Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch

[Derelict_Drvr]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule" - that's nothing more then idle SPECULATION that you guys decided was a "rule" - that's it. Never became a rule. Never discussed as a rule. Never ACTED upon.

So man up and own your douchebaggery here. You set a precedent that was never set before, not idle talk - action. You deserve every bit of obstruction you get.

Even Polifacts doesn't refute what Biden said. Piss and moan all you want, but Republicans are following what one of your exalted leaders said, but the facts still remain. Democrat howl when Republican what Democrats posit, and that pisses you of to no end.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

Sorry, dood. This "Do as I say, not what I do" bullshit doesn't work in the adult world. And to reiterate, THAT REALLY PISSES YOU OFF!!!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Joe Biden was clearly saying that he was very much against the idea of Bush nominating a judge in an election year (1992), but would relent if Bush won the election and chose to make his nomination afterwards. From the WaPo article: Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

In other words, his position was the same one Senate Republicans and Mitch McConnell took for Merrick Garland—that the next President after the presidential election should make the nomination. So Biden was being a hypocrite when he was up in arms over the Republicans' tactics.

The political campaign season ends with the election. Not with the inauguration.

Biden called for no nominees between the conventions and election day and the nominee would be considered by the Senate after the election and before inauguration. The nominee would be but forth by the current President not the next President.


>>>>

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

The load you are repeating about calling for a new President to make the nomination is completely false because Biden's specifically says that President Bush should make the nomination after the election is complete. NOT that the next President should make the nomination after inauguration.

Parse words much?

When he said "The President" he meant "The President". He DIDN'T say "President BUSH should nominate after the election".

Do you really believe that Joe Biden would not hold off nominating a REPUBLICAN Justice with the chance that "The President" after the election would be a Democrat?

Really, how out of touch are you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Parse words much?

When he said "The President" he meant "The President". He DIDN'T say "President BUSH should nominate after the election".

Do you really believe that Joe Biden would not hold off nominating a REPUBLICAN Justice with the chance that "The President" after the election would be a Democrat?

Really, how out of touch are you?

The leadin "Mr. President" is referring to the President of the Senate, here is the quote:

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."​

He specifically named President Bush (the sitting President) and after the November election. NOT after the inauguration and the seating of a new President.


>>>>

 

[Coyote]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule" - that's nothing more then idle SPECULATION that you guys decided was a "rule" - that's it. Never became a rule. Never discussed as a rule. Never ACTED upon.

So man up and own your douchebaggery here. You set a precedent that was never set before, not idle talk - action. You deserve every bit of obstruction you get.

Even Polifacts doesn't refute what Biden said. Piss and moan all you want, but Republicans are following what one of your exalted leaders said, but the facts still remain. Democrat howl when Republican what Democrats posit, and that pisses you of to no end.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

Sorry, dood. This "Do as I say, not what I do" bullshit doesn't work in the adult world. And to reiterate, THAT REALLY PISSES YOU OFF!!!

Speaking of bullshit...welcome to the adult world, from your source:

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."


Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule" - that's nothing more then idle SPECULATION that you guys decided was a "rule" - that's it. Never became a rule. Never discussed as a rule. Never ACTED upon.

So man up and own your douchebaggery here. You set a precedent that was never set before, not idle talk - action. You deserve every bit of obstruction you get.

You set a precedent that was never set before

Are you sure?

 

[Coyote]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule" - that's nothing more then idle SPECULATION that you guys decided was a "rule" - that's it. Never became a rule. Never discussed as a rule. Never ACTED upon.

So man up and own your douchebaggery here. You set a precedent that was never set before, not idle talk - action. You deserve every bit of obstruction you get.

You set a precedent that was never set before

Are you sure?

Yup.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule" - that's nothing more then idle SPECULATION that you guys decided was a "rule" - that's it. Never became a rule. Never discussed as a rule. Never ACTED upon.

So man up and own your douchebaggery here. You set a precedent that was never set before, not idle talk - action. You deserve every bit of obstruction you get.

You set a precedent that was never set before

Are you sure?

Yup.

Every single nominee before Garland got an up or down vote, no matter how close to the election?
Or was it some other precedent you were thinking of?

 

[longknife]

Once again, leftists do everything they can to divert from the main point of this thread.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If Schumer had balls, someone would cut them off.

 

[Valerie]

yes, it's a full court press against the nominee of this traitorous trump administration.

gorsuch is a tedious narrow minded jurist willing to hang his legal hat on stiffing average Americans.



Anyone who believes in a neutral Supreme Court guided by equal justice for all should oppose this nomination.


On the bench, his judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.

Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.

"Big companies and rich right-wing billionaires are spending top dollar to help a judge like Gorsuch get over the finish line. But that’s not how our court system is supposed to work. Our courts are supposed to be neutral arbiters, dispensing justice based on the facts and the law — not the party with the most money or political power.


Gorsuch is charming and intelligent. He has an impressive legal pedigree. But this is not a Miss Congeniality pageant or a contest for the nominee with the fanciest degrees. This is a vote for a justice who will sit on the highest court in our nation for the next generation and decide cases that will touch every human being in this country. Cases about a woman’s right to choose, voting rights, LGBTQ rights, secret spending in our political system, and freedom of speech and religion. The next Supreme Court justice will help determine whether our courts will serve the interests of all of us or bend to the will of the powerful moneyed few who helped place them on the court.

There is only one question that should guide us in that decision: whether the nominee will defend equal justice for every single one of us — rich or poor, black or white, female or male, gay or straight, popular or unpopular. Gorsuch’s record shows that he is not that nominee.

At a moment when the awesome power of the presidency is in the hands of someone who has shown contempt for our Constitution, our independent judiciary, our free press, and the principles that make our nation a beacon of democracy, this decision is more consequential than at any time in recent history. We cannot stand down when the president of the United States attempts to hand our highest court over to the highest bidder."




Elizabeth Warren: Neil Gorsuch does not belong on the Supreme Court - The Boston Globe

"he wrote an article arguing that liberals should keep important social issues like gay marriage, physician-assisted suicide, and school vouchers out of the court sytem. Notably absent was a similar critique of conservatives who pursue their interests in the court system. And Gorsuch has advocated for making it harder for investors and shareholders to bring lawsuits when companies commit securities fraud."

 

[HenryBHough]

Elections have consequences, Democrat assholes. Your BOY said it and He was, perhaps for the first and last time,right.

Suck it up.

Nuclear option NOW.

Or, Republicans, just roll over.

 

[Valerie]

“Law isn’t a rule of nature, like gravity. It only works if people believe in it.”

 

[Valerie]

“There’s a lot of reason to be concerned if you’re a big fan of women’s reproductive rights,” says Michael Klarman, a professor at Harvard Law School. “As soon as you overturned the trimester framework in Roe, you’re no longer in the realm of being bound by precedent.”

The court can thus see-saw back and forth on abortion decisions.


Here’s What Neil Gorsuch Means for Abortion

 

[hadit]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.

How many times do I have to quote what Joe Biden said in 1992 the became The Biden Rule that now applies to Judicial nominees in an election year.

The Garland issue was unprecedented because the rule wasn't created until just a few years ago, and a vacancy during an election year has not come up.

Why do Democrats howl the loudest when Republicans utilize a rule THEY created?

Here it is again:

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year

NOW do you understand??????

There is no such thing as the "Biden Rule" - that's nothing more then idle SPECULATION that you guys decided was a "rule" - that's it. Never became a rule. Never discussed as a rule. Never ACTED upon.

So man up and own your douchebaggery here. You set a precedent that was never set before, not idle talk - action. You deserve every bit of obstruction you get.

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

 

[Valerie]

A Roe reversal is possible. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist made no secret of his desire to do away it, and Scalia, in his Casey dissent, argued that it should be overturned, writing that since the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion specifically, it should be up to states to decide. (Critics of that argument note that the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, either, but the court has felt free to strike down states’ bans on interracial and, more recently, same-sex marriage.) Like Scalia, Gorsuch is what’s known as a legal textualist, interpreting the law based on the words as written, not their perceived intent; he called called the late justice ”a lion of the law” in a tribute published last year in the Case Western Reserve Law Review. If Trump appointed enough justices like him—in theory, he might need just one more appointment— and the right case came up, the court could conceivably follow Scalia’s original line of thinking and overturn Roe.

At least a few states seem intent on bringing forth such a case.

Here’s What Neil Gorsuch Means for Abortion

 

[hadit]

You hit the nail on the head, Congress establishes its own parliamentary rules and they can be changed at any time. The rules remained stable for decades until, in a snit about not getting their way, the Democrats led by Dingy Harry decided to change them, All it takes is a simple majority to approve or change those rules. So, if Schumer and his fellow cry babies want to filibuster, it will be simple to change the rule.

And, the only constitutional requirement for congress to do anything is that a quorum must be present.

Actually it was Bill Frist (R-TN) as the Majority Leader that proposed the Nuclear Option in 2005.



>>>>

They proposed it but didn't act on it. That was Reid, all the way.

 

[Valerie]

So obstruction is only a bad thing if Republicans do it?

sometimes you obstruct and other times you're obstructed. stop whining.

 

[Valerie]

Like Scalia, Gorsuch is what’s known as a legal textualist, interpreting the law based on the words as written, not their perceived intent; he called called the late justice ”a lion of the law” in a tribute published last year in the Case Western Reserve Law Review.

Although I think Scalia’s originalism is likely to fade, the basic textualist method of interpreting statutes according to the words while eschewing legislative history and purpose has a future -- because it has a past.

To understand where textualism came from, go all the way back to Aristotle. The Greek philosopher understood that all interpreters of legal texts face a basic problem: Law is by definition abstract and general, yet human circumstances are concrete and varied. A good law is a rule that governs the majority of cases, but not every case will fit the aims of the law.

Aristotle favored the rule of law, which he has some claim to have invented. But that meant he had to explain what the law should do when its application would prove unjust in circumstances unanticipated by the legislator. His answer was that the law should be rectified to fit the circumstances, not applied blindly. The decision-maker must ask what a reasonable legislator would’ve intended the result to be in the particular case. This isn’t a question of actual legislative intent, because Aristotle was dealing with a situation the lawmaker didn’t anticipate. Instead, Aristotle offered a theory of hypothetical legislative intent: Ask not what the legislature did; ask what a rational legislature would’ve done had it foreseen the problem.

This Will Literally Be Scalia's Biggest Legacy

 

[dannyboys]

Surprise, surprise....

When announced as a nominee, the media on both sides swooned and praised him. It was said about him that he was perhaps the most qualified for the job. Politicians on both sides of the aisle praised him....of course that was before Schumer and the 'leaders' of the DNC passed around their 'marching orders'. After almost flawlessly breezing through the Confirmation hearings, Schumer announced that the Democrats are committed to their earlier declaration of complete and total obstructionism.

Chuck Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Judge Gorsuch - Hot Air

“My vote will be no and I urge my colleagues to do the same,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech today. And with that, Democrats have officially decided to give their base the fight it wants, a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch.

“Judge Gorsuch was unable to convince me that he’d be an independent check on a president who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach,” Schumer said. He added that Gorsuch appeared to have a “deep-seated conservative ideology.”

TRANSLATION:
- He is a GOP nominee
- He believes in adhering to the Constitution and not legislating from the Bench
- Democrats stand for and have committed ourselves to be strict Obstructionists

Schumer wins 'Political Douche Of The Day'!

GOP... GO NUCLEAR!

Political Douch Award has already been taken by the Republicans for unprecedently blocking Garland. They deserve every bit of obstruction thrown at them.

That said - I really hope they don't. I don't think blocking Gorsuch is beneficial for our country. He's well qualified and well regarded, liked by his colleagues on both sides of the bench. They could have chosen far worse.