Senate Republicans go �nuclear,� pave the way for Gorsuch confirmation to Supreme CourtUncle Sam | 206601 hits | Apr 06 10:30 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
|
"Senators voted on Thursday to advance Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up a final confirmation vote on Friday.
By a vote of to 55 to 45, all Republicans and three Democrats voted to proceed to final debate on the nomination of Gorsuch, 49, a Denver-based judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. If confirmed, Gorsuch would replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly last year, sparking a more than year-long feud among senators about the future makeup of the high court.
Gorsuch's nomination advanced shortly after Republicans successfully voted to approve what is known as the "nuclear option," changing Senate rules to allow the confirmation of Gorsuch and all other Supreme Court nominees by a simple-majority vote..."
Actions have ramifications and the Democrats' actions in the past are now come home to haunt them.
Eat it, bitches.
Fucking hypocrites. Every last one of them.
Have fun with a right wing judge who literally ruled that an employee is obligated to die for a company's property because the property has more material value than the person's life does.
Cite the ruling please.
Gorsuch noted in his dissent: �The trucker in this case wasn�t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. ... The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not.�
If you read the whole saga, it�s obvious the trucking company was morally wrong to fire the driver. But it�s also crystal clear that the company didn�t violate the law.
Is a judge�s job to discern the law or to rule in favor of the good guy in a story?
Gorsuch once wrote, �A judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.�
And here we see the most important way Gorsuch is the friend of the little guy: He upholds the rule of law, and the rule of law is the little guy�s best friend.
Well-meaning liberals want the law to be flexible so they can accommodate the little guy. But that�s not what happens in real life.
A flexible, living, bendable law will always tend to be bent in the direction of the powerful � in the direction of the prison guard who wields the power to physically dominate an unpopular prisoner, in the direction of the developer and the drug company who wield political connections and grand plans for a widow�s property, and in the direction of a federal government that will trample the voiceless to advance its ideology.
The rule of law doesn�t care if you�re powerful or powerless; it applies to all. Gorsuch has spent his years on the bench reading the law and applying it, without animus or favor. That�s bad news for those, such as New London�s mandarins or the Obama administration�s HHS, who want special treatment. It�s good news for the little guy.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... /99982694/
If you read the article you'll see there are other cases where Gorsuch indisputably supported the little guy.
What's happened here is Democrats and their pet media have lassoed a tiny exception where they argue around the edges and virtue signal as the sympathizers of the "frozen trucker." They then pretend there is no counter-point and present their "frozen trucker" exception as the totality of all possible opinions on the subject of Gorsuch's integrity.
You're also required to ignore an obvious contradiction where today's champions of the "frozen trucker" had no problem joining a unanimous vote when Gorsuch, was confirmed by the Senate to his seat on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals without a single dissenting vote.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/meet- ... h-in-2006/
Daily Caller merely quoted a fact.
USA Today showed both sides of the argument to offer an informed opinion. Try it sometime.
If I'd only wanted one side, I would have done what you did - stopped at Slate or Think Progress, and remained overall ignorant.
However, some of us are not satisfied with a section of an exception. They want both sides of the whole story. That story says Gorsuch will stay with the law even if the law should run contrary to his sympathies. He believes in the long run adherence to the law will protect the little guy from the corruption of the powerful.
In what Progressives are calling "the frozen trucker" case the Truck company may have been jerks, but in Gorsuch's dissent he believes they did not break the law.