamond]

Politically speaking... what is wrong with him? Schumer, and others, are promising to filibuster his nomination. But outside of "politics", what is bad about this man/judge?
He was confirmed by dems to the court of appeals. Included in the list of dems who confirmed him: Pocahontas and the Jew with a suicide complex.

[jimnyc]

He was confirmed by dems to the court of appeals. Included in the list of dems who confirmed him: Pocahontas and the Jew with a suicide complex.

That's what it is so obvious, and SHOULD hurt them in the long run. I'd like to think John Q. Public knows the difference between holding up the vote in an election year, and holding up the vote... for really no reason at all.

Let's face it, they're going to lose this one, no doubt about it, only a matter of time. Maybe/hopefully the public will see the difference, and once again hold them responsible.

[pete311]

Dems made the repubs played dirty games to reject Obama's right to appoint last year.

[jimnyc]

Dems made the repubs played dirty games to reject Obama's right to appoint last year.

They did so in an election year, not unprecedented. But I do agree that both sides tend to play games and play the rules when it's on their side.

But c'mon, Mr. Pete, you have to admit this one is too obvious. They thought this guy was super awesome in the past, and now want to cry foul and keep him from the court. THAT kind of stuff is what can hurt folks when up for re-election, as even the stupid citizens can see through this one.

[Black Diamond]

I don't think Garland believes in the second amendment.

[pete311]

They did so in an election year, not unprecedented. But I do agree that both sides tend to play games and play the rules when it's on their side.

But c'mon, Mr. Pete, you have to admit this one is too obvious. They thought this guy was super awesome in the past, and now want to cry foul and keep him from the court. THAT kind of stuff is what can hurt folks when up for re-election, as even the stupid citizens can see through this one.

Repubs will rewrite rules to allow less votes

[Black Diamond]

Repubs will rewrite rules to allow less votes
All means necessary.

[jimnyc]

Repubs will rewrite rules to allow less votes

Let me hear your thoughts on it, Pete. Based on his voting history, and the Dems prior thinking of him and appointments.... do you think he should be voted in?

And do you think the Dems should rightfully filibuster his nomination, with nearly 4 years in Trump's term left, and leave it hanging for that long? What's YOUR thinking and YOUR alternative to where things stand?

[Gunny]

Repubs will rewrite rules to allow less votes
Ridiculous assumption.

[Black Diamond]

Ridiculous assumption.
Probably. But i don't care what method they use. The dems need to be steamrolled.

[Gunny]

Probably. But i don't care what method they use. The dems need to be steamrolled.

One of the more aggravating points about the GOP. Alligator mouths and bumblebee asses. I think they should hammer the f- out of the left. The left sure as Hell doesn't hesitate when they get a damned turn. Obama's almost turned us into Europe.

I'd go in swinging. Just sayin'...

[aboutime]

Repubs will rewrite rules to allow less votes


Wrong petey. They don't have to re-write the rules. HARRY REID took care of that before he left.

I hope the Dems do FILIBUSTER. That will be like cutting off their dumb noses, to spite their dumb faces.
Better yet. If the Dems do as they say. It will set a precedence for the next SCOTUS nominee from Trump...and it will be a SHOE-IN...once again, thanks to HARRY REID.

He, and the Dems were warned...but NO...now, they are gonna pay, and GORSUCH will win.

[gabosaurus]

I see nothing wrong with Gorsuch. He has expertly dodged loaded questions posed by both Dems and GOP legislators. With only a few exceptions, Gorsuch has shown a strict adherence to legal precedent. Which means he is loath to challenge an existing standard. Anyone who expect Gorsuch to help overturn the legality of abortion or same sex marriage is going to be disappointed.

[Black Diamond]

I see nothing wrong with Gorsuch. He has expertly dodged loaded questions posed by both Dems and GOP legislators. With only a few exceptions, Gorsuch has shown a strict adherence to legal precedent. Which means he is loath to challenge an existing standard. Anyone who expect Gorsuch to help overturn the legality of abortion or same sex marriage is going to be disappointed.
So in other words you're expecting defeat: He will be confirmed one way or another.

[gabosaurus]

I have no clue why Senate Dems are bothering to hold out. It's not a battle they are going to win.

[Black Diamond]

I have no clue why Senate Dems are bothering to hold out. It's not a battle they are going to win.
They can tell their voters they fought trump at every turn.

[Gunny]

I see nothing wrong with Gorsuch. He has expertly dodged loaded questions posed by both Dems and GOP legislators. With only a few exceptions, Gorsuch has shown a strict adherence to legal precedent. Which means he is loath to challenge an existing standard. Anyone who expect Gorsuch to help overturn the legality of abortion or same sex marriage is going to be disappointed.
bWhich left field did THAT come from? He's supposed to change existing law as politics sees fit? How about the judiciary is supposed to define EXISTING law? Hello-o-o-o Ms Alleged School Teacher. Guess y'all didn't have to pass government where you live.

But let's be real here, huh? You lefties say the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow citizens to own firearms when it is pretty damned clear. Look at the recent 9th District ruling ... I can override the President of the US based on my unconstitutional retardation.

THAT is your idea of law? What can you leftwingnuts ruin next should be your motto.

[Kathianne]

Repubs will rewrite rules to allow less votes

They will follow the advice that Reid gave the Democrats, as well they should.

[jimnyc]

Sen. Lindsey Graham signals support for nuclear option if Democrats filibuster Gorsuch vote

(CNN)Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday he would be willing to use the so-called nuclear option if Democrats filibuster President Donald Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch.

Senate rules currently require 60 votes for Gorsuch's nomination to be approved. Changing those rules using the nuclear option would require only a simple majority.

"Whatever it takes to get him on the court, I will do," the South Carolina Republican told "The Mike Gallagher Show," when asked about the nuclear option.

Graham added, "If my Democratic colleagues choose to filibuster this guy, then they will be telling me that they don't accept the election results -- 306 electoral votes -- that they're trying to delegitimize President Trump, and that's not right and we would have to change the rules to have the Supreme Court like everybody else."

Graham said he hoped that they would not have to change Senate rules.

"I hope that we can get 60 votes and not change 200 plus years of history," said Graham. "But I will do whatever's necessary, but I've been a pretty balanced guy and enough is enough."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/kfile-lindsey-graham-nuclear-option/index.html

[Abbey Marie]

I have no clue why Senate Dems are bothering to hold out. It's not a battle they are going to win.

They are fighters, unlike the Ryan Republicans, who to all appearances have been neutered.

[Kathianne]

They are fighters, unlike the Ryan Republicans, who to all appearances have been neutered.

We have to disagree. Those that agreed with Ryan and Trump, voted with them. Those that didn't were willing to live with the reality of the threats made to pass this s*!t sandwich.

I wish though that someone would have been able to get a repeal only bill through.

[Black Diamond]

We have to disagree. Those that agreed with Ryan and Trump, voted with them. Those that didn't were willing to live with the reality of the threats made to pass this s*!t sandwich.

I wish though that someone would have been able to get a repeal only bill through.
I like the idea of a repeal only bill. I am frustrated, though, that these jerks have had what? Seven years to come up with a plan.....

[Black Diamond]

We have to disagree. Those that agreed with Ryan and Trump, voted with them. Those that didn't were willing to live with the reality of the threats made to pass this s*!t sandwich.

I wish though that someone would have been able to get a repeal only bill through.
Also....

Who would vote against a repeal only bill ?

[Kathianne]

I like the idea of a repeal only bill. I am frustrated, though, that these jerks have had what? Seven years to come up with a plan.....

Yep, me too. One question being asked by the conservatives is why they didn't use 'last year's bill' that was ready to go, instead of this revision of Obamacare. Answer, it was too much of a giveaway of fed control.

You know all those R governors elected over the past 8 years? They were among the first to work against this Obama 1.5 version and let their representatives know.

[jimnyc]

That's what they should have done, as they all promised - REPEAL on day one, and then spent a little more time on putting something better out there. I don't know the timetables and how they can repeal one, and get the other out there. In other words, if you repeal on day one - does something HAVE to be in place that day?

At any rate, GET RID of this crap, and have something GOOD ready by august when I "hear" they may try again.

In the mean time - tax reform they say... and I hope they start with ILLEGAL immigration stuff. Well, they have already, but I'd like to see more. :)

[Kathianne]

A little problem created by this healthcare issue, is it now makes a further $1 trillion unavailable for the tax issue. $1 trillion happens to be the same amount that Trump wants for infrastructure-at least.

I expect this is where he and Ryan are really going to go to blows. Caught about 5 minutes of Fox & Friends when I woke up, it was 'dump Ryan' all the way. Same with Hannity. It does seem to be working on Trump true believers, so I expect to see an exploding deficit, which of course is every bit as unsustainable as the current one.

[Russ]

Politically speaking... what is wrong with him? Schumer, and others, are promising to filibuster his nomination. But outside of "politics", what is bad about this man/judge?


What is it with these chucklehead Dem Senators like Schumer? Gorsuch came into the nomination process with a virtually immaculate record, and had no opposition at all when confirmed as a Circuit Court Justice. He answered all of the confirmation questions, with no complaints resulting from the answers he gave. And now this jughead Schumer ways he wants to filibuster him? What's the point of all the questions at the confirmation hearings, if the candidate can answer them all perfectly and the Dems still babble about "filibuster"? The confirmation process has turned into a complete joke!

And I'd like to to state very clearly here that the Dems are much, much worse than the Republicans in regard to the degradation and joke-ification of the Supreme Court confirmation process.

The degradation started with Judge Bork getting character-assassinated by Ted Kennedy. (Yes, the same Ted Kennedy that killed a girl at Chappaquidick and then bought his way out of criminal charges) Bork was vilified and then voted down. It was taken a step further with the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed but was voted against by most Dems. There are no examples of Republicans voting against a Supreme Court nominee just because the nominee had liberal views. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3, even though she is very liberal and had been the ACLU's general counsel.

So Chuckie Schumer and the other Dems want to make Supreme Court confirmations even more of a farce? They are a bunch of self-important morons, and are making a disgrace of themselves. The result will just be the elimination of the 60-vote requirement, which will just make it easier for Trump to nominate a more conservative judge next time.

[BoogyMan]

Politically speaking... what is wrong with him? Schumer, and others, are promising to filibuster his nomination. But outside of "politics", what is bad about this man/judge?

According to scumbags like Kamala Harris he is unfit because he follows the law. The leftist infestation in America is going to push us to civil conflict. Mark my words.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9798&stc=1

[Kathianne]

According to scumbags like Kamala Harris he is unfit because he follows the law. The leftist infestation in America is going to push us to civil conflict. Mark my words.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9798&stc=1

I was going to post the same. Schumer is playing like Garland should have been appointed, ignoring what both Biden and himself had said before.