Democrats Delay Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch

Ah, or just do a Madonna and blow it up, right? Man, you folks just get wacker by the day.

 

Go for it. I would LOVE it

 

I applaud you for your use of precedents to make your argument. I will respond with another precedent - Roe V. Wade. Those on the right, many of who claim to be constitutionalist (you included I do not know), state that this ruling needs to be overturned. On what precedent do they make this claim, the 14th amendment. The very same legislation which you so proudly use to defend corporations, is they same amendment used to justify Roe V. Wade. How do people on the right, the so called "constitutionalist" get to say corporations have protection under the amendment, but a woman doesn't? A women who is clearly a person, and who clearly qualifies for protection under the amendment. The Pacific railroad ruling was in 1886, over a hundred and thirty years ago. The court looked at the issue and made the wrong decision, and now it is time to overturn that ruling.

The 14th amendment reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

No where in the amendment does it say anything about corporations being citizens. Nor does it say anything about corporations being people. My questions to you, how can corporations be people, when they are ran by people? Corporations are not "persons" although by definition they are now included under the term, likely because of the 1886 ruling and the subsequent use of that ruling as precedent.

In summary, if those on the right can argue for the overturning of Roe V Wade, a decision made on the 14th amendment, I am well within my duty as a citizen to question whether or not SCOTUS made the right decision in 1886. That said, I have no problem with pushing forward judges who also believe the 1886 court wrong just like the right thinks the Roe V Wade court ruled incorrect.

This brings me back to the statement you were kind enough to bold "Therefor, I don't have a lack of basic civics, but a larger comprehension of how the law is interpreted." In the 1886 case the court interpreted the law, and on that day all the justices came to the conclusion that corporations born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. A decision which I believe was made in error.

Bringing this full circle and back to Gorsuch, as this is the topic of the thread. Even though you may not agree with me on the validity of the 1886 railroad decision, answer me this. Gorsuch ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby electing to not provide it's female employees the option to get insurance that covers birth control. I know this is a hot button topic but, Gorsuch essentially looked at women and Hobby lobby as equals. Then he ruled that a corporations feelings and desires are more important than what a living breathing womans needs are. At the end of the day if you want to say a corporation is a person fine, but isn't it discrimination to not provide it. I can't own a bakery and tell a gay couple I won't bake them a cake because they are gay (although in Indiana I can.. Thanks Mike Pence...) I can't deny a black person service because they are black. Since when is religion okay to use to discriminate against people. I know list me all of the legal precedents here... But we can hide behind legal precedents all day, and skate around the real issue. I ask you person to person, is it right? Can you live with yourself knowing that what you are fighting for is hateful.... I guess thats what really bothers me about Gorsuch. I think he, and many of the right, are on the wrong side of history. The side of history that never looks at itself and says, "did they do the right thing?" Instead, you continue about your life defending the previous rulings and state that is just how it is.

 

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

Hobby Lobby didn't have to pay for insurance that covers contraception at all. They reasonably chose insurance that covered 16 out of 20 oral contraception, excluding abortion pills which they find violates the tenants of their religion. They aren't the ones being unreasonable here. It's time for the left to get over it or try to change the first amendment to the Constitution.

 

The Democrats exempted the Supreme Court Justices from the "Nuclear Option" because they recognized it was too important to be subjected to the whims of politics of the moment. If Republicans use the Nuclear Option now for Supreme Court Justices, they will be setting aside that respect shown by Democrats for the Supreme Court and for the Constitution itself, which Democrats retained. Using the Nuclear Option to stack the court would weaken our democracy and our Constitution,and would be a very bad idea.

America is more than a continual contest between conservative and liberal values. America is a society, a culture and a remarkable living idea. Your statement advocating stacking "the court with conservatives in order to protect the nation from the rabid anti-American practices of the radical left," shows little respect or regard for the special nature of our nation, its founding fathers, or its people. I totally disagree with you.

 

Good arguments, X.

Unfortunately, I think the nuclear option will be exercised...and the collegiality of the Senate will be even further eroded.

Both sides are at fault. The supporters of both sides are at fault.

We've come apart.

I hope we (the Republic) can survive what we have become.

 

Factual information that will be ignored by the moveon /correct the record crowd.

 

They "exempted" them because they had the votes needed to pass both of them.. Nice try spinning it though.

 

Ehm ... the Trumponians seems to have Alzheimer disease as it looks like...

When did Scalia die once? February 2016
When was election of new President once? November 2016
Who delayed any new justice for supreme court before election at all costs and most ridiculous reasons? Republicans!

 

Except for one thing, Rep's reasoning proven to be sound. Hillary lost. Trump, who published his list of SC prospective nominees, won. Imagine that.

 

Exactly!

 

Resoning with what seriously? Was the coming election the real serious and valid reason to delay the issue?

 

You are correct the constitution protects a persons right to freedom of religion. However, I believe the 1886 pacific railroad ruling was made in error. Therefor, businesses are not people, and therefor do not have the protection of the constitution to deny certain birth control methods. If they wish to become a non-profit organization, then they can claim religious exemption, but until that time, I see them as being discriminators of women's rights.

 

Ah, yea....think the R's made that pretty clear & apparently the voters did, too. Look,whether or not u want to admit it, the D's, under the leadership of Obama, & radicals like Podesta and Wasserman Schultz, enabled the R's to make huge gains, both in states and on a national level. Now, why do you suppose that is? Once you can honestly answer that question you might start "getting it" about the SC and a lot of other things.

 

Then you simply don't understand the difference between an interpretation and the recognition of common and natural law as a decision point. I would also remind you that corporations are not "citizens". They are simply treated as people. Hence "personhood". There is zero expectation that a corporate structure has any citizenship.

Then you fail to understand his ruling, or the logic behind it. Superficiality isn't helping you here. I would also remind you that said ruling was also upheld by the existing SCOTUS. And while Ginsberg waxed on pretentiously about how the limit of Hobby Lobby could then extend to other "not closely held for profit corporations", which, clearly, the ruling explicitly excluded. I would also remind you that HL is not a publicly traded company, and that it's ability to describe a religious point of view is historically well documented in a way likely few others would be able to demonstrate. So, Ginsberg's "concern" is grossly overstated.

I would caution that when you assert things like "can you live with yourself knowing that what you're fighting for is hateful" is, in itself offensive. There is decidedly no actual hate being expressed here from my POV. I do find exceptional fear and hate, however, being demonstrated by your own commentary. Likely, you are unaware of how dissonant your demands are or how entitled they are perceived as. So, instead of pointing that pretentious insight at your own commentary, you're sufficiently smug enough to lash out at those who have a civil disagreement with you as you castigate them as being hateful or bigots, or misogynists, racists, etc. That is truly hateful. I doubt you're recognize that, but it is none the less true.

 

Dems showed respect? "Democratic respect" is an oxymoron. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner you'll stop being played by them.
P.S. Two DEM senators announced today they're voting for Gorsuch.

 

The GOP controlled Senate makes the rules and they have all the power in the world to change the rules.

 

Oh yeah.....McConnell says it on. Dropping the Nuke on the Demos and their Cult following.


It's On: GOP Appears Ready to Go 'Nuclear' if Democrats Mount Indefensible, Unpopular Filibuster of Gorsuch....


Democrats have zero intellectually-defensible reasons -- none -- to sustain the first-ever partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, but due to the demands of their extreme base and their misplaced anger over finally being held to their own standards last year, they appear to be headed in that direction anyway. Many liberals have been cheering on this mindless obstruction, with some whispering around that Republicans won't have the votes to invoke the Reid Rule and end the judicial filibuster for nominees to the High Court (Reid's unjustifiable 2013 power grab was, of course, one of many unilateral Democratic escalations that has brought us to this point). Are Democrats smart to bet on the GOP folding when the pressure is on? Many conservative activists frustrated with the party might be tempted to say yes -- but just as a steady drumbeat of reporting increasingly points to Chuck Schumer whipping at least 41 votes on behalf of his unprecedented filibuster, it's also looking more and more like Mitch McConnell's team is steeling itself to do what must be done in the face of the Left's latest round of extraordinary partisan aggression:


This is the tone that several GOP centrists have taken in discussing this looming standoff: Please don't make us to this, Democrats. Somewhat worrisomely, one name that didn't appear in that Washington Examiner story is Alaska's Lisa Murkoswksi, an independent who caucuses with Republicans and who is often a threat to buck the party. But Murkowksi has been very high on Gorsuch, and a new Politico piece quotes the Alaskan making it quite clear that she's firmly committed to getting Gorsuch confirmed, one way or the other: "If it was another nominee that was polarizing, that was not more mainstream, maybe then this is an issue,” she said. “I believe very, very strongly that Neil Gorsuch needs to be confirmed. So I’m going to figure out a way to get him confirmed.” Your move, Democrats. Are there eight members on Team Blue willing to infuriate the Left and vote in favor of cloture? Maybe:.....snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...rsuch-n2306503

 

Kinda like 'Conservative logic and morals,' eh?

 

I am a Democrat, and respect is a quality I value and try to live up to in my own life. When I see Republicans actively push to take away health care from 24 million Americans as a political policy, I don't regard that as "respectful." When I see Republicans claim to be "Pro Life," then remove all funding from the largest single provider of health care for pregnant women in America, I don't regard that as "respectful" or even in harmony with their "Pro Life" values. Gorsuch ruled against a truck driver who was stranded in a dead truck during winter for several hours without heat, but was fired by his employer for abandoning the truck after he felt his life threatened from the cold and went to seek heat and help. Gorsuch agreed with the company that the man deserved firing because he chose to save his own life. As a Democrat and an American who cares about other Americans, and as a humane human, I agree with the Democrats opposing judge Gorsuch, and disagree with the two Democrats who plan supporting him. It isn't the Democrats displaying a lack of respect here, it's Gorsuch and his supporters.

 

Sentence #1 ok
Sentence #2 a misrepresentation of facts
Sentence #3 a misrepresentation of facts
Sentence #4 ok
Sentence #6 a misrepresentation of fact
Sentence #7 your opinion
Sentence #8 your opinion

 

I would say that some reasonable people, thinking people mind you, believe that there is a more appropriate way to change law than interpretation.

 

You cats don't realize that we are fine with that. Just grind that giant productivity swallowing leviathan to a halt, and we'll all be better for it. Luckily, Trump has already stopped some regulation growth and is returning executive departments from political arm barring. The private sector will hopefully be allowed to produce some growth before the pendulum of dependence swings back.

 

As long as we blame all of America's economic greatness on free markets. Also, I noticed you guys mention Kansas but leave out other states doing well with decades of conservative policies.

 

Let's include cost of living and public and private debt.