Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on January 24, 2017, 10:41:55 AM
-
Announcement (and fight) coming soon.
Examining the top contenders on Trump's Supreme Court list
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Tue January 24, 2017
Judges Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman have joined William Pryor and Diane Sykes at the top of Trump's list
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump has made clear he's winnowed down his list of potential Supreme Court nominees -- and may be days away from making the announcement.
Trump himself said on the campaign trail that he would look at judges William Pryor and Diane Sykes as top contenders, and has touted his list of 20 possible choices from conservative legal circles. Sources close to the search say as things stand now, Judge Neil Gorsuch has emerged on top of the list as well as Judge Thomas Hardiman.
The President will discuss the Supreme Court vacancy Tuesday afternoon with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, McConnell announced.
"I appreciate the President soliciting our advice on this important matter," McConnell said.
However, Trump may have already made his choice.
"I think in my mind I know who it is," Trump said during a luncheon at his hotel Thursday with Republicans, according to cell phone video of the event obtained by CNN. "I think you're going to be very, very excited."
In recent weeks, the search has intensified as lawyers and outside groups have joined the effort pouring through legal briefs, opinions, articles and congressional transcripts.
The decision will all come down to a calculation by top staff weighing the judge and the current court against a series of factors including his or her record, age and background.
A look at four of those on the top of the list reveal arguments that Trump will weigh both for and against.
William Pryor
Trump knows, for example, that if he picks Pryor, he is asking for a fight with Senate Democrats. Pryor sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and he is a dream candidate for many conservatives. He's called Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, an "abomination." He's a committed member of the Federalist Society, and in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, believes that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning.
"I am a conservative, and I believe in the strict separation of governmental powers," Pryor wrote in 1997 when he was attorney general of Alabama. "Courts should not resolve political problems."
Pryor has faced the Senate gauntlet before.
In 2004, Democrats blocked his confirmation to the appellate court, and it was only in June 2005 that he was officially confirmed by a vote of 53-45.
But despite Pryor's record, some conservatives have questioned an opinion he joined that they perceive as expanding transgender rights.
Neil Gorsuch
Gorsuch, who sits on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Colorado, has never called Roe an abomination. In fact, he's never had the occasion to write an opinion addressing Roe.
That might disappoint some who want to make sure that he wouldn't surprise them on the issue.
But he's become a favored candidate in part because of his opinions on religious liberty including one he joined siding with closely held corporations who believed that the so-called contraceptive mandate of Obamacare violated their religious beliefs.
And on more than one occasion, he's aligned himself with Scalia. In the weeks after Scalia's death last year, Gorsuch gave a talk emphasizing that "the great project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators."
Trump might conclude that Gorsuch could sidestep a major fight in Congress.
Or not. Liberals are still seething mad that Republican senators failed to hold hearings for former President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, and could take it out on Gorsuch, or anyone else Trump picks.
"Those of us who believe that Merrick Garland was improperly denied a vote and also recognize that the majority of the American people voted for Hillary Clinton are going to refuse a nominee who moves the court in such a a right wing direction," said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Constitution Society. It is unclear if progressives would accept any of Trump's nominees that have been a part of his current list.
Diane Sykes
Sykes hails from Wisconsin, a critical state during the last election and home to Trump's Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
A former journalist, she flexed her interviewing skills in 2013 by sitting down with Justice Clarence Thomas for a talk to discuss his jurisprudence. She won over the room during the event -- hosted by the Federalist Society -- for showcasing Thomas' personality in an interview that at times brought down the house.
Just last week Sykes issued an opinion striking three provisions of Chicago regulations meant to govern shooting ranges. It was a follow up opinion from one she penned in 2011 that enjoined Chicago's ban on firing ranges within city limits. Both opinions are peppered with references to Scalia's landmark Second Amendment opinion, District of Columbia v. Heller.
Sykes would bring another woman to the Court. She would be the fifth woman ever named, the second from a Republican candidate. But Trump could calculate that it would make more sense to save her for the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should she ever retire.
Sykes is also 59 years old, and some court watchers think that Trump might prefer someone younger.
Thomas Hardiman
Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, is almost a decade younger at 51 and offers Trump a compelling personal story.
Hardiman hails from a blue collar family in Massachusetts and was the first in his family to graduate from college, driving a cab to help pay his bills. Hardiman is not product of the Ivy League having attended Notre Dame and Georgetown.
Those close to him think that Trump might appreciate Hardiman's dry wit and the fact that while he is persuasive he doesn't take over a room.
Like Sykes, Hardiman referred to Heller several times in a dissent he penned in 2013 in a case concerning gun licenses.
The opposition of Hardiman has been relatively muted and Ian Millhiser of the progressive Think Progress has written that he is "one of the more ideologically enigmatic names on Trump's list." Such a sentiment could scare away conservatives who do not want a dark horse candidate.
Conservatives believe that George H.W. Bush missed an opportunity to shape the court when he named a relative unknown -- David Souter -- to the bench. Rather than helping create a conservative legacy, Souter became a reliable vote for the left. Some might question whether Hardiman has a robust enough record to scour and get Republicans excited.
If Trump needed a personal reference, however, he'd only need to reach out to his sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who sits on the same appellate bench.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-supreme-court-nomination-search/index.html
-
Trump set to make Supreme Court choice this week, short list down to three
By Bill Mears
Published January 24, 2017
FoxNews.com
After an 11-month political standstill on filling the Supreme Court vacancy, the wait may be worth it for conservative activists eager to see President Trump choose a like-minded nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
According to Trump, the decision is coming soon.
"I'll be making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week," Trump said, after meeting Tuesday with Senate leaders from both parties to discuss the vacancy. "We'll pick a truly great Supreme Court justice."
This, as sources close to the selection process tell Fox News the list of possible candidates is now down to three names, all of them federal appeals court judges: Judge William Pryor in Alabama, Judge Neil Gorsuch in Colorado, and Judge Thomas Hardiman in Pennsylvania.
Trump has met personally with all three, sources say.
Trump said at a press conference last week before he took office that a decision would come within two weeks of his being sworn in. Press Secretary Sean Spicer reinforced that rough timeline on Monday, saying the nomination remains a "priority."
The three judges in play were all on the original list of 21 candidates Trump announced as a presidential candidate last year, and supporters tout their conservative credentials:
-- Judge William Pryor, who sits on the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Birmingham, Ala.
Pryor is close to Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions, the Alabama senator. Born in 1962, he was initially given a recess appointment to the appeals court. Senate Democrats then tried to block Pryor's subsequent nominations, citing his strong criticism of the Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to an abortion. He called it the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law."
-- Judge Neil Gorsuch, on the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Denver
Born 1967, he went to Harvard Law School, then clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He went into private practice in Washington before joining the Bush Justice Department. His mother is Anne Burford, the first female administrator at the EPA. Gorsuch wrote the book "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia."
His name has been rising in Trump's circle in recent weeks.
-- Judge Thomas Hardiman, 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, with chambers in Pittsburgh
Born 1965, he saw the Supreme Court affirm his 2010 ruling that a jail policy of strip-searching all those arrested does not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." Hardiman sits on the same court as Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who despite the family ties is not being considered for any high court vacancy.
The fact Hardiman did not attend an Ivy League school (as a Notre Dame undergrad and Georgetown Law grad) may appeal to Trump's populist leanings, as could the fact he drove a taxi to finance his education.
Three other federal appeals court judges touted by their supporters include Diane Sykes, based in Wisconsin, Judge Raymond Kethledge of Michigan and Raymond Gruender of Missouri.
All are appointees of George W. Bush, a sign that judicial picks can have a far-reaching impact years, even decades, after presidents leaving elected office. Federal judges serve for life, and seven of the eight current justices all served in lower federal appeals courts.
Some state supreme court justices are on Trump's broader list of 21, but sources say federal judges have a proven record of cases from which to vet, and the fact they have been through a congressional confirmation before is an advantage.
Trump's outreach with Senate leaders follows Vice President Pence's more low-key meeting with two moderate Democrats last week.
White House officials see Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana as key to ensuring a filibuster-proof majority to confirm what is sure to be a conservative choice.
"Today was really about talking about our legislative agenda, but also meeting with members of the Senate to get their input on the President's decision about filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court," Pence said after his meetings.
But Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he is prepared to fight.
"Let's see who they nominate," he said earlier this month. "If they're in the mainstream we'll give them a very careful look. If they're out of the mainstream we'll oppose them tooth and nail."
Feelings remain raw among many on the left, after President Obama's choice to replace Scalia languished without Senate action, part of a deliberate move by Republicans to wait out the president’s term. Judge Merrick Garland this month returned to his old job on the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court.
A go-slow approach could complicate the White House's goal of seating a justice by mid-April when the last oral arguments of the term would begin.
White House Counsel Don McGahn is leading the vetting process, with input from senior administration legal and political advisers, including Sessions. Outside conservative advisers include Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and Jim DeMint of the Heritage Foundation.
Sources close to the selection process did not rule out other names being added late in what has emerged as a fast-moving, dynamic process.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-set-to-make-supreme-court-choice-this-week-several-judges-on-short-list.html
-
Some excellent info posted here on this key issue coming up soon. Thanks!
I understand the basic reason(s) for those who are pro-life.
I happen to be pro-choice and don't think the law should get involved
with a woman's reproductive choices.
BUT, the republicans won big in this election and many of them are bible believing pro lifers.
So, it's to be expected Trump would pick a pro life judge.
-
I like this snippet pulled from the LA Times.
In Gorsuch, supporters see a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, as did the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
-
I like this snippet pulled from the LA Times.
In Gorsuch, supporters see a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, as did the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Here is the article:
Conservative Colorado judge emerges as a top contender to fill Scalia's Supreme Court seat
By David G. Savage
January 24, 2017 |Reporting from Washington
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a highly regarded conservative jurist best known for upholding religious liberty rights in the legal battles over Obamacare, has emerged as a leading contender for President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination.
Gorsuch, 49, was among 21 potential high court candidates circulated by Trump’s team during the campaign, but his stock has been rising lately as several admirers and supporters have been named to positions in the Trump administration.
He currently serves on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. A former clerk for Justice Byron White, also a Colorado native, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.
In Gorsuch, supporters see a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, as did the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Just as importantly, Gorsuch is seen as someone who might be more easily confirmed in the Senate. Unlike other appointees of President George W. Bush, Gorsuch won an easy Senate confirmation on a voice vote in 2006.
"He is very bright, well-respected and quite personable," said John Malcolm, a lawyer at the Heritage Foundation. "And there's no question he would not be as contentious as some others."
Until recently, the two top contenders for the first Supreme Court nomination by Trump were believed to be Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, who serves on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, and Judge Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, who serves on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court in Chicago. Trump mentioned them in a Republican debate after Scalia died.
Pryor appeared to have an edge because he is a protege of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for U.S. attorney general. Pryor has been an outspoken critic of abortion rights and gay rights, which won him admirers on the right, but also made him a target for liberals and Democrats. He once described the Roe vs. Wade decision as “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”
While attacks from liberals would be expected, Pryor has also drawn criticism from some activists on the right. In 2011, he signed on to an 11th Circuit opinion by liberal Judge Rosemary Barkett upholding a sex-discrimination complaint filed by a transgender state employee in Georgia. The worker was hired as a man but was fired after returning as a woman. In a 3-0 decision in Glenn vs. Brumby, the 11th Circuit concluded it is unconstitutional “sex-based discrimination” to fire a state employee “because of his or her gender nonconformity.”
Leonard Leo, an executive vice president of the Federalist Society and an advisor to the Trump team, said in a broadcast interview that Pryor was following legal precedents. But the decision has been cited by some on the right as grounds for opposing him.
Perhaps as a result, several other prominent conservative judges like Gorsuch are getting more attention.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that Democrats would fight hard to stop court nominees who were not “bipartisan and mainstream.”
Pryor’s past comments on abortion and gay rights would almost certainly fuel a confirmation fight. When President George W. Bush nominated him to the 11th Circuit in 2003, Democrats used the filibuster rule to block a vote. Bush then put him in the post temporarily through a recess appointment. He finally won confirmation on a 53-45 vote in 2005 as part of a bipartisan Senate deal led by the so-called Gang of 14.
By contrast, Gorsuch does not have a record of strident comments that would fuel a confirmation fight.
However, he knows firsthand the rough side of political battles. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was a conservative Colorado state legislator and a states’ rights advocate when President Reagan chose her in 1981 to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. She was soon caught up in battles with environmentalists and Democrats on Capitol Hill for allegedly going soft on polluters. She was held in contempt of Congress in 1983 for refusing to turn over documents.
She said she had followed the legal advice of the Justice Department. Nonetheless, she was forced to resign in 1983 because the White House saw her as a political distraction. She returned to Colorado and died in 2004.
Neil Gorsuch was educated at a prep school in Maryland and has degrees from Columbia University, Harvard Law School and Oxford University, where he earned a doctorate in legal philosophy.
His best-known opinions grew out of the dispute over the Obama administration’s regulation requiring employers to provide female employees with the full range of contraceptives as part of their health insurance.
Catholic groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor and the evangelical Christian family who owned the Hobby Lobby craft stores sued and sought a religious exemption from paying for contraceptives that they said could “destroy a fertilized human egg.”
Both cases ended up in the 10th Circuit, and Gorsuch voiced support for the religious claimants.
“All of us face the problem of complicity,” he wrote in the Hobby Lobby case. And government should not force people with “sincerely held religious beliefs” to be complicit in “conduct their religion teaches them to be gravely wrong.” The Supreme Court reached the same decision by a 5-4 vote in 2014.
Shortly before he became a judge, Gorsuch wrote a book for Princeton University Press, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” which reviewed the history and the legal arguments for and against permitting people to have help in ending their lives. He concluded arguing for “retaining the laws banning assisted suicide and euthanasia … based on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/
-
BUT, the republicans won big in this election and many of them are bible believing pro lifers.
Or they just simply believe in not murdering babies because it is disgusting.
-
Or they just simply believe in not murdering babies because it is disgusting.
Bingo.
-
Or they just simply believe in not murdering babies because it is disgusting.
I understand that point of view.
BUT, why are so many of them ALSO against many forms of contraception?
-
Bingo.
Question of legal abortion and Roe V Wade.
How does the SCOTUS over turn this, even with a majority of conservatives.
1. The SCOTUS is a court appeals. So, a person needs to commit an act , appeal the decision at each level and eventually get it heard in the highest court of appeals , the SCOTUS.
2. Plus, to bring a case, you need standing , or be directly involved.
Ok, here's my thinking.
When Roe V Wade was decided it gave the right of woman to have a legal abortion.
Right now, having an abortion, especially during the 1st trimester is legal.
It's also established that nobody can legally force a woman to have an abortion.
If a woman wants to get an abortion she does. If not, she doesn't.
According to the 14th amendment , the one person with legal standing on
having an abortion ( or not) is the pregnant woman.
Since nobody can legally force a woman to have an abortion, how
does the Supreme Ct even hear a case to overturn in?
-
I understand that point of view.
BUT, why are so many of them ALSO against many forms of contraception?
I don't know. Wish I did.
Human beings love to fuck, no shame in helping them not make unwanted babies that they can't or won't raise properly.
However, once you get pregnant it's not ok to chop the babies up and vacuum them out of your snatch.
-
I don't know. Wish I did.
Human beings love to fuck, no shame in helping them not make unwanted babies that they can't or won't raise properly.
However, once you get pregnant it's not ok to chop the babies up and vacuum them out of your snatch.
Irresponsible dirtballs, who make unwanted babies, that they can't or won't raise properly, should be forced to have abortions, because genetically that baby would be just as worthless as it garbage parents, so it is better to cut it out and throw it out, before it becomes a social burden, social problem, or a threat to society.
To improve the race, you cull the race of its lowest elements, by any means possible. Aborting garbage excuses for human beings is a plus to humanity.
-
Irresponsible dirtballs, who make unwanted babies, that they can't or won't raise properly, should be forced to have abortions, because genetically that baby would be just as worthless as it garbage parents, so it is better to cut it out and throw it out, before it becomes a social burden, social problem, or a threat to society.
To improve the race, you cull the race of its lowest elements, by any means possible. Aborting garbage excuses for human beings is a plus to humanity.
It's amazing that no one wants to post about abortion, when the the emotional claptrap is outed as nonsense, and the reality of the positive effects of abortion are clearly stated.
-
Where is Guliani in all of this? How did he just fade away?
-
It's amazing that no one wants to post about abortion, when the the emotional claptrap is outed as nonsense, and the reality of the positive effects of abortion are clearly stated.
Perhaps nobody is talking about it because that whole eugenics angle is stupid.
-
Trump says he's 'pretty much' made his decision on Supreme Court nominee
Published January 26, 2017
FoxNews.com
President Trump, in an extensive interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity set to air Thursday night, said he’s mostly made up his mind on a Supreme Court nominee.
“I have made my decision pretty much in my mind, yes. That's subject to change at the last moment, but I think this will be a great choice,” Trump said.
The cable exclusive interview with Trump will air Thursday night at 10 p.m. ET on Fox News’ “Hannity.”
The president addressed his Supreme Court pick deliberations after announcing he plans to unveil his choice next Thursday.
Fox News previously reported that Trump, according to sources, has narrowed down his short list to a handful of names, with Judge Neil Gorsuch in Colorado and Judge Thomas Hardiman in Pennsylvania thought to be at the top of the list.
Sources said Trump met personally with those judges, as well as Judge William Pryor in Alabama.
Trump, in the interview with Fox News, also ripped Democrats threatening to hold up his eventual nominee – and said he would want Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to use the so-called “nuclear option” if they filibuster.
“I would. We have obstructionists,” Trump said, complaining about Democrats’ treatment of other nominees, including Attorney General pick Jeff Sessions. The “nuclear option,” if pursued, would in this case allow majority Republicans to seek approval of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee with just a simple majority, as opposed to a 60-vote threshold.
Trump covered a range of other topics in the interview, including his goal of repealing and replacing ObamaCare. He called the program a “horror show” and a “disaster.”
“You don't have your doctor, you don’t have your plan, you have a 116 percent increase, like in Arizona, it's a disaster. It's going to be worse this year than it was last year,” he said. “… It doesn't work. And President Obama told me something that was, I thought, terrific. And I believe he means it. He said, if you came up with a better plan, and you could get a better plan approved, he would support it. And I actually believe he means it. I do believe we're going to have a much better plan, we're going to have a cheaper plan, I think it's going to be a lot less expensive.”
Trump also vowed to take on terror groups in his role as commander-in-chief, speaking in blunt terms about the threat they pose.
“We have evil that lurks around the corner without the uniforms. Ours is harder because the people we're going against they don't wear uniforms. They're sneaky, dirty rats and they blow people up in a shopping center and they blow people up in a church. These are bad people,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/26/trump-says-hes-pretty-much-made-his-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee.html
-
Perhaps nobody is talking about it because that whole eugenics angle is stupid.
Good breeding is stupid?
Tell that to agriculture. You want to get better crops and farm animals, you breed them for the good traits you want to get, and don't let the ones with bad traits breed at all.
Works for people too. Good breeding is all that eugenics is really.
-
Good breeding is stupid?
Tell that to agriculture. You want to get better crops and farm animals, you breed them for the good traits you want to get, and don't let the ones with bad traits breed at all.
Works for people too. Good breeding is all that eugenics is really.
Ridiculous comparison. People are not plants.
Killing babies that you don't believe are smart enough is immoral. And (like I previously said) stupid.
-
Ridiculous comparison. People are not plants.
Killing babies that you don't believe are smart enough is immoral. And (like I previously said) stupid.
People are animals, and we've been breeding animals for millenia.
Your sense of morality is flawed. Your "values" are weak.
Aborting defective and inferior fetuses is of huge benefit to society, and for the betterment of humanity.
Allowing those of low intelligence, and/or savage behavior to successfully breed, is a deficit to society and humanity in general.
Making abortion mandatory for welfare bums and illegal aliens, would bring nothing but good to our country.
Your moralistic clap-trap has done nothing but continually ruin, and bring down society, and hinder human progress.
You want all the garbage babies that are being born every day, instead of being cut out and thrown out, as the filthy garbage that they really are, then how about all you stupid anti-abortionists step up to the plate, and pay for all these garbage babies you claim to care so much about. Why should the taxpayers be handed the bill for the babies they didn't make, and don't want.? That's your hypocrisy.
-
People are animals, and we've been breeding animals for millenia.
Your sense of morality is flawed. Your "values" are weak.
Aborting defective and inferior fetuses is of huge benefit to society, and for the betterment of humanity.
Allowing those of low intelligence, and/or savage behavior to successfully breed, is a deficit to society and humanity in general.
Making abortion mandatory for welfare bums and illegal aliens, would bring nothing but good to our country.
Your moralistic clap-trap has done nothing but continually ruin, and bring down society, and hinder human progress.
You want all the garbage babies that are being born every day, instead of being cut out and thrown out, as the filthy garbage that they really are, then how about all you stupid anti-abortionists step up to the plate, and pay for all these garbage babies you claim to care so much about. Why should the taxpayers be handed the bill for the babies they didn't make, and don't want.? That's your hypocrisy.
No, people are not animals and should not be treated like animals.
Your views are isolated to a handful of dummies, but let me humor you for a minute. How exactly do we implement this form of eugenics? Forced abortions? What is the criteria for selecting those who will be forced to abort their babies?
-
Humans are animals, mammals in fact.
It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.
Shit excuses for human beings, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, for the sake of humanity's future.
If you want all the potential garbage babies to be born, then you pay for them, or shut your stupid mouth.
-
Humans are animals, mammals in fact.
It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.
Shit excuses for human beings, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, for the sake of humanity's future.
If you want all the potential garbage babies to be born, then you pay for them, or shut your stupid mouth.
Your mother should have been sterilized you piece of shit.
-
Your mother should have been sterilized you piece of shit.
Emotional response from a lower life form. Emotional "people" have no intelligence, nor self control.
-
Emotional response from a lower life form. Emotional "people" have no intelligence, nor self control.
It's your criteria dipshit. You said low IQ.
-
Humans are animals, mammals in fact.
It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.
Shit excuses for human beings, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, for the sake of humanity's future.
If you want all the potential garbage babies to be born, then you pay for them, or shut your stupid mouth.
Ok. So the class of people subject to forced abortions include: "known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert."
What is the IQ threshold?
What mental illnesses will be included?
Are all drugs included in the "drug addict" category? For example, everything from prescription drugs to cocaine?
Are all alcoholics included?
Which government agency will be responsible for enforcing these mandatory abortions?
-
Emotional response from a lower life form. Emotional "people" have no intelligence, nor self control.
The thing about people who are really intelligent is they don't have to tell people they are really intelligent. And they don't try and claim to be superior to anyone else. That's an intelligence hallmark.
-
The thing about people who are really intelligent is they don't have to tell people they are really intelligent. And they don't try and claim to be superior to anyone else. That's an intelligence hallmark.
Exactly! I was telling other people that they're not intelligent, including you.
Never said word one about my intelligence.
-
Ok. So the class of people subject to forced abortions include: "known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert."
What is the IQ threshold?
Answer: Triple digit.
What mental illnesses will be included?
Answer: All of them.
Are all drugs included in the "drug addict" category? For example, everything from prescription drugs to cocaine?
Answer: Mind altering drugs legal or illegal.
Are all alcoholics included?
Answer: Yes.
Which government agency will be responsible for enforcing these mandatory abortions?
Answer: All of them should be required to report irresponsible types, for abortion, and sterilization. In a few decades the numbers of low lives, will decline, because they won't be reproducing, and tax money won't be wasted on their social services, futile attempts to educate the uneducable, nor costs of policing the dirt balls, their court costs, and jail time. In short, we would create a better future for real human beings. It can be done!
-
Exactly! I was telling other people that they're not intelligent, including you.
Never said word one about my intelligence.
Yes, you claimed to be superior to entire classes of people.
One of the great things about my life is I get to interact with a lot of really intelligent people. That's partly why I know how highly intelligent people act and what they say (and don't say).
You don't impress me. You have a long way to go.
-
Yes, you claimed to be superior to entire classes of people.
One of the great things about my life is I get to interact with a lot of really intelligent people. That's partly why I know how highly intelligent people act and what they say (and don't say).
You don't impress me. You have a long way to go.
OK, so your cognitive abilities are severely lacking. Get you tubes tied. Thank you.
-
So anyone with an IQ of less 100 must have a forced abortion. What about men with less than a 100 IQ? Should there be forced sterilization?
And how do you account for emotional intelligence? There is no scale.
If all mental illnesses are included, that implicates a sizable number of people who suffer from depression. Who is going to be responsible for diagnosing all of these mental illnesses for the purposes of forced abortions?
Pain killers are mind altering drugs. Would people who suffer from and ultimately become addicted to opiates have to report to these abortion concentration camps too?
You realize that someone who drinks alcohol everyday can be an alcoholic? That includes people who have a glass or two of wine or beer every day.
All government agencies cannot be involved with determining IQ, diagnosing mental illness, and/or diagnosis substance abuse addiction. Tell me which agency specifically would handle this?
Also, I assume this would have to be a federal law, so it can apply to all 50 states. How would that kind of law read?
-
OK, so your cognitive abilities are severely lacking. Get you tubes tied. Thank you.
That's not even funny. If you're going to resort to insults, at least try and make them a little humorous.
-
That's not even funny. If you're going to resort to insults, at least try and make them a little humorous.
Very perceptive. No it's not funny.
-
So anyone with an IQ of less 100 must have a forced abortion. What about men with less than a 100 IQ? Should there be forced sterilization?
Answer: Yes.
And how do you account for emotional intelligence? There is no scale.
Answer: Emotional "inteligence" is an oxymoron.
If all mental illnesses are included, that implicates a sizable number of people who suffer from depression. Who is going to be responsible for diagnosing all of these mental illnesses for the purposes of forced abortions?
Answer: Social services are doing it now. Forced abortions and sterilizations, would prevent that cost in their future generations.
Pain killers are mind altering drugs. Would people who suffer from and ultimately become addicted to opiates have to report to these abortion concentration camps too?
Answer: Pain don't hurt! Tough it out. And, No concentration camps, just out patient clinics.
You realize that someone who drinks alcohol everyday can be an alcoholic? That includes people who have a glass or two of wine or beer every day.
Answer: No, it doesn't include social drinkers. A couple of glasses of wine or beer, has been proven to have some health benefits.
All government agencies cannot be involved with determining IQ, diagnosing mental illness, and/or diagnosis substance abuse addiction. Tell me which agency specifically would handle this?
Answer: All agencies could report them to social services for proper medical treatment.
Also, I assume this would have to be a federal law, so it can apply to all 50 states. How would that kind of law read?
Answer: In order to form a more perfect Union, we decree that dirt balls, should no longer be allowed reproduce, and continue to destroy society, by passing on their defective genetics. That they shall be sterilized, and given their government handouts, to live out their relatively worthless lives, without leaving behind anyone else, that society has to waste money on.
-
Very perceptive. No it's not funny.
Neither perceptive nor funny. Just dumb. And another thing about highly intelligent people: they don't quickly resort to insults.
-
Neither perceptive nor funny. Just dumb. And another thing about highly intelligent people: they don't quickly resort to insults.
You only prove that you know nothing about highly intelligent people, and are not one yourself.
-
Ok. So all men and women with an IQ of 100 should be sterilized, under penalty of prison. Have you ever been to the Holocaust Museum in DC? This is precisely the kind of thing Hilter was doing.
Sounds like you don't know what emotional intelligence is. It includes things like self-control, temperament, common sense, etc. I don't think there is a scale to measure these things. It's important, because someone can have a high IQ, but lack the ability to effectively lead or interact with people in social or work settings.
The only "social services" who deal with diagnosing depression are psychologists and psychiatrists. For example, a man or woman who went through a tough divorce might suffer from depression and need therapy. Those people would be a part of your abortion concentration camps and forced sterilization.
Telling people who suffer from chronic pain to "tough it out" is one of the most ignorant things you've said so far. Do you know anyone who has gone through chemo and radiation treatment for cancer? Are you in high school? Sounds like it.
I'm not talking about social drinkers. Alcoholics include people who drink every day. The eugenics police would have their hands full rounding up all of those people who have a drink in the privacy of their homes every day.
All government agencies on the federal level include the IRS, INS, SBA, FTC, FAA, etc. What the heck do those agencies have to do with determining IQ, diagnosing mental illness, and diagnosing substance abuse??
Your proposed federal law reads: "In order to form a more perfect Union, we decree that dirt balls, should no longer be allowed reproduce, and continue to destroy society, by passing on their defective genetics. That they shall be sterilized, and given their government handouts, to live out their relatively worthless lives, without leaving behind anyone else, that society has to waste money on."
You didn't include which federal agency is going to be responsible for rounding up these "dirt balls"? What happens to those who don't comply? Prison? Execution?
You're also going to have problems getting physicians to assist with forced sterilization.
-
You only prove that you know nothing about highly intelligent people, and are not one yourself.
Well you are correct: Never called myself highly intelligent. I'm just an average Joe. But I do know highly intelligent people when I see them. None of them talk like you.
-
Ok. So all men and women with an IQ of 100 should be sterilized, under penalty of prison. Have you ever been to the Holocaust Museum in DC? This is precisely the kind of thing Hilter was doing.
Answer: Not under penalty of prison. No sterilization, then no government entitlements. You want your freebies, then the deal is, we don't want your worthless offspring to have to take care of. They would have freedom of choice. Go work for living, and pay the way for you and your offspring, with no government aid whatever, or get your tubes tied, and get your government handouts, but don't burden society with your garbage babies. Stop with the Hitler horseshit already.
Sounds like you don't know what emotional intelligence is. It includes things like self-control, temperament, common sense, etc. I don't think there is a scale to measure these things. It's important, because someone can have a high IQ, but lack the ability to effectively lead or interact with people in social or work settings.
Answer: emotions are the antithesis of self-control, temperament, commonsense, and whatever non-intellectual etcs, you are referring to. How many emotional people are great leaders?
The only "social services" who deal with diagnosing depression are psychologists and psychiatrists. For example, a man or woman who went through a tough divorce might suffer from depression and need therapy. Those people would be a part of your abortion concentration camps and forced sterilization.
Answer: Social services recommends medical and psychological help for people all the time. Again these are out patient procedures, not concentration camps, and it is voluntary. Only the people bumming off the taxpayers, need to make the choice, and it's a simple choice: make your own way in the world, or get your tubes tied, to be eligible to get your government handouts. Either/or, not both.
Telling people who suffer from chronic pain to "tough it out" is one of the most ignorant things you've said so far. Do you know anyone who has gone through chemo and radiation treatment for cancer? Are you in high school? Sounds like it.
Answer: I've studied self-hypnosis, and I can reduce pain to zero, with the power of my mind. Maybe only super intelligent people can do that?
I'm not talking about social drinkers. Alcoholics include people who drink every day. The eugenics police would have their hands full rounding up all of those people who have a drink in the privacy of their homes every day.
Answer: Someone drinking alcohol, and not becoming a social problem, or a ward of the state, is fine.
All government agencies on the federal level include the IRS, INS, SBA, FTC, FAA, etc. What the heck do those agencies have to do with determining IQ, diagnosing mental illness, and diagnosing substance abuse??
Answer: Nothing! It's just you obfuscating an idea that you have emotional problems dealing with intelligently.
Your proposed federal law reads: "In order to form a more perfect Union, we decree that dirt balls, should no longer be allowed reproduce, and continue to destroy society, by passing on their defective genetics. That they shall be sterilized, and given their government handouts, to live out their relatively worthless lives, without leaving behind anyone else, that society has to waste money on."
You didn't include which federal agency is going to be responsible for rounding up these "dirt balls"? What happens to those who don't comply? Prison? Execution?
Answer: As I've been saying over and over, but you continually ignore, they get cut off from all government funding and services, and have to fend for themselves.
You're also going to have problems getting physicians to assist with forced sterilization.
Answer: No you're not. People choose to have their tubes tied all the time. Both males and females, in both cases to prevent having babies. It's not forced sterilization. It's their choice: tubes tied, or no government check. How don't you understand that? If you can't, then your not an average Joe, but an intellectually below average Joe. You demonize and name call something you disagree with, because you can't give one material argument against it, so your screech instead. Grow up! I giving you a solution to a major social problem, that you have no solution for. So, until you have one, STFU.
-
You cannot keep up with your own asinine eugenics fantasy. You didn't limit the "dirt balls" to people on public assistance. You included anyone with an IQ below 100, everyone suffering from mental illness (including things like depression), everyone who has a substance abuse problem, and all alcoholics. How are you going to force those people to be sterilized?
And yes, this is precisely what Hitler did. If you're ever in DC and want to educate yourself, go to the Holocaust Museum. You'll see your ideas on full display.
No, you clearly don't understand emotional intelligence. It is, among other things, the ability to control your emotions. Saying self-control, temperament, and common sense are the antithesis of emotions is pretty stupid. Emotions include all of those things. The point you are missing is someone can have a high IQ, but be unable to function in normal social settings. So, your eugenics fantasy has a gaping hole, because lots of people with an IQ over 100 have problems with emotional intelligence.
Wait. Those people who suffer chronic pain, including those who go through cancer treatment "can reduce pain to zero" through self-hypnosis? This is breaking news. Why hasn't the medical community jumped all over this?
So you are limiting your class of alcoholics from "all" to only those who become a social problem or "ward of the state." What the heck does that even mean? lol. How many alcoholics become a "ward of the state"?
You specifically said "all" government agencies would be responsible for enforcing your eugenics fantasy, without realizing that most of them would have nothing to do with putting all of these "dirt balls" in your eugenics concentration camps.
Again, your concentration camps will not be limited to people on public assistance. Which agency will be responsible for rounding up anyone with an IQ below 100, everyone suffering from mental illness (including things like depression), everyone who has a substance abuse problem, and all alcoholics (except those who are not a social problem or "wards of the state")?
Don't you understand your own stupid idea? You're going to force people to get sterilized, because it isn't limited to people on government assistance. So yes, you will have trouble getting physicians to perform forced sterilization.
-
You cannot keep up with your own asinine eugenics fantasy. You didn't limit the "dirt balls" to people on public assistance. You included anyone with an IQ below 100, everyone suffering from mental illness (including things like depression), everyone who has a substance abuse problem, and all alcoholics. How are you going to force those people to be sterilized?
And yes, this is precisely what Hitler did. If you're ever in DC and want to educate yourself, go to the Holocaust Museum. You'll see your ideas on full display.
No, you clearly don't understand emotional intelligence. It is, among other things, the ability to control your emotions. Saying self-control, temperament, and common sense are the antithesis of emotions is pretty stupid. Emotions include all of those things. The point you are missing is someone can have a high IQ, but be unable to function in normal social settings. So, your eugenics fantasy has a gaping hole, because lots of people with an IQ over 100 have problems with emotional intelligence.
Wait. Those people who suffer chronic pain, including those who go through cancer treatment "can reduce pain to zero" through self-hypnosis? This is breaking news. Why hasn't the medical community jumped all over this?
So you are limiting your class of alcoholics from "all" to only those who become a social problem or "ward of the state." What the heck does that even mean? lol. How many alcoholics become a "ward of the state"?
You specifically said "all" government agencies would be responsible for enforcing your eugenics fantasy, without realizing that most of them would have nothing to do with putting all of these "dirt balls" in your eugenics concentration camps.
Again, your concentration camps will not be limited to people on public assistance. Which agency will be responsible for rounding up anyone with an IQ below 100, everyone suffering from mental illness (including things like depression), everyone who has a substance abuse problem, and all alcoholics (except those who are not a social problem or "wards of the state")?
Don't you understand your own stupid idea? You're going to force people to get sterilized, because it isn't limited to people on government assistance. So yes, you will have trouble getting physicians to perform forced sterilization.
(https://media.tenor.co/images/54451401d52c0dd2fe9ee5752857d53c/raw)
-
You cannot keep up with your own asinine eugenics fantasy. You didn't limit the "dirt balls" to people on public assistance. You included anyone with an IQ below 100, everyone suffering from mental illness (including things like depression), everyone who has a substance abuse problem, and all alcoholics. How are you going to force those people to be sterilized?
Answer: If I didn't make it clear to you in this thread, initially, that it was a program to rid society of its parasites, who are living off the taxpayers, then I certainly did inform you of that fact repeatedly, later in this thread. And I've spelled that out in earlier threads that I know you've seen. You don't like the idea, because it clashed with your hypocritical morality, so you tried to avoid dealing with the facts that I presented, and just tried to smear me, with comparisons to Hitler, concentration camps, and prisons. When I've never posted anything of the kind.
And yes, this is precisely what Hitler did. If you're ever in DC and want to educate yourself, go to the Holocaust Museum. You'll see your ideas on full display.
Answer: Again, It has nothing to do with Hitler or the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the dirtball parasites reproducing generation, after generation of their low lives offspring, attacking society and draining more and more public resources, to the care and feeding of those dirt balls.
No, you clearly don't understand emotional intelligence. It is, among other things, the ability to control your emotions. Saying self-control, temperament, and common sense are the antithesis of emotions is pretty stupid. Emotions include all of those things. The point you are missing is someone can have a high IQ, but be unable to function in normal social settings. So, your eugenics fantasy has a gaping hole, because lots of people with an IQ over 100 have problems with emotional intelligence.
Answer: Self-control, temperament, and common sense are only achieved by eliminating emotional involvement in your thought processes. You can only control your emotions, by being more intellectual. Again, the term "Emotional intelligence" is an oxymoron.
Wait. Those people who suffer chronic pain, including those who go through cancer treatment "can reduce pain to zero" through self-hypnosis? This is breaking news. Why hasn't the medical community jumped all over this?
Answer: There is nothing new, nor mysterious, about it. The human mind can be trained to control pain. The medical "community" is all about making big profits selling drugs, not coming up with low cost ways of dealing with medical issues.
So you are limiting your class of alcoholics from "all" to only those who become a social problem or "ward of the state." What the heck does that even mean? lol. How many alcoholics become a "ward of the state"?
Answer: There are literally hundreds of thousands of alcoholics on disability, being paid by the taxpayers, to be drunks!
You specifically said "all" government agencies would be responsible for enforcing your eugenics fantasy, without realizing that most of them would have nothing to do with putting all of these "dirt balls" in your eugenics concentration camps.
Answer: I never mentioned concentration camps. You made that up because your weak mind couldn't come up with one rational argument against my suggestions for improving society, by eliminating the parasites, who are leeching off of the taxpayers, once and for all.
Again, your concentration camps will not be limited to people on public assistance. Which agency will be responsible for rounding up anyone with an IQ below 100, everyone suffering from mental illness (including things like depression), everyone who has a substance abuse problem, and all alcoholics (except those who are not a social problem or "wards of the state")?
Answer: Stop lying! If they are legally paying their way through life, for themselves, and their offspring, then fine. I don't care what they do. When they stick the taxpayers with all their bills, then they are dirt balls, and need to have their tubes tied, so that their defective genetics doesn't get passed on to another generation of dirt balls, to burden society again, and again, and again.
Don't you understand your own stupid idea? You're going to force people to get sterilized, because it isn't limited to people on government assistance. So yes, you will have trouble getting physicians to perform forced sterilization.
Answer: Again, stop lying. Don't put words in my mouth. It's voluntary, Take responsibility for your life, and those of your offspring, and get nothing from the taxpayers, or get your tubes tied, and get your government handouts. Their choice.
-
(https://media.tenor.co/images/54451401d52c0dd2fe9ee5752857d53c/raw)
:D
-
Lying? Listen you little turd, here is exactly what you said:
It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.
Note that you mentioned people "on welfare or any other government hand out program" as only one category. So no, your own stupid eugenics fantasy is not limited to people on welfare.
If you're not able to visit the Holocaust Museum, then when your high school semester is over I recommend either going to the library or just using Google to read about Hitler's eugenics program. It included the extermination of people who were below a certain IQ, didn't have the right facial features, physically disabled, were gay, etc. Your eugenics fantasy comes directly from Hitler's playbook.
Wrong again about emotional intelligence. Stop talking out of your rear end. It's impossible to eliminate emotional involvement in your thought process, unless you're a sociopath. I've recommended this book on the board several times, but Daniel Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ" is a great book. I doubt you will read it, but you could learn a lot, since you don't know squat about emotional intelligence (or IQ for that matter).
I see. The medical community is hiding this blockbuster news that self hypnosis can eliminate chronic pain. Someone with Rheumatoid arthritis just needs to be hypnotized and their pain will be gone. Same for cancer patients. This is amazing! And the rest of society is unaware of this groundbreaking method too. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Wait. Are you a 9/11 Troofer?
I'd like to read about this hundreds of thousands of alcoholics "on disability." Can you give me a link? And be sure to give me a link to those who are on the government dime, and not those who have disability insurance through their employers.
-
Lying? Listen you little turd, here is exactly what you said:
Note that you mentioned people "on welfare or any other government hand out program" as only one category. So no, your own stupid eugenics fantasy is not limited to people on welfare.
Answer: I did explain it to you. Your reading comprehension is small. Any yes I want criminals sterilized too, as their offspring are much more likely to be in their turn, criminals too.
If you're not able to visit the Holocaust Museum, then when your high school semester is over I recommend either going to the library or just using Google to read about Hitler's eugenics program. It included the extermination of people who were below a certain IQ, didn't have the right facial features, physically disabled, were gay, etc. Your eugenics fantasy comes directly from Hitler's playbook.
Answer: Keep lying, if it makes you feel better, but it won't make it true.
Wrong again about emotional intelligence. Stop talking out of your rear end. It's impossible to eliminate emotional involvement in your thought process, unless you're a sociopath. I've recommended this book on the board several times, but Daniel Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ" is a great book. I doubt you will read it, but you could learn a lot, since you don't know squat about emotional intelligence (or IQ for that matter).
Answer: Read that book. Crock of shit.
I see. The medical community is hiding this blockbuster news that self hypnosis can eliminate chronic pain. Someone with Rheumatoid arthritis just needs to be hypnotized and their pain will be gone. Same for cancer patients. This is amazing! And the rest of society is unaware of this groundbreaking method too. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Wait. Are you a 9/11 Troofer?
Answer: Again, hypnotism can control pain, even chronic pain. The old guy that taught me hypnotism, had abdominal surgery without anesthesia. It been known for
at least a hundred years. It doesn't surprise me that it is one of the many things that you are unaware of. And I debunk 9/11 truthers.
I'd like to read about this hundreds of thousands of alcoholics "on disability." Can you give me a link? And be sure to give me a link to those who are on the government dime, and not those who have disability insurance through their employers.
Answer: Google is your friend.
-
So in the face of your own words, you continue to maintain that your comments are limited to people on government assistance? Here are your own words again:
It will be based on "content of one's character," as MLK said. If you are a known violent criminal, low IQ, mentally ill, drug addict, drunk, prostitute, on welfare or any government hand out program, or you are some other low life pervert, then mandatory abortion, and sterilization, as your "children" would only be some form of subhuman pollution, that would only make the world worse, as you did.
You don't believe your lying eyes? lol . . . .
Nothing untrue about the fact your eugenics fantasy is on full display at the Holocaust Museum.
You read Emotional Intelligence? Then how the heck do you not even understand what the concept is? Definitely calling BS on that one.
Yes, I am unaware of this incredible hypnosis discovery. Someone who suffers a serious injury can just be hypnotized and their pain is gone. I am stoked to hear this amazing news. I need to be educated. Along with the entire medical community. Scientists. Academics. Pretty much the entire country. . . . .
So no link regarding these hundreds of thousands of alcoholics "on disability" and specifically on the taxpayers' dime? Is that because you just made it up?
-
So in the face of your own words, you continue to maintain that your comments are limited to people on government assistance? Here are your own words again:
You don't believe your lying eyes? lol . . . .
Answer: I clarified what I said for you in my later comments on this thread.
Nothing untrue about the fact your eugenics fantasy is on full display at the Holocaust Museum.
Answer: Totally untrue about what I said.
You read Emotional Intelligence? Then how the heck do you not even understand what the concept is? Definitely calling BS on that one.
Answer: That book was a best seller. Someone gave me a copy, said I needed to read it. The concept is: write a book that makes emotional twits feel good about their mental inferiority, and you'll make a lot of money as an author. So obviously, either you never read the book, or didn't realize what it was really about.
Yes, I am unaware of this incredible hypnosis discovery. Someone who suffers a serious injury can just be hypnotized and their pain is gone. I am stoked to hear this amazing news. I need to be educated. Along with the entire medical community. Scientists. Academics. Pretty much the entire country. . . . .
Answer: Then you can google that too, along with the alcoholics on disability, if you don't believe me.
So no link regarding these hundreds of thousands of alcoholics "on disability" and specifically on the taxpayers' dime? Is that because you just made it up?
-
BS. I have the book on my shelf. You don't lie very well. At least Google the book so you can summarize it a little more accurately and tell a more convincing lie.
In any event, I think my work here is done. :)
-
BS. I have the book on my shelf. You don't lie very well. At least Google the book so you can summarize it a little more accurately and tell a more convincing lie.
Answer: So you really didn't read it.
In any event, I think my work here is done.
Answer: You didn't work here.
-
Pro-Life Pepe
(https://i.redd.it/bau0l57qggcy.jpg)
Let's just drastically cut the amount of government funds given out to support those who CHOOSE not to work, not to those who truly can't.
-
(https://i.reddituploads.com/7e319da3d5ab42239faa2e06b371fdd5?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=cfeb4f69ad80dc9bd3e283d9fe0a77ce)
-
I want the guy who dems hate the most.
Which one is that?
Is Chris Christe in running?
Hes a hilarious guy!!
-
How Trump’s Nominee Will Alter The Supreme Court
By Oliver Roeder
JAN 30, 2017
President Trump is expected to announce his Supreme Court nominee Tuesday, nearly a year after Justice Antonin Scalia died. He isn’t the first president to nominate someone to fill Scalia’s seat — President Barack Obama’s pick, Merrick Garland, languished without a Senate hearing for 10 months — but that doesn’t take away from Trump’s opportunity: This is a pick that could shape the court for decades.
Based on the potential nominees mentioned in the press so far, whoever he names is likely to be to the right of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee who is often the pivotal centrist on the court. And depending on whom Trump selects, his nominee may even be more conservative than Scalia was.
Two federal judges — Neil Gorsuch, of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, and Thomas Hardiman, of the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia — are frontrunners for the nomination, according to CBS News. “Gorsuch has a slight edge,” CBS claims. Other outlets, such as Bloomberg and the Washington Post, lengthen Trump’s reported shortlist a bit to also include William Pryor and Raymond Kethledge, federal judges on the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit and Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, respectively.
All four men were appointed to their current judgeships by George W. Bush, and would almost certainly espouse positions to the right of the average on the current court. But exactly where they’d sit, ideologically speaking, could vary widely.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/roeder-scotus-nominee1.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=1150&ssl=1)
roeder-scotus-nominee
Determining how a judicial nominee would behave on the court is tricky — nominees’ past records often don’t offer a reliable hint. But research has found that one factor does prove useful: the ideological makeup of the people who nominated and confirmed them.
We can glimpse the possible futures of the court using one such approach, “judicial common space” scores, developed by Lee Epstein, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, and several co-authors. These measures — offspring of Martin-Quinn scores for the Supreme Court and DW-Nominate scores for legislatures — use the ideologies of the nominating president and the judge’s home-state senators to triangulate a judge’s ideology. The latter is included as a nod to the norm of “senatorial courtesy” — the tacit agreement that other senators not support a nominee who is opposed by senators from the nominee’s state.1 The higher the number, the more conservative the judge. (These measures aren’t perfect, of course, and there have been ideological surprises in the past. Justice David Souter, a reliably liberal voter, was appointed by President George H. W. Bush.)
The nomination of Gorsuch, Pryor or Kethledge would probably lead to the addition of a solid, reliably conservative voice and vote on the court, Gorsuch and Kethledge maybe somewhat more so. None of the rumored justices, however, would likely be to the right of the court’s silent bulwark, Justice Clarence Thomas.
Some of the justices stand out. The frontrunning Gorsuch has a shiny patrician resume. He studied at Columbia, Harvard and Oxford and clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.
Hardiman, meanwhile, looks like the centrist of the group. According to the common space scores, he’d fall somewhere just to the left of Chief Justice John Roberts and just to the right of Kennedy, often the court’s swing voter. But despite the centrist score, Hardiman’s record does reveal conservative bona fides, as SCOTUSblog laid out: He has taken an expansive view of the right to bear arms, voted against inmates in death penalty cases and proven unsympathetic to many free speech claims. Also notable for a court that may face a challenge to its past ruling in Roe v. Wade: Hardiman has not yet ruled directly on abortion issues.
Epstein and the scholars Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn studied potential nominees in a paper back in September and noted that Hardiman could significantly change the dynamics of the court. “Were he to replace Scalia, there is some possibility that he would relieve Kennedy of Kennedy’s ‘super median’ status,” they wrote. “Hardiman or Kennedy could form majority coalitions with the left or right side of the Court — in much the same way that Kennedy and O’Connor did in the 1990s-2000s.”
That does not appear to be what Trump is hoping for: He has promised to appoint a justice “very much in the mold” of Scalia, who never ran any risk of “super median” status.
Pryor appears to fit well in Scalia’s ideological shoes, but what are the other dimensions of the Scalia mold? A team of attorneys and academics recently released a working paper titled “Searching for Justice Scalia” in which they attempt to measure the “Scalia-ness” of potential nominees. Of the shortlisted four, Gorsuch was by far the most likely to invoke originalism — the notion that the Constitution is not a “living” document and that its meaning was fixed when it was enacted — in his opinions, as Scalia had a habit of doing. Pryor, on the other hand, was the most likely to cite Scalia’s writing. But Kethledge was the most likely to write non-majority opinions, in Scalia’s fiery oppositional style. In the end, Gorsuch won the researchers’ Scalia lookalike contest by a nose. One wonders if Trump’s team has read the paper.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trumps-nominee-will-alter-the-supreme-court/
-
Trump names Judge Gorsuch as Supreme Court choice
Published January 31, 2017
FoxNews.com
President Trump has announced federal Judge Neil Gorsuch as his choice for the Supreme Court, in his highest-profile nomination to date – and one sure to touch off a fierce Senate debate in the weeks ahead.
Gorsuch, 49, serves on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
Trump’s choice, if confirmed, would take the seat that has remained vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia died nearly a year ago. The nominee was among Trump’s original list of 21 potential choices circulated during the presidential campaign.
But Democrats are still smarting over Republicans’ refusal to consider then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, and some have vowed to retaliate by opposing Trump’s pick. Some are even talking about moving to filibuster – meaning they would require Trump’s nominee to garner 60 votes in the 100-member Senate.
In that case, Trump would need to find at least eight Democrats to join Republicans in supporting his pick.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has not at this stage committed to going that route, but he and his Democratic colleagues have been increasingly at odds with the Trump administration in the wake of Friday’s executive order on refugee and immigration policies.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called earlier Tuesday for the nominee to be treated fairly.
"What I would expect from our Democratic friends is the nominee be handled similarly to President Clinton's two nominees in his first term and President Obama's two nominees in his first term,” McConnell said.
But Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley has signaled he’s ready to fight, telling supporters the seat was stolen from Obama since his pick never got a vote, and saying he won’t be “complicit in this theft.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/trump-names-judge-gorsuch-as-supreme-court-choice.html
-
BIO: Judge Neil Gorsuch
Published January 31, 2017
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/01/31/bio-judge-neil-gorsuch/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1485896070508.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
This photo provided by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shows Judge Neil Gorsuch. (AP)
BORN: 1967, in Denver, Colo.
FAMILY: Married to Marie Louise Gorsuch, with two teenage daughters. His mother is Anne Burford, the first female administrator at the EPA.
EDUCATION:
•B.A., Columbia University, 1988;
•J.D., Harvard Law School, 1991;
•Doctorate in Legal Philosophy, University of Oxford, 2004.
CURRENT POSITION: U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, from 2006-present
LEGAL EXPERIENCE:
•Clerk for Judge David Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1991-92.
•Clerk for United States Supreme Court Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy, 1993-94.
•Attorney at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C., 1995-2005; partner.
•Deputy associate attorney general, Department of Justice, 2005-06
MAJOR DECISIONS:
•Gorsuch ruled against the Obama administration in two religious liberty cases: In Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.
•In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, Judge Gorsuch also agreed that Colorado campaign finance law unconstitutionally permitted major party donors to make two contributions per election cycle while minor candidates could only receive one contribution.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/bio-judge-neil-gorsuch.htm.html
-
BIO: Judge Neil Gorsuch
Published January 31, 2017
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/01/31/bio-judge-neil-gorsuch/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1485896070508.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
This photo provided by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shows Judge Neil Gorsuch. (AP)
BORN: 1967, in Denver, Colo.
FAMILY: Married to Marie Louise Gorsuch, with two teenage daughters. His mother is Anne Burford, the first female administrator at the EPA.
EDUCATION:
•B.A., Columbia University, 1988;
•J.D., Harvard Law School, 1991;
•Doctorate in Legal Philosophy, University of Oxford, 2004.
CURRENT POSITION: U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, from 2006-present
LEGAL EXPERIENCE:
•Clerk for Judge David Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1991-92.
•Clerk for United States Supreme Court Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy, 1993-94.
•Attorney at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C., 1995-2005; partner.
•Deputy associate attorney general, Department of Justice, 2005-06
MAJOR DECISIONS:
•Gorsuch ruled against the Obama administration in two religious liberty cases: In Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.
•In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, Judge Gorsuch also agreed that Colorado campaign finance law unconstitutionally permitted major party donors to make two contributions per election cycle while minor candidates could only receive one contribution.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/31/bio-judge-neil-gorsuch.htm.html
One of the biggest and most important reasons I voted for trump was because of this.
-
Dem Plant... Just you guys wait.
-
One of the biggest and most important reasons I voted for trump was because of this.
I have been wrong about him. I didn't trust him to follow through, but he did.
-
Democrats fuming over Gorsuch backed him in 2006
By Cody Derespina
Published February 02, 2017
FoxNews.com
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch easily won the support of top Democratic senators for a lifetime appointment to the bench ... in 2006.
What a difference a decade makes.
Several of the same senators who helped unanimously confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006 are now railing against his nomination by President Trump to the highest court in the land.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday he has "serious doubts" about Gorsuch. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., issued a scathing statement citing Gorsuch's stance on assisted suicide, and saying nobody who believes individual rights are "reserved to the people" can support his nomination.
But if they have long harbored concerns Gorsuch is extreme, they didn't much show it in 2006.
Schumer, Wyden and many others were in Congress at the time of the unanimous voice vote on July 20 of that year. The record does not reflect who specifically was on the floor for the 95-0 tally, but it would have included most, if not all, of the following Senate members that year:
Four former top Obama administration officials (President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) and 12 current Democratic senators (Sens. Schumer, Wyden, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Jack Reed, Bill Nelson, Tom Carper, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell and Bob Menendez).
WHO IS JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH?
In 2006, Leahy was – as he is now – the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the group tasked with questioning Gorsuch prior to a full chamber vote. But Leahy was not present during the session with Gorsuch at the time. Indeed, the only senator to question him directly was Republican Lindsey Graham, during testimony that lasted just 20 minutes, according to official congressional documents and The Denver Post.
Leahy did, however, submit six written questions, ranging from queries on assisted suicide to consumer class-action lawsuits and congressional powers.
Wyden, D-Ore., was the only other member of the committee to submit questions, asking Gorsuch mainly about the legality of a physician aiding a patient in dying and Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Gorsuch wrote about those topics in his 2006 book “The Future Of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.”
Though Wyden ended up voting for Gorsuch after receiving the judge’s answers, Wyden cited that Oregon law Tuesday as one of the reasons he would now oppose Gorsuch being elevated to the high court.
“His opposition to legal death with dignity as successfully practiced in Oregon is couched in the sort of jurisprudence that justified the horrific oppression of one group after another in our first two centuries,” Wyden said in a statement. “No senator who believes that individual rights are reserved to the people, and not the government, can support this nomination.”
Schumer also has been a leading voice of the Gorsuch opposition.
“Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court,” Schumer said in a statement.
The change in tone today could reflect the overall hostility right now among Democratic lawmakers to numerous Trump appointees, as well as specific concerns about Gorsuch's judicial body of work since his confirmation to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Some of the senators now voicing skepticism also may still be smarting over majority Republicans blocking then-President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland last year. Leahy nodded at Garland in his statement on Gorsuch, saying: “From my initial review of his record, I question whether Judge Gorsuch meets the high standard set by Merrick Garland.”
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday noted the dozen sitting Democrats who once backed Trump's nominee.
“He’s a widely respected jurist who deserves the nomination to be voted upon,” Spicer said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/democrats-fuming-over-gorsuch-backed-him-in-2006.html
-
Is Judge Thomas Hardiman Next in Line for SCOTUS?
By John Gizzi | Thursday, 02 Feb 2017
Now that the nomination to replace Antonin Scalia has been settled — Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch landed the role — there is speculation that Judge Thomas Hardiman will be tapped as the next nominee in the event a selection is necessary.
Given the substantive backing that Judge Hardiman (of the 3rd Circuit) received from conservatives that helped make him a finalist to Gorsuch, there is already mounting speculation he will be on deck for the White House if Justice Anthony Kennedy, 80, decides to retire at the end of the court’s term this year.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted that he didn’t “want to get in front of the president. [But Hardiman] continues to have the president’s support; somebody who the president was unbelievably impressed with. So we’ll have to see what vacancies come down the pike.”
“He’s an impressive, impressive jurist,” Spicer told me on Wednesday. “Obviously the four that really made that final list for the president were impressive [along with Gorsuch and Hardiman, the final four for Trump to consider included Appellate Judges Bill Pryor of Alabama and Wisconsin’s Diane Sykes]."
Hours before Trump made the Gorsuch announcement on Tuesday night, we spoke to former Pennsylvania Senator and past Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum about his vigorous support of Hardiman for the high court.
“I spoke to President Trump back in December, before he even took office about Tom,” Santorum said. “And I spoke to Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, and [Trump political operative] Dave Bossie.”
Santorum has known Hardiman since they were both active in Allegheny County, Pa., Republican politics in the late 1980s. As senator, he played a pivotal role in securing Hardiman’s appointment to both the U.S. District Court and Court of Appeals under President George W. Bush.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Scalia-Thomas-Hardiman-SCOTUS-Supreme-Court/2017/02/02/id/771627/
-
What a shame that adults in their position act like little kids.
Schumer And Leadership Team Refuse To Meet With Gorsuch
Kerry Picket
02/02/2017
WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic Senate leaders refused to meet with Judge Neil Gorsuch Thursday.
The act appears to be an act of revenge against Republicans for holding the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia open and not holding a hearing for Obama Supreme Court appointee Merrick Garland.
The White House requested that Gorsuch meet with Schumer, but aides said he declined in order to learn more about the nominee’s record, The Washington Post reported.
“By refusing to meet with Judge Gorsuch, Senate Democratic leadership is taking Washington gridlock and obstruction to a new low and placing Senators McCaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Tester, and other Democrats up for reelection in 2018 on the endangered politicians list,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, said in a statement.
She went on to say, “A bipartisan chorus of support has emerged for Judge Gorsuch, a man of extraordinary legal credentials and qualifications, including fromPresident Obama’s former Solicitor General, Neal Katyal. This bipartisan support has put Democratic Senators in a state of confusion and disarray, caught today trying to deceive their constituents about a 60-vote standard that the Washington Post gave two Pinocchios. Senators McCaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp and Tester represent states that President Trump won by significant margins and these Senators are signing up for a Democratic leadership obstructionist scheme that will lead them to defeat in 2018.”
Meanwhile, several prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama’s top counsel and former President Jimmy Carter’s chief of staff, have all endorsed Gorsuch.
Gorsuch came to Capitol Hill Wednesday night and met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats in states where Trump won in 2016 said they would look forward to meeting Gorsuch when he came back to the Hill.
Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester told “Fox and Friends” Thursday morning that his decision on Gorsuch depends on “how he presents himself” and called Gorsuch a “pro” and that he believes the judge will do “a fine job presenting himself.”
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who has said last week he is not a “filibuster kind of guy,” told reporters Wednesday, “I just want to look at some of his judicial findings and rulings.”
He added, “I just think it was absolutely a travesty and embarrassment for the way Merrick Garland was treated.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/02/schumer-and-leadership-team-refuse-to-meet-with-gorsuch/#ixzz4XZI6Qt5n
-
95-0 and now they have an issue, haha.
-
Feinstein: Gorsuch 'Impressive'
Tuesday, 07 Feb 2017
The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee says she is impressed with President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein met with Judge Neil Gorsuch on Monday. She said Tuesday that "he's a very caring person and he's obviously legally very smart."
She added: "I think we are dealing with someone who is impressive, so we'll see."
She stopped short of saying she would vote for him, noting it's a lifetime appointment and Gorsuch is only 49.
Because of expected Democratic procedural maneuvers, Republicans will need the support of 60 out of the Senate's 100 members to move to a confirmation vote on Gorsuch. Republicans have a 52-48 majority, so at least eight Democrats will have to vote with Republicans.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/US-Senate-Trump-Cabinet-Latest/2017/02/07/id/772425/
-
Gorsuch tries to bridge partisan divide in start of confirmation hearings
By Joseph Weber
Published March 20, 2017
FoxNews.com
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch vowed Monday to be a “faithful servant of the Constitution” and “apply the law impartially,” during the first day of his Senate confirmation hearings that repeatedly exposed the partisan divide in Washington.
“I pledge to each of you and to the American people that, if confirmed, I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of our great nation,” said Gorsuch, who spoke at the end of the roughly four-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Gorsuch, a respected, highly-credentialed judge and conservative member of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, attempted in his remarks to bridge the political divide and become President Trump’s replacement for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
“In my decade on the bench, I have tried to treat all who come to court fairly and with respect,” said Gorsuch, his voice cracking a few times. “I have ruled for disabled students, prisoners and workers alleging civil rights violations. Sometimes, I have ruled against such persons, too. But my decisions have never reflected a judgment about the people before me -- only my best judgment about the law and facts at issue in each particular case.”
The hearing opened with Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa expressing his views on the high court before championing Gorsuch, saying judges “play a limited role” in government and are “not free to update the Constitution.”
“That’s not their job," he said. "That power is retained by the people, acting through their elected representatives,” Grassley said before arguing the Obama administration tried rewriting federal laws “dozens of times.”
His remarks were followed by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, immediately making clear her frustration about the Republican-led Senate refusing to hold hearings last year for her party’s pick -- Judge Merrick Garland -- to the fill the open Supreme Court seat.
“I just want to say that I’m deeply disappointed that under these circumstances that we begin our hearing,” said Feinstein, who raised questions about Gorsuch’s positons on such issues as abortion and Second Amendment rights.
“For those of us on our side … our job is to determine whether he will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all Americans, not just the powerful and the wealthy,” she continued.
Gorsuch, 49, returns to the Senate chamber on Tuesday.
Each of the committee’s 17 members will then get at least 50 minutes of questions over two rounds.
Grassley said the committee is scheduled to vote April 3 on the Gorsuch nomination, with a full Senate vote expected early next month.
Gorsuch is expected to clear both votes, considering Republicans have the Senate majority.
“No matter your politics … you should be concerned about the preservation of our constitutional order and the separation of powers,” Grassley said. “And if you are concerned about these things, as you should be, meet Judge Neil Gorsuch. We have before us today a nominee whose body of professional work is defined by an unfailing commitment to these principles.”
Though Gorsuch’s record has also been praised by some left-leaning legal scholars, several Senate Democrats have already signaled their intentions to oppose his nomination, amid the larger effort to stop Trump at essentially every turn.
But delay tactics by Democrats could lead Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to exercise procedural maneuvers of his own to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold now in place for Supreme Court nominations, and with it any Democratic leverage to influence the next Supreme Court fight.
Time and again Monday, committee Democrats attempted to tie Gorsuch to Trump and railed against Senate Republican leaders’ decision to wait until after the November presidential election to fill the Scalia seat.
Delaware Sen. Chris Coons said Garland was treated with “deep and historic disrespect.”
Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a fellow Democrat, argued that Trump has launched “vicious attacks” and made “demeaning comments” against judges.
“These times are not ordinary,” he said.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a GOP committee member and former Supreme Court clerk, said Scalia had a modest view of the law and that his “legacy would be at stake,” had former-President Obama or 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton nominated a replacement.
“My Democratic colleagues feel they have no choice to manufacture attacks to protect themselves in primaries back home,” he also said.
Gorsuch also repeatedly thanked his wife, children, mentors and others.
“I could not even attempt this without Louise, my wife of more than 20 years,” he said before citing Scalia as a mentor.
“He reminded us that the judge’s job is to follow the words that are in the law -- not replace them with words that aren’t,” Gorsuch added.
The Associated Press contributed to this story
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/20/gorsuch-tries-to-bridge-partisan-divide-in-start-confirmation-hearings.html
-
Democrats May Be Botching This Supreme Court Confirmation Fight
Heading into Neil Gorsuch’s hearing, it’s unclear how they plan to land blows on Donald Trump’s conservative court pick.
03/19/2017
WASHINGTON ― Democrats know they don’t have the votes to stop Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch from clearing his Senate confirmation hearing, which begins Monday. But they don’t appear to have a strategy, or even the energy, for a coordinated fight against President Donald Trump’s conservative court pick.
Chalk it up to Trump’s chaotic administration, or to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s low-key approach. Democrats just haven’t treated Gorsuch’s nomination as the kind of high-profile ideological battle that Supreme Court choices traditionally bring about. Even in the days leading up the hearing, it’s felt more like an afterthought on Capitol Hill.
“I hope the questions are good,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told The Huffington Post on Wednesday when asked about her thoughts heading into the hearing. Asked if there are any particular issues she plans to press Gorsuch on, she replied, “Not right now.”
Progressive advocacy groups have been demanding a real fight against Gorsuch, who, as an appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, built a record of opposing reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, immigrants’ rights and environmental protections.
Led by NARAL Pro-Choice America, 11 organizations sent a letter to Senate Democrats this month torching them for having “failed to demonstrate a strong, unified resistance to this nominee, despite the fact that he is an ultra-conservative jurist who will undermine our basic freedoms…. We need you to do better.”
They also delivered more than 1 million petitions to the Senate urging Democrats “to oppose Donald Trump’s extreme anti-choice Supreme Court nominee.”
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_720_noupscale/58ce982e14000020000704e0.jpeg)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) welcomes Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch to her office on Feb. 6, 2017.
Democrats on the committee certainly plan to ask tough questions of Gorsuch. They’re just all over the place.
“We can use these hearings to put the spotlight on big special interests,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “The test for Gorsuch is: is he willing to dissociate himself from them? In my view, the burden is on him to persuade us of that fact, particularly given that big special interests are spending tens of millions in dark money to try to help him get on the court.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he plans to pack in as many questions as possible, on as many topics as possible, because Gorsuch hasn’t given him clear answers on things he’s asked him about.
“Workers protections. Consumer rights. Women’s health care. Privacy rights. The independence of the judiciary,” said Blumenthal, who made news last month when revealing that Gorsuch told him in private that he found Trump’s attacks on judges who ruled against his travel ban “demoralizing.” In the wake of those comments, and pushback by the White House, Schumer wrote in a New York Times op-ed that the episode “only raises concerns about his independence.”
“I will be pressing him and aggressively questioning him on all of these issues because he has an obligation to come clean with the American people before he assumes a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court,” Blumenthal said.
“There’s so many issues, I don’t know where to start,” added Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “A contemporary issue is the relationship between the executive and the judiciary. I think that’s going to be tested time and again by this president.”
But some advocates aren’t sure Democrats have it in them to put Gorsuch on the defensive. And Gorsuch has been preparing judiciously to meet whatever curveballs the Senate Judiciary Committee may throw his way.
“I don’t think the Democrats are going to get him to say things that are wildly objectionable,” said Drew Courtney, a spokesman for People for the American Way, an organization that has long been involved in Supreme Court nomination fights. Courtney said senators would be best served by focusing on his record.
In an attempt to crystallize their strategy, Democrats this past week unveiled something of an offensive on Capitol Hill, appearing alongside sympathetic plaintiffs who have been on the receiving end of a Gorsuch opinion. The goal, in Schumer’s words, is to paint this judge as someone who “sided with the powerful against the powerless.”
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with people on the receiving end of some of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s opinions.
But not everyone is convinced that the “little guy” approach is the right tack to use against Gorsuch. Some say it’s relatively easy to rebut that argument: One of the judge’s more popular opinions ― on immigration, a topic that’s central to Trump’s agenda ― found favor with an undocumented immigrant from Mexico. The decision effectively prevented the man’s deportation.
“I don’t think [Gorsuch] is going to do everything President Trump thinks he will do in his favor,” said Timothy Cook, the Oklahoma lawyer who represented the immigrant in that case. He added that he thinks Gorsuch would be a good Supreme Court justice.
Progressive senators, like Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), have already said they’ll oppose Gorsuch’s confirmation in the full Senate. But many are waiting to see how he handles himself in the hearing before deciding how they’ll vote, though they’re skeptical.
Gorsuch clearly has a conservative record on the bench ― some commentators have observed he is even more conservative than the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who he’d be replacing on the Supreme Court. He was among those on a list of judges Trump announced during the campaign that was assembled with the help of The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, two prominent conservative groups.
“He has a very high bar to clear, both in proving that he can be an independent check on the executive and that he will give less powerful plaintiffs a fair shake before the Supreme Court,” said a Senate Democratic leadership aide. “Democrats are going to push him hard to answer direct questions on both of those topics.”
“If his answers are anything like they’ve been in private meetings, he isn’t going to win anyone over,” added the aide.
“We need you to do better.”
—The message progressive groups delivered to Senate Democrats regarding their fight against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Gorsuch will need some Democratic support, which he did get in 2006 when he was unanimously confirmed to the 10th Circuit. It takes 60 votes to advance his nomination in the Senate, and there are only 52 Republicans. If Republicans can’t hit 60, it’s possible that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will eliminate that so-called filibuster rule altogether. If that happens, Gorsuch would only need 51 votes to be confirmed. Democrats, for now, are relying on that rule for leverage.
“I will use every tool available, including the filibuster, to oppose him,” Blumenthal said this week. “We will use every tool at our disposal.”
Out of tradition, one Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), will introduce Gorsuch on Monday alongside fellow Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R), according to Politico. At least one other senator up for re-election in 2018, Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), has said he’s open to voting for Gorsuch.
That’s not acceptable to some of their progressive allies. In a call with reporters earlier this month, some groups warned that Senate Democrats will pay a price if they help Gorsuch get confirmed.
“We want the Democrats to act as the opposition party, not as the minority party,” said Murshed Zaheed, political director of Credo Action. Those who support him “will permanently damage his or her political career.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-supreme-court-neil-gorsuch_us_58ce94cce4b00705db502c82?
-
I've watched/listened to a good of the confirmation hearings the past few days. Gorsuch is incredibly impressive. Brilliant. Sincere. Honest. Empathetic. Never heard of him before this nomination, but I have to say he looks like a homerun choice for Trump.
The Democrats on the committee are downright awful. Cherry picking about 3 or 4 decisions out of about 3000 trying to paint him as a heartless ideologue. Swinging and missing badly. He is kicking the crap out of them.
Overall, looks like a great replacement for Scalia.
I give Trump props for this selection.
-
Seems like a pretty sharp guy... definitely made more than a couple of committee members look like fools.
I don't know if some of those rants about "maternity leave" pass the sniff test that were said about him. He comes across as a decent enough fellow.
-
I've watched/listened to a good of the confirmation hearings the past few days. Gorsuch is incredibly impressive. Brilliant. Sincere. Honest. Empathetic. Never heard of him before this nomination, but I have to say he looks like a homerun choice for Trump.
The Democrats on the committee are downright awful. Cherry picking about 3 or 4 decisions out of about 3000 trying to paint him as a heartless ideologue. Swinging and missing badly. He is kicking the crap out of them.
Overall, looks like a great replacement for Scalia.
I give Trump props for this selection.
Looking up the Heller decision, Seniletor Feinstein misquoted parts of the decision and omitted other parts. As usual she is desperate and full of shit.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
[...]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html
-
-
Not only are Senate Democrats disingenuous (after previously voting unanimously to confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit), they are not very smart. They should have saved their filibuster for a replacement that will actually change the balance of the court (e.g., Ginsburg's replacement). This will not end well for Democrats.
Dems Now Have Enough Votes to Filibuster Gorsuch
By Jeffrey Rodack | Monday, 03 Apr 2017
Democrats now have enough votes to pull off a filibuster and block the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Fox News is reporting.
Support for the filibuster increases the likelihood of Republicans deploying the "nuclear option" and changing Senate precedent to push Gorsuch's confirmation through, the news network said.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Mark Warner of Virginia are the latest Democrats to voice their opposition to Gorsuch. But it was not until Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware came out in favor of the filibuster that Democrats locked up the votes they needed to try to block Gorsuch's confirmation, the Chicago Tribune reported.
But Republicans, the majority party, are still able to get around a filibuster by changing Senate rules and using the "nuclear option" to lower the threshold needed to end debate and confirm his nomination, CNN reported.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post noted Republicans have promised to confirm Gorsuch by Friday, just before a two-week recess is scheduled to begin.
The break would give Gorsuch an opportunity to join the Supreme Court in late April and participate in the final cases of this year's term, which ends in June, according to the newspaper.
And The Post warned the final round of debate on Gorsuch could be bitter.
"And although the Republican-controlled Senate is likely to confirm him, that will happen only if the chamber's rules are changed," the paper said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-vote-filibuster-gorsuch/2017/04/03/id/782248/
-
NBC News BREAKING - McConnell files cloture on Gorsuch nomination
The US Senate is now set to go nuclear Thursday morning
https://twitter.com/kasie/status/849391964789329920 (https://twitter.com/kasie/status/849391964789329920)
-
NBC News BREAKING - McConnell files cloture on Gorsuch nomination
The US Senate is now set to go nuclear Thursday morning
https://twitter.com/kasie/status/849391964789329920 (https://twitter.com/kasie/status/849391964789329920)
I've been listening to the floor debate on C-Span. Democrats are pretty dumb to die on this hill.
-
I've been listening to the floor debate on C-Span. Democrats are pretty dumb to die on this hill.
That's a fact.
-
Republicans go ‘nuclear,’ bust through Democratic filibuster on Gorsuch
Judson Berger By Judson Berger
Published April 06, 2017
FoxNews.com
Senate Republicans deployed the so-called “nuclear option” Thursday in their drive to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, dramatically changing the way the Senate does business in order to overcome a Democratic filibuster.
In a fast-paced chain of events, majority Republicans voted to change Senate precedent so that a high court nominee can move to final confirmation with a simple majority of just 51 votes, as opposed to 60.
By Senate standards, this was ground-shaking.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared he did so to “restore norms” and get past what he called an “unprecedented” Democratic filibuster.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., countered that the changes could send the Senate and the nomination process “over the cliff.”
GORSUCH VOTE TRACKER
Republicans succeeded in making the change on a party-line vote Thursday afternoon. The body then swiftly took another, 55-45 vote to end debate and tee up a final confirmation vote expected late Friday.
This was after Democrats initially blocked Gorsuch in a filibuster earlier in the day. Four Democrats broke ranks -- Sens. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.; and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. – but Republicans still fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed, prompting McConnell to overhaul the way the Senate works.
He said he did so “for the sake of our country.”
While congressional Republicans and President Trump are now virtually guaranteed to get Gorsuch on the high court, the impact of the events that played out Thursday could be felt for years, if not decades, to come. Each party blamed the other for the escalation and the breakdown in the Senate’s parliamentary decorum.
Indeed, McConnell’s predecessor as Senate majority leader Harry Reid, now retired, took the first step down the “nuclear” road by lowering the threshold for other nominees in 2013 – a controversial move Republicans frequently brought up on the road to Thursday’s proceedings.
But lowering the threshold for a Supreme Court pick is a more significant step. It means for the foreseeable future, the minority party likely will have significantly less leverage to oppose any nominee to the highest court in the land, no matter who is president.
Schumer said there will be “less faith in the Supreme Court” going forward.
McConnell, kicking off Thursday’s session, blasted Democrats for the filibuster attempt and accused them of driving the upper chamber to this point. He said their opposition to Gorsuch isn’t about the nominee but “the man who nominated him” – and part of an “extreme escalation in the left’s never-ending drive to politicize the courts and the confirmation process.”
Republicans say Democrats have been unfair to an otherwise eminently qualified nominee and have wrongly cast him as an ideologue.
However, despite exhaustive confirmation hearings where Gorsuch, like many nominees before him, declined to take clear stances on hot-button issues, Democrats largely are convinced he would be a staunch conservative in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia, whose seat he would fill on the nine-member court. They pointed to past rulings on cases where he sided with businesses against workers, though his allies maintain he was merely applying the law as written. Democrats also are still furious over Republicans’ refusal to consider former President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.
Democrats, meanwhile, howled over the GOP majority’s move to deploy the “nuclear option” to get Gorsuch approved in the end. They warn it will drastically change the way the Senate operates for the worse.
“It doesn’t have to be this way,” Schumer said. “The answer is not to change the rules, it’s to change the nominee.”
He also said Gorsuch “may very well turn out to be one of the most conservative justices on the bench.”
The actual deployment of the nuclear option was cloaked in obscure parliamentary-speak.
McConnell, after the initial Democratic filibuster, asked for a simple majority vote “on all nominations.”
The presiding officer said the point of ordered was not sustained. McConnell, with seven fateful words, said: “I appeal the ruling of the chair.”
His party backed him, eliminating the 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court nominees.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/06/republicans-go-nuclear-bust-through-democratic-filibuster-on-gorsuch.html
-
Alan Dershowitz: Americans Are 'Victims' in Gorsuch Fight
By Todd Beamon | Tuesday, 04 Apr 2017
Famed civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Tuesday "the victims are the American people" as Democrats move to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
"He's not the guy I would've picked for the Supreme Court, but he's qualified," the Harvard Law School professor emeritus told "Newsmax Prime" host Miranda Khan.
"There should've been an Obama seat to fill — but in the end, the Democrats don't help the American people by filibustering and then getting the Republicans to invoke the nuclear option.
"If they're going to do it, they ought to save it for the next seat," Dershowitz added.
"Who knows? The next seat may occur in the last year of the Trump presidency — and then they'll have a strong argument to make based on what the Republicans did" regarding former Obama nominee Merrick Garland.
"Right now, they're wasting a very important bullet on a Supreme Court nominee — and I think it will backfire.
"I'm embarrassed for the Democrats," he said.
"They're handling the Trump administration so poorly. The victims are the American people."
See Miranda Khan on Newsmax TV: Tune in beginning at 8 PM ET to see "Newsmax Prime" — on FiOS 615, YouTube Livestream, Newsmax TV App from any smartphone, NewsmaxTV.com, Roku, Amazon Fire — More Systems Here
Regarding former National Security Adviser Susan Rice's denial of leaking identities of Trump officials in surveillance reports, Dershowitz said she did contradict her previous statements on the issue, but she "probably" did nothing illegal.
"The line between politics and national security is often blurred," he told Khan. "People in the White House think their own political futures are essential to the national security of the country.
"They always think that electing their opponents will destroy the national security of the country.
"So, there's nothing criminal here — but just be very skeptical when anybody says, 'Yeah, we got the information, but we didn't use it for political purposes.'
"That's just not credible."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/SCOTUS-filibuster-Alan-Dershowitz-Neil-Gorsuch/2017/04/04/id/782548/
-
The Senate Has Confirmed Neil Gorsuch To The Supreme Court
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-senate-has-confirmed-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court?utm_term=.gpzmr3WpN#.to79lBoR0 (https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-senate-has-confirmed-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court?utm_term=.gpzmr3WpN#.to79lBoR0) Buzzfeed, just to troll
The 54-45 vote confirming Gorsuch to the high court ends the more than year-long vacancy on the Supreme Court since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
(https://i.redd.it/oro80crzm5qy.jpg)
-
Now replace Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg with Ted Cruz and Trey Gowdy and I can sleep alot better going into the next 30 years.
-
The Senate Has Confirmed Neil Gorsuch To The Supreme Court
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-senate-has-confirmed-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court?utm_term=.gpzmr3WpN#.to79lBoR0 (https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-senate-has-confirmed-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court?utm_term=.gpzmr3WpN#.to79lBoR0) Buzzfeed, just to troll
The 54-45 vote confirming Gorsuch to the high court ends the more than year-long vacancy on the Supreme Court since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
(https://i.redd.it/oro80crzm5qy.jpg)
Outstanding. Can't believe the Democrat from Colorado voted against him.
And I'm glad they went nuclear. Democrats would have done precisely the same thing eventually (if and when they have control of the Senate and presidency).
-
Bob Dole, Trent Lott and History Back 'Nuking' Gorsuch Filibuster
By John Gizzi
Thursday, 06 Apr 2017
In the hours since the Senate voted Thursday to end the filibuster for nominees to the Supreme Court, there has been a considerable furor in the national press about the potentially dangerous course Republican lawmakers have taken to insure a vote for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
"In deploying the so-called nuclear option," concluded The New York Times, "lawmakers are fundamentally altering the way the Senate handles one of its most significant duties — a sign of the body's creeping rancor in recent years after decades of at least relative bipartisanship on Supreme Court matters."
But two former senators who have served as minority and majority leader of the Senate offered sharply different opinions on the deployment of the nuclear option; moreover, a study of the history of the filibuster shows it has been deployed precisely one time in a nomination to the Supreme Court — and on that occasion, it had bipartisan backing.
In a strongly worded statement before the vote Tuesday, former Senate Republican leaders Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Trent Lott, R-Miss., said "drawn from a combined 18 years as floor leaders, we support eliminating the pretense of a 60-vote 'requirement.' In the hands of today's Democrats, 60 votes assures defeat of future Republican presidential nominees. As their opposition to Gorsuch shows, no similar nominee could ever be confirmed if that 'requirement' remains."
As for the charge Senate Republicans were taking the nomination process in a new direction, the view of Dole and Lott is the polar opposite.
"We have watched as Senate traditions have been steadily eroded," they wrote, "including the filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees and the changing of the Senate rules to push through President Barack Obama's lower-court nominees."
Tradition, in fact, seems to be on the side against the filibustering of Supreme Court nominees. Until 1949, in fact, there was no filibustering against nominations at all because the "cloture rule" — the two-thirds of the Senate (now 60 votes) required to break a filibuster — applied to legislation and not to-be appointments.
According to a history compiled by the Judicial Crisis Network, "from 1949 to 2003, cloture motions were filed on only 17 judicial nominees. Cloture was successful on the first attempt in 11 cases . . . In the six instances where cloture was not invoked on the first try, no more than two attempts were necessary, and those nominees were ultimately confirmed."
The lone exception is the only Supreme Court nomination ever to be successfully filibustered: Associate Justice Abe Fortas, named by President Lyndon Johnson as chief justice in the summer of 1968 (after LBJ had announced he was not seeking re-election that year).
Because of Fortas' nomination so late in Johnson's last term, and because of ethical concerns about the nominee, the filibuster against him was bipartisan. The vote for cloture was 45 – far below the two-thirds of the Senate required at the time — and Fortas finally asked his nomination be withdrawn.
A year later, he resigned from the court as the ethical questions about him took their toll.
As for a history on which opponents of the nuclear option could make their case, there is no there there
http://www.newsmax.com/JohnGizzi/filibuster-Senate-confirmation-nuclear-option/2017/04/06/id/783032/
-
Also, using Obama logic, because three Democrats voted to confirm, this was a "bipartisan" vote.
-
(https://i.redd.it/sz3muryjvqqy.jpg)
-
Gorsuch breaks mold, asks numerous questions in Supreme Court debut
By Bill Mears
Published April 17, 2017
FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – An upbeat Justice Neil Gorsuch wasted little time getting to work in his first public session Monday as the 113th member of the Supreme Court.
Sitting at the far right end of the nine-member bench, Gorsuch spent the morning hearing three oral arguments, each lasting about an hour. In his first case, considering a federal workplace discrimination claim, the newest justice was among the most active of questioners -- unusual for the court "rookie."
At the start of the morning session, Chief Justice John Roberts publicly acknowledged his new colleague in the crowded courtroom, wishing him a "long and happy career in our common calling."
Gorsuch responded by thanking the other justices for giving him a "warm welcome."
The 49-year-old Colorado native paid close attention to the arguments, sitting straight up and resting his hand occasionally on his chin.
He remained focused -- not even chatting with his "bench neighbor," Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- as he asked a number of questions of counsel. The back-and-forth exchanges lasted more than 10 minutes of the first 60-minute argument.
The first case out of the gate for Gorsuch was not a blockbuster, but the justice repeatedly pressed lawyers from both sides with his positions.
When one attorney admitted he tended to agree with the justice on one point, Gorsuch dryly replied, "I hope so."
At one point, he even apologized for the amount of questions, saying, “Sorry for taking up so much time.”
The other cases being argued separately Monday deal with a property rights dispute and securities class-action lawsuits.
Settling In
Even before Monday's arguments, Gorsuch had begun settling in at the court, arranging his chambers to create a comfortable, efficient workplace. Reminders of his roots in Colorado and the West will grace his offices, along with plenty of photos of his family and friends.
He is allowed to hire secretaries, a messenger, and four law clerks -- who typically serve for one year.
Those clerks will be especially important helping the justice get up to speed on his caseload, since joining the court in the midst of the term is not standard. It will be a nonstop whirl of activity until the term effectively ends in late June.
All four of the law clerks brought on in recent days served previously for then-Judge Gorsuch, and are all experienced litigators or academics. Two of them later went on to clerk for Antonin Scalia (the late justice whose seat Gorsuch is now occupying) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
His colleagues are welcoming their newest member.
"We hope we're serving with Justice Gorsuch for the next 25 years," Roberts said last week before a university audience in New York. "It's kind of like a marriage. If you're going to be with someone that long, you can't have knock-down, drag-out fights over a case."
Lunch Is Served
Food for thought for the newest member of the Supreme Court: being the junior justice has its benefits and challenges.
For Gorsuch, it will mean being assigned to the court's internal Cafeteria Committee, where dessert toppings and silverware choices will compete for his time with constitutional issues big and small -- all part of the dizzying first few weeks for the justice.
Justice Elena Kagan, who had been the court "newbie" since 2010, unwittingly gave her future colleague some personal advice on managing the job. She appeared last September at a Colorado legal conference with Gorsuch and spoke to what it was like to have the least seniority.
"I think this is a way to kind of humble people," she said about her stint as one of the office lunch monitors. "You think you're kind of hot stuff. You're an important person. You've just been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court. And now you are going to monthly cafeteria committee meetings where literally the agenda is what happened to the good recipe for the chocolate chip cookies."
And the rookie hears about it when the food doesn't rate. One tradition of the court is the justices eat together privately after oral arguments.
"Somebody will say, 'Who's our representative to the cafeteria committee again?'" she told Gorsuch. "Like they don't know, right? And then they'll say, 'This soup is very salty.' And I'm like supposed to go fix it myself?"
Kagan recalled her proudest moment was getting a frozen yogurt machine installed in the dining area, which is open to the public.
She had been on the internal committee for seven years, with Justice Stephen Breyer in the job 11 years before that.
"It's a way of bringing them back down to Earth after the excitement of confirmation and appointment," Roberts said in 2011. Roberts' role as "first among equals," though, meant he never had to endure any of the "new guy" responsibilities.
Another duty for the "junior" justice is to answer the door when the members meet privately for their weekly closed-door conferences -- voting on cases and deciding which petitions get added to the docket. His first such conference will be this Thursday.
Gorsuch will also take notes at the conferences, and will vote last when cases get decided.
It is a learning curve that many on the court admit can be baffling and often overwhelming.
Justice Samuel Alito said he frequently got lost in the marbled halls of the court when he joined in 2006, especially since the building was undergoing a massive internal renovation at the time.
Breyer said it took him years to feel fully comfortable in the job.
And Justice Clarence Thomas recalled what Justice Byron White told him when he donned the robes in 1991. White, whose clerks included Gorsuch, said, "Well, Clarence, in your first five years you wonder how you got here. After that you wonder how your colleagues got here."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/17/gorsuch-breaks-mold-asks-numerous-questions-in-supreme-court-debut.html
-
Supreme Court justice nominee coming July 9, Trump says
Matt Richardson By Matt Richardson | Fox News
The president discusses Justice Kennedy's retirement and the process of finding a replacement during a rally in Fargo, North Dakota.
The nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will be announced on July 9, President Trump said on Friday.
Trump, who is in New Jersey for the weekend, said he plans to interview one or two candidates on Saturday or Sunday before announcing his nominee after the Fourth of July.
“I’ve got it narrowed to about five,” he said, including two women. The president said he didn’t plan to probe any potential replacements about Roe v. Wade.
“I’m not going to ask them that question.”
Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring, effective July 31, giving the president the opportunity to make a second pick for the Supreme Court.
WHO ARE THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?
The decision comes a year after Kennedy's former law clerk, Neil Gorsuch, took over the seat occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Republican lawmaker from Utah to play a pivotal role in the upcoming debate over Kennedy's seat. Senator Lee speaks out on 'Fox News @ Night.'Video
Sen. Mike Lee on being a possible replacement for Kennedy
While speaking to reporters inflight to Morristown, New Jersey on Friday afternoon, Trump mentioned Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah. “He said he’d like the job," Trump noted. "Usually they don’t say that.”
Lee and his brother, Utah Supreme Court Justice Thomas Lee, are both on the list to replace Kennedy – setting up a sibling showdown over who could get the nod.
With Kennedy's departure, Republicans have a chance to tip the balance of the court. It already has four justices picked by Democratic presidents and four picked by Republicans, so Trump's pick could shift the ideological balance toward conservatives for years to come.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/29/supreme-court-justice-nominee-coming-july-9-trump-says.html
-
Brett Kavanaugh to Meet with Democrat Joe Manchin as SCOTUS Confirmation Looms
Manchin and Kavanaugh combo photoAssociated Press
30 Jul 2018
Sen. Joe Manchin (R-WV) is the first Democrat to announce he will meet with President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. The meeting is scheduled for Monday, according to media reports.
Kavanaugh will replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring. Unlike some Democrats who have vowed to outright oppose Kavanaugh, Manchin has said he wants to “evaluate” the nominee, who is an accomplished judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Most Democrats say they oppose Kavanaugh because they believe he would vote to overturn the abortion-legalizing Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and reverse Obama-era government-run health care.
“I will evaluate Judge Kavanaugh’s record, legal qualifications, judicial philosophy and, particularly, his views on health care,” Manchin said when Trump named Kavanaugh as his nominee.
“I believe the Senate should hold committee hearings; senators should meet with him, we should debate his qualifications on the Senate floor and cast whatever vote we believe he deserves,” Manchin said.
Kavanaugh is also scheduled to meet with Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) on Monday.
The meetings come on the day the National Archives released documents from the time when Kavanaugh worked in the independent counsel’s office in the 1990s, according to the Washington Times:
Most of the documents appear to be correspondence and case files that came across Judge Kavanaugh’s desk during his time working for Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated the Clintons.
Judge Kavanaugh would later go on to work in the Bush White House before winning a seat on the federal circuit court in D.C., in 2006.
The Archives said it released 1,025 pages of documents.
The Times reports the documents show Kavanaugh’s work parallels the current Department of Justice special counsel investigation into Russian involvement in the Trump presidential campaign.
“Mr Kavanaugh’s conclusion at the time was that Congress had a right to do its own investigation that may overlap the independent counsel, but it didn’t have a right to get a look at the probe’s work,” the Times reported.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/30/kavanaugh-meet-democrat-manchin-scotus-appointment-looms/
-
Dershowitz Predicts Kavanaugh Will Easily Win SCOTUS Confirmation
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Monday, 30 July 2018
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and it won't be a close vote, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz predicted Monday, while commenting that he wishes politics could be kept out of the confirmation process.
"He will get 54 or 55 votes, I think, because the president selected well," Dershowitz told Fox News' "America's Newsroom."
"If he had picked somebody far less qualified who has strong ideological views it would be a closer vote."
Kavanaugh, a U.S. Circuit Judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has "extraordinary experience and taught at Harvard, where "the students loved him," said Dershowitz.
"Many of the students, both liberals and conservatives, wrote a petition supporting him," said Dershowitz. "I think unless something comes up that we're not aware of, I'm pretty sure he will be confirmed."
Meanwhile, the country's leaders should be confirming the most qualified people for the higher court without regard to political benefit or gain, said the law professor.
"That's not the way the framers contemplated justices being nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court," he said. "They had in mind the very best people."
But now, the matter of a Supreme Court justice is "completely political," but all senators should keep an open mind, Dershowitz commented.
"It's all because of Merrick Garland," he said, referring to President Barack Obama's nominee who was blocked in 2016 because of the looming election.
"It's completely political and all senators should keep an open mind," said Dershowitz. "Interview Kavanaugh. Wait to see what he thinks of the tower of precedent, whether he will start overruling cases, and then cast their vote on the basis of the quality of the candidate, not the political advantage or disadvantage they get from voting one way or the other."
Meanwhile, Vice President Mike Pence over the weekend praised Kavanaugh as a nominee who will pay attention to the strict construction of the Constitution, but Dershowitz said such phrases have become a cliche.
"In Bush versus Gore, the conservatives stretched the Constitution to apply equal protection analysis to the way ballots were counted, s each side stretches the Constitution when it serves their interest and reads it narrowly when it serves their interest," said Dershowitz.
Meanwhile, the United States is looking for a person who could potentially be a justice for 20 or 30 years, and nobody knows what the issues will be then, said the professor.
"Abortion may be off the table and we may have developed technologies to eliminate the need for abortion," said Dershowitz. "Gay rights probably will be an issue of historic interest. We don't know what the issues will be.
"That's why we need the most qualified, brilliant, academic, serious people serving on the court without regard to what their current political interests are. Justices tend to change over time."
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/alan-dershowitz-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-confirmation/2018/07/30/id/874503/
-
Sen. Rand Paul Supports Trump High Court Nominee
Monday, 30 July 2018
Republican Senator Rand Paul said Monday he will support President Donald Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, after expressing concerns about his position on privacy issues.
"After meeting Judge Kavanaugh and reviewing his record, I have decided to support his nomination," Paul said in a series of Twitter posts explaining his decision.
. . .
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rand-paul-kavanaugh/2018/07/30/id/874497/