|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good lieberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so! http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-comments-on-settled-law-unsettling-to-conservatives/Republicans have waited eight years for the chance to place another conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and they apparently have their chance now that President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion. While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the destruction of unborn children, Gorsuch stated “the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.” Given this, Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for. “Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.” Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-...ng-to-conservatives/#dtKiGPIEPy1r21JP.99
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,759 Likes: 5
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,759 Likes: 5 |
if that were true, the dhimmicrats would want him.
Sam......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,410 Likes: 9
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 69,410 Likes: 9 |
When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” A law is legislation passed by congress. They passed no law on abortion. This 'law of the land' is a court decision, not a real law. It was a convoluted ruling to get abortion out of the constitution.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945 |
And this would be the Libertarian's position as well.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,073
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,073 |
Time will only tell. Real hard to get another Scalia. Real sure this guy is not another Ginsburg, Sotomyer or Kegan. Hope for the best. Hasbeen
hasbeen
(Better a has been than a never was!)
NRA Patron member
Try to live your life where the preacher doesn't have to lie at your funeral
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,150 Likes: 24
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,150 Likes: 24 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
We MUST depoliticize the Supreme Court or we are doomed.
Paul
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear a sermon".... D.A.D.
Trump Won!, Sandmann Won!, Rittenhouse Won!, Suck it Liberal Fuuktards.
molɔ̀ːn labé skýla
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,683 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,683 Likes: 3 |
I'm still trying to understand how abortion and gay marriage affects my everyday life.
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/b6/d8/98b6d863a5f722b551cd8e1440bd2bd4.jpg) Z
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,359
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,359 |
When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” A law is legislation passed by congress. They passed no law on abortion. This 'law of the land' is a court decision, not a real law. It was a convoluted ruling to get abortion out of the constitution. Yes, don't forget that virtually everywhere homosexual marriage was voted on by the people, it failed. Courts have made this the law, and it is not their function.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
We MUST depoliticize the Supreme Court or we are doomed. This. In spades. The Constitution has no political affiliation.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,109 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,109 Likes: 1 |
A lot of folks here don't want a constitutional judge, they want a cheerleader for all of their causes.
And folks wonder why we can't ever get anything done.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,348 Likes: 3 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"?
Remember why, specifically, the Bill of Rights was written...remember its purpose. It was written to limit the power of government over the individual.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,965 Likes: 18
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,965 Likes: 18 |
Years ago, they talked about, "Strict Constructionism, and Loose Constructionism".
Perhaps someone brighter than I could elaborate on that.
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o
"May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,840 Likes: 9
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,840 Likes: 9 |
Heller is also settled law.
The way to end abortion is by ammending the Constitution to prohibit it, or at least allow it to be restricted by the states.
If guys want to poke each other in the pooper and settle down in a vine- covered cottage, it's of no concern to me. Personally, I don't get the attraction, but then I also don't like lima beans.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good lieberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so! http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-comments-on-settled-law-unsettling-to-conservatives/Republicans have waited eight years for the chance to place another conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and they apparently have their chance now that President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion. While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the destruction of unborn children, Gorsuch stated “the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.” Given this, Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for. “Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.” Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-...ng-to-conservatives/#dtKiGPIEPy1r21JP.99 Quit going JeffO and make America Great Again...this time by stfu.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,385 Likes: 3
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,385 Likes: 3 |
I'm still trying to understand how abortion and gay marriage affects my everyday life. How does murder affect your every day life?
I was thinking the other day how much I used to hate Bill Clinton. He was freaking George Washington compared to what they are now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,739 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,739 Likes: 2 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"? I dont want zerocare to be the law of the land.
Ecc 10:2
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,033 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,033 Likes: 2 |
When someone is said to be a conservative it means that they interpret the constitution literally as it is written.
A liberal interprets the constitution as a living breathing changing with the times document.
They have a liberal view as to what the constitution means.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Heller is also settled law.
The way to end abortion is by ammending the Constitution to prohibit it, or at least allow it to be restricted by the states.
If guys want to poke each other in the pooper and settle down in a vine- covered cottage, it's of no concern to me. Personally, I don't get the attraction, but then I also don't like lima beans.
I can't disagree with any of that other than to go a bit farther and to say that to REALLY end abortion, the private sector (IOW Christianity) need to win hearts and minds to Jesus. If that were the case, there would be few abortions. And like marriage, there would be no need for the government to either outlaw or legalize it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
Heller is also settled law. Not to a lieberal. And ultimately, they are the ones who win, because conservatives are too polite to destroy them.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
The way to end abortion is by ammending the Constitution to prohibit it How about by pointing out neither abortion or marriage is an enumerated responsibility of the federal government by the constitution, therefore the scotus rulings are illegal and state law prevails?
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good lieberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so! http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-comments-on-settled-law-unsettling-to-conservatives/Republicans have waited eight years for the chance to place another conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and they apparently have their chance now that President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion. While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the destruction of unborn children, Gorsuch stated “the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.” Given this, Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for. “Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.” Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-...ng-to-conservatives/#dtKiGPIEPy1r21JP.99 Quit going JeffO and make America Great Again...this time by stfu. You seem to be drawn to ignorance and censureship. You turning lieberal?
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"? It IS the law of the land. John Roberts upheld that.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,840 Likes: 9
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,840 Likes: 9 |
The way to end abortion is by ammending the Constitution to prohibit it How about by pointing out neither abortion or marriage is an enumerated responsibility of the federal government by the constitution, therefore the scotus rulings are illegal and state law prevails? I agree, but the way to end it is to change the Constitution and put it out of reach (as far as possible, anyway). We're well past the point where arguing about Federal over-reach is a workable tactic.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
I've been less and less enamored with Gorsuch starting from day one. He's also weak on torture, based on his history. Who the hell picked this guy?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
I'm still trying to understand how abortion and gay marriage affects my everyday life. It shifts the culture in the direction pushed by the Cultural Marxists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
A lot of folks here don't want a constitutional judge, they want a cheerleader for all of their causes.
And folks wonder why we can't ever get anything done. Being in favor of keeping unconstitutional past decisions isn't being pro-Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"? Sorry, you can't find stare decisis in the Constitution. If a past decision was unconstitutional, it needs overturning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good lieberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so! http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-comments-on-settled-law-unsettling-to-conservatives/Republicans have waited eight years for the chance to place another conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and they apparently have their chance now that President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion. While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the destruction of unborn children, Gorsuch stated “the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.” Given this, Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for. “Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.” Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-...ng-to-conservatives/#dtKiGPIEPy1r21JP.99 Quit going JeffO and make America Great Again...this time by stfu. You seem to be drawn to ignorance and censureship. You turning lieberal? Ignorance is not knowing things, like how to spell censorship. You otoh, can happily keep demonstrating both your ignorance and lack of intellect by actually siding with "lieberals" on subjects and also adopting their tactic of calling out enemies on things they themselves are guilty of. I would never censor you. I did however, attempt to counsel you to quit acting retarded. But maybe it's not an act.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,280 Likes: 9
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,280 Likes: 9 |
He said those things in his confirmation hearings. Would you expect a far leftie in the same place say what they really intend to do? No. None of what Gorsuch said there is binding, it's all just flim-flam to keep from being rejected. Everybody knows that. Or ought to.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
Years ago, they talked about, "Strict Constructionism, and Loose Constructionism".
Perhaps someone brighter than I could elaborate on that.
Example of strict construction: Nowhere within the four corners of the Constitution do we find a right to have an abortion. Example of loose construction: We find the right to an abortion within the penumbras, formed by emanations from other rights found in the Bill of Rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
The way to end abortion is by ammending the Constitution to prohibit it How about by pointing out neither abortion or marriage is an enumerated responsibility of the federal government by the constitution, therefore the scotus rulings are illegal and state law prevails? I agree, but the way to end it is to change the Constitution and put it out of reach (as far as possible, anyway). We're well past the point where arguing about Federal over-reach is a workable tactic. I don't believe there is any chance of decent amendments to the constitution being passed by the states at this time of intense polarization.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,641
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,641 |
It matters not what Judge Gorsuch says at the "hearings". He will not be confirmed, Republicans do not have votes to end a Democrat filibuster or to change the rules to end filibusters on SC appointments. The GOP is not known as the Stupid Party for nothing.
Imagine a corporate oligarchy so effective, so advanced and fine tuned that its citizens still call it a democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,840 Likes: 9
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,840 Likes: 9 |
Heller is also settled law.
The way to end abortion is by ammending the Constitution to prohibit it, or at least allow it to be restricted by the states.
If guys want to poke each other in the pooper and settle down in a vine- covered cottage, it's of no concern to me. Personally, I don't get the attraction, but then I also don't like lima beans.
I can't disagree with any of that other than to go a bit farther and to say that to REALLY end abortion, the private sector (IOW Christianity) need to win hearts and minds to Jesus. If that were the case, there would be few abortions. And like marriage, there would be no need for the government to either outlaw or legalize it. That is certainly the iideal, God-honoring way, but the law needs to protect the innocent unborn, regardless of the spiritual situation of the parents, As far as the pooper-pokers go, they are making a free-will decision to do what they know is wrong and will pay the price in the end (terrible pun). Convincing them to abandon their practice will be difficult, especially with all the liberal churches caving on doctrine. Fundamentalists on the other hand, generally try to threaten and berate people to Jesus. Neither approach is very helpful. I simply don't see the State's role in this.
Last edited by Pappy348; 03/25/17.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good lieberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so! http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-comments-on-settled-law-unsettling-to-conservatives/Republicans have waited eight years for the chance to place another conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and they apparently have their chance now that President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion. While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the destruction of unborn children, Gorsuch stated “the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.” Given this, Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for. “Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.” Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-...ng-to-conservatives/#dtKiGPIEPy1r21JP.99 Quit going JeffO and make America Great Again...this time by stfu. You seem to be drawn to ignorance and censureship. You turning lieberal? Ignorance is not knowing things, like how to spell censorship. You otoh, can happily keep demonstrating both your ignorance and lack of intellect by actually siding with "lieberals" on subjects and also adopting their tactic of calling out enemies on things they themselves are guilty of. I would never censor you. I did however, attempt to counsel you to quit acting retarded. But maybe it's not an act. Ahhhhh, another spelling nazi. It fits you well. Might be a lieberal, too. They like to say things like stfu and then try to claim it's not what it is. I think Gorsuch will be a great disappointment if he actually believes Roe and gay marriage are settled law. Maybe that means nothing to you. Lieberals are on board with you on that.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303 |
Ahhhhh, another spelling nazi. It fits you well. Might be a lieberal, too. They like to say things like stfu and then try to claim it's not what it is.
I think Gorsuch will be a great disappointment if he actually believes Roe and gay marriage are settled law. Maybe that means nothing to you. Lieberals are on board with you on that. Yup, Old EE probably frown on "Carpet Bombing Mexican peasants' too. ....sarcasm off, .....your quote above IS one of the stupider posts I've seen this year. GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats
-- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good lieberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so! http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-comments-on-settled-law-unsettling-to-conservatives/Republicans have waited eight years for the chance to place another conservative justice on the Supreme Court, and they apparently have their chance now that President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia. But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion. While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on the destruction of unborn children, Gorsuch stated “the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.” Given this, Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, is not the least bit confident Gorsuch is the constitutional conservative many Republicans are hoping for. “Gorsuch is saying that Roe is the law of the land and Obergefell, which is one of the most radical opinions ever, is ‘absolutely settled law,'” Horowitz told WND. “There’s nothing there to give us assurances that he’s anywhere on par with Scalia, and that’s the seat we’re filling.” Horowitz said Gorsuch’s deferential attitude toward Supreme Court precedent, even on cases that themselves upended precedent, illustrates the problem he wrote about in his book “Stolen Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/gorsuch-...ng-to-conservatives/#dtKiGPIEPy1r21JP.99 Quit going JeffO and make America Great Again...this time by stfu. You seem to be drawn to ignorance and censureship. You turning lieberal? Ignorance is not knowing things, like how to spell censorship. You otoh, can happily keep demonstrating both your ignorance and lack of intellect by actually siding with "lieberals" on subjects and also adopting their tactic of calling out enemies on things they themselves are guilty of. I would never censor you. I did however, attempt to counsel you to quit acting retarded. But maybe it's not an act. Ahhhhh, another spelling nazi. It fits you well. Might be a lieberal, too. They like to say things like stfu and then try to claim it's not what it is. I think Gorsuch will be a great disappointment if he actually believes Roe and gay marriage are settled law. Maybe that means nothing to you. Lieberals are on board with you on that. Friends don't let friends go the JeffO route. You were against Trump before you were for him. I get it. You will not get a perfect candidate for SCOTUS, but Gorsuch is about as good as it gets. Logic dictates if we lose out on him we will get an inferior one. I am all for protecting the unborn, but currently, Roe is the law of the land. You can be assured that if Gorsuch got a decent chance to undo it, he would. He doesn't need to thump his chest and proudly answer an unasked question though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 54,284 |
.....your quote above IS one of the stupider posts I've seen this year.
GTC
Amen and amen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,965 Likes: 18
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,965 Likes: 18 |
This might fit in somewhere, sadly, it seems, the only politician that does not lie at sometime, is a politician that is not elected, or appointed.
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o
"May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
He doesn't need to thump his chest and proudly answer an unasked question though. No, he didn't. He answered the ones that were asked in a way that likely pleased the lieberals and put conservatives on notice. But not all noticed.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
Logic dictates if we lose out on him we will get an inferior one. I don't know about that. Remember Harriet Miers? Conservatives demanded Bush withdraw that pick and try again. Of course Roberts betrayed us on Obamacare, but at least he had a record indicating strict constructionism, which Miers certainly didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
It matters not what Judge Gorsuch says at the "hearings". He will not be confirmed, Republicans do not have votes to end a Democrat filibuster or to change the rules to end filibusters on SC appointments. The GOP is not known as the Stupid Party for nothing. Great. Another one.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,008
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,008 |
He will absolutely be confirmed! Even if they have to use the "nuclear option".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,185
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,185 |
I watched this part of the questioning. As I recall, Gorsuch mentioned that it is up to scientist to determine what the age of viability is and that he is not a scientist or something to that effect.
When my daughter was in the Nic-U (SP) I saw pictures of twin girls that were born at 4 months. They were 4 years old in the pictures. Right now a women can have an abortion up to 20 weeks or 5 months. So it looks like there is some wriggle room on when abortion can happen. Also, from what I have read the Roe-v-Wade decision game down to when life begins. Science have proven life begins much earlier than previously thought so Gorsuch might not be the liberal that is feared.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,641
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,641 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"? Pretty easy question!
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,231 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,231 Likes: 3 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
We MUST depoliticize the Supreme Court or we are doomed. This ^^^ kwg
For liberals and anarchists, power and control is opium, selling envy is the fastest and easiest way to get it. TRR. American conservative. Never trust a white liberal. Malcom X Current NRA member.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,581 Likes: 8 |
Looks like ol' CuckyD is back with his liberal bullscat. Nothin wrong with any of Gorsuch's answers. The SC rulings cited in the questions *are* the law of the land. At this time. When President Trump gets 6 conservative justices on the SC, then those laws are going to change. Possible viability will be the cutoff for *any* abortion, and the legality of the procedure will be sent back to the states, as it should be. I'm still trying to understand how abortion and gay marriage affects my everyday life. SC rulings are supposed to examine laws in light of the limits of the Constitution, not determine if you care about them or not. Piss off a QWEERTY, and you'll find out soon enough how the gay socialist agenda cost you your job, your business and your future.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810 |
The supreme court generally allows settled law to stand; this allows for less disruption in the marketplace (business and citizens like a common footing that doesn't jump around with each new Administration/Court).
Gorsuch's possible future opinions are what has the Democrats concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810 |
He will absolutely be confirmed! Even if they have to use the "nuclear option". The Republicans are setting themselves up for future payback (and politicians have long memories). At some point, the Democrats will control the Presidency and the Congress again. It is interesting to note that Merrick Garland was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in 1997 with significant Republican support. Yet, he didn't even the courtesy of a vote for Supreme Court appointment. Regardless of how a vote went, he certainly deserved a hearing and vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"? Pretty easy question! That's a false dichotomy. Those who worship at the alter of stare decisis aren't the opposite of judicial activists. One who favors the ruling in Roe v Wade, for example, would be an example of a judicial activism proponent, since that decision essentially created law without regard for the limits of the Constitution. These activists appeal to stare decisis as a mechanism for preserving activist decisions. A strict constructionist, to the contrary, would oppose stare decisis to the extent that it interfered with overturning the judicial activist rule created in Roe v Wade.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
I always thought those are the same animal, but I agree on the sanctity of the Constitution.
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,286
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,286 |
He will absolutely be confirmed! Even if they have to use the "nuclear option". The Republicans are setting themselves up for future payback (and politicians have long memories). At some point, the Democrats will control the Presidency and the Congress again. It is interesting to note that Merrick Garland was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in 1997 with significant Republican support. Yet, he didn't even the courtesy of a vote for Supreme Court appointment. Regardless of how a vote went, he certainly deserved a hearing and vote. They just followed the tradition Biden and Schumer declared by letting the "people" have a say in an election year.
Originally Posted By: slumlord
people that text all day get on my nerves
just knowing that people are out there with that ability,....just makes me wanna punch myself in the balls
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
I always thought those are the same animal. Precisely. Conservatives want originalist, strict constructionist, justices. Leftists want activist judges that will uphold Roe v Wade and homo marriage, both of which were activist decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,150 Likes: 24
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,150 Likes: 24 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
I always thought those are the same animal, but I agree on the sanctity of the Constitution. Not true. There are plenty of Conservatives around that want a judge to rule the way they want and don't care if it follows the Constitution or not. there are Conservatives here that are the same way.
Paul
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear a sermon".... D.A.D.
Trump Won!, Sandmann Won!, Rittenhouse Won!, Suck it Liberal Fuuktards.
molɔ̀ːn labé skýla
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,150 Likes: 24
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 59,150 Likes: 24 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
I always thought those are the same animal. Precisely. Conservatives want originalist, strict constructionist, justices. Leftists want activist judges that will uphold Roe v Wade and homo marriage, both of which were activist decisions. Some Conservatives want activist judges as well.
Paul
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear a sermon".... D.A.D.
Trump Won!, Sandmann Won!, Rittenhouse Won!, Suck it Liberal Fuuktards.
molɔ̀ːn labé skýla
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945 |
Those who refuse to accept that a Women's body is hers and that the Government has no business involving themselves in the bedrooms of adults....
Are of the same ilk as those who refuse to accept the second amendment.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945 |
And Gorsuch may not be confirmed. I do not trust 5-7 Republicans who will likely not allow the process to go Nuclear.
I think the Democrats know this.
I also think some of the Republicans were very happy that Trump got hung out to dry by Ryan on Friday.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
Those who refuse to accept that a Women's body is hers and that the Government has no business involving themselves in the bedrooms of adults....
Are of the same ilk as those who refuse to accept the second amendment.
Being opposed to the courts illegally imposing on an unwilling society a new definition of a ten thousand year old institution doesn't equate to wanting to involve government in oversight of adult bedrooms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,945 |
And that "opinion" is yours and goes against stated law per the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments.
It's also the reasoning and logic behind the reality that these issues as well as the second amendment fights will go on forever.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1 |
Those who refuse to accept that a Women's body is hers and that the Government has no business involving themselves in the bedrooms of adults....
Are of the same ilk as those who refuse to accept the second amendment.
Yep, and I wish they would get cracking on making prostitution legal. That would help cut student debt and get a lot of 18 year old gals out of their parents house.
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,641
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 50,641 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"? Pretty easy question! That's a false dichotomy. Those who worship at the alter of stare decisis aren't the opposite of judicial activists. One who favors the ruling in Roe v Wade, for example, would be an example of a judicial activism proponent, since that decision essentially created law without regard for the limits of the Constitution. These activists appeal to stare decisis as a mechanism for preserving activist decisions. A strict constructionist, to the contrary, would oppose stare decisis to the extent that it interfered with overturning the judicial activist rule created in Roe v Wade. Without stare decisis the law of the land would actually be the law of the moment... and there is some word play there. Changing Roe by any means other than Constitutional Convention will not happen... and frankly the risks in throwing the Constitution wide open are huge...
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
There are plenty of Conservatives around that want a judge to rule the way they want and don't care if it follows the Constitution or not.
there are Conservatives here that are the same way. That's what it all boils down to. SC Justices ought to follow the constitution. Anyone that wants favors from the Supreme Court doesn't have much regard for the constitution.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
There are plenty of Conservatives around that want a judge to rule the way they want and don't care if it follows the Constitution or not.
there are Conservatives here that are the same way. That's what it all boils down to. SC Justices ought to follow the constitution. Anyone that wants favors from the Supreme Court doesn't have much regard for the constitution. Wanting past activist decisions overturned is called strict constructionism/originalism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
There are plenty of Conservatives around that want a judge to rule the way they want and don't care if it follows the Constitution or not.
there are Conservatives here that are the same way. That's what it all boils down to. SC Justices ought to follow the constitution. Anyone that wants favors from the Supreme Court doesn't have much regard for the constitution. Wanting past activist decisions overturned is called strict constructionism/originalism. That's what most people don't get when Gorsuch answered questions about some things the way he did... Yes. It's settled law. Until it isn't, and the subject comes before the SC again. Roe v Wade is settled. But, ______ v _______ in the future isn't. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
That's what most people don't get when Gorsuch answered questions about some things the way he did...
Yes. It's settled law. Until it isn't, and the subject comes before the SC again. Roe v Wade is settled.
But, ______ v _______ in the future isn't.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
That's what I was hoping he was doing, but if he's not willing to come out and defend actual originalism/strict constructionism, it's a big risk putting him in there. If he's approved, I hope you are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
I hope I'm correct also.
Sometimes you just don't know what a fish has been eating until you clean it.
I personally don't think he's another Roberts.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
I always thought those are the same animal. Precisely. Conservatives want originalist, strict constructionist, justices. Leftists want activist judges that will uphold Roe v Wade and homo marriage, both of which were activist decisions. Some Conservatives want activist judges as well. Gotcha. I agree with your sentiments, but I don't think we define "conservative" quite the same way...no substance for an argument here. It's a good illustration of the problem with labels, though.
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 8,153 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 8,153 Likes: 2 |
I think/thought Gorsuch was a good man, won't matter if the D's block him one way or another out of principle alone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5 |
It would be stupid not to use the so-called nuclear option as that it is just a matter of time until it is used. The Dems won't hesitate to use ignore regardless of what is done now. It is war. Use all your weapons.
All that said we may as well end the republic. You can't have a government when there is open warfare. The experiment is over.
Last edited by JoeBob; 03/26/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,674 Likes: 21 |
Don't fug around with the dems. Just go nuclear.
Gorsuch won't be the only SC nominee.
Dems will fight every one with all they have.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
I am afraid you're probably right, JoeBob. I don't see how there can ever be peace. These bastards are intent upon imposing their will on the rest of us, and I think most of us would rather eat broken beer bottles than accept that.
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23,371 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 23,371 Likes: 2 |
Seems 'ol Gorsuch is down with infanticide and queer marriage, like all good liberals. Will Schummer still filibuster Gorsuch? I hope so!
But his comments, during his confirmation hearing this week in the U.S. Senate, revealed the nation’s “settled law” includes “gay marriage” and unlimited abortion.
While being questioned by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., .....
When Durbin asked if he accepted that, the judge replied, “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.”
And when pressed on “same-sex marriage,” Gorsuch acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled such marriages are protected by the Constitution. He declared Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down “same-sex marriage” bans nationwide in 2015, to be “absolutely settled law.”
To quote Dan Ackroyd: : "Jane, you ignorant slut!" Don't be foolish. Gorsuch has to go through the tap-dance and the interrogation that is confirmation Do you want him to be defiant about everything the Left holds dear, and then get Borked, or would you rather him give them as little ammo as possible to shoot him down? This guy has been coached by those who know the game. When asked if ANY of that chit is "settled law", the answer is "YES". It is settled, for now. I will tell all Right to Lifers (which I am) that you will see unicorns and leprechauns ride rainbows before Roe v Wade gets reversed. I mean, do you really believe after nearly 50 years, a half Century, the Court will over turn it and it would stand? Conservatives would be swept out of office and never see power for 100 years afterwards, if ever. The Left would remake the Court and subsequently overturn it again. We lost that one in '72, and we live with it. That is a battle that can only be won from pews and the pulpit, one family at a time. Not by law. Give Gorsuch credit for being smart. Do you want him to defy the Dems and lose or be smart and get confirmed. Face it, if Grouch goes down, the next nominee will be more liberal.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,568 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,568 Likes: 4 |
The actual Gorsuch as a SC judge will not be known unless/until he is doing that work. He gives the appearance of one who will ethically try to ignore and get past the current political maneuvering so he can do what he loves - be a constructionist judge. IMHO, he would be open to turning past rulings that were way too loose. Hoping for the best - who would be better these days?
TRH - thanks for the good contributions here.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,812 Likes: 5 |
I am afraid you're probably right, JoeBob. I don't see how there can ever be peace. These bastards are intent upon imposing their will on the rest of us, and I think most of us would rather eat broken beer bottles than accept that. From here on out there is no bi-partisanship. There is no cooperation. There isn't even an agreement on what is proper procedure. There will only be the party in power asserting its will. And we are about to take the next step. If and it is a big if, the Dems ever get control of the House again, they will impeach Trump. They don't need a good reason, it will be a purely partisan exercise. Once that happens, it will be used against any president when his party doesn't control Congress, but particularly by the Dems. It is over. Realize it and live accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,790 Likes: 23 |
I am afraid you're probably right, JoeBob. I don't see how there can ever be peace. These bastards are intent upon imposing their will on the rest of us, and I think most of us would rather eat broken beer bottles than accept that. From here on out there is no bi-partisanship. There is no cooperation. There isn't even an agreement on what is proper procedure. There will only be the party in power asserting its will. And we are about to take the next step. If and it is a big if, the Dems ever get control of the House again, they will impeach Trump. They don't need a good reason, it will be a purely partisan exercise. Once that happens, it will be used against any president when his party doesn't control Congress, but particularly by the Dems. It is over. Realize it and live accordingly. You may be right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
He will absolutely be confirmed! Even if they have to use the "nuclear option". The Republicans are setting themselves up for future payback (and politicians have long memories). At some point, the Democrats will control the Presidency and the Congress again. It is interesting to note that Merrick Garland was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in 1997 with significant Republican support. Yet, he didn't even the courtesy of a vote for Supreme Court appointment. Regardless of how a vote went, he certainly deserved a hearing and vote. Only if you are ok with a lieberal court. Most are not.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,581 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,581 Likes: 8 |
I am afraid you're probably right, JoeBob. I don't see how there can ever be peace. These bastards are intent upon imposing their will on the rest of us, and I think most of us would rather eat broken beer bottles than accept that. From here on out there is no bi-partisanship. There is no cooperation. There isn't even an agreement on what is proper procedure. There will only be the party in power asserting its will. And we are about to take the next step. If and it is a big if, the Dems ever get control of the House again, they will impeach Trump. They don't need a good reason, it will be a purely partisan exercise. Once that happens, it will be used against any president when his party doesn't control Congress, but particularly by the Dems. It is over. Realize it and live accordingly. The people don't care how a law gets done, just so it does the right thing. Nobody will ever remember, or care, that a nuclear option was used. RINOs in congress are still bein pussies about this. Remains to be seen if President Trump can change that attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,864
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,864 |
Ahhhh the #NeverTrump faction is at it again. Still butthurt.
I'd offer to start a collection to get them a 55gal drum of personal lubricant but no one offered to chip in for Jeff_O so I'm guessing we'll see the same results. Sorry #NeverTrump!
It's about like this:
"Do you puff peters?"
"Hell no!"
"NAZI!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,519 |
Every Supreme Court Justice has to look to precedence. That doesn't mean it can't be overturned or moderated.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." ![[Linked Image]](http://www.rockymtnrefl.com/TetonFenceBarncd1985987.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,073
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,073 |
Do you want a "judicial activist" appointed to the SC? Or one that respects "stare decisis"? It IS the law of the land. John Roberts upheld that. If remember correctly it was declared a tax. I wonder how that will play out if everybody is not required to buy insurance. Can't tax just some of the people. Hasbeen
hasbeen
(Better a has been than a never was!)
NRA Patron member
Try to live your life where the preacher doesn't have to lie at your funeral
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,897 Likes: 10
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,897 Likes: 10 |
It's not his job to make law.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,073
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,073 |
He will absolutely be confirmed! Even if they have to use the "nuclear option". The Republicans are setting themselves up for future payback (and politicians have long memories). At some point, the Democrats will control the Presidency and the Congress again. It is interesting to note that Merrick Garland was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in 1997 with significant Republican support. Yet, he didn't even the courtesy of a vote for Supreme Court appointment. Regardless of how a vote went, he certainly deserved a hearing and vote. That's what hurt the Dems with Garland. The Reps remembered what The Biden rule was and acted on it. Hasbeen
hasbeen
(Better a has been than a never was!)
NRA Patron member
Try to live your life where the preacher doesn't have to lie at your funeral
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 534
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 534 |
Is it possible that Gorsuch is just telling 'em (the Libbys) what they wanna hear, though in best neutralist "liberal-speak" as possible - befitting a "wanna-be" Supreme Court Justice?
Last edited by 325Abn; 03/26/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,864
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,864 |
Is it possible that Gorsuch is just telling 'em (the Libbys) what they wanna hear, though in very neutralist liberalist-speak as befitting a Supreme Court Justice? No, he was saying precedent is settled law, until it isn't (meaning until another case comes along and it becomes obvious precedent must be overturned for XYZ reasons). Just because "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution and therefore should be left to the states, settled law/precedent states abortion is a right. Until a case comes along whereby Roe v. Wade can be overturned, abortion is a right. I don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand, other than the fact they let feelings get in their way. This is how our legal system works, for better or for worse.
Last edited by bigfish9684; 03/26/17.
It's about like this:
"Do you puff peters?"
"Hell no!"
"NAZI!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 534
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 534 |
Is it possible that Gorsuch is just telling 'em (the Libbys) what they wanna hear, though in very neutralist liberalist-speak as befitting a Supreme Court Justice? No, he was saying precedent is settled law, until it isn't (meaning until another case comes along and it becomes obvious precedent must be overturned for XYZ reasons). Just because "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution and therefore should be left to the states, settled law/precedent states abortion is a right. Until a case comes along whereby Roe v. Wade can be overturned, abortion is a right. I'm not a lawyer so i really have no significant education in legal process (other than the four or five law classes required in college). I don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand, other than the fact they let feelings get in their way. This is how our legal system works, for better or for worse. I'm not emotionally motivated in this such that it clouds my judgement: Rather, that i am hypothesizing Gorsuch's rationale to respond as he did out of desire to be confirmed as the next Supreme. If that is truly his approach to interpreting the constitutionality of settled law/precedent I hope he remains as settled on the constitutionality of the 2nd Amendment, et al.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,302 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,302 Likes: 1 |
I listened to some of the hearing, and I do not have a problem with how he answered the questions.
He did say that the SCOTUS decision was settled Law, and for him, in his CURRENT position, it is. They are a 'superior' court to the one he now sits on.
I did not hear him say that SCOTUS decisions cannot be overturned.
He did say that preference or deference, is granted to previous decisions, until something presuades or prompts a change.
He also said that he will follow 'bad Law'.. adding that it was not his job to do Congress' job. Congress writes the Laws, the Judges interpret. If you don't like my decision/opinion then you should write clearer Law. He said it was NOT his job to straighten out BAD Law.
He also said there is no place for 'Politics' in deciding, judging, opining from the bench....
What little you can learn from these hearings.... IMHO Gorsuch will be a fine SCOTUS justice and Sen Leahy is an absolute DOLT................
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,258
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,258 |
I watched this part of the questioning. As I recall, Gorsuch mentioned that it is up to scientist to determine what the age of viability is and that he is not a scientist or something to that effect.
When my daughter was in the Nic-U (SP) I saw pictures of twin girls that were born at 4 months. They were 4 years old in the pictures. Right now a women can have an abortion up to 20 weeks or 5 months. So it looks like there is some wriggle room on when abortion can happen. Also, from what I have read the Roe-v-Wade decision game down to when life begins. Science have proven life begins much earlier than previously thought so Gorsuch might not be the liberal that is feared. That is NICU an acronym for Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The part about surviving 16 week twins (4 months) is BS (not your fault). At 16 weeks a fetus is about 4" long and weights about 3.5 ounces. The growth of a fetus is very uniform regardless of genetics - race, gender, ...etc, to about 25 weeks then genetics govern the growth. To place a fetus this size on a ventilator would require an endotracheal tube about the size of a small coffee swizzle stick. The edge of viability today is about 21-23 weeks and about 12-16 ounces. I have been a Neonatal Nurse Practitioner for 28 years and a neonatal nurse for 35.
Ed
A person who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes the person who never asks is a fool forever.
The worst slaves are those that put the chains on themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,170 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,170 Likes: 5 |
... I have been a Neonatal Nurse Practitioner for 28 years and a neonatal nurse for 35. Sir, I ran EMS for 15 years. Finally quit after a string of "too many dead babies." No longer have the stones to work with really sick or high risk babies on a regular basis. My hat is off to you for your service. Thank you...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 28,172 |
I don't want a conservative Justice! I want a Justice that will heed the Constitution.
We MUST depoliticize the Supreme Court or we are doomed. This. In spades. The Constitution has no political affiliation. Spot On!
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,109 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,109 Likes: 1 |
I listened to some of the hearing, and I do not have a problem with how he answered the questions.
He did say that the SCOTUS decision was settled Law, and for him, in his CURRENT position, it is. They are a 'superior' court to the one he now sits on.
I did not hear him say that SCOTUS decisions cannot be overturned.
He did say that preference or deference, is granted to previous decisions, until something presuades or prompts a change.
He also said that he will follow 'bad Law'.. adding that it was not his job to do Congress' job. Congress writes the Laws, the Judges interpret. If you don't like my decision/opinion then you should write clearer Law. He said it was NOT his job to straighten out BAD Law.
He also said there is no place for 'Politics' in deciding, judging, opining from the bench....
What little you can learn from these hearings.... IMHO Gorsuch will be a fine SCOTUS justice and Sen Leahy is an absolute DOLT................ Some folks won't be satisfied unless they have a flag bearer for their personal agenda, constitution and law be damned. Gorsuch is solid.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 32,312 |
Some folks won't be satisfied unless they have a flag bearer for their personal agenda, constitution and law be damned.
Gorsuch is solid.
That's my opinion too. Plus 1.
The CENTER will hold.
Reality, Patriotism,Trump: you can only pick two
FÜCK PUTIN!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,683 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,683 Likes: 3 |
I'm still trying to understand how abortion and gay marriage affects my everyday life. How does murder affect your every day life? Kinda of a simplistic strawman question, but no it don't, unless it requires I have to put in some overtime.
Z
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,683 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,683 Likes: 3 |
I'm still trying to understand how abortion and gay marriage affects my everyday life. It shifts the culture in the direction pushed by the Cultural Marxists. It only affects those participating in it.
Z
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
I watched this part of the questioning. As I recall, Gorsuch mentioned that it is up to scientist to determine what the age of viability is and that he is not a scientist or something to that effect.
When my daughter was in the Nic-U (SP) I saw pictures of twin girls that were born at 4 months. They were 4 years old in the pictures. Right now a women can have an abortion up to 20 weeks or 5 months. So it looks like there is some wriggle room on when abortion can happen. Also, from what I have read the Roe-v-Wade decision game down to when life begins. Science have proven life begins much earlier than previously thought so Gorsuch might not be the liberal that is feared. There's never been a case where a fetus lived prior to 21 weeks. The majority of states only allow abortions in the first 12 weeks, and most abortions are done in the first 8 weeks. "When life begins" makes no difference.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,202 |
Those who refuse to accept that a Women's body is hers and that the Government has no business involving themselves in the bedrooms of adults....
Are of the same ilk as those who refuse to accept the second amendment.
Being opposed to the courts illegally imposing on an unwilling society a new definition of a ten thousand year old institution doesn't equate to wanting to involve government in oversight of adult bedrooms. You're under the delusion that "society" doesn't want those things when really it's only a small portion that don't.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
|
|
|
|
|
72 members (BALLISTIK, 6mmbrfan, 907brass, Akhutr, 7mm_Loco, 10gaugemag, 8 invisible),
1,474
guests, and
942
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,748
Posts18,495,219
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
