Trump's SCOTUS

[Speaker to Animals]

They can only drag the process out. They can't actually stop it. It will become even worse for them when they lose more seats in the Midterm and Trump replaces Ginsberg and maybe Kennedy.

Democrats lost big time last year. They kept saying elections have consequences.. well.. here are the consequences!

[The Conservative]

They can only drag the process out. They can't actually stop it. It will become even worse for them when they lose more seats in the Midterm and Trump replaces Ginsberg and maybe Kennedy.

Democrats lost big time last year. They kept saying elections have consequences.. well.. here are the consequences!

Oh please stop... to see the party of the KKK get their asses handed to them, makes me very, very happy.

[Fife]

McArdle sees it about like I have been. Gorsuch is not the battlespace that helps DNC Senators facing 2018 elections in red states. Let's see where the endgame takes us.

Liberals Will Not Like How This Revenge Plot Ends

It seems unlikely that McConnell would refrain from blowing away the filibuster if Democrats keep this up. But even if he did, Trump could simply keep sending nominees to the Senate, and force them filibuster each in turn. Democrats will have a large and attentive audience as they proudly state that they will not allow any conservative to take a seat on the Supreme Court under any circumstances, which is unlikely to draw rave reviews ahead of midterm elections that already look kind of bad for Democrats.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

We shall fight them in the halls; we shall fight them in the chambers; we shall fight them on the benches; we shall fight them on the hill....
Sir, we have met they enemy, and we have bad news.

[Speaker to Animals]

They have to die on this hill. Their base demands it. We could realistically be looking at the beginning of the end to Roe v. Wade here.

Ginsberg next.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

They're just bringing Iphigenia to the seaside. They've got nothing on this guy. Another hill might serve them better; but their strategy (if it could be termed as such) seems to be skirmish everywhere about everything: resist, resist, resist! Protesters were gathered outside the Supreme Court before Trump even announced his pick--they were ready to protest anyone--the stupidity is overwhelming.
Who's in charge?

[Speaker to Animals]

Who's in charge?

Ultimately, that would be Satan as far as I can tell.

[Fife]

You all know what they say about going Full Jacobin....

Ask Danton; it's hard to back gracefully away from “Il nous faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"


I'm interested to see if these red state D Senators will go Full Retard, I mean Jacobin for Chuckles the Crocodile Clown.

[Fife]

I'm looking forward to the confirmation hearings.

If anybody is interested in some homework beforehand, think about the 9th, 10th, 14th amendments, Roe, and a dude named Finnis.


:goteam:

THE GORSUCH CONFIRMATION AND THE FINNIS CONNECTION

In addition to having a law degree from Harvard, it is notable that Gorsuch also took a leave from his lucrative law practice to attend Oxford University to earn a Ph.D under the direction of John Finnis. Never heard of John Finnis? I predict you will in the confirmation hearings. And the likelihood is that Democrats will make fools of themselves, or at the very least unwittingly reveal their essential contempt for the American Founding, and the only question is whether Gorsuch, who appears to be a gentleman of the first order, will restrain himself from embarrassing them out of the political calculus of merely wanting to get to a confirmation vote with the least amount of controversy.

A Revived 9th Amendment At Supreme Court?

On the other hand, 9th Amendment law professor Randy Barnett suggests that a layman’s reading of the words of the 9th Amendment is most reliable. That may also be true. But there are many laymen. Barnett points us to “natural rights”, but aside from they being innumerable are also subject to selection or contention as to whether there are any. Others point to any individual rights that existed in each state prior to joining the Union. But many were not listed, are arcane, or not applicable to many of today’s issues, aside from many state restrictions on individual freedoms unacceptable today. I particularly point the reader to Randy Barnett’s law journal argument (download here), and to Kurt Lash’s two-part exploration of the “lost” history and jurisprudence of the 9th Amendment (Part 1 history, Part 2 jurisprudence). There are disagreements but a commonality that we have paid too little attention to the 9th and that it may and should today more enter into judicial decisions, as it did before the New Deal.

[Fife]

This is the Dawning of the Age of Finnis!

Hail!

:goteam:

5 Things to Know About the Neil Gorsuch Hearing

All the previous story lines in this thread are in play. Now we have John Elway in the mix.... on official letterhead!

Good times incoming this morning.