Thursday, April 6, 2017

What could be objectionable about REPUBLICANS using 
when it has 
by the 


There is absolutely 
with Judge Neil Gorsuch.
The Democrats are fighting his nomination ONLY because he is President TRUMP'S choice.

How could that be 


  1. What is objectionable is that the GOP could use something that the Dems have already used -- and with impunity.

    Any logic in the objections? Nope.

    It is my understanding that it is indeed Constitutional for the Congress to make certain procedural rules.

    Fighting fire with fire is ugly, but that's the political scenario we now have.

    American governance has "lost the plot."

    Forget the Golden Rule and turning the other cheek. Those guidelines are for interpersonal relations -- not for politics.

    1. Nothing should be deemed "ugly" if it proves useful in serving and promoting the best interests of what we know to be Right, Good, and Proper.

  2. What I've been trying –– most desperately –– to get at for the past three days has to do with the possble negative consequences for the Repubicans if they exercise this right to govern by the passage by a simple majority.

    As far as I'm concerned ALL debate should be cut off once a clear MAJORITY is established pro or con on ANY issue.

    Apparently, this bothers the hell out of Senator John McCain. Why I can't imagine.

    That guy has more than one screw loose in his old white head, and should have been put out to pasture LONG ago.

    Old habits die hard. BAD habits die even harde, or so it seems. Chronically electing McCain to the senate is a bad habit among the Arizonans. Running him for PRESIDENT created a blot on the GOP'S escutcheon that may never be polished out.

    We need to form a brand NEW party devoted PURELY to the promotion of CONSERVATIVE-LIBERTARIAN ideals.

    The GOP has long been overloaded with deadwood and deadheads –– and worst of all –– INTERNATIONALISTS.

    1. FT,
      at I've been trying –– most desperately –– to get at for the past three days has to do with the possble negative consequences for the Repubicans if they exercise this right to govern by the passage by a simple majority.

      Which would, of course, apply if the Dems once again gain a simple majority.

      JMJ is correct with this statement below: [The nuclear option] has not been used for the SCOTUS.

    2. That goes without saying, AOW, but don't you think it would reduce the level of tricky political gamesmanship, if the senate abandoned their insistence on raising a SUPER-MAJORITY in order to confirm nominees and pass legislation?

      You're a much better student of history than I, so could you please tell us precisely WHEN this demand for a super-majority was established in the senate and why?

      I tried to look it up, but could find no quick and easy answer.

  3. "What could be objectionable about Republicans using the nuclear option...?"

    It has not been used for the SCOTUS. The Dems changed the rules for lower court appts, and I don't recall the details, but the simple majority is also now used for cabinet appts. The Senate is supposed to act as the deliberative balance to the often politically raucous House and the sometimes very poor decision-making in the Executive. But partisanship these days has become so pronounced, you just can't get 60 votes for practically anything anymore. In modern times, the Democrats were always more deferential to the President's appts, but when the GOP in the Senate simply tabled every single appt Obama was putting up, Reid made the faithful decision to drop the cloture rule. Now, McConnell will do the same for the SCOTUS. This was an inevitable development brought on originally by the Senate GOP. There is no other reality here.

    "There is absolutely nothing wrong with Judge Neil Gorsuch. The Democrats are fighting his nomination only because he is President Trump's choice."

    I'm surprised to see such a simplistic take from you! Do you really believe that? Sounds like something you'd hear on "Fox & Friends," not on FreeThinke!

    There are some serious and timely problems people have with Gorsuch, and the Hobby Lobby decision is probably at the top of that list. The notion that a corporation can have a religious belief, has religious rights, strikes many, myself included, as dehumanizing, theocratic and unconstitutional. There is great anxiety that what this really is about is attacking the Public Accommodations clause of the CRA. We fear a return to the bad old days of discrimination and segregation, with religion as the excuse, much as it was in the past.

    Surely, second on that list would be the TransAm Trucking decision, and for two distinct reasons. First, it would seem clear the company violated the law when they fired the driver for not doing something exceedingly dangerous and then "whistleblowing" about it. And second, it showed a deep intellectual hypocrisy, as Gorsuch's clear positions on context and plain reading were nowhere to be seen in this decision. It reminded me of the Ledbetter decision, whereby buffet reading of the law and constitution were applied for the outcome the conservatives wanted. It was, simply put, "conservative judicial activism."

    As well, Gorsuch has a history of siding with law enforcement and corporate interests almost always, as if hardly ever a case ever before him could be decided otherwise. For those concerned with an ominously powerful police state, "states rights," and ever-expanding legal immunity for the corporate sector, this is very troubling.

    Finally, and just politically, there is good ol' human nature at play here. Leaving that SCOTUS seat vacant for almost a year, tabling Garland, the longest time ever for such a hold-up, infuriated Senate Democrats. On top of that, it seems rather certain that the next appts to come, and it should be relatively soon because of the respective ages of the Justices, will fill seats originally filled by Democratic Presidents with Republican appts. There was no great urgency for the GOP to keep the partisan status quo of the court as it would be right back in conservative hands in short order, and with Kennedy was hardly all that "liberal" to start with. It seemed like the GOP was going way out of it's way to secure a packed-majority conservative, partisan court. But that's just politics.

    That all said, the Dems should just have let the vote go up or down. No one wins in this fight. Years from now, when it's the Dems filling the seats with 'their people,' I'm sure conservatives will be crying bloody murder for all this.


    1. Nicolai Ripsy Korsetsoff said

      PING PONG! <––––––––––>PONG PING!

      BADDA BING! <–––––––––>BADDA BOOM!

      BADDA BOOM! <––––––––>BADDA BING!

      ad infinitum

    2. JMJ,
      Gorsuch has a history of siding with law enforcement and corporate interests almost always, as if hardly ever a case ever before him could be decided otherwise.

      Haven't other judges brought their alliances and ideologies to the bench?

      I think that the days of objective judges are gone.

    3. But of all the times to have more of that ideology...


    4. I suppose that means that you would prefer a MARXIAN-COLLECTIVIST-SOCIALIST ideology to predominate, is that right, Jersey?

      I am a Christian who is pro-Liberty, anti-Coercion, anti-Authoritarian, and vehemently pro-Capitalism. Therefore I distrust profoundly ANY form of concentreated, centralized political power.

      It's a well-known axiom that "Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely," therefore, I firmly believe that "The Government that Governs BEST Governs LEAST."

      YOUR party is the primary advocate of ENORMOUS, OVERBEARING, and-EVER-EXPANDING Government.

      Unfortunately, there IS no party at present that espouses anything like MY hopes and dreams for an Ideal Society.

      The GOP lost me more than a decade ago, when I realized what a bunch of weak sisters they had become –– pastel replicas and silent supporters of the Democrats.

      I suppose I favor a revitalization of the original SPIRIT of '76. I doubt very much if our Founding Fathers would be pleased with the stinking mess we;ve made of their splendid legacy.

      And please don't tell me that times have changed. TRUTH, like LOVE and PRINCIPLE, is ETERNAL and NEVER goes out of fashion


    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:]

    I highly recommend familiarising ourselves with the entire article. It is surprisingly fair to Judge Bork, and very revealing.

    1. I posted that information abiut Robert Bork primarily for you, Jersey. You can't very well claim that WIKIPEDIA is a Crazed Right-Wing, Extremist Hate Site and Propaganda Mill, can you? ];^}>

    2. Well, it's a citation...

      Bork was a lot of things. But he should never have been on the SCOTUS, and now that we know why he nominated... well, it just goes to show what sort of person he really was.



  5. Chucky Boy Schumer has been a New York Senator of 18 years now, and part of that 18 years he served under the “Leadership” of Barack Hussain Obama as some people as well as myself will call the very Worst President that the United States of America had every had the unfourtune to have.

    And now Mr. Up-Chuck Schumer has the Gaul to say that “He has never seen an Administration as incompetent as the current one occupying the White House”.

    I would like to ask Mr. Up-Chuck if he has been asleep for th past 8 years, and if not? Then where the heck has he been when.........
    Mr Obama put this country in the MASSIVE dept of almost 20 TRILLION dollars?
    As result of the last eight years, the world has become more unstable, more unpredictable, and more dangerous, then any other time in it’s history! . America is no longer respected by the rest of the world, thanks to our Former President Obama. Our Former President Obama had a feckless and weak foreign policy and has emboldened our enemies and undermined our allies. It will take years, if not decades, to clean up the mess this president has left behind.
    Drawing that meaningless "Red Line" against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and then refusing to follow through, or do anything against the butcher of Damascus, vowing to use military force against the regime if Assad were to use chemical weapons on his own people. One year later, Assad called his bluff, killing 1,500 people in August 2013 with deadly chemical weapons. And just look at what has happened there earlier this week, to all those people including women and children!
    These obama administration officials including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry are just as responsible.
    The Iran Nuclear Deal certainly is a no-brainer either. And that one is certainly going to come back and haunt us for many years to come, as well as Obama’s retreating from the Middle East only to give us ISIS to deal with.. And neglecting Afghanistan only gave us the reemergence of the Taliban..
    But we do now have revitalized our relations with Castro’s Cuba at the expense of the Cuban people. Lets not forget that goodie! That all sounds great if your in need of a good Cigar, but unfortunately the dictatorial Castro regime still holds the power in Cuba. A regime that has murdered, imprisoned, and brutalized journalists, homosexuals, dissidents and Free Speech!
    Ok, so lets take a look at the video tape, The ObamaCare disaster.
    The promise that he would take executive action on immigration, only to do a 180 degree turn.
    His first action as president when he went to Cairo to apologize for America to the Muslim world for the evils of the USA, and to take the position of the Muslims on issues related to Israel
    And lets just say “ Benghazi” and say, Enough Said!
    His taking sides with the Black Lives Matter movement and their rioting, burning down whole neighborhoods etc. either you are on the side of law and order or you aren’t, and he wasn’t!
    The way he treated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he was at the White House and Obama walked away to have dinner leaving Mr. Netanyahu sitting there alone!
    And lets not forget the the Canadian pipeline, his backing of the Muslim brotherhood into power in Egypt., appointing Crooked Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, just to name a few.

    1. All right, DD. You didn't address the topic of THIS post, but I can't disagree with much you said.

      Now that The Nuclear Option HAS been triggered –– a move literally FORCED on the Republicans BY the Democrats, who hope to use it for nefarious purposes in future I'm sure –– what do you think the long term consequences are apt to be –– both positive AND negative?

      If Donald J. Trump is incompetent, I'm a Green-Skinned Hermaphroditic Gelded Centurion from Saturn.

      I have to admit, Mr. Trump has surprised me. I thought he was just a lout –– a loud, pushy, vulgarian –– a greedy opportunist with all the sensitivity of shoe leather ––, but two-thirds of the way through the campaign I disovered I was wrong. Since I lisgtened to several of his speeches and more intimate conduct at various meetings –– unedited, unfiltered, unexpurgated, and unslanted by the ENEMEDIA, I grew genuinely fond of the man.

      Now, if he can only do with MEDICAL CARE what the voters have ASKED, it should be all cakes and ale for the foreseeable future.

      But I DO NOT WANT those insured under OBAMACARE to LOSE what they have gained. That would constitute cruel and unusual punishment of helpless people.

  6. I just got home from work and am learning that the nuclear option will be in play. And it apparently means this:

    The rule change means Gorsuch and all future Supreme Court nominees can be confirmed with a simple majority vote and will no longer face a 60-vote hurdle.

    1. AOW, IF and When the democrats become majority power again (and they will) I am confident that the Supreme Court will be stocked with enough young enough Constitutional Conservatives to last a few generations !

      Suck that up Libs ! Oh Yes.

  7. It's time the GOP stopped pussy footing around with these Clowns and change the rule of the Senate that requires 60 votes, and just do what has to be done.... Period!

    1. Well, they did just that, yesterday, DD. The inane political postyring ,and ill-tempered mulishness of the Democrats made using THe Nuclear Option a foregone conclusion, although I had serious doubts the lily livered swine that make up most of the Repoblican members of congress would find the testcular fortitude to do it –– but they DID.

      So let's give 'em Three Cheers, and HOPE this works out as well as we'd like it to. It all depends on how much staying power the Republicans have, and how willing they are to PERSEVERE in pursuit of what-WE-believe-to-be eminently desirable goals.

  8. The nuclear option, eh?

    I'm all for it if the target is John "Tokyo Rose" McCain. He makes a treasonous backstabbing trip to Syria to gain support of the "rebels"—the disgusting terrorists who readily target any living human being.

    1. I don't think it's merely a coincidence that McCAIN rhymes with INSANE.

      However, we seem to have a raised a bumper crop of Tokyo Roses since the mid-SICK-sties.

      "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."

      ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
 (106-43 B.C.)

  9. Hey libtards! Look forward to 8 years of Trump and a 7 to 2 Conservative Constitutional Supreme Court !!!!

    Bwahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !

    1. "Bwahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !"

      Yeah, that's about the extent of it for you guys, huh?


    2. I don't think so, Jersey, but it IS exactly what YOU GUYS would do if you had the chance.

      FDR tried to do just that back in the thirties –– pack the Supreme Court with a super-majority of Leftists ––, but fortunately he was thwarted –– but not balked enough to prevent him from doing the tremendous harm he did in loosing a rising tide of SOCIALISM on the nation.



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


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.