Posted on 04/08/2017 5:43:23 AM PDT by rktman
This morning Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. For such a non-controversial figure, Gorsuch experienced the full might of the Democratic Party’s attack machine. Still sour at Senate Republicans blocking Merrick Garland, Obama’s first pick to fill the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, through the Biden rule—the Left was determined to stop Gorsuch at all costs. Despite having broad support from across the spectrum in the legal scholar realm—Obama’s former solicitor general supported his nomination—and the highest rating from the American Bar Association, Democrats formed a united front to stop him. They had the votes to block Gorsuch through a procedural hurdle, denying Senate Republicans the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and move to the final confirmation vote. As a result, Senate Republicans nuked the rules, allowing for Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority. Not liking someone because a Republican president nominated him or her isn’t a good enough reason to block a judge. Democrats learned that the hard way.
Now, should a second vacancy occur, a) Republicans will not have as much trouble to confirm this person; and b) the composition of the Court could become more decidedly conservative. This is why it was probably best for the Democrats to keep their powder dry, but we’ve crossed that bridge.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
ninth circus!!
That’s great. :)
From your lips to God’s ears.
I know it’s not Christian to wish for anyone’s demise so I’ll just pray she retires :)
I wonder how the Garsach guy would vote on R v W.
Now, while it would bring women to 4 on the undercard - and Sykes is an unknown on abortion - this is still the pick, Mr. President.
The Dems are always crippled when arguing against a woman, even if that woman has Sykes credentials.
"It's true that Second Amendment litigation is new, and Chicago's ordinance is unlike any firearms law that has received appellate review since Heller. But that doesn't mean we are without a framework for how to proceed. The Supreme Court's approach to deciding Heller points in a general direction. Although the critical question in Heller - whether the Amendment secures an individual or collective right - was interpretive rather than doctrinal, the Court's decision method is instructive.With little precedent to synthesize, Heller focused almost exclusively on the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, consulting the text and relevant historical materials to determine how the Amendment was understood at the time of ratification. This inquiry led the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment secures a pre-existing natural right to keep and bear arms; that the right is personal and not limited to militia service; and that the "central component of the right" is the right of armed self-defense, most notably in the home." - Judge Diane Sykes, Ezell v. Chicago, 651 F. 3d 684 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011, as quoted here; also note as Volokh summated here:
"The "plaintiffs are the 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full solicitude under Heller ... The City's firing-range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the 'law-abiding, responsible citizens' of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense."
Hopefully there will be some liberal turnover in the circuit courts too.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated in an interviewthat she was getting massive pressure to retire and let Obama pick her successor but that she flat refused to retire under Obama because , “ he (Obama) would never choose someone who looked like me as my replacement”
“Now, while it would bring women to 4 on the undercard - and Sykes is an unknown on abortion - this is still the pick, Mr. President.”
Balderdash. We’re trying to save this country, not flush it faster. No more women in government.
I’m thinking right along your same lines.
Hope we’re right!
Stevens? I think you mean Breyer. Kagan or Sotomayor already replaced Stevens.
No mistake, President Trump is in charge.
I think Janice Rogers Brown is an excellent judge. The only drawback is that she’s 67. I’d rather see somebody good that would be there for 20+ years.
Yeah, my mistake. Stephen Breyer, got the first and last names mixed up.
No. Democrat appointed judges almost always retire under a democrat president for obvious reasons. I have to think that Ginsburg assumed Hillary was going to win, so now she is stuck and will likely die sitting on the Supreme Court. She beat pancreatic cancer, which is close to a miracle, so I think she will be around for a while.
That would be the first good thing she ever did.
The Democrats are taking her health very seriously. If you go to their blogs they openly worry about her age and signs of declining health. They post diets and exercise plans for her. They’re hoping she can hold on until January 2019 when somehow the Democrats perform a miracle and retake the senate in the midterms. Why do you think the Democrats are doing everything and anything to get the president out of office? It’s their only chance to disrupt GOP control of the senate. Our main focus has to be on the senate races next year.
The woman in that photo is absolutely beautiful. Are you sure it's RBG?
Okay, I checked and I see you're right.
“Millennials are easily the most socially liberal generation and liberal economically oriented generation in the history of this country.”
We need to get moving and raise the voting age to 45.
We’ll find out.
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.