Tuesday, April 4, 2017




To NUKE 
or 
NOT to NUKE?

Judge Neil Gorsuch

THAT is the QUESTION.


Have YOU an ANSWER

?


35 comments:

  1. Getting back to the Main event of the week, this is the Do or Die week for the Numb-skulls on the Left to either do it or get or the pot. It is well known that no other federal judge could be better than one recommended by the American Bar Association as being , “Well Qualified.” The best of the best…top of the heap, the number one choice that both sides agreed up on when he was confirmed as the TOP choice for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and cream of the crop. Well, guess what? Judge Neil Gorsuch HAS the ranking of “Well Qualified” designation from the American Bar Association…so Chuckie Boy Schumer…why exactly are and your fellow Flakes panties all wadded up in a bunch?

    As a Judge, Neil Gorsuch is the gold standard pf Judges, and the American Bar Association gives out recommendations where judgeships are concerned and the highest recommendation they offer is…”Well Qualified.” what’s your problem, other than being a Big Pain in the Ass!

    Sp while the little Fat Kid in North Korea Lil Kim keeps testing nuclear weapons, and missiles that would carry them here to the USA, the liberals have been shrugging their shoulders over it since Bill Clinton was using an intern as his personal humidor. Iran is well on their way to building a nuclear arsenal, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry and the liberals couldn’t care less. Why? Because Baracck Obama, the wonder boy of accomplishments was too busy telling us and our kids which bathroom they should use, ans other despicable things to force-feed our children like rolling out the welcome wagon stuffed with entitlements and other goodies to the tens of thousands of “Refugees” paid for from our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to spoon feed potential terrorists.

    And speaking of the crapola in the Liberals corner…how about that newly elected Tom Perez, the maestro of the DNC, in the wake of the downfall of that other Cheating Moron, Donna Brazil. Relax Tommy boy, and Chuckie, …as long as you’ve still got Obamacare…your pre-existing mental condition is covered.
    This is the party that hates the cops, and make Role Models, and heroes our of the Rappers who shot each other, and the thugs who riot in our streets, and the of the criminals, and the bums that claim they stand for the oppressed and, hate the rich while selling drugs to our kids, and the politicians who offer sanctuary cities to illegal alien criminals and take the money of law abiding citizens to make sure the illegals have more than the law abiding hard working citizens... . So lets get Judge Gorsuch nominated, and if it takes going nuclear, then let’s go nuclear,!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, DD! I find most of your impassioned statement wholly agreeable, but please tell me this:

      Can you think of a SINGLE plausible reason NOT to use the so-called Nuclear Option?

      Can you understand why Mitch McConnell and other "top" GOP leaders appear to view it as something tha tought to be avoided if at all possible?

      Do you see ANY GOOD that could come out of permitting the DemonRats to make the spectacular display of sheer ASININITY they are making over this –– and practically every other –– Trump Initiative?

      Delete
    2. LOL! They're running these sleazy post-Citizens United Dark Money commercials in support of Gorguch down here that practically make him out to be the next coming of Jesus! It's hysterical!

      Certainly Jesus Himself would say tat bribery is the same as speech! That corporations are the same as human beings with rights and religious faith! And certainly DD, would be citing the ABA for a Democratic appointment!

      ROTFLMAO!

      JMJ

      Delete
  2. Justices Berger, Weiner and FrankfurterApril 4, 2017 at 11:28 AM

    Nuke it and call it the Harry Reid-Democrat Party Maneuver in honor of the dishonorable miscreant who started the Senate down this path.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I certainly think the now-mercifully-EX-Senator Reid –– one of the most despicable public figures ever to draw breath since the days of Caligula –– ought to be given full credit for opening up this Window of Opportunity for today's REPUBLICANS to mop up the floor with these recalcitrant, totally unhinged DemnRats.

      Delete
    2. I have to agree with commenter Justices Berger, Weiner and Frankfurter.

      Elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is that the POTUS names justices to the SCOTUS.

      Delete
    3. Unless a President has a year to go in his term, then you don't have to follow the Constitution, right? Is that what it says?

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. JMJ,
      Late getting back here.

      No, that's not what the Constitution says. But in practice, hasn't it recently been the case that if a POTUS with less than a year to go in his term and that if that POTUS is not an incumbent, then the confirmation is avoided or delayed?

      Delete
    5. Justices Berger, Weiner and FrankfurterApril 5, 2017 at 9:06 PM

      Mr. McJones,

      Herewith, the applicable quotation from Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

      "...he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court...

      In light of this quotation, your comment is balderdash. The text does not compel the Senate to act; therefor, the US Senate's refusal to hold hearings was not unconstitutional. Dirty pool, perhaps, but well within the law, my good boy.

      The GOP will blast one more hole in the filibuster already violated by Harry Reid, the leftist street rabble will growl approval in their rage-filled throats, and thinking Democrats will pray for the health of Associate Justice Ginsburg, because the next President Trump appointment will be a cakewalk.

      Delete
    6. Well, by your logic here, not advising and consenting is the same as advising and consenting. You don't seem to feel the same way about taxation of transactions. I find both abhorrent, and the first, plainly unconstitutional. Just obviously and plainly. It was a reckless abuse of the Senate's power.

      JMJ

      Delete
    7. I don't have the time right now to look it up, but I believe this was a longest wait.

      JMJ

      Delete
    8. Sorry, Jersey, but the senate has NO constitutional obligation whatsoever to hold hearings on ANY presidential nominee they find objectionable –– for whatever reason.

      And please don't think, if the tables were turned, the Democrats would behave any differently in trying to block a nominee THEY felt was undesirable.

      The incredibly spiteful, churlish, irrational, childishly unruly way the Democrats are behaving right NOW should give ample proof of THAT.

      Delete
    9. I think that's an awfully convenient reading of the Constitution.

      JMJ

      Delete
    10. Oliver John HolmesApril 6, 2017 at 6:24 AM

      Mr. McJones,

      “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” They are authorized under the 16th Amendment.

      The quotation proffered by Berger, Weiner and Frankfurter comes from the Article about presidential powers. It does not compel congress to do anything. If you can find a legal precedent to bolster your contention, we would all love to hear it.

      Delete
    11. Thanks, Olliver, but it would have been more to my liking if you had simply said, "Mr. FreeThinke. AOW, and the Three Justices are CORRECT."

      We should all acknowledge the positive contributions of others instead of merely attacking and denigrating those with whime we disagree ALL the time.

      In a way you did just that, but it would have been more courteous to acknowledge amd affirm the others who said basically the same thing before yiu.. But thanks for telling the truth.

      I'm personally fond of Mr. McJones, but I find his politics distressing, because he is too smart to have been so duped by the sophistry, guile and wishful thinking that characterizes the Democratic-Marxicrat Agenda most of the time.

      We do need to remember that we CAN disagree without becoming bitter enemies motivated primarily by HATRED.

      I think Mr. McJones and I have proven that to be true. Our HUMANITY is far more imoortant than our POLITICS.

      The MORAL BINDNESS and INANE HYPOCRSY that motivates the bitter feuds that sadly define our politics today is THE Greatest Enemy we must strive to defeat –– the ongoing work of millennia no doubt.

      Delete
  3. Am I going nuts, or What?April 4, 2017 at 11:32 AM

    For a party that insists this White House is in chaos, The Democrats need to look within before casting stones. Have Democratic Leaders Gone Mad ? Obama's "Community Organizer" Days Were and Are a Joke. Obama and The Democrats are Most Corrupt and America-Hating ever to be in the White House! Obama and The Democrats Tries To Slam Trump For Having Ties To Russia? Have Democratic Leaders Gone Mad! These are the people that infected virtually the entire Democrat Party. Hillary never should have been nominated in the first place. The first clue was when she was under FBI investigation, and the second clue was when she rigged the primary elections .Democratic Leaders have Gone NUTS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we to take it then that you SUPPORT the idea of Republicans exercisng the Nuclear Option in order to make sure Judge Gorsuch is seated in the Supreme Curt post haste?

      I don't disagree with most of your statement, but I would have appreciated it much MORE, if you had actually ADDRESSED the TOPIC.

      We're very big on that here in case you hadn't heard.

      Delete
  4. Well, I understand why the Dems picked this fight, what with the horrible way the GOP treated the court and Obama with his pick (leaving the bench short for over 300 days was ridiculous and had serious consequences), but this was not the time for that fight. The NEXT pick would have been that time. They should just let the vote through up or down without cloture issues. And good luck to Trump if he's stuck in a similar spot toward the end of his term if the Dems are back in power in the Senate! LOL!

    The GOP forced this, though. They were just tabling every lower court pick Obama was putting up, again just irresponsibly leaving the courts empty, and then having the unmitigated gall to demand the federal courts weren't handling enough! So, Reid did the Nuclear Option.

    All in all, this seems like it was inevitable. The Senate is just not the responsible, deliberative body it used to be. We may as well just have the House now.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... the horrible way the GOP treated the court"

      Jersey, are you kidding?

      Are you suffering from amnesia, perchance, or is it just that you have you no shame?

      After the disgraceful, painfully embarrassing, grotesque performance the Democrats put on during the hearings of both Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas the GOP would be throughly justified in using ANY tactic short of mowing down their opposition with machine guns or poisoning their martinis to prevent the Democrats from getting THEIR way –– and you KNOW it! –– atleast I hope you do.

      So, for God's sake please stop the political posturing, and get serious.

      The tactics of which you complain may be regrettable, but they are perfectly legal, and have been standard operating procedure in both houses of congress from the earliest days of the republic.

      MY biggest complaint abut the Republicans –– and it's a LULU! –– is they way they have consistently failed to oppose Leftist Initiatives with equal and opposite force. The RINO Establishment is made of lazy, selfish, phlegmatic, pusillanimous wimps, and worthless sinecures who've been in office far too long, treacherous, limp-wrested fools like Susan Collins, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and plain garden variety dimwits who don't have sense enough not to empty their boot before putting it back on after they peed in it.

      That said, I have NEVER seen such a Holy Show of SHEER SITE, and CHILDISH INANITY as I have from the Democrats since the euphoric moment in gthe wee hours of the morning last November 9th when Donald J. Trump tipped over Hillary Rodham Clinton's applecart sending all her putrid, rotten fruit rolling into the gutter where it had rightfully belonged for more than twenty-five years.

      Delete
    2. JMJ,
      And good luck to Trump if he's stuck in a similar spot toward the end of his term if the Dems are back in power in the Senate!

      I can see how that obstructionism could well happen. The way of partisan politics these days.

      Delete
    3. FT,
      Yes, the Dems are showing spite. They must think that doing so will somehow assist them for the midterms.

      Delete
    4. FT, "Bork?" Really? Bork?

      I know to have been "Borked" is now in the popular right-wing lexicon. It's legend now. It means 'to be unfairly treated for partisan reasons,' to them. Do you remember why Bork was such a controversial appointment? I may have been just a little kid, but I did study modern history, pretty thoroughly. I know all about the Saturday Night Massacre. Bork himself later admitted he'd been promised a SCOTUS appointment for that disgraceful act. In the end, he was rejected on an up or down vote. He was also a screwball.

      Clarence Thomas, GHWB's last slap in the face of his foes, replacing the great Thurgood Marshall with a dumb weirdo who happened to be black, ran into trouble that any pick would have suffered given the circumstance and time, and so the Hill matter came up, because of leak (some things never change, huh?). He got the vote and the seat.

      I agreed that this was not the pick for this fight. It should have been the next pick. By doing this now, the Dems just appear spiteful, as AOW points out, about the Obama appointment (tabled for almost a year), and hypocritical (Reid, again reacting to the GOP's shameful endless tabling). Had they waited, they'd have the moral upper-hand. They'd at least get the political points, if nothing else. This way they just look like sore-losers.

      Reid said he'd regret it, and he did, and if McConnell is around long enough, I'm sure he'll regret this too.

      As for Gorsuch himself? Which is kinda pertinent here, I think, we'll have another corporatist SCOTUS Justice. 'Yeah' for us.

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. Jersey, me dear, you ony "know" what you've been TOLD by heavily biased, purely ideological, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Conservative, pro-Marxist operatives who took over the educational system before you were born.

      These same forces have had control of the ENEMEDIA and the Entertainment, Pop Music, and Publishing Industries since before I was born. These are the pernicious influences who wrote the CURRICULA that has sickened the nation, and produced the "new" REVISIONIST history books and most of the articles you've undoubtedly read and digested from journals yiu've sadly been conditioned to trust as honest purveyors of Truth and Justice in an eanrest search for Enlightenment when in fact they are nothing of the kind.

      You're one of many millions who have been systematically MISEDUCATED. In short you've been B_R_A_I_N_W_A_S_H_E_D.

      The brand of "thinking" you embrace is not THINKING at ALL. It's merely a REGURGITATION of the moral, intellectual and spiritual POISON you've all too obviously been fed.

      Now, you mght want to say somethng similar of me –– that I am a product of the attitudes, mores and prevalent views of the milieu in whch I was raised, and you'd be correct.

      I can only say I am profoundly grateful to have ESCAPED the process of systematic perversion of good minds to which your generation and one or two others have been subjected and victimized.

      Nevertheless, you are still a Child of God, –– whether you believe in Him or not ;-) ––, and as such you have certain INBORN attributes –– namely your high IQ, your passionate nature, your capacity to Love and be Loyal to your wife, family, and friends, your willingness to work for a living when it was possible, and most important of all: your inherent RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness that may yet save you from voluntarily-but-unwittingly devoting yourself to being little but a SUBJECT –– a virtual SLAVE –– to an Almighty, All-Knowing, hideously Ubiquitous, innately cruel, TOTALITARIAN STATE.

      I'm not insulting you. I am speaking to you out of friendship, affection, respect for your intelligence, for your immortal soul, and hope you may soon experience a drastically improved future.

      Delete
    6. Well, FT, how else could I see the Saturday Night Massacre? Was Nixon simply going to fire the entire executive to avert prosecution? I understand Watergate, why the GOP turned on Nixon, etc. Remember, I grew up with an uncle who was personal friend of G Gordon Liddy, and my father worked for a bunch of Nixon guys. The common, "mainstream," understanding of Watergate and the Nixon years is certainly not mine!

      I am not a common thinker, as you always kindly remind me (thanks for that, too - I've really needed it lately with this foggy head thing going on). And as you know, I did NOT get a "mainstream" education, aside from a little college. And I learned very little in college, I was 23-24 years old already and had traveled the country and been on my own for years when I went, so I was not some gullible kid, and was not treated like a regular student. I'm just an autodidact who happened to grow up in a family filled with really interesting characters.

      As for Bork's SCOTUS hearings, I watched them, and I wasn't a little kid anymore. The way he made decisions, the way he viewed the monopolizations of the 80's, struck me as just plain morally and rationally corrupt. He most certainly could have applied his plainly specious logic any way he liked, but he chose, most always, to find conclusions that showed a bias for the wealthy and powerful. He was a grovelling punk, as I call 'em. I'm an excellent judge of character. Bork had none.

      I was happy he lost, as I said, to an up or down vote, as I said... which gets to a little confusion I must say I have with your reply here. I'm not sure what I'm saying that is wrong or a product of irrational or brainwashed thinking. I agree that the Dems should not have forced the "Nuclear Option" with Gorsuch, I have no idea what would be "heavily biased, purely ideological, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Conservative, (or) pro-Marxist" in what I've said. "Constitutional Originalism" is Christian? Open and competitive markets are "Marxist?"

      I am "liberal" simply in the sense that I want my fellow Americans, and really all people, to be able to live the lives they choose with as much opportunity to succeed, or at least be safe, as possible. That's it. That is the entire extent of my "liberal" "philosophy." As you can see, that leaves me pretty wide open!

      I think Marx is outdated and should only be referenced for his historical observations. I do not agree with him about class conflict and a host of other issues, and again find it completely outdated.

      I think Christianity has it's problems, but it's a fact of life, it's not going away any time soon, it is a foundation of our Western Heritage, and we have to live with it and treat it with it's due respect, and try to abusers in their place when it gets misused.

      I love my country and want it and it's people to succeed, and completely fail to see how conservatism, as a political movement, has done anything whatsoever to make America a better place (Please, do name something, because I'm a total loss there!), and can certainly point to how it's hurt us - the many, many ways. It's not that I'm anti-conservative, everyone who knows me all concur that I am a naturally "conservative" thinker (careful, objective, always assume problems or the worst, cautious with a priori assumptions, etc), but I am not the least bit impressed with Modern American Conservatism, the political movement. I'm sorry, but a bunch of bunny-eyed hicks do not great thought make. Conservatism is NOT what it used to be, regardless of how one felt about it in the past. I have had many conservative friends over the years, and they are and were very close, good people. Most are not happy about Trump or the current state of the conservative movement.

      And I really appreciate your kindness, FT. Love ya', Brother!

      JMJ

      Delete
  5. The Democrat party is unhinged and playing to the rage-filled, hateful leftwing street rabble.

    Judge Gorsuch is imminently qualified. He gets the highest rating from the ABA, and even liberal legal scholars give him high marks.

    Justice Ginsberg was approved with over 90 votes in the Senate. Can any honest person honestly show that Judge Gorsuch is more to the right than Justice Ginsberg is to the left?

    The Democrats are sore losers. They would rather trash the joint than act like adults.

    Keep going, Dems! Get mad! Get angry! Curse and shout, don't let anyone censor you! Let all your foam at the mouth rage pour out for all to see! Fly that freak flag! (it really helped you in Wisconsin, which is now solid red)

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WHEN are you going to LEARN that COMMENTS made to this blog MUST be RELEVANT to the TOPIC at HAND?

      What are yiur thoughts in whether or not the Republicans in congress should use the s-called Nuclear Option to make sure that Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to take Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court?

      Delete
    2. Certainly a qualified judge, one there doesn't appear to be any justification for opposing his nomination. Other than on ideological grounds. And that is how the cookie has always crumbled.

      Delete
  7. Nuke 'em. Then impeach the four remaining liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whatever it takes baby, Put this man on the SC !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tendto agree, Kid, but what if Judge Gorsuch turns put to be yet-another Republican-generated fiasco such as Earl Warren, David Souter and John Roberts –– or a nebbish like Sandra Day O'Connor, or Anthony Kennedy –– the renowned SWINGERS on the high court?

      Republicans have too often made the grave mistake of trying to be FAIR to their mortal ENEMIES, when their enemies have absolutely NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of EVER trying to be "FAIR" to THEM.

      How could we ever hope to fight with HONOR against a foe who doesn't even know the meaning of the word?

      Delete
    2. FT,
      what if Judge Gorsuch turns put to be yet-another Republican-generated fiasco

      More often than not, appointees to the SCOTUS are pigs in pokes -- or something.

      Delete
  9. Chucky Boy Schumer, or any of the other Crybaby Liberals have NEVER entertained the notion of voting in favor of ANY of Donald Trump’s nominees, regardless of who it might be, and they believe that by filibustering the Gorsuch nomination, they can put an end to it altogether.
    There has never been a successful, partisan filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee. Never. Not a single one…so rant on and stall on Chuckles…you’re side is gonna lose.
    The Democrats are putting on display a full-blown Hypocritical Partisan Meltdown. Just a few years ago, I was constantly hearing that the filibuster is outdated, undemocratic, and racist.. By all accounts he is well qualified and opposing Gorsuch is pure ignorance.
    These snowflakes are in for a battle that they are going to lose, they haven’t got a snowballs chance in Hell of winning this one, so Cry me a river!

    ReplyDelete

  10. ___ BASIC FACTS ABOUT ROBERT BORK ___

    Robert Heron Bork (March 1, 1927 – December 19, 2012) was an American judge and legal scholar who advocated the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork served as a Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[1]

    In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court, but the U.S. Senate rejected his nomination.

    Bork is acclaimed also as an antitrust scholar, where his once-idiosyncratic view that antitrust law should focus on maximizing consumer welfare has come to dominate American legal thinking on the subject.[2]

    Bork attended the Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, Connecticut[7] and earned bachelor's and law degrees from the University of Chicago. … While pursuing his law degree he served on Law Review. At Chicago he was awarded a Phi Beta Kappa key with his law degree in 1953 and passed the bar in Illinois that same year. After a period of service in the United States Marine Corps, Bork began as a lawyer in private practice in 1954 at Willkie Farr & Gallagher[8] in New York and then became a professor at Yale Law School from 1962 to 1975 and 1977 to 1981.

    Among his students during this time were Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown, John R. Bolton, Samuel Issacharoff, and Cynthia Estlund.[9][10] …

    [The complete article is available at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork]


    I highly recommend reading and familiarizing ourselves with the entire article. It's surprisingly fair to Judge Bork, and very revealing.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.