Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the supreme-court-positions-are-different dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

More than a decade ago, many Democrats still in office now went along with Gorsuch as he was unanimously confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006. Things are different today, ahead of his hearing for the highest court in the land.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed deep doubts during a press conference last Wednesday about the nominee and asserted Gorsuch "may act like a neutral, calm judge," but "his record and his career clearly show he harbors a right wing, pro-corporate, special interest agenda."

[...] Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy said he would demand "real answers" to questions he has about Gorsuch's judicial philosophy.

"I hope next week, when the president's Supreme Court nominee will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he provides transparent, truthful answers to Senators' questions," Leahy said in a statement. "I will insist on real answers from Judge Neil Gorsuch, because there are real concerns about his record and his judicial philosophy."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/20/gorsuch-won-broad-dem-support-in-2006-now-things-are-different.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:36PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @01:36PM (#482695)

    Yup, the Republicans made it up, that's why they named after a very prominent Republican, Joe Biden.

    The republicans did name it after Biden just so sycophants like you would have an excuse to avoid holding them to account.

    When Biden said that in 1992:

    There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

    There was no nominee to consider.

    The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:08PM (3 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:08PM (#482752) Journal

    Seems the exact same situation but the Democrats said they have the ball and its thwir choice before GHWB made his nomination decision.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:34PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @03:34PM (#482774)

      > Seems the exact same situation

      WTF are you talking about?

      How is:
      (a) no scotus vacancies
      (b) no scotus nominees
      (c) senate never voted to adopt the "rule"

      "the exact same situation?"

      I mean, how crazy-ass partisan do you have to be to see that as the exact same situation?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:34PM (#482878)

        It was one of those posts where the only person he's trying to convince is himself.
        By writing it out, it makes it feel more true to himself.
        Which is very comforting when you know you believe in a lie but really, really don't want to give up that belief.
        Its a form of self-soothing performed in public for everyone to see.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:42PM (#482881)

        Very.