There was a list.
But...we already knew what direction the administration wanted to go. Trump made it clear. A justice that would overturn roe. And punish the woman and the doc.
But we all knew it would be cavanaugh, right? Believes a president shouldnt be held accountable for....anything, while president. What a shocker!
It's been a while since I studied the Constitution, but I really can't recall the part that said abortion was illegal, or that gays can't be married. In fact, I saw no mention of abortions or gays in the entire Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution say abortion or gay marriage is a right.
What the 10th Amendment does say, is
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That means an individual State, or the people of that State by a vote, get to decide, not political activist judges who legislate from the bench.
Who was it that said, "Elections have consequences."...?
Can't seem to recall right now...
It was a solid statement.
Yes, but certain elements seem not to think so... now.
Well, if he sticks to real courses like engineering, mathematics and the hard sciences, and avoids propaganda courses like gender studies, sociology or political 'science', he'll probably be ok.
As long as his seat isn't in jeopardy, Durbin will fight to the last red-state Democrat.
That's why I don't mind their nutty rhetoric.
Trump might as well be able to pick his self because no matter who it is, that's how much his pick will be hated.
I think the only choice that would have satisfied Schumer, Durbin, etc., would have been if Trump had nominated Obama for the Supreme Court.
I don't know...
I think they would find a way to hate on him lol
Maybe Michelle, then.
It would be racist and sexist to hate her; the double whammy. No good prog would dare do that.
That might work..
I could see that happening lol
Anyone who believes that must watch lame stream media.
Don't know much about the guy, maybe he will be good. I wonder if he signed Trump's loyalty oath yet?
And of course we all know that political loyalty oaths are unknown among the likes of Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.
Well, lets see, shall we?
By all means.
Now it's up to the Senate to give its advice and consent... or not, like the Constitution says.
Yep, the good old senate. That lot has never steered us wrong.
I must admit, dru, once in a long while, you do show a sense of humor.
No, actually I mean the losers that you helped get elected.
Oh, by the way, Trump screwed up again, this time in Putin's bed.
Unsurprisingly, the Gray Lady thought so too, although their style was a bit uncharacteristic.
Oh, so now Trump supporters are in the "majority"? LOL! Don't think so.
So you are so confident that Democrats will not prevail in November? I think we are already seeing evidence that they will.
No, trust me, Trump haters far exceed the Democrat Party.
No, Gronk, the only people who still support that nut job or the forty percent group of wackos.
Yeah, I guess people do get kinda of intolerant with a president who tweets all day, usually insults.
I guess they are kinda of weary of a president whose moral and legal compass is broken.
He has made a fool of himself on the international stage and has proven to be a disaster back at home.
We have no way to know how much money Trump has, since he won't release his tax returns. He has gone bankrupt four times with every bank refusing to loan him money. Every bank, except the one in Russia that is!
Oh yeah, he's "street smart" alright. We saw that with Kim who mopped up the floor with Trump. Putin is going to do the same thing.
The "trash heap" is president, like it or not, and will Constitutionally remain so unless and until he resigns, or unless and until the House impeaches him by a simple majority, and the Senate convicts and removes him from office by a 2/3 majority vote.
And if the Senate wants to deny confirmation to Kavanaugh, it has the Constitutional authority to do so.
Yes, but it's no different than how conservatives would handle a liberal supreme court nomination.
Strange... Mother Jones doesn't seem to think so, in its comparison of two well-known protest groups.
Good point. I meant the intensity of the hysteria would be the same. The hysteria itself would be different.
I think intensity of hysteria manifests itself in the actions of those involved.
And consider how "hysterical" the conservative opposition in the Senate was to Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, as expressed in the confirmation votes of 96-3, 68-31 and 63-37, respectively.
Compare that with Gursuch's 54-45, and likely less for Kavanaugh, almost strictly along party lines.
Seems to me the one that died was the greatest threat to the individualism neos claim to hold dear. Corporate collectives = individuals? Me thinks not.
Couldn't possibly pick anyone more dangerous than that... He actually snowed people into thinking he was a textualist.
Only a minority of the Supreme Court 'methought not' either.
Meaning??? I'm uncertain of your suggestion. Personally, I don't do collectivism... In any form.
Chattel slavery was a real legal concept, that doesn't validate it, nor does the existence of it a century or more ago.
The majority thought corporate collectives were equivalent to individuals with the rights of individuals, otherwise it wouldn't have been the disposition.
Meaning, why pick on Scalia in particular? There were four other justices in the majority.
But if you are not a fan of collectivism in any form, then I guess you favored the decision linked below; the same four justices that didn't like corporations were perfectly ok with government unions.
For the reason previously stated:
"He actually snowed people into thinking he was a textualist."
Of course, no one should be extorted. That's what's so hilarious about corporate personhood, individuals actually pay taxes. lmao
"He actually snowed people into thinking he was a textualist."
And Alito, for example, didn't?
Obviously not or I presume you wouldn't have named him.
Exactly backwards. I named him because I think most people who concern themselves with textualism would regard Alito as a textualist.
Read the link I already gave you above.
"One argument, likely to be favored by conservative justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, is a textualist approach..."
I did. The above is a blog on his eulogy. Not exactly what I had in mind, particularly not one with Scalia hypothetically arguing the faults of textualism in heaven and Alito deeming it the pole position. lol But okay...
Alito dubs himself an originalist, probably noteworthy.
Try reading the second link too.
This trash heap has no right to appoint someone.....ESPECIALLY a person who blatantly said they don't think presidents are accountable to laws while in office. Also, scumbag Mcconnell said telling president obama he'd block him from appointing a judge was one of the best times of his life. so please just stop.