So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[SassyIrishLass]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Seig Heil! Adolph!

Yeah, if anyone is Adolph it's you baby murdering advocates, Dr Mengele

Fell right into that one didn't you dumbass

You're the one possessing the mistaken belief that you can tell the people how to live their lives. I'm all in on letting the people decide for themselves.

That's a yuge difference between you and me

Well that and I don't agree with killing innocent babies....that's a huge difference.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Seig Heil! Adolph!

Yeah, if anyone is Adolph it's you baby murdering advocates, Dr Mengele

Fell right into that one didn't you dumbass

You're the one possessing the mistaken belief that you can tell the people how to live their lives. I'm all in on letting the people decide for themselves.

That's a yuge difference between you and me

Well that and I don't agree with killing innocent babies....that's a huge difference.

I guess he's all for letting people decide... except for babies.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Seig Heil! Adolph!

Yeah, if anyone is Adolph it's you baby murdering advocates, Dr Mengele

Fell right into that one didn't you dumbass

You're the one possessing the mistaken belief that you can tell the people how to live their lives. I'm all in on letting the people decide for themselves.

That's a yuge difference between you and me

Well that and I don't agree with killing innocent babies....that's a huge difference.

I guess he's all for letting people decide... except for babies.

He's sort of annoying, spews the same left crap over and over. Anyone supporting abortion is just as bad as the ones doing it

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

The wingers will dump him now.

 

[bendog]

Nice to see the left respects him on this I suspect however that respect will vanish as soon he he rules on something in a way you don't like then he will be a dangerous right wing extremist.

You mean like how the Right shit on Roberts the first time they didn't like his ruling? Like that?

Precisely right.

Roberts showed his true colors as a swing voter like Kennedy.

I don't think so. There are two ways to look at Roberts's Obamacare vote. 1. It's a tax. Congress has the power to levy any tax it wants with very little restriction beyond only Jews or something. But to rule Obamacare was legal was going to bring the wrath of the right. Roberts is the chief, so he got the short straw. OR 2. He was just not going to have the SC drawn into a partisan politcal fight. And it might have been both. Roberts is by inclination a pre-Warren Court conservative.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

Is that you, Dale?

 

[bendog]

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

You'd be wise to study the history of Bork and Alito. The dems are not squeaky clean on nomination processes

Bork was a traitor.

There was no excuse for nominating Bork.

Bork was a traitor?

Oh, let me guess, the Russians!!!

Bork was not a traitor. But he carried out Nixons Sat Night Massacre. That was his real sin. He was fine on the circuit court, but there was distrust for his view on how far executive power goes. If the potus says it's legal, is it? Can the potus bug phones without a warrant?

 

[Darkwind]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Apparently Gorsuch agrees with ME.

What an idiotic statement.

Gorsuch agrees that the law has precedence. He did not make a statement to his own beliefs that I'm aware. You do realize he is answering questions as they pertain to law?

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

I don't care about abortion, and it has zero influence on how I vote.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't think so. There are two ways to look at Roberts's Obamacare vote. 1. It's a tax. Congress has the power to levy any tax it wants with very little restriction beyond only Jews or something. But to rule Obamacare was legal was going to bring the wrath of the right. Roberts is the chief, so he got the short straw.

Except the entire argument by the Obama Administration defending the ACA was that it was NOT a tax.

OR 2. He was just not going to have the SC drawn into a partisan politcal fight.

Agreed. He took the coward's way out, plain and simple, and set a very dangerous precedent down the road. Once it's been decided that the federal government can force you to buy a product where does that authority end?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

You'd be wise to study the history of Bork and Alito. The dems are not squeaky clean on nomination processes

Bork was a traitor.

There was no excuse for nominating Bork.

Bork was a traitor?

Oh, let me guess, the Russians!!!

Bork was not a traitor. But he carried out Nixons Sat Night Massacre. That was his real sin. He was fine on the circuit court, but there was distrust for his view on how far executive power goes. If the potus says it's legal, is it? Can the potus bug phones without a warrant?

He did under orders from Nixon.. and he promptly appointed a new SP, Leon Jaworski.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think so. There are two ways to look at Roberts's Obamacare vote. 1. It's a tax. Congress has the power to levy any tax it wants with very little restriction beyond only Jews or something. But to rule Obamacare was legal was going to bring the wrath of the right. Roberts is the chief, so he got the short straw.

Except the entire argument by the Obama Administration defending the ACA was that it was NOT a tax.

OR 2. He was just not going to have the SC drawn into a partisan politcal fight.

Agreed. He took the coward's way out, plain and simple, and set a very dangerous precedent down the road. Once it's been decided that the federal government can force you to buy a product where does that authority end?

But it was declared a tax. No one was forced to buy the product. You were incentivized to buy the product by the offer of a tax break.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think so. There are two ways to look at Roberts's Obamacare vote. 1. It's a tax. Congress has the power to levy any tax it wants with very little restriction beyond only Jews or something. But to rule Obamacare was legal was going to bring the wrath of the right. Roberts is the chief, so he got the short straw.

Except the entire argument by the Obama Administration defending the ACA was that it was NOT a tax.

OR 2. He was just not going to have the SC drawn into a partisan politcal fight.

Agreed. He took the coward's way out, plain and simple, and set a very dangerous precedent down the road. Once it's been decided that the federal government can force you to buy a product where does that authority end?

If the government offers you a tax break to put solar panels on your house, are they forcing you to buy solar panels?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't think so. There are two ways to look at Roberts's Obamacare vote. 1. It's a tax. Congress has the power to levy any tax it wants with very little restriction beyond only Jews or something. But to rule Obamacare was legal was going to bring the wrath of the right. Roberts is the chief, so he got the short straw.

Except the entire argument by the Obama Administration defending the ACA was that it was NOT a tax.

OR 2. He was just not going to have the SC drawn into a partisan politcal fight.

Agreed. He took the coward's way out, plain and simple, and set a very dangerous precedent down the road. Once it's been decided that the federal government can force you to buy a product where does that authority end?

If the government offers you a tax break to put solar panels on your house, are they forcing you to buy solar panels?

Only if they penalize you for not buying solar panels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Apparently Gorsuch agrees with ME.

What an idiotic statement.

Gorsuch agrees that the law has precedence. He did not make a statement to his own beliefs that I'm aware. You do realize he is answering questions as they pertain to law?

I believe Roe is precedent. Gorsuch believes Roe is precedent. How is that not agreeing?

 

[bendog]

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

You'd be wise to study the history of Bork and Alito. The dems are not squeaky clean on nomination processes

Bork was a traitor.

There was no excuse for nominating Bork.

Bork was a traitor?

Oh, let me guess, the Russians!!!

Bork was not a traitor. But he carried out Nixons Sat Night Massacre. That was his real sin. He was fine on the circuit court, but there was distrust for his view on how far executive power goes. If the potus says it's legal, is it? Can the potus bug phones without a warrant?

He did under orders from Nixon.. and he promptly appointed a new SP, Leon Jaworski.

Yes but why did he follow the order? Did he believe the president could fire Cox

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think so. There are two ways to look at Roberts's Obamacare vote. 1. It's a tax. Congress has the power to levy any tax it wants with very little restriction beyond only Jews or something. But to rule Obamacare was legal was going to bring the wrath of the right. Roberts is the chief, so he got the short straw.

Except the entire argument by the Obama Administration defending the ACA was that it was NOT a tax.

OR 2. He was just not going to have the SC drawn into a partisan politcal fight.

Agreed. He took the coward's way out, plain and simple, and set a very dangerous precedent down the road. Once it's been decided that the federal government can force you to buy a product where does that authority end?

If the government offers you a tax break to put solar panels on your house, are they forcing you to buy solar panels?

Only if they penalize you for not buying solar panels.

If you don't buy the panels, you pay the taxes you would have avoided if you bought the panels.

If you don't buy insurance, you pay the taxes you would have avoided if you bought the insurance.

It's exactly the same.

And btw, Trumpcare has the same tax break, albeit of a lesser value, as does Obamacare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Apparently Gorsuch agrees with ME.

What an idiotic statement.

Gorsuch agrees that the law has precedence. He did not make a statement to his own beliefs that I'm aware. You do realize he is answering questions as they pertain to law?

Where did I make a statement 'to my own beliefs'?

 

[bendog]

I don't think so. There are two ways to look at Roberts's Obamacare vote. 1. It's a tax. Congress has the power to levy any tax it wants with very little restriction beyond only Jews or something. But to rule Obamacare was legal was going to bring the wrath of the right. Roberts is the chief, so he got the short straw.

Except the entire argument by the Obama Administration defending the ACA was that it was NOT a tax.

OR 2. He was just not going to have the SC drawn into a partisan politcal fight.

Agreed. He took the coward's way out, plain and simple, and set a very dangerous precedent down the road. Once it's been decided that the federal government can force you to buy a product where does that authority end?

The entire concept of a mandate was a heritage organization creation. It may have been bad policy, but it was a tax

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government gives parents THOUSANDS of dollars in tax breaks just for having ONE kid,

but the government doesn't force you to have a kid,

even though those who choose to remain childless, all else being equal, PAY those THOUSANDS of dollars in taxes.