Neil Gorsuch ends the era of Supreme Court betrayals for Republicans

[mystery-ak]

Neil Gorsuch ends the era of Supreme Court betrayals for Republicans
By Matt Schlapp, opinion contributor - 02/01/17 12:00 PM EST

After less than two weeks in office, President Trump has further cemented recalcitrant conservatives, even those from the island of Never Trump, by doing something that demonstrates character: He kept his promise on the most important presidential decision for conservatives.

In picking Judge Neil Gorsuch for the highest court in the land, the president fulfilled his unorthodox but politically creative promise to select a nominee from two lists pulled together with the imprimatur of President Reagan’s attorney general, the revered Ed Meese.

more
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/317338-neil-gorsuch-ends-the-era-of-supreme-court-betrayals-for

[geronl]

counting chickens before the eggs even got laid

[Wingnut]

counting chickens before the eggs even got laid

You're brain is scrambled.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

counting chickens before the eggs even got laid

No, it's not.  Nobody can ever be certain of how a particular justice will rule when they are first placed on the court. 

Trump made a promise -- "If elected, my first nominee will be someone from this list,"  and it was a list prepared largely with input from the Federalist Society, and which was openly available for vetting and comment for months.  The general consensus among virtually everyone on the right was that everyone on the list would be a solid pick.  And he fulfilled that promise

If you don't like who he picked, that's your business.  But the guy did exactly what he said he would do on this issue, and if Gorsuch goes nutty, it won't be Trump's fault.  He sought advice from the most reliably conservative legal organization there is, and followed it.

[the_doc]

No, it's not.  Nobody can ever be certain of how a particular justice will rule when they are first placed on the court. 

Trump made a promise -- "If elected, my first nominee will be someone from this list,"  and it was a list prepared largely with input from the Federalist Society, and which was openly available for vetting and comment for months.  The general consensus among virtually everyone on the right was that everyone on the list would be a solid pick.  And he fulfilled that promise

If you don't like who he picked, that's your business.  But the guy did exactly what he said he would do on this issue, and if Gorsuch goes nutty, it won't be Trump's fault.  He sought advice from the most reliably conservative legal organization there is, and followed it.

I would cut geronl a little more slack.  I suspect that geronl was objecting to the stupid title of the article, not complaining about the choice of Gorsuch.

Republicans got betrayed even when Scalia was on the SCOTUS--and I cannot ever recall Scalia betraying us in a meaningful way.  So we are back in the same position we were in when Kennedy and even Chief Justice Roberts occasionally came down disastrously on the wrong side of the law for us.

My point here is that we are not better off with Gorsuch than we were with Scalia.  So, the title of the thread is evidently false.  We need to replace a liberal on the court to get completely out of danger.     

[Wingnut]

No, doc, he really is complaining about the choice of Gorsuch.  Often and on every thread he can.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I have no problem with this choice, but geronl has a point, the guy isn't even on the USSC yet, so he can't really end anything.

[geronl]

The author claims to be psychic and knows the future.

[the_doc]

No, doc, he really is complaining about the choice of Gorsuch.  Often and on every thread he can.

Thanks for the heads up.  My Texas buddy geronl and I agree about most things, but I am inclined to side with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee on this one.  However, I still think the title of the thread is wrong.  We ain't out of the woods.  In my opinion, Gorsuch is not going to be better than Scalia--and yet we still couldn't win all of the important SCOTUS cases when Scalia was alive.   

[Wingnut]

Thanks for the heads up.  My Texas buddy geronl and I agree about most things, but I am inclined to side with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee on this one.  However, I still think the title of the thread is wrong.  We ain't out of the woods.  In my opinion, Gorsuch is not going to be better than Scalia--and yet we still couldn't win all of the important SCOTUS cases when Scalia was alive.

I'll concede that point.