Posted on 04/01/2017 4:03:02 PM PDT by mdittmar
Murray on Judge Gorsuch’s Nomination to Supreme Court and How it Will Hurt Women's Rights
Why is the Gorsuch nomination subject to this anyway??
Why is it, that wise Latina types nominated by Democrats, no matter how liberal, get easily confirmed with significant Republican support?? But with GOP nominees we end up sweating out filibusters or filibuster threats????
that is one fugly lying biotchi. That Buster Brown hair cut goes well with her sensible shoes them fat no makeup liberal “women” wear... and they wonder why ED is so wide spread and so many liberal “males” are gay.
That was the Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing she was talking about. She benefited from a Conservative black Judge being appointed to the Supreme Court. Can't this liberal beyotch be taken out at the polls by anyone?
Her statement about Gorsuch being appointed would hurt women's rights is baloney. I'd like her to name one Supreme Court decision that has been detrimental to women's rights since all the nominees she's voted against have been on the Court.
No. She is the modern equivalent of Warren Magnuson. She brings the state massive amounts of transportation pork because of her senior seat on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and her staff makes sure that she gets full credit for it.
It's a little more complicated than that.
There is an old adage in the Senate: "The weakest senators have the strongest staffs." For years the strongest staffs in the Senate belonged to Murray, Boxer, Mikulski and Ted Kennedy. The three women weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, and Ted was drunk most of the time.
Most work is done by staff members, and the strength of a particular staff determines how successful a senator may become.
People get into politics via a number of ways. Being a PE teacher also worked for Dennis Hastert. Some got into politics via school boards, and others were lowly shoe salesmen before finding the issue that propelled them into their first lowly elective office. Patty's path is not unusual.
Without her top quality staff, she would not have lasted beyond her second term.
Without her top quality staff, she would not have lasted beyond her second term.
—
A lot of clueless voters in the state too.
If they could make Patty a long-term senator, they could have made Jethro Bodine a rocket surgeon.
Patty performs the same function that the late Warren Magnuson performed for many decades in the Senate: bringing home pork. Patty has a senior minority seat on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and she has leveraged that slot into bringing home substantial amounts of transportation pork. Her staff makes sure that she gets the credit for it.
Considering the transportation needs of the state, it makes sense to keep her where she is to keep that federal faucet running at full capacity. To the voters of Washington state, pork trumps ideology and competence.
A physical education teacher? When Patty first ran for office, she was a volunteer at her kid’s kindergarten. When did she pick up a degree?
Are you counting on Collins and Murkowski as “yes” votes? Pray without ceasing.
From her wiki page:
Murray received her Bachelor of Arts degree in physical education from Washington State University in 1972. She was a preschool teacher for several years and taught a parenting class at Shoreline Community College from 1984–87.
I don’t believe she could have chosen a more lazy major. If she wants to be lazy, she found the right career.
I’m happy to see that some Dems are nervous about their upcoming election, since they represent states that went for Trump, and are not sure they’ll vote to filibuster. And tx for the explanation.
Pinko, leftist Bullshiit.
Murray is not a Republican.
Thanks for straightening my head on that one. I don’t know what led me to think she was Republican, unless I confused her with some female RINO from the past.
The good thing about getting old is that you can use it as an excuse for saying dumb things.
Commie Patty Osama Mama Murray is a mental giant among the voters who elected her for a fifth term in the Senate. That tells us the voters of of Washington State who elected her, have the collective wisdom of a gnat.
More specifically, and with all due respect to Washington State FReepers, it’s not surprising that probably mostly low-information Washington State voters elected a federal senator who probably doesn’t understand the Constitution, particularly the importance of constitutionally enumerated rights, any more than they do.
Murray doesn’t seem to understand that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals only with voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment (19A).
And since most of the women’s protections that constitutionally low-information lawmakers are addressing are clearly outside the scope of voting rights, such protections are based on constitutionally nonexistent federal powers.
In other words, corrupt lawmakers are exploiting low-information female voters in the following way. Such lawmakers are taking advantage of the Court’s scandalous decision in Roe v. Wade, using 19A in conjunction with the ill-conceived 17th Amendment to insure continuing women voter support by being protectors of fictitious constitutional womens’ rights, like the so-called “right” to have an abortion.
All that lawmakers need to do to insure continuing woman voter support is to promise women to keep fighting for a pro-abortion activist justice majority, the Constitution be damned, Sen. Murray’s politicking against Gorsuch a good example of this.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch is approved but turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
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.