Neil Gorsuch - Nominee to the Supreme Court

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'm shocked to discover that, in not citing secondary sources that referenced the same primary sources I've used, I've apparently plagiarized every damn thing I've ever written.

 

I could have told you that back in 2002. But you were on vacation when I joined.

 

:-P

[Doc Brown]

Republicans and Democrats in Congress over whole Garland/Gorsich thing and the hypocrisy involved by both sides.

 

[grinreaper]

From CNN to MSNBC to the LA Times and most especially the New York Times…Everyone in the Democratic Party and their allies in the media thought it was a great idea to use Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” as a means to confirm liberal Supreme Court Justices…until now. Mitch McConnell warned the Democrats that their “nuclear option” would come back to bite them, but they didn’t listen. Hey Dems…can you hear us now?

With Senate Republicans poised to use the “nuclear option” to confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, will the liberal media hypocritically accuse them of a power grab? In 2013, when then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did basically the same thing, he was cheered on in the studios of MSNBC and CNN.

Back then MSNBC’s Chris Hayes hailed it as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Rachel Maddow blurted “This is a huge freaking deal. This is like 3-inch headlines. This is like people who don’t even care about politics really ought to care about this.”

Over on CNN, political analyst Paul Begala hailed the nakedly partisan maneuver by Reid as necessary, whining that Republicans had “so abused” the filibuster that Democrats “can’t take it anymore.” And Begala’s colleague Ron Brownstein approved of Reid’s decision as a forward-thinking move: “The idea of requiring a super majority for the president to appoint his nominees just is anachronistic.”

But the cable network news hosts and analysts weren’t the only ones championing the nuclear option. On the pages of the Los Angeles Times, Reid’s move was celebrated in a November 22 editorial “Democrats bust the filibuster, and good for them.”

The Times editorial board crowed: “We welcome this action not because it represents a comeuppance for arrogant Republicans but because filibustering presidential nominees is undemocratic and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, which says that the president shall appoint judges and other officials ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’ — not by and with a supermajority of the Senate.” The Times went on to call it “a victory not just for the Democrats but for good government.”

 

http://100percentfedup.com/flashback-video-shows-leftist-media-members-praising-use-of-nuclear-option-to-confirm-liberal-supreme-court-justices/

[DC Tom]

From CNN to MSNBC to the LA Times and most especially the New York Times…Everyone in the Democratic Party and their allies in the media thought it was a great idea to use Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” as a means to confirm liberal Supreme Court Justices…until now. Mitch McConnell warned the Democrats that their “nuclear option” would come back to bite them, but they didn’t listen. Hey Dems…can you hear us now?

With Senate Republicans poised to use the “nuclear option” to confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, will the liberal media hypocritically accuse them of a power grab? In 2013, when then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did basically the same thing, he was cheered on in the studios of MSNBC and CNN.

Back then MSNBC’s Chris Hayes hailed it as “an affirmative win for democracy,” while his colleague Rachel Maddow blurted “This is a huge freaking deal. This is like 3-inch headlines. This is like people who don’t even care about politics really ought to care about this.”

Over on CNN, political analyst Paul Begala hailed the nakedly partisan maneuver by Reid as necessary, whining that Republicans had “so abused” the filibuster that Democrats “can’t take it anymore.” And Begala’s colleague Ron Brownstein approved of Reid’s decision as a forward-thinking move: “The idea of requiring a super majority for the president to appoint his nominees just is anachronistic.”

But the cable network news hosts and analysts weren’t the only ones championing the nuclear option. On the pages of the Los Angeles Times, Reid’s move was celebrated in a November 22 editorial “Democrats bust the filibuster, and good for them.”

The Times editorial board crowed: “We welcome this action not because it represents a comeuppance for arrogant Republicans but because filibustering presidential nominees is undemocratic and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, which says that the president shall appoint judges and other officials ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’ — not by and with a supermajority of the Senate.” The Times went on to call it “a victory not just for the Democrats but for good government.”

 

http://100percentfedup.com/flashback-video-shows-leftist-media-members-praising-use-of-nuclear-option-to-confirm-liberal-supreme-court-justices/

 

 

Take every single quote from the Democrats and the media on the subject, and use it when you announce the nuclear option, Mitch.

[grinreaper]

 

Take every single quote from the Democrats and the media on the subject, and use it when you announce the nuclear option, Mitch.

The name on that should be the Harry Reid Memorial Option.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What were the vote counts for liberal justices?

 

Ginsburg? 96-3

Sotomayor? 68-31

Kagan? 63-37

 

Yep... Very nuclear...

[row_33]

The idea is to advise and consent as a loyal opposition. Gameplaying like this over a flawless candidate is going to be paid back ten-fold.

[Doc]

AS RANDY BARNETT SAYS, you know what Republicans didn’t do to Merrick Garland? This:

 

“Surprise, surprise. Another desperate 11th-hour smear, something that appears to have become a rite of passage for Republican Supreme Court nominees.

 

Someone (David Brock, call your office?) is shopping around to news outlets baseless claims that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch committed acts of plagiarism in four passages in his 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Multiple academics who have reviewed the charges—including one of Gorsuch’s imagined victims—have rejected those claims,

 

Well, that would make him qualified to be VP.

[reddogblitz]

Well, that would make him qualified to be VP.

 

And first lady.

[GG]

And first lady.

 

And just six months ago, we were told that being First Lady entitles somebody to be ultimately qualified to be POTUS.

[B-Man]

Senate Is Expected to Vote to End Supreme Court Filibuster.

 

The first procedural vote on Judge Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, is expected Thursday morning—a vote where the GOP is expected to fall short. As a result, Senate Republicans are expected to use a procedural motion that would eliminate the filibuster for this and future Supreme Court nominations—expanding on changes that Democrats initiated in 2013.

 

“Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed to the Supreme Court this week. It is unfortunate that we may have [to] break longstanding precedent to do so, but Senate Democrats’ actions are to blame for that,” said Sen. John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican.

 

 

 

Go Reid or go home.

[Keukasmallies]

Just one more reason why term limits are the only answer to the current logjam at several levels of government in the USA.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just one more reason why term limits are the only answer to the current logjam at several levels of government in the USA.

Incorrect. As I just posted in another thread, the fix is the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

[Keukasmallies]

Incorrect. As I just posted in another thread, the fix is the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

 

 

Incorrect. As I just posted, the fix is term limits.

 

Seting the stage for a who-can-piss-farther imbroglio....

Edited April 6, 2017 by Keukasmallies

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Incorrect. As I just posted, the fix is term limits.

 

Seting the stage for a who-can-piss-farther imbroglio....

I'm not opposed to term limits, but don't believe they fix this problem. Senators would still be elected by their party's base.

 

You'd still wind up with the exact same type of candidate, you'd just have more turnover of the exact same type of candidate.

[boyst]

Incorrect. As I just posted in another thread, the fix is the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

repeal the 19th

[TakeYouToTasker]

repeal the 19th

Why? What do you have against women's suffering?

[boyst]

Why? What do you have against women's suffering?

too many have had to date me. That's been enough.

 

But seriously, its fun to talk to these educated women and pose the question of the validity of the 19th without gender assignment or even mentioning women. They agree its bad.

[Doc Brown]

What were the vote counts for liberal justices?

 

Ginsburg? 96-3

Sotomayor? 68-31

Kagan? 63-37

 

Yep... Very nuclear...

 

There's a lot of pressure from the Democratic Senators base to filibuster this pick as they still feel this is a stolen seat from Garland. Also, their base have always accused Democrats of being tepid compared to Republicans so maybe they want to show strength. I think it's a stupid move by them, but that's what they're thinking.

[Benjamin Franklin]

America loses today.

 

Thanks both Dems and Reps.

 

Tenure lives in Comgress.