I didn't want to hijack the Donald Trump thread, so I am posting this here.
1. Trump just nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court - he is said to be at least as conservative as Scalia, whom he replaces.
2. It is important to understand that while the court is made up of 9 individual seats, and the seats are at large rather than representing specific political areas as does the legislature, the Democrats have previously demanded the person who replaces someone be similar - for example, when Sandra Day O'Connor retired, her seat HAD to be give to a woman. So their protests are hypocritical.
3. Gorsuch, while amply qualified (sitting justice of the Court of Appeals), is very young for a supreme court nominee, meaning he could be on the court for literally another 40 years! Being a justice is not that taxing because they hear only about 100 cases a year and have significant staff. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsbur will turn 84 in 6 weeks. Because of his intellect and credentials, he likely will become Chief Justice at some point.
4. Some people think Gorsuch is as reasonable a nominee as the Left reasonably could have expected. More here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-01...have-hoped
5. Trump realistically could have 3 more appointments coming soon: Ginsburg (lefty) is 83, Kennedy (Rino) is 80, and Breyer (moderate lefty) will be 78 in mid-August. They'll probably have to drag Ginsburg's corpse out of the building rather than retiring during a Trump administration, but her health is not great (cancer twice, coronary stent, etc.) and her husband died a few years ago, so we'll see. (The most liberal justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, are 62 and 56 respectively. Everyone else is in their 60s. Retirement is possible but unless necessary for health considerations its rare for a justice to retire in their 60s.)
5. The really interesting thing about Trump's first nomination is that Obama wasn't able to confirm an appointment after Scalia died. Obama appointed a liberal for Scalia's seat even though the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Ultimately Obama's nominee was not voted upon. The Democrats cried dirty politics, but Obama was not reasonable with such a liberal appointment to replace such a conservative justice. But the left has a point here to a small extent, although its a bit far to call it a stolen nomination as the NY Times does. "Bonus" appointment is a better description, in my view. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opini....html?_r=0
6. Nothing in the Constitution limits the court to 9 members. FDR "packed" the court with his nominees, and threatened to double the size of the court with his nominees, unless Congress passed his liberal New Deal. Just imagine 9 more Trump appointees.
1. Trump just nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court - he is said to be at least as conservative as Scalia, whom he replaces.
2. It is important to understand that while the court is made up of 9 individual seats, and the seats are at large rather than representing specific political areas as does the legislature, the Democrats have previously demanded the person who replaces someone be similar - for example, when Sandra Day O'Connor retired, her seat HAD to be give to a woman. So their protests are hypocritical.
3. Gorsuch, while amply qualified (sitting justice of the Court of Appeals), is very young for a supreme court nominee, meaning he could be on the court for literally another 40 years! Being a justice is not that taxing because they hear only about 100 cases a year and have significant staff. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsbur will turn 84 in 6 weeks. Because of his intellect and credentials, he likely will become Chief Justice at some point.
4. Some people think Gorsuch is as reasonable a nominee as the Left reasonably could have expected. More here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-01...have-hoped
5. Trump realistically could have 3 more appointments coming soon: Ginsburg (lefty) is 83, Kennedy (Rino) is 80, and Breyer (moderate lefty) will be 78 in mid-August. They'll probably have to drag Ginsburg's corpse out of the building rather than retiring during a Trump administration, but her health is not great (cancer twice, coronary stent, etc.) and her husband died a few years ago, so we'll see. (The most liberal justices, Sotomayer and Kagan, are 62 and 56 respectively. Everyone else is in their 60s. Retirement is possible but unless necessary for health considerations its rare for a justice to retire in their 60s.)
5. The really interesting thing about Trump's first nomination is that Obama wasn't able to confirm an appointment after Scalia died. Obama appointed a liberal for Scalia's seat even though the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Ultimately Obama's nominee was not voted upon. The Democrats cried dirty politics, but Obama was not reasonable with such a liberal appointment to replace such a conservative justice. But the left has a point here to a small extent, although its a bit far to call it a stolen nomination as the NY Times does. "Bonus" appointment is a better description, in my view. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opini....html?_r=0
6. Nothing in the Constitution limits the court to 9 members. FDR "packed" the court with his nominees, and threatened to double the size of the court with his nominees, unless Congress passed his liberal New Deal. Just imagine 9 more Trump appointees.
![[Image: angel.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/angel.gif)
![[Image: banana.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/banana.gif)
![[Image: wtf.jpg]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/wtf.jpg)
![[Image: gorsuchtrumpshake.jpeg?w=500&h=330]](https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/gorsuchtrumpshake.jpeg?w=500&h=330)
