# Political - Supreme Court Nominee??



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

What are peoples thoughts on this?

Here is an article from MSN this morning....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP



> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) panned President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, calling him a "hostile appointment."
> 
> "This is a very bad decision, well outside the mainstream of American political thought," she said of newly minted nominee Neil Gorsuch during a CNN town hall Tuesday. "It's a very hostile appointment."
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now with this article and what Nancy and Warren are doing (as per this article) are the democrats just being "spiteful"?

Please let me explain.... I had no problems with what happened this fall when Obama and congress was trying to get their nomination in place as the Republicans "blocked" it. My reason was because it was an election year with many spots up for re-election that could sway votes. It was like a "hurry up lets get this done" type thing. If the situation was reversed... I wouldn't have been screaming foul. I would agree with that in principle.

Now with Pelosi and Warren.... (per this article)... they didn't say why this is a bad choice or why this is a "hostile" appointment.... please give the public reasons why he is a bad choice other than he was nominated by Trump and this is "payback" for this fall. Again as this article is written.

Please read this quote and let me know if I'm missing something...



> "This is a very bad decision, well outside the mainstream of American political thought," she said of newly minted nominee Neil Gorsuch during a CNN town hall Tuesday. "It's a very hostile appointment."
> 
> "Elections have ramifications and here is a living, breathing representation of it," added Pelosi.


Also shouldn't Congress work together???



> The president's choice sets up a nasty confirmation fight between Democrats and Republicans


Finally.... doesn't this make sense to have the court of all courts have a balance of justices.... Wouldn't that make sense??



> Gorsuch would fill out a Supreme Court evenly split between conservatives and liberals if confirmed.


Again I would like others comments on this. I don't know anything about this nomination at all. So if someone has insight on why he is poor please share. Other than he is a Republican.... :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

an article with some bullet points on this nomiee:

1. Mother was the first administrator of the EPA... So I would think he would care about the environment.
2. He clerked for 2 supreme court justices
3. He had 11 clerks go on and clerk for other supreme court justices
4. He wrote a book on the "ethics" of assisted suicide and that view was opposing assisted suicide.

So far I don't see anything too alarming or "HOSTILE".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gorsuch in the supreme court is proof that prayer works. 

I mixed thoughts about what the democrats are doing. I think it's childish, but on the other hand they are exposing themselves to the American people what they are truly like: spoiled brats. I have people tell me they are independent then go on to tell me how nasty conservatives are and how much nicer their liberal friends are. If you believe that I have some swamp land for sale.

Gorsuch is in and there is nothing the democrats can do to stop it. All they can do is exhibit childish behavior for the people to see. Maybe that's a good thing. I think they are guaranteeing more losses in the senate next election. So have at it fools. On the other hand I sometimes think the republicans should just go for the nuclear action to begin with and just skip over the brats. Why give them a chance to attack and trash the man. I am sure that they had speeches all ready to go no matter who Trump nominated. They just needed to fill in the blank once they knew who that was.

If you're liberal you will try to hurt people that don't agree with you. Liberals in Hollywood and on the football field etc speak out with little repercussions, but let a person say they support Trump and they will try to ruin them.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Wholeheartedly agree with you Plainsman. Although I cannot comprehend the protests and how many liberals are completely coming unhinged, I hope they keep it up. They are driving away the commensense, middle of the road, conservative democrats. Unions are now on board with republicans if you can believe it!! Keep shakin the tree and watchin the nuts fall out I say. These first few days of Trumps presidency have been rather enjoyable, watching some people's heads explode until they are a quivering, babbling mass of liberal goo.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

It's a hostile appointment because he won't work to further the liberal agenda. They do not want fair and balanced, they want things tipped in their favor so that they can force their beliefs on the rest of us and we can't do anything about it. They're not getting their way so they react the only way they know how, tantrums and name calling.

It's really quite fun to watch, and sickening at the same time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The left has such radical agendas that much of it they can't get through Congress. They rely on the appointment of radical activist judges. If you don't believe that try finding separation of church and state in the constitution. It isn't there, and evident to the common man with no advanced law degree. Obama care is not a tax and therefore unconstitutional. Our forefathers would not have granted same sex marriage, much less put it in the constitution.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> What are peoples thoughts on this?
> 
> Here is an article from MSN this morning....
> 
> ...


----------

