Justice Gorsuch: Senate Confirms Trump’s First SCOTUS Pick

The U.S. Senate has voted to confirm Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

54-45 was the vote.

Now we need to see how many more justices Trump might nominate in the future.

I predict 2 more in the next 4 years.

How do you think Gorsuch will affect future cases ?


Justice Gorsuch: Senate Confirms Trump’s First SCOTUS Pick

The Senate voted just before noon Friday to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Nation’s highest bench.

The vote, originally set for Friday evening, was moved up to the morning after Democrats agreed to waive part of the final debate period. Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace conservative anchor of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, was confirmed by a vote of 54-45, with Democrats Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) joining a unanimous Republican Caucus.

Judge Gorsuch’s nomination process was among the most contentious in American history. After assembling the pledges of 41 Senate Democrats to iniate the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sought to prevent a vote of the full Senate. This set up a showdown over Senate cloture rules that resulted Thursday in Republicans invoking the “constitutional option” and abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

Zero effect, he will be just like Scalia who he is replacing.

When Ginsburg can no longer be there because of age, Trump can start stacking the SC.

Time to put the activist jidges in their place and reinstate the temporary travel ban!

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

He IS an activist judge, just from the far right. He's an activist for Corporations.

Yea SCOTUS.

a reply to: AboveBoard

If he is an activist for anything, it is for the Constitution.

That should be the priority for all judges, since we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

One person's "Constitutional Hero" is another person's judicial activist.

It all depends on if you happen to agree with them
or not on how they have ruled in their careers. He is so strongly pro-Corporate that it boggles the mind and defies common sense, but hey, who am I to judge, right?



Enjoy the "win."

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Deny Arrogance
He IS an activist judge, just from the far right. He's an activist for Corporations.

Is that what it is? There's something about this guy that gives no confidence. I've kind'a been braced on my thoughts of him posted to the boards, but I can't shake it.

I've got this sneaking suspicion he's a RINO and a Globalist.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I hope there's no crying when Dems use the nuclear option in 2018.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AboveBoard

I hope there's no crying when Dems use the nuclear option in 2018.

They won't be able to.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AboveBoard

I hope there's no crying when Dems use the nuclear option in 2018.

You mean when the Dems lose even more seats? Funny one. Even if all the Repubs resigned and gave their seats to the Dems, in 2018 only Trump nominees will ever come before them. They can't go nuclear on anything in 2018.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AboveBoard

I hope there's no crying when Dems use the nuclear option in 2018.

Well, hopefully they would, because if it happens in 2018, it would still be a Trump nominee. Of course, that's assuming they win the midterms, which seems unlikely.

But there shouldn't be any crying from either side. Lets not forget that the Dems already ended the filibuster for all judicial nominees except the Supreme Court in 2013, and if we take Harry Reid and Tim Kaine at face value, they were clearly planning to do away with that as well, had they won the election. In that regard, the Dems have no one to blame but themselves for opening this can of worms.

the thing with lifetime appointments is that when humans feel secure in their place in life they feel no need to be swayed by external forces and truly serve their own agenda and can not be bribed so all this fear of politics or corporate money influencing a justice are for the most part quite unfounded and silly. honestly it was set up this way for the very reason of them serving themselves and honestly the only way i see a justice being manipulated is through their family or blackmail.

justices serve no party and i wish more people could see this fact instead of politicising the whole thing, honestly i wish the court could appoint justices themselves instead of allowing the politics of congress and presidents get in the way all the time.

THANKS, HARRY REID!

a reply to: Kali74

LOL, yea, I gotta wall mural of that. You will never believe the amount of crying and moaning when the Dems use the Nuclear Option, though I'd have to think that wouldn't be possible till 2020.

Good news for stock market enthusiasts though..........gun sales will go through the roof again! Buy S&W!

There are so many Constitutional scholars and lawyers on this site.

I am impressed.


Personally, since I'm just a ####ing idiot, I'm going to wait on his actual rulings before I dust off the noose and soil myself.

But hey, that's just me.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
THANKS, HARRY REID!

a reply to: DBCowboy

You can at least celebrate the fact that the opposition fell flat on their face.



Reserve judgement for Gorsuch for when he starts making rulings.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: AboveBoard

I hope there's no crying when Dems use the nuclear option in 2018.

Hmmm...in recent memory, aren't the dems the ones that started it?

Schumer regrets Dems triggering 'nuclear option'

I'm glad that 60 votes are generally needed to pass something, but sometimes the minority should not be allowed to hold the country and certain processes hostage based on ideological tantrum throwing--and that goes for both sides. In this case, with Justice Gorsuch, he seems to be a decent constitutionalist, and that's what judges are supposed to be.

When democrats try to imply that a judge should be politically biased and rule with such a biased gavel, like they did during his hearings, I don't blame the Republicans one bit for acting on the nomination the way that they did.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I'll take a constitutional "win" over a constitutional "loss" any day.

At least he's not a u.n. democrat rental tool.

a reply to: namehere
I see it the other way--when you have no real concern about being fired, you have the temptation to serve yourself over the country for which you were appointed to serve. Corruption is absolutely a potential problem with lifetime appointees in any position--even more of a potential that other jobs, IMO.