• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Gorsuch confirmed today!

Dirty D

Resident Sommelier of cellulite
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 29, 2010
15,642
115,044
82
Your moms house
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...rt-pick/ar-BBzvZlr?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

WASHINGTON - The Republican-led Senate on Friday gave Donald Trump the biggest triumph of his young presidency, confirming his Supreme Court nominee over stout Democratic opposition and restoring a conservative majority on the highest U.S. judicial body.

The Senate, which last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama's nominee to the court, voted 54-45 to approve Republican Trump's pick, Colorado-based federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch, to the lifetime job.




Three Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for Gorsuch. Gorsuch's confirmation ends the longest Supreme Court vacancy since 1862 during the American Civil War, with the court down a justice for almost 14 months since long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13, 2016.

"He's going to make an incredible addition to the court," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. McConnell said Gorsuch, who also worked in the Justice Department under Republican former President George W. Bush and is the son of the first woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has "sterling credentials, an excellent record and an ideal judicial temperament."

Illustrating the importance of the moment, Vice President Mike Pence served as the Senate's presiding officer during the vote. Republicans, possessing a 52-48 Senate majority, on Thursday overcame a ferocious Democratic effort to block a confirmation vote by resorting to a rule change known as the "nuclear option."

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who led the opposition to Gorsuch, said he hopes the judge would heed concerns that the court is "increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working America."

The Senate's approval of Gorsuch, 49, reinstates the nine-seat court's 5-4 conservative majority, fulfilling an important campaign promise made by the Republican president. Gorsuch was the youngest Supreme Court nominee since Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991 picked Clarence Thomas, who was 43 at the time.

Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades, while Trump could make further appointments to the high court to make it even more solidly conservative because three of the eight justices are 78 or older. Three Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 in states won by Trump last year - Indiana's Joe Donnelly, West Virginia's Joe Manchin and North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp - voted for Gorsuch. Republican Senator Johnny Isakson missed the vote.

Gorsuch's confirmation gave a boost to Trump, showing he can get important agenda items through a Congress controlled by his fellow Republicans after the House of Representatives last month failed to pass healthcare overhaul legislation. Trump is planning major tax cut legislation as well.

EXTRAORDINARY STEPS
Senate Republicans resorted to extraordinary steps to overcome Democratic opposition to Gorsuch, including changing long-standing Senate rules to prohibit the use of a procedural blockade called a filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

The rule change was dubbed the "nuclear option" because it was considered an extreme break from Senate tradition. Gorsuch joins fellow conservatives Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy on a court that also includes liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Had the Senate confirmed Obama's nominee Merrick Garland, the court would have tilted to the left for the first time in decades. Trump has recorded accomplishments since taking office on Jan. 20, including a variety of unilateral executive actions such as moving to undo Obama's climate change regulations.

But Trump has run into trouble with some other major initiatives. Courts blocked his executive action to stop people from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

His administration also has faced questions about any role the president's associates may have played in alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to help Trump.

The rule change could make it easier for Trump to win confirmation of Supreme Court nominees as long as Republicans control the Senate, with Democrats left powerless to resist even if he gets a chance to replace the court's senior liberal, 84-year-old Ginsburg, or the court's swing vote, 80-year-old Kennedy, with more conservative replacements.

Democrats accused Gorsuch of being so conservative as to be outside the judicial mainstream, favoring corporate interests over ordinary Americans in legal opinions, and displaying insufficient independence from Trump.

A conservative-majority court is more likely to support gun rights, abortion regulations, an expansive view of religious liberty and Republican-backed voting restrictions, while opposing curbs on political spending. The court also is likely to tackle transgender rights and union funding in coming years.

Gorsuch will be sworn in on Monday in two different ceremonies, one at the court and one at the White House. He can then prepare for the court's next session of oral arguments, starting on April 17. The court's current term ends in June. Gorsuch is expected to hear arguments in 13 cases.

Gorsuch's first official act would be to participate in the justices' private April 13 conference to consider new cases to hear. There are appeals pending on expanding gun rights to include carrying concealed firearms in public, state voting restrictions that critics say are aimed at reducing minority turnout, and allowing business owners to object on religious grounds to provide certain services to gay couples.

On April 19, the court will hear a religious rights case in which a church contends Missouri violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom by denying it funds for a playground project due to a state ban on aid to religious organizations. Gorsuch has ruled several times in favor of expansive religious rights during his decade as a judge.
 
I'm happy we got Gorsuch, but I'm in no way happy that the Republicans had to alter the "rules" to get it done. That's a very dangerous precedent going into the future.
I understand it, if the Dems wouldn't confirm Gorsuch then they essentially wouldn't confirm ANY constitutionalist nominee, but goddamn can't Congress get out of its own way long enough to do their jobs? There's enough senior members to remember when the parties could disagree but reach a meaningful consensus. This has devolved into partisanship ahead of absolutely everything else.
 
I'm happy we got Gorsuch, but I'm in no way happy that the Republicans had to alter the "rules" to get it done. That's a very dangerous precedent going into the future.
I understand it, if the Dems wouldn't confirm Gorsuch then they essentially wouldn't confirm ANY constitutionalist nominee, but goddamn can't Congress get out of its own way long enough to do their jobs? There's enough senior members to remember when the parties could disagree but reach a meaningful consensus. This has devolved into partisanship ahead of absolutely everything else.

Well, "we" didn't start it. "We're" not urging the butt-hurt to continue to violently protest in the streets. "We're" not throwing up obstructionist Hail Mary moves every chance we get. Given the number of quisling progressive operatives still holding over in the agencies, I'd say that we're keeping our noses above water. But yes, here's to balance and fairness, even if we're the only ones who believe in it.
 
Well, "we" didn't start it. "We're" not urging the butt-hurt to continue to violently protest in the streets. "We're" not throwing up obstructionist Hail Mary moves every chance we get. Given the number of quisling progressive operatives still holding over in the agencies, I'd say that we're keeping our noses above water. But yes, here's to balance and fairness, even if we're the only ones who believe in it.

Oh I know buddy. Despite how much I rationally understand the lunacy of Congress, my own personal experiences are just so bloody different that I can't make the leap. From boardrooms to the ghettos at a certain level people with different agendas can reach SOME level understanding for their own benefit. The fact that rival gangs can coexist more harmoniously than our elected officials is fucking absurd.
 
Just wait for the epic whining and gnashing of teeth when we get a replacement for Kennedy and Ginsberg within the next 2-3 years.
 
To be fair and balanced the Repubs did exactly as the Dems did. The Repubs just don't give a fuck to using the nuclear option whereas the Dems didn't want to go there.

"How badly do you want it?" Comes to mind.
 
I think there comes a time where that aisle becomes such a quagmire none will cross it and that is a shame on all of us. Not how things should go.
All of those Congress Critters need to become aware that they are [working?] for their people back Home where they were elected and put all of this petty BullShit as to who is a Dem and who is a Rep. behind them and work together on everything concerning USA today.
If you don't want to play ball, we will and did come at you and change some rules just like we have been treated before. {You can keep you plan and your Doctor}
I would love to put my stripes back on and run all of those assholes through the 40 yd. low crawl. Everyone together and me hollering my lungs out at those pompous ASSHOLES. I bet we could all get along a lot better after a few boot extractions at the finish line.
Just my thoughts, but I am PISSED at all of them. FM
 
The dimocrats didn't do themselves any favors here.
It is obvious to the independents and right of center that they would have done the same thing, even if Trump would have re-nominated Merrick Garland.
They are so upset they lost the election, they will stoop to any measure to block Trump.
The problem Trump is having is the fact that he called out the Repubs as well and half of them are trying to obstruct him.
 
At this point in time, we have to stop worrying about whats nice and fair. With what's been at stake for a long time now, fuck everyone's feelings.
 
About time to take the immigration EO's to the supreme court.

R

My understanding was that because EOs aren't actually laws, that they can be repealed or changed by subsequent EOs and don't require a SCOTUS challenge to nullify? But hey, we didn't see or hear from our Constitution for about 8 years, so what the hell do I know?
 
BAWAA ha ha ha ha . Fuck the liberal shit bag mother he haws with a rusty piece of rebar Haitian style . Yeah this may com back to bite us in the as but its about time somebody grew an effin set and sat these motherfuckers down . I hope that this is just the start of the push back . Maybe at some point we can get to charging Rice , Comey , the head of NSA , Brennen , Obama , Clinton fuck where do I stop .
 
the Supreme court was just set back to where it was before Scalia passed. the Democrats could of let this one go but due to playing to the emotional snowflakes,and their wallets, they couldn't pass up the opportunity. The next appointment will tip the court for those that see it skewed one way or the other. Another appointment after, with Trump still in office, will secure the constitution for years to come from these leftist, communist, snowflakes. And fuck Harry Reid, fuckin POS one eyed pud pounder.
 
I might be misunderstanding this thing, so maybe one of y'all can refresh my memory. When the Dems had the Senate, they used the nuclear option to ram some Obama Fed judge appointments through in 2013, didn't they (this is what I'm not sure I remember)? And they didn't do it with Obama's SCOTUS appointments because it wasn't necessary - the Repubs were willing to play ball and let him have his appointments as long as they weren't too radical. The Dems didn't use the nuclear option on Garland because it wasn't available to them (they weren't the majority then). Surely they would have, if they'd still had the majority though?

SO...if that's true, is there any doubt that the only reason the Dems haven't used the nuclear option for SCOTUS is because either they never had to because the Repubs cooperated, or they couldn't because they lost the opportunity. But, there is no doubt they wouldn't have hesitated if the opportunity existed. And, if anyone thinks that if the Repubs had been stupid enough to listen to them and not use it now, that the Dems would reciprocate and not use it in the future...well, that's ludicrous. I think they did exactly what the situation called for, and would be sorry if they hadn't. This was bound to happen anyway the first chance the Dems got.
 
A state of total political war was started with the election of B. Obama. Good/bad, right/wrong no longer mattered to the Democratic party when they decided to play that card. They went all in thinking they had the control of all 3 branches of government permanently wrapped up with their messiah's ascension. This move by the Republicans is a long overdue response and them starting to recognize that we have reached a state of total political war between the 2 major parties in control of our government. I do not like it, but that bridge was burnt when Reid and Schumer made the move for their benefit when the shoe was on the other foot.

This is a most dangerous time for our country. Conservatives were civilized while the opposing side had total control for 4 years and effective control the next 4. Beans and bullets were stockpiled, but no lead was threatened to flow. less than 3 months into Trump's first year as POTUS and the opposing side has: Threatened impeachment (for what?). Held progressively more violent protests (of what they can't say coherently and in manner that makes any sense). Started buying assault weapons and urging insurgency (wtf? really? IMHO they have not really thought this one out very well... )

I hope that we can turn away from this cliff we are on, but maybe the bank has already collapsed. Until there is an opening to climb out, I hope we see another judge or 2 seated to hedge our republics future in case the next election cycle stands the makeup of our government back on its head again. If the last election had not turned out as it did, I fear we may have had much more dire circumstances to face in our country's near future. Other than get it while the getting is good, I'm not sure what we can do. The extremists on both sides are running the show as evidenced by the issues we have seen thus far.
 
I'm happy we got Gorsuch, but I'm in no way happy that the Republicans had to alter the "rules" to get it done. That's a very dangerous precedent going into the future.
I understand it, if the Dems wouldn't confirm Gorsuch then they essentially wouldn't confirm ANY constitutionalist nominee, but goddamn can't Congress get out of its own way long enough to do their jobs? There's enough senior members to remember when the parties could disagree but reach a meaningful consensus. This has devolved into partisanship ahead of absolutely everything else.

Dems would of done it time and time again since that piece of shot Reid initiated. Politics have become so fucking disgusting ...
 
To be fair and balanced the Repubs did exactly as the Dems did. The Repubs just don't give a fuck to using the nuclear option whereas the Dems didn't want to go there.

"How badly do you want it?" Comes to mind.

That is not correct, Harry Reid nuclear option 2013. This set the precident that the Democrats will use the nuclear option any time they have the majority. The Media gushed and made Reid a hero for pushing Obama appointments through. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/6/media-praised-nuclear-option-when-democrats-did-it/
 
But does this confirm all the illegal seated judges, by Obama?

That's the heart of the matter, the Senate makes the rules for the senate. In 2013 the Dems, then in the majority, did away with the sixty votes required for closure rule so that they couls seat those judges. Those judges are seated, they require no further conformation. They will be able to continue Obama's "change" until they retire or die.