Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm on the fence about him. He talks a good game, about how he must follow the law and that no man, not even the President, is above the law, however, some of his rulings in the past have been very controversial. (Like the trucker who was freezing to death and was fired by his employer for leaving his rig unattended.......Gorsuch ruled that the firing was appropriate.)
I really haven't been following his hearings much, so I am not sold either way yet.
This ruling is EXACTLY why he's perfect for the job. He rules on LAW, not on FEELINGS. Was the employer a jerk in this case? Yup. But was he within his rights to fire the trucker? Yup.
The left has made is clear that they want someone that will rule with "feeling". That's not how things work in this country. Thank goodness. Because in this age of hyper-sensitivity to every alleged slight, it would be a disaster.
Are you really so naive to think Obama actually wanted to appoint Garland? If he knew his appointee would get nominated, he would have picked another liberal judge. This was just to throw it back at the Republicans like they're doing now. And you apparently fell for it.
Do you think he nominated a judge he didn't want, Garland was a moderate and he would have worked out fine. He served up a softball to the republicans and they totally overreacted running around like chicken little, no good deed goes unpunished.
I understand the vote will be April 3, I hope the democrats just approve him and move on because this nonsense is bad for the country.
I got the impression that Gorsuch followed the law even if it meant making an unpopular decision. Leftists like Warren don't like that. They want activist judges that legislate from the bench, and that is not how the justice system is supposed to work.
I got the impression that Gorsuch followed the law even if it meant making an unpopular decision. Leftists like Warren don't like that. They want activist judges that legislate from the bench, and that is not how the justice system is supposed to work.
One of the largest issues we have is the Citizens United Ruling, Many democrats and also some republicans disagreed with the ruling, it was a 5-4 split but I don't see this being solved anytime soon. Maybe congress will address this deficiency, in my dreams.
There is the Constitution and what it meant as written period.
Anything else is purely political and that is not what the Supreme Court is intended to be.
Liz Warren supports the interpretude of those defending their agendas.
There is the Constitution and what it meant as written period.
Anything else is purely political and that is not what the Supreme Court is intended to be.
Size matters.
Many believe that a thousands pounds of feathers outweigh a pound of gold, by sheer size difference.
Size and sides, size and sides - Most people judge by their visibilities.
Some people flatter, and some people feather.
Lots of 'em have bird brains. Take Elizabeth Warren . . .
Think about how much she ways.
It's all ways one way or another.
She wore a feather to prove her Indian flatter.
She flatterizes.
If a feather can get you some Affirmative Action, examine the weight difference of a feather over a gold coin.
Featherlewd or flatterlewd. Tude or lewd - I always get my suffixes mixed somehow.
Last edited by Hyperthetic; 03-28-2017 at 11:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.