Supreme Court nominee

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
42,270
30,802
La La Land North
I'm amazed that no one has brought this up. Lots to think about here.

All descriptions I have read about him start out by saying two things, he is a conservative and that he is pro-life.

Some articles say he has never ruled on an abortion law. I don't know if that is by choice or by happenstance.

And Trump is promoting the use of the nuclear option to get him confirmed.

CNN said:
President Donald Trump said Senate Republicans should "go for it" and invoke the so-called nuclear option, preventing Democrats from using a filibuster to block his Supreme Court nominee.

"If we end up with that gridlock I would say if you can, Mitch, go nuclear," Trump said of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "That would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was caught up in the web."

"It's up to Mitch, but I would say go for it," Trump added.

Trump's comment came as he sat down with groups supporting his Supreme Court nominee, federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch, and answered a question from a reporter about early Democratic opposition to Gorsuch's nomination to the bench.

Invoking the nuclear option, as it is called on Capitol Hill, would end the need for Supreme Court nominees to receive 60 votes to break a filibuster and proceed to an up-or-down vote on the nomination that only requires a majority to confirm. Both Republicans and Democrats have long resisted doing so as it would change the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees in the future as well.
 
Mar 2013
10,743
11,934
Middle Tennessee
WOW that didn't take long did it ?? Sorry but I have say this ............. FUCKING HYPOCRITES ...........

Spent the last 10 years using the filibuster like a weapon. More than 250 filibusters in the 2013-14 session. Whined bitch pissed and moaned and screamed OUTRAGE !!!!! when Harry Reid modified the rule a couple years ago. At the time the Republicans said it would only further rupture the already broken confirmation process. They said it was un-American, that it was damaging the country by silencing the minority.

But now that they've been in charge for what ? 10 whole minutes ? THE first thing they want to do is kill it !!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Apr 2016
652
642
Shady Dale, GA
Harry Reid paved the way for this. You all can't very well complain about the nuclear option when it was used to allow President Obama to pack the lower courts without having to deal with the Republicans. Now your party is in the minority. Not only in the minority but actually irrelevant. My favorite rule change was the one about how to fill a Senate vacancy in Massachusetts. The bed wetting liberals were afraid of whom Mitt Romney might appoint and changed the law. Then when Ted Kennedy resigned suddenly for health reasons (no pulse), they lost the election... And their supermajority. Talk about a bitchslap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Apr 2016
652
642
Shady Dale, GA
Abe Fortas was an Associate Justice on the SCOTUS. In 1968 he was nominated for Chief Justice and was filibustered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Apr 2013
24,572
11,618
The Milky Way
Last year Merrick Garland. Oh wait that's right they did far worse then filibuster him, they wouldn't even give him a hearing.

When was the last time a POTUS, in his lame duck year, nominated and had that nominee to SCOTUS approved.


 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Feb 2014
12,580
7,845
nunya
WOW that didn't take long did it ?? Sorry but I have say this ............. FUCKING HYPOCRITES ...........

Spent the last 10 years using the filibuster like a weapon. More than 250 filibusters in the 2013-14 session. Whined bitch pissed and moaned and screamed OUTRAGE !!!!! when Harry Reid modified the rule a couple years ago. At the time the Republicans said it would only further rupture the already broken confirmation process. They said it was un-American, that it was damaging the country by silencing the minority.

But now that they've been in charge for what ? 10 whole minutes ? THE first thing they want to do is kill it !!!!
Elections have consequences.:lol::lol::lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Jun 2012
41,952
15,181
Barsoom
Being pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant to ruling on abortion. He shares the same constitutional method of interpretation as Scalia.

My view is that regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that, my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice. Some states prohibited it and some states didn’t. What Roe vs. Wade said was that no state can prohibit it. That is simply not in the Constitution.​