RETIREDFAN1 Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Opinion changed I see since original accolades for the man. I'm a free thinking individual........my opinions change with the information I receive.......:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 I'm worried now about his comments on the murder of innocent babies now.......He said, "Roe vs. Wade is settled law of the land".........until this nation ends the slaughter of innocent babies and puts the perverts back into the closet where they belong, it deserves the judgment God has in store for all sinful nations.......... Unless another court case is brought to the Supreme Court or Congress makes a law against it. I would bet if Congress made a law against it he would uphold it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 Unless another court case is brought to the Supreme Court or Congress makes a law against it. I would bet if Congress made a law against it he would uphold it. I agree. He was quoting the law per SCOTUS' previous decisions, not his opinion. Even though most of us have the belief that abortion is murder, we can't legally stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 I'm worried now about his comments on the murder of innocent babies now.......He said, "Roe vs. Wade is settled law of the land".........until this nation ends the slaughter of innocent babies and puts the perverts back into the closet where they belong, it deserves the judgment God has in store for all sinful nations.......... I think that was just a technical answer. It doesn't mean it was correctly ruled upon. It's what he had to say at the time, because technically it's true .... for now .... He didn't say it couldn't be revisited or overturned .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 This is a major blunder by the Democrats. Yeah yeah, I understand why they don't like Gorsuch, but this is a foolish hill for them to die on. It amounts to a tantrum over Merrick Garland, and it gains them nothing... not even a short term gain. If it prompts the "nuclear option" by the GOP, it'll make it even easier for them to fill Ginsberg's spot with a staunch conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 This is a major blunder by the Democrats. Yeah yeah, I understand why they don't like Gorsuch, but this is a foolish hill for them to die on. It amounts to a tantrum over Merrick Garland, and it gains them nothing... not even a short term gain. If it prompts the "nuclear option" by the GOP, it'll make it even easier for them to fill Ginsberg's spot with a staunch conservative. I agree. Smart play would be for them to give the appearance of fairness, because he'll get approved one way or the other. And, as you pointed out, if they go nuclear, Trump can pick the most right wing judge possible, who could admittedly be against abortion, flag burning, immigrants, and Sec of States' that used their own private server (guess I'm essentially describing the exact opposite of the judges Obama put in). And I wouldn't be surprised at all if he did that. I don't think Donald is a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. He's more of, I'm giving you a deal you shouldn't (can't?) refuse, kind of guy. Or as we say down here, If you don't like Gorsuch, you damn sure want like the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I agree. Smart play would be for them to give the appearance of fairness, because he'll get approved one way or the other. And, as you pointed out, if they go nuclear, Trump can pick the most right wing judge possible, who could admittedly be against abortion, flag burning, immigrants, and Sec of States' that used their own private server (guess I'm essentially describing the exact opposite of the judges Obama put in). And I wouldn't be surprised at all if he did that. I don't think Donald is a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. He's more of, I'm giving you a deal you shouldn't (can't?) refuse, kind of guy. Or as we say down here, If you don't like Gorsuch, you damn sure want like the next one. That's how I see Caesar if he doesn't get his way he's going to be vindictive. That's why I said if Congress should somehow repeal the ACA, he'll veto it simply because the Ryano plan didn't go through. He was pushing that hard. I think Gorsuch will get the nomination, and he should. I think the Communist/Progressives simply want to control the Supreme Court with liberal or moderate judges to push through their plans to further Socialize the United States. Gorsuch is a Constitutionalist that won't cater to the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Rab Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 That's how I see Caesar if he doesn't get his way he's going to be vindictive. That's why I said if Congress should somehow repeal the ACA, he'll veto it simply because the Ryano plan didn't go through. He was pushing that hard. I think Gorsuch will get the nomination, and he should. I think the Communist/Progressives simply want to control the Supreme Court with liberal or moderate judges to push through their plans to further Socialize the United States. Gorsuch is a Constitutionalist that won't cater to the left. He was pushing RINOCARE because it was just another item to mark off of his list. I think that would have backfired on him so hard that he would be out of the White House in 3 years instead of 4 because of how much hatred he would have gained from his own voters. So he should be happy that real conservatives scratched that mess. This SC Justice pick is the best deal that the Dems will get. I mean that with all of my heart. There is no way in hell that Trump will go more liberal with another pick. He will do just the opposite of the tantrum throwers. The "You're Fired" that he did so well on The Apprentice, is something he mastered in his everyday dealings with employees. You stick to the plan or get the boot. Since the Dems can't even eat the meat on the meaty bone he sent them, and he can't fire them, he will send them a bone without meat and the marrow dry just for spite the next time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/02/senator-tester-will-attempt-to-filibuster-gorsuch/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I think he is really toast now, if he had voted for Gorsuch Montana might reelect him and that would be a disaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I see in Feb after he met with Gorsuch, he was all for him. Even encouraged his fellow Senators to give him a fair shake. I suspect Sen Tester had a visit from PerPez, Pelosti, and Upchuck Shoemer, to change his mind. Imo, he'd been better off just calling in sick. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/6/jon-tester-senate-democrat-open-neil-gorsuch/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 5, 2017 Author Share Posted April 5, 2017 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/04/left-accuses-gorsuch-of-plagiarism/ accusations which have been PROVEN false by interviews with the person supposedly plagiarized........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/06/republicans-go-nuclear-bust-through-democratic-filibuster-on-gorsuch.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Filibuster needed to be gone a long time ago anyhow, glad Reid started us down this path, republicans probably would have never had the courage to get rid of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Since the Repubs voted for Sotomayor, and Kagan, who are anything but conservative, and the Dems refused to vote for Gorsuch, this action is a no-brainer. Could it come back to haunt the Repubs? How? Dems have shown their refusal to cooperate, so if they had the power, there's no doubt in my mind they'd use it. The Dems have cut their nose off to spite their face. If they had approved Gorsuch, they might still have some sway on any future appointee. Now, if another seat comes open, Trump can appoint an ultra conservative, and the Dems will have to bend over and take it. Like having Hillary as their political candidate, this is just another dumb move. I haven't mentioned this before, since I don't have proof. Heard a news person telling that a Repub (don't remember the name) had a Dem tell him that he, and quite a few others, knew Gosuch was acceptable, but the Party leadership wouldn't allow them to vote for him. The 3 that did are from Red states and were allowed to because they knew it wouldn't be enough votes anyway. Just what I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 BREAKING: Senate votes 52-48 to repeal rule allowing filibusters against Supreme Court [tr]Reuters ^ | April 6, 2017 | Staff Posted on 4/6/2017, 11:37:08 AM by C19fan BREAKING: Senate votes 52-48 to repeal rule allowing filibusters against Supreme Court nominees, clearing the way for Gorsuch confirmation (Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Thanks Harry...:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Thanks Harry... :lol: This is one thing that I can thank Harry Reid for doing. He gets all the credit. I'm glad Gorsuch finally got the nomination, because he is needed on the bench to protect the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Actually I think it's good because it's going to come back and bite the Repubes in the ###### later on. I don't, I think the democrats are finished in the Senate for a long while 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue82 Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 Actually I think it's good because it's going to come back and bite the Repubes in the ###### later on.Will you be saying that after Scalia 2.0 is confirmed on a 52-48 vote. Your dims just showed the goppers their true level of irrelevance, and the goppers actually had enough 🏀🏈 to take advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share Posted April 6, 2017 55-45.......some of the dims have a little sense....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 Talk about delusional.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue82 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I can deal with that (even though it's a stolen seat) but when we have control of everything in 2020 then I'll laugh at all of the crying by the Repubes when it's time to replace Ginsburg and others.What if Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy all have to be replaced before then? The die is cast. This could allow Trump to remake the court with true Constitutional judges, who will do their job and not legislate from the bench, as your people do. Remember, it's your party who has to hide their true intentions. The republicans run on theirs, then lack the 🏀🏈 to act on them after being elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 What if Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy all have to be replaced before then? The die is cast. This could allow Trump to remake the court with true Constitutional judges, who will do their job and not legislate from the bench, as your people do. Remember, it's your party who has to hide their true intentions. The republicans run on theirs, then lack the to act on them after being elected. Ginsburg won't last another year........Maybe Kennedy will decide to spend more time with his family and retire....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now