Well Scalia was a constructionalist who pulled shit out of his ass to defend personal usage of firearms, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front as long as he agrees with the executive order in question.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
Well Scalia was a constructionalist who pulled shit out of his ass to defend personal usage of firearms, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front as long as he agrees with the executive order in question.
elrechazado
Banned
Ask FDR
Carpe Carnim
Member
helloresolven
Member
"librul tears" meme in the 80s.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
Is this a real image? Is it verified?
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
If that's real, it should be immediately disqualifying.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
It's qualifying to some people in power right now. :[
Carpe Carnim
Member
It bubbled up from The Mail. It's only banging around the blogosphere ATM. But when a fascist-friendly paper is the locus for it, perhaps they have a proper source for the year-book, or at least the inside-scoop compared to more mainstream news orgs.
jellies_two
Member
No it isn't a joke
He did found the club as he didn't like the academic PC climate, and all those SJWs way back whenever, and there is other cheerful stuff about a speech he made as president of the club.
Anyway it's just good fun, didn't we all want to be president of our local anti-PC club in our private schools?
The Albatross
Member
This might be thread worthy but I don't like creating political threads... Pretty big story out of CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/gorsuch-trump-tweets/index.html?adkey=bn
While meeting with Democratic Senator Dick Blumenthal,
Confirmed by Gorsuch's communications coordinator as well.
Trump gonna be mad. Has a president ever withdrawn his supreme court nominee before hearings begin, for his own reasons?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/gorsuch-trump-tweets/index.html?adkey=bn
While meeting with Democratic Senator Dick Blumenthal,
Confirmed by Gorsuch's communications coordinator as well.
Trump gonna be mad. Has a president ever withdrawn his supreme court nominee before hearings begin, for his own reasons?
Duane Cunningham
Member
Daaaamn. I wonder if he'll get withdrawn? Or withdraw himself? Trump really isn't doing himself any favors when he talks shit on the judicial branch.
EDIT: Also, this needs its own thread.
EDIT: Also, this needs its own thread.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Harriet Miers? The other Ginsburg?
BlazinSkatinAxel
Member
I'm watching his confirmation hearing and he doesn't seem bad but after reading here... That facism taint.. Sheesh.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Franken's line of questioning was interesting, I thought.
Fenderputty
Banned
They didn't have the numbers for 2 years and successfully obstructed just fine under Obama. The filibuster numbers shot through the roof when Dems took the senate in 07-08. Furthermore, if they intend to nuke the filibuster, they'll do it whenever we use it. Now or in the future, it's all the same.
Karsticles
Member
Snopes on the Fascism Forever Club:
http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/
http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/
The first ten minutes or so seemed like Franken just fishing for a soundbite.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Frankly, nearly everyone's questioning sounds like that.
That seems pretty big.
Except Cruz. His line of questioning was consistently effective.
Well he said he would have walked out on a meeting with Trump if Trump asked him to overturn Woe v. Wade.
Not sure what that means exactly.
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10155403654130579/
Not sure what that means exactly.
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10155403654130579/
Maybe he means he'd run straight back to the office to get it overturned.
Jokes aside, this probably shook the evangelical base today.
Too bad they keep buying into the lie that republicans will actually overturn roe v wade
it's too good of a promise to keep since they will literally vote for satan if he promised to overturn it, so they can get away with anything and still have that voting base
LostMyNarbles
Member
It's entirely possible (And probably likely) that he's just saying what he believes he needs to say to get voted in. He knows the Democrats are likely going to vote against him and he's trying to come off as sane/moderate to show people he'd make a good pick and the Democrats are just obstructing if they vote against him.
SecretMoblin
Member
Because there's a broad expectation (in the modern era) that politicians who nominate judges don't do so with explicit outcomes in mind, as it's politically and legally safer.
His response was more about the hypothetical inappropriateness of such a question, rather than being an indication of his views on Roe v. Wade. Conservative think tanks and legal lobbying groups wouldn't support him if they felt he could potentially vote to overturn the ruling, anyway.
KernelPanic
Member
This makes him sound pretty bad:
http://files.pfaw.org/uploads/2017/02/Neil-Gorsuch-Fact-Sheet-2.pdf
Ruling against autistic kids hits close to home and enrages me
http://files.pfaw.org/uploads/2017/02/Neil-Gorsuch-Fact-Sheet-2.pdf
Ruling against autistic kids hits close to home and enrages me
I think the Democrats should work to rebuild comity and support any appropriate nominees that Trump puts forward.
Unfortunately, Neil Gorsuch raises serious character questions, since multiple sources have reported that he accepted a Supreme Court nomination from a white supremacist who colluded with a foreign power to undermine American sovereignty. I don't see how any Democrat could in good faith support such a nominee.
Unfortunately, Neil Gorsuch raises serious character questions, since multiple sources have reported that he accepted a Supreme Court nomination from a white supremacist who colluded with a foreign power to undermine American sovereignty. I don't see how any Democrat could in good faith support such a nominee.
I kinda hate to say it but I think I legitimately hate Ted Cruz even more than Trump. He just absolutely reeks of shit. Watching him chat it up with Gorsuch earlier made me want to vomit. If i wasn't the only thing on at work, I would have turned away. I seriously just can't stand to see him talk.
I don't understand this post. "Democrats should support any appropriate nominees that Trump puts forward"...but anyone who would accept a nomination from Trump is inherently inappropriate?
So what, obstruct. Let the republicans go crazy and nuke the filibuster on that, too. They stole Obama's pick, the democrats might as well steal theirs. I have no faith in Congress doing anything good anymore.
Harry Reid nuking the filibuster really bit the dems in the ass this year :/
It seems like you understood it fine.
Oh, so it's just poor logic.
Unconvincing
The business of government needs to continue no matter who is President. We need judges, we need ambassadors, we need civil servants and US Marshals and everything else. These and other positions need to be nominated or appointed by the President.
Good people refusing to do a job that needs doing will just guarantee bad people fill those roles.
ultratruman
Banned
Gorsuch seems like a bit of an oddball, but it's impossible to argue that he's not a serious and qualified judge. I hope the majority of Dems vote for him.
It is not possible to be a good person in service to a bad executive. It will inevitably corrode your moral character as you get asked to undertake bad tasks.
In this particular case, happily, there is one excellent judge, popular with both parties, who would be able to accept the nomination with no moral animus attaching. That judge is Merrick Garland. I would wholeheartedly support his confirmation.
Why would Garland not be stained by a Trump nomination?
And again, your entire line of thinking would leave the government unable to function.
Because he's already got a perfectly good Supreme Court nomination.
Actually, the moral failure of the president and his administration, and their unwillingness to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, would leave the government unable to function. Your willingness to compromise with white supremacy to keep the trains running doesn't mean the problem is people who aren't willing to compromise.
SpaceCadetKeon
Banned
Any Dem that votes for him is going to be eaten alive by their base. So they'd better not.
He's not still nominated. He would have to be nominated again, by Trump. He would be Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, just like Gorsuch. Trump's choice for the office.
You're logic simply isn't sound.
And again, the rest of your argument is just idealism, not pragmatism. I want qualified people in government, I don't care if Trump nominates or appoints them. If they do something wrong in that office, or if they are actually unqualified, that's obviously another matter.
I'm not willing to let the country burn over pointless obstruction. I'm not a Republican.
Refusing to vote for any Trump nominee is also a pragmatic choice. The GOP cannot be rewarded for blocking Garland or they will do it again and you will end up with a rigged system where only they can get judges on the court. Truly blocking Gorusch does not seem possible with the nuclear option on the table, but forcing them to use it, whatever the downsides that may entail, would at least guarantee a fair system going forward rather than perpetuating the double standard that would be established by confirming Gorusch.
The GOP did something horribly wrong when they refused to vote on Garland. I'll never support doing the same thing out of spite.
This country needs its offices filled. That is more important than party politics. And I say this as someone who spent years working in national party politics.
- Status