Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings

[Amppax]

Is anyone following these? If so, what are your thoughts on his comments on Roe v. Wade? 

[havok579257]

i have been watching it some.  I don't put any stock in what he says about anything here.  These judges need to be as general and non specific when speaking.  The dems keep trying to get him to slip up but he just keeps saying roe v wade is the law of the land and its been re-affirmed.  If he came out and said it was dumb that we kill the innocent, not a single dem would approve him.  so he keeps his personal views close to his chest.

[Peace]

I am a little worried about this recent news about him attending a liberal Episcopalian church. Not a good sign. 

Only practicing Catholics should be allowed in any position of authority.

[Basilisa Marie]

23 hours ago, Amppax said:

Is anyone following these? If so, what are your thoughts on his comments on Roe v. Wade? 

He's treading carefully. Gorsuch is pretty pro-life. He wrote a book about how Euthenasia is evil. 

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8317.html

Quote

After assessing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments for assisted suicide and euthanasia, Gorsuch builds a nuanced, novel, and powerful moral and legal argument against legalization, one based on a principle that, surprisingly, has largely been overlooked in the debate--the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong. 

That sounds like a pro-life advocate to me. 

[Amppax]

3 minutes ago, Basilisa Marie said:

He's treading carefully. Gorsuch is pretty pro-life. He wrote a book about how Euthenasia is evil. 

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8317.html

That sounds like a pro-life advocate to me. 

 

Sure, I think Gorsuch is a good pick overall. I suppose what irritates me was the constant refrain "vote for Trump, and he'll pick judges who'll overturn Roe v. Wade." Well, now we're in the middle of confirmation hearings, and the nominee is saying "I accept Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land" and he would have "walked out the door" if asked to overturn Roe vs. Wade. 

[Basilisa Marie]

11 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Sure, I think Gorsuch is a good pick overall. I suppose what irritates me was the constant refrain "vote for Trump, and he'll pick judges who'll overturn Roe v. Wade." Well, now we're in the middle of confirmation hearings, and the nominee is saying "I accept Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land" and he would have "walked out the door" if asked to overturn Roe vs. Wade. 

Yeah. I think he means it as he's trying to be a judge that won't be swayed by partisan politics. I mean this is the same guy who said something to the effect of only bad judges like all of their own rulings. He balked when Sen. Feinstein called Roe "super-precedent," and instead said it had been affirmed many times. 

[Anomaly]

Roe V Wade is a law that protects the woman's health an protects her right to privacy Aa a person.  The fetus or embryo has no or limited legal recognition as a person or entity until "perceived viability", so the woman's rights are protected before a "non-entity".    

You can't suddenly say a woman has no rights or are being limited arbitrarily.  

Once a fetus or embryo is recognized legally as having equal rights as the mother, RvsW is effectively nullified in practical appropriate application a you can't then violate another legally recognized person's right to equal treatment and protection. 

We are discussing practical legalities to apply consistently in a legal system, not philosophical points.  That is why Civil Rights Laws are important.  Unfortunately, like black Americans in the past, the humanity of unborn people is ignored or diminished significantly in the current legal system. 

[Peace]

Souter was Episcopalian too. I'm just saying.

[dUSt]

I just watch for Mary Elizabeth Taylor.

[little2add]

Senate Minority Leader Chicky said Thursday that Democrats will attempt to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination because he can.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, dUSt said:

I just watch for Mary Elizabeth Taylor.

I thought you already had a black woman. Nevertheless, the desire is certainly understandable.

[dominicansoul]

On 3/22/2017 at 2:45 PM, Amppax said:

Sure, I think Gorsuch is a good pick overall. I suppose what irritates me was the constant refrain "vote for Trump, and he'll pick judges who'll overturn Roe v. Wade." Well, now we're in the middle of confirmation hearings, and the nominee is saying "I accept Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land" and he would have "walked out the door" if asked to overturn Roe vs. Wade. 

I don't know...I'm thinking if you were going to help overturn Roe V Wade, you wouldn't admit it to a group of satanic abortion-supporting liberals ready to destroy your nomination, would you?

 

[little2add]

If the progressive democrats have it in for Gorsuch,  just wait until Trump appoints Ben Carson to replace Ginsburg.

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by little2add

[little2add]

Why isn't this man qualifed to be a justice? Schumer will turn the moderates in his own party against him.  

Senator Schemer is destroying that character of the Senate and is making it so much easier for the Republicans to "pack" the Supreme Court with numerous judicial appointments with conservatives. 

There are numerous judicial openings expected in the next four years (Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy) and the Democrats will regret this grave error for decades.

Republicans should make Schumer's day by killing the filibuster.  Democrats deserve to reap what they sowed.

 

[havok579257]

16 minutes ago, little2add said:

Why isn't this man qualifed to be a justice? Schumer will turn the moderates in his own party against him.  

Senator Schemer is destroying that character of the Senate and is making it so much easier for the Republicans to "pack" the Supreme Court with numerous judicial appointments with conservatives. 

There are numerous judicial openings expected in the next four years (Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy) and the Democrats will regret this grave error for decades.

Republicans should make Schumer's day by killing the filibuster.  Democrats deserve to reap what they sowed.

 

well to be fair he is mad because the republicans refused to even vote on Obama's appointee.  that was the ultimate fillibuster of over a year.  according to the rules of the senate, it was not right.  i am personally glad the republicans did it but i can't argue that it was right according to the rules.  democrats are just doing the same thing republicans did under obama.

[little2add]

9 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

well to be fair he is mad because the republicans refused to even vote on Obama's appointee.  that was the ultimate fillibuster of over a year.  according to the rules of the senate, it was not right.  i am personally glad the republicans did it but i can't argue that it was right according to the rules.  democrats are just doing the same thing republicans did under obama.

fake  tears

[havok579257]

hey i don't like Schumer at all.  although I feel like both sides of the spectrum (conservative and liberal) get their panties in a bunch when one side does something but clearly ignores the same thing when their side does it.  both sides need to be honest about this and not cry everytime the other side pulls one of their tricks.

[little2add]

New York Senator Chuck Schumer is a hipocrate 

Schumer took the exact opposite stance nine years ago, going out of his way to bluntly tell the George W. Bush administration that he would filibuster any Supreme Court nominee they put forward in the next two years because he didn’t care for the ideology of his previous two nominees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8

 

[Anomaly]

On 3/26/2017 at 11:48 PM, havok579257 said:

hey i don't like Schumer at all.  although I feel like both sides of the spectrum (conservative and liberal) get their panties in a bunch when one side does something but clearly ignores the same thing when their side does it.  both sides need to be honest about this and not cry everytime the other side pulls one of their tricks.

Well, the idea to not select a Supreme Court Judge is not a new Republican thing.  It unofficially referred to as the Biden Rule, since Biden lobbied for it as a Senator in the 90's.   

It's dishonest to say D's are justified now to balance what R's did recently.   The tit for tat has to stop sometime to begin some sort of bipartisanship in action.  

This hyper partisanship started growing years ago and has only escalated.  It isn't constructive that anyone justifies the stupidity by either party as pay back for past wrongs, whether real or perceived.  

Gorsuch should be confirmed as a qualified, non-extreme candidate.  The Dem filibuster is uncalled for party politics and it is very unfortunate the Reps have to consider changing rules to counter their stupidity.   However, I think that maybe they shouldn't and not contribute to the continued escalation this time.  

[Ice_nine]

What of the frozen trucker case? Does that concern anyone? Is it just leftwing hysteria?