Author Topic: The Gorsuch Conundrum  (Read 127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27005
    • View Profile
The Gorsuch Conundrum
« on: April 03, 2017, 04:13:57 PM »
I'm no fan of Senator McConnell, but he did lay it out pretty clearly.....Gorsuch will be confirmed to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court, later this week.  Merely that the Democrats get to chose how that happens

Which begs the question, why would the Democrats waste so much political capital & energy on hopelessly trying to block someone who previsouly had unanimous approval for his current circuit court Judgeship, by a similar Senate??  That's actually easy.....the hardcore left lacks rational thought.  The consitueucy to so many of these DC democrats are hardcore leftists, who hate Trump so much, that all manner of rational thought has been extinguished.  That overt level of ingornace is what keeps so many Democrats in power, but to hold that power, they must feed that ignorance...case in point as we cue the Gorsuch confirmation hearing:

- His ideology does appear to be conservative by the nature of his comments, but more so his rulings, in which he's replacing a stauch conservative on the Supreme Court.  That's fair in and of itself.  But that requires rational thought to grasp

- The GOP invoked none other than the Democrat's own "Biden rule", (one that incidentally had no basis of support to begin with, but they were in the Majority, and they inoked it,) in which during a Presidential election season, that the senate does not have to bring to vote any Judicial nominee.  So the Dems should be irate....at themselves, for such a ridiculous rule to begin with.  So the GOP rolled the dice, and it came up Trump-eyes.....Trump gets to name the nominee, period.  But once again, that is to be ignored in favor of the irrational

- it was the Democrats who actually changed the rules to allow all manner of Presidential appointments to pass with a simple majority, including all Judges up to SCOTUS level.  They can rationalize why they did it all they want, but it was the left that went into unprecedented mode for getting nominees passed, while they were in the majority.  But history was never properly embraced by the irrational

- and lastly, the idea that Gorsuch is somehow beholden to corporations at the expense of "the little guy".  Here is the BIGGEST example of how each party sees the Judicial system.  Historically, the Judicial branch is ONLY supposed to rule on existing law.....laws passed by the Legislative branch, and signed into law by the Executive branch.  It's not the role of a Judge to consider if its a good law or a bad law.  Justice is supposed to be blind, and with all the derrogatory statements aimed at Gorsuch about not ruling for "the little guy", not once was it ever referenced that Gorsuch didn't rule in favor of existing law.  His record has apparently been impeccable in ruling in favor of the law, and it doesn't matter who that favored, be it corporations or "the little guy".  Gorsuch went into detail with Feinstein, during is confirmation questioning, providing example after example after example, where the law favored "the little guy" in which he ruled for.  But with the left, that's how they see the Judiciacy....not as an arbitor of the law, but as some social justice warrior.... social justice as defined by liberal ideology of course, and the law be damned

THAT's the ignrance leftist politicians thrive on.  That's how they can get away with smearing Justice Gorsuch, with the notion he "doesn't care about the little guy"

« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 07:06:37 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26977
    • View Profile
Re: The Gorsuch Conundrum
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2017, 07:31:24 PM »
Could we get a Democrat to explain the phrase "A nation of laws , not men" one of these days?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27005
    • View Profile
Re: The Gorsuch Conundrum
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2017, 02:04:40 PM »
Not and still be a card carrying DC Democrat politician.

Which is fine......let the Dems screw themselves once again, so we can seat a Trey Gowdy or Ted Cruz, without any of this fuss, when either Breyer and/or Ginsburg have to retire due to health issues
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle