Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Looks like we've been had again. Gorsuch is a "settled law" lieberal.

Great.

Another one.

He will absolutely be confirmed! Even if they have to use the "nuclear option".

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.

Pretty easy question!

This ^^^

kwg

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.



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.

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.

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 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.

I always thought those are the same animal, but I agree on the sanctity of the Constitution.

They just followed the tradition Biden and Schumer declared by letting the "people" have a say in an election year.

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.

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.

Some Conservatives want activist judges as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...