Politics Trump's choice for the Supreme Court is....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
So, after all, a blue blood Ivy League guy. And after all this "I feel your pain, white working class", this judge "the best judge in the country" has ruled for the wealthy and powerful at every chance. In every employment discrimination case he ruled for the employer. In cases involving actual wage theft, he ruled for the employer. Considering Trump is well known for cheating workers and contractors, it's not surprising he would want a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold this.

Gorsuch was in large part responsible for bringing Hobby Lobby to the Supreme Court. For years, Hobby Lobby had provided employees with health coverage that included birth control. After the Affordable Care Act made covering birth control mandatory, the owners of this private, for-profit business, decided birth control was against their religion. The Court had already ruled corporations were people with free speech rights, they now ruled corporations had religions as well and the religion of the corporation took precedence over the religious views of employees - an unprecedented violation of religious freedom. They also enshrined in law "alternative facts"; Hobby Lobby had claimed birth control was "really" abortion. The opposite side presented medical experts to explain that was not the case, but the Court majority - five male Catholics - ruled it did not matter if their claim was true or not as long as they "sincerely believed" it.
 
crandc said:
So, after all, a blue blood Ivy League guy. And after all this "I feel your pain, white working class", this judge "the best judge in the country" has ruled for the wealthy and powerful at every chance. In every employment discrimination case he ruled for the employer. In cases involving actual wage theft, he ruled for the employer. Considering Trump is well known for cheating workers and contractors, it's not surprising he would want a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold this.

Gorsuch was in large part responsible for bringing Hobby Lobby to the Supreme Court. For years, Hobby Lobby had provided employees with health coverage that included birth control. After the Affordable Care Act made covering birth control mandatory, the owners of this private, for-profit business, decided birth control was against their religion. The Court had already ruled corporations were people with free speech rights, they now ruled corporations had religions as well and the religion of the corporation took precedence over the religious views of employees - an unprecedented violation of religious freedom. They also enshrined in law "alternative facts"; Hobby Lobby had claimed birth control was "really" abortion. The opposite side presented medical experts to explain that was not the case, but the Court majority - five male Catholics - ruled it did not matter if their claim was true or not as long as they "sincerely believed" it.
Click to expand...
Have you been in a Hobby Lobby? Every other person in there reminded me of you. Less political versions of course. That store is a joke and people have every right to boycott it. The first thing you see when you walk in is cheap imported furniture with a "furniture is ALWAYS 35 percent off"

Then it isn't on FUCKING sale is it?
 
The smear is rather weak so far.

Expected, but weak.
 
Neil Gorsuch started Fascism Forever Club in high school

Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, founded and led a student group called Fascism Forever Club while in an elite high school, according to a report.

The 49-year-old conservative Republican tapped to succeed the late Antonin Scalia launched the right-wing club as a freshman at the Jesuit all-boys Georgetown Preparatory School near Washington, DC, the Daily Mail reported.

He served as president of the group until he graduated in 1985, according to his yearbook, the paper reported.

http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-started-fascism-forever-club-in-high-school/
 
Who among us has not founded a "fascism forever" club? Maybe some Jews. Or gays. Or gypsies. Those guys tend not to "get" Holocaust jokes. Also possibly people who ever lived in Spain or Italy. Or Chile. Or Argentina. But those guys just have NO SENSE OF HUMOR!
 
enjoy the next 8 years Rastabot.
 
With all the opposition from the dems it's interesting that he was confirmed to the 20th circuit court with a unanimous vote (95-0) in 2006. Among his backers were Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein Patty Murray, Dick Durban and Oregon's own Ron Wyden to name just a few.

Wyden questioned him on his beliefs regarding assisted suicide (which haven't changed) and then gave him his backing.

So what's changed since then? Oh yeah I forgot. Butthurt...
 
Last edited:
Tweak said:
With all the opposition from the demo it's interesting that he was confirmed to the 20th circuit court with a unanimous vote (95-0) in 2006. Among his backers were Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein Patty Murray, Dick Durban and Oregon's own Ron Wyden to name just a few.

Wyden questioned him on his beliefs regarding assisted suicide (which haven't changed) and then gave him his backing.

So what's changed since then? Oh yeah I forgot. Butthurt...
Click to expand...
No, the real reason is the same as with Garland: you don't confirm a president's choice in his last year in office.
 
Tweak said:
Yes, like I said, butt hurt.
Click to expand...

I think he salivates every morning when he wakes up, waiting to check his twitter feed from all the liberal reservoir fillers. I have never seen a person sooooooooo butt hurt.
 
blue32 said:
I think he salivates every morning when he wakes up, waiting to check his twitter feed from all the liberal reservoir fillers. I have never seen a person sooooooooo butt hurt.
Click to expand...
I've never seen someone so in need of intervention.

And I do lurk at the DU occasionally for the giggles. I'm in double digits as far as being banned there. I always only get one post before it happens.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
I did not read the article, but I fear you are correct. I see no Scalia.
I see a man trying hard to look good, Too willing to please. One more chuckle than I would like.
Click to expand...

The article is worth reading. It examines a lot of cases that his circuit court handled and that he was a judge on and uses those to get a sense for how conservative he was compared to the other judges.
 
Minstrel said:
The article is worth reading. It examines a lot of cases that his circuit court handled and that he was a judge on and uses those to get a sense for how conservative he was compared to the other judges.
Click to expand...
I will read it when I get to it. I just wanted to comment the above even without reading it. I fear he is no Scalia.
 
Minstrel said:
Well, you don't have to sound so sad about that!

I will miss Scalia's quaintly-written dissents, though. Pure applesauce.
Click to expand...

Well, goodness golly gee, Gorsuch isn't a stranger to down-home folksy talking. It's not Scalia, but it will have to do.

barfo
 
So his record does not match the story we are told. Well I gathered the same from watching his demeanor and characteristics. Probably not the Scalia type, perhaps not even conservative period.

Perhaps good judge though, we shall see. I do hope he appreciates the Constitution though perhaps the concept enough more.

I did watch part of the hearings, and happened to catch Sen. Dianne Feinstein question the Judge. She stated that she thought the Constitution is a "living document"! That is she thinks it should change via the judges that rule, and that it changes over time by the presidents set by the judges. I also know why she wants this, it is because she knows it it too difficult in her opinion to get the laws passed she would like to see. And way to hard to get an amendment to the Constitution passed via procedure. She will only support a Judge that will also ignore the Constitution or more to the point, will give it new meaning by setting precedent without regard to the original intent of the Constitution or even what it plainly says. I have also heard this person say, she is thankful for the commerce clause. It is the most useful part of the Constitution. Damn!

What I do not understand is why anyone would vote for person that is willing to abdicate the very job you elect her to do, to a person that is never responsible to any voter?
I think it takes a moron to give her a vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top