BREAKING: Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Nope. Bork was the first Supreme Court nominee to be subjected to the politics of personal destruction, and it was done at the hands of Ted Kennedy. Until then, nominees were largely vetted based on their qualifications, not their political leanings. The general thinking was that the President was elected, he should get his appointees confirmed.

The Democrats were the first one's to completely politicize that process.

Learn it and own it.

Haha. Yes, and dinosaurs and humans lived together and the earth is only 2.5M years old.

True story!

Aren't birds dinosaurs?

And then the Dems moved on to Clarence Thomas.

The following 10 senators are up for re-election in 2018. Note that Trump carried these states too. The GOP holds 52 seats in the Senate, they need 60 votes (assuming no nuclear option).

How many of these senators will risk a "No" vote on Gorsuch, realizing it could jeopardize their re-election hopes? I predict none. By the way, don't be surprised if one more Supreme Court Justice decides to hang up her robe later this year. Yes, I'm talking about you Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

MAGA!!!

Florida Bill Nelson (D)

Indiana Joe Donnelly (D)

Michigan Debbie Stabenow (D)

Missouri Claire McCaskill (D)

Montana Jon Tester (D)

North Dakota Heidi Heitkamp (D)

Ohio Sherrod Brown (D)

Pennsylvania Bob Casey (D)

West Virginia Joe Manchin (D)

Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin (D)

the latest display of loon wrote:

L L wrote:

How about a Senate majority leader that wouldn't hold a vote to confirm a SC nominee whoever the nominee was?

There is an entire US history of no-voting SC nomination during election years, that plays against you.

Next...

Give examples of not having a hearing or voting on a nominee, please.

Especially with 11 months left in a term.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Yes, I'm talking about you Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I guarantee you that she would rather die on the bench than step down and let Trump nominate someone else.

MattyK wrote:

New Trump slogan: Make liberals miserable. I love how miserable they are right now. Living and growing up in the country this whole thing feels fantastic. We love Trump!

It'll be the baby boomers and conservatives who will be miserable before his term ends... Good time's a comin!

HardLoper wrote:

the latest display of loon wrote:

The protestors had professionally printed anti-Gorsuch signs within minutes of the announcement. They were going to protest whoever the nominee was. Pathetic.

lol...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3jEZ2dWQAExa8q.jpg

Ummm, no. These were handed out within minutes... and notice the website...

Read the previous Wikipedia link. While some of the early ones ("postponing the confirmation indefinitely") are unclear about whether they got a true vote or not, the less disputed ones are:The most obvious are:

FMC, what an idiot. wrote:

Moore off wrote:

You must really be stupid. The odds are he won't serve more than 40 years, and it might be much less than that. His mother died at 62.

Haha, only on LRC, someone calling another poster stupid and then raises doubts about Gorsuch's longevity based on the fact "His mother died at 62".

FMD, what an idiot.

Oh yeah, looks like Dad's still around.

You are really stupid. The larger point was that Gorsuch is not going to serve close to 50 years. It will not happen. Not even close. Educate yourself you idiot.

She's almost 84 years old, hits the bottle and can't stay awake.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3248124/Not-interesting-Justice-Ginsburg-appears-doze-Pope-Francis-gives-historic-address-Congress.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/13/supreme-court-ginsburg-state-of-the-union/23360117/

As a liberal Democrat I am fine with Gorsuch on the court unless something gets dug up in the full vetting.

The politicians will play their games and do there thing but in the end it will be him or go with 8 for four years or for however long we go until there are 60 senators and the pres from the same party.

Or let them go nuclear and risk the future power of 51 Democrat senators.

I really thought Trump was going to nominate some Bannon type or Devos type so this qualified guy who happens to be conservative leaning seems fine.

Or let them go nuclear and risk the future power of 51 Democrat senators.

Trump has already told McConnell to exercise the Reid Option if necessary and expedient.

The Dem senators should save their war for a future Trump SCOTUS pick after Gorsuch. It will eventually end up as a 6-3 conservative lean and the snowflakes will meltdown unlike anything ever seen.

[quote]drunk old liberal wrote:

She's almost 84 years old, hits the bottle and can't stay awake."

She should have stepped aside during Obama's presidency, by staying around too long it's going to blow up in her face.

ataglance wrote:

[quote]drunk old liberal wrote:

She's almost 84 years old, hits the bottle and can't stay awake."

She should have stepped aside during Obama's presidency, by staying around too long it's going to blow up in her face.

She wanted Hillary to name her replacement.

Too bad for her wrote:

ataglance wrote:

[quote]drunk old liberal wrote:

She's almost 84 years old, hits the bottle and can't stay awake."

She should have stepped aside during Obama's presidency, by staying around too long it's going to blow up in her face.

She wanted Hillary to name her replacement.

It's the same up and down Democratic ranks. Pelosi won't retire and name a successor, etc. They are hanging onto to power forever, and creating a vacuum beneath them.

Avocado's Number wrote:7. I'm a bit troubled by his opinions on religious matters, both as to the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, including his concurrence in the Hobby Lobby case that went to the Supreme Court.

Hobby Lobby was a statutory case and, frankly, a very easy one. RFRA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and everyone knew what it meant. It was only when Christians rather than religious minorities started using it that some judges started to freak out and pretend that the statute meant something other than what it says. In a constitutional case, I would expect Gorsuch to follow Employment Division v. Smith.

L L wrote:

As a liberal Democrat I am fine with Gorsuch on the court unless something gets dug up in the full vetting.

The politicians will play their games and do there thing but in the end it will be him or go with 8 for four years or for however long we go until there are 60 senators and the pres from the same party.

Or let them go nuclear and risk the future power of 51 Democrat senators.

I really thought Trump was going to nominate some Bannon type or Devos type so this qualified guy who happens to be conservative leaning seems fine.

With "liberal Democrats" like you, who needs Republicans. I recommend Ian Kershaw's work on the moderate Germans who supported the NDSP in its early days, but I imagine you probably can't be bothered.

ataglance wrote:

[quote]drunk old liberal wrote:

She's almost 84 years old, hits the bottle and can't stay awake."

She should have stepped aside during Obama's presidency, by staying around too long it's going to blow up in her face.

Yep, the Supreme Court will become a 6-3 conservative majority under Trump. So much winning.

MAGA!!!