Gorsuch confirmation hearings

[Rightguide]

Nine best Democratic attacks on Gorsuch (and one defense).

The real problem, Democrats want judges to be democrat legislators to advance agenda items they can't achieve politically.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The real problem, Democrats want judges to be democrat legislators to advance agenda items they can't achieve politically.

No, it is that Democrats don't want an originalist on the bench, nor should they or anyone.

 

[Rightguide]

No, it is that Democrats don't want an originalist on the bench, nor should they or anyone.

Because they don't believe in law they can't bend to their agenda. They are essentially lawless, as Obama clearly demonstrated. They are a destructive force to the social compact and constitutional order of the nation.

 

[Rightguide]

I probably could have written Gorsuch's answers. They all say they're going to go strictly by the law, and then a few years later you see them ruling that a business can have a religious belief.

Where does it say a person or persons going into business forego their protections under the Bill of Rights?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Please cite the governing rules that supported and allowed the stonewalling of Garland.

He didn't even make it to committee hearings.

Try again.

What governing law/rule did they use justify/allow to not convene committee hearings?

Rule XXVI (Committee Procedure). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-28.pdf

Knock yourself out. Oh, and I suggest you carefully read paragraph 3 of that rule wherein any three members of a committee can file for a special meeting OF the committee and the ensuing procedure IF the committee chairman fails to schedule such a meeting within three days.

Oh, hell, let me spoil the suspense for you.

A MAJORITY of committee members can actually act in lieu of the chairman's failure to act and schedule and convene the special meeting on their own collective authority. Of course, ANY political party in either House of Congress ALWAYS assigns committee membership so that it has a numerical majority of its members on every committee, so the possibility of a MAJORITY of committee members acting against the policy of the committee chairman who doubtlessly is a member of their own party is pretty damn remote. Not impossible, just damn remote.

Therefore, any three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee could have called for a "special committee meeting" to hear testimony on the qualifications of Judge Garland and Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) could have ignored their request, and there the matter would have died unless a majority of Judiciary Committee members had exercised their option under Rule XXVI (3).

Happy now?

Please list an instance where that was applied, where a SCOTUS nominee didn't make it to committee and a seat went unfilled prior to the republicans in 2016 with Garland.

Ridiculous.

You must have missed this post. After all, it was a full 10 hours ago.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=84505137&postcount=12

Here's a tip. Don't fuck with me, cupcake, by issuing legal or factual challenges that you don't know the first damn thing about. Because all I will do is research those facts and either admit to the accuracy of your allegations or, FAR MORE LIKELY it would appear, expose your ignorance with unmitigated glee and contempt.

Have an otherwise outstanding day.

 

[Rightguide]

Doesn't matter. There's always a first time for everything under the sin.

At least they didn't Bork a perfectly good man or hold hearings that were focused on porn and pubic hairs....

The Constitution doesn't require the Senate to consider a SC nominee. Only that he/she must be confirmed before taking the bench.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No, it is that Democrats don't want an originalist on the bench, nor should they or anyone.

Hang in there. Maybe one day you can successfully litigate what a majority of Americans SHOULD feel and do and actually OUTLAW the seating of federal judges with an "originalist" judicial philosophy.

Because "saving" a majority of people from their opinions SHOULD OBVIOUSLY be subordinate to your own.

What a consummate dickhead.

 

[Rightguide]

Wonder how many Democrats soiled their undies when Gorsuch said the Heller decision is "the law of the land."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Wonder how many Democrats soiled their undies when Gorsuch said the Heller decision is "the law of the land."

Substantially less than if he is asked a similar question about Roe v. Wade AND he accurately answers that Roe irrefutably endorsed BOTH the right of a woman to an abortion AND the state's legitimate interest in protecting potential life represented by an unborn fetus.

Wait until THAT shit hits the fan.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Substantially less than if he is asked a similar question about Roe v. Wade AND he accurately answers that Roe irrefutably endorsed BOTH the right of a woman to an abortion AND the state's legitimate interest in protecting potential life represented by an unborn fetus.

Wait until THAT shit hits the fan.

It's not a new or strange concept. Feticide (e.g., beating a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry) has long been recognized as a crime.

 

[Rightguide]

Substantially less than if he is asked a similar question about Roe v. Wade AND he accurately answers that Roe irrefutably endorsed BOTH the right of a woman to an abortion AND the state's legitimate interest in protecting potential life represented by an unborn fetus.

Wait until THAT shit hits the fan.

It will be a brutal sight to behold. LOL

 

[Rightguide]

No, it is that Democrats don't want an originalist on the bench, nor should they or anyone.

Are you watching the hearings? The Democrats are being crushed by a superior intellect.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's not a new or strange concept. Feticide (e.g., beating a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry) has long been recognized as a crime.

Of course it is not a new concept. It is IN FACT a concept whose legitimacy was endorsed by the Supreme Court in the very landmark case that recognized a woman's limited right to an abortion. However, most discussions of Roe, particularly by its proponents, fail to acknowledge that such limitations exist at all.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Of course it is not a new concept. It is IN FACT a concept whose legitimacy was endorsed by the Supreme Court in the very landmark case that recognized a woman's limited right to an abortion. However, most discussions of Roe, particularly by its proponents, fail to acknowledge that such limitations exist at all.

It simply means a woman can choose to abort her fetus but no one else can.

 

[KingOrfeo]

This I can promise you: If the Dems win the Senate and a vacancy opens on the Court, no Trump nominee will get a hearing, and the Pubs will be in no credible position to object.

 

[Rightguide]

This I can promise you: If the Dems win the Senate and a vacancy opens on the Court, no Trump nominee will get a hearing, and the Pubs will be in no credible position to object.

We should do away with the 60 vote cloture rule altogether. After all, we all know the Democrats will never return a consideration extended by the Republicans if they return to power in the Senate. So why pretend?

 

[phrodeau]

We should do away with the 60 vote cloture rule altogether. After all, we all know the Democrats will never return a consideration extended by the Republicans if they return to power in the Senate. So why pretend?

It isn't up to us. Congress makes up the rules as they go along.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It simply means a woman can choose to abort her fetus but no one else can.

NO! It most "simply" is NOT that simple. The state's legitimate interest in protecting potential life ALSO, irrefutably serves to LIMIT a woman's right to an abortion.

If you don't believe me read the fucking opinion. You know, for just once in your life.

 

[lovecraft68]

what's the point? Trump will put him in if he has to fire the senate to do it.

 

[james_1957]

Rule XXVI (Committee Procedure). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-28.pdf

Knock yourself out. Oh, and I suggest you carefully read paragraph 3 of that rule wherein any three members of a committee can file for a special meeting OF the committee and the ensuing procedure IF the committee chairman fails to schedule such a meeting within three days.

Oh, hell, let me spoil the suspense for you.

A MAJORITY of committee members can actually act in lieu of the chairman's failure to act and schedule and convene the special meeting on their own collective authority. Of course, ANY political party in either House of Congress ALWAYS assigns committee membership so that it has a numerical majority of its members on every committee, so the possibility of a MAJORITY of committee members acting against the policy of the committee chairman who doubtlessly is a member of their own party is pretty damn remote. Not impossible, just damn remote.

Therefore, any three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee could have called for a "special committee meeting" to hear testimony on the qualifications of Judge Garland and Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) could have ignored their request, and there the matter would have died unless a majority of Judiciary Committee members had exercised their option under Rule XXVI (3).

Happy now?



You must have missed this post. After all, it was a full 10 hours ago.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=84505137&postcount=12

Here's a tip. Don't fuck with me, cupcake, by issuing legal or factual challenges that you don't know the first damn thing about. Because all I will do is research those facts and either admit to the accuracy of your allegations or, FAR MORE LIKELY it would appear, expose your ignorance with unmitigated glee and contempt.

Have an otherwise outstanding day.

"Don't fuck with me, cupcake?"

Whatever happened to, "Just the facts, Ma'am."

That sound you hear is Joe Friday spinning in his grave.

 

[james_1957]

NO! It most "simply" is NOT that simple. The state's legitimate interest in protecting potential life ALSO, irrefutably serves to LIMIT a woman's right to an abortion.

If you don't believe me read the fucking opinion. You know, for just once in your life.

"If you don't believe me read the fucking opinion?"

Poor, Colonel Hogan.

So much anger, so much pain.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

"Don't fuck with me, cupcake?"

Whatever happened to, "Just the facts, Ma'am."

That sound you hear is Joe Friday spinning in his grave.

You're not wrong, but I get testy with people who pretend they know shit and they don't even do the minimal research to support their less than half-baked opinions. But it doesn't hinder their outrage in the least. So it invariably triggers mine.

But.....you're not wrong.

 

[doowdniw]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...01b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.2ac0ba89253d

I'd be more concerned with Trump's diet than hers. The guy is an atherosclerotic time bomb.

 

[Wrong Element]

We should do away with the 60 vote cloture rule altogether. After all, we all know the Democrats will never return a consideration extended by the Republicans if they return to power in the Senate. So why pretend?

"Consideration."

 

[KingOrfeo]

We should do away with the 60 vote cloture rule altogether. After all, we all know the Democrats will never return a consideration extended by the Republicans if they return to power in the Senate. So why pretend?

The filibuster was always a bad idea anyway. I've always supported its abolition no matter which party controlled the Senate.