It is too bad that Trump has so little faith in his nominee that he is already fearing that they can not secure 60 votes. Did he pick someone who is that biased to the Right? This continual effort to politicize the SCOTUS is so annoying. Thoughts?
MP Gorsuch for SCOTUS
CNN Evangelicals vs Atheists
CNN Trump Urges Nuclear Option
CNN Pelosi on Gorsuch
MP Gorsuch for SCOTUS
CNN Evangelicals vs Atheists
CNN Trump Urges Nuclear Option
CNN Pelosi on Gorsuch
40 comments:
Since we don't regard Trump as a legitimate president, the view on our side is that no Trump nominee for the Supreme Court should be confirmed. As with Judge Garland, our opposition to Judge Gorsuch isn't personal. The people, we were told, should make the decision and they chose someone else.
--Hiram
Oh no... Now you are starting to sound like a silly "birther"... :-)
Just accepting the rules as Republicans laid them down. Trump argued that Obama wasn't a legitimate president because he was born outside the United States. Democrats argue that Trump isn't a legitimate president because he lost the popular vote. Are both points valid?
In any event Trump is too mentally unstable to be allowed to make critical decisions, particularly those which will have impact beyond his term.
--Hiram
Mentally unstable? Have you observed any Democrats lately? I've heard the phrases "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and "bat-excrement crazy" a lot of late.
I am also told that there is something short of the nuclear option in Senate rules that guarantees a united Republican majority can use to guarantee Judge Gorsuch's confirmation.
Hiram,
Please remember that this Judge was already confirmed by the Senate previously. It isn't like Trump picked an unknown guy off the street who has no credentials.
It seems to me the questionable will be...
How will he rule if a Roe v Wade type case comes up?
By the way, if he wants to let government get between a woman and her Doctor during the first trimester... I hope they find a way to block him.
I am already angry about this stupid order. We are fine using tax dollars to blow up bad guys and innocent civilians however we are going to limit NGO funding because somewhere in their organization they discuss abortion as an option to delivering kids that one can not feed...
Remember the GOP mantra... We care about babies until they are out of the uterus... Then they can starve and stay in war torn communities.
"It seems to me the questionable [sic] will be...
How will he rule if a Roe v Wade type case comes up?"
And by custom and common sense, that is EXACTLY the question which may not and should not be asked. A judge's confirmation should not depend on how he might rule in an upcoming case. If he does, he must recuse himself from such cases, according to ethical rules.
And I am waiting for some judge to say the Roe v. Wade must be enforced as written, to ALLOW States to restrict abortion.
"...because somewhere in their organization they discuss abortion as an option..."
Really, you think that is what is going on? A "discussion of options"? I think most folks would be happy to finance that. It's the single-minded pursuit of the one option that is actually killing unborn children to which they object. And I point out there are a lot of "women's health organizations" out there, which many of the PP defunding legislation direct those funds to.
Please remember that this Judge was already confirmed by the Senate previously. It isn't like Trump picked an unknown guy off the street who has no credentials.
He has credentials. But really shouldn't we ask more from those we entrust with the highest office in the land than just a demonstrated ability to get into Harvard? I mean Trump graduated first in his class at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania, a pretty good credential I would say, and he doesn't even know who Frederick Douglass was.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Gorsuch did much more than just get into Harvard.
Jerry,
Please say what you mean... You want big government to enter the Doctor's office and force the Woman to do as the government thinks is correct...
That is why the elephant is below the line.
And who again is paying to feed the baby born in some third world country where starvation is normal? Folks on the Religious Right truly only care about the baby until it passes through the cervix. Then "it is not my problem... it is the parent's problem..."
Please, a little common courtesy, rather than baseless assumption? What I mean is that government has the right to define degrees of murder and to make it a crime or at least try to discourage it. There can be no right to do what is wrong, and yours is not the only opinion on that subject.
And I don't know how many nights I have spent building "birthing kits" for these third world countries, or days spent either building schools or shipping school supplies, or money spent supporting schools and clinics and other projects around the world. The obvious difference is that this help is going from one human being to another who wants to live better but has not the means-- neither capital nor opportunity-- to do so. That is about as far from government welfare as it can get, and I guarantee it is not only more effective but more satisfying, on both ends. Just because I claim it isn't my responsibility, and there is no way it can be, does not mean I lack compassion or don't try to help. I just don't think the government should force me to do it.
And I find your chart humorous. Apparently libertarians prefer to legislate immorality and economic inequality. :-)
Actually the Libertarians prefer to let the Mom and Doctor work out what is best in a given situation. Though I agree that at week ~14 the fetus becomes a baby...
Unfortunately Trump is siding with the 2 cells = a baby group... One of those "one size fits all government solutions" that you claim to dislike.
And don't forget the concerning population growth chart. I would love to hear a GOP solution for that disaster...
Remember: Every Sperm is Sacred
Gorsuch did much more than just get into Harvard
What has been his most important achievement since leaving school?
--Hiram
So the Libertarians are promoting immorality and allowing economic inequality to dictate which babies live and which babies die. Some would call that "eugenics." And while I agree that the Roe v. Wade distinction of 20 weeks makes some legal sense, I cannot but believe that, scientifically speaking, a fertilized egg is a unique human being, with a presumed right to life and, if you are so inclined, "sacred human worth."
And I don't see that Trump is "siding" with anybody. Abortion and Gay Marriage are not particularly on his radar as problems needing solving, and in particular some government solution. If he appoints a judge, or particularly if he appoints two, with a Constitutionalist bent, it is quite possible there will be some change in the "law of the land" on those social issues. And it will NOT be Trump's support or opposition to those things that should matter at court, as it is with the liberal members of the SCOTUS.
I've already told you the solution for "overpopulation." It is helping the poor participate in a growing economy. Developed nations have fewer kids, to the point where population is declining in some.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I just see Big Government getting between a woman and her doctor to placate a special interest group who is unwilling to help with the babies once they are born. And of course it is high on Trump's radar since one of his first executive orders was to block funding to some NGO charities and nominate a right leaning SCOTUS candidate.
It will be interesting to see where this goes and if over reach leads to some interesting consequences in 2018.
Hiram, Since you seem unwilling to look up your own info, 538 did a good article on Gorsuch.
Gorsuch isn't the issue. That's like me saying Republicans opposed Garland on some sort of substantive basis. An illegitimate president should not be allowed to put a justice on the Supreme Court. That was why Republicans opposed Garland, and that's why I oppose Gorsuch.
--Hiram
And I don't see that Trump is "siding" with anybody.
Trump made it clear that he would nominate justices with a specific political agenda. That is a very compelling reason to oppose any justice he nominates. There are time when even Donald Trump, as laughable as this may sound, must be taken at his word. The people have spoken, and what they said by a 2.8 million vote plurality, is that they want someone else to make lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Those 3 million votes may matter if you want to move to another country but here the rules say differently, and I think for good reason.
Yes the GOP was very unprofessional last year by not interviewing and voting on Garland... Does that in anyway justify the Democrats doing the same?
Would that be good for America?
Those 3 million votes may matter if you want to move to another country but here the rules say differently, and I think for good reason.
I do like to think votes matter just as much in this country as they do in other countries. It's the idealist in me.
The point the GOP was making last year was that the American people should be given the opportunity to weigh in on who should sit on the Supreme Court. They did, and I am for one, content with their judgment.
--Hiram
The thing about Trump is that his presidency may be temporary. He was told in no uncertain terms by experts in the field, to get rid of his business interests because of conflict of interest terms. He didn't and so those conflicts remain. How long does anyone think it will be before those conflicts turn into outright, impeachable corruption?
--Hiram
As soon as Paul Ryan and the House get really tired of Trump, he will be gone... That may take awhile though since they don't want to alienate the Trump true believers.
As soon as Paul Ryan and the House get really tired of Trump, he will be gone.
Republicans aren't really into doing the right thing. Saying that isn't something that comes easily to me. I am a firm believer in the two party system. My commitment to moral relativism is absolute. I pride myself on my ability to see things from different points of view. But Republicans elected Trump despite knowing what he was. That is a crime against history.
--Hiram
" just see Big Government getting between a woman and her doctor to placate a special interest group who is unwilling to help with the babies once they are born."
If that is the way you choose to see it, then of course you are being unreasonable from where I see it. If the woman is not responsible for her actions, and the doctor is not responsible for killing a potential human being, why should anybody else become responsible for the child?
I don't know if this "tit for tat" is a good way to run the country, but Democrats seem to want to do it that way. They're ticked about Garland, so they want to sabotage Gorsuch. Republicans remember when Harry Reid went nuclear on lower court justices, so now they're tempted to do the same for Gorsuch. Democrats are ticked that Trump was clearly and fairly elected, so they are doing everything they can to keep him from staffing his cabinet and keeping his promises, including portraying him as "doing evil" when he does. Democrats passed up endless insults and evasions and downright impeachable offenses by Obama, and I am guessing Republicans will act just the same should the actual opportunity arise with Trump. I am a firm believer such will NOT happen with Trump, despite the many Democrat attempts to make it appear so. Please, somebody, turn off the outrage machine; it's getting silly.
Hiram,
I agree that Trump is a poor unprofessional President in many ways... Unfortunately Hillary had her problems also. Hopefully both parties will give us better choices next time.
Jerry,
As I keep saying... Conservatives only care about the baby until it passes the cervix... Then it is someone else's problem... Very hypocritical.
If the baby's life matters, then it matters after it is born also... Maybe some day they will get that, instead of protecting Baby Makers and allowing the baby to stay trapped in poverty...
Tit for Tat is how both parties seem to operate... Therefore the pendulum keeps swinging... Nov2018 is only ~21 months away.
And please tell us about those "Obama impeachable offenses"... Please remember that for 6 of the 8 years the GOP controlled the house. Where do you get this stuff?
"If the woman is not responsible for her actions, and the doctor is not responsible for killing a potential human being, why should anybody else become responsible for the child?"
I read this again and had this thought... So are you saying that Conservatives will take responsibility for ensuring all babies are raised well if Roe v Wade gets over turned?
Sounds great !!!
I don't know if this "tit for tat" is a good way to run the country,
I don't think it is, but that's a natural narrative and the way many people see the world. That's why it's important, I think, to get out front in fighting it.
Judge Gorsuch shouldn't be on the Supreme Court because the man appointing him isn't qualified to be president. As a minority president, Mr. Trump should not be allowed to make decisions beyond his term of office. The fact that Republicans made similar arguments during the preceding administration is interesting but not determinative.
I also belive Mr. Trump is disqualified from making Supreme Court nominations because during the campaign, he promised in specific terms to nominate justices who would support his political agenda. In my view, he should not be allowed to do that. It's up to us that Mr. Trump not be allowed to keep improper campaign promises, particularly since he lost the popular vote.
--Hiram
The other problem I have with nominations to the Supreme Court is that Republicans turned the court into a sort of super legislature during the Obama years, claiming to find an amazingly detailed health care policy in the 230 year old document. This was irresponsible and dangerour to our democracy, and I think the response should be to reduce the effectiveness of the court by maintaining vacancies for a while. In a system of checks and balances, this seems an appropriate way of checking the court's current delusions of grandeur.
--Hiram
Hiram,
The Liberals used SCOTUS to make LGBT marriages legal, thus by passing the rights of dozens of States and millions of citizens. I don't think the Liberals get to claim innocence regarding using the court to pass policy.
The Liberals used SCOTUS to make LGBT marriages legal, thus by passing the rights of dozens of States and millions of citizens
Oh sure. It's so possible to make so's your old man arguments. And my heart does go out to all those folks hurt by gay marriage, forced as they are to bake cakes against their will. Think of how humiliated Donald Trump must knowing there are gay people out there.
There are a lot of activist Supreme Court decisions over history I could be asked to defend. I mean really, where in the constitution does it say white kids should be forced to go to school with black kids. And shouldn't we all have a say in whether married couples have access to birth control? But I choose not to be consistent, at least where it involves intimate personal matters, and the interests of children.
--Hiram
As I have noted dozens of times before. Unless science has made a leap recently, as far as I know there is little to no proof that "gay people" exist... Therefore it is fair for many Americans to keep believing that it is just a chosen behavior.
But the SCOTUS ruled regardless, and the rest is history...
Not sure what the birth control comment was about.
Unless science has made a leap recently, as far as I know there is little to no proof that "gay people" exist.
There are things I read, that I have a hard time believing. I don't really know if I have run across anybody in recent decades who has disputed the existence of gay people.
Not so long ago, birth control was illegal. Judge Gorsuch believes that the state still should have the right to deny people access to birth control, he just won't say so.
--Hiram
Oh come now, don't be silly. Jerry's comments lead me to believe that he still sees LGBT as a behavioral choice. Just like choosing to be a vegetarian or a hunter...
As for B/C, how again did you read his mind? Please remember that even Hobby Lobby only fought against IUD's and the morning after pill because they could cause a fertilized egg to be discharged...
Jerry's comments lead me to believe that he still sees LGBT as a behavioral choice
But once chosen, I would assume that's what the person is. Just because one chooses to be a vegetarian doesn't mean there aren't vegetarians.
--Hiram
John, you for once make a correct assumption about me. I believe LGBT IS a behavioral choice except in some very, very rare circumstances. I believe the underlying psychological condition, of "being" LGBT is more difficult to treat but it happens all the time, in both directions. People get married, have a couple kids and suddenly "discover" they are gay. This incontrovertibly proves that LGBT behavior is chosen. Others find, through "conversion therapy," (controversial, I know, and no doubt difficult), that their "being" can be changed to "straight," as well as their behavior.
As for Hobby Lobby, they only fought the edict because it was an edict from government. They had no rules saying their employees could not buy their own b/c. I would expect any good judge to rule that people cannot be forced to violate their religious principles without a "compelling public interest."
There is this view out there that if some sort of rule or regulation violates someone's religion, that person doesn't have to follow it. Some faiths, for example, believe that it is wrong to bake cakes for gay weddings, and that anyone who does so is doomed to damnation. Trump, as a Presbyterian, believes it's wrong for billionaires to pay taxes. As a fan of predesitination, he argues that if God didn't want him to have his billion dollars, He would have given it to the government.
I personally don't agree with that. The fact is, government does lots of things that violate my religious values, but I really don't think I will go to hell for paying my taxes. I just don't see how we could live in community otherwise.
--Hiram
Post a Comment