Nope, NOPE, NOPETY NOPE! A Scalia robot. Democrats better filibuster this dude. Former President deserved the right to pick Merrick
Garland and receive an no or ye vote. The GOP NEVER even considered or allowed Merrick to come forward for a VOTE. Fuck’em.
GOP are happy campers. Trump threw them a MILK BONE, with Gorsuch. We’ll see….
Neil Gorsuch is Trump’s Supreme Court pick. The federal judge resembles Antonin Scalia in both philosophy and style. https://t.co/CKzFDnjpGQ pic.twitter.com/rrj5wuVaVk
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) February 1, 2017
SNIP:
Judge Gorsuch’s legal thinking also evokes Justice Scalia:
Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making. He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia).
In fact, some of the parallels can be downright eerie. For example, the reasoning in Gorsuch’s 2008 concurrence in United States v. Hinckley, in which he argues that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would probably violate the rarely invoked non-delegation principle, is exactly the same as that of Scalia’s 2012 dissent in Reynolds v. United States.
In Judge Neil Gorsuch, an Echo of Scalia in Philosophy and Style
WASHINGTON — President Trump campaigned as a Washington outsider. But his first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, has deep roots in the city and the establishment Mr. Trump often criticized.
Judge Gorsuch’s mother was a high-level official in the Reagan administration. He spent part of his childhood in Washington and practiced law here for a decade, at a prominent law firm and in the Justice Department.
And, like all of the current justices, Judge Gorsuch is a product of the Ivy League, having attended college at Columbia and law school at Harvard.
But there is no doubt about his conservative credentials. And if there is a justice whom he most resembles, it is the one whose seat he has been nominated to fill, Justice Antonin Scalia.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Supreme Court pick founded and led club called ‘Fascism Forever’ at his elite all-boys Washington prep school
By Alana Goodman For Dailymail.com
03:05 02 Feb 2017, updated 13:45 02 Feb 2017
Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch founded and led a student group called the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ at his elite high school, DailyMail.com can reveal.
The club was set up to rally against the ‘left-wing tendencies’ of his professors while attending a Jesuit all-boys preparatory high school near Washington D.C.
The name may be inconvenient for a Supreme Court nominee facing a tough confirmation battle. However it also shows the depth of Gorscuch’s right-wing credentials – and his penchant for mischief while attending his exclusive prep school in the 1980s.
President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch, a 49-year-old U.S. appellate judge, to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday.
Gorsuch founded the ‘Fascism Forever Club’ during his freshman year at Georgetown Preparatory, a now-$30,000-a-year private Jesuit school that is one of the most selective in the United States.
About those believing that Gorsuch’s ‘ Facist Forever’ was just a ‘child’s prank’
Here’s the quote from his High School Yearbook….
WHO THE PHUCK THINKS LIKE THIS?
The famous person he chose to quote?
The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer.
—-Henry Kissinger
August 29, 1967
Tell me again why I should think the man has any humanity.
https://twitter.com/USARedOrchestra/status/826617696137650176
Big TEN!
https://youtu.be/lwvyM-uRvqc&rel=0
“…Can the Supreme Court do its job this year with just eight justices? As the court’s vacancy enters its second month, Republicans now appear to be saying: Sure. Why not.
The “sky won’t fall” with just eight on the court. That is the headline in a Des Moines Register op-ed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published Sunday. Grassley was responding to a Des Moines Register editorial calling Republicans’ blockade “un-American” and specifically singling out Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for blame.
“It’s entirely American,” Grassley argued…”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/11/republicans-are-now-saying-8-justices-on-the-supreme-court-is-just-fine-it-might-work/?utm_term=.1a5d15e868f3
Bring on those RECEIPTS!
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/826616622454599680
THIS
“…With just days until the election, some Senate Republicans are suggesting that when it comes to the Supreme Court, eight is enough. Eight justices, that is.
For the first time, some Senate Republicans are saying that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the GOP should prevent anyone she nominates from being confirmed to fill the current court vacancy, or any future vacancy.
Now some Republicans are suggesting the wait for Scalia’s replacement could last much longer, perhaps an entire presidential term, or two. Three Republican senators have said directly that they would consider leaving Scalia’s seat empty as long as Clinton is in office.
Sen. John McCain was the first. Appearing on a conservative radio talk show, he said that if Clinton is elected, “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee [that] she would put up.” His press secretary quickly tried to backpedal, but McCain himself has not.
Since then, Sens. Ted Cruz and Richard Burr have upped the ante, while other Republican senators have dodged and weaved on the question. The Senate’s No. 2 Republican, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, said he didn’t want to “speculate” on the question.
But Burr, in a tough re-election battle in North Carolina, said in a tape-recorded meeting with Republican volunteers last weekend, “If Hillary becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”
As for Cruz, he suggested there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices. For support, he pointed to a statement made by Justice Stephen Breyer during an interview in which Breyer noted that the court has historically functioned with as few as five or six justices.
Breyer’s friends say the justice was mortified to see his historical observation used for political purposes, though he has not commented publicly on Cruz’s statement.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/03/500560120/senate-republicans-could-block-potential-clinton-supreme-court-nominees
To DEMS:
BLOCK
BLOCK
BLOCK
Let’s keep it at 8 just like Ted Cruz and others suggested…8 is enough…LOL..
“As for Cruz, he suggested there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices. For support, he pointed to a statement made by Justice Stephen Breyer during an interview in which Breyer noted that the court has historically functioned with as few as five or six justices.”