Schumer Says Dems Will Filibuster SCOTUS Nominee

a reply to: FauxMulder

Meh. Waste of time. There are better fights the Democrats should be waging. Gorsuch isn't really a bad SCOTUS choice.

a reply to: Konduit

Facts will doom these idiots in the 18 midterms. They still do not understand the 16 potus election results.

I really do not understand it... all the clowns that could have been nominated they lose their stuff over a guy that seems to first look at case law... then the constitution...which to me seems like pretty much exactly what we the people would want...

So of course that clown shcumer is going filibuster... no wonder they lost to a reality tv star for president.

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

He's going to be no worse than the guy he is replacing. We spent decades with Scalia on the bench, we can survive another few decades with Gorsuch on the bench. Check this out:
Gorsuch: ‘I accept’ Roe v. Wade as the ‘law of the land’

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

Not much can be done about that now. His robes have been fitted; the rest is just elaborate ceremony.

a reply to: Annee

Why? i like a judge who rules by the letter of the law. Oh but its a living document...SO? New parts added can still be followed by the letter as well.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

Has he made some decisions that concern you, regarding religion?

I'm all for religious liberty, but that only goes so far when it comes to government, etc.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Annee

Why? i like a judge who rules by the letter of the law. Oh but its a living document...SO? New parts added can still be followed by the letter as well.

But, will he?

He's a Scalia fan. Constitutional purest.

The Constitution will be 230 years old this year.

A lot has evolved sense then.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

Has he made some decisions that concern you, regarding religion?

I'm all for religious liberty, but that only goes so far when it comes to government, etc.

Just stuff I've read up on him.

He's a big Scalia fan.

I thought the 'nuclear option' didn't apply to Supreme Court picks? Am I wrong?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

Has he made some decisions that concern you, regarding religion?

I'm all for religious liberty, but that only goes so far when it comes to government, etc.

Just stuff I've read up on him.

He's a big Scalia fan.

I can understand your concern. If I had thought that he would take us a step backwards in regards to religious freedom and the freedom from it, I would not be accepting of his SCOTUS nomination.

To me, he seems reasonable. I'll have to read up on it a bit more.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Annee

Why? i like a judge who rules by the letter of the law. Oh but its a living document...SO? New parts added can still be followed by the letter as well.

But, will he?

He's a Scalia fan. Constitutional purest.

The Constitution will be 230 years old this year.

A lot has evolved sense then.

HEres what ya need to understand just because he is a purist dont mean he would not adapt to changing amendments. its a part of the constitution. And if its in the constitution"via amendment" as the letter of th elaw i believe he will uphold it.

So only atheists should be allowed in. Wow, that's so tolerant of you!

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So only atheists should be allowed in. Wow, that's so tolerant of you!

That's not what she said.

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

Both sides should be better than they are.

But they're not.

We only have ourselves to blame.

a reply to: jjkenobi

It is all about "me" don't ya know.....

originally posted by: Annee
The Constitution will be 230 years old this year.

A lot has evolved sense then.

This has to be the most ignorant argument that I hear people say.

The age of the document does not matter, as it has been legally amended 27 times starting from almost day one (the last happening about 25 years ago). Within that document there is a prescription for how to change the document, meaning that it can change as society and the world does as well.

The problem with people who moan and groan about the age of the document as passively saying that they think that the SCOTUS should just ignore the document and legislate from the bench--the reality is that this is not their purpose nor their power to do so.

If you think that there are so many things that need added/amended in the constitution, by all mean, start a thread on it and lets discuss the things that you thing the federal government needs the constitutional power to control. Send your list to your congressman and senators or, better yet, run for office so that you can affect this change directly. But, by all means, let's not advocate for legislating from the bench of our SCOTUS Justices--their sole purpose is to compare issues to the constitution on the constitutionality of the issue at hand.

That's it--compare a problem to the constitution and see if it is in violation. Not to change the constitution, not to continue to loosen up their interpretation of the constitution more and more, but to compare it to the letter of the law and make a decision based upon that.

The age of the document has NOTHING to do with whether or not a Justice should be a constitutional purist--that is their job.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

Has he made some decisions that concern you, regarding religion?

I'm all for religious liberty, but that only goes so far when it comes to government, etc.

Just stuff I've read up on him.

He's a big Scalia fan.

I can understand your concern. If I had thought that he would take us a step backwards in regards to religious freedom and the freedom from it, I would not be accepting of his SCOTUS nomination.

To me, he seems reasonable. I'll have to read up on it a bit more.

The answers that he gave seemed honest and reasonable. He answered as a judge should answer.
BUT....
We can never tell for sure what we will get until he is in there.
It could be good.... or bad.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert
I don't see why the Democrats are playing games with this nomination.

Gorsuch seems to be a fairly reasonable pick.

This is one issue I have with the Democrats. They should be better than this and not play these political games like the Republicans do.

As an atheist I don't want him any where near the Supreme Court.

Has he made some decisions that concern you, regarding religion?

I'm all for religious liberty, but that only goes so far when it comes to government, etc.

Just stuff I've read up on him.

He's a big Scalia fan.

I can understand your concern. If I had thought that he would take us a step backwards in regards to religious freedom and the freedom from it, I would not be accepting of his SCOTUS nomination.

To me, he seems reasonable. I'll have to read up on it a bit more.

The answers that he gave seemed honest and reasonable. He answered as a judge should answer.
BUT....
We can never tell for sure what we will get until he is in there.
It could be good.... or bad.

Indeed. All we can do is hope our elected officials put the right people in place.