Senate hearings for the confirmation of Gorsuch begin this week. This is a very important week, especially for McConnell. He has promised Gorsuch will be confirmed. On the surface it appears democrats are going to resist. McConnell will have to show some courage. Trump has suggested the nuclear option if the democrats try to stop the nomination. McConnell cannot hide from this and we will all be looking for his leadership.
McCONnel wants the guy? That right there should be enough proof this whole process is nothing more than show.
No single individual has shown Gorsuch to be a solid Conservative, all they've proven so far is he has a clean slate, the RINO love him, the Dims feign abhorrence and in the end, he'll be confirmed.
I'm not saying Gorsuch is a lib or Con, no one really knows, but what we do know is people with his record have screwed us once seated.
Quote from: Solar on March 20, 2017, 05:52:26 AM
McCONnel wants the guy? That right there should be enough proof this whole process is nothing more than show.
No single individual has shown Gorsuch to be a solid Conservative, all they've proven so far is he has a clean slate, the RINO love him, the Dims feign abhorrence and in the end, he'll be confirmed.
I'm not saying Gorsuch is a lib or Con, no one really knows, but what we do know is people with his record have screwed us once seated.
I agree I don't know much about him but his history looks good and besides the RINO's loving him Cruz and other true conservatives do to. That is a very good sign!
It would make more sense for dems to oppose the replacement for a liberal justice, though Trump would be wise to replace a hard lefty with a moderate.
Quote from: ldub23 on March 20, 2017, 03:06:42 PM
It would make more sense for dems to oppose the replacement for a liberal justice, though Trump would be wise to replace a hard lefty with a moderate.
With both houses and the WH. WHY go for a moderate unless your a RINO.
Quote from: walkstall on March 20, 2017, 03:20:07 PM
With both houses and the WH. WHY go for a moderate unless your a RINO.
I think it would sail through quickly and i would be happy to have a far left loon replaced with someone that looks at both sides. For instance, Sandra O'Conner would be a huge win over Ginsburg.
Quote from: walkstall on March 20, 2017, 03:20:07 PM
With both houses and the WH. WHY go for a moderate unless your a RINO.
If the Dim's continue their games and force the use of the Reid rule (nuclear Option) That will be the new standard! Why would the Right wing of our party or Trump for that matter accept anything less them another conservative constitutionalist?
Quote from: redbeard on March 20, 2017, 02:12:48 PM
I agree I don't know much about him but his history looks good and besides the RINO's loving him Cruz and other true conservatives do to. That is a very good sign!
Cruz doesn't know any more than the rest of us outside of his education and that may be enough for them to let what little record he has, slide through.
They pulled the same shit with Roberts, whom also had a stellar record of nothing outside of good grades in school.
Just because he doesn't have any marks against his record simply means he has yet to be challenged, something not worth gambling the SCOTUS appointment on.
Anytime Mc CONnel likes someone, you can bet there's a payoff going on somewhere and it's not benefitting Conservatives.
Quote from: ldub23 on March 20, 2017, 03:06:42 PM
It would make more sense for dems to oppose the replacement for a liberal justice, though Trump would be wise to replace a hard lefty with a moderate.
Bull Shit!!! Screw the Marxists!
I disagree a bit. The GOP has nothing to lose. They have the majority, there will be a few democrats that vote for Gorsuch and Trump has McConnell's back if it comes to the nuclear option. McConnell doesn't have to be brave...or scared.
Gorsuch will sail through, this is just more Kabuki so both party's can claim they're fighting for their constituency.
Truth is, the Dims don't hate him, and that should be the real red flag despite their faux protestations.
No one is asking the real question, that if we can appoint anyone we want, why in the fuck aren't they promoting a true Conservative?
Quote from: Solar on March 20, 2017, 07:08:50 PM
Gorsuch will sail through, this is just more Kabuki so both party's can claim they're fighting for their constituency.
Truth is, the Dims don't hate him, and that should be the real red flag despite their faux protestations.
No one is asking the real question, that if we can appoint anyone we want, why in the fuck aren't they promoting a true Conservative?
I watched the hearings and the democrats did their usual grandstanding however each of them listed many cases to which they disagreed with Gorsuch's ruling. I researched them and each time Gorsuch simply upheld the law as written by congress. That's what we want a conservative judge to do.
Okay, we do not have a lot to go on when it comes to anticipating how Gorsuch will behave as a SCOTUS justice. However, the information we do have is mostly positive. One item comes from a speech Grosuch gave at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law on April 15, 2016. Here is what Gorsuch has to say about the role of justices in regards to law and the Constitution:
QuoteFirst, consider the Constitution. Judges, after all, must do more than merely consider it. They take an oath to uphold it. So any theory of judging (in this country at least) must be measured against that foundational duty. Yet it seems to me those who would have judges
behave like legislators, imposing their moral convictions and utility calculi on others, face an uphill battle when it comes to reconciling their judicial philosophy with our founding document.
Consider what happened at the constitutional convention. There the framers expressly debated a proposal that would have incorporated the judiciary into a "council of revision" with sweeping powers to review and veto congressional legislation. A proposal that would have afforded
judges the very sorts of legislative powers that some of Justice Scalia's critics would have them assume now. But that proposal went down to defeat at the hands of those who took the traditional view that judges should expound upon the law only as it comes before them, free from the bias of having participated in its creation and from the burden of having to decide "the policy of public measures." In place of a system that mixed legislative and judicial powers, the framers quite deliberately chose one that carefully separated them. The Constitution itself reflects this choice in its very design, devoting distinct articles to the "legislative Power[]"19 and the "judicial Power," creating separate institutions for each, and treating those powers in contradistinction. Neither were these separate categories empty ones to the founding generation. Informed by a hard earned intellectual inheritance—one perhaps equal parts English common law experience and Enlightenment philosophy—the founders understood
the legislative power as the power to prescribe new rules of general applicability for the future. A power properly guided by the will of the people acting through their representatives, a task avowedly political in nature, and one unbound by the past except to the extent that any piece of legislation must of course conform to the higher law of the Constitution itself...
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4658&context=caselrev
Of note is this speech took place at a time when the assumption was that Trump would be easily defeated in the general election, so these words can not be assumed to have been written and uttered to placate conservative naysayers should he be nominated to the Court.
Looking at his history on the 10th Circuit Court, Gorsuch seems, at least from what I have read, to consistently come down on the conservative side of issues.
www.denverpost.com/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-key-rulings
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/read-the-words-of-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch/2161/?tid=a_inl
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 20, 2017, 07:25:09 PM
I watched the hearings and the democrats did their usual grandstanding however each of them listed many cases to which they disagreed with Gorsuch's ruling. I researched them and each time Gorsuch simply upheld the law as written by congress. That's what we want a conservative judge to do.
If that's the measure being used that would be great, but it's not because he doesn't really have a history to look at which is my biggest concern.
Keep in mind, Dims voted to support his placement on the Tenth Circuit court of appeals.
With Gorsuch, like with most lower court judges, there is nothing clearly indicating he would have the boldness of a Clarence Thomas to wipe away bad precedent across the board. As a result, Gorsuch probably won't inspire as much confidence as some of the more outspoken conservative circuit judges would have. Then again, there are very few Clarence Thomases. Gorsuch could very well be an Alito, which is solid enough. But if conservatives have just one opportunity at this, it would be worthwhile to first vet him before we go nuclear and fight Democrats.
Remember, Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit by a unanimous voice vote during an era when Democrats were vociferously fighting the nominations of Brown, Owen, Estrada and many others. That in itself should not be held against him, and Democrats will definitely besmirch him as a SCOTUS nominee (as they would any nominee at this point)/ They usually, however don't allow Clarence Thomas types to sail through to appeals courts seats either. I hope I'm wrong, but given the one-directional inertia of the elite legal field, it is very rare for someone to turn out as a Clarence Thomas if you don't see it coming ahead of time.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/7-reasons-neil-gorsuchs-nomination-is-only-the-beginning-of-taking-back-the-judiciary
I have been watching part of the senate hearing this morning and, quite frankly, I find it nauseating. I believe these hearings are worthless and nothing more than an opportunity pompous senators to pontificate. This applies to both sides of the aisle. These nominees are not going to give any indication of how they would rule on any specific case or issue. It would save a lot of time if there not be public hearings and senators would have to do their own research and then vote.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 21, 2017, 09:24:45 AM
I have been watching part of the senate hearing this morning and, quite frankly, I find it nauseating. I believe these hearings are worthless and nothing more than an opportunity pompous senators to pontificate. This applies to both sides of the aisle. These nominees are not going to give any indication of how they would rule on any specific case or issue. It would save a lot of time if there not be public hearings and senators would have to do their own research and then vote.
They are pointless but right now he is making Al Franken look like a complete buffoon.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 21, 2017, 01:29:41 PM
They are pointless but right now he is making Al Franken look like a complete buffoon.
Al Franken can do that all on his own with no help. :lol:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 20, 2017, 07:25:09 PM
I watched the hearings and the democrats did their usual grandstanding however each of them listed many cases to which they disagreed with Gorsuch's ruling. I researched them and each time Gorsuch simply upheld the law as written by congress. That's what we want a conservative judge to do.
I might have been able to do the same, if I was suffering from insomnia, drank a bottle of 151, and chased it with a 6-pack of beer.
How can you torture yourself, Boo? We know what they're gonna say, are you playing BINGO... a drinking game or....?
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 21, 2017, 09:24:45 AM
It would save a lot of time if there not be public hearings and senators would have to do their own research and then vote.
Which is worse? You being bored by bloviating baboons, or the U.S. enslaved by a rogue government capitalizing on our indifference? As long as they are in the public eye there is the potential that they will be held to their promises and obliged to do their duty.
Here is another article that proves the democrats have no leverage on this matter.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/senate-democrats-may-seek-deal-with-gop-to-confirm-gorsuch-stave-off-nuclear-option.html
So, according to the piece, Schumer is discussing behind the scenes that in return for not blocking Gorsuch McConnell would pledge not to invoke the "nuclear option" on future appointments. Why would McConnell disarm when he holds all the ammo? Chuckie, you have nothing! OTOH, McConnell is such an idiot that he might go along with it.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 23, 2017, 11:33:19 AM
Here is another article that proves the democrats have no leverage on this matter.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/senate-democrats-may-seek-deal-with-gop-to-confirm-gorsuch-stave-off-nuclear-option.html
So, according to the piece, Schumer is discussing behind the scenes that in return for not blocking Gorsuch McConnell would pledge not to invoke the "nuclear option" on future appointments. Why would McConnell disarm when he holds all the ammo? Chuckie, you have nothing! OTOH, McConnell is such an idiot that he might go along with it.
It's not so much that the Con is an idiot, it's that he did this exact thing when he reversed Reid's nuke option, so it's pretty obvious he'll do it for Scummer and claim it was the best deal he could make.
Man, this guy really pisses me off, he gives the store away at every turn despite a solid majority and has the audacity to claim it was the best deal we could get?
We don't have to deal with the leftists Con, you stupid RINO asshole!
Guess where the Con ranks in this list? Yeah, pretty much ranks as a lib.
How bad is it when John Cornyn gets a better ranking than the Con, considering Cornyn is the epitome RINO?
(https://www.conservativereview.com/sss/media/images/conservative-review/article-images/2017/march/worst-in-congress-0317.jpg?la=en&hash=EEA419BA8CF8A33384D93AE900A8D350CD2594C3)
Quote from: Solar on March 23, 2017, 11:47:03 AM
It's not so much that the Con is an idiot, it's that he did this exact thing when he reversed Reid's nuke option, so it's pretty obvious he'll do it for Scummer and claim it was the best deal he could make.
Man, this guy really pisses me off, he gives the store away at every turn despite a solid majority and has the audacity to claim it was the best deal we could get?
We don't have to deal with the leftists Con, you stupid RINO asshole!
Guess where the Con ranks in this list? Yeah, pretty much ranks as a lib.
How bad is it when John Cornyn gets a better ranking than the Con, considering Cornyn is the epitome RINO?
(https://www.conservativereview.com/sss/media/images/conservative-review/article-images/2017/march/worst-in-congress-0317.jpg?la=en&hash=EEA419BA8CF8A33384D93AE900A8D350CD2594C3)
Not surprising Cheech and Chong are 1 & 2.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 23, 2017, 12:11:14 PM
Not surprising Cheech and Chong are 1 & 2.
I never understood placement, because Collins ranks as a lib and she's way down the list.
Quote from: Solar on March 23, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
I never understood placement, because Collins ranks as a lib and she's way down the list.
I am somewhat puzzled by the rankings as well. However, keep in mind we are dealing with RINO's.
Quote from: Solar on March 23, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
I never understood placement, because Collins ranks as a lib and she's way down the list.
The ranking 1 thru 25 does not coincide with their conservative scores. Graham, in top spot, has a Liberty Score of 30%, while Alexander, in 3rd, has a score of 15%. Collins, 11th, scores at 10%.
I do know that CR derives their Liberty Scores from voting records. The more often they vote with conservative values on a wide variety of issues, the higher their score. Thus Graham votes with conservative values about 30% of the time (hard to believe....) while Collins only 10% of the time.
Why, then, the ranking from 1-25 in that order? Well, here is how CR explains their ranking:
QuoteAt Conservative Review, we routinely mention that our federal elected officials not only have votes, they have a voice. A voice to fight for freedom and make the critical arguments that are so badly needed to advance conservative principles. A voice to draw attention to a shady deal or those with ill intentions who aim to consolidate power for themselves.
But that voice can also be used to undermine conservative outcomes. It's all too common for a "pragmatic" Republican to try to advance a bad deal or save failing liberal legislation. Past examples include the Gang of 8 amnesty bill, the Manchin-Schumer-Toomey gun control bill, the Wall Street bailout known as TARP, and basically any debt limit or massive omnibus spending bill from the last decade.
That's why Conservative Review compiled a list of the top 10 Republican members in Congress and the 25 worst Republicans in Congress. We didn't just examine each elected official's Liberty Score®. We also looked at their role and behavior in the legislative process, both in public and behind the scenes.
Kind of makes sense. Graham and McCain are always out front explaining why conservatives just need to relax and give in to tyranny so we can all be happy. They manage to get by depending on longevity and name recognition to keep their seats. Collins is somewhat less likely to outright denigrate conservative values in public speaking and new conferences as her seat is not quite as secure against challengers. But consistently votes against them, relying on the fact that few people bother looking at voting records.
Quote from: zewazir on March 23, 2017, 12:54:46 PM
The ranking 1 thru 25 does not coincide with their conservative scores. Graham, in top spot, has a Liberty Score of 30%, while Alexander, in 3rd, has a score of 15%. Collins, 11th, scores at 10%.
I do know that CR derives their Liberty Scores from voting records. The more often they vote with conservative values on a wide variety of issues, the higher their score. Thus Graham votes with conservative values about 30% of the time (hard to believe....) while Collins only 10% of the time.
Why, then, the ranking from 1-25 in that order? Well, here is how CR explains their ranking:Kind of makes sense. Graham and McCain are always out front explaining why conservatives just need to relax and give in to tyranny so we can all be happy. They manage to get by depending on longevity and name recognition to keep their seats. Collins is somewhat less likely to outright denigrate conservative values in public speaking and new conferences as her seat is not quite as secure against challengers. But consistently votes against them, relying on the fact that few people bother looking at voting records.
Well I'll be damned, and it makes total sense with the traitors leading the list. :thumbup: