• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch. Your Impressions?

And why the hell is he even getting hearings when Garland was not granted that? Swear to god i'll never for a democrat if they capitulate on this
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I would only hold it up if I felt he was going to be in favor of overturning the past decisions on abortion and SSM.
Click to expand...
These are two that most any conservative, including myself, would be in favor of overturning. We are not going to agree on that, but elections do, indeed, have consequences...

Your side certainly didn't lack the boldness to shove these two down the nation's throats. Most certainly we can vomit them back out.
 
From what I know so far about Gorsuch, I think he's highly qualified and will make an exceptional SCOTUS judge. I don't see that he's going to have any problems getting bipartisan support, with probably a few Dems objecting but not enough to stop it.

This was a very good pick by Trump.
 
molten_dragon said:
I think he's one of Trumps best appointments so far. I disagree with his positions on a number of policies, but I believe the President has the right to appoint justices who align with his beliefs. Gorsuch doesn't seem like a puppet, and he's well-qualified for the position, which is more than I can say for a lot of Trump's nominees.
Click to expand...

Seems to me in the questioning I observed so far he doesn't take policy positions as a judge. And he refuses to speculate on how he would adjudicate a case before actually hearing the arguments and then would base his judgment on the facts of the case within the law. THAT is what I want in judges at all levels.
 
chromium said:
And why the hell is he even getting hearings when Garland was not granted that? Swear to god i'll never for a democrat if they capitulate on this
Click to expand...

senate is not bound to give a person a hearing, no provision in the constitution states that.

if the democrats were in charge of the senate at this point in time, we would be having hearings also.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
These are two that most any conservative, including myself, would be in favor of overturning. We are not going to agree on that, but elections do, indeed, have consequences...

Your side certainly didn't lack the boldness to shove these two down the nation's throats. Most certainly we can vomit them back out.
Click to expand...

i have a better idea - let's vomit out the marriage of every bigot out there
 
chromium said:
And why the hell is he even getting hearings when Garland was not granted that? Swear to god i'll never for a democrat if they capitulate on this
Click to expand...

Sucks to be in the minority, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom