So nominee Gorsuch proclaims Roe v. Wade as precedent

[JakeStarkey]

The pro-birth wing are in fact anti-life.

They will not commit the needs to make sure that life is worth living for every child born in tough circumstances.

Good on Gorsuch.

 

[The Original Tree]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

And here the left has been frothing at the mouth, spouting all kinds of inane hatred, and generally making dolts of themselves over this guy.

Feel free to link to any post I've ever made that remotely resembles that accusation, or, feel free to shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The pro-birth wing are in fact anti-life.

They will not commit the needs to make sure that life is worth living for every child born in tough circumstances.

Good on Gorsuch.

That was really stupid.

 

[yiostheoy]

That's not what I've seen at all. What I've seen is the left being rightfully angry about the denial of hearings and a vote to an equally qualified and acceptable jurist, Merrick Garland.

I no more oppose Gorsuch than I did Roberts or Alito; not my first choices but I acknowledge their fitness as jurists.

It's absolutely disgusting what the Republicons did in denying Garland his rightful confirmation process. It's the lowest point of congressional politics pretty much ever. It's a black eye and stain that the GOP can never get past.

And no, the Democrats aren't so ugly nor will they do such a despicable anti-American thing.

As long as the GOP controls the Senate there is no good reason to ratify any more justices ever.

The court would shrink to a 4-3 strict constructionist (aka "conservative" as in conserving the Constitution) majority after Ginsberg croaks and they never replaced either her or Scalia.

Then Kennedy would be the next to go and it would be tied again at 3-3.

Then after Breyer dies again a "conservative" majority at 3 to 2.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

See what I mean? Right on cue...

'...we never really wanted a judge who would overturn Roe!!!'

bwaha

 

[blackhawk]

Nice to see the left respects him on this I suspect however that respect will vanish as soon he he rules on something in a way you don't like then he will be a dangerous right wing extremist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's not what I've seen at all. What I've seen is the left being rightfully angry about the denial of hearings and a vote to an equally qualified and acceptable jurist, Merrick Garland.

I no more oppose Gorsuch than I did Roberts or Alito; not my first choices but I acknowledge their fitness as jurists.

It's absolutely disgusting what the Republicons did in denying Garland his rightful confirmation process. It's the lowest point of congressional politics pretty much ever. It's a black eye and stain that the GOP can never get past.

And no, the Democrats aren't so ugly nor will they do such a despicable anti-American thing.

As long as the GOP controls the Senate there is no good reason to ratify any more justices ever.

The court would shrink to a 4-3 strict constructionist (aka "conservative" as in conserving the Constitution) majority after Ginsberg croaks and they never replaced either her or Scalia.

Then Kennedy would be the next to go and it would be tied again at 3-3.

Then after Breyer dies again a "conservative" majority at 3 to 2.

I wouldn't do it on this nomination but it might serve the Democrats well to force the GOP to kill the filibuster with the so-called nuclear option since Trump will likely be gone in the 2020 election,

but the Senate will probably stay close for the foreseeable future.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nice to see the left respects him on this I suspect however that respect will vanish as soon he he rules on something in a way you don't like then he will be a dangerous right wing extremist.

You mean like how the Right shit on Roberts the first time they didn't like his ruling? Like that?

 

[bendog]

"Judge Neil Gorsuch said Tuesday the controversial Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion is “precedent” and acknowledged the ruling had been reaffirmed “many times.”

Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Justice Antonin Scalia died, does not have much of a history ruling on abortion issues, and the contentious subject was one of the first topics broached during the question-and-answer session of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, it has been reaffirmed…and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” Gorsuch told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “…A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the first Democrat to question Gorsuch, immediately followed up, citing the importance of the issue since, she said, President Trump “said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe.”

“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch told Feinstein, clarifying his position on precedent. “What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward.”


Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent” – a decision that cannot be overturned.

“It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that,” Gorsuch answered."

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

Sounds like another resounding defeat for the anti-abortion lobby.

Providing we can believe him...


See what I mean when I say liberalism almost always wins in the long run?

It makes you wonder what McConnell really did this for. Citizens United? Was it really just about making sure we couldn't regulate how much money went into elections? Seriously, the poor billionaires who might not have clout. The Republic was teetering on collapse unless they were protected! Bigly.

I realize Mitch the Turtle still has hemroids from Bork, but for Christ's sake Bork was the one who said Nixon could fire the special prosecutor. Why Reagan spent capital on that guy .... even Goldwater said Nixon had to go.

 

[BoSoxGal]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

You'd be wise to study the history of Bork and Alito. The dems are not squeaky clean on nomination processes

 

[yiostheoy]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

It's all just a game of court stuffing.

Always has been.

Always will be.

 

[yiostheoy]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

You'd be wise to study the history of Bork and Alito. The dems are not squeaky clean on nomination processes

Bork was a traitor.

There was no excuse for nominating Bork.

 

[yiostheoy]

Nice to see the left respects him on this I suspect however that respect will vanish as soon he he rules on something in a way you don't like then he will be a dangerous right wing extremist.

You mean like how the Right shit on Roberts the first time they didn't like his ruling? Like that?

Precisely right.

Roberts showed his true colors as a swing voter like Kennedy.

 

[blackhawk]

Nice to see the left respects him on this I suspect however that respect will vanish as soon he he rules on something in a way you don't like then he will be a dangerous right wing extremist.

You mean like how the Right shit on Roberts the first time they didn't like his ruling? Like that?

Yeah I never claimed that type of stuff was one sided. Do you really think the Democrats won't trash Gorsuch if after he's confirmed he let's say ruled in favor of the Trump administration on the travel ban EO?

 

[BoSoxGal]

Politicization of the federal judiciary nominating process to this extent is a relatively recent phenomenon, and one about which all Americans of every political stripe should be concerned.

The Unfortunate Politicization of Judicial Confirmation Hearings

 

[pwjohn]

Why do you loons cheer legislation that allows murdering the most innocent of all? Freaking ghouls

Seig Heil! Adolph!

Yeah, if anyone is Adolph it's you baby murdering advocates, Dr Mengele

Fell right into that one didn't you dumbass

You're the one possessing the mistaken belief that you can tell the people how to live their lives. I'm all in on letting the people decide for themselves.

That's a yuge difference between you and me

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

See? This is exactly how conservatives lose, slowly and steadily, over time.

After their decades of fighting against abortion rights, now they're resigned to cheering on the nomination of a Supreme Court judge who sees Roe as precedent.

And, don't forget, after decades of conservatives fighting against gay rights, now they're resigned to cheering on their messianic President who himself has proclaimed same sex marriage to be settled law.

This is why I marvel at liberals who go into panic mode when conservatives temporarily gain power in government.

Relax. They too shall pass.

Who ever argued Roe v. Wade isn't a precedent? It's bad law, yet still a precedent.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We get it. You are conceding the Gorsuch Confirmation because you spent all your energies and billions on a FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION STORY.
Now you are unprepared to stop Gorsuch from taking the bench.

WINNING.

Winning what? You're getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia. WE'RE getting a Scalia replacement who's to the left of Scalia.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, if we take Gorsuch at his word, is now at least 2 judges away from even being feasible...

...with that, cue the RWnuts who will now come out and claim they never really cared about overturning Roe in the first place.

lol

WINNING!

Because Hillary Clinton isn't putting an American Hating, Constitutional Hating Liberal Collectivist Fascist Jihadist on the bench.
See we aren't you. That is why you cannot understand US!
We want a fair man on The Bench, not a Subversive who will be an activist and violate his oath to push an agenda.

So Justice and America wins on this.

And you and EVIL lose.

And that has to make you very very angry.

You're a freak.

Judge Gorsuch himself decried the politicization of the confirmation process in 2002 when he wrote this Op-Ed urging Congress to act on a backlog of appointments - an Op-Ed in which he specifically praised the merit of Merrick Garland:

Justice White and judicial excellence

I don't defend any congressional politicization of the federal judiciary nomination process. Still, it is ONLY the Republican Party that has ever blocked a nominee from hearings and a vote. Despicable and unAmerican.

You'd be wise to study the history of Bork and Alito. The dems are not squeaky clean on nomination processes

Bork was a traitor.

There was no excuse for nominating Bork.

Bork was a traitor?

Oh, let me guess, the Russians!!!