Post: #1

I didn't want to hijack the Donald Trump thread, so I am posting this here.

1. Trump just nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court - he is said to be at least as conservative as Scalia, whom he replaces.

2. It is important to understand that while the court is made up of 9 individual seats, and the seats are at large rather than representing specific political areas as does the legislature, the Democrats have previously demanded the person who replaces someone be similar - for example, when Sandra Day O'Connor retired, her seat HAD to be give to a woman. So their protests are hypocritical.

3. Gorsuch, while amply qualified (sitting justice of the Court of Appeals), is very young for a supreme court nominee, meaning he could be on the court for literally another 40 years! Being a justice is not that taxing because they hear only about 100 cases a year and have significant staff. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsbur will turn 84 in 6 weeks. Because of his intellect and credentials, he likely will become Chief Justice at some point.

4. Some people think Gorsuch is as reasonable a nominee as the Left reasonably could have expected. More here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-01...have-hoped

5. Trump realistically could have 3 more appointments coming soon: Ginsburg (lefty) is 83, Kennedy (Rino) is 80, and Breyer (moderate lefty) will be 78 in mid-August. They'll probably have to drag Ginsburg's corpse out of the building rather than retiring during a Trump administration, but her health is not great (cancer twice, coronary stent, etc.) and her husband died a few years ago, so we'll see. (The most liberal justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, are 62 and 56 respectively. Everyone else is in their 60s. Retirement is possible but unless necessary for health considerations its rare for a justice to retire in their 60s.)

5. The really interesting thing about Trump's first nomination is that Obama wasn't able to confirm an appointment after Scalia died. Obama appointed a liberal for Scalia's seat even though the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Ultimately Obama's nominee was not voted upon. The Democrats cried dirty politics, but Obama was not reasonable with such a liberal appointment to replace such a conservative justice. But the left has a point here to a small extent, although its a bit far to call it a stolen nomination as the NY Times does. "Bonus" appointment is a better description, in my view. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opini....html?_r=0

6. Nothing in the Constitution limits the court to 9 members. FDR "packed" the court with his nominees, and threatened to double the size of the court with his nominees, unless Congress passed his liberal New Deal. Just imagine 9 more Trump appointees.

Post: #2

(02-01-2017 01:50 PM)Hypno Wrote:  5. The really interesting thing about Trump's first nomination is that Obama wasn't able to confirm an appointment after Scalia died. Obama appointed a liberal for Scalia's seat even though the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Ultimately Obama's nominee was not voted upon. The Democrats cried dirty politics, but Obama was not reasonable with such a liberal appointment to replace such a conservative justice. But the left has a point here to a small extent, although its a bit far to call it a stolen nomination as the NY Times does. "Bonus" appointment is a better description, in my view. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opini....html?_r=0

The "stolen" seat complaint is so funny from butt hurt libtards. As we all know, SCOTUS nominees are confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Last year, the Senate said no. A hearing or vote is not required to get to no. We've heard countless times that no means no from the left. Apparently they have a difficult time understanding that no really means no when it comes to something they want and the Senates duty here last year.

That said, Gorsuch is a strong choice. Cucks in the GOP support Gorsuch 100% after they all publicly doubted Trump would appoint a conservative judge. Trump just keeps winning and bringing more and more of his former enemies to his side.

Post: #3

(02-01-2017 02:56 PM)JackStraw Wrote:  The "stolen" seat complaint is so funny from butt hurt libtards. As we all know, SCOTUS nominees are confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Last year, the Senate said no. A hearing or vote is not required to get to no. We've heard countless times that no means no from the left. Apparently they have a difficult time understanding that no really means no when it comes to something they want and the Senates duty here last year.

That said, Gorsuch is a strong choice. Cucks in the GOP support Gorsuch 100% after they all publicly doubted Trump would appoint a conservative judge. Trump just keeps winning and bringing more and more of his former enemies to his side.

no means no, that is a good one.

Gorsuch is a much more conservative justice than W's appointees, Roberts adn Alito. Alito is fairly conservative but Roberts was the swing vote to approve Obama care.

some basic facts about the justices here:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html

Post: #4

The rage we are going to hear for his entire confirmation process is going to be very entertaining. I expect Gorsuch will be compared to Hitler on a daily basis once the mainstream gets going.


I'm surprised he picked an actual constitutionalist though. Good on Trump.

Post: #5

I have no idea about the guy but he sure looks like an alpha male unlike Paul Ryan . Here's my proof.


I and II

Post: #6

^

Damn, he sure does! Nice find tapthatass!

Post: #7

(02-01-2017 01:50 PM)Hypno Wrote:  5. The really interesting thing about Trump's first nomination is that Obama wasn't able to confirm an appointment after Scalia died. Obama appointed a liberal for Scalia's seat even though the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Ultimately Obama's nominee was not voted upon. The Democrats cried dirty politics, but Obama was not reasonable with such a liberal appointment to replace such a conservative justice. But the left has a point here to a small extent, although its a bit far to call it a stolen nomination as the NY Times does. "Bonus" appointment is a better description, in my view. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opini....html?_r=0

It's great that Garland got caught up in the partisan crunch and never made it, he's a deep state operative. He was the judge that went out of his way to cover for the Oklahoma City bombing:





(Garland talk starts at the 5:20 mark)

Post: #8

Here is a good article by Gorsuch, with a good understanding of his views:

Liberals'N'Lawsuits
Although is was in 2005, it is still very relevant.

Here are some quotes:

Quote:There’s no doubt that constitutional lawsuits have secured critical civil-rights victories, with the desegregation cases culminating in Brown v. Board of Education topping the list. But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.

So true, even in Israel, not just the US.
A bunch of NGOs running around with little respect for public opinion and enforcing their will on everybody else.

Quote:In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose.

I see it all the time. People go to court on policy. Then it's up to the court to decide.

That is one of the things I (and many people) don't like. We can understand compromise, we may even acknowledge it. But we sure as hell don't want to forced.

Quote:At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has — its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes.

When you feel that the game is rigged, you just don't want to play. You either go Galt or rage against the machine. Both do not end well for society.

Quote:Liberals may win a victory on gay marriage when preaching to the choir before like-minded judges in Massachusetts. But in failing to reach out and persuade the public generally, they invite exactly the sort of backlash we saw in November when gay marriage was rejected in all eleven states where it was on the ballot

Same happens in Israel. You get politicians making "bypass laws".
Remember that this usually happens in a "vacuum" - meaning that legislative or the executive branch is somehow weakened.

Quote:During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect — instituting profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today. In the face of great skepticism about the constitutionality of New Deal measures in some corners, a generation of Democratic-appointed judges, from Louis Brandeis to Byron White, argued for judicial restraint and deference to the right of Congress to experiment with economic and social policy. Those voices have been all but forgotten in recent years among liberal activists.

Imagine that - liberals who are restraint. That was the case of what? 3 generations ago?

All in all, the article is not that biased but has a sound reason - the courts are not the place to argue on policy.

Post: #9

If we're lucky Ginsburg will die and/or Kennedy will retire leaving President Trump to appoint their successors. A couple more 50 year old textualists and we will have the court locked down for an entire generation.

Re: Merrick Garland, he is a statist snake that wanted to en banc Heller v DC. Bullet dodged!

Post: #10

(02-01-2017 07:55 PM)911 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 01:50 PM)Hypno Wrote:  5. The really interesting thing about Trump's first nomination is that Obama wasn't able to confirm an appointment after Scalia died. Obama appointed a liberal for Scalia's seat even though the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Ultimately Obama's nominee was not voted upon. The Democrats cried dirty politics, but Obama was not reasonable with such a liberal appointment to replace such a conservative justice. But the left has a point here to a small extent, although its a bit far to call it a stolen nomination as the NY Times does. "Bonus" appointment is a better description, in my view. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opini....html?_r=0

It's great that Garland got caught up in the partisan crunch and never made it, he's a deep state operative. He was the judge that went out of his way to cover for the Oklahoma City bombing:





(Garland talk starts at the 5:20 mark)

didn't know that. interesting.

Post: #11

(02-01-2017 06:38 PM)tapthatass Wrote:  I have no idea about the guy but he sure looks like an alpha male unlike Paul Ryan . Here's my proof.


I and II

wow, nice pic. Trump has accomplished a lot, I don't know if becoming President is even his biggest accomplishment. But when you look at this picture of Gorsuch, its like a Knight getting knighted by a dainty old lady queen. The Knight accepts the honor respectfully, but knows that its not the queen who bestows the honor but rather his own character and actions.

Gorsuch if confirmed has reached the pinnacle of his career and may be on the bench 40 years from now. That's why he looks so so Alpha in the picture.

Post: #12

He should get confirmed. Will be a major power player if so.

Post: #13

expect a gigantic fight from misandryst left. I can't remember any prolife judge being nominated in my lifetime.

Judge Neil Gorsuch has never ruled directly on abortion rights, but he has decided twice against Obamacare’s contraception coverage requirement and written a book on the value of human life — signs that he conforms to President Donald Trump’s pledge to appoint “pro-life” justices.

The choice of Gorsuch for the Supreme Court was immediately praised by anti-abortion groups and chastised by supporters of abortion rights.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/go...ice-234465

Post: #14

Notice how biased the media is? It is anti-abortion, not pro-life. They refuse to identify the group as what they identify themselves, instead using the "anti" to look like they are against "womens' reproductive rights". So twisted and dirty, the way they make defending life sound like they hate women. The media are filthy whores.

Post: #15

(02-06-2017 02:44 AM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Notice how biased the media is? It is anti-abortion, not pro-life. They refuse to identify the group as what they identify themselves, instead using the "anti" to look like they are against "womens' reproductive rights". So twisted and dirty, the way they make defending life sound like they hate women. The media are filthy whores.

exactly, women are feminists, not misandrysts.

men are misogynsyts, not mgtow

Post: #16

(02-06-2017 02:44 AM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Notice how biased the media is? It is anti-abortion, not pro-life. They refuse to identify the group as what they identify themselves, instead using the "anti" to look like they are against "womens' reproductive rights". So twisted and dirty, the way they make defending life sound like they hate women. The media are filthy whores.

The left is incredibly good with twisting words around to help their cause. Pro-Choice, Climate Change, "Progressive", Welfare, Immigration Reform, Undocumented Workers, etc

This is why I suggest that people who are against abortion start using the proper wording, Pro-Abortion/Baby Killers when referring to people that are for it. Pro-Abortion works very well and cuts these people deep.

Post: #17

(02-07-2017 03:36 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  The left is incredibly good with twisting words around to help their cause. Pro-Choice, Climate Change, "Progressive", Welfare, Immigration Reform, Undocumented Workers, etc

Pro - choice = no choice for the man or child

climate change = formerly global warming, until that was debunked.

welfare = transfer payments to democrat voters

undocumented workers = people who broke the law to come here and get free benefits and not pay taxes

immigration reform = lets ignore that people broke the law to come here and get free benefits and not pay taxes, and lets just let them register as democratic voters

Post: #18

What do you make of the recent dust up over Gorsuch supposedly calling Trump's comments on the goofy judge in Seattle "disheartening"?

Post: #19

Unless Trump is on his 4d chess and green lit Gorsuch to play homosexual until he the democrats think he is one of them and confirm him he needs to withdraw the nomination.

Of course the republicans would raise a stink seeing as how most have said how great he is. Hopefully this isn't the first trap he has fallen for since announcing his run for president.

Post: #20

"Disheartening" is probably Dems taking a quote out of context to score political points. Regardless, Gorsuch is throwing them a few bones so he can get confirmed with 60 rather than having to go nuclear. Dems big question is whether he's willing to stand up to the executive. He's throwing them a bone there. No big deal.

Post: #21

As I already wrote in the Trump thread, I think this is worrying, particularly with the long and storied history of "conservative" Supreme Court judges turning out to be full blown "Democrats are the Real Racists" cucks once firmly in their lifelong Supreme Court sinecures. Gorsuch is a Harvard-Oxford baby and most worryingly, a member of an ultra-liberal Episcopalian church whose pastor is a pro-LGBTQ,anti-Trump, pro-gun control female.

I hope I'm wrong but I smell rat.

Post: #22

Quote:ultra-liberal Episcopalian church

Yeah there are hardly any real conservatives in that faction and that's why the court has been recently short of WASPs: Dems appoint minorities to pander to their base and Repubs end up picking Italians.

Souter and Stevens disliked Bush so much they waited to resign under Obama. Total cucks.

Post: #23

What do you guys think about Gorsuch and the 2nd amendment? I don't believe he has had any direct rulings on 2nd amendment cases. All I could find was this article from the NRA website backing Gorsuch.

In one of his decisions, Gorsuch wrote "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly" (emphasis mine).

"May not be infringed lightly"? What does that even mean?

I also read that back in 2002, Gorsuch wrote an op-ed piece in favor of Merrick Garland (Obama's Supreme Court nominee):

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politi...ed-senate/

Garland, of course, participated in the D.C. vs. Heller case (before it reached the Supreme Court) and ruled that the 2nd amendment does not apply to ordinary citizens (a decision which was later reversed by the Supreme Court).

Does any of this stuff make anyone here nervous about Gorsuch when it comes to defending gun rights?

Post: #24

It would make me feel better if he has rulings on guns. Still, if you look at his non-gun related rulings, he consistently does not side with government overreach. That was a close personal friend of Scalia makes me rest a lot easier. Still, Senate Republicans need to do their job and grill him on the issue.

Post: #25

What are the odds that this coming fight over the Executive Order ends up in front of a 5-4 court with Gorsuch and gets defeated anyway?

After Roberts joined the left on ObamaCare, I'm not going to rest easy until the court is 6-3 or 7-2.