Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[EnglishPete]

seems like gorsuch has spilled the water of a small lake on the idea he would kill roe vs wade.....said he wants to move on and the question is settled.

No, he deliberately avoided answering the question. He said that it had precedent, that that had been reaffirmed many times, and that that is something that should be considered in considering future cases, although he would not comment on hypothetical future cases for reasons of fairness.

Plessy vs Ferguson was a long standing SCOTUS precedent.

[EnglishPete]

Lindsey Graham has said he's on board with abolishing the Filibuster for SCOTUS if the Dems attempt to Fillibuster

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/23/lindsey-graham-ready-to-go-nuclear-for-gorsuch/

[EnglishPete]

This is an interesting theory. Quite illogical of course. I have no idea what obstructed means, other than that your political party was routed in the 2010 elections and the power of the House of Representatives was given to the Republican Party.

Not sure who the 2nd Republican administration is either?

the democrats could have obstructed the shoot out of the GWB administration - and they ofc did not and it was the right call.

the republicans made it necessary to pulverize the old rules.... i like politeness but if it doesn't work, it must go. better 8 years of hardcore republicanism than 16 years without even being able to do anything, cause we are meant to be the "mature" party...most overrated political category ever.

Your lies are becoming highly naughty.

The Dems blocked Bushs judicial nominations until the Gang of 14 Deal in 2005. There was an amount of blockade never seen before. Maybe you should Google for e.g. Miguel Estrada.

Also the Dems started the SCOTUS fights back in 1987. Killing a highly qualified nominee because of political reasons but now whining when it backfires. Childish.

I doubt that you don't know that, so let me ask clearly: Why are you lying?

[EnglishPete]

A sign of the direction of later Federal judicial appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/white_house_tells_aba_it_wont_be_asked_to_review_lower_court_judicial_candi/

[EnglishPete]

A sign of the direction of later Federal judicial appointments

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/white_house_tells_aba_it_wont_be_asked_to_review_lower_court_judicial_candi/

That's f**king horrifying

Trump asked the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation help him prepare the list for possible SCOTUS nominees. If the ABA isn't helping Trump prepare lists of nominees for the lower Federal courts then can't the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation do the same job for the lower federal courts that they did for the Supreme Court?

After all they may give him better advice than the ABA which probably has lots of SJW types in it ready to give Trump bad advice. Given all the trouble Trump is getting from left wing activist judges wouldn't that be the sensible course for him?

[EnglishPete]

Chris Coons confirms he'll vote No to Gorsuch, not yet said about his vote on Cloture

Edit: Chris Coons confirms he'll vote No for Cloture. That makes the magic number 41

[EnglishPete]

Chris Coons confirms he'll vote No to Gorsuch, not yet said about his vote on Cloture

decision desk disagrees.


Senator Chris Coons will NOT vote for Neil Gorsuch and will not vote to advance his nomination
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/848945915620610048

Yes I know, hence the edit in my post