Gorsuch hearing

March 22, 2017, 09:02 AM

smschulz

Gorsuch hearing

quote:
the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves

Umm NO you twat!
You just want to twist it to fit your agenda.
Things change then change, create, amend the laws ~ legally through legislation.
Dumb ass Liberals.

March 22, 2017, 09:51 AM

egregore

I don't think I'd be a very good Supreme Court nominee. I wouldn't be able to keep my cool having to listen to that stupid crap.

March 22, 2017, 09:28 PM

sdy

http://www.politico.com/story/...supreme-court-236384

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term

If Democrats move ahead with the plan — it’s still in the early discussion phase — it would require buy-in from some Republicans, but not necessarily Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) or his top deputies. At least three rank-and-file GOP members would have to pledge not to vote to unilaterally change the Senate rules through a majority-only vote later in Trump’s term — the so-called nuclear option.

Another ambitious possibility: Some Democrats want to confirm Gorsuch only with an agreement that another justice retire and is replaced with Garland

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa dismissed any talk from Democrats about negotiating on Gorsuch.

March 22, 2017, 09:34 PM

Balzé Halzé

Screw all that noise. Freakin' democrats

March 22, 2017, 09:45 PM

JoseyWales2

It would be foolish to make any such deal with the Dems. If the shoe was on the other foot, they sure as heck would not make such a deal with the GOP. They would do all they could to ram their nominees through, nuclear option or not, whatever it takes. The ends justify the means in their mind. Wasn't old Harry himself talking about using the nuclear option to appoint a Liberal judge after the "inevitable Hillary landslide win"? Where were their compromises on Kagan or Sotomayer?

March 22, 2017, 09:52 PM

lkdr1989

Smells of desperation

Gorsuch is going to get nominated whether dems like it or not.

quote:
Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.politico.com/story/...supreme-court-236384

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term

If Democrats move ahead with the plan — it’s still in the early discussion phase — it would require buy-in from some Republicans, but not necessarily Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) or his top deputies. At least three rank-and-file GOP members would have to pledge not to vote to unilaterally change the Senate rules through a majority-only vote later in Trump’s term — the so-called nuclear option.

Another ambitious possibility: Some Democrats want to confirm Gorsuch only with an agreement that another justice retire and is replaced with Garland

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa dismissed any talk from Democrats about negotiating on Gorsuch.

March 23, 2017, 05:28 AM

flashguy

quote:
Originally posted by smschulz:
quote:
the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves

Umm NO you twat!
You just want to twist it to fit your agenda.
Things change then change, create, amend the laws ~ legally through legislation.
Dumb ass Liberals.

Absolutely! The only "living" the Constitution should be subjected to is Amendment by one of the methods detailed within the document itself. The Founders did realize that any document might need some changes over time and they had the foresight to put into place some specific ways that such adjustments could be made. So far, there have been 27 Amendments--not too bad a record of stability after nearly 240 years.

Sen. Feinstein is way off base. (What else is new?)

flashguy

March 23, 2017, 06:12 AM

liner

quote:
Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.politico.com/story/...supreme-court-236384

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed

The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term

If Democrats move ahead with the plan — it’s still in the early discussion phase — it would require buy-in from some Republicans, but not necessarily Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) or his top deputies. At least three rank-and-file GOP members would have to pledge not to vote to unilaterally change the Senate rules through a majority-only vote later in Trump’s term — the so-called nuclear option.

Another ambitious possibility: Some Democrats want to confirm Gorsuch only with an agreement that another justice retire and is replaced with Garland

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa dismissed any talk from Democrats about negotiating on Gorsuch.

I'll give you my BIG nickel for your little dime.

March 23, 2017, 10:06 AM

sdy

http://www.washingtontimes.com...-filibuster-gorsuch/

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said Thursday that Democrats will attempt to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination, saying he would tilt the Supreme Court too far away from what Democrats want to see.

“After careful deliberation I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Schumer said, announcing his filibuster on the Senate floor.

The speech amounted to a challenge to Republicans, who may now have to decide whether to trigger the “nuclear option” and change the chamber’s rules to curtail the power of the filibuster.

“The answer isn’t to change the rules, it’s to change the nominee,” the New York Democrat said Thursday.

March 23, 2017, 10:10 AM

parabellum

Tough shit.

March 23, 2017, 10:12 AM

mbinky

Nuke 'em.

And before anyone says "well, remember they can do it next time" who cares. They INVENTED the option, you really think they wouldn't use it? After he is on the court hope another vacancy opens up and drop the nuke too get that on too.

Quit trying to play nice with the Dems; they are laughing at you

March 23, 2017, 10:13 AM

ulsterman

I have been listening to the hearing. Judge Goruch appears to be a smart, level headed person.

He will not give his personal opinion on things because judges are not supposed to.

His rulings will come directly from the law and not his personal beliefs.

That is just pissing off the Democrats to the point they cannot see straight. They want someone on the court with an agenda.

March 23, 2017, 10:13 AM

stickman428

"It's not change the rules". Riiiiiight.

Because Dems have a history of respecting the rules.

March 23, 2017, 10:17 AM

parabellum

Chuck Schumer could not recognize the truth if his life literally depended on it.

March 23, 2017, 10:26 AM

cmr076

quote:
Originally posted by mbinky:
Nuke 'em.

And before anyone says "well, remember they can do it next time" who cares. They INVENTED the option, you really think they wouldn't use it? After he is on the court hope another vacancy opens up and drop the nuke too get that on too.

Quit trying to play nice with the Dems; they are laughing at you

If it's already a rule, why haven't they used it yet? They couldn't possibly think the dem's would eventually "come around", right? I can't wrap my head around why the Republicans are still trying to be diplomatic, the democrats obviously have no interest in that.

March 23, 2017, 10:28 AM

stoic-one

quote:
If it's already a rule, why haven't they used it yet?

Ummm, because it's NOT already a rule? It's not.

March 23, 2017, 10:30 AM

cmr076

quote:
Originally posted by stoic-one:
quote:
If it's already a rule, why haven't they used it yet?

Ummm, because it's NOT already a rule? It's not.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...lear-senate/3662445/

so it looks like IS a rule, it just can't currently be applied to the SCOTUS.

March 23, 2017, 10:31 AM

docent

How do these idiot Senators keep getting reelected?

March 23, 2017, 10:33 AM

parabellum

The leftists will force our hand. They have no choice, because Gorsuch doesn't fit in with their childish Unicorn view of the world, and we all know that these petulant children have to have every single thing just exactly the way they want it. Well, tough shit, kiddies.

And fuck the idea of any compromises with the stupid leftist children. No, we're not giving you anything in exchange for temporarily halting your tantrum. We're not giving you anything and very soon, Gorsuch will be confirmed, and there's not a Goddamned thing you can do to stop it.

_______________________________________________

“What sickens me about left-wing people, especially the intellectuals, is their utter ignorance of the way things actually happen.” ~ George Orwell

"That's one thing about intellectuals. They've proved that you can be absolutely brilliant and have no idea what's going on." ~ Woody Allen