Gorsuch should withdraw from his nomination

[P@triot]

By remaining the nominee of a man who has no respect for the judicial branch of government, and of a party that spent 293 days completely de-legitimizing the process of replacing a SC justice. He hasn't even spoken out against it. He's a dishonorable fraud.

Where is your outrage at Ruth Bader Ginsburg and your demand for her to step down? She not only showed complete disrespect for the President of the United States and the executive branch, but she also disrespected the judicial branch and the Supreme Court when she threatened to step down if Donald Trump was elected. She was trying to influence the vote of the American people.

There are so many flaws in your "logic" here I don't even know where to begin. At the end of the day, it sounds to me like you're just butt-hurt over the realization that the Supreme Court will have another actual justice instead of a political activist for the Dumbocrat Party.

 

[jc456]

After Trump's numerous attempts to delegitimize the judicial branch of our government and his multiple personal attacks against Gorsuch's colleagues... it would be dishonorable for Gorsuch to remain a candidate for Trump's Supreme Court pick.

Gorsuch cannot, in good faith, believe that Trump selected him for any other reason than to weaken our court system and increase his own power.

His hearings begin next week. It should be as entertaining as a WWE event.

wow, now you're speaking for the next US Justice? dude, you are something really special, I got to tell you.

 

[Doc1]

After Trump's numerous attempts to delegitimize the judicial branch of our government and his multiple personal attacks against Gorsuch's colleagues... it would be dishonorable for Gorsuch to remain a candidate for Trump's Supreme Court pick.

Gorsuch cannot, in good faith, believe that Trump selected him for any other reason than to weaken our court system and increase his own power.

His hearings begin next week. It should be as entertaining as a WWE event.

Dumbass. Who do you think you are to judge anyone for anything? Gorsuch will be seated and we'll just laugh at this stupidity.

 

[yiostheoy]

After Trump's numerous attempts to delegitimize the judicial branch of our government and his multiple personal attacks against Gorsuch's colleagues... it would be dishonorable for Gorsuch to remain a candidate for Trump's Supreme Court pick.

Gorsuch cannot, in good faith, believe that Trump selected him for any other reason than to weaken our court system and increase his own power.

His hearings begin next week. It should be as entertaining as a WWE event.

Bogus thread.

I am surprised it has attracted so much attention.

It is pure crap.

 

[P@triot]

After Trump's numerous attempts to delegitimize the judicial branch of our government and his multiple personal attacks against Gorsuch's colleagues... it would be dishonorable for Gorsuch to remain a candidate for Trump's Supreme Court pick.

Gorsuch cannot, in good faith, believe that Trump selected him for any other reason than to weaken our court system and increase his own power.

His hearings begin next week. It should be as entertaining as a WWE event.

wow, now you're speaking for the next US Justice? dude, you are something really special, I got to tell you.

His "logic" falters on so many levels that it's truly remarkable.

He thinks Gorsuch should withdrawal because in his mind, Trump "doesn't respect the judicial branch". Well, even if Gorsuch withdrew, Trump would be required to nominate someone else. So Gorsuch withdrawaling doesn't solve that problem.

Then there is the monumental matter of Ruth Bader Ginsburg attempting to influence elections and disrespecting every branch and every sacred institution in our government - yet he not only doesn't demand that she step down (as she promised) but he keeps a 48"x24" poster of her above his bed.

And then there is the little matter that no where is Trump required to have "respect for the legislative branch".

In short....he's your typical butt-hurt little snowflake who can't accept not getting his way.

 

[P@triot]

After Trump's numerous attempts to delegitimize the judicial branch of our government and his multiple personal attacks against Gorsuch's colleagues... it would be dishonorable for Gorsuch to remain a candidate for Trump's Supreme Court pick.

Gorsuch cannot, in good faith, believe that Trump selected him for any other reason than to weaken our court system and increase his own power.

His hearings begin next week. It should be as entertaining as a WWE event.

Bogus thread.

I am surprised it has attracted so much attention.

It is pure crap.

It really hasn't garnered "attention". It's really being used just to mock TheOldFool and illustrated the gaping holes in his very poorly constructed arguments and is complete lack of logic.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I'm also sure that Obama nominated as a means of pushing a wildly-partisan agenda.

Obama nominated him because that is the President's job. Like how the Senate's job, until recently because the GOP changed things, was to vote on the President's SC nominations.

Try reading the text again. The Senate has no obligation to provide the advice and consent that would empower the president to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[P@triot]

Introducing....Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch!!!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Introducing....Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch!!!

View attachment 121069

At least the rubes surrendered the nuclear option. And practically anybody would be better than Scalia, so at least the court is better off than it was a couple years ago.

 

[P@triot]

And practically anybody would be better than Scalia, .

Yes....for anyone who hates the U.S. Constitution (such as yourself), literally anyone would be better than Antonin Scalia. The man was the greatest Supreme Court Justice ever for those who want the U.S. Constitution properly upheld. Gorsuch sounds like he'll be a close second.

 

[meaner gene]

Yes....for anyone who hates the U.S. Constitution (such as yourself), literally anyone would be better than Antonin Scalia. The man was the greatest Supreme Court Justice ever for those who want the U.S. Constitution properly upheld. Gorsuch sounds like he'll be a close second.

Scalia would have ruled with Justice Tanney in the Dred Scott decision, even today. That the original intent of the framers of the constitution was to have only nrich white men run the country,

 

[P@triot]

That the original intent of the framers of the constitution was to have only nrich white men run the country,

What do you know - another uneducated, uninformed, LWNJ. I wonder if we will ever see a left-winger who actually knows U.S. history?

 

[meaner gene]

That the original intent of the framers of the constitution was to have only nrich white men run the country,

What do you know - another uneducated, uninformed, LWNJ. I wonder if we will ever see a left-winger who actually knows U.S. history?

Read the constitution, and the interpretations the USSC made. As Tanney said in the Dred Scott decision, that Scott waasn't ever intended to be given citizen status, that was reserved for the 'political class' ie rich white men. Who would get to vote using 3/5ths additional voting power, garnered from what non-citizens would have had.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes....for anyone who hates the U.S. Constitution (such as yourself), literally anyone would be better than Antonin Scalia. The man was the greatest Supreme Court Justice ever for those who want the U.S. Constitution properly upheld. Gorsuch sounds like he'll be a close second.

Scalia would have ruled with Justice Tanney in the Dred Scott decision, even today. That the original intent of the framers of the constitution was to have only nrich white men run the country,

Well, thank you so much for that unsubstantiated, biased opinion masquerading as an assertion of fact. I'll be sure to give that every bit of consideration that I would give my dog's flatulence, since they're an equivalent use of air flow.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That the original intent of the framers of the constitution was to have only nrich white men run the country,

What do you know - another uneducated, uninformed, LWNJ. I wonder if we will ever see a left-winger who actually knows U.S. history?

Even if they do know it, they're never going to openly admit to it, because historical fact gets in the way of - as Thomas Sowell categorizes it - "the vision of the anointed".

 

[Cecilie1200]

That the original intent of the framers of the constitution was to have only nrich white men run the country,

What do you know - another uneducated, uninformed, LWNJ. I wonder if we will ever see a left-winger who actually knows U.S. history?

Read the constitution, and the interpretations the USSC made. As Tanney said in the Dred Scott decision, that Scott waasn't ever intended to be given citizen status, that was reserved for the 'political class' ie rich white men. Who would get to vote using 3/5ths additional voting power, garnered from what non-citizens would have had.

It always amuses me, in a morbid way, to hear leftist baboons gabbling about "Read the Constitution!" and then utterly and completely misquote and misinterpret what the Constitution says.

It's like having a political discussion in the monkey house of the zoo, I swear.

 

[Markle]

What do you know - another uneducated, uninformed, LWNJ. I wonder if we will ever see a left-winger who actually knows U.S. history?

Well, they know THEIR version of U.S. history!

 

[P@triot]

Read the constitution, and the interpretations the USSC made. As Tanney said in the Dred Scott decision, that Scott waasn't ever intended to be given citizen status, that was reserved for the 'political class' ie rich white men.

What "rich" white men? Thomas Jefferson died $107,000 in debt (the equivalent of $2 million dollars today). Original letters from Elizabeth Wells shows that the community took up a collection just to buy Samuel Adams a a suit for him to attend the Continental Congress with as their representative. He was so dirt-poor, he didn't own a single suit.

Like all left-wing ideologues, you are completely clueless about U.S. history. Why don't you research this stuff before commenting on it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am going to be celebrating Monday morning when I get to watch the newest Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court take his oath.

Going to watch liberal heads explode because they didn't choose their battles wisely..

 

[P@triot]

Who would get to vote using 3/5ths additional voting power, garnered from what non-citizens would have had.

In other words - you don't have the slightest clue what the 3/5th's clause was or why it existed. Typical of that side of the aisle. And sad.