Neil Gorsuch is Trump Pick for Supreme Court

neil-gorsuch for SCPosted by Tina

Democrats up for election in states where Donald Trump prevailed over Hillary Clinton find themselves in a pickle now that President Trump has announced his pick to replace Judge Antonin Scalia. The announcement hasn’t ruffled the feathers of confident Republicans who have vowed to secure his place on the court. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley says he will hold hearings in six weeks.

We’ll stay tuned for the inevitable fireworks, meanwhile, a motley crew of 3000 left activists with potty mouth protested in front of Chuck Schumers home tonight. The little darlings are angry at Chuck for being such a wimp. Their war chant: “WTF Chuck?”

Original. Elegant. Classy. Intelligent. Right?

Poor dears…Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of the left leadership won’t be able to keep up, much less stop, Trump. He represents the will of people that have had it with the lefts tyrannical governance and the bullying mobs they use to make political noise.

Neil Gorsuch…an extraordinarily good choice!

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law, Education. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Neil Gorsuch is Trump Pick for Supreme Court

  1. Libby says:

    OMG … he hung up on the Australian Prime Minister.

    The Australian PM is NOT some plumbing contractor. What are we going to do with this idiot … and a rude idiot, too.

    The world is just going to have to get along without us for the next four years. We, the citizens, must contrive some way to make our apologies … but it just can’t be helped.

  2. Libby says:

    OMG … again … but my blasphemies are nothing to this …

    Asperger’s Syndrome? Early Alzheimer’s? Just plain stupid?

    But I’m all for Arnold’s plan … I’m living for Jon Stewart’s quip: “The Presidency is supposed to age the President, not the Public.”

  3. Libby says:

    Finally getting around to the judge, I wasn’t all that concerned. Terri Gross talked to some “constitutional” guy yesterday who said Gorsuch wasn’t that bad, had a solid regard for the Constitution … he wasn’t a moron, anyway.

    However, Alternet has uncovered his youthful indiscretions:

    “Supreme Court nominee founded and led a student club called “Fascism Forever,” while attending a private prep school in suburban Washington in the 1980s.

    “The yearbook of Georgetown Prep described the club as an anti-faculty student group that battled against the “liberal” views of the school administration, according to the UK Daily Mail.

    “In political circles, our tireless President Gorsuch’s ‘Fascism Forever Club’ happily jerked its knees against the increasingly ‘left-wing’ tendencies of the faculty,” said the yearbook. Gorsuch led the club all four years he attended the elite all-boys Jesuit school in Bethesda, Maryland.

    “Gorsuch’s willingness to flaunt anti-democratic ideas in service of his conservative politics continued through his four years at Columbia University in New York City where he founded a chapter of the Federal Society, the conservative law network. His senior photo was accompanied by a “joke” from Henry Kissinger: “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”


    Now, this last bit … I mean, can he help what some jerk puts in his yearbook? It is disturbing, nonetheless.

    • Bryan H. says:

      I’m not all that bothered by a practical joke made as a high school senior.

      I’m just glad Trump picked someone with actual experience in law. Was anyone else preparing for “Justice Omarosa?”

      Given the way Trump announced Gorsuch, I was waiting for him to say “I’ll announce my next pick for Supreme Court…after the break!”

      OK pick. I disagree with him on probably everything, but he’s at least qualified, which is more than you can say for the rest of this slow-motion clown car wreck.

  4. Dewey says:

    In College was President of the Fascism Forever club.

    Says it all.

  5. Tina says:

    Fake news!

    Libby, in a situation like this, roles reversed, you would take an in-your-face attitude and smirk at my gullibility and stupidity…that’s how generous you are. Well I suggest you turn that attitude back on yourself. .


    The New York Post, The Daily Mail, U.S. News and World Report, Vice News and Keith Olbermann, on Thursday, all ran with the story that when he was at Georgetown Prep, Gorsuch founded and led a pro-fascism club.

    However, the National Review’s Ed Whelan has questioned the seriousness and accuracy of the story. According to Whelan: “The supposed evidence for their claim is the blurb on him in his high-school yearbook. Earth to newpaper reporters: High-school yearbook editors sometimes have a sophomoric sense of humor. I am reliably informed that no such club ever existed and that there was instead an inside joke among friends in the senior class that parodied political debates happening at the school. A contemporary of Gorsuch’s at the school also tells me that yearbook editors added stuff to student blurbs without their permission.”

    [Update: America magazine reports Gorsuch’s peers say this was “a total joke” about how he was more conservative than his peers and teachers.]

    For what it’s worth Snopes also deemed the story as false.

    The linked Ed Whelan piece in National Review also notes the following: “I am reliably informed that no such club ever existed and that there was instead an inside joke among friends in the senior class that parodied political debates happening at the school. … (And in case a reliable source doesn’t convince)…Update: Gorsuch’s high school confirms what should have been obvious to everyone: that no such club ever existed and that the yearbook blurb was tongue-in-cheek”

    They say Gorsuch was friendly to all and willing to listen to all sides of an issue. A skill that makes him an excellent choice for the SC.

    • Bryan H. says:

      I saw a few of my liberal friends sharing that story and immediately went to Snopes to check it out. Confirmation bias is as big on the left as it is on the right.

  6. Peggy says:

    Remember SC justices Bork. Thomas and Estrada’s approval process?

    Democrats Should Be Reminded They Set The Standard On Blocking Judicial Nominees, Not Republicans:

  7. Peggy says:

    Just read this little treasure on how a filibuster can be stopped without using the nuclear option.

    How Senate Republicans Can Break a Supreme Court Filibuster:
    “In a recent Heritage Foundation paper, Ed Corrigan and I detail how Senate rules empower a majority to overcome a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee—without having to invoke cloture or using the nuclear option.

    Specifically, a majority may use Rule XIX (the two-speech rule) to shorten the amount of time members are able to filibuster. This rule prohibits any senator from giving more than two speeches on any one question during the same legislative day.

    In the Senate’s rules, the terms “legislative day” and “calendar day” do not mean the same thing. A legislative day ends only when the Senate adjourns and therefore may last much longer than the 24 hours that define a calendar day. Indeed, one particularly long legislative day in 1980 lasted 162 calendar days, spanning a period from Jan. 3 until June 12.

    Once a senator has given two speeches during the same legislative day, he or she may not speak again. The Senate votes when there are no members remaining on the floor who wish to and are allowed to speak. At that point, the support of a simple majority of the senators present and voting is sufficient for confirmation.

    Using the two-speech rule to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court pick is straightforward.
    First, the Senate would proceed to consider the nomination. The Republican majority would then keep the Senate in the same legislative day and would strictly enforce the two-speech rule on any filibustering senators.

    While Democrats could make procedural motions in protest, doing so in almost all cases would terminate the filibustering senator’s speech, thus hastening the moment at which the minority would have exhausted its ability to delay confirmation by filibustering via debate.

    Strictly enforcing the two-speech rule is likely to break the filibuster before every Democrat uses the maximum number of speeches allotted under the rules. This is because continuing to filibuster in this context imposes significant costs on rank-and-file Democrats. To have even the chance of success requires each Democrat to hold the Senate floor for a prolonged period in an effort to wait out the Republicans.

    The only way for them to prevail in the parliamentary showdown is for Republicans to relent and cease their efforts to overcome the filibuster.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.