BREAKING: President Trump’s Pick for SUPREME COURT Has Just Been Revealed… Meet Neil Gorsuch

[Bigun]

Not after 40 years it isn't.   Every woman of child-bearing age has had reproductive liberty for her entire adult life.

No, this is a political issue,  and if the political solution is the reversal of the Constitutional right found by Roe (and there are plenty more efficacious solutions to abortion than that), then it must be done by means of a Constitutional amendment.

Is your f'n brain in backwards?

[INVAR]

A woman cannot be compelled by the state to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.   She must have the ability to consent, because she has sovereignty over her own body.

Again this absurd and stupid argument from you.   You willfully and deliberately dismiss and reject the fact that the woman consented to having sex with a man who ejaculated inside of her.  Since you assert she has 'sovereignty' over her body - why should society and the rest of us taxpayers be forced to be complicit in institutionalized industrial murder as a form of birth control simply because she spread her legs?  Why must we be compelled by the state to accept the religious rite of abortion as sacred?

[INVAR]

Is your f'n brain in backwards?

Worse.

But I cannot express it here or I risk getting banned from the board.

[roamer_1]

Not after 40 years it isn't.   Every woman of child-bearing age has had reproductive liberty for her entire adult life.

Is that the fancy words they use for a mother murdering her own baby nowadays? I wonder if the exact same words weren't used as the priest threw the baby into the red hot hands of molech two thousand years ago...

BULLSHIT.

[massadvj]

Now that I have had the time to review the remarkable record of Neil Gorsuch, I must say that by all appearances Trump has kept faith with his supporters and nominated the best possible candidate for the job.  It will be impossible for liberals to argue that Gorsuch is not "qualified" given his stellar record, and after he won unanimous senate confirmation for the appeals court.  Any Democrat who obstructs this nominee will have to declare the purpose as purely political, either as retribution against Republicans for obstructing Obama's appointee, or based on abortion rights.  I say let them, especially those Democratic senators running for re-election in red states in a non-presidential year.

Gorsuch is under 50 years old, so he can be expected to make a difference on the court for a generation or more, far after Trump is gone.  Based on that alone, I feel my vote for Trump is justified.  I still don't like Trump's management style, and I oppose his protectionist policies, but his cabinet picks have been very reassuring, and this pick even more so.

If Gorsuch is a wolf in sheep's clothing (e.g. Earl Warren or even Anthony Kennedy) there is scant evidence of it. 

[jmyrlefuller]

No, at this late date it would be radical judicial activism.  That "course correction" would deny the rights of 150 million women.

Well said, Oceander.    Those wishing to overturn Roe should do it the right way - the Constitutional amendment process.   

There's just one problem with that:

There have been only five times in U.S. history when there have been constitutional amendments:

The Founders era (1-12), including the Bill of Rights, when the document was still effectively being tweaked.

The post-Civil War era (13-15), which was passed only out of extortion (the Southern states had to either ratify it or continue to be treated as occupied territories).

The Progressive era (16-19).

The Great Depression (20-21).

The Vietnam War era (23-26).

In the last three cases, it was always liberals who controlled so many statehouses and so much of Congress that they were able to ramrod their alterations through. (The Vietnam era also had the help of the Warren/Brennan court construing the existing case law to further the same agenda.)

Under the current environment, the burden of Constitutional amendment passage is insurmountable.

[Jazzhead]

Again this absurd and stupid argument from you.   You willfully and deliberately dismiss and reject the fact that the woman consented to having sex with a man who ejaculated inside of her.  Since you assert she has 'sovereignty' over her body - why should society and the rest of us taxpayers be forced to be complicit in institutionalized industrial murder as a form of birth control simply because she spread her legs?  Why must we be compelled by the state to accept the religious rite of abortion as sacred?

You persist with the pornographic imagery.   My brain may be in backwards, but your brain's in your pants.   

[jmyrlefuller]

You persist with the pornographic imagery.   My brain may be in backwards, but your brain's in your pants.

How do you expect to talk about something inherently tied to sex without mentioning sex?

[Wingnut]

Now that I have had the time to review the remarkable record of Neil Gorsuch, I must say that by all appearances Trump has kept faith with his supporters and nominated the best possible candidate for the job.  It will be impossible for liberals to argue that Gorsuch is not "qualified" given his stellar record, and after he won unanimous senate confirmation for the appeals court.  Any Democrat who obstructs this nominee will have to declare the purpose as purely political, either as retribution against Republicans for obstructing Obama's appointee, or based on abortion rights.  I say let them, especially those Democratic senators running for re-election in red states in a non-presidential year.

Gorsuch is under 50 years old, so he can be expected to make a difference on the court for a generation or more, far after Trump is gone.  Based on that alone, I feel my vote for Trump is justified.  I still don't like Trump's management style, and I oppose his protectionist policies, but his cabinet picks have been very reassuring, and this pick even more so.

If Gorsuch is a wolf in sheep's clothing (e.g. Earl Warren or even Anthony Kennedy) there is scant evidence of it.

Well said.   And bears the requote!.

[libertybele]

Not after 40 years it isn't.   Every woman of child-bearing age has had reproductive liberty for her entire adult life.

No, this is a political issue,  and if the political solution is the reversal of the Constitutional right found by Roe (and there are plenty more efficacious solutions to abortion than that), then it must be done by means of a Constitutional amendment.

Actually, I see this is a moral and personal issue. No court should rule that a mother must carry a child, nor should any court be able to rule that a mother must terminate a child.  IMHO when consenting to unprotected (and in some cases protected) sexual encounters which may or may not result in a pregnancy the female makes the decision in accepting responsibility to carry a child.  Terminating life is not a responsible decision and therefore, the courts have stepped in.  Yes there are other scenarios involved; incest, rape, risk of mother's life, etc., for which there may be exceptions.

There is no easy solution ... certainly most would agree that late term abortions and selling body parts is barbaric, ruthless, selfish and sinful.

[jmyrlefuller]

He clerked for Byron White...and correct me if I'm wrong...White was against Roe and it's sister decision Doe...stands to reason that White's judicial philosophy rubbed off on him a little.

White was one of the few conservatives on the Warren Court.

If that's what's being used against Gorsuch, it's laughable.

[geronl]

If Gorsuch is a wolf in sheep's clothing (e.g. Earl Warren or even Anthony Kennedy) there is scant evidence of it.

Except that he attends a far left church that is stridently pro-abortion, pro-gay and anti-gun.

[Bigun]

Now that I have had the time to review the remarkable record of Neil Gorsuch, I must say that by all appearances Trump has kept faith with his supporters and nominated the best possible candidate for the job.  It will be impossible for liberals to argue that Gorsuch is not "qualified" given his stellar record, and after he won unanimous senate confirmation for the appeals court.  Any Democrat who obstructs this nominee will have to declare the purpose as purely political, either as retribution against Republicans for obstructing Obama's appointee, or based on abortion rights.  I say let them, especially those Democratic senators running for re-election in red states in a non-presidential year.

Gorsuch is under 50 years old, so he can be expected to make a difference on the court for a generation or more, far after Trump is gone.  Based on that alone, I feel my vote for Trump is justified.  I still don't like Trump's management style, and I oppose his protectionist policies, but his cabinet picks have been very reassuring, and this pick even more so.

If Gorsuch is a wolf in sheep's clothing (e.g. Earl Warren or even Anthony Kennedy) there is scant evidence of it.

  

[Wingnut]

Except that he attends a far left church that is stridently pro-abortion, pro-gay and anti-gun.

You keep repeating that canard. 

[txradioguy]

Except that he attends a far left church that is stridently pro-abortion, pro-gay and anti-gun.

Doesn't mean he is though.  Could have been a member of the Church long before it's politics went Liberal.

[Cyber Liberty]

White was one of the few conservatives on the Warren Court.

If that's what's being used against Gorsuch, it's laughable.

Most of the Dems aren't using any arguments at all to buttress their opposition to Gorsuch.  They are simply taking the mindless stance that since Obama didn't get his pick, they'll vote against Trump's no matter what, despite the Biden doctrine which was recently (2007) reiterated by Chuckie Schumer that no President gets to have a SCOTUS pick in his last year in office.

[INVAR]

You persist with the pornographic imagery.   My brain may be in backwards, but your brain's in your pants.

How does a woman arrive at the place she decides she wants to kill her baby?  Did she get pregnant by osmosis?

You're lame attempt at dissembling and deflection is stupid, as is your continuous argument in favor of infanticide.

[MOD8]

People.

Lets not turn this into another full blown "Abortion" discussion like the other day.

You can look at the Third Rail.  Just don't touch it.

[Oceander]

People.

Lets not turn this into another full blown "Abortion" discussion like the other day.

You can look at the Third Rail.  Just don't touch it.

Can we pee on it? 

[Cyber Liberty]

Can we pee on it? 

[Suppressed]

And if you were going to buy "body sovereignty" as some sort of implicit, unstated Constitutional right (which should be a non-sequitur), then suicide should be constitutional right as well.

We all know that the State owns us.  We have no right to decide what is right for our own lives.

[don-o]

Is that the fancy words they use for a mother murdering her own baby nowadays? I wonder if the exact same words weren't used as the priest threw the baby into the red hot hands of molech two thousand years ago...

BULLSHIT.

I expect the priests of Molech were more aware and honest about what they were doing than the political weasels of today.

[anubias]

Now that I have had the time to review the remarkable record of Neil Gorsuch, I must say that by all appearances Trump has kept faith with his supporters and nominated the best possible candidate for the job.  It will be impossible for liberals to argue that Gorsuch is not "qualified" given his stellar record, and after he won unanimous senate confirmation for the appeals court.  Any Democrat who obstructs this nominee will have to declare the purpose as purely political, either as retribution against Republicans for obstructing Obama's appointee, or based on abortion rights.  I say let them, especially those Democratic senators running for re-election in red states in a non-presidential year.

Gorsuch is under 50 years old, so he can be expected to make a difference on the court for a generation or more, far after Trump is gone.  Based on that alone, I feel my vote for Trump is justified.  I still don't like Trump's management style, and I oppose his protectionist policies, but his cabinet picks have been very reassuring, and this pick even more so.

If Gorsuch is a wolf in sheep's clothing (e.g. Earl Warren or even Anthony Kennedy) there is scant evidence of it.

I am more than pleased with this pick.  Excellent choice.

[Wingnut]

Can we pee on it? 

Only if you use a "back-flo" preventer and an inline flux capacitor.
@Oceander

[Jazzhead]

Is your f'n brain in backwards?

No, I want a conservative jurist on the SCOTUS, and believe that Judge Gorsuch will fit the bill.   But this obsession with demanding a litmus test on the overturning of Roe v. Wade is a fool's errand - a conservative jurist will recognize that the abortion issue is fundamentally political,  and leave the subject of taking a woman's rights away up to the peoples' elected representatives.