Trump nominates pro-life Neil Gorsuch for Supreme court

[Marine Cpl]

Even worse, he IS watching CNN!

You don't watch it? I always start on Fox. When the commercial comes on, I change to either CNN or MSNBC for comedy.

 

[GOPerfect]

You don't watch it? I always start on Fox. When the commercial comes on, I change to either CNN or MSNBC for comedy.

Yeah. I admit, I watch them all. I am watching David Korn(No Lips) on MSNBC

 

[Greywolf224]

Even worse, he IS watching CNN!

@GOPerfect You know the old saying. Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer

 

[GOPerfect]

 

[FrankenCub]

I just can't handle watching CNN, too much time bitching at the TV like it does any good. I rarely watch any news channels anymore, it's all fear porn.

 

[BuffaloBill]

How old is he?

49

 

[spat]

What is his NRA Rating, not sure if he is as friendly as Scalia.

Very hard to find a good replacement for Scalia. From what I've read this guy is about the best we could have hoped for.

When Scalia died there was only one direction the court could have moved, and the question was how far it would go.

 

[spat]

We could be in trouble but I hope not. I base that on this quote:

Source of quote. Yes the NRA may think him the cat's pajamas but I do not like that quote at all because it is not in agreement with the 2nd Amendment - nowhere does the 2nd Amendment say that our right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed lightly (thus implying it can be done so seriously); the 2nd says "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By him saying it may not be infringed lightly he has implied that he believes it can be infringed as long as it is not done so due to negligible concerns - then who is to decide which concerns are strong enough to allow for its infringement!

It could just be that existing SCOTUS case law is that certain infringements are OK, and he did not want to come out contradicting that.

It is widely believed even by many strong RKBA advocates that "dangerous and unusual" weapons can be outlawed for instance. I'm not sure I would publicly declare the 2A as absolute if I were in the running for a federal court appointment either.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It could just be that existing SCOTUS case law is that certain infringements are OK, and he did not want to come out contradicting that.

It is widely believed even by many strong RKBA advocates that "dangerous and unusual" weapons can be outlawed for instance. I'm not sure I would publicly declare the 2A as absolute if I were in the running for a federal court appointment either.

Well in the Declaration of Independence, it stated that the citizenry needed the tools to be able to dispose of the government. Then right after the war, the 2A was added to the Bill of Rights.

The founders wanted to preserve arms for that ability. So if you take the 2A literally, only arms that can be used on our soil to dispose of our government are protected. IE... What an infantryman or artillerymen can carry. Nukes, chemical and biological can't be used to dispose of our government so they aren't protected.

So there are some limits in my opinion too.

 

[spat]

Well in the Declaration of Independence, it stated that the citizenry needed the tools to be able to dispose of the government. Then right after the war, the 2A was added to the Bill of Rights.

The founders wanted to preserve arms for that ability. So if you take the 2A literally, only arms that can be used on our soil to dispose of our government are protected. IE... What an infantryman or artillerymen can carry. Nukes, chemical and biological can't be used to dispose of our government so they aren't protected.

So there are some limits in my opinion too.

I think anything the government has we can have. Our government has abandoned bio weapons (at least as far as they'll admit), so those could be considered "dangerous or unusual" enough to bad, but otherwise, if our government needs it to defeat another government, we might need it to defeat ours.

I would like to remind people, technically there is no prohibition on private ownership of nuclear weapons now, if you can afford the billions required to build one, the CLEO sign-off for the NFA, and the licensing from the NRC is probably doable.

 

[MikeyCNY]

Meh, anti-choice is a big downer.

Lame stance on the 2A is not that great.

I'm sure I'll learn more in the next few weeks.

But yeah, it could have been anyone, and the left would flip.

Part of me wanted a gay, black, immigrant woman to be Trump's choice, just to see how the Left would twist everything around. But then I realized experience, ability and integrity matter more than anything else.

 

[Glenn B]

It is widely believed even by many strong RKBA advocates that "dangerous and unusual" weapons can be outlawed for instance.

Do you know since when and why such is the case? It is because we have been brainwashed by anti-RKBA liberals since Prohibition times. The belief that there were "dangerous and unusual weapons" as you call them only became the case, as far as I know, when the U.S. government decided to tax and make owners register certain weapons such as submachine guns and sawed off shotguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (see: National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). It blossomed from there as far as I am aware. We as a nation have been liberalized (brainwashed) about the evils of arms, especially guns, ever since.

So, as to these so called "strong RKBA advocates" who you say widely believe that our Constitution allows for the outlawing of dangerous and unusual weapons, tell me please where do they find the legal authority, is it within our Constitution? I think your definition of strong RKBA advocate is a misguided one because while those advocates may yammer in partial support of our RKBA and of the 2nd Amendment, those same so called strong advocates are those who have been brainwashed since birth by the howlings of the left regarding the evils of arms and of the RKBA. On the other hand, there are those advocates of the RKBA who have a strong belief, one founded in history, that the intention of the Framer's of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights meant to assure that the people would always have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government and thus be readily armed to do so and that such would not be forgotten. I can only hope Gorsuch is one of the latter.

 

[Phauxtoe]

God forbid we would use the Constitution in context!

 

[Darth]

No limits.

Any limits are "we know better than you, serf" in disguise.

I've yet to hear a valid argument for banning nukes from civilian ownership. Sounds ridiculous? Explain what, exactly, is keeping the ultra rich from getting them. Hint: it's not words on paper.

 

[Phauxtoe]

As Always, Chuck wants to make the Pick!
He does Know best after all!

 

[ProgSpear]

I ask because I am watching CNN news, and I heard someone speaking saying that perhaps they The Democrats shouldn't filibuster this Scotus choice but wait for the next one.

So that's why was asking. But it doesn't make sense. If the Republicans could administer the nuclear option in both cases what would the Democrats gain?

The Dems screwed themselves royally when that little prick Harry Reid trashed the filibuster to push Bam-bam's agenda. The filibuster basically was a Senate rule designed to prevent a vote, as a tool to achieve broad "bipartisan" consensus on any given topic, meaning nothing got done unless said topic was watered down enough to be somewhat palatable to both sides. The same could be said when it came to court picks, but the Dems under Reid wanted to pack the lower courts with as many liberals as possible, so they dumped the filibuster so they could confirm their picks with a simple 51% majority, and dumping the filibuster prevented the Pubs from any means of delaying them. (the so called nuclear option)

They did this back in their supremely arrogant days when everyone was saying there would never be a Pub majority again, the Pub party was dead, blah, blah, blah... Oops. Now the shoe's on the other foot. (damn those pesky voters!)

The only exception the Dems made to the nuclear option was SCOTUS picks, which still require a 60 member "cloture" vote, to formally end debate. This is the thread that Schmuckie and his ilk are hanging by in their opposition to Gorsuch; all they can do is bitch and bitch, hoping to delay things long enough for Soros' rioters to make a bunch of Pub senators go weak kneed. Trumps alternatives are going to be to work on the 25 senators up for re-election in 2018, particularly the 13 from states he clearly carried, or to have the Pub majority "go nuclear" themselves, and abolish the filibuster rule altogether. (which I think would be a mistake)

February is going to be an interesting month. I hope it's bitter cold, just to minimize the impact of Soros' paid minions. I also hope that when Jeff Sessions is confirmed, one of his first missions will be to back trace the money from the rioters, and start prosecuting the individual(s) that are fomenting the riots. (As an aside, both Russia and Hungary have open warrants for Soros.)

 

[Gunright]

Want to get the liberal's to really scream and froth at the mouth? Tell them that not only can they force the nomination in ("nuclear option"), but they could also change the number of seats on the Supreme Court to allow Trump more nominations.

The number of members of Scotus is NOT set in the constitution, it is set by congress.

 

[Target]

There is no "Nuclear Option" in place, at this time , to appoint a SCOTUS judge.

The Nuke Op is a change in rules to where only a simple majority ( 50% +1 vote) is needed to confirm as opposed to the higher majority percentage ( 60 something) currently in place.
Ried changed the rules for a lesser tier of appointments.
McConnell can easily change the rules for this level.

Once the rules are modified, they stay in effect till changed again. So in theory, as I understand it, McConnell could reverse the Nuke Op and go back to a high majority if they choose.

 

[nortatoga]

 

[Target]

Hopefully, sheeple will see the insincerity of the protesters that showed up with signs the had the name of the candidate blank until they heard whose name to write in.

It didn't matter who Trump put forth, they were going to bitch regardless.

 

[Phazer]

This is classic of the Left:

Unreasonable Obstructionists: Democrats Use Fill-In-The-Blank Protest Signs to Oppose Gorsuch | The Resurgent

 

[spat]

There is no "Nuclear Option" in place, at this time , to appoint a SCOTUS judge.

The Nuke Op is a change in rules to where only a simple majority ( 50% +1 vote) is needed to confirm as opposed to the higher majority percentage ( 60 something) currently in place.
Ried changed the rules for a lesser tier of appointments.
McConnell can easily change the rules for this level.

Once the rules are modified, they stay in effect till changed again. So in theory, as I understand it, McConnell could reverse the Nuke Op and go back to a high majority if they choose.

At this point the only way to really put the old rule back would be a constitutional ammendment. They have always had the option of changing the rule by a simple majority vote, but tradition, and integrity prevented them from doing so. Now that the precedent is set you could put it back, but someone else could just get rid of it as soon as it was in their way.

 

[stuck in ny]

Why do they always pick grey beards? Why not a 30 year old? WTF?

My thoughts exactly; pack the place for as long as possible.

 

[stuck in ny]

Well in the Declaration of Independence, it stated that the citizenry needed the tools to be able to dispose of the government. Then right after the war, the 2A was added to the Bill of Rights.

The founders wanted to preserve arms for that ability. So if you take the 2A literally, only arms that can be used on our soil to dispose of our government are protected. IE... What an infantryman or artillerymen can carry. Nukes, chemical and biological can't be used to dispose of our government so they aren't protected.

So there are some limits in my opinion too.

To actually fight a tyrant we would need at least some AT and AA capability.

 

[spat]

The Dems screwed themselves royally when that little prick Harry Reid trashed the filibuster to push Bam-bam's agenda. The filibuster basically was a Senate rule designed to prevent a vote, as a tool to achieve broad "bipartisan" consensus on any given topic, meaning nothing got done unless said topic was watered down enough to be somewhat palatable to both sides. The same could be said when it came to court picks, but the Dems under Reid wanted to pack the lower courts with as many liberals as possible, so they dumped the filibuster so they could confirm their picks with a simple 51% majority, and dumping the filibuster prevented the Pubs from any means of delaying them. (the so called nuclear option)

They did this back in their supremely arrogant days when everyone was saying there would never be a Pub majority again, the Pub party was dead, blah, blah, blah... Oops. Now the shoe's on the other foot. (damn those pesky voters!)

The only exception the Dems made to the nuclear option was SCOTUS picks, which still require a 60 member "cloture" vote, to formally end debate. This is the thread that Schmuckie and his ilk are hanging by in their opposition to Gorsuch; all they can do is bitch and bitch, hoping to delay things long enough for Soros' rioters to make a bunch of Pub senators go weak kneed. Trumps alternatives are going to be to work on the 25 senators up for re-election in 2018, particularly the 13 from states he clearly carried, or to have the Pub majority "go nuclear" themselves, and abolish the filibuster rule altogether. (which I think would be a mistake)

February is going to be an interesting month. I hope it's bitter cold, just to minimize the impact of Soros' paid minions. I also hope that when Jeff Sessions is confirmed, one of his first missions will be to back trace the money from the rioters, and start prosecuting the individual(s) that are fomenting the riots. (As an aside, both Russia and Hungary have open warrants for Soros.)

We should arrest Soros and trade him with Russia for Snowden. Actually all it would take would be for Trump to negotiate an extradition treaty with Putin. Boy wouldn't that burn the snowflakes.

 

[spat]

To actually fight a tyrant we would need at least some AT and AA capability.

In a stand up fight, sure, but by the time it got that far things would have degenerated to the point where the actual law was meaningless. Both sides would have all the toys, and all members of the other side would be on an "arrest on sight" list anyway.

You will see totalitarian martial law on one side, probably with summary execution, and rebels with confiscated Apaches fighting back.

Think like this, what law could have stopped the rise of ISIS in Iraq ? Once they were power they would have ignored it anyway.

 

[Greywolf224]

The Dems screwed themselves royally when that little prick Harry Reid trashed the filibuster to push Bam-bam's agenda. The filibuster basically was a Senate rule designed to prevent a vote, as a tool to achieve broad "bipartisan" consensus on any given topic, meaning nothing got done unless said topic was watered down enough to be somewhat palatable to both sides. The same could be said when it came to court picks, but the Dems under Reid wanted to pack the lower courts with as many liberals as possible, so they dumped the filibuster so they could confirm their picks with a simple 51% majority, and dumping the filibuster prevented the Pubs from any means of delaying them. (the so called nuclear option)

They did this back in their supremely arrogant days when everyone was saying there would never be a Pub majority again, the Pub party was dead, blah, blah, blah... Oops. Now the shoe's on the other foot. (damn those pesky voters!)

The only exception the Dems made to the nuclear option was SCOTUS picks, which still require a 60 member "cloture" vote, to formally end debate. This is the thread that Schmuckie and his ilk are hanging by in their opposition to Gorsuch; all they can do is bitch and bitch, hoping to delay things long enough for Soros' rioters to make a bunch of Pub senators go weak kneed. Trumps alternatives are going to be to work on the 25 senators up for re-election in 2018, particularly the 13 from states he clearly carried, or to have the Pub majority "go nuclear" themselves, and abolish the filibuster rule altogether. (which I think would be a mistake)

February is going to be an interesting month. I hope it's bitter cold, just to minimize the impact of Soros' paid minions. I also hope that when Jeff Sessions is confirmed, one of his first missions will be to back trace the money from the rioters, and start prosecuting the individual(s) that are fomenting the riots. (As an aside, both Russia and Hungary have open warrants for Soros.)

That would make sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously not only taking into account what can happen now but also taking into account what the future will hold. Many underlying reasons.

 

[Robin]

He may very well be just what ALL the media is calling him, a Conservative, but so what, I Take him at his word that he will put his own feelings aside and make decisions based on the constitution, inclusive with, the Bill of Rights, we cannot ask for more.
Roe V. Wade was not a decision based on the Constitution of the United States any more than Roberts decision on Obicare, and a crapload of decisions made in the sixties and seventies.
Thank you Mr. President.
Robin

 

[JosERW]

This is one of the most important reasons for my Trump support/vote.

I promise, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed and he will sit on the bench.

Justice Kennedy, he is going to do the right thing, within a year, he will retire so Trump has at least one more pick.

Ginsburg will not make it on the bench for four more years. That will be pick three for Trump/The US an We the People.

What makes you so sure about Ginsberg?

And by Kennedy not retiring sooner he is only preventing a Heller case from being heard.

 

[JosERW]

Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that we won, but he's replacing Scalia. Technically this means nothing for us and gun rights. The timing of our cases couldn't have been worse and unless SCOTUS grants cert to clearly define Heller than nothing changes for us. Until then I will remain pessimistic about the future of our rights. The longer these laws stay in place the more "normal" they become.