Steven Crowder @scrowder now47 seconds ago
Excellent => Neil Gorsuch Drop Kicked Whiny College Liberals in 1988 http://louderwithcrowder.com/neil-gorsuch-fighting-college-sjws-cool/ …
Posted on 01/31/2017 7:20:52 PM PST by bryan999
I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration. Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
The nomination comes at a fraught moment. The new administration’s executive actions on immigration have led to chaos everywhere from the nation’s airports to the Department of Justice. They have raised justified concern about whether the new administration will follow the law. More than ever, public confidence in our system of government depends on the impartiality and independence of the courts.
There is a very difficult question about whether there should be a vote on President Trump’s nominee at all, given the Republican Senate’s history-breaking record of obstruction on Judge Merrick B. Garland — perhaps the most qualified nominee ever for the high court. But if the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, should be at the top of the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That would be SWEET..now imagine, if the NeverTrumpers had won and Hillary Clinton had been able to make the pick tonight what we would be looking at..Thank God Trump is President!
More nyt lies. The Dems have done the same thing.
Exactly. Gorsuch simply restores the Court to where it was pre-Scalia death. When Trump nominates someone to replace Kennedy or one of the Liberal Justices, the Senate Democrats will go all out.
right? the only people causing chaos was the protestors, Trump and his people had it controlled.
IF there were no protests nobody would have even known a hundred people were held up several hours.
And here’s the thing they hate, the majority of American’s support what he did.
were*
Should I be worried that the NY Times is endorsing this guy?
“Keep in mind that he is no threat to the balance of the court because he’s replacing Scalia. It might be a very different story if he was replacing Ginsberg.”
Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has an interesting theory. Everyone assumes the Scalia-esque Gorsuch is replacing Scalia, and he IS, but few know he clerked under Scotus Justice Kennedy. Turns out Kennedy has been rumored to want to retire, and once his former clerk is confirmed (who Kennedy may consider his ideological successor), Kennedy may feel it the right time to retire this summer. This will open the second seat for the President to fill in a few months! That’s going to be the tricky one, as you suggest.
No, the New York Slimes is simply telling Senate Democrats to hold their powder until Trump is nominating someone to replace Kennedy or one of the Liberal Justices.
Laura Ingrham stated tonight on Sean HANNITY that there would be a retirement in in June on the SCOTUS!!! I think Ruthy will go first but I don’t know!!! The next Justice McConnel WILL HAVE TO go nuclear, IF he has to go nuclear on thus one he better leave the rule change in place!!!!
I don't think it can be anyone but Ginsberg. She's barely functioning as it is, and seems close to becoming truly senile.
In a sane world, she would have already been removed from the court, due to age related impairments.
Ruthy might pop off at any time but if it’s a planned retirement, it might be Kennedy once his (and Scalia’s) successor Gorsuch is confirmed. That battle will definitely have to go nuclear, because the replacement will sway the direction of the court. I can just imagine Dems refusing to go to confirmation hearings etc...
Can’t wait to hear some lib senator saying that there in no such thing as a liberal or conservative seat on the bench.
WOW! High praise from the NYT and an Obama appointee no less.
Those of you suggesting the author may be sand bagging
a bit are probably on to something. He would be endorsing
any current nominee in order to give himself cover and
credibility when he savages the next nominee, the one
who will tilt the balance of power. By NO MEANS would I
have this guy testify on behalf of Gorsuch . If that
happens then it is almost a cinch that the Rats will
drag him out to testify against the President’s next
nominee. I would even be careful about the endorsement
by any liberal judge for similar reasons.
"Congress charged that the EPA had mishandled the ... toxic waste Superfund and demanded records from Gorsuch. Gorsuch refused and became the first ... cited for contempt of Congress. The EPA turned the documents over to Congress several months later, after the White House abandoned its court claim that the documents could not be subpoenaed by Congress [because of executive privilege]. At that point, Gorsuch resigned her post, citing pressures ... Analysts have argued that she was given a difficult job by the Reagan Administration, but she was not provided the support she needed."
And: "Subsequent career: She was promised another job by Reagan, and ... he appointed her to a three-year term as chair of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere ... criticized by environmental groups. She came under criticism for describing the post as a "nothing-burger," and both the House and the Senate passed non-binding resolutions calling on President Reagan to withdraw the appointment. Ultimately, Burford chose not to accept the position."
So it sounds like she had two good reasons to feel the Reagan WH had left her twisting in the wind.
Neil's parents met at CU-Boulder Law School. They divorced when Neil was 14 or 15 while he was living in DC during Anne's 2-year tenure at EPA. Anne was a very strong proponent of devolving federal power back to the states, a belief held by her son. She was raised Catholic. Neil is Episcopalian. Don't know about his father.
Also FYI, here's an interesting Denver Post article published earlier today when he was still "one of the final two picks":
Students of Supreme Court candidate Neil Gorsuch at CU law school cite fairness, dedication to truth
I think it will be very good to have someone like him on the USSC who is much like Scalia was, in that he is firm in his Originalist beliefs, and being a very persuasive communicator and likeable guy who knows how to talk to liberals, can win over wavering conservative Justices who are tempted to go rogue, and also get the Liberals to at least like him even if their politics are 180 degrees opposite.
Scalia was just adored by Sotomayor and Kagan and Ruth Buzzi Bader Ginsberg due to his personality. You might ask what good is that, since they still voted 100% in lockstep against him on the most divisive issues. But I'd be surprised if he didn't win over some votes here & there on less contentious cases.
And if Trump, God forbid, should ever be forced by a Dem-majority Senate to nominate some wishy washy alleged-conservative who the USSC Groupies later take into the palms of their hands and coddles and convinces him/her that s/he needs to "grow" in the job (like happened to Souter & Kennedy), then a persuasive likeable Justice like Neil Gorsuch could be worth his (counter-)weight in gold.
Yep - I added a few words to make it a correct statement....
Scott Adams brought up that the word “chaos” is getting used repeatedly across channels and forcibly worked into conversation, so it isn’t the actual opinion of the speakers. He thinks that whoever helped Bernie before moving over to Clinton’s campaign as a “persuader” is now working against Trump in media.
Which immediately tells me your opinion is tainted with stupidity and there is no point in listening to what you have to say.
Steven Crowder @scrowder now47 seconds ago
Excellent => Neil Gorsuch Drop Kicked Whiny College Liberals in 1988 http://louderwithcrowder.com/neil-gorsuch-fighting-college-sjws-cool/ …
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.