Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45)

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.

It's more about imagining what COULD stand in the Constitution (or what you want to stand there) that is rejected by origentalists. There's símply nothing regarding abortion, same-sex marriage or affirmative Action in the Constitution cause in 1789 the people didn't know about that. So, like Scalia once said in an interview I watched yesterday on YouTube, pass a law but don't try to invent something in the Constitution that isn't in it.

But I'm very sure that your either a troll or you simply have no clue of the law. So, whatever.

[Klartext89]

Republicans will say Democrats started it, and Democrats will say Republicans started it.

I say it doesn't matter who started it.

Cause Dems like to lie...

Says the guy who supports a party whose President of the United States is a pathological liar.

klartext herself is, too, don't bother

Herself?
You both are simply victims of left-wing mass media propaganda, so it's not new and I'm not mad at you for really thinking that the ones telling you the truth (Trump and mine e.g.) are the ones lying to you. But it's a real tragedy that you are defending the ones really lying to you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

There have certainly been nominees with a more impressive resume before, like Robert Taft.

[Klartext89]

Dubya and Trump don't want to pick a consensus nominee a woman or a Latino. There are plenty of them to chose from. It would be much harder for the Democrats to yell about a nonconsensus candidate when you select one of those. This is what they are trying to tell the GOP.

Just Google Miguel Estrada. Little hint: Again it was the hypocrite Dem Party who filibustered a qualified nominee cause liberal Groups feared he could become a future SCOTUS nominee who they couldn't oppose - cause he's Latino. How racist!

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

There have certainly been nominees with a more impressive resume before, like Robert Taft.

I don't know what qualifications every past Justice had but Gorsuch with Harvard, Columbus, Oxford, clerking for two SCOTUS Justices (one Democrat, one Republican, both moderates to conservatives in the mainstream), 10 years at the Appeals Courts is simply hard to overcome - at Age 49.

What else should he have? Okay, maybe something from Germany :-D

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

There have certainly been nominees with a more impressive resume before, like Robert Taft.

I don't know what qualifications every past Justice had but Gorsuch with Harvard, Columbus, Oxford, clerking for two SCOTUS Justices (one Democrat, one Republican, both moderates to conservatives in the mainstream), 10 years at the Appeals Courts is simply hard to overcome - at Age 49.

What else should he have? Okay, maybe something from Germany :-D

Well, Taft had been both a Court of appeals judge and a President, so that kind of wins.

[Klartext89]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I totally disagree. Gorsuch is maybe the most qualified nominee to even imagine. His background is terrific. He's in the unanimous majority 97% of the time (in a 7-5 Dem Court) and 99% in the majority. You may not like it, but the Dems aren't filibustering Gorsuch, they are filibustering the President and the Majority Leader.

But, ant that's the good news: We'll never know whether me or you is right. Cause Gorsuch will be confirmed tomorrow and there will never ever be a SCOTUS Filibuster again. Just imagine Bill Pryor for low energy RBG. I'm praying for that entertainment.

Nevertheless, calling RBG, Breyer, Sotomajor and Kagan "consensus candidate" so embarrassing for you that I simply laugh about it. What an utter nonsense. Roberts is way more moderate/consensus than them all.

There have certainly been nominees with a more impressive resume before, like Robert Taft.

I don't know what qualifications every past Justice had but Gorsuch with Harvard, Columbus, Oxford, clerking for two SCOTUS Justices (one Democrat, one Republican, both moderates to conservatives in the mainstream), 10 years at the Appeals Courts is simply hard to overcome - at Age 49.

What else should he have? Okay, maybe something from Germany :-D

Well, Taft had been both a Court of appeals judge and a President, so that kind of wins.

Ok, I concede that.

[Klartext89]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925

I bet that there will be a second vacancy soon ;-)

[ApatheticAustrian]

losing kennedy would finish the polarization dynamic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

losing kennedy would finish the polarization dynamic.

Not quite. It'd probably make Roberts the swing justice unless Gorsuch proves more moderate than he looks to likely be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925

I bet that there will be a second vacancy soon ;-)

The interesting thing will be how the loss of the filibuster affects Kennedy's thinking. Perhaps he will wait until after the 2018 elections in the hopes that the Dems take a majority and then retire.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.

For the most part I agree although I don't think being a liar necessarily makes someone unqualified (although it is obviously quite problematic).  While I do think Gorsuch is a liar, I also think "naive" would be more accurate than "idiot."  We all would like to think we could be completely objective and wouldn't use play with the text to reach the conclusion we wanted, but everyone does it sometimes whether consciously or unconsciously.  I think it's a bit over-simplistic and condescending (no offense) to dismiss as idiocy what is merely human nature.  

That said, Gorsuch (like Scalia when he wrote his embarrassingly hypocritical opinion in D.C. vs Heller) is behaving in a way that suggests he will always toss things like "original intent" out the window should they become inconvenient and doing it *all* the time while refusing to treat the Constitution as a living document whose meaning changes over time reeks of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.  Gorsuch is clearly a very, very smart man (as was Scalia) and is almost certainly well aware of this.  If you want a liberal example, William Douglas tended to twist the law to "support" his views, but at least he didn't pretend to be a strict constructionist (of course, he really had no business being on any sort of federal court and was considered a fairly weak legal mind IIRC, as much as I may agree with some of his political views).

Hot Take alert: Incidentally, I think it'd be much better if we had more Borkings (I'd argue there's nothing wrong with an otherwise well-qualified SC nominee being rejected for legitimately being a major ideological extremist, the Reagan nominee who got treated unfairly IMO was Ginsberg when he had to withdraw b/c it came out he'd smoked marijuana in the past).  Supreme Court nominees should be expected to elaborate far more on their personal views as these will inevitably effect their rulings.  If a justice is pro-choice, conservatives have every right to know that and if they believe abortion in cases of rape is no different than walking into a hospital and shooting a baby in the head with a pistol, liberal Senators have a right to know that before voting on said nominee.  The normalization of SC nominees dodging any remotely meaningful questions (Gorsuch is a particularly egregious example, but most nominees do this) is a real problem IMO.

[Klartext89]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925

I bet that there will be a second vacancy soon ;-)

The interesting thing will be how the loss of the filibuster affects Kennedy's thinking. Perhaps he will wait until after the 2018 elections in the hopes that the Dems take a majority and then retire.

I doubt that.

1. There will be no Dem majority after 2018. Just look at the landscape.
2. With a bigger GOP majority, Collins, Heller and Murkowski won't matter.

I bet he is very comfortable with the soon-to-be situation because he knows that his successor will be confirmed - and he doesn't create a Long vacancy because President and Senate can't make a deal because of party divide.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

But, for Garland, well, I don't pretend to be hide my feelings about that. I'm not supportive of the idea of letting Republicans freely block the rightful nomination of a Democratic president just so they can fill the seat with a young conservative like Gorsuch. This isn't purely about qualifications, and it hasn't been for a long time or they would have been just fine with Garland.

First, I agree Garland should not have been blocked.  I disagree with the bolded assessment of this. The pubs took a major risk blocking him.  At the time they did that I'll bet not one really thought Trump would win, so they were taking a major gamble.  Hillary could have easily put someone in far more horrible.  It was a gamble, a stupid gamble, that paid off, remarkably. 

[Calthrina950]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.

For the most part I agree although I don't think being a liar necessarily makes someone unqualified (although it is obviously quite problematic).  While I do think Gorsuch is a liar, I also think "naive" would be more accurate than "idiot."  We all would like to think we could be completely objective and wouldn't use play with the text to reach the conclusion we wanted, but everyone does it sometimes whether consciously or unconsciously.  I think it's a bit over-simplistic and condescending (no offense) to dismiss as idiocy what is merely human nature.  

That said, Gorsuch (like Scalia when he wrote his embarrassingly hypocritical opinion in D.C. vs Heller) is behaving in a way that suggests he will always toss things like "original intent" out the window should they become inconvenient and doing it *all* the time while refusing to treat the Constitution as a living document whose meaning changes over time reeks of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.  Gorsuch is clearly a very, very smart man (as was Scalia) and is almost certainly well aware of this.  If you want a liberal example, William Douglas tended to twist the law to "support" his views, but at least he didn't pretend to be a strict constructionist (of course, he really had no business being on any sort of federal court and was considered a fairly weak legal mind IIRC, as much as I may agree with some of his political views).

Hot Take alert: Incidentally, I think it'd be much better if we had more Borkings (I'd argue there's nothing wrong with an otherwise well-qualified SC nominee being rejected for legitimately being a major ideological extremist, the Reagan nominee who got treated unfairly IMO was Ginsberg when he had to withdraw b/c it came out he'd smoked marijuana in the past).  Supreme Court nominees should be expected to elaborate far more on their personal views as these will inevitably effect their rulings.  If a justice is pro-choice, conservatives have every right to know that and if they believe abortion in cases of rape is no different than walking into a hospital and shooting a baby in the head with a pistol, liberal Senators have a right to know that before voting on said nominee.  The normalization of SC nominees dodging any remotely meaningful questions (Gorsuch is a particularly egregious example, but most nominees do this) is a real problem IMO.

A judge who makes his opinion or views on a particular topic or case known, before that topic arises, is not an ethical judge. Theoretically, judges are supposed to keep their bias to themselves, and they are supposed to rule based upon the merits and the facts of the case at hand. I am astonished by some of the people here wanting to force Trump into choosing a Garland-type nominee. That's not what is going to work. Trump has made his choice, and the Republican Senate has elected to act upon it. When Obama made his choice last year, they decided not to act upon it. It wasn't the best thing for them to do, but there is no constitutional requirement that they must hold hearings for whomever the President nominates.

Also, I think a judge who rules based upon the letter of the law, and who does not try to legislate from the bench, is what we need. Do you see legislating from the bench, happening in France? In Germany? In Britain? No. Most countries do not allow their judges to create law; judges can only interpret and enforce the law. They are to make sure laws are constitutional, not create new laws of their own. That is how it is supposed to be. I would not have a judge who thinks he can go about and do whatever he wants.

[136or142]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.

For the most part I agree although I don't think being a liar necessarily makes someone unqualified (although it is obviously quite problematic).  While I do think Gorsuch is a liar, I also think "naive" would be more accurate than "idiot."  We all would like to think we could be completely objective and wouldn't use play with the text to reach the conclusion we wanted, but everyone does it sometimes whether consciously or unconsciously.  I think it's a bit over-simplistic and condescending (no offense) to dismiss as idiocy what is merely human nature.  

That said, Gorsuch (like Scalia when he wrote his embarrassingly hypocritical opinion in D.C. vs Heller) is behaving in a way that suggests he will always toss things like "original intent" out the window should they become inconvenient and doing it *all* the time while refusing to treat the Constitution as a living document whose meaning changes over time reeks of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.  Gorsuch is clearly a very, very smart man (as was Scalia) and is almost certainly well aware of this.  If you want a liberal example, William Douglas tended to twist the law to "support" his views, but at least he didn't pretend to be a strict constructionist (of course, he really had no business being on any sort of federal court and was considered a fairly weak legal mind IIRC, as much as I may agree with some of his political views).

Hot Take alert: Incidentally, I think it'd be much better if we had more Borkings (I'd argue there's nothing wrong with an otherwise well-qualified SC nominee being rejected for legitimately being a major ideological extremist, the Reagan nominee who got treated unfairly IMO was Ginsberg when he had to withdraw b/c it came out he'd smoked marijuana in the past).  Supreme Court nominees should be expected to elaborate far more on their personal views as these will inevitably effect their rulings.  If a justice is pro-choice, conservatives have every right to know that and if they believe abortion in cases of rape is no different than walking into a hospital and shooting a baby in the head with a pistol, liberal Senators have a right to know that before voting on said nominee.  The normalization of SC nominees dodging any remotely meaningful questions (Gorsuch is a particularly egregious example, but most nominees do this) is a real problem IMO.

This is certainly a fair point.  However,
1.From my reading the number of cases a Supreme Court Justice writes an opinion where legal scholars say at least publicly "how did they reach this conclusion from reading the statute?"  seems to be very small.  Lower court Justices seem to do that more frequently.

2.There is no reason to believe that liberal justices do that any more frequently than conservative justices, and as you yourself wrote, Justice Gorsuch himself is not immune from 'legislating from the bench.'

[136or142]

If Republicans can't break the filibuster, they should find another nominee.

That's my view.

Their official excuse is that if Democrats won't accept Gorsuch, they won't accept anyone. Personally I think it's a load a crap - if Trump withdrew Gorsuch and put up a Republican version of Garland, at least an additional handful of Democrats would peel off and vote for him and thus overcome the filibuster, knowing that it is the best they can get given the situation.

The reality is that Republicans only want a "consensus candidate" when it is a Democrat making the nomination. There is little chance a Republican president would make such a nomination willingly.

I must interject and say that I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion, it wasn't the best thing for the Republicans to deny Obama's nominee, Garland, a hearing last year. However, Gorsuch has an impeccable record and is very qualified. The Democrats have nothing against him, and they are fighting him so vigorously because they are upset about Trump, and upset about Garland. If the Garland affair had not happened, and especially if some other President than Trump were naming Gorsuch, this would not even be an issue. The Democrats are making fools of themselves, and shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally think that anybody, such as Gorsuch, who believes that originalism or textulism leads to there being one correct ruling that the writers of the statute had in mind in any given situation, and that any Justice who does not reach that same decision is 'legislating from the bench' is either a liar engaging in dishonest partisan games or is an outright idiot.

As such, I disagree that he has an impeccable record as is very qualified.  He is either a liar or an idiot.

It's more about imagining what COULD stand in the Constitution (or what you want to stand there) that is rejected by origentalists. There's símply nothing regarding abortion, same-sex marriage or affirmative Action in the Constitution cause in 1789 the people didn't know about that. So, like Scalia once said in an interview I watched yesterday on YouTube, pass a law but don't try to invent something in the Constitution that isn't in it.

But I'm very sure that your either a troll or you simply have no clue of the law. So, whatever.

People didn't know about abortions or homosexuals in 1789?  Wow, they must have lived very sheltered lives.  To be sure, you mentioned same-sex marriage and not homosexuals, but the principles of 'equal protection' and 'due process' is certainly in the Constitution.

Of course, similarly the only 'arms' people knew about in 1789 were muskets - there were semi automatic air rifles also around in 1789 but, contrary to the half truths you might read about these weapons from the pro Second Amendment websites, air rifle were difficult to manufacture so they were pretty much only available to citizens who were seconded to the army (Lewis and Clark were given air rifles as well to use on the adventures), and a person needed significant training to know how to use them.  So, in fact, air rifles were not in private use in 1789 and it's highly debatable that the Framers of the Constitution ever thought there would be any arms available to the public other than muskets. 

One part of reading the Constitution with an 'originalist' frame of mind is understanding the world in 1789, and that world was one where the Industrial Revolution was only around 25-30 years old in England (the first steam engine that was used for general manufacturing and not just mining was invented around 1760) and it was far from certain in 1789 the level of technological progress that would occur.  For instance, while Alexander Hamilton certainly seemed to expect technological progress and encouraged the United States to become a manufacturing nation, Thomas Jefferson, who wanted the United States to remain a nation of 'citizen farmers' certainly did not seem to think the world would change significantly.  For full context, the first steam powered railway was not invented until 1803 - and it took till about 1820-1825 for the first railway line to start running, again, in England. So, the United States was still a nation that used the horse and buggy and had no phone, no light and no motor car - not a single luxury.

So, if you want to argue that abortion and equal treatment of minorities aren't mentioned in the Constitution, then you also have to argue that the 'right to bare arms' only involves the right to bare muskets manufactured by 1789.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

(Lewis and Clark were given air rifles as well to use on the adventures)

"Were given" is kind of misleading. Clark was given basically a blank check by Jefferson with which to requisition stuff from Harpers Ferry and Pittsburgh and that included the air rifles. It is not like they were "issued to them" as if by command. Clark selected them, as well as most all of the other equipment.

And they were illegal in France and Britain. In Britain because poachers used them, in France because they were used by snipers against Napoleon's Army.

[136or142]

(Lewis and Clark were given air rifles as well to use on the adventures)

"Were given" is kind of misleading. Clark was given basically a blank check by Jefferson with which to requisition stuff from Harpers Ferry and Pittsburgh and that included the air rifles. It is not like they were "issued to them" as if by command. Clark selected them, as well as most all of the other equipment.

And they were illegal in France and Britain. In Britain because poachers used them, in France because they were used by snipers against Napoleon's Army.

Fine, but they were not available to the common person to be bought.  They weren't illegal, they just were impossible to manufacture in great quantity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

(Lewis and Clark were given air rifles as well to use on the adventures)

"Were given" is kind of misleading. Clark was given basically a blank check by Jefferson with which to requisition stuff from Harpers Ferry and Pittsburgh and that included the air rifles. It is not like they were "issued to them" as if by command. Clark selected them, as well as most all of the other equipment.

And they were illegal in France and Britain. In Britain because poachers used them, in France because they were used by snipers against Napoleon's Army.

Fine, but they were not available to the common person to be bought.  They weren't illegal, they just were impossible to manufacture in great quantity.

Every musket was hard to manufacture in great quantity until the introduction of standardized parts. One of the things Clark also made sure of was, that all the rifles he requisitioned were built according to the new interchangeable standards.

The Industrial Revolution, also made manufacture much quicker and cheaper over the following decades.

[136or142]

(Lewis and Clark were given air rifles as well to use on the adventures)

"Were given" is kind of misleading. Clark was given basically a blank check by Jefferson with which to requisition stuff from Harpers Ferry and Pittsburgh and that included the air rifles. It is not like they were "issued to them" as if by command. Clark selected them, as well as most all of the other equipment.

And they were illegal in France and Britain. In Britain because poachers used them, in France because they were used by snipers against Napoleon's Army.

Fine, but they were not available to the common person to be bought.  They weren't illegal, they just were impossible to manufacture in great quantity.

Every musket was hard to manufacture in great quantity until the introduction of standardized parts. One of the things Clark also made sure of was, that all the rifles he requisitioned were built according to the new interchangeable standards.

The Industrial Revolution, also made manufacture much quicker and cheaper over the following decades.

That was subsequent though to the writing of the Constitution in 1789 (or, at best concurrent) and the Framers of the Constitution had no real ability to know of the technological progress that would ensue in the years following their writing of the Constitution.

Edit: the Constitution was ratified in 1789 but written in 1787.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

CLOTURE VOTE starting.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

(Lewis and Clark were given air rifles as well to use on the adventures)

"Were given" is kind of misleading. Clark was given basically a blank check by Jefferson with which to requisition stuff from Harpers Ferry and Pittsburgh and that included the air rifles. It is not like they were "issued to them" as if by command. Clark selected them, as well as most all of the other equipment.

And they were illegal in France and Britain. In Britain because poachers used them, in France because they were used by snipers against Napoleon's Army.

Fine, but they were not available to the common person to be bought.  They weren't illegal, they just were impossible to manufacture in great quantity.

Every musket was hard to manufacture in great quantity until the introduction of standardized parts. One of the things Clark also made sure of was, that all the rifles he requisitioned were built according to the new interchangeable standards.

The Industrial Revolution, also made manufacture much quicker and cheaper over the following decades.

That was subsequent though to the writing of the Constitution in 1789 (or, at best concurrent) and the Framers of the Constitution had no real ability to know of the technological progress that would ensue in the years following their writing of the Constitution.

Edit: the Constitution was ratified in 1789 but written in 1787.

That wasn't what I was responding to though. You said the air rifles were difficult to make and thus out reach. They were legal and available, though. And my point was that all rifles were relatively expansive and difficult to make, until technology changed that.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Manchin: AYE

Vote is 31-23 Against so far