Posted on 02/25/2017 2:09:09 PM PST by Tours
Senator Chuck Schumer wants to make one thing clear ... ain't no way he'll vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court if he supports Trump's travel ban. The New York Senator was on Capitol Hill Monday night when he made it clear to our photog, judges need to stand up to the prez, especially on the ban. The confirmation hearing should be interesting ... how Gorsuch deals with the question ... how would you vote?
Who cares what you think Chuck.
Got news for you Schmuck..you have as much power as my bowel movement this morning..when will Dems understand, they are the minority party they can have hissy fits all day long nothing will change the fact they have ZERO power..go get a binkie and have yourself a good cry Schmuck
IOW, it’s nothing.
So what Chuckie is saying is that he opposed Obama first implementing these travel bans,......but at the time then he said zero about them.
See, the pres was black and had a D behind his name then.
One of my Senators making an azz of himself AGAIN.
Chuck already announced that he would not support anyone that President Trump picked, so who gives a frak what Chuck thinks about it now?
Typical liberals. They can never yield to our Constitution!
Yeah, he is a strange one.
His view has nothing to do with his Job,
It isn’t an issue for the Courts anyway Chuckie.
It is a given that Senator Schumer was NEVER going to vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The question is, does he have enough clout to PREVENT the confirmation?
Maybe Chuck can organize a filibuster. But if he does, I want to see a REAL one, with the filibustering Senators getting up to the lectern and talking themselves hoarse, tied to the stand until they are ready to drop from exhaustion or exceedingly painful cramps set in, presenting at least semi-relevant summations of why they think Neil Gorsuch is either unfit, or otherwise not suitable for the appointment. If this going to be a life appointment, then those who do NOT want to support it should be able to stand by the courage of their convictions.
Personally I would like the appointments to any level of the Federal judiciary be limited to a term of no more than ten years, with reappointment possible at the end of that ten years by re-nomination by the sitting President at the time and re-confirmation in the Senate.
The problem is that Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Franken, Cardin, Blumenthal, Warren, etc. ad nauseum, will hold up the nomination with a threatened filibuster unless Mitch goes for the nuclear option. No guarantee he will in the interests of Senate “Congeniality”.
Well, Mitch (the one without balls) needs to step up to the plate and start moving these nominees along.
Elections have consequences. Trump won.
Eat your peas and embrace the suck you lunatic.
Respectfully Senator, I would not answer a question as to what I would consider, particularly in a case that may come before a court of which I am a sitting justice anymore than you, if you were in a very close election campaign, the question would you vote to raise taxes?
Not to mention the RINOs.
Dear Chuckie,
the constitution and the law as passed by congress...both entrust that decision to the president
you let obama flood USA with zillions of DANGEROUS ENEMY INVADERS and did we hear a single PEEP out of ya????
time for Chuckie to shut up and go get Cheesed!
And .. what he thinks is WRONG .. the Judge does not have authority over the President’s decisions, when the STATUTE CLEARLY STATES THAT IT’S THE PRESIDENT WHO DECIDES - NOT CHUCKY OR THE JUDGE.
TERM LIMITS .. KEEP GOING CHUCKY .. AND YOU WILL BE THE PERSON WHO EXEMPLIFIES WHY WE NEED TERM LIMITS; the longer you’re there, the more stupid you get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.