keepthefaith Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 What about Breyer? He's getting close to 80. Don't these people have something better to do in their last lucid years?
Nanker Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 What about Breyer? He's getting close to 80. Don't these people have something better to do in their last lucid years? Nope. They just hang on circling the drain.
boyst Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 What about Breyer? He's getting close to 80. Don't these people have something better to do in their last lucid years? this is a major issue in surpreme nominations. You have to get your political side in and ensure they'll be able to stay a while. Which is why Obama went so young and dumb There should be a cut off. 80 years old and you have to step down?
boyst Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article135280594.html if gorsuch is in place by the time this reaches scotus than we will get a great chance to see what he's about. WASHINGTON Supreme Court justices on Monday cast doubt on a North Carolina law that bans registered sex offenders from using Facebook and other online social media. Through their questions and statements, justices repeatedly voiced skepticism about the 2008 law now being challenged by Durham, North Carolina, resident and convicted sex offender Lester G. Packingham Jr. A majority appeared ready to rule against the law. “Does it limit free speech?” Justice Stephen Breyer asked rhetorically. “Dramatically,” he said. Justice Elena Kagan was even more pointed, as she hammered North Carolina Senior Deputy Attorney General Robert C. Montgomery with observations about the omnipresence of social media in modern society. “Everybody uses Twitter,” Kagan noted. “This has become a crucially important channel of political communication.” Under North Carolina’s law, Kagan added, a registered sex offender “cannot go on the president’s Twitter account to see what the president is saying today.” The North Carolina law forbids registered sex offenders from accessing “commercial social networking websites” that permit minors to become members. The law specifies what it means by “social networking,” to cover sites that allow communication among users and allow creation of profiles that can include photos or names, among other requirements. Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article135280594.html#storylink=cpy Edited February 27, 2017 by Boyst62
Nanker Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 Kagan. She's the one who never was a judge before B. O. paid her off for shredding his graduate school transcripts with this seat.
boyst Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Kagan. She's the one who never was a judge before B. O. paid her off for shredding his graduate school transcripts with this seat. lest anyone forget the twist of this is that it was Roy Coopers baby. The same one vehemently against HB2 and railing for liberty for all and the travesty of trannies. He and the state have done wonderful jobs in whitewashing that detail.
B-Man Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 Libs threaten .................. "A Democrat that votes for cloture on Gorsuch is a Democrat voting to overturn Roe... This is absolutely a fight they should be fighting and that we will hold them accountable if they don’t fight it." A quote from an article at The Hill about threats to primary Senate Democrats who don't fight the Gorsuch confirmation.
B-Man Posted March 14, 2017 Posted March 14, 2017 Politico: Senate Dems “paralyzed” over Gorsuch confirmation
B-Man Posted March 15, 2017 Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) Today’s Associated Press article on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch illustrates the fact that when it comes to judicial matters, most reporters have no idea what they are talking about. The headline is: “Gorsuch’s environment record: Neither a clear friend nor foe.” I should hope not! The role of a judge is not to be a “friend” or “foe” of the environment. It is to apply the facts of the case before him to the laws that Congress (or a state legislature) has enacted. Does the Associated Press really not understand this? Edited March 15, 2017 by B-Man
Nanker Posted March 15, 2017 Author Posted March 15, 2017 Of course not. Or should that be of coarse knot? Don't ya get it man? A Supreme Court Justice is like a superhero. They're invincible and have super powers. They're all that stands in the way to protect us from all of the harm in the world. Like pollution, and low wages, and people trying to take away our free stuff, and making us pay back our student loans.
B-Man Posted March 15, 2017 Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) OH, WELL WHEN YOU PUT IT THAT WAY… This is a silly smear effort, even for the New York Times. The first three grafs really do amount to nothing more than “lawyer did lawyering and speaking gigs for guy who can afford to pay lawyers for lawyering and speaking gigs.” The fourth graf is when we get to the really juicy stuff — Gorsuch’s radical, offensive, and possibly racist statement at one of those speaking gigs: If this is the best they’ve got, Senate Democrats would be insane to risk losing the filibuster trying to block Gorsuch. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/259815/ Edited March 15, 2017 by B-Man
B-Man Posted March 16, 2017 Posted March 16, 2017 Chuck Schumer Knows His Attack on Neil Gorsuch Is a FraudRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445795/neil-gorsuch-chuck-schumer-attack-misrepresents-supreme-court-justices-role
B-Man Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 LOL..................it's the only playbook they have......... NBC, CBS: ‘Ugly’ Hearing for Gorsuch as Dems Label Him ‘Extreme'
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2017 Posted March 20, 2017 LOL..................it's the only playbook they have......... NBC, CBS: ‘Ugly’ Hearing for Gorsuch as Dems Label Him ‘Extreme' The Democrats consider any literal interpretation of the law that doesn't account for people's feelings "extreme."
Nanker Posted March 21, 2017 Author Posted March 21, 2017 Been watching his hearing much of the day. He's dry, but even tempered, and it's evident he's eminently qualified for the bench.
boyst Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 How the hell did Al Franken become a senator? minnesota.
B-Man Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) How the hell did Al Franken become a senator? Voter fraud. MSNBC Frets Democrats Haven’t ‘Laid a Glove’ on Gorsuch on the other hand.......... Giddy CNN Swoons Dems Are Giving ‘Testier’ Gorsuch ‘Run for His Money' Perplexed Totenberg: Gorsuch ‘Respected,’ Yet ‘Very Conservative'...................How can that be ?? DIANE FEINSTEIN TRIES TO EMBARASSES GORSUCH, EMBARASSES SELF INSTEAD: Polite, soft-spoken, in command of the facts — a wise white dude, you might say. Edited March 21, 2017 by B-Man
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 I like him... If I was going to turn the "evil corner" & become a Republican... I would be a Gorsuch type. A lot of old school ideals... Lives conservative, can think independently. I think you will find him move center left, but not too far crazy left... Just enough to follow his upbringing.
meazza Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 I like him... If I was going to turn the "evil corner" & become a Republican... I would be a Gorsuch type. A lot of old school ideals... Lives conservative, can think independently. I think you will find him move center left, but not too far crazy left... Just enough to follow his upbringing. It has nothing to do with him being left or right, he is there to interpret the law which he has argued faithfully today.
Recommended Posts