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This discussion has been archived.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 Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:12PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Wednesday March 22 2017, @06:12PM (#482859)

    Le sigh, Jmo back with pseudo-facts. First off, just because they label themselves progressive does not make them so. The vast majority of democrats are not even close to progressive any more, and you have it backward. They vote as closely to their corporate donor's wishes as they can get away with and still be reelected.

    As for your long post about Obama being the bad guy, first that is distracting away from the fact that the GOP were the ones at fault. They were the ones who wouldn't compromise and tried to force the issues, blackmailing the entire country. I was curious about your claim regarding social security and Obama "inflicting maximum immediate pain on the voters". So I did a search and found a conservative news outlet to get whatever details you are basing your claims on.

    The Full Faith and Credit Act. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 807, allowing the Treasury to pay all public debt obligations and Social Security benefit payments after the debt limit has been reached. If the President and his allies were truly worried about defaulting on the debt and about not being able to meet Social Security payments, they could quickly take up this bill and assure America’s creditors and Social Security recipients that they need not worry.
            The Social Security trust fund. Treasury could redeem Social Security trust fund bonds early to pay benefits at the debt limit. Treasury used this option in 1985 to meet Social Security payments at the debt limit, and a law from 1996 authorizes the Treasury to redeem Social Security bonds early for the purpose of “payment of benefits or administrative expenses.” By making room under the debt limit from redeeming trust fund bonds early, Treasury is able to borrow additional funds from the public to make benefit payments.
            Revenues. Treasury will collect more than enough revenue in fiscal year 2014 to meet all debt obligations and most non-debt obligations on an annualized basis. After prioritizing interest on the debt, the Treasury could fund $2.8 trillion in additional obligations with projected revenues. This would cover, for example, Social Security and disability payments ($848 billion), discretionary defense programs ($582 billion), Medicare ($505 billion), Medicaid ($298 billion), and $517 billion of all other obligations—in total, more than three-quarters of the non-interest budget.

    #1: Pass some legislation cooked up just so they would be able to shut down the gov and claim it was Obama's fault for not paying social security. This wasn't already law, so using that as an excuse is disingenuous.

    #2: Redeem trust fund bonds early? Doesn't sound like a great solution, and better to avoid it in the first place.

    #3: They could have paid social security and defaulted on other areas of our debt? Also not ideal since there would be consequences for defaulting on other areas of debt.

    Basically shitty "solutions" that were rejected, and Congress was then forced to play ball. As usual you alt-righters (or whatever you identify with nowadays) twist the world to fit your prejudices. Ignore the horrors your chosen party inflicts upon you and blame it all on the other party. Hey, Dems do that too, but that doesn't give YOU a pass. Bugger off with your politics, if you can't be bi-partisan when blaming politicians for their faults then you should keep your opinions to yourself, or at least wait till you're around your friends so you can all circle jerk together. There is plenty of shit to talk about Obama, try and keep to the facts and not some twisted version of half-truths to suit your own agenda.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3