Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:46 pm    Post subject: Trump to name supreme court pick Reply with quote

( although the choice of a supreme court justice is normally not that high profile or controversial somehow I think this one will be made into more of an issue as the democrats seek to make a crisis out of everything trump does )



Trump reportedly could name Supreme Court pick as early as Monday


Published January 29, 2017
· FoxNews.com


President Donald Trump could announce his nomination for the Supreme Court as early as Monday, a White House official told the Associated Press.

Word of the possible announcement came as the administration grappled with the fallout of Trump's executive order halting the United States' refugee program and suspending visas for citizens of seven predominently Muslim countries. As a candidate, Trump often used surprise announcements to shift attention away from negative coverage.

DOWN TO TWO: A LOOK AT WHO PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT TAP FOR THE SUPREME COURT

Trump himself had tweeted that he would make his selection public on Thursday.

On Friday, sources close to the selection process told Fox News that the president had narrowed his shorlist down to two federal appeals court judges: Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit and Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit.

The sources told Fox News that Trump has privately kept one person in mind for some time. The president has met with at least three candidates to replace the late Antonin Scalia, whose seat on the high court has been vacant since his death this past February.

"I have made my decision pretty much in my mind, yes," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity in a cable exclusive interview this past Thursday. "That's subject to change at the last moment, but I think this will be a great choice."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....onday.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Down to two: A look at who President Trump might tap for the Supreme Court



By Bill Mears
·Published January 27, 2017


Reliably conservative. Personable and engaging. A sharp legal mind.

The benchmarks President Trump is weighing for his Supreme Court nominee is now down to two leading contenders, according to sources close to the selection process.

Both are white males and federal appeals court judges appointed by President George W. Bush: Neil Gorsuch from Denver and Thomas Hardiman who has chambers in Pittsburgh.

A few other judges remain officially in the mix, but linger on the rims, as an intensified two-week selection process moves to a dramatic finish.

"I have made my decision pretty much in my mind, yes," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "That's subject to change at the last moment, but I think this will be a great choice."

Trump reiterated the name will be revealed Thursday, but sources say the president has privately kept one person in mind for some time. He has met with at least three candidates to replace the late Antonin Scalia, whose seat on the high court has been vacant nearly a year.

"There's a hope that if the president nominates someone who is extremely talented, strong intellectually and is in the mainstream of legal thought-- and all these people were are talking about are - that while there will be lots of debate and some disagreement, the Senate will ultimately confirm the nominee without a high degree of obstruction,” Leonard Leo, an adviser to Trump on the Supreme Court, told Fox News exclusively.

Sources caution against billing one finalist as a presumptive favorite, saying the decision is solely in the president's hand, which he has not revealed.

But supporters of several candidates continue to solicit White House officials, knowing last minute change-of-hearts can and do happen.

East Coast pedigree with a heartland touch

Gorsuch's name has been rising in recent weeks. His age (he turns 50 this summer, with the potential for a long tenure on the court), impeccable resume (Columbia/Harvard/Oxford and clerking for two Supreme Court justices), and creative legal writing are all seen as pluses.

The Colorado native received unanimous confirmation a decade ago to his current seat on the 10th Circuit U-S Court of Appeals.

An academic study from November comparing top court successors to Scalia -- based on judicial philosophy and textual approach-- put Gorsuch second among Trump's "List of 21" for his "Scalia-ness" props.

Gorsuch-- whose late mother was President Reagan's EPA administrator-- is praised (and tweaked) for an often conversational writing style-- using popular cultural references and grammatical contractions in explaining his views.

This 2012 gem on workplace injury liability: Carnival "haunted houses may be full of ghosts, goblins, and guillotines, but it's their more prosaic features that pose the real danger. Tyler Hodges found that out when an evening shift working the ticket booth ended with him plummeting down an elevator shaft. "

One concern for conservatives: he has never written an opinion dealing with the constitutional right to abortion, so his views there remain a wildcard.

But some legal scholars say Gorsuch's 2009 book questioning laws allowing assisted suicide makes parallels to a central question for anti-abortion supporters: the idea that intentional, legally-sanctioned ending of human life is wrong.

Former law clerks who spoke to Fox News on condition of anonymity cite his experience in the Bush Justice Department and, on the bench, a rigid adherence to "originalism"-- the judicial philosophy spearheaded by Scalia that judges should follow the Constitution's original text, not insert personal, evolving policy preferences.

His views on criminal law (including the death penalty), interstate commerce, and religious liberty match much of Scalia's jurisprudence.

Blue collar appeal

Judge Hardiman may have more humble personal roots, but his legal record is just as strong.

His supporters note he was the first in his family to attend college, and drove a taxi to finance his law school education. The fact he did not attend an Ivy League school (unlike every current member of the high court and Scalia) may appeal to Trump's stated populist sentiments.

Some commentators compare the 51-year-old avorably to Justice Samuel Alito in terms of personality and jurisprudence. Both served on the 3rd Circuit U-S Court of Appeals.

Among the issues the Massachusetts native has tackled include gun rights. In a ruling last year, he backed a decision that said non-violent felons enjoyed the right carry a weapon.

"Their crimes of conviction were nonviolent and that their personal circumstances are distinguishable from those of persons who do not enjoy Second Amendment rights because of their demonstrated proclivity for violence," he wrote, showing the measured, non-flashy language that is his trademark.

He also dissented in a court ruling upholding a New Jersey law that mandated potential gun owners show a "justifiable need" to carry a handgun in public. He said the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" extends beyond the home for self-protection.

One more thing might appeal to President Trump: respect for the separation of powers.

"I have no hesitation in applying a law regardless of what I might think about it," Hardiman said during his 2006 Senate confirmation. "I think any good judge recognizes his or her place in our constitutional government, and that place is not to upset the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives."

Senate support

If ideological "reliability" is the key presidential criteria to fill a high court vacancy, "confirmability" may be a close second, as the nominee must navigate a hyper-partisan Senate fueled by well-financed advocacy groups on both sides.

White House officials-- past and present-- typically do not publicly discuss the political calculus that goes into ensuring a successful confirmation. But privately, they admit weighing whether a future justice will be acceptable, with as little as controversy as possible-- the better to preserve political capital for other legislative and policy fights.

Legal advisers to President Barack Obama touted his "no drama" approach to most of his judicial picks.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan-- while carving clear liberal records-- have yet to display the sharp rhetorical elbows and bombastic charm Scalia employed for three decades on the court.

Conservatives are confident whoever is chosen, will ultimately prevail.

"A lot of the people who voted them in at the appellate level are still there, including people like [Democratic] senators [Dianne] Feinstein and [Charles] Schumer. People like then-senator Obama," Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, said. "These are people who at the time of their confirmation had bipartisan support, and now should have even more so because they have such long and stellar records on the bench."

JCN will be launching a $10 million national ad campaign to gather public support for the nominee.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....court.html
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7518
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My expectation of a GOP President with both house controlled by the GOP is a 50 year old version of Antonin Scalia.

Much like when the roles were revered we saw the Democrats appoint Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump names Judge Gorsuch as Supreme Court choice


Published January 31, 2017
· FoxNews.com


President Trump on Tuesday night announced federal Judge Neil Gorsuch as his choice for the Supreme Court, in his highest-profile nomination to date – and one sure to touch off a fierce Senate debate in the weeks ahead.

Touting his nominee's credentials and legal mind, the president said he was living up to his own vow during the campaign to nominate someone who respects the law and "loves" the Constitution.

"Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support," Trump said, noting he was confirmed unanimously to his current judicial post.

Gorsuch, 49, has served on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver for more than a decade.

Trump’s choice, if confirmed to the high court, would take the seat that has remained vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia died nearly a year ago. The nominee was among Trump’s original list of 21 potential choices circulated during the presidential campaign.

But Democrats are still smarting over Republicans’ refusal to consider then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, and some have vowed to retaliate by opposing Trump’s pick. Some are even talking about moving to filibuster – meaning they would require Trump’s nominee to garner 60 votes in the 100-member Senate.

In that case, Trump would need to find at least eight Democrats to join Republicans in supporting his pick.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has not at this stage committed to going that route, but he and his Democratic colleagues have been increasingly at odds with the Trump administration in the wake of Friday’s executive order on refugee and immigration policies.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called earlier Tuesday for the nominee to be treated fairly.

"What I would expect from our Democratic friends is the nominee be handled similarly to President Clinton's two nominees in his first term and President Obama's two nominees in his first term,” McConnell said.

But Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley has signaled he’s ready to fight, telling supporters the seat was stolen from Obama since his pick never got a vote, and saying he won’t be “complicit in this theft.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....hoice.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump's Supreme Court Pick Gorsuch: Champion of Small Gov't, Sided With Employers in Hobby Lobby Case


By Brittany De Lea Published January 31, 2017 White House FOXBusinessOpens a New Window.



President Donald Trump announced Tuesday night that Judge Neil Gorsuch is his pick to assume the ninth seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.



With a record demonstrating a strong commitment to traditional Republican values, Gorsuch was appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush. At 49 years old, Gorsuch would be the youngest Supreme Court Justice on the court in 25 years. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was the first female head of the Environmental Protection Agency, serving under President Ronald Reagan.

While his mother was a well-known critic of the federal government for being too big and restrictive of business, Gorsuch is a strong proponent of limiting the amount of deference granted to federal agencies by courts.

In Gorsuch’s expressed opinion, allowing government agencies to interpret the law means allowing them to change their minds. This, he believes, forces citizens to not only act in accordance with the agency’s current interpretation of the law, but also “remain alert to the possibility that the agency will reverse its current view 180 degrees anytime based merely on the shift of political winds.”

“He favors states’ rights and limited federal government and strict separation of powers,” lawyer Wendy Murphy told FOX Business.

Murphy points out this could be bad news for Trump’s executive order authority because “such an ideology disfavors executive orders.”

This perspective aligns Gorsuch with traditional conservative views of small government, perhaps even more so than Scalia. However, Gorsuch is a lot like Scalia in one important way, Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, told FOX Business.

“[Gorsuch] has a well thought out conception of Constitutional interpretation and the way that structure protects liberty. He’s most known for his opinions supporting religious liberty and pushing back on the administrative state,” he said.

Gorsuch is a protector of religious liberty. In Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, Judge Gorsuch ruled against the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which requires private employers to provide employees with insurance to cover contraceptive costs. Gorsuch sided with the companies, which argued the mandate violated their religious beliefs.

The big unknown is whether Senate Democrats will put up a fight during Gorsuch’s confirmation process, which requires a 60-vote majority. President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court nearly one year ago when Scalia passed. Republicans refused to consider Garland at the time.

Constitutional law expert at Pate & Johnson, Page Pate, said he expects Democrats will make an effort to block Gorsuch, and would’ve tried to block any Trump pick.

Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has promised on multiple occasions to keep Scalia’s seat open indefinitely if Trump’s nominee is “not bipartisan and mainstream.”

For the last three successful Supreme Court appointments, the confirmation process took an average of 78 days from the time of nomination.

As previously reported by FOX Business, Trump’s mark on the Supreme Court could extend well beyond this singular vacancy.Opens a New Window. Since 1960, the average age of a Justice who has left the bench is 78. Currently there are three sitting members of the court who are at least 78; Ruth Bader Ginsburg (83), Anthony Kennedy (80) and Stephen Breyer (78).

http://www.foxbusiness.com/pol.....-case.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
My expectation of a GOP President with both house controlled by the GOP is a 50 year old version of Antonin Scalia.

Much like when the roles were revered we saw the Democrats appoint Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.



it will be interesting to see where this process goes next ? Neil Gorsuch seems like a fairly safe pick for trump . one for which there isn't a lot of reasons for the democrats to go all out and try and block , although they might try and block him anyways or try and block any trump picks
but it may backfire if people don't see a credible reason for the individual to not be on the supreme court
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7518
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
My expectation of a GOP President with both house controlled by the GOP is a 50 year old version of Antonin Scalia.

Much like when the roles were revered we saw the Democrats appoint Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.



it will be interesting to see where this process goes next ? Neil Gorsuch seems like a fairly safe pick for trump . one for which there isn't a lot of reasons for the democrats to go all out and try and block , although they might try and block him anyways or try and block any trump picks
but it may backfire if people don't see a credible reason for the individual to not be on the supreme court


I think they will try and block him if only for the reason that he would be the second most Conservative Justice behind Justice Thomas.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
RCO wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
My expectation of a GOP President with both house controlled by the GOP is a 50 year old version of Antonin Scalia.

Much like when the roles were revered we saw the Democrats appoint Sonia Sotomayor in 2009.



it will be interesting to see where this process goes next ? Neil Gorsuch seems like a fairly safe pick for trump . one for which there isn't a lot of reasons for the democrats to go all out and try and block , although they might try and block him anyways or try and block any trump picks
but it may backfire if people don't see a credible reason for the individual to not be on the supreme court


I think they will try and block him if only for the reason that he would be the second most Conservative Justice behind Justice Thomas.


this quote from Marco Rubio pretty much sums it all up as to the left's view of trump and the new republican controlled era in Washington



Marco Rubio ‏@marcorubio · 57m57 minutes ago

Many Democratic colleagues tell me they have heavy pressure from left wing radicals to oppose everything even before they know what it is
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the republicans and democrats are both digging in for a fight over this appointment , one has to really wonder why as there is far worse options trump could of picked , the reality is trump is not going to put a hard core liberal on the supreme court like Obama did and realistically I'm not sure the democrats can expect the other potential options to me much better in there view )


Supreme Court

Pelosi rips Trump's SCOTUS pick, as Republicans weigh 'nuclear option'



Adam Shaw

By Adam Shaw
·Published February 01, 2017
· FoxNews.com



House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi launched into a blistering attack on President Trump’s Supreme Court pick Tuesday, accusing Judge Neil Gorsuch of being hostile to everything from clean air to children with autism – a hint of likely Democratic resistance, as some Republicans eye a potential “nuclear option.”

Trump nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, choosing an originalist judge seen by supporters to be in the mold of the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, whose death in February 2016 opened up the spot Gorsuch is now seeking to fill.

Pelosi made her pointed remarks during a CNN town hall, in which she called Gorsuch “a very hostile appointment” and “well outside the mainstream of American legal thought.”

"If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision," she said.

“What saddens me the most as a mom and a grandmother, though, is his hostility toward children in school, children with autism,” Pelosi said. “He has ruled that they don’t have the same rights under the [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] that they could reach their intellectual and social advancement under the law — he has said that doesn’t apply to them.”

Pelosi does not get a say in Gorsuch’s confirmation, which is handled by the Senate, but her scathing remarks are a possible indicator of the hostility Gorsuch is likely to face. Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have already expressed their opposition to the pick.


The potential Democratic opposition to the pick has some Senate Republicans digging in for a tough confirmation fight, including a possible change of Senate rules to lower the threshold for confirmation, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, warning that “all procedural options are on the table.”

"The Democrats are not going to succeed in filibustering the Supreme Court nominee," Cruz told Politico.

On "Fox & Friends" Wednesday, Cruz said that a Gorsuch pick was exactly what the American people wanted.

“This election was in a very real sense a referendum on this seat,” he said. “I think the American people made that decision on Election Day and there’s a mandate coming out of the election.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who will be key in deciding if there is an effort to block Gorsuch, said Tuesday that “the burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the Executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans.” However, he added he has “serious doubts” as to whether Gorsuch can do this, as he called for setting a 60-vote bar for confirmation.

Republicans hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate, meaning if Democrats filibuster, Republicans may struggle to find the eight Democrats needed to get the 60 votes needed to break it.

But this opens Democrats up to accusations of obstructionism, and also could push the Republicans to use the “nuclear option” to change the rules to blunt the filibuster – something then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did for lower court nominees in 2013.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not say whether he'd use the "nuclear option" in an interview with Fox News, but said: “We’re going to get the judge confirmed.”


Senate majority leader urges Democrats to give Gorsuch an up or down vote

While Republicans did not block President Barack Obama’s nominations of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, they did refuse to hold hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, whom Obama picked to fill the Scalia seat in 2016. They argued that a Supreme Court pick should not be made in an election year.

This has, in turn, led some Democrats to call for outright obstructionism to Gorsuch in response.

Dan Pfeiffer, a former Obama adviser, tweeted late Tuesday that Dems should “treat Trump’s SCOTUS pick with the exact same courtesy” they showed Garland. “Don’t flinch, don’t back down” he said.

The New York Times editorial board also cited the Garland controversy in its opinion piece, calling Gorsuch “the nominee for a stolen seat.”

Other Democrats have urged caution, with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., noting that “we have a responsibility to do our jobs as elected officials.”

“Just as I have all along, I urge my colleagues to put partisan politics aside and allow the vetting process to proceed,” he said in a statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....ption.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Supreme Court

Conservatives hail Trump's Supreme Court pick

By Samuel Chamberlain
·Published February 01, 2017
· FoxNews.com


Republican lawmakers and conservative groups hailed President Trump's nomination of federal appeals judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court Tuesday night, even as Democrats questioned whether the nominee has sufficient "respect for constitutional values of liberty, equality and justice for all."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who kept the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat open through the presidential election, said Trump had made "an outstanding decision."

"Like Justice Scalia, [Gorsuch] understands the constitutional limits on the authority of a federal judge and that the duty of a judge is to apply the law even-handedly, without fear or favor, and not to rule based on one’s empathy with a party in a case," McConnell said in a statement.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Trump had "fulfilled his [campaign] pledge to nominate a judge who has a demonstrated loyalty to the Constitution and a strong commitment to life." Ryan added that Gorsuch was a "phemonenal" choice by the president.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who unsuccessfully challenged Trump for the Republican nomination last year, echoed the speaker, saying that Trump had satisifed his promise, "and the rule of law will be all the better for it."

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., a frequent critic of Trump, tweeted his approval of the nomination, calling Gorsuch "a tremendous pick."

By contrast, and in an apparent preview of the bitter confirmation fight ahead, the Democratic National Committee said Gorsuch's nomination "raises some very serious questions about whether he would be a Supreme Court Justice who believes the Constitution protects all of us, not just the wealthy, and whether he can approach each case with an open mind to make fair decisions based on the merits."

The DNC statement questioned whether the nominee has the "utmost respect" for constitutional values.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he was "skeptical that [Gorsuch] can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court." Schumer added that Gorsuch had previously "sided with corporations over working people [and] demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., went even further, saying Gorsuch's nomination was "a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have a fundamental right to Constitutional liberties, and harkens back to the days when politicians restricted a people’s rights on a whim.

"No Senator who believes that individual rights are reserved to the people, and not the government, can support this nomination," Wyden added.

The nomination of Gorsuch was also praised by several conservative groups. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, described the judge as "distinguished jurist with a strong record of protecting life and religious liberty, as evidenced by his opinions in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases."

Tea Party Patriots President Jenny Beth Martin added that Gorsuch "has a distinguished record that demonstrates he will be fair to all Americans, no matter their background or beliefs."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....-pick.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sean Hannity: Trump's Supreme Court pick is a home run, and a promise kept


Sean Hannity

By Sean Hannity
·Published February 01, 2017
· FoxNews.com


President Trump's choice of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court is yet another example of the new commander-in-chief keeping promises to the American people.

Trump announced the choice in a prime time appearance, and noted that Gorsuch’s impeccable resume and originalist approach to the Constitution showed he was following through on his campaign pledge, a novel concept in Washington.

“When Justice Scalia passed away suddenly last February, I made a promise to the American people,” Trump said. “If I were elected president, I would find the very best judge in the country for the Supreme Court.

“Today, I am keeping another promise to the American people by nominating Judge Neil Gorsuchm” he also said.

During the campaign, I asked then-candidate Trump several times what he was looking for in a justice. He said above all, he wanted a justice who will strictly adhere to the original meaning of the words of the Constitution. And he offered up a list of several accomplished jurists who fit that bill and checked other boxes he believed were crucial.

“I want great intellect,” he said. “These people are all of very high, high intellect. They're pro-life.”

President Trump was adamant about nominating a justice who believes in coequal branches of government, separation of powers, not somebody who will legislate from the bench, who will read and interpret the U.S. Constitution the way our Founding Fathers and framers intended.

Judge Gorsuch is only 49 years old. He clerked for several prominent judges, including Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. In 2006, he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where he currently serves, and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a unanimous voice vote.

Judge Gorsuch is also known for being a strong defender of religious liberty. In his key rulings, he sided with Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor in their case against the Obama administration's contraception mandate.

Consider what he said on originalism during a lecture about Justice Antonin Scalia just last year.

“It seems to me that an assiduous focus on text, structure and history is essential to being a good judge,” he told law students at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “That, yes, judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own views, always with an eye on the outcome, engaged, perhaps, in some Benthamite calculation of pleasures and pains along the way.”

An originalist, intellectual and patriot for the Supreme Court. And a home run for President Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....-kept.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

It will be only the second time in modern history that the Senate has mounted a filibuster against a nominee.

By Burgess Everett
| 01/30/17 12:05 PM EST
| Updated 01/30/17 03:02 PM EST


Senate Democrats are going to try to bring down President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick no matter who the president chooses to fill the current vacancy.

With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

.
“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”

It’s a move that will prompt a massive partisan battle over Trump’s nominee and could lead to an unraveling of the Senate rules if Merkley is able to get 41 Democrats to join him in a filibuster. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also reminded her Twitter followers on Sunday night that Supreme Court nominees can still be blocked by the Senate minority, unlike all other executive and judicial nominees.

Any senator can object to swift approval of a nominee and require a supermajority. Asked directly whether he would do that, Merkley replied: “I will definitely object to a simple majority” vote.


By Nolan D. McCaskill and Matthew Nussbaum


Merkley's party leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, has said he will fight "tooth and nail" any nominee who isn't "mainstream."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer responded to Democrats' plans by blaming them for playing "political games" and sending a "sad message" about how they will treat Trump's nominees — though he did not address the GOP's treatment of Garland, which is viewed by Democrats as a precedent-changing political tactic.

"Before they've even heard who this individual is, you've got some of them saying, absolutely no," Spicer said. "The default used to be, unless qualified, confirmed. And it is now going to, always no. And I think that's a pretty sad message."

It would be only the second time in modern history that the Senate has mounted a filibuster against a nominee. Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, tried to block the confirmation of Samuel Alito in 2006 but failed. Obama’s Supreme Court nominees each received more than 60 votes, but Republicans did not require a supermajority or the procedural vote that Merkley will demand.

Republicans immediately dinged Merkley as a hypocrite for being a leading advocate of changing the Senate rules four years ago.

"When Democrats were in the majority, Sen. Merkley wanted to end filibusters. But I guess he only meant when Democrats are in the majority and in control of the White House," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Democratic stance dashes McConnell's hopes to return to the tradition of not filibustering Supreme Court nominees. In an interview with POLITICO on Friday, McConnell said the “practice was that you didn’t do it even though the tool is in the toolbox.”

“There are a lot of tools in there. Until Bush 43, the filibuster tool was always there. But it wasn’t done,” McConnell said. “Two good examples: There was no filibuster against [Robert] Bork and, of course, the most controversial Supreme Court nomination ever was Clarence Thomas. Democrats were in the majority; he was approved 52-48.”


But McConnell blocked Garland from even having a hearing for nearly a year during the end of Obama’s presidency, and Democrats have not forgotten his unprecedented blockade. They’ve been lining up party-line votes against some of Trump’s Cabinet nominees — and now, Democrats like Merkley are laying the groundwork to halt the only nominee that they have ultimate leverage over.

“A very large number of my colleagues will be opposed,” Merkley said.

POLITICO has reported the leading contenders for the nomination are Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They were confirmed to appeals courts without a dissenting vote, though Democrats are sure to treat them more harshly after Garland's nomination stalled for months.

McConnell is loath to change the rules of the Senate to allow confirmation of Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority but has not said explicitly what he would do if Democrats block Trump’s nominee. The Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority using the so-called "nuclear option" — last invoked by former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to ease the confirmation of Obama's judicial and executive nominees.



The Kentucky Republican told POLITICO that it’s up to Democrats where the Senate rules go — but also guaranteed Trump’s nominee will be confirmed, an implicit threat that if at least eight Democrats don’t get on board, there could be a unilateral rules change.

“We’re going to get this nominee confirmed. I hope he or she will be confirmed based upon the completely outstanding credentials that we’re going to see,” McConnell said. The nominee "hopefully will be treated the way such a nominee would have been treated as recently as Bush 43.”

Trump has made clear he wants McConnell to go nuclear if Merkley and other liberal Democrats are successful in blocking his high court pick's nomination.

http://www.politico.com/story/.....ick-234368
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Democrats and liberal activists face uphill battle against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch

Supreme Court Nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch Meets Senators On Capitol Hill


Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch visits Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

(Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

David G. SavageBy David G. Savage•Contact Reporter

February 1, 2017, 4:00 PM |Reporting from Washington



Liberal activists and Senate Democrats on Wednesday launched what is likely to be a protracted battle to block President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, focusing on how his conservative views could threaten women’s rights, gay marriage and church-state separation.

But Gorsuch has not given Democrats much to work with. He hasn’t ruled directly on cases involving abortion and gay rights, and he won Senate confirmation a decade ago on a voice vote with no opposition.



Opponents have been focusing on Gorsuch’s ruling on religious liberties, which they warn could be used by some as a legal rationale for discrimination.

“We absolutely must not confirm a Supreme Court nominee who has ruled that religious beliefs can trump law,” said Rachel Tiven, chief executive of Lambda Legal in New York, a gay rights advocacy group. “It is a short hop from birth control restrictions to restrictions on intimate relationships and healthcare needs of LGBT people.”



Gorsuch, who serves on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, ruled in favor of exempting religious employers from having to provide female workers with the full range of contraceptives, as required under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. He said the owners of the Hobby Lobby craft store chain — who objected to certain methods of contraception — had a right to invoke their religious beliefs to obtain an exemption. Otherwise, he said, they believed they would be complicit in wrongdoing.

He relied on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government may not put a “substantial burden” on a person’s exercise of religion. The Supreme Court agreed with his ruling in 2014.

In October, when the 10th Circuit blocked Utah’s governor from cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood, Gorsuch dissented. The governor had claimed that secretly recorded and heavily edited videos showed workers discussing “selling fetus body parts for money.” A federal judge and the 10th Circuit majority concluded those charges were false and did not justify the funding cutoff.

Gorsuch said the majority acted too quickly and without looking at all the facts. The governor cut off the funding “in direct response to the videos. And it is undisputed that the governor was free as a matter of law to suspend the funding in question for this reason,” he wrote.

In mobilizing the effort against Gorsuch, abortion rights advocates point out that Trump promised to appoint only “pro-life” justices who would overturn the right to abortion.

“With a clear record of supporting an agenda that undermines abortion access and endangers women, there is no doubt that Gorsuch is a direct threat to Roe vs. Wade and the promise it holds for women’s equality,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

But unlike Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, once the front-runner to become Trump’s first high court nominee, Gorsuch does not have a track record of explosive statements, such as Pryor’s comment that the landmark abortion ruling Roe vs. Wade was an “abomination.”

And Gorsuch, 49, is a well-liked, congenial jurist with a knack for saying the right thing and an ability to charm skeptics.

In accepting Trump’s nomination at the White House on Tuesday night, he praised the Senate — which must now confirm his appointment — as the “greatest deliberative body in the world.”

Shortly after that, he reportedly placed a call — out of respect — to Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the same seat, whom the GOP-led Senate had refused to even consider for nearly a year.

Democrats remain bitter over what they now see as a stolen Supreme Court seat, and are not inclined to go easy on Gorsuch.

But some senators expressed a willingness to consider him. “Let’s give the man a chance,” Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) said Wednesday on the MSNBC show “Morning Joe.”

Still, many Senate Democrats voiced concern Wednesday over Trump’s nominee.

“Judge Gorsuch has a long record, and it will take time to conduct a thorough review,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Judge Gorsuch voted twice to deny contraceptive coverage to women, elevating a corporation’s religious belief over women’s healthcare.”

Gorsuch has also shown a deep interest in cases involving religion. The 1st Amendment says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And since the 1940s, the court has said those religious guarantees extend to state and localities.


Gorsuch wrote sharp dissents in recent years when the 10th Circuit decided the display of religious symbols on public property amounted to an unconstitutional “establishment of religion.”

This has been a recurring subject of dispute in the high court for decades, and the justices have been unable to agree on clear rules.

In one case, the 10th Circuit ruled that a small town in Oklahoma must remove a monument displaying the Ten Commandments. In another, the court ruled that Utah authorities may not allow the privately funded Utah Highway Patrol Assn. to erect white crosses along the highway to honor troopers killed in the line of duty.

Gorsuch said both decisions were wrong, and he faulted his colleagues for viewing any religious symbol as proof of the government’s endorsement of religion. He noted the Supreme Court in 2005 had upheld the display of the Ten Commandments among other monuments on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol. This was known as the Van Orden case.

“Now we have become the only circuit since Van Orden to order the removal of memorial highway crosses to fallen public servants,” he wrote in dissent in American Atheists vs. Davenport. “Thus, the pattern is clear: we will strike down laws other courts would uphold, and do so whenever a reasonably biased, impaired and distracted viewer might confuse them for an endorsement of religion.”

Advocates of church-state separation described Gorsuch’s views as “extreme” and said they “make him unfit for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court.”


“Our nation needs a Supreme Court justice who respects real religious freedom and appreciates the role church-state separation plays in protecting the rights of all Americans, religious and nonreligious,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

http://www.latimes.com/politic.....story.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senate Dems Ramp Up Opposition to Trump Nominees


By James Arkin & Caitlin Huey-Burns
RCP Staff
January 31, 2017

Senate Dems Ramp Up Opposition to Trump Nominees


Congressional Democrats have launched into full hardball mode. Fueled by a newly energized liberal base, lawmakers are ratcheting up their opposition to President Trump and embracing obstructionist tactics they once decried by delaying votes on remaining Cabinet nominees, boycotting committee votes, and debating a filibuster for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court.

Several progressive senators, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Ohio's Sherrod Brown, both of whom face re-election in 2018, announced their opposition to Gorsuch within hours of the announcement, and progressive groups began fundraising off promises to mount a blockade of the court seat.

The hard-line tactics are unlikely to outright block any of Trump’s nominees, who can be confirmed on the strength of Republican votes alone, but they show a willingness by Democrats to be more confrontational and use the slow-moving nature of the Senate to their advantage as they express frustration with Trump’s Cabinet selections and his early executive actions.

But they also face a decision over how deep to dig in their heels after Trump nominated Gorsuch to the high court Tuesday night. While grassroots organizers and protesters are calling for total defiance to Trump, some lawmakers still have hope for some bipartisan consensus where possible. And while Democrats don’t have the numbers to prevent the confirmation of a Cabinet nominee, they do have the power to block that of a new Supreme Court justice.

“I’m prepared to shatter precedents in order to make it clear we are not going to stand for what Trump is doing,” said Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy. Later, in a reference to Republicans’ treatment last year of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, who didn’t receive a hearing or a vote, Murphy added, “[Republicans] broke all the precedents of the past. They need to own that. I’m going to take a look at this nominee, but they made a decision to politicize the Supreme Court process and ultimately, they’ll have to own that."


Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, cautioned that while the liberal grassroots were calling for total opposition, he and other lawmakers were searching for a more nuanced approach.

"Some of the folks in my base don’t want me to vote yes on anyone,” Durbin said. “But I’m not going to take that position, and most Democrats won’t take that position. We are going to try to find a reasonable position.”

Still, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted a hearing to consider Treasury Department nominee Steve Mnuchin and Health and Human Services nominee Rep. Tom Price, forcing the committee to delay until Wednesday, prompting Chairman Orrin Hatch to label Democrats “idiots.” And New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, used a rare floor tactic to block committee meetings in the afternoon, delaying the vote on the attorney general nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions.

“Our confrontational attitude is in response to Donald Trump’s confrontational attitude,” said Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts.


Still, there were gaps in Democrats’ opposition Tuesday: the Senate confirmed Elaine Chao, Trump’s pick for Transportation Department secretary, by a 93-6 vote (Schumer voted against her), and a Senate committee advanced the nominations of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to be Energy Department secretary and Rep. Ryan Zinke to head the Department of the Interior with some bipartisan support.

Democrats’ hard-nose tactics followed protests last week and over the weekend to Trump’s initial actions as president, and some progressive groups have pushed elected officials to aggressively counter Trump’s every move. Still, most Senate Democrats said they weren’t feeling constituent pressure, but were rather reacting to nominees they viewed as flawed and more controversial than the ones who have already been confirmed with bipartisan support.

“The protests and the actions from Democratic senators are mirrors of each other,” Murphy said. “I don’t think one is pushing the other. Both Democratic senators and those protesting outside are recognizing the gravity of this moment. This is an exceptional moment in which we have to be united in pushing back against this destructive and hateful agenda.”

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, the party’s vice presidential candidate in 2016, said Democratic leaders weren’t feeling pressure from the grassroots, but were “excited,” pointing out they have organized some of the rallies against Trump, while others, including the women’s marches after Inauguration Day, were organic.

“You can never say the word ‘lockstep’ in a sentence that has the word ‘Democrats’ in it. We are anti-lockstep people,” Kaine said when asked about Senate Democrats and protesters. “There’s going to be some differences of opinion. But it’s great … We view this as exactly what we hope to see. We hope we’ll keep seeing it because we’re going to have to stay together.”

Though Democrats haven’t shied away from opposing some Cabinet nominations, the bigger question will be how to approach the confirmation fight over Supreme Court nominee.

If Democrats filibuster, they could trigger a rules change that would clear the way for other conservative justices down the road in Trump’s term, and it could spark a furious reaction from the president.

But while there are reasons to carefully consider how to handle the pick — including preserving the filibuster — there will be immense pressure to block Gorsuch. The swift negative reaction to the nominee by Warren, Brown and other Democrats will further embolden progressive groups that were likely to push senators to go to the mat regardless of who was chosen. Neera Tanden, who was a close adviser to Hillary Clinton and leads the Center for American Progress, wrote a memo suggesting the nominee should have the broad, bipartisan support of a minimum of 66 senators, above any past standard. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, sent a fundraising email promising opposition immediately after the nomination was announced.

“We will march. We will protest. We will launch events. We will run TV ads. We will elevate the stories of Gorsuch’s victims. And we will insist that Democrats in Congress fight with backbone,” he wrote in the email.

The pressure is likely to focus on some of the red-state Democrats up for re-election in 2018: West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly. Some in the party, frustrated by the treatment of President Obama’s last high court nominee, want a full-scale opposition to any Trump pick. But several of the red-state senators indicated they would evaluate the person carefully, and not pursue a wholesale blockade.

“I’m not going in with a filibuster mentality. If he puts forth a good person, we’ll wait and see on that,” Tester said Monday.

“I don’t think two wrongs make a right,” Manchin said, referring to the GOP’s refusal to consider Garland last year, “so I’m not partaking in that at all.”

Manchin reiterated his stance after Trump announced Gorsuch’s nomination, calling on Democrats to evaluate him on his qualifications. "Just as I have all along, I urge my colleagues to put partisan politics aside and allow the vetting process to proceed.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....32954.html
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6712
Reputation: 239.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( this poll didn't find much opposition to trumps pick other than from the radical left )

86% See Gorsuch Confirmation As Likely


in Politics

.
Monday, February 06, 2017

Voters are more supportive of President Trump’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court than they were initially for either of President Obama’s choices and strongly suspect that Judge Neil Gorsuch will be the next Supreme Court justice.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters believe, based upon what they know at this time, that the U.S. Senate should confirm Gorsuch for the Supreme Court seat left vacant last year by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Only 29% disagree, while 20% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 2 and 5, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co....._as_likely
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Trump to name supreme court pick

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB