Posted on 03/21/2017 9:40:27 AM PDT by HKMk23
DENVER — It was a horrific case. A female student had been gang-raped by football players being recruited by the University of Colorado. Now, her lawyers were trying to hold the university partly responsible, arguing it had created a hostile environment for women.
A lower court had already rejected their civil rights argument. As her lawyers prepared to appeal in 2007, they had an overarching concern: a federal appellate judge named Neil Gorsuch.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Democrats are playing with dynamite. If they should band together and deny the seat on the Supreme Court to Neil Gorsuch, the next candidate for any seat on the Supreme Court shall have a much easier path.
The nuclear option for filibustering a Supreme Court justice will be blown up, just like Harry Reid did for most other Presidential nominations (including lower court judges). The most the Democrats can do then is drag their feet and slow-walk all the nominations.
Once again, Donald Trump has chosen his battles well.
And that is really poor Public Relations when it comes around to elections again.
Has Cruz testified yet today?
Bingo. And a careful reading of the article shows why they support him. He’s not conservative regarding a key social issue.
Good point.
You forgot the Anti-Federalist Papers, The Constitutional Debates, their personal journals, and opinion articles in publications of the time which included many of the FF's quotes. I doubt Ayesha Khan, like many of her ilk, got past the "promote the general welfare" clause in the preamble of the Constitution. They extrapolate that and the "commerce clause" to the extreme and way past historically verified INTENT.
Some are even stupid enough to include the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence that holds no legal standing. It's astounding how so many of these "living constitution" self-appointed experts have no to little knowledge of the FF's INTENT.
While the FF's could not foresee a gazillion lawyers parsing and spinning their statements, the documents are there for anyone to review. There was no ambiguity in their INTENT for the new Republic as evidenced in all we cite above.
However, haven't seen the exact details of that case why he supported that decision. If you want to research it and make it clear in layman's terms that it was wrong to us conservatives, I'm all ears.
Sorry, don't have the time to do that kind of research.
That’s certainly a cautionary note, but the other side of that trepidation is that The Post seems to have concluded that there wasn’t enough negative about the guy to write a hit piece against him.
So, does he look good enough to the leftist WaPo that Conservatives ought to be spooked, or is he really such a good jurist, and a decent human being that there’s no mud to sling at him that wouldn’t be so obviously synthetic as to fatally embarrass anyone who’d deign to try?
Nobody is as pure as the wind-driven snow, but there are, in fact, really decent people who’ve played it straight their whole lives, who have no skeletons, and not even a closet to put one in.
There’s no credible way to gin up condemnation against such a person as that without making oneself into an utter laughingstock.
“I love how he schooled DiFi and Leaky Leahy. Hee hee”
Sad how they trot out these Troglodytes to make fools of themselves. They are walking Poster Child’s for term limits and they just can’t see it, no more likely, they just can’t admit it.
I know, right?
“You can’t KNOW! All you have are REAMS and REAMS of contemporaneous EVIDENCE backed by subsequent, scholarly legal exposition! You can’t KNOW! You can only be 99 and 44/100ths percent sure. What HUBRIS to think there’s ANY possible way that you could even BEGIN to know!”
Leftism is psychopathy.
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.