SCOTUS: Neil Gorsuch

52 comments

• rockstar666

  •

  7 years ago

  Interesting pick! He has no track record to wanting overturn Roe Vs. Wade....Trumplied????
• rockstar666

  •

  7 years ago

  If I were a far right wingnut, I'd be pissed off. As a liberal I'm holding out hope he won't take away woman's rights.But I'm going to have to wait and see.
• JimGassagain

  •

  7 years ago

  I'm wondering how long it will be before the liberals call him out as a racist, which they've done with every Republican nominee over the last 30 years? Originalists like Gorsuch are against executive orders, supplying further balance towards states rights and evening out the current ideologues. Libertarianism is more of the feel of this pick. I think this is a score for mongering services.
• rockstar666

  •

  7 years ago

  JimG....do you consider him a racist? I have no idea at the moment, but you did bring it up...
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  Not bad. rockstar666--> "He has no track record to wanting overturn Roe Vs. Wade...." ^^^ I like the candidate already! (if that is the case) :) I'm always looking for candidates who aren't looking to rule law from the book of leviticus. Hopefully its not a national sin to have access to women's contraceptives, *some* legal allowment for abortions (though not state funded), and not reduce the bible to the six (yes only six) passages that talk about homosexuality as a sin. Plus shrimp fajitas. Shrimp fajitas are delicious! I have some pretty liberal Lutheran roots. JC was a cool dude and family values are a good thing. So are states rights. Racist? He seems okay but I haven't researched him. Maybe chessmaster can chime in ...
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  Why do you consider Neil Gorsuch to be a racist? Just curious .. no judgement.
• skibum609

  •

  7 years ago

  Obama, Holder and Lynch were virulent racists so the left has no say. By the way on a majority vote, i.e. 51 the Republicans can change the Rules like the Democrats did and make 51 votes and not 60 the standard. Turn about is fair play. No right to murder the unborn appears in the Constitution and Roe v. Wade, which created this fake right was based on the "right to privacy" which also does not appear in the Constitution. Having said that I am not pro-life and I encourage the left to abort every fetus they breed. I prefer shrimp tacos to shrimp fajitas.
• flagooner

  •

  7 years ago

  All I want in a SCOTUS is someone who does want to do the legilature'so job. Just interpret the law as it was written and as it was intended by those who voted to enact it. That is a hard enough job as it is.
• Mate27

  •

  7 years ago

  Gorsuch is not racist, but it's the race card that the democrats always pull out anytime they disagree with a republican nominee. Give it some time and I bet JimG is right, and you'll begin to hear some cases that he judged and the left will paint a picture of him being racist. It's typical MO for them to go this route, and I for one am waiting patiently to laugh it off.
• gammanu95

  •

  7 years ago

  Pelosi has already labelled Gorsuch an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream values. The lefties are so pathetically clueless. Kneejerk ignorance.
• skibum609

  •

  7 years ago

  Does any decent human being even listen any longer when the left cries racism, misogyny, islamaphobia; homophobia? I hear any of those words and I stop listening and start thinking rib-eye.
• Tiredtraveler

  •

  7 years ago

  He is simply a state's rights strict constitution judge. Judges dictating laws from the bench in not only wrong it is criminal. Judges DO NOT!!! have the right to dictate! The only have the right to follow the law and determine whether a particular law or regulation meets constitutional or law requirements. Policy is not up to the judges. Judges first and foremost are supposed to be impartial, follow the law, base their decisions on US law and to not allow their personal views to make their decisions. Simply: Congress makes the laws, the court determines if the laws violate the tenets of the constitution and may be called upon to determine if the law applies to a specific area, and the Executive(president) is to enforce the laws set by congress. Always remember the idle elitist left want to run your life and get rich by stealing from you. The most child porn and underage trafficking goes on in the left controlled cities.(all controlled for decades social democrats and their media allies) The idle elitists dictate morals to the rest of us while a 9 year old boys are forced to tongue their assholes.
• flagooner

  •

  7 years ago

  ^ exactly
• gammanu95

  •

  7 years ago

  Kudos to the previous three like-minded patriots, but to answer the first, skibum, yes our amoral and agenda-minded newsmedia do, ans dutifully relay everything just as their liberal masters instruct them to. Therein lies one of the greatest threats to our nation and the principles of self-determination.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  The more I read about Neil Gorsuch, the more I like him as a nominee. 1. He's pro-life but not in the way we think. He seems to value all human life and likes to avoid killing. He opposes euthanasia, which I'm sure skibum would allow as an exception for liberals, lol! More liberals in the suicide machine, lol! Skibum is funny. I like him. 2. He's pretty close to a Scalia clone. 3. I am not happy about his ruling for Hobby Lobby against providing contraceptives. But I also see the argument of not taking someone's money by force to use it to purchase something that person morally opposes. There's no reason a Hobby Lobby employee can't work, then take his or her money, and abort all the babies he or she wants and buy his or her own contraceptives, which his or her own money. That's seems to be a fair compromise. Ditto money from taxation. Us "privately funded fetus and egg killing" charities can handle the slack just fine, thank you. :) 4. "He said liberal activists rely on the judicial system "as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private school education" source: [view link] ^^^ I actually agree with all of that. I agreed with that when I read some of the dissenting justices opinions on the gay marriage case in 2015 in SCOTUS. The dissenting justices thought that is was sad SCOTUS was being used for this rather than the legislative process (federal congress or state congress). This is not the role for SCOTUS to decide things like this. I do agree. Skibum's preference for shrimp tacos is ace. :) gammanu--> "Pelosi has already labelled Gorsuch an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream values" ^^^ Ms. Pelosi is a retard. Or is that ritard? :) skibum --> "Does any decent human being even listen any longer when the left cries ... homophobia" ^^^ Anytime the undercurrent of the message is homosexuality is a failure of man, then yes I think the label applies and I call the person out of it (not you). Otherwise I agree with you and the left has been using too much identity politics as of late. :)
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  Ace OP, JimG! *thumbs up*
• dallas702

  •

  7 years ago

  Judge (soon to be Justice) Gorsuch is an outstanding choice for the USSC. The parade of real changes in D.C. continues. I am still singing "Happy Days are Here Again," enjoying the media freak outs, and waiting for liberals to start stroking out. My guess is at least two liberal Justices will leave the US Supreme Court in the next three years due to medical issues. Watching what happens when their replacements are nominated will be fun. Even better, the Democrats have about 22 Senate seats up for grabs in 2018 and, I am looking forward to the Soros/Mediamatters breakdown in the media when the Republicans get a supermajority.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  gammanu --> "our amoral and agenda-minded newsmedia do, ans dutifully relay everything just as their liberal masters instruct them to. Therein lies one of the greatest threats to our nation and the principles of self-determination." I've researched this last month, and I've found you guys are indeed correct. There are documented cases where the various new media outlets will opt-out of covering or running a story on the premise that is makes President Obama, his supporters, progressive agenda, or liberal agenda ... in ahem ... "a less than favorable light" .. or .. ahem .. "takes a potentially negative light on the same." I like to call out most of you Tusclers for hiding your infidelities from your spouses, wives, and girlfriends. I'm a truth seeker and I don't like it when people hide the truth solely on the premise that the truth makes you look bad (or you are just a coward). I don't like when you guys do it (to your wives). So I don't like it know that I see the press doing the same thing. Point accepted. :)
• gammanu95

  •

  7 years ago

  Frankly, I am shocked and saddened at how many Americans willfully accept obvious lies and hypocrisy from democrat politicians and mainstream media. I don't know if cynicism or ignorance is to blame, but I do know that is how and why we got the likes of Obama, Trump, and Clinton.
• rahhman1

  •

  7 years ago

  Jim why are you pushing pro-religious values narrative while posting on a strip club site? Kinda hypocritical
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  Gaffigan, all you are trying to do is enforce conformity. And this is also what Libertarianism is too. Work, Faith and Family, that's just like the Nazi puppet Philippe Pétain. SJG
• JimGassagain

  •

  7 years ago

  ^^^ There you go again SJG, always against anybody who is raising a family and taking their kids to church on Sunday. I'd say you weren't loved enough as a child except for the fact you've admitted to living in your mom's basement a couple days ago. So why would anyone be against work, faith, and family? That makes no sense unless you are a leftist, liberal, socialistic, communist pig. If you are against work, faith, and family you should go start a counter culture organization and post about it on TUSCL yet claim you have to keep your f2f life separate due to local Political groups you've involved yourself in. Oh wait, I guess you e already done that didn't u SJG?
• jester214

  •

  7 years ago

  People believe what they want to believe. It's how Facebook can tell me at the same time that: Planned Parenthood is a benevolent and caring organization that just gives free much needed healthcare AND Planned Parenthood is an evil organization that uses our tax dollars to kill babies and sell their bodies for money. Both are complete with "statistics".
• Mate27

  •

  7 years ago

  Alternative news^^^.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  JimG: liberals and concerned about choices but they do (at times) get preoccupied with choices that are outside of the control of the person (the person they are attempting to liberate, help, empower, whatever). No one gets to choose one's parents, parent's don't get to choose their children, and most importantly you don't get to choose your own body. This is the dividing line between the liberal and conservative (or libertarian) thought process. Why is this important? Well it still comes down to the disintegration of the nuclear family. One of the root causes I see is fathers (or men) that just don't give a damn. So we end up with a lot of single mothers. Eminem wrote some lyrics about it (IIRC): where are all of the fathers? Sometimes I think there is a bar someplace or perhaps a strip club where they all congregate. Or maybe it's more noble and they are just with a different woman and raising that family instead. A lot of us GenXers were raised in single parent households and it was a damn near crisis. Where were all of the fathers? There was a serious shortage of good men. But that's not to say the women don't share some of the blame. I think that liberals do try to address that problem, or at least some of them try through (misguided) policy. I know rickdugan has suggested that the men should just mature-up, suck it, keep their mouths shut, and soldier on. But that only works if the dude mans-up and sticks around. And that still assumes the hypothetical dude is worth a damn. But to get back to your premise: "So why would anyone be against work, faith, and family?" I don't know. but a lot of fathers just *are*. I don't have the answers. I wish I did.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  ^ a lot of fathers out there fall short. It's a crisis.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  You guys (average Tuscler) tends to have your head screwed on straight, are successful, and have enough money to met your basic needs and those of any love ones in your charge. Plus you're not likely to skirt or short any of your responsibilities. I think that is rare or sadly getting more rare these days. A lot of dudes, esp long dudes, just seems to run away and/or avoid it.
• Mate27

  •

  7 years ago

  ^^^ Yiu just described Txtittyfag. to the tee, or is Txtittyfag. actually Chessmaster or Clackport? Clackport has much time on his hands after his faltering music career, and Cheesebastard spends more time indoors on his computer since the police so trsjicalky shined a light on his porch one time. Clackport/Cheesebastard are all a good shot at being a fatherless child disguised as Txtittyfag.!
• Hugh_G_Rection

  •

  7 years ago

  What I told both of my Senators in a recent email (Peters and Stabenow, both MI Democrats) is that anyone who has a lifetime appointment to the SC bench NEEDS to be given an "extreme vetting" at least as as thorough as this administration wants to give a refugee who just wants to come in and work at his cousin's 7-11. Is it fair for citizens concerned that their rights are taking a beating if Gorsuch's background and views aren't made public?? As far as background, I think his creating a High School club called "Fascism Forever" (allegedly to attack the liberal tendencies of his Jesuit Prep School faculty) sends bad vibes, along with his college yearbook quote from Henry Kissinger: "The illegal we do immediately, The unconstitutional takes a little while longer". [view link] [view link] [view link]
• gammanu95

  •

  7 years ago

  Fuck the democrats. They drew first blood. Use the nuclear option if necessary. Get it done.
• Mate27

  •

  7 years ago

  ^^^ Dumbocrats sucking more dick, just like his butt buddy SJG. Lmfao!
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  So how do we get rid of Trump, and who would succeed him? [view link] " (In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.) " [view link] You see, the problem is, who would succeed him? Nixon had his insurance police in Spiro Agnew. But they were able to get Agnew to resign in exchange for not prosecuting him on tax evasion. [view link] And George H. W. Bush had his Dan Quayle. [view link] The situation right now is bleak, and then there is also the Ayn Rander Paul Ryan in the succession list. How should this horrible situation be diffused, short of revolution. SJG
• Hugh_G_Rection

  •

  7 years ago

  @gammanu I'd like to know how 'Democrats drew the first blood' when McConnell totally blocked Merrick Garland's nomination for almost a year.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  HGR --> "I'd like to know how 'Democrats drew the first blood' when McConnell totally blocked THAT MUSLIM-MARXIST-URBANITE-SYMPATHIZER-NWO's nomination for almost a year." T,IFTFY (There, I fixed that for you). ;) ;) Now, you can see if from their POV. The GOPs were being patriots in their mind, taking America back, lol. The only 'GOP' nomination they would have blocked, would be a Tea Partier blocking a GOPe (where 'e' stands for ersatz or establishment or neoconservative or Bushie) nomination. The GOPe ('ersatz') is a plague within the GOP.
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  ^^^Any one expecting a rational answer from gammanut is stupider than he is and that's going quite a distance.
• Hugh_G_Rection

  •

  7 years ago

  Okay asked what I though was a legitimate question and was answered with an "alternative quote".... of myself. I see bullshit, I call bullshit. The so-called 'fix' was a fucking moronic dog whistle, Thanks for nothing Gammanu.
• RandomMember

  •

  7 years ago

  Gorsuch gets my respect for being openly critical of Trump for flaming a federal judge: [view link]
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  I know 25. I keep thinking there is a reason for the madness for the right, particularly the religious right. The best I can figure out is the fighting all started when some atheist took prayer out of schools and the Ten Commandments off of government buildings. Since the *right* keeps thinking the *left* started it. But maybe it's something else. Silly me for thinking there is a rational explanation. Maybe it's the New Deal? I don't know. The only answer I ever get is their America is being or was taken away from them or is slowing changing into some euro-centric multicultural liberal paradise. It's not hard work, since people work hard on both sides.
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  @Dominic there is no real reason for the anger on either side you get the government you vote for problem as I see it there is no one reasonable or willing to admit that the country wants to run down the center. Which our system forces on them like it or not so they are all angry but it prevents any extreme from really making changes thank god.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  The current left of the court are very centrist judges. SJG
• gammanu95

  •

  7 years ago

  Hugh, take off the liberal blinder and look at the real history. Nuclear option is Harry Reid using parliamentary procedure of simple majority (51 votes) to block Republican filibusters and put through Obama's court of appeals nominees. Senate rules require 60 votes to avert a filibuster, hence changing those rules becomes the nuclear option. Your referral to Merrick actually invokes The Biden Rule ( another democrat, just so you know), where then- Senator Biden in 1992 made a speech that Bush 41 should wait until after the election to fill a vacant SC seat. Bush lost the election and Clinton filled the seat. So now, the democrat party lost the election and Trump gets to fill the seat (per the Biden Rule), and if the democrats try to block or filibuster the vote, then McConnell should invoke Reid's Nuclear Option and confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority. The democrat party wrote the Biden rule and were the first to use the nuclear option, so they drew first blood. Now they want to be crybaby bitches when their rules are used against them ,so fuck 'em. To quote ANOTHER haughty, arrogant, democrat count: Elections have consequences. Thank me. I'm welcome.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  I did not know about the Biden rule. That's kind of a stupid rule but I can see where it's coming from. I'm not sure that's drawing blood. It's more like 'playground rules' where "he did it first! so I'm doing it to him!" If where drawing blood, then it's Rambo which invokes PTSD, which is why I think psychologically there's more to it than he's letting on, and he knows it. Maybe it's the Roe v. Wade decision. That would explain it. Hence the politics, brinkmans ship, and the maneuvering. Or maybe guns. It does seem odd for there to be "conservative" and "liberal" judges. You would think it would just be "judges."
• gammanu95

  •

  7 years ago

  Activist judges are the worst thing to happen to this country since the centralized banking system.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  Specifically about Roe V. Wade, it was already three judges, the center of the court, including O'Conner, who wrote that it is to be considered settled law, just like Brown v Board. So from this we can say that anyone who would be ignorant of this or seek to overturn it, is not qualified to be on the court. SJG
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  Activist judges are those simply applying the Constitution. A flawed document for sure. William Lloyd Garrison called it a covenant with death. But in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, there has been much progress. SJG
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  Now we know Gammanut is really nuts certifiably so. Says he owns his own business, and doesn't want centralized banking, who is going to issue payments, moron Holy Moses where did you come from, Uranus.
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  The ends don't always justify the means. For example consider the 2015 SCOTUS ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. Even though I liked the outcome (pro gay marriage) I actually found myself agreeing with the dissenting opinions when I read the whole thing (rather than just rely on what new media outlets said). I didn't like the tactics. Even though the ruling was the outcome I wanted, I felt like someone 'fought dirty' to win. I don't like fighting dirty. Not like this. I like to fight honorably. We should change the hearts and minds of people freely. Or we should use the legislative process. I don't like a weaponized SCOTUS. The equal protection clause has its place, yes. But not here. Not this way. Change the hearts and minds. Win them freely. The federal government already has too much monopoly on force. SCOTUS as a 'vile attack dog' (to borrow the Tuscl troll baiter's term) is no good. Vile attack dogs can turn on you and bite you. This is not good.
• flagooner

  •

  7 years ago

  ^ Flawed document? It is surpassed only by the Holy Bible in terms of perfection. It is the oldest active national constituents and serves as the blueprint for most constitutions drafted in the past century. In it's 229 years, it has only been amended 18 times.
• flagooner

  •

  7 years ago

  ^ constitution not constituents
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  Constitution was basically written to protect property from the Constituted Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration of Independence. And the Constitution is where we get 3/5ths. SJG
• Dominic77

  •

  7 years ago

  SJG ^^^ Very strong private property rights in the US Constitution. When you read some of the posts from dallas702, you get that he heavily swings that way. I also get that from some other libertarians. But of course I would expect people who already have lots of property to think that way. I just depends on whether the process needs to be fair or the outcomes need to be fair. Even though it's fair is bone crushing hard out there. And it keeps getting worse with 7 billion people. It's amazing that the US Constitution still works some 240 years later and with a population of 300 million. Incredible! And people still keep trying to come here: legally, illegally, and temporarily on visas. Also incredible.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  Well, the US has a huge land and natural resource advantage, as well as established industry, so it is attractive. But much of the dream is myth. Where I am, we have people living 10 to a room, and the majority of our homeless are working homeless, and there are far more homeless families than single men. Good discussion about how the Constitution is about property rights over people rights: [view link] SJG Black Panther's band - The Lumpen [view link]