Fairfax GOP liked Andrew Mullins @AndrewWMullins 2h2 hours ago
Every single one of these Senators voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2006.
They enabled the end of the filibuster.
They have to make losing sound dignified.
“The new administration’s executive actions on immigration have led to chaos everywhere”
LOL. More fake news from the New York Times.
NY Times leftist supporting Gorsuch. Maybe we should be worried.
Fairfax GOP liked Andrew Mullins @AndrewWMullins 2h2 hours ago
Every single one of these Senators voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2006.
That’s funny...I cannot think of anything he has done wrong.
>They have raised justified concern about whether the new administration will follow the law. <
My favorite line...... Haha. They’re worried Trump won’t follow the law???
From the news media, states, sanctuary cities, anarchists etc who are urging others to not follow the law...
I can show you what not follow the law looks like but I’m an American who just voted for a man who ran on restoring law and order.
These disposable A$$w!pe$ are stained up in the head
This is what the Democrats are dealing with right now:
1) The ONLY REASON to oppose Gorsuch is because the Republicans would not give Obama his man. There is no question regarding his integrity and qualifications.
2) Before the election, the Democrats expected to win both the White House and the Senate, and made it PERFECTLY CLEAR that they would end the filibuster for Supreme Court picks.
3) Before Trump announced Gorsuch, some Democrats were promising to veto ANYONE that Trump chose, and some were even talking about permanently leaving the seat open. This did MAJOR DAMAGE to their cause, because it made it much easier for wavering Republicans (i.e., the RINO bunch) to understand that there was nothing they could do to restore ‘comity’ (as they call it) to the Senate - that was over with, and only because of the Democrats. The Democrats needed at least 2 Republicans to maintain the filibuster...I’m guessing that they could not find 2 of them when it came to Gorsuch.
4) As mentioned elsewhere, nuking the filibuster has HUGE downstream implications. For example, if the Republicans pick up, say, 5 seats in 2018, they will have 57 seats, and Trump will be able to plow virtually any nominee through, as there simply will not be enough RINOs to help them (and I’m talking about nominees who might be somewhat questionable, which Gorsuch certainly is not). So the Dems will be left watching the court go HARD-RIGHT and not being able to do a thing.
5) Letting Gorsuch through, on the other hand, gets him out of the way, allows the Democrats to claim to be team players, and thus gives them at least some credibility when they do try to filibuster a perhaps weaker candidate, particularly if it’s to fill a liberal seat.
And believe me, they are considering all of this...and I expect them to let Gorsuch get his vote.
More nyt lies. The Dems have done the same thing.
Should I be worried that the NY Times is endorsing this guy?
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.
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/ …