The Question Gorsuch Needs to be asked.

Teflon Don said:
Poor Obama didn't get his way. The democrats knew what was at stake during the election. Many of us, me included only supported Trump because of the court. And so far I am grateful I did. Now just need Kennedy to retire and Ginsberg/Breyer to die. Don't see either one retiring now. Of course health may force them out.
Click to expand...

The CIA could get them down on the Texas/Mexican border and tell everyone they died in their sleep (wink, wink)....and then burn the corpse to ashes void of any type of autopsy or cause of death other than NATURAL.

wikileaks has not been proven to present any false data to date, as he releases the verified communications of others. The nail in the coffin so to speak. The evil that is the communist left will do anything to gain and retain political power to kill the US from within...like a slow growing cancer that metastasizes throughout the body that is the United States of America.


http://truepundit.com/podesta-email...preme-court-justice-scalias-suspicious-death/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't and I don't understand the relevance of your question as we're not talking about Senate rules but a Constitutional requirement and a strict originalists interpretation of that requirement.
Click to expand...

Does the ORIGINAL Constitution give a time frame for when a up or down consideration should occur?
 
anatta said:
why would a SCOTUS appointee need to comment on Senate procedure?
It was the Biden rule in play ( no nominations in the last year of a POTUS term) -
but Gorsuch-nor any SCOTUS member- has no say on the matter.
Click to expand...
Because it's not a Senate procedure. It's a constitutional requirement and SCOTUS justices get to adjudicate those.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't blame you wing nuts for getting your panties in a wad cause it will be very embarrassing for Gorsuch to have to answer this question. I can't wait. He'll either prove a hypocrite or he'll seriously damage his own legitimacy. Not to mention you wingnuts will wet your panties and cry "that's not fair!". LOL LOL LOL

I can't wait as this will be hilarious. :)
Click to expand...

What's hilarious is watching the party who, when their VP was a Senator, twist to try and claim "it's different".

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because it's not a Senate procedure. It's a constitutional requirement and SCOTUS justices get to adjudicate those.
Click to expand...
well it would have to get to SCOTUS for a ruling-SCOTUS is not going to just jump in on powers issues without a case.
Reading the Constitution also shows no timeline -so there is no enumerated requirement to do it in the last year.

Ideally I'd like to see a lot more cooperation and less gaming between the Partys - but we're past that opportunity with hyper-partisanship ruling DC
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't blame you wing nuts for getting your panties in a wad cause it will be very embarrassing for Gorsuch to have to answer this question. I can't wait. He'll either prove a hypocrite or he'll seriously damage his own legitimacy. Not to mention you wingnuts will wet your panties and cry "that's not fair!". LOL LOL LOL

I can't wait as this will be hilarious. :)
Click to expand...

Really?

That is what you think will happen? Like Grind said, it is a silly question that is easily swatted away


"Senator it is appropriate for me to comment on Senate rules. Separation of powers dictates I should not have an opinion"

Game. Set. Match.

Liberals really are outclassed. Trump is running circles around you.
 
Ralph said:
What's the difficulty is pointing at the 10th article of the states bill of rights? The right to CONSENT to an appointment of a supreme court justices rests entirely with the senate. There is no requirement other than to advise and consent....the senate advised the executive branch to wait until the election process was over in order to give the people a voice in the appointment. The executive branch has no authority to demand the senate to do anything in relation to such an appointment...if that authority exists...point out the section and clause......SILENCE from the constitution, thus....the 10th speaks loud and clear, that power which is not authorized in writing in the constitution belongs to the people/states...i.e., the peoples representatives in this representative republic.

TRADITION you say? The lunatic left demands an adherence to tradition in one breath and claims the tradition of not appointing seats in an election year does not count. Typical hypocrisy.....thus, the Senate advised the executive branch to GO TO HELL.

This is what the lunatic left had to say when the shoe was on the other political foot: Notice how the communist USA senator Biden advises the executive branch in relation to a 'possible' court appointment 18 months removed from an election.

Click to expand...

When the Republicans do what Biden said would be OK to do, suddenly it's wrong in the eyes of the left.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Senate Democrats need to ask Judge Gorsuch the following question posed by Alan Dershowitz;

What is his opinion on Republicans actions regarding Merrick Garland's nomination?
Click to expand...

I might phrase it like this "What is your opinion of former Vice President Biden's assertion that in a presidential election year, outgoing presidents should defer any Supreme Court appointments until after the election?"
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can't blame you wing nuts for getting your panties in a wad cause it will be very embarrassing for Gorsuch to have to answer this question. I can't wait. He'll either prove a hypocrite or he'll seriously damage his own legitimacy. Not to mention you wingnuts will wet your panties and cry "that's not fair!". LOL LOL LOL

I can't wait as this will be hilarious. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed...yet another lunatic left SURPRISE! LMAO....surprise you still lose. Why? Because you ignore the reality that surrounds you...and prefer the fog that rests between your ears. But....an intelligent Harvard educated man such as Judge Gorsuch...will give you a lesson in the constitutional rule of law as its written in a verbatim manner. Go ahead an demonstrate your ignorance to the world as you have with the RECOUNT, THE EC STALKING ATTACKS, THE RIOTS IN DC AND CALIFORNIA, etc.,

Will anyone be surprised at anything you loons on the left attempt? Of course not...the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Its the death rattle of the lunatic left. Wake up! Wake up! Donald John Trump....PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! I refuse to accept that reality...I will wake soon and it will all be a bad dream.

Reality? The loons on the left define the Constitution as 'flawed' and missing 'redistribution'. Really barry? Its flawed because it places limits upon the federal government?

 
Last edited:
Maybe they will let Mott be an honorary Senator during confirmation hearings so he can ask this so called "zinger"
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't and I don't understand the relevance of your question as we're not talking about Senate rules but a Constitutional requirement and a strict originalists interpretation of that requirement.
Click to expand...

while the constitution prescribes that set of specific obligations, the senate has to implement rules for it to follow in order to provide that obligations completion. If the rules are written in such a way that it allows some, most, or all of the senators to deny, halt, or delay indefinitely the advise and consent, does that make the rules unconstitutional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top