• 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!

Judge Neil Gorsuch

I think the only thing that makes sense is that we wait to see whether the People (or the counties, if you lean Right) want to see Trump serve out his full term before we consider his nominee.
 
RickJames3000 said:
I think the only thing that makes sense is that we wait to see whether the People (or the counties, if you lean Right) want to see Trump serve out his full term before we consider his nominee.
Click to expand...

That's actually very funny rick

I like that
 
Fletch said:
But there will be serious questions of racism/sexism/ homophobia that democrats will put forth after former grade school chums recall unfortunate remarks he made during 5th grade recess.
Click to expand...

Garland was well liked by both parties, but would not even give him a hearing. Pay backs are a bitch!
 
haymarket said:
The man is only part of the story. The way the GOP handled the Obama pick is the other part of the story.
Click to expand...



They handled it the same way it was handled in 30% of all non-confirmed nominees..... your talking points didn't tell you that, did they?
 
Carleen said:
Garland was well liked by both parties, but would not even give him a hearing. Pay backs are a bitch!
Click to expand...



except that you will lose in the end and gorsuch will be confirmed
 
American said:
Seems like a good guy to me. He has good educational pedigree, and experience serving two Supreme Court justices.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

since republicans blocked Obama in a bid to seize influence over the courts blocking this guy and trying to negotiate for some one mroe moderate seems reasonable
 
blarg said:
since republicans blocked Obama in a bid to seize influence over the courts blocking this guy and trying to negotiate for some one mroe moderate seems reasonable
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
American said:
Seems like a good guy to me. He has good educational pedigree, and experience serving two Supreme Court justices.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm still reading up on him. In terms of education and experience, good, qualified pick.

I need to review his decisions in light of individual liberty versus corporate power and using the bench to legislate the social conservative agenda before forming an overall opinion.
 
Nilly said:
Well that's ****ing rich.
GOP obstruct a nominee for 10 months, Dems done nothing yet and you're accusing them of a campaign of personal destruction?
Click to expand...

They gave a hearing and chose not to bring it to a vote.

From a vindictive perspective, I would be for blocking an R nominee after the whole Garland episode, but there's no way that the Dems are going to be able to block Gorsuch for however many years without a majority, especially given his credentials and the fact he was confirmed by voice vote to the circuit.
Click to expand...

which shows how childish we know liberals are. your right they can't block it. they approved this guy 95-0 for the US court of appeals.
so if he was fine for that then he should have no issues for the SCOTUS.


There are better hills to die on for the Dems, methinks.
Here's hoping that RBG has a few more years left in her.
Click to expand...

no they will skewer themselves all over this no doubt about it.
they are trapped if they do.
 
blarg said:
since republicans blocked Obama in a bid to seize influence over the courts blocking this guy and trying to negotiate for some one mroe moderate seems reasonable
Click to expand...

Obama got his Obamacare passed in spite of conservatives, there is no way in hell that McConnell was going to give him anything more.
 
Carleen said:
Garland was well liked by both parties, but would not even give him a hearing. Pay backs are a bitch!
Click to expand...

Garland is basically a leftwinger; Obama chose him because of his stance on environmental issues and not exactly the friendliest toward the 2nd Amendment.
 
American said:
Garland is basically a leftwinger; Obama chose him because of his stance on environmental issues and not exactly the friendliest toward the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

He was well liked by repubs. That's a fact.
 
So any news about how awful he is? Has he kicked any puppies? Maybe he stole a kids lollipop?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
They handled it the same way it was handled in 30% of all non-confirmed nominees..... your talking points didn't tell you that, did they?
Click to expand...

What verifiable evidence do you have for that claim?
 
Porkuloss said:
I'm still reading up on him. In terms of education and experience, good, qualified pick.

I need to review his decisions in light of individual liberty versus corporate power and using the bench to legislate the social conservative agenda before forming an overall opinion.
Click to expand...

I think he is a reasonable replacement for Scalia and he has written opinions that mirror some of Scalia's regarding hot button topics. This is an excerpt from the Hobby Lobby case.
As he opened his concurrence, "All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability."
I actually think that statement could be applied to areas other than just religious belief. Not sure how he would feel about that.
His book shows he is against assisted suicide but believes an individual should have the right to refuse life support. I think Democrats should wait to go to war even though the Garland treatment was just cause for many to pitch a fit. Trump is likely to provide a better reason for war soon enough. Probably before they even vote on Gorsuch.
 
American said:
Obama got his Obamacare passed in spite of conservatives, there is no way in hell that McConnell was going to give him anything more.
Click to expand...

wher in the constitution dose it say the president cant have a suggested supreme court justice appointed becase he got somtng passed through congress?

compromising and settling on some one both sides would not be entirely happy wiht would have been fine this was a shameless power grab

so **** mcconell
 
trouble13 said:
Your argument is political hatred. Good luck selling that to the public

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No hatred at all. McConnell, the one with the true hatred, has clearly broken the senate and all trumpistani posters have to fling is personal insults .
 
American said:
Obama got his Obamacare passed in spite of conservatives, there is no way in hell that McConnell was going to give him anything more.
Click to expand...

Obamacare has zero to do with the Judge Neil Gorsuch thread you started, American. This is a pattern with you.

Democrats will take the high road and put America first by giving Gorsuch a fair hearing and a vote, something Garland didn't get.

Remember when DEMs filibustered Clarence Thomas because he was such a highly partisan con ?
 
NIMBY said:
No hatred at all. McConnell, the one with the true hatred, has clearly broken the senate and all trumpistani posters have to fling is personal insults .
Click to expand...
Im trying to understand how you see it.

I said when the repubs blocked garland they did with the argument of being close to a prrsidental election and allowing the voters to decide of they wanted the balanve of the court altered.

Your argument was we are going to do it back to them because they did it to us. Maybe hate is the wrong word but certainly vindictiness fits.

I dont think that argument is going to fly with anyone who isnt hard left.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States


US History, Google, and wikipedia.


yknow..... independent research instead of parroting the democrat party talking points.
Click to expand...

1 - And what in there do you feel supports whatever point you think you have?

Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
They handled it the same way it was handled in 30% of all non-confirmed nominees..... your talking points didn't tell you that, did they?
Click to expand...


2 - The chart in YOUR EVIDENCE shows 30 failed nominations of which 4 are listed as NO ACTION with Garland being one of them. How is four out of thirty equal 30% instead of 13.3%? Or is this a use of trumpian "alternate facts"?

3- Your own source says this

Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings on Garland, and Garland's nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination.
Click to expand...

Which clearly and unmistakably makes your statement that it was handled in the same way as a falsehood.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom