Posted on 03/21/2017 6:25:13 PM PDT by jazusamo
They’ll still vote against him.
Could just as well have the vote first thing tomorrow.
No doubt at all you’re right.
It’s strickly a political gotcha on the Rats part.
I hope he turns out to be what America needs.
Thanks a lot for posting this!
The trouble with Dems “landing a few punches” is that it’s like a butterfly landing on your nose. LOL. Enough of this “gotcha politician clown show”. Confirm Gorsuch and let’s move on. Enough with the childish games.
DiFi suffered blowback, richochet, and was schooled.
That last line is so absurd. The Dems are grasping desperately at straws.
Have we found any photos of Gorsuch posing with pies a la Roberts?
I really enjoyed being 'schooled' by this knowledgeable Judge.
Gorsuch acquitted himself well. Given the political environment, does anyone believe he will be confirmed without the nuclear option?
what was with Sen. Al Franken. I have seen his performances as Senator on more than one occasion. I have also been around persons when they have had a bit too much to drink. Was the Senator totally inebriated?
He sounds too much like that POS Roberts.
Bump!
Franken is just an IDIOT, with effluvia for brains.
It was very apparent that Gorsuch was in a totally different intellectual league than all Democrats and most Republicans on the committee.
Land punches? More like threw up onto his shoes.
Amen...Franken made a fool of himself with his question or statement, whichever it was, then didn’t get an answer that satisfied him.
Judge Gorsuch was cool as a cucumber. lol
I honestly have wondered the same thing.
He's presented himself very well and if the Rats won't forgo the filibuster and let him be confirmed I think he will be by the nuclear option.
I think the rats know that too.
I did like Gorsuch’s answer that all the hyphenated-Americans are persons deserving of equal treatment. I also wonder why the Democrats haven’t followed up on that, given their agenda to give preferences based on hyphenations.
With regard to original intent, some of the questions were simply weird. The Constitution has been amended several times. The amendments invoke not the intention of the Founders but the intentions of the amendors. Therefore, the 13th, 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment tell us something either in the original document or in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it up to the time of the amendment, has changed.
To illustrate, the Supreme Court could say Dred Scot was wrongly decided, and reverse itself. But, by reason of the 14th Amendment, the Dred Scot decision’s key determination - that persons of the African race could never be citizens of the United States - was rendered moot.
The original Republican position on Dred Scot, expressed by Lincoln in his Cooper Union speech, was that Dred Scot was wrongly decided. His original position was to seek to overturn Scot, possibly through the slow workings of the appointment process. A certain unpleasantness changed the plan.
Plessy v. Furgeson - the “separate but equal” ruling of the late 19th Century was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. As to why the Supreme Court reversed itself, possibly it was because the doctrine was massively falsified by the fact that public schools for black children in the south were not at all equal to the public schools for white children in the south. Who knows, but if blacks actually had separate and equal schools and such, maybe we’d still be living in a segregated society.
You’ve got to have some faith in the process. We, the U.S., are still a work in progress.
This kind of gets to the application of the Constitution to changes in technology and other changes that could not have been anticipated by the Founders. For example. wiretaps on telephones. Obviously, there were no telephones at the time the 4th Amendment was ratified. At first, it wasn’t clear how the 4th Amendment applied to this new technology. Eventually, the Court determined that a warrant would be required.
Nowadays, we’re involved in yet another new technology: the internet, and whether the government can conduct massive eavesdropping in the name of national security or fighting terrorism or fighting drugs or other crime. Sorry, it’s not immediately obvious how the 4th Amendment applies. Have some confidence that we will work this through.
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.