View Full Version : Justice Neal Gorsuch - SCOTUS nominee
Seems like a solid pick to me.
Looks to be a pretty solid pick.
I beat you by 10 seconds B-I-A-T-C-H!
;)
A solid pick. Especially for 2A folks. Makes me happy... happier when he starts making a difference.
This is Trump winning again.
Damn, that was a hell of an introduction speech too. I'm starting to warm up to Trump.
I beat you by 10 seconds B-I-A-T-C-H!
;)
MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA
He is only 49 yrs old! I would have guessed much older based on physical appearance.
If he is indeed a friend of 2A and conservatives, that would be a LONG time to influence the Court in our favor!
Damn, that was a hell of an introduction speech too. I'm starting to warm up to Trump.
He definitely had his sh*t together for this one.
PatrioticDisorder
01-31-17, 19:15
Damn, that was a hell of an introduction speech too. I'm starting to warm up to Trump.
;) #MAGA
;) #MAGA
So much in less than two weeks it's nearly mind-numbing lmao.
So much in less than two weeks it's nearly mind-numbing lmao.
Sheeeyit homie, getting more done in two weeks than some people did in 8 years.
Say what you will about President Trump, he is delivering nearly exactly what he promised.
;) #MAGA
Yeah, the fact that Trump made Schumer cry in his first week was just, well, very special...he was crying like Bahner watching Bambi.
eightmillimeter
01-31-17, 19:42
Expect an all out battle over this one. I'm all in MAGA at this point, but the Senate Dems are going to stall this every way to Sunday.... Should be fun to watch
Are you guys tired of winning? Trump said we would get tired. I'm not tired.
FlyingHunter
01-31-17, 19:52
I've advised my stock broker to purchase large quantities of Kleenex. As the snowflakes melt, I'm certain this is a smart market play.
platoonDaddy
01-31-17, 19:55
That POS from NY already released a hit list on Gorsuch.
same old shit from the "D's"
Averageman
01-31-17, 20:00
That POS from NY already released a hit list on Gorsuch.
same old shit from the "D's"
It doesn't matter does it?
The Nuclear Option is a giant F'ing rubber band that is about to smack back so hard every Democrat will look like Harry Reid after his "Exersize Band" broke and smacked him in the eye.
If you actually believe that story....
Is he a good pro-gun candidate? I read an editorial by Larry Pratt, GOA, who raised concerns over his support of the Rodriguez decision in New Mexico.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html
Also this:
"Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly." “On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court."
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170131/nra-applauds-neil-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court
"May not be infringed lightly", not may not be infringed.
PatrioticDisorder
01-31-17, 20:12
Yeah, the fact that Trump made Schumer cry in his first week was just, well, very special...he was crying like Bahner watching Bambi.
Stock up on popcorn and enjoy the show, I know that's what I'm doing.
PatrioticDisorder
01-31-17, 20:15
Is he a good pro-gun candidate? I read an editorial by Larry Pratt, GOA, who raised concerns over his support of the Rodriguez decision in New Mexico.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html
Also this:
"Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly." “On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court."
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170131/nra-applauds-neil-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court
"May not be infringed lightly", not may not be infringed.
Ted Cruz was just on Tucker Carlson singing his praises, including on 2a issues.
"May not be infringed lightly", not Shall not be infringed.
FIFY...
He is only 49 yrs old! I would have guessed much older based on physical appearance.
If he is indeed a friend of 2A and conservatives, that would be a LONG time to influence the Court in our favor!
Since Ginsberg's hourglass has got to be getting low I hope the next pick is a constitutionalist vegetarian cross fit fanatic between 30-35...
Breyer is no spring chicken either and he was expected to retire had hrc won.
Also, Kennedy has mentioned retirement.
Alito and Thomas also getting up there.
SeriousStudent
01-31-17, 20:33
This is quite delightful, and the name I was hoping to hear.
Damn, that was a hell of an introduction speech too. I'm starting to warm up to Trump.
See.
Btw, am I the only one who thinks the two other contenders mentioned by Pence were just diversions to get this guy nominated?
Averageman
01-31-17, 20:59
See.
Btw, am I the only one who thinks the two other contenders mentioned by Pence were just diversions to get this guy nominated?
It is my understanding that he was last confirmed with much support and fanfare.
I would guess to now hold him up as a bad example means more than a little crow would have to be served.
BoringGuy45
01-31-17, 21:06
Is he a good pro-gun candidate? I read an editorial by Larry Pratt, GOA, who raised concerns over his support of the Rodriguez decision in New Mexico.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html
Also this:
"Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly." “On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court."
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170131/nra-applauds-neil-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court
"May not be infringed lightly", not may not be infringed.
I hate to say it, but in terms of gun laws, the GOA is nearly impossible to please. To them, nothing short of total "separation of gun and state" is acceptable, and anything short of that is unacceptable. While I think that's commendable, we're never going to see anyone that Pro-2A on the bench. Ever. Anyone who might be like that would never be approved by the Senate. To me, the deal killers for guns are:
-Support for assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions
-Support for may issue, or no issue, policies
-Opposition to national reciprocity
-Opposition to NFA item ownership
-Support for gun free zones
-Support for keeping the "sporter" clause
Those are my "no compromise" stances, and ones that I am not even willing to have a discussion about. I am opposed to most other gun laws (obviously), but I can at least forgive and agree to disagree on some, so long as we see eye-to-eye on those 6 points.
I'm not sure but if y'all open a window do you hear the Star-Spangled banner being played faintly upon the wind?
I think I saw a bald eagle fly by too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-31-17, 21:32
Say what you will about President Trump, he is delivering nearly exactly what he promised.
Short aside here. Trump got chastised for his 'lies' when he got minutia wrong on his statements and campaign promises. The odd thing is that he is keeping more campaign promises in a week and a half than Obama, W and Bill Clinton delivered in all their terms. It is the oddest thing that a guy that is roundly criticized for his lies, is the most prolific campaign promise keeper of all time.
I've advised my stock broker to purchase large quantities of Kleenex. As the snowflakes melt, I'm certain this is a smart market play.
No, straight to butt lube.
Eurodriver
01-31-17, 21:43
Are you guys tired of winning? Trump said we would get tired. I'm not tired.
This too shall pass.
This too shall pass.
Wisdom here, but.....
I take my good times when and where I can get it.
Since Ginsberg's hourglass has got to be getting low I hope the next pick is a constitutionalist vegetarian cross fit fanatic between 30-35...
Dude that's signature line material!
Since Ginsberg's hourglass has got to be getting low I hope the next pick is a constitutionalist vegetarian cross fit fanatic between 30-35...
...and a hot chick. We need more hot chicks, especially the constitutionalist vegetarian cross fit fanatic kind.....
I am very impressed with the choice. However, the Democrats are going to drag out his appointment forever if the Republicans don't stick together. Schummer, and Pelosi's comments were just laughable. They are such lying douche bags.
That fruit bat pelosi already said that Gorsuch is a horrible pick. They will be ready for a fight.
I am very impressed with the choice. However, the Democrats are going to drag out his appointment forever if the Republicans don't stick together. Schummer, and Pelosi's comments were just laughable. They are such lying douche bags.
The Republicans need to tell them to get on the train or be run over the be nuclear option. Rock and a hard place, make them choose, then make them accountable for their actions in the mid-term elections.
That fruit bat pelosi already said that Gorsuch is a horrible pick. They will be ready for a fight.
Good. Let them filibuster. This is an eminently qualified and reasonable candidate. Let the Dems declare themselves as unreasonable so that the Republicans can dust off and nuke the filibuster from orbit. That way we can more easily pack the court with even more conservative candidates when Ginsburg trips over her oxygen cord.
One way or the other, Scalia's seat is getting filled by Gorsuch. The Dems can either blow their wad early or save their powder for when a liberal seat is vacated.
Good. Let them filibuster. This is an eminently qualified and reasonable candidate. Let the Dems declare themselves as unreasonable so that the Republicans can dust off and nuke the filibuster from orbit. That way we can more easily pack the court with even more conservative candidates when Ginsburg trips over her oxygen cord.
.
"This is ground control to Major Tom...."
Of course, in that echo chamber that the Dems reside, they never consider the future consequences of their actions or statements nor the sheer hypocrisy.
Things like "elections have consequences " or their own use of the nuclear option. How about Schumer wanting "a mainstream judge"? Where was he when Kagan or Sotomayor was put up? Oh right, those two are mainstream....
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-01-17, 09:44
So the Dems new standard is we get new SCOTUS only of the POTUS and Senate are the same party with 60+ votes. Riiighhht.
One way or the other, Scalia's seat is getting filled by Gorsuch. The Dems can either blow their wad early or save their powder for when a liberal seat is vacated.
Yeah, pretty much this. They have a difficult tactical decision and a relatively short list of pretty bad options. It's made worse by the fact that what little strategy they have is bad too and pretty much consists of "NO". Any strategy that relies of Whoopi Goldberg is tenuous at best.
Yeah, pretty much this. They have a difficult tactical decision and a relatively short list of pretty bad options. It's made worse by the fact that what little strategy they have is bad too and pretty much consists of "NO". Any strategy that relies of Whoopi Goldberg is tenuous at best.
Truly, they have a shit sandwich in front of them. They are so myopic, and right now they are so unbelievably angry, they are making decisions based on angry, knee-jerk reactions. Yes, their tactics suck; and they have no strategy. I would think they are hoping that the electorate has no memory, been affected by one of those Men in Black memory-eraser things, because all of this can come back to bite them.
Averageman
02-01-17, 10:18
Truly, they have a shit sandwich in front of them. They are so myopic, and right now they are so unbelievably angry, they are making decisions based on angry, knee-jerk reactions. Yes, their tactics suck; and they have no strategy. I would think they are hoping that the electorate has no memory, been affected by one of those Men in Black memory-eraser things, because all of this can come back to bite them.
Add to this the recent tactic of, and I quote Tim Kaine "take it to the streets" is becoming weary.
If you cannot eloquently explain your position and your only retort is "Because he is Trump's choice" then they take to the streets, do some arson, steal some stuff and hurt random white people (They had to be Trump voters, they're white!) they will take it in the shorts the next time we have an election,...again.
They are like a snake eating their own tail. People are getting sick of the riots, sick of being told by the Hollywood "elite" how they should feel and are seeing the beginning of some changes they can get behind.
They are on a self destructive path, it is only too bad that they've decided to burn everything on their way to being an obscure footnote in history.
Since Ginsberg's hourglass has got to be getting low I hope the next pick is a constitutionalist vegetarian cross fit fanatic between 30-35...
Ginsburg is 83. Kennedy is 80. Breyer is 78. Average age of retirement for a Supreme Court Justice (since 1971) has been 78. The math is potentially compelling. Unlikely that all three are going to hang in there for 4 more years. And if Trump can get 8 years (assuming he doesn't bail after 4 years)....well, he has the potential to lay a stamp on America that will last for generations.
I'm not sure but if y'all open a window do you hear the Star-Spangled banner being played faintly upon the wind?
I think I saw a bald eagle fly by too.
My tinnitus suddenly switched to the Star Spangled Banner at oh dark thirty November 9, 2016.
Ginsburg is 83. Kennedy is 80. Breyer is 78. Average age of retirement for a Supreme Court Justice (since 1971) has been 78. The math is potentially compelling. Unlikely that all three are going to hang in there for 4 more years. And if Trump can get 8 years (assuming he doesn't bail after 4 years)....well, he has the potential to lay a stamp on America that will last for generations.
Exactly what I'm hoping for.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-01-17, 11:50
If they were smart they would be slightly warm to the appointment and the concept of judicial balance and 'seats' so that if a lib one croaks, they have at least a consistent argument. With out that and with out control of the Senate, all the have is: WAAAAAAAAAAAA!
If they were smart they would be slightly warm to the appointment and the concept of judicial balance and 'seats' so that if a lib one croaks, they have at least a consistent argument. With out that and with out control of the Senate, all the have is: WAAAAAAAAAAAA!
And were that to happen, I would love for Trump to nominate a new justice, and say to the Democrats, "The last guy, Gorsuch? He is pretty moderate. This next is conservative."
My tinnitus suddenly switched to the Star Spangled Banner at oh dark thirty November 9, 2016.
Barely 10 days with Trump in office, I wake up this morning to see several political lackeys fired and Washington, and instead of seeing the usual strike Eagles and Vipers fly by my Dairy on a regular basis for years and years, I just saw two F-18 Super Hornets do touch-and-goes, in low visibility weather fit the first time. So very bad ass. I never ever ever get to see Navy Jets here in Idaho except when the Blue Angels show up.
I hope Trump leaves a very long lasting stamp on this country with the scotus picks hopefully for the next 8 years. We can call it a Trump stamp.....Lol..
Ginsburg is 83. Kennedy is 80. Breyer is 78. Average age of retirement for a Supreme Court Justice (since 1971) has been 78. The math is potentially compelling. Unlikely that all three are going to hang in there for 4 more years.
At this point their goal is to hang in there till the midterms and hope that Dems take the Senate. Which I think they will.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-01-17, 13:42
At this point their goal is to hang in there till the midterms and hope that Dems take the Senate. Which I think they will.
DEms face a big uphill battle for the senate in the next election cycle. Trump will shut down the govt full stop if the Dems try to keep a SCOTUS seat empty for two years.
Spurholder
02-01-17, 13:43
At this point their goal is to hang in there till the midterms and hope that Dems take the Senate. Which I think they will.
How do you see the Dems taking the Senate? They can't even figure out what they did wrong in the last election. In other words, unless they get some leadership with a clue, I see sweeps during the midterms.
Averageman
02-01-17, 14:12
How do you see the Dems taking the Senste? They can't even figure out what they did wrong in the last election. In other words, unless the get some leadership with a clue, I see sweeps during the midterms.
As long as they have Schumer, not Amy, Chuck the other Comedian, at the helm, we're Golden.
Map, flashlight and both hands and he couldn't find it.
'MERICA, bitches :)
It's been a loooong time since I had any hope of digging us out of this morass. Solid pick. Dems are gonna have a hard time blocking him, when they fawned all over him at his last confirmation on the court of appeals (Pence has already reminded them of it). Let them keep acting like petulant 2 year olds, just showing again to middle America why the Dems are a party of losers.
At this point their goal is to hang in there till the midterms and hope that Dems take the Senate. Which I think they will.
Even the Democrat publication, Slate, says it's unlikely.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/14/democrats_unlikely_to_take_the_senate_in_2018_midterms.html
I read an article today that suggested the dems just need to roll over on this and save their fight for the next one, which has a likelihood of happening during Trump's administration. The article said that Gorsuch is well known and well respected, and given his clerkship for Kennedy and based on his decisions, is not nearly as conservative/right as Trump could have picked. In other words, be thankful.
How do you see the Dems taking the Senste? They can't even figure out what they did wrong in the last election. In other words, unless the get some leadership with a clue, I see sweeps during the midterms.
History. In last 20 or so midterms the president's party almost never gained grounds. As a pretty strong statistical occurrence, president's party loses seats, both the House and the Senate. As pointed out above, the GOP only have eight seats to reelect while Dems almost three times that, so that might help, but it would still require very strong Trump’s approval ratings. Color me skeptical.
He definitely had his sh*t together for this one.
I don't think he wrote that speech. Maybe he did, but he wasn't just winging it on this one... and though he stumbled a bit I'm glad he kept it to the specifics of his quals. and duty to USA. Trump I mean.
Gorsuch presented himself very well.
Assuming that Gorsuch receives confirmation, and I believe that he will, this may turn out to be one of Trump's most important decisions as President. Aside from being simply a conservative, Gorsuch is , like Scalia, an adherent of Textualism. This bodes well for 2A issues.
Spurholder
02-01-17, 16:22
As long as they have Schumer, not Amy, Chuck the other Comedian, at the helm, we're Golden.
Map, flashlight and both hands and he couldn't find it.
Can't believe this idiot has as much clout as he does. Of course, I remember when NY had a Republican senator by the name of Alfonso D'Amato.
I'm very interested to see if the Dems can pull their heads out of heir posteriors and realize that this isn't the battle to fight.
They're dumb enough to fight this while the right simply needs to publish the discussion from his last confirmation hearing where there were no issues.
Trump could have nominated a true centrist (if such a thing exists) and they'd fight the nomination simply because it was Trump's pick. The new party of "NO."
Averageman
02-01-17, 17:54
I'm very interested to see if the Dems can pull their heads out of heir posteriors and realize that this isn't the battle to fight.
They're dumb enough to fight this while the right simply needs to publish the discussion from his last confirmation hearing where there were no issues.
Trump could have nominated a true centrist (if such a thing exists) and they'd fight the nomination simply because it was Trump's pick. The new party of "NO."
Before it is over they are going to feel like one of the "C" level Porn Chicks, you know the ones who co-star and stunt double in "Baby Got Gape III".
It's going to hurt and burn and they will be hoping someone yells "Cut" before the sphincter has fallen out and hits the floor.
They haven't learned a damned thing and are not on the path to correcting it.
Aren't they Special though?
Canonshooter
02-01-17, 17:58
...this may turn out to be one of Trump's most important decisions as President.
Agreed.
And another MAJOR accomplishment the MSM has buried is that on Trump's first full day in office he got more overweight women to walk than the former FLOTUS did in eight years of her health campaign. ;-)
I read an article today that suggested the dems just need to roll over on this and save their fight for the next one, which has a likelihood of happening during Trump's administration. The article said that Gorsuch is well known and well respected, and given his clerkship for Kennedy and based on his decisions, is not nearly as conservative/right as Trump could have picked. In other words, be thankful.
I agree. I note that Tillerson passed 56-44. There are some Democrats in the Senate that have a clue. I suspect that they'll want to beat up on Gorsuch for awhile and score some political points, then they'll vote him in (again) without the nuclear option being necessary.
Spurholder
02-01-17, 19:20
History. In last 20 or so midterms the president's party almost never gained grounds. As a pretty strong statistical occurrence, president's party loses seats, both the House and the Senate. As pointed out above, the GOP only have eight seats to reelect while Dems almost three times that, so that might help, but it would still require very strong Trump’s approval ratings. Color me skeptical.
You're giving a lot of credit to a party of malcontents that are having serious issue in finding their collective ass with both hands.
Normally, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Not under these conditions.
Before it is over they are going to feel like one of the "C" level Porn Chicks, you know the ones who co-star and stunt double in "Baby Got Gape III".
It's going to hurt and burn and they will be hoping someone yells "Cut" before the sphincter has fallen out and hits the floor.
They haven't learned a damned thing and are not on the path to correcting it.
Aren't they Special though?
Bit of an over-share there mate...
Bit of an over-share there mate...
[emoji23]
Apparently, the prospective justice did not appreciate Trump's Tweets about the judge who stayed the immigration ban.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/08/dem-senator-gorsuch-told-me-trumps-criticism-of-judge-robart-was-demoralizing-and-disheartening/
I think that Gorsuch is signaling that he is not Trump's stooge. That got Laura Ingram's jock strap in a wad.
Apparently, the prospective justice did not appreciate Trump's Tweets about the judge who stayed the immigration ban.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/08/dem-senator-gorsuch-told-me-trumps-criticism-of-judge-robart-was-demoralizing-and-disheartening/
I think that Gorsuch is signaling that he is not Trump's stooge. That got Laura Ingram's jock strap in a wad.
Good for him. Nor should he be (Trump's stooge). It is so unfortunate that the circuit courts and SCOTUS have been so politicized, but so totally not surprising.
Whiskey_Bravo
02-09-17, 09:36
Apparently, the prospective justice did not appreciate Trump's Tweets about the judge who stayed the immigration ban.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/08/dem-senator-gorsuch-told-me-trumps-criticism-of-judge-robart-was-demoralizing-and-disheartening/
This is a good thing all around and further shows he is a good pick.
Not sure why it would get anyone's strap in a wad. As a member of SCOTUS he has no allegiance to Trump, nor should he. His ONLY allegiance is to the Constitution. PERIOD.
Sadly, I am not surprised that the legal system is compromised if political hacks.
Hopefully this is just a start to getting people into offices not based on asskissery, but competence. Nah.... what was I thinking.
I do agree with the SCOTUS nominees. Twitter should be forbidden for government employees for anything but personal comms re where to meet for happy hour or which floor has the free donuts. It's NOT a tool for communicating complicated ideas.
CrazyFingers
02-09-17, 09:48
Any government official who doesn’t understand the President’s goals in this and exactly what it was should either get with the programme or they can go.
Any government official who doesn’t understand the President’s goals in this and exactly what it was should either get with the programme or they can go.
Not sure I get your meaning. Are you suggesting that all government officials should just follow orders without question? Don't think you want that in any semblance. I've lived it and it's not as much fun as you think.
CrazyFingers
02-09-17, 10:10
Not sure I get your meaning. Are you suggesting that all government officials should just follow orders without question? Don't think you want that in any semblance. I've lived it and it's not as much fun as you think.
That is a direct quote (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-state-department-dissent-memo-get-with-the-program-sean-spider-latest-a7554326.html) from Trump's press secretary. Draw your own conclusions as to his desired end-game.
Good for him. Nor should he be (Trump's stooge). It is so unfortunate that the circuit courts and SCOTUS have been so politicized, but so totally not surprising.
I'm of two minds on the subject. On one hand, I certainly don't want a justice who walks in lock-step with many of Trump's statist positions. On the other hand, reading the source documents of the quote is a little concerning. Gorsuch uses terms like "my brothers and sisters of the robe" and "an attack on one is an attack on all." This type of judicial tribalism is exactly NOT what we need right now as it is the root of judicial activism. Moreover, it really pisses me to no end when someone thinks that a robe (or white coat) means their decisions are beyond criticism. Of course, we also don't need a POTUS who uses Twitter like a third grader passing notes in class.
Only time will tell, but I'm beginning to wonder if we have another Kennedy on our hands.
CrazyFingers
02-09-17, 10:25
I've of two minds on the subject. On one hand, I certainly don't want a justice who walks in lock-step with many of Trump's statist positions. On the other hand, reading the source documents of the quote is a little concerning. Gorsuch uses terms like "my brothers and sisters of the robe" and "an attack on one is an attack on all." This type of judicial tribalism is exactly NOT what we need right now as it is the root of judicial activism. Moreover, it really pisses me to no end when some thinks that a robe means their decisions are beyond criticism.
Only time will tell, but I'm beginning to wonder if we have another Kennedy on our hands.
I take it more as even he understands the critical importance of an independent judiciary as a check on unbridled executive power within our democracy.
Assuming we still want one.
That is a direct quote (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-state-department-dissent-memo-get-with-the-program-sean-spider-latest-a7554326.html) from Trump's press secretary. Draw your own conclusions as to his desired end-game.
Trump likely has the right to set that policy with his employees. Doesn't apply to any member of the Judiciary...he can't direct judges to "get with the programme". As to tweeting...it could be an effective public communication tool if one had the self-discipline and ego-management to do it with discretion.
CrazyFingers
02-09-17, 10:32
he can't direct judges to "get with the programme"
Perhaps someone should tell him that. I imagine they'd have to tweet it.
I'm of two minds on the subject. On one hand, I certainly don't want a justice who walks in lock-step with many of Trump's statist positions. On the other hand, reading the source documents of the quote is a little concerning. Gorsuch uses terms like "my brothers and sisters of the robe" and "an attack on one is an attack on all." This type of judicial tribalism is exactly NOT what we need right now as it is the root of judicial activism. Moreover, it really pisses me to no end when someone thinks that a robe (or white coat) means their decisions are beyond criticism. Of course, we also don't need a POTUS who uses Twitter like a third grader passing notes in class.
Only time will tell, but I'm beginning to wonder if we have another Kennedy on our hands.
I understand, and I agree. Regarding Kennedy, as Kennedy "mentored" him (as did Scalia), there's a better than fair chance that he could trend that way. I do hope if he goes one way or the other he leans toward Scalia and not Kennedy.
Perhaps someone should tell him that. I imagine they'd have to tweet it.
Heh, heh - well played, Sir. Well played indeed.
That is a direct quote (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-state-department-dissent-memo-get-with-the-program-sean-spider-latest-a7554326.html) from Trump's press secretary. Draw your own conclusions as to his desired end-game.
Sorry, didn't realize your previous post was a quote of the admins feelings. Thought you felt people should just follow orders and not question stuff.
Perhaps someone should tell him that. I imagine they'd have to tweet it.
LOL.
BoringGuy45
02-09-17, 13:13
I frankly like the fact that he's not lock step with Trump. While I'm in more agreement with Trump on this issue (that blood will be on the Justice Department's hands if something happens), I feel like Gorsuch's comments could have very well been said by Scalia. Separation of power is a great thing, and a judge who simply agreed with everything that his party says makes the separation pointless.
Separation of Powers is pretty fundamental to the way our country runs. I don't think that the Judiciary should ever be in lockstep with either the Executive or the Legislative branches. I didn't read Gorsuch's letter but I noted Sensei's interpretation. I think it's tactically smart to publicly disagree with the President in this environment, but when he starts referring to "my brothers and sisters of the robe", I'm inclined to throw up my mouth a little. Judicial activism would be as destructive to the Constitution as the Judiciary serving the President.
More fake news. Or half truths from the Vietnam war hero Senator.
Turns out it was a general comment about respecting judges, not specifically about Trump's tweet. Gorsuch also declined to make the statment publicly.
Averageman
02-09-17, 15:09
Trump takes Blumenthal to task for his stolen valor and his lies about Gorsuch's statement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/trump-tweets-dredge-up-blumenthals-vietnam-controversy.html
Trump on Thursday morning hit Blumenthal for allegedly exaggerating details of a conversation with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch – while shining a light on the seven-year-old uproar over the Connecticut Democrat's apparent misrepresentation of his military service.
Trump kept up the barrage Thursday afternoon, telling reporters Gorsuch's "comments were misrepresented, and what you should do is ask Sen. Blumenthal about his Vietnam record, that didn't exist after years of saying it did...he misrepresented that just like he misrepresented Judge Gorsuch."
He told a gathering of families who were expressing support for returning American troops in 2003 that, “when we returned, we saw nothing like this.”
Blumenthal, however, crossed the line when speaking to a group of veterans in March 2008.
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” he said.
Nothing there that couldn't be cured by being run out of office and then given a kick in the sack out in the parking lot.
SomeOtherGuy
02-09-17, 15:38
Separation of Powers is pretty fundamental to the way our country runs. I don't think that the Judiciary should ever be in lockstep with either the Executive or the Legislative branches. I didn't read Gorsuch's letter but I noted Sensei's interpretation. I think it's tactically smart to publicly disagree with the President in this environment, but when he starts referring to "my brothers and sisters of the robe", I'm inclined to throw up my mouth a little. Judicial activism would be as destructive to the Constitution as the Judiciary serving the President.
Exactly my view. A judge can't condone Trump's direct attacks on specific judges, but at the same time, it does seem that some of the recent rulings are 100% political and have nothing to do with the actual law on point.
It seems to me that the federal judiciary is often going over the line on certain types of cases and they need to be reined in. Exactly how you accomplish that when they claim the power to review any legal action is difficult. The Founders intended the judiciary to be isolated from political pressure, but I don't think they anticipated the degree of activism we see today. Keep in mind that the issue of Marbury v. Madison was not specifically contemplated and that case, from 1803, was revolutionary at the time - a time when many of the constitution's drafters were still alive and even active in politics.
Here is the Gorsuch statement on the whole criticism dust up:
http://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2017/02/09/gorsuch-team-releases-statement-disheartening-demoralizing-comments/
Basically, it's a bunch of legal double speak about being unable to comment on active cases, and then applying a blanket statement to the specific question about the judge who issued the stay. I must say, his statement is not giving me the warm fuzzies with this gem:
"...he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing."
Well, what I find disheartening is the fact that such a well educated and accomplished jurist could be so naive as to think that simply being a judge confers some type of superhuman integrity. Judge Gorsuch, have you not noticed the havoc that YOUR profession has wrecked on this country? Do you not understand that you are being nominated to combat the very thing that you refuse to acknowledge? Please tell me that this is not the best that you have to offer. Because if it is, then expect to get you ass handed to you on national TV.
The thing I don't understand is when exactly did things come to the point where members of the judiciary (atleast at the higher levels of government) started giving a damn about their public likability ratings? Is this a new phenomenon or has it always existed?
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-09-17, 18:51
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/alito.obama.sotu/
I thought calling out judges was cool? In person. At the state of the Union address.
Look at all the Dems stand up and clap.......
Judges are NOT God. They are NOT beyond reproach or criticism. To get their panties in a wad over criticism is a bit of arrogance and a "holier than thou" attitude on display.
IMHO judges are basically politicians who are insulated from public displeasure and recourse.
Judges are NOT God. They are NOT beyond reproach or criticism.
No, but they have been elevated to that status by the Left. What you can't win in election and if it goes against reasonable popular desire, then you send to the carefully constructed court where the result becomes Gospel.
I believe just about every president has criticized the judiciary.
Teddy Roosevelt said about a SCOTUS justice: "I could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone than that."
Of course judges are going to be called out; they get back at the politicians through decisions.
The 9th Circuit's decision is yet one more example of judicial over reach. They ignored the statute and came up with a decision that fit their ideology.
I hate to say it, but it's time for a Constitutional crisis. The Executive and Legislative branches should ignore rulings (especially from lower courts) that are not grounded in law. Let the courts enforce these BS rulings. Let them hold the POTUS in contempt - good luck with getting him impeached. There is a reason why The Founders stripped enforcement from the judicial branch and its starring us in the face with this ruling.
SomeOtherGuy
02-10-17, 15:44
This analysis may be of some interest:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion
My 2 cents is that the 9th Circuit decision is entirely hung up on technicalities and not on the big picture substance. It seems likely that Trump can issue a new EO that avoids the technicalities and would therefore be valid, although I'm sure a legion of Soros-funded lawyers will be working to find new technicalities.
To state the obvious, it also seems that the decision was politically motivated, and that judges with differing motives, or without political motives (good luck finding some), would have reached the opposite result.
I'm not sure how I feel about post #96. I agree 100% that the courts have become political and overstepped their proper place. But if Trump openly defies a court decision, he will probably lose more political support without gaining anything new, and will be playing into the various lefty claims that he's (whatever bad thing). This might be a time for restraint in order to win the long game.
I'm not sure how I feel about post #96. I agree 100% that the courts have become political and overstepped their proper place. But if Trump openly defies a court decision, he will probably lose more political support without gaining anything new, and will be playing into the various lefty claims that he's (whatever bad thing). This might be a time for restraint in order to win the long game.
And I'm fine with the long game as long as someone clearly delineates the playing field and the time periods. Otherwise, we get incrementally killed by 10 yard penalties like the one we saw from the 9th Circuit.
Grand58742
03-22-17, 16:57
I've been keeping up with this confirmation hearing and as expected, it's a straight freaking clown show from the DNC. Most notable is Richard Blumenthal being a complete jackass. And of course, Feinstein going off on her 2A rants.
I'm not a big fan of Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham, but they brought the hypocrisy straight into the public eye concerning the Democratic statements concerning Gorsuch. Basically they asked the question as to why the DNC wails and cries on about Trump bashing a justice, but to turn around and think it's okay for their colleagues to do the same to Gorsuch. Specifically going savage as **** by pointing out Pelosi and Liz Warren as the worst offenders.
Anyway, I like the guy so far. He seems like a straight up and honorable justice. The DNC has nothing to vote against him on other than "Trump nominated him and I'm throwing a hissy fit because Garland never got a hearing."
I've been keeping up with this confirmation hearing and as expected, it's a straight freaking clown show from the DNC. Most notable is Richard Blumenthal being a complete jackass. And of course, Feinstein going off on her 2A rants.
I'm not a big fan of Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham, but they brought the hypocrisy straight into the public eye concerning the Democratic statements concerning Gorsuch. Basically they asked the question as to why the DNC wails and cries on about Trump bashing a justice, but to turn around and think it's okay for their colleagues to do the same to Gorsuch. Specifically going savage as **** by pointing out Pelosi and Liz Warren as the worst offenders.
Anyway, I like the guy so far. He seems like a straight up and honorable justice. The DNC has nothing to vote against him on other than "Trump nominated him and I'm throwing a hissy fit because Garland never got a hearing."
I saw Fineswine "quoting" Scalia the other day and asking Gorsuch what he thought about it, something to the effect that assault weapons can be banned. Did Scalia really say that in the Heller decision? If so, I've never heard of it. Of course I wouldn't put it past the libtards to flat-out lie about something.
I saw Fineswine.
Please stop insulting pigs...
I've been keeping up with this confirmation hearing and as expected, it's a straight freaking clown show from the DNC.
I heard about 3+ hours today on PBS. I didn't catch everyone's name. I did hear Cruz, but there was a guy after him that I think his name may have been Lee? Anyway he said he was a noob and had never worked as elected before this. He had some good points.
I don;t know what the complete idiot was that kept trying to Gorsuch to say "yes I agree" to several SCOTUS findings ---after--- Gorsuch said he thought the decision was not only right but a corrective action and one of the courts finest hours. Whomever that jackass was though said he was disturbed by his answer.
then Al Frankin...lol... Al is like the new Biden. He used his time to bring to attention his bill on consumer protection from forced arbitration.. the whole time, and Gorsuch even told him, that's a Legislative issue.. But it was like Frankin even got lost in own little world. Finally and I think it may have have been that Lee guy... anyway.. someone finally says,,, dude, that's not a SCOTUS issue or Judge issue. That's our issue as Congress.
Several Rs quoted and re-quoted Pelosi. A couple Ds repeatedly tried to tie Gorsuch to a "wrong call" when SCOTUS handed down a unanimous decision today. the deal was his court voted unan. NO because they were bound by his courts law. SCOTUS voted unan. YES today. So he explained that and said that is a prime example of me and the 10th court following the law we were bound by. I am glad the SCOTUS could make things right and that's how things are supposed to work. the DEM spin on that was ... Why were you the only person to get it wrong and why do you hate children. I wanted to hear some 2A stuff but didn't hear Flakestein. I'll bet that was a treat.
I have a thought/concern with Gorsuch and Kegan. He claims SCOTUS findings carry great weight due to the collective knowledge in the decision. Kegan claims the SCOTUS got the recent 2A findings wrong because they went contrary to standing decisions. Gorsuch today also said regarding one SCOTUS decision ( non 2A ) that he was so pleased they corrected a decades old mistake.
To me, that says that even with Gorsuch on the court we could see 2A losses 4-5 or even 3-6 or as high as 2-7 depending on how he reads law and intent, current life etc.. He sounds like a reasonable and unbiased judge but it's really hard to say where he might end up.
@ABNAK -- along those lines I just mentioned... Not sure how Flakestein spun it but Scalia commented on the regulation of arms in Heller and specifically mentioned the M16. Not exactly good... but... he tied two words together. Dangerous | Unusual. Taken individually damn near anything could be outlawed. He said the situation would have to be Dangerous AND Unusual then used the M16 as an example. The thought be all guns are dangerous by nature but the M16 might be more dangerous by it's automatic nature AND by it's automatic nature it is unusual in that we don't see them too often except in a professional environment. so he did a favor and screwed us at the same time lol.
But regulation of arms is wide open for a 2A case and you really need to wonder just what might come down. I mean think about it. An SBS is regulated, even in my own home. Why? Because it is unusual and it's dangerous. I mean it's really regulated for other reasons but if you applied that test it still doesn't pass.
That brings me to real concern. Gorsuch says he likes to deal with law not create law. That means all our local level Libs are going be silently and secretly attacking the 2A to make laws. He or others like him will as he has proven uphold those laws. It will then only be The Constitution to protect us. It's a really scary situation when you consider how inept 50% of congress is. I am actually astounded that some of them actually know how to show up to work much less craft laws for the good of We The People in our entirety. Gorsuch says he's optimistic. He didn't say why. Maybe he looked around the the room and made mental notes of the age and health of most of the players and figured they would die off.... I don't know... but damn.... we have some scary people running this country. When I use the term stupid scary, I may have it backwards. Perhaps they are scary stupid.... or both.
I've just got a bad feeling about the future of the 2A.
"Fineswine" . hahaha.... that's good.
I forgot to say.. Gorsuch brought down the house today in laughter. He's answering that guy that I think may have been named Lee. He's talking about how large John Hancock signed his name. He was going to say "big and boldly" but got tied up and said "bigly".. .then there was a pause and "Lee" says..... "You just said "Bigly",,, and the whole place erupted.
Found it....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEke_sciQVo
That was actually a good reply he was giving in that the signers were signing their death warrants if anyone is trying to find some high spots of his replies. That was a good one aside from the bigly comment.
I still can't see what that guy's name is, the ABC bug covers it up. Mr. Fla????
ETA: apparently "Lee" is Ben Sass.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-17, 11:48
Chuck says they are going to filibuster....
Averageman
03-23-17, 11:55
Chuck says they are going to filibuster....
Nuke 'em until they glow.
Who started that little gem of a way to Legislate anyway?
Bwaaaa Hahahahah!
I agree Go nuclear and move on. He is an excellent choice and honorable judge. Chuck is a lying POS!
Grand58742
03-23-17, 13:22
I agree Go nuclear and move on. He is an excellent choice and honorable judge. Chuck is a lying POS!
I honestly don't think they will need the nuclear option in this case. If you tally every GOP vote, that's 52. The other CO Senator seemed to be supportive, so up to 53. Manchin, McCaskill and Tester will likely vote for him since they are up for reelection next year in GOP leaning States. Up to 56 now. Heitkamp, King (ME), Donnelly (IN), Warner (VA), and Udall could be "yes" votes. There's your 60 minimum.
I also have this feeling you will have some other defections from the DNC side of the house, most surprisingly might be Coons. The only fight the DNC has in this is "he is a Trump nominee." And the only other argument they have is "he's not Garland." Not exactly something you want to hang your hat on if you are vulnerable in the 2018 elections.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with a highly qualified judge (prior to his nomination, he was respected by even the democrats) being interrogated by a comedian (Franken)?
Grand58742
03-23-17, 13:47
Can someone tell me what's wrong with a highly qualified judge (prior to his nomination, he was respected by even the democrats) being interrogated by a comedian (Franken)?
Other than the idiots that keep voting people like Franken into office?
SomeOtherGuy
03-23-17, 13:49
Can someone tell me what's wrong with a highly qualified judge (prior to his nomination, he was respected by even the democrats) being interrogated by a comedian (Franken)?
Everything.
However, this seems to sum up the US federal situation in 2017, very succinctly.
I would say "Idiocracy here we come" but I think we've been there for some time now.
After such hearing, an honorable person would be painted as a racist, xenophobe, homophone, pedophile, racist, women's right abuser, wife beater, racist, cheating, lying, female parts grabbing republican.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with a highly qualified judge (prior to his nomination, he was respected by even the democrats) being interrogated by a comedian (Franken)?
I can tell you one thing. It is mind numbingly boring to listen to Frankin talk himself into circles until he doesn't even know what he's talking about It's as though he is running ideas off himself and then gets lost in his own thoughts. The real shame is, it's actually enjoyable to listen to Gorsuch and he just has to sit there silently.
Honestly though, in context. Flakestein and Schumer are bigger comedians than Frankin. He actually is trying to do right even though he sounds like he has some connect the dots issues. Those others are just mocking America as though it's all a joke.
SomeOtherGuy
03-23-17, 14:44
Can someone tell me what's wrong with a highly qualified judge (prior to his nomination, he was respected by even the democrats) being interrogated by a comedian (Franken)?
It would be more fun to see Al Franken, a comedian, interrogated by The Comedian (of The Watchmen). Also fitting.
You know what would be nice too? If those ***holes could at the very least simply pronounce his name correctly.
Grassly, who has probably said his name more than anyone just called him "Gershitz"... twice!!!!
Gorsuch /// How do you get that wrong?! Gor+Such Gorsuch.
Gorsitch
Gersutch
Gershitz
Gorsits
Gersits
Gossich
...and a couple that I can't even figure how they can come up with whatever it is they are saying.
Oh great... I think Grassley just came up with another. Gorsauge... kinda rhymes with sausage.
You know what would be nice too? If those ***holes could at the very least simply pronounce his name correctly.
Grassly, who has probably said his name more than anyone just called him "Gershitz"... twice!!!!
Gorsuch /// How do you get that wrong?! Gor+Such Gorsuch.
Gorsitch
Gersutch
Gershitz
Gorsits
Gersits
Gossich
...and a couple that I can't even figure how they can come up with whatever it is they are saying.
Oh great... I think Grassley just came up with another. Gorsauge... kinda rhymes with sausage.
Just because they got to where they were, doesn't mean they can make the right sound come out of their mouth after they heard it once or twice. If the name isn't John or Joe Smith, they can't say it.
I wish the judge would flat out say, Hi My name is Neil Gorsuch, pronounced "Gore - like Al Gore", "Such - like such as".
BTW, his first name is NEIL. I had to look it up.
Nuke 'em until they glow.
44565
44566
44567
Get the picture...?
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-23-17, 18:43
Can someone tell me what's wrong with a highly qualified judge (prior to his nomination, he was respected by even the democrats) being interrogated by a comedian (Franken)?
Just because he was on SNL doesn't mean he was funny.
Wife and I were watching Tuesdays hearing and she blurted out, we really need an age limit on Senators. It's jello time for Leahy.
Just because he was on SNL doesn't mean he was funny.
Wife and I were watching Tuesdays hearing and she blurted out, we really need an age limit on Senators. It's jello time for Leahy.
Duuuuude no kidding. He's one of mine! I'm 45 years old. I was 3 when he was elected! He's been in office 42 years. That is disgusting! Politics should should not be allowed to become a career. It should be a calling. We need term limits. 42 years is 32 years too long!
Of all people, Lindsay Graham is the first to call for a nuclear option. To be fair, he had no idea that the nuclear option was a parliamentary procedure in the Senate, and instead thought that we were finally attacking Russia with nuclear weapons.
I honestly don't think they will need the nuclear option in this case. If you tally every GOP vote, that's 52. The other CO Senator seemed to be supportive, so up to 53. Manchin, McCaskill and Tester will likely vote for him since they are up for reelection next year in GOP leaning States. Up to 56 now. Heitkamp, King (ME), Donnelly (IN), Warner (VA), and Udall could be "yes" votes. There's your 60 minimum.
I also have this feeling you will have some other defections from the DNC side of the house, most surprisingly might be Coons. The only fight the DNC has in this is "he is a Trump nominee." And the only other argument they have is "he's not Garland." Not exactly something you want to hang your hat on if you are vulnerable in the 2018 elections.
I hope you're right. That would be a double win.
Of all people, Lindsay Graham is the first to call for a nuclear option. To be fair, he had no idea that the nuclear option was a parliamentary procedure in the Senate, and instead thought that we were finally attacking Russia with nuclear weapons.
Just set loose a pack of GMO coyotes in congress.
Duuuuude no kidding. He's one of mine! I'm 45 years old. I was 3 when he was elected! He's been in office 42 years. That is disgusting! Politics should should not be allowed to become a career. It should be a calling. We need term limits. 42 years is 32 years too long!
This.
I was watching a Bill Maher clip where they had this one dude on to whom being a Democrat was a religion. He said the '96 turnover due to the Clinton Gun Grab sadly ended x amount of careers in congress.
careers?
That's Oligarchy, bruh.
Al Franken is a US citizen and is eligible to run but he also thinks government should keep people on the plantation because they are too stupid to know better.
These assholes get perks, free security, and none of them are poor.
Yet they apply their logic to people who have none of that.
They think all illegals are like their humble and modest maid Consuela who they feel big about giving a fruitcake to at Christmas.
No.....I'd love to dump them all off in the middle of a legit trap area to fend for themselves for 24 hours. No security. No anything.
Shit, I encourage people to find the hood and go native for a while anyway. Get some BBQ, learn the true value of cigarettes, learn how the right dap squashes a lot of tension, take a one eyed nap on a bench, enjoy random gunfire at night and sirens.
Some may be horrified, others may be like Simon Phonenix when he went in the sewer and actually feel better.
At times I feel like all I need is a rucksack and a harmonica.
tl;dr the entire system is corrupt
I agree Go nuclear and move on. He is an excellent choice and honorable judge. Chuck is a lying POS!
I've met the man twice now in passing and honest to God the guy comes across as even nicer and more genuine in person. The folks on his PSD echo this impression as well.
Of all people, Lindsay Graham is the first to call for a nuclear option. To be fair, he had no idea that the nuclear option was a parliamentary procedure in the Senate, and instead thought that we were finally attacking Russia with nuclear weapons.
I'm a bit out of the loop, was that changing the Senate rules to prevent filibusters?
I'm a bit out of the loop, was that changing the Senate rules to prevent filibusters?
The Senate rules changed back in 2013 to allow a simple majority to end debate on executive appointments (cabinet, agency directors, etc.) and lower court nominees. However, the parliamentary rules requiring 60-votes to end debate on bills and SCOTUS nominees was left intact. Thus, bills and SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered before coming up for a floor vote unless the so called nuclear button is pushed.
I've met the man twice now in passing and honest to God the guy comes across as even nicer and more genuine in person. The folks on his PSD echo this impression as well.
I know people who worked for the late, great Jesse Helms (NC-R), who said out of chambers, the man will give you the shirt off his back. New Yorkers love him, and for good reason: he is the only senator to have routinely visited every NY county.
Averageman
03-24-17, 08:57
The Senate rules changed back in 2013 to allow a simple majority to end debate on executive appointments (cabinet, agency directors, etc.) and lower court nominees. However, the parliamentary rules requiring 60-votes to end debate on bills and SCOTUS nominees was left intact. Thus, bills and SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered before coming up for a floor vote unless the so called nuclear button is pushed.
All brought to you by that one eyed twerp from Nevada, Harry Reid.
It's amazing how this is suddenly a bad thing to do when the tables are finally turned and the Dems aren't in power anymore.
The Senate rules changed back in 2013 to allow a simple majority to end debate on executive appointments (cabinet, agency directors, etc.) and lower court nominees. However, the parliamentary rules requiring 60-votes to end debate on bills and SCOTUS nominees was left intact. Thus, bills and SCOTUS nominees can be filibustered before coming up for a floor vote unless the so called nuclear button is pushed.
Why is it called the nuclear option? Is it really anywhere near as devastating as the name implies?
Grand58742
04-02-17, 15:01
Vote tally up to 55 to confirm now and I was off on some of my predictions.
Voting to confirm:
All GOP (none have stated they are opposing it)
Joe Manchin (D-WV) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Joe Donnelly (D-IN) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Voting to oppose/filibuster:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Bob Casey (D-PA) Up for reelection in 2018 in a State Trump won
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) shocking I tell you...
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Bill Nelson (D-FL) Up for reelection in 2018 in a State Trump won
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Up for reelection in 2018 in a State Trump won
Ed Markey (D-MA) made his choice on the day of the nomination. Very open minded Senator
Chris Van Hollen (D-MA)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Yet another shocker...
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Yet another who made up his mind on the day of the announcement. Also up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP leaning State
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Unknown/Undecided:
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) You can betcha she's gonna be a no...
Jon Tester (D-MT) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Angus King (I-ME)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Somehow, McConnell and company will have to swing five of those seven undecided. I think the nuclear option just went into play big time.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-02-17, 15:22
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Slim-pickens_riding-the-bomb_enh-lores.jpg)
Why is it called the nuclear option? Is it really anywhere near as devastating as the name implies?
Yes, liberal heads across the country will simultaneously explode. So, be careful of who you stand next to this month - you may catch some bone shrapnel.
Nuclear option in 3....2....1....
MountainRaven
04-02-17, 16:18
Why is it called the nuclear option? Is it really anywhere near as devastating as the name implies?
Mutually Assured Destruction. Turnaround is fair play. If one side exercises it while they're in power, the other side has no reason not to do likewise once they're in power - and no rules barring them from doing so any longer.
Mutually Assured Destruction. Turnaround is fair play. If one side exercises it while they're in power, the other side has no reason not to do likewise once they're in power - and no rules barring them from doing so any longer.
Mutually assured destruction is what we had up unit the current crop of democrats came into power. Now, the situation across the political landscape is more in tune with what we face against Iran and North Korea - a determined enemy that is itching to make the world glow. That is to say, the Dems have shown their hand as willing to push the red button whenever it suits them. Make no mistake - they would go nuclear in a heart beat if the shoe was on the other foot. Thus, strategic patience on the part of the GOP is a weakness.
Grand58742
04-03-17, 07:18
Tester just came out as a "no" and will support a filibuster.
44801
Joe Manchin (D-WV) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Manchin --- He's more than just up for reelection. https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/sen-manchin-trump-work-together-gun-control/
Warner --- The only reason he would flip is to make it seem as though he's unbiased which would look better for him as he sits on the "Trump's in bed with the Russians" panel.
The best thing that could could happen to VA and the rest of this country is to get rid of Tim Kaine and Mark Warner.
Vote tally up to 55 to confirm now and I was off on some of my predictions.
Voting to confirm:
All GOP (none have stated they are opposing it)
Joe Manchin (D-WV) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Joe Donnelly (D-IN) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Voting to oppose/filibuster:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Bob Casey (D-PA) Up for reelection in 2018 in a State Trump won
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) shocking I tell you...
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Bill Nelson (D-FL) Up for reelection in 2018 in a State Trump won
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Up for reelection in 2018 in a State Trump won
Ed Markey (D-MA) made his choice on the day of the nomination. Very open minded Senator
Chris Van Hollen (D-MA)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Yet another shocker...
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Yet another who made up his mind on the day of the announcement. Also up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP leaning State
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Unknown/Undecided:
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) You can betcha she's gonna be a no...
Jon Tester (D-MT) Up for reelection in 2018 in a GOP controlled State
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Angus King (I-ME)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Somehow, McConnell and company will have to swing five of those seven undecided. I think the nuclear option just went into play big time.
I see 5-6 Senate seats the Dems could lose next year. You'd think Schumer & Co. would recognize that Gorsuch is not the hill to die on. They can't win and any symbolic victory would be completely overshadowed if they lost enough seats to completely lose control.
I see 5-6 Senate seats the Dems could lose next year. You'd think Schumer & Co. would recognize that Gorsuch is not the hill to die on. They can't win and any symbolic victory would be completely overshadowed if they lost enough seats to completely lose control.
They still cannot fathom how or why they lost the general in November. They are going to be apoplectic when they lose those seats at the mid-term.
I see 5-6 Senate seats the Dems could lose next year. You'd think Schumer & Co. would recognize that Gorsuch is not the hill to die on. They can't win and any symbolic victory would be completely overshadowed if they lost enough seats to completely lose control.
Even Chuck Todd turned on Schumer this weekend on Meet The Depressed. Schumer owns this. Todd practically told him, 'this is your fault'.
I expect a surge in 'fake news' by Friday. Anything to make the Nuke job out to be some crazed right wing trickery.
Someone said, and I can't remember who it was, but they said.. you know, if they can't approve Gorsuch then all others to follow him will be worse because he has a near perfect record with unanimous decisions. So if their premise is that he gets it wrong.... well he's sort of the like the class valedictorian.
If you think they are scared now, wait until Ginsberg drops off and Trump appoints someone that is sort of radical right.. like an anti Ginsberg or Sotomayor.
The left is scared. I mean you know it's bad when they pull Hillary back out on the road for the Bitter Old B*t*h tour to raise some money.
Speaking of Mark Warner... I'll bet they are starting to pull on his purse strings too. He's a pretty rich guy and heavily tied to the VA Liberal corruption party which is tied directly to the DC-NY Liberal insanity. He's worth near $300 Mil.
Thus, strategic patience on the part of the GOP is a weakness.
Totally agree, if they even remotely entertain any delaying alternative. Swear him in ASAP by any legal means. This is a simple matter of wham bam thank you ma'am and move on to planning the next one.
They still cannot fathom how or why they lost the general in November. They are going to be apoplectic when they lose those seats at the mid-term.
I agree this is not the hill they should shoose for this fight. The point I suppose is they're setting the stage. They will fight everything he proposes. It's really ridiculous and why we need more change in DC. Term Limits come to mind. Leahy has been in office for 42 years. I'm 45! I was freaking 3 when he was elected and now I'm past middle aged! There should be an 8-10 year limit. This should be a calling not a career.
Question is, are there any Republicans politically savvy enough to turn the worm and not only win by seating Gorsuch on SCOTUS, but simultaneously unwrap the gift Schumer is handing them to publicly demonize the Dems for their utter partisanship? It's not even a question you'd have to ask of the Dems, because they did it spectacularly when the Republicans tried to shut down the government on the budget. Speaking of which, the Repubs have another chance to return that favor at the end of this month. Anyone else think that somehow the GOP will manage to screw it up? :rolleyes:
Question is, are there any Republicans politically savvy enough to turn the worm and not only win by seating Gorsuch on SCOTUS, but simultaneously unwrap the gift Schumer is handing them to publicly demonize the Dems for their utter partisanship?
I'm pretty sure The Donald will handle that. The Dems just voted no. So there is nothing else to talk about until Friday. The media will say the Rs "changed the rules!!!" and the Rs will say the Dems made the rules and didn't want to play ball so they had no choice.
But you are right... every single R --should-- find a camera and scold the Dems publicly for not providing for the will of We The People after this past election.
I agree this is not the hill they should shoose for this fight. The point I suppose is they're setting the stage. They will fight everything he proposes. It's really ridiculous and why we need more change in DC. Term Limits come to mind. Leahy has been in office for 42 years. I'm 45! I was freaking 3 when he was elected and now I'm past middle aged! There should be an 8-10 year limit. This should be a calling not a career.
While I don't disagree, he was VOTED into office all those times! The problem lies with the constituency, the idiots who vote for the likes of Pelosi/Frank/Schumer/Leahy/etc.
Grand58742
04-03-17, 15:00
I honestly think some Democrats have a false sense of accomplishment based on the failure of the ACA repeal and how the GOP fell flat on their face with it. And their little nuts are growing a little bigger based on this fact so they go after Gorsuch. As someone else pointed out, this is not the hill to die on for them and will do nothing more than ultimately hurt themselves in the long run. Especially if Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer move on in the next couple of years.
Imagine a 7-2 split on the SCOTUS. Because it very well could happen.
I honestly think some Democrats have a false sense of accomplishment based on the failure of the ACA repeal and how the GOP fell flat on their face with it. And their little nuts are growing a little bigger based on this fact so they go after Gorsuch. As someone else pointed out, this is not the hill to die on for them and will do nothing more than ultimately hurt themselves in the long run. Especially if Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer move on in the next couple of years.
Imagine a 7-2 split on the SCOTUS. Because it very well could happen.
I read an article that I can no longer find that says Schumer wants the Republicans to nuke the filibuster; he planned to do it himself when the Dems were thinking that Hillary would be POTUS and the Senate would be in Democratic hands by a narrow majority.
Schumer's larger strategy is that Trump will be a 1-termer and the next POTUS will get to replace RBG, Thomas, Kennedy, and Breyer.
I think the biggest kink in his plan is that the Dems have a lot of vulnerable seats in 2018. No matter how unpopular Trump becomes, it will be tough to flip the Senate by 2020.
Grand58742
04-03-17, 15:36
I read an article that I can no longer find that says Schumer wants the Republicans to nuke the filibuster; he planned to do it himself when the Dems were thinking that Hillary would be POTUS and the Senate would be in Democratic hands by a narrow majority.
Schumer's larger strategy is that Trump will be a 1-termer and the next POTUS will get to replace RBG, Thomas, Kennedy, and Breyer.
I think the biggest kink in his plan is that the Dems have a lot of vulnerable seats in 2018. No matter how unpopular Trump becomes, it will be tough to flip the Senate by 2020.
In the case of Ginsburg, I'm not sure he will have that long. Kennedy might see the writing on the wall and step down so his replacement can be nominated by Trump.
Breyer is a question mark. Might be able to continue on, but who knows for how much longer.
Thomas is still young (comparatively speaking) at 68 for a SCOTUS Justice. Same goes for Alito at 67.
So the Democrats sat on the nuke option with their finger on the trigger and if Republicans are forced to use it they'll look like the bad guys, sound about right?
Then in the future say the Democrats ever get a Senate majority the nuke option is at their disposal. They can point to the fact that Republicans played that card first. Lovely.
Then in the future say the Democrats ever get a Senate majority the nuke option is at their disposal. They can point to the fact that Republicans played that card first. Lovely.
Harry Reid played that card first.
So the Democrats sat on the nuke option with their finger on the trigger and if Republicans are forced to use it they'll look like the bad guys, sound about right?
Then in the future say the Democrats ever get a Senate majority the nuke option is at their disposal. They can point to the fact that Republicans played that card first. Lovely.
Not quite.
While I do agree with the first part of your post, the fact is Harry Reid used the option first at the behest of Shumer. I also think he was the one to call it the nuclear option.
Wouldn't it just be kick you in the nuts hilarious if Schumer wanted the full nuke option all along, and when it finally happens he never gets to use it because elections have consequences? :sarcastic:
Averageman
04-03-17, 16:42
Harry Reid played that card first.
One eyed Harry, Reid, not the other Dick, was the founder and first dealer of the Nuclear option.
Schumer knows this, he's attempting to rewrite history.
Harry Reid played that card first.
Not quite.
While I do agree with the first part of your post, the fact is Harry Reid used the option first at the behest of Shumer. I also think he was the one to call it the nuclear option.
I see your points.
Still, the option has only been used to force through certain executive and judicial nominees but never the nomination of an S.C. justice.
When Republicans go nuclear and confirm Gorsuch then Democrats will say the sky is falling, have a cry fest that Trump is an illegitimate President, so by extension Gorsuch, and minimize the fact they've used the option before.
From what I've read, it was Trent Lott who coined the nuclear term.
The sad thing about this is that if the Republicans do this, (use the nuclear option) as we know, it'll be the first time it was used to get a SC nominee approved by the senate. Point is, from now on, SC nominee's will be nominated not because of their abilitys, or experience, but rather on their poltical leanings.... The bar has been forever lowered. Welcome to the third world. The republic is almost lost..
Wouldn't it just be kick you in the nuts hilarious if Schumer wanted the full nuke option all along, and when it finally happens he never gets to use it because elections have consequences? :sarcastic:
I think Schumer is on the verge of a mental break. He apparently flipped out at some really high end restaurant recently when someone at the table admitted to voting for Trump. It apparently ended up with the guy leaving and Shumer following him out to rant on him some more. which is good though.... that only means he will make mistakes and say things he shouldn't.
Damn... it was the guy's wife he was ranting at..... I guess you can't exactly punch a Senator's lights out when he's harassing your wife on a New York street corner.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/27/schumer-goes-off-on-trump-supporter-at-nyc-restaurant-witness-says.html
The sad thing about this is that if the Republicans do this, (use the nuclear option) as we know, it'll be the first time it was used to get a SC nominee approved by the senate. Point is, from now on, SC nominee's will be nominated not because of their abilitys, or experience, but rather on their poltical leanings.... The bar has been forever lowered. Welcome to the third world. The republic is almost lost..
Whereas I see that the sad thing is that in the entire history of this country there has never been a Supreme Court nominee filibustered. The Democrats called this tune.
The sad thing about this is that if the Republicans do this, (use the nuclear option) as we know, it'll be the first time it was used to get a SC nominee approved by the senate. Point is, from now on, SC nominee's will be nominated not because of their abilitys, or experience, but rather on their poltical leanings.... The bar has been forever lowered. Welcome to the third world. The republic is almost lost..
Apparently its the first time a possible filibuster would be used by the minority party against a SC nominee as well. IMO, the dems are setting themselves up for disaster in 2018. They are threatening to filibuster a conservative nominee that would replace a conservative justice. The balance on the Supreme Court wouldn't change.
I guess you can't exactly punch a Senator's lights out when he's harassing your wife on a New York street corner.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/27/schumer-goes-off-on-trump-supporter-at-nyc-restaurant-witness-says.html
Maybe not, but he would be getting shoved down on his ass.
The sad thing about this is that if the Republicans do this, (use the nuclear option) as we know, it'll be the first time it was used to get a SC nominee approved by the senate. Point is, from now on, SC nominee's will be nominated not because of their abilitys, or experience, but rather on their poltical leanings.... The bar has been forever lowered. Welcome to the third world. The republic is almost lost..
This is true and a sign that trouble is coming, if not for me then for my kids. The Democracks are dumb as the day is long, this will come back to bite all of us sooner or later.
Whereas I see that the sad thing is that in the entire history of this country there has never been a Supreme Court nominee filibustered. The Democrats called this tune.
Yep, they decided to not confirm ANY Republican nominee because their last guy didn't get a hearing. They created the nuclear option and now they will get nuked. I hope Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer all get off the bench and are replaced by conservative nominees using the nuclear option.
Yep, they decided to not confirm ANY Republican nominee because their last guy didn't get a hearing. They created the nuclear option and now they will get nuked. I hope Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer all get off the bench and are replaced by conservative nominees using the nuclear option.
Yep, that's how I'd like to see it go down too.
This mamby-pamby hand-wringing I'm seeing here about "Third World" and "Lowering the bar" is denying the reality of politics in this country. If you think for one second that the Libtards wouldn't nuke our side you're delusional. While it wasn't the "nuclear option", where do you think the term being "Borked" came from? Remember the chicanery surrounding Thomas' nomination? They pulled out the nuke option during Obama's term so back at ya! Please get off this Moral High Horse some of you seem to ride and realize that you've got no choice but to get brutal with these pricks, and unapologetically so. I despise the other side, they are diametrically opposed to the Constitution and the American idea. I am 110% behind ANY effort to subvert them at ANY turn. Screw 'em........
Yep, that's how I'd like to see it go down too.
This mamby-pamby hand-wringing I'm seeing here about "Third World" and "Lowering the bar" is denying the reality of politics in this country. If you think for one second that the Libtards wouldn't nuke our side you're delusional. While it wasn't the "nuclear option", where do you think the term being "Borked" came from? Remember the chicanery surrounding Thomas' nomination? They pulled out the nuke option during Obama's term so back at ya! Please get off this Moral High Horse some of you seem to ride and realize that you've got no choice but to get brutal with these pricks, and unapologetically so. I despise the other side, they are diametrically opposed to the Constitution and the American idea. I am 110% behind ANY effort to subvert them at ANY turn. Screw 'em........
Oh I'm down with it! We've been demoralized for a long time. Well now it's time to return the favor! :)
Yep, that's how I'd like to see it go down too.
This mamby-pamby hand-wringing I'm seeing here about "Third World" and "Lowering the bar" is denying the reality of politics in this country. If you think for one second that the Libtards wouldn't nuke our side you're delusional. While it wasn't the "nuclear option", where do you think the term being "Borked" came from? Remember the chicanery surrounding Thomas' nomination? They pulled out the nuke option during Obama's term so back at ya! Please get off this Moral High Horse some of you seem to ride and realize that you've got no choice but to get brutal with these pricks, and unapologetically so. I despise the other side, they are diametrically opposed to the Constitution and the American idea. I am 110% behind ANY effort to subvert them at ANY turn. Screw 'em........
While I agree with you, what I said about lowering the bar and entering the third world, are true. You seem to think that there is a actual difference between the democrats and the republicians, when there is'nt. It's the mission of the democratic party to establish socialism in this country, and it's the mission of the republican party to pretend to be against it. Just look at the internet bill the republicans passed last week, allowing everybody's personal information to be bought/ sold to the higest bidder to do whatever they like with it. Someone please explain the conservative values in that. Look at our last election, we ended up with A. A billionaire real estate tycoon, who's biggest claim to fame was a reality TV show. He was pitted against B. a well known corrupt, professional liar to whom the law ment nothing as she and her husband were above it, who biggest claim to fame besides being part of a bigger corrupt political tag-team, was her ability to cover her tracks and this is where we're at. Political assassination is the new rule of law.
So, when you step back and look at it, yes, the bar has been lowered, and we have started our decent into the third world. All I can tell anyone, is to buckle up, the ride is going to get rough.
Singlestack Wonder
04-04-17, 12:13
While I agree with you, what I said about lowering the bar and entering the third world, are true. You seem to think that there is a actual difference between the democrats and the republicians, when there is'nt. It's the mission of the democratic party to establish socialism in this country, and it's the mission of the republican party to pretend to be against it. Just look at the internet bill the republicans passed last week, allowing everybody's personal information to be bought/ sold to the higest bidder to do whatever they like with it. Someone please explain the conservative values in that. Look at our last election, we ended up with A. A billionaire real estate tycoon, who's biggest claim to fame was a reality TV show. He was pitted against B. a well known corrupt, professional liar to whom the law ment nothing as she and her husband were above it, who biggest claim to fame besides being part of a bigger corrupt political tag-team, was her ability to cover her tracks and this is where we're at. Political assassination is the new rule of law.
So, when you step back and look at it, yes, the bar has been lowered, and we have started our decent into the third world. All I can tell anyone, is to buckle up, the ride is going to get rough.
Of course everybody's personal information was allowed by law to be sold/shared before that bill was signed last week. Do some research....
Of course everybody's personal information was allowed by law to be sold/shared before that bill was signed last week. Do some research....
Still, that dosen't make it right, and again what conservative value does this bill represent? None. It just proves my point, that the republicans give less of a shit about you than the democrats do.
Singlestack Wonder
04-04-17, 14:32
Still, that dosen't make it right, and again what conservative value does this bill represent? None. It just proves my point, that the republicans give less of a shit about you than the democrats do.
I agree that 99.9% of the senators and representatives are there to line their pockets with insider trading, side deals with corporations, and golden retirement and health plans.......
Making up the authority to regulate something is a conservative value?
While I agree with you, what I said about lowering the bar and entering the third world, are true. You seem to think that there is a actual difference between the democrats and the republicians, when there is'nt. It's the mission of the democratic party to establish socialism in this country, and it's the mission of the republican party to pretend to be against it. Just look at the internet bill the republicans passed last week, allowing everybody's personal information to be bought/ sold to the higest bidder to do whatever they like with it. Someone please explain the conservative values in that. Look at our last election, we ended up with A. A billionaire real estate tycoon, who's biggest claim to fame was a reality TV show. He was pitted against B. a well known corrupt, professional liar to whom the law ment nothing as she and her husband were above it, who biggest claim to fame besides being part of a bigger corrupt political tag-team, was her ability to cover her tracks and this is where we're at. Political assassination is the new rule of law.
So, when you step back and look at it, yes, the bar has been lowered, and we have started our decent into the third world. All I can tell anyone, is to buckle up, the ride is going to get rough.
Look, Trump wasn't my first choice, but he was yugely better than The Bitch by any reasonable "conservative" yardstick. The party he belongs to is spineless to be sure. The opposition are diehard, wild-eyed fanatics the way I see it. The ONLY credit I'll give them is that they generally march in lockstep (of course all good commies do).
Like it or not there is a divide in this country. Pick your side by weighing pros vs cons if you need to. I don't think the Republicans are the true conservatives they like to think of themselves as; far from it in fact. I also think, "R" faults aside, that the Right in this country is far less evil than the Left. Look at the website we're all on......it's a freaking dreaded "assault weapon" venue. While the RKBA isn't the only issue important to me it, is indeed the most important in my eyes. A party that does not want you to be armed is one I'm HIGHLY suspicious of, to the point of total rejection of everything they stand for. Disarmament is necessary for their agenda to be implemented without opposition. So I'll pick my lesser of two evils and try to clean house on our side, while TOTALLY rejecting everything the other side stands for.
There is a divide, no doubt. Stand in the middle if you wish. I'll proudly stand on one side (imperfectness acknowledged) and apologize to no one for it.
Look, Trump wasn't my first choice, but he was yugely better than The Bitch by any reasonable "conservative" yardstick. The party he belongs to is spineless to be sure. The opposition are diehard, wild-eyed fanatics the way I see it. The ONLY credit I'll give them is that they generally march in lockstep (of course all good commies do).
Like it or not there is a divide in this country. Pick your side by weighing pros vs cons if you need to. I don't think the Republicans are the true conservatives they like to think of themselves as; far from it in fact. I also think, "R" faults aside, that the Right in this country is far less evil than the Left. Look at the website we're all on......it's a freaking dreaded "assault weapon" venue. While the RKBA isn't the only issue important to me it, is indeed the most important in my eyes. A party that does not want you to be armed is one I'm HIGHLY suspicious of, to the point of total rejection of everything they stand for. Disarmament is necessary for their agenda to be implemented without opposition. So I'll pick my lesser of two evils and try to clean house on our side, while TOTALLY rejecting everything the other side stands for.
There is a divide, no doubt. Stand in the middle if you wish. I'll proudly stand on one side (imperfectness acknowledged) and apologize to no one for it.
I think you and I may actually agree on quite a bit. Like you I voted for Trump for the same reasons you did, there was no alternative in my book, I understand this country is divided and IMO, it's going to come to a head..soon. I just worry about the aftermath. Trump's election bought us gunowners 4 years.. what happens after that is anybody's guess. I will say I don't think we've seen the last of Hillary, the left hates us so badly they'd jam that bitch down our throats if given the chance. Trump has 4 years to make some big improvements in this country, if he dosen't deliver, I got a feeling that is exactly what will happen, granted it may not be Hillary, but you can bet it'll be some body as bad or worse. (Think Shumer) If that happens, then what? Civil War? I honestly think that's where this is headed...
MountainRaven
04-04-17, 19:44
Making up the authority to regulate something is a conservative value?
Really sucks when you have to abide by Federal rules for infrastructure subsidies when you're receiving Federal infrastructure subsidies.
Averageman
04-04-17, 19:59
The Conservatives are few, the RINO's many and the Posers abound.
These Mopes stand around and debate some minute detail till the cows come home, piss each other off, divide the vote and the Minority Party, of Communists, Socialists and Progressives walk away hand in hand laughing their collective asses off.
Look around, we're NOT the cool kids.
Government is loyal to Government.
Tear that band aid off now
Really sucks when you have to abide by Federal rules for infrastructure subsidies when you're receiving Federal infrastructure subsidies.
Regardless, still not a conservative value to excessively take tax monies from The People, only to turn around and pretend those federal infrastructure subsidies are largess THEY produced. Hint, they didn't do squat except stand at the end of the line with their authority in one hand, while they rifle through pockets with the other. That is a liberal value, but feel free to defend it if it makes you feel good! :)
Yep, that's how I'd like to see it go down too.
This mamby-pamby hand-wringing I'm seeing here about "Third World" and "Lowering the bar" is denying the reality of politics in this country. If you think for one second that the Libtards wouldn't nuke our side you're delusional. While it wasn't the "nuclear option", where do you think the term being "Borked" came from? Remember the chicanery surrounding Thomas' nomination? They pulled out the nuke option during Obama's term so back at ya! Please get off this Moral High Horse some of you seem to ride and realize that you've got no choice but to get brutal with these pricks, and unapologetically so. I despise the other side, they are diametrically opposed to the Constitution and the American idea. I am 110% behind ANY effort to subvert them at ANY turn. Screw 'em........
Yep, bottom line is this is where we are at. Nuke em and stack the court.
We do stupid shit like the Patriot Act without realizing the Dems will be free to use that tool, just as Obama did for 8 years in ways never intended by those who supported the idea. It was a mistake and Bush created it and every time Dems are in power we need to be mindful of the fact that it exists.
So works both ways, they invented a power play move and now it's a tool available to Republicans. Tough shit if they don't like it, we didn't enjoy it when they pulled that one out of their ass the first time.
You know what? They got their rocks off for 8 years, now its our turn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-WPCgEvCVw
You know what? They got their rocks off for 8 years, now its our turn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-WPCgEvCVw
Man, I can always count on you to bring the forgotten retro goodness. Helen Slater was never as hot as she was in "The Legend of Billie Jean" and even though the movie was mostly retarded I rocked the shit out of Pat Benatar's "Invincible" for almost six months even though I was mostly about Run DMC, Whodini and UTFO that year. Slater was one of those few rare girls that actually looked better with short hair than longer hair.
Averageman
04-05-17, 15:06
Done Deal...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/05/constitutional-option-unstoppable-john-mccain-and-lisa-murkowski-will-vote-yes/
They're going Nuclear.
Done Deal...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/05/constitutional-option-unstoppable-john-mccain-and-lisa-murkowski-will-vote-yes/
They're going Nuclear.
Lisa Murkowski has to do this. She's a political tactician. She pissed off a bunch of Alaskan conservatives by voting against stopping Planned Parenthood funding... now she will vote for this to prove she's o.k. She's a RINO and I can't wait until she is gone. I will thank her, however, for getting Gorsuch confirmed.
The filibuster is on, and McConnell is about to lay the smack-down....
Gorsuch should be the next SCOTUS Justice by end of business tomorrow.....
Grand58742
04-06-17, 11:24
The filibuster is on, and McConnell is about to lay the smack-down....
Gorsuch should be the next SCOTUS Justice by end of business tomorrow.....
Will be the next Justice.
Dems who voted for the filibuster are lining up behind Schumer like lemmings as he jumps over the cliff. The nuclear option all but guarantees the next SCOTUS nominees get confirmed. Hopefully two more by Trump after Justice Gorsuch.
Grand58742
04-06-17, 11:25
And poor Schumer doing everything he could to delay the vote. I know he has to look good for the base, but at what point do you just sigh and let nature take it's course?
Schumer makes drowning look good.
Grand58742
04-06-17, 11:56
Senate just nuked the filibuster. Simple majority vote on Gorsuch can be no earlier than 7 PM tomorrow.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-17, 13:05
Of course everybody's personal information was allowed by law to be sold/shared before that bill was signed last week. Do some research....
I think it is bad in the long run and will lead to even more extreme Justices. Of course, once over the middle either side it doesn't matter much- only in that our picks seem to drift left.
Maybe the real kung-fu move would have been to vote on Garland and let him fail, tough to know if you could keep all the liberal GOPers in line.
Senate just nuked the filibuster. Simple majority vote on Gorsuch can be no earlier than 7 PM tomorrow.
30 hours....
Singlestack Wonder
04-06-17, 16:56
WINNING!
WINNING!
Don't count yer chickens, just yet. The McShitstainism is strong with the GOP.
I think it is bad in the long run and will lead to even more extreme Justices. Of course, once over the middle either side it doesn't matter much- only in that our picks seem to drift left.
Maybe the real kung-fu move would have been to vote on Garland and let him fail, tough to know if you could keep all the liberal GOPers in line.
And that is why the Dems should have never been allowed to change the rules in the first place. Now and forever, all SCOTUS nominations will be along party lines and it will go bad for us in our lifetimes.
And that is why the Dems should have never been allowed to change the rules in the first place. Now and forever, all SCOTUS nominations will be along party lines and it will go bad for us in our lifetimes.
Exactly. This is dangerous. It will harm us in the long run. The republicans should change the rules back to requiring 60 votes.
Exactly. This is dangerous. It will harm us in the long run. The republicans should change the rules back to requiring 60 votes.
Nah, we'll need it again when RBG retires or dies.
Eurodriver
04-07-17, 07:50
Nah, we'll need it again when RBG retires or dies.
She had been publicly vocal of Trump and isn't stupid.
She will remain on the bench until she is physically unable to do so or there is a D POTUS
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-07-17, 08:11
She had been publicly vocal of Trump and isn't stupid.
She will remain on the bench until she is physically unable to do so or there is a D POTUS
They will keep her on life support and off the bench for years before letting Trump replace her. Interesting point would be adding a new judge, 9 ain't enshrined.
The Republicans should use the nuclear option to permanently change the rules back to a 60 on filibustered and future rules changes right before they loose the seats. Kind of like Obama and the expansion of NSA stuff.
She had been publicly vocal of Trump and isn't stupid.
She will remain on the bench until she is physically unable to do so or there is a D POTUS
While I agree, at her age, (late 80's early90's) that's a risky bet on her part. Time is not on her side.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-07-17, 10:46
While I agree, at her age, (late 80's early90's) that's a risky bet on her part. Time is not on her side.
Get a grim reaper costume and follow her around at public events....
Singlestack Wonder
04-07-17, 10:48
Don't count yer chickens, just yet. The McShitstainism is strong with the GOP.
Gorsuch confirmed as a member of the SCOTUS.....WINNING!
She had been publicly vocal of Trump and isn't stupid.
She will remain on the bench until she is physically unable to do so or there is a D POTUS
Ever see/read The Pelican Brief?
They will keep her on life support and off the bench for years before letting Trump replace her. Interesting point would be adding a new judge, 9 ain't enshrined.
The numbers of justices have fluctuated over the years. No problem to add.
The numbers of justices have fluctuated over the years. No problem to add.
It was a big problem for FDR to add justices, thankfully.
Moose-Knuckle
04-08-17, 04:57
Get a grim reaper costume and follow her around at public events....
Instead of carrying around a scythe he should stalk her with a pillow.
Still, that dosen't make it right, and again what conservative value does this bill represent? None. It just proves my point, that the republicans give less of a shit about you than the democrats do.
Bullshit. You're twisting facts to suit your argument. Shame on you. Go stand in the corner.
She had been publicly vocal of Trump and isn't stupid.
She will remain on the bench until she is physically unable to do so or there is a D POTUS
Yes. I'm sure that Trump's election has caused her to change her retirement plans, but physiology can be a bitch and the odds that it will allow her to function as a Supreme Court Justice for the next 3 years aren't that great. She's already survived colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, and coronary artery stenting....her body has been sending her a message....
Yes. I'm sure that Trump's election has caused her to change her retirement plans, but physiology can be a bitch and the odds that it will allow her to function as a Supreme Court Justice for the next 3 years aren't that great. She's already survived colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, and coronary artery stenting....her body has been sending her a message....
Yeah, that one has me baffled. What's the survival rate, like 3%? Just our luck.......:rolleyes:
Yeah, that one has me baffled. What's the survival rate, like 3%? Just our luck.......:rolleyes:
Depends on the type, stage, and location of the cancer. There are two main types of "pancreatic cancer" and they are very, very different. Adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas, most common, is one of those tumors that gives cancer a bad name. An islet cell tumor in the body or tail of the pancreas OTOH has a much better prognosis (lthough it didn't work out so well for Steve Jobs). I've not seen anything written about Ginsburg's cancer except that it was in the body of the pancreas and I'd bet a dollar that it was an islet cell tumor, therefore with a much better prognosis. I'd bet it was the cancer that killed Steve Jobs, but NOT the cancer, for example, that killed Patrick Swayze or Michael Landon.
5 year survival for even the earliest stage adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is about 10%. 5 year survival for an islet cell cancer is between about 60% and about 15% depending on stage. IIRC all Ginsburg's news reports indicated her pancreatic cancer was early stage. By contrast, Steve Jobs' cancer was very advanced-stage, with liver metastases. He actually had a liver transplant for that metastatic disease.
Parenthetically, I'd also note that Ginsburg underwent chemotherapy and radiation for her colon cancer, with tells me that it was at least a moderately advanced rectal cancer.
Yes. I'm sure that Trump's election has caused her to change her retirement plans, but physiology can be a bitch and the odds that it will allow her to function as a Supreme Court Justice for the next 3 years aren't that great. She's already survived colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, and coronary artery stenting....her body has been sending her a message....
You got me curious, from Wiki:
Ginsburg was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999 and underwent surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation therapy. During the process, she did not miss a day on the bench. Physically weakened after treatment for colon cancer, Ginsburg began working with a personal trainer. Since 1999, Bryant Johnson, a former Army reservist attached to the Special Forces, has trained Ginsburg twice weekly in the justices-only gym at the Supreme Court. In spite of her small stature, Ginsburg saw her physical fitness improve since her first bout with cancer, being able to complete 20 full push-ups in a session before her 80th birthday.
On February 5, 2009, she again underwent surgery related to pancreatic cancer. Ginsburg's tumor was discovered at an early stage. She was released from a New York City hospital on February 13 and returned to the bench when the Supreme Court went back into session on February 23, 2009. On September 24, 2009, Ginsburg was hospitalized in Washington DC for lightheadedness following an outpatient treatment for iron deficiency and was released the following day.
On November 26, 2014, she had a stent placed in her right coronary artery after experiencing discomfort while exercising in the Supreme Court gym with her personal trainer.
Articles referenced in Wiki:
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-personal-trainer-describes-102537398.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/personal-trainer-bryant-johnsons-clients-includetwo-supreme-court-justices/2013/03/19/ea884018-86a1-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?utm_term=.67209d287f25
Dang, if it wouldn't get me flamed I'd say she's a tough old bird, Airborne Tough.
Get a grim reaper costume and follow her around at public events....
That's probably one of the better ways to wind up in prison, I'll pass..
You got me curious, from Wiki:
Ginsburg was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999 and underwent surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation therapy. During the process, she did not miss a day on the bench. Physically weakened after treatment for colon cancer, Ginsburg began working with a personal trainer. Since 1999, Bryant Johnson, a former Army reservist attached to the Special Forces, has trained Ginsburg twice weekly in the justices-only gym at the Supreme Court. In spite of her small stature, Ginsburg saw her physical fitness improve since her first bout with cancer, being able to complete 20 full push-ups in a session before her 80th birthday.
On February 5, 2009, she again underwent surgery related to pancreatic cancer. Ginsburg's tumor was discovered at an early stage. She was released from a New York City hospital on February 13 and returned to the bench when the Supreme Court went back into session on February 23, 2009. On September 24, 2009, Ginsburg was hospitalized in Washington DC for lightheadedness following an outpatient treatment for iron deficiency and was released the following day.
On November 26, 2014, she had a stent placed in her right coronary artery after experiencing discomfort while exercising in the Supreme Court gym with her personal trainer.
Articles referenced in Wiki:
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-personal-trainer-describes-102537398.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/personal-trainer-bryant-johnsons-clients-includetwo-supreme-court-justices/2013/03/19/ea884018-86a1-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?utm_term=.67209d287f25
Dang, if it wouldn't get me flamed I'd say she's a tough old bird, Airborne Tough.
Accidents happen at the gym all the time....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.