Home | About | Donate

With Rallies and Warnings, Opposition Calls on Dems to Block 'Supremely Extreme' Gorsuch


#1

With Rallies and Warnings, Opposition Calls on Dems to Block 'Supremely Extreme' Gorsuch

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

With confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch beginning Monday, the question remains whether Democrats will stand up for the rights of people, or if they will cave to Republican pressure and back the extremist judge.


#2

McConnell stole the Supreme Court seat in open on TV along with many other court nominations Obama made. If Dems cooperate with the fascist GOP they are toast.


#3

News tells us that Gorsuch has been a restrict voter rights, pro apartheid and pro contra sort of person.

So where did the money for professional signs and shirt printing come from. I've been across the street from Koch Brothers funded rally signs and this coordinated color coding is similar.


#4

Well this one should be a no brainer but remember this is the democratic party we are talking about. They excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


#5

Garrett, you embarrass yourself. Look at the bottom of the signs in these photos. Do you see the different names of the many groups and organizations? People donate money to pay for their group's participatory signs.

I hope this ...um...helps clarify things for you.

Let me guess... you voted for Trump?


#6

Is there really a Democratic Party? I know there is a political organization of that name that is much focused on collecting contributions that offers places where people can get elected or appointed to office that aren't Republican.

Maybe it is the name that gets me? Perhaps we could call some of the Democrats ...um...well Democrats but most of them (to judge by their voting positions and ineffectual opposition) seriously deserve to be called Republican Democrats. They talk like Democrats but arrange things (I think many simply take turns) to work out where Republicans win.

Do these pro Republican Democrats regularly collect contributions from influential Republican donors?

Oh what a shocking thought! Why that would mean that they are also lying to us!

To remember how the Dems betrayed Bernie (the most popular candidate) is to look at Trump running roughshod over our democracy and you are left wondering whether the Democrats (or some) may have even wanted him to win.


#7

I read your post about the Dems becoming toast and a chill ran down my spine. Maybe too many of us still think that fascism is confined exclusively to Republican circles.

Dems seem willing to almost oppose? They oppose up until the point where they might win and then (it seems so orchestrated) enough of them cave to let the Repubs have their way.

Look at this last year where the republicans prevented Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice and notice how Trump hasn't even gotten settled in and the Senate will review Gorsuch in a week!

How does that work?

I think the Dems will count on getting themselves elected (re-elected) simply by talking about how bad it will be if Repubs win. Then the Dems who get elected will do nothing or they'll act like proto-republican enablers of republican positions.


#8

"...the question remains whether Democrats will stand up for the rights of people, or if they will cave to Republican pressure and back the extremist judge." I have to disagree with this statement. What pressure? From whom? I've not seen one Republican, not read about one Republican, not heard one Republican on CSPAN say or do one thing that created pressure against ANY Democrat nor Independent. What could they possibly say? Threaten to continue NOT pushing for criminal action against the Prez's continual conflict of interest issues, not push criminal defamation of character of the previous Prez with the wiretapping issue? Must I really continue? Damn...really people!? Come on, quit the fuckin games! So much for honoring our troops, our Constitution, and our human right to healthcare. What a load.


#9

Hello Wereflea .., I looked again at the signs you said had group names. Found zero. Absolute zero group names.

There are no names of any groups that I can see, Wereflea. All I can see are stark, impersonal corporate printed signs and shirts. All are the same low budget single color on white background.

Though I didn't vote for iTrumpet, I still have a few life-long friends who did. They seem as surprised as everybody else at how this election keeps on turning out.

Corps and ngos don't have hand painted signs from around the kitchen table. committee approved text and colors only.


#10

Well, McConnell did say the filibuster is gone if Democrats try and block Gorsuch. The Dems have very little power and that's the honest truth. Really, the time to stop this was prior to the election, but too many on the Left believed too much nonsense about HRC while the right had the big picture, the Supreme Court, in mind. If Trump gets another justice on the Court too, you can forget single payer and a bunch of other issues that matter. But hey, we showed the neoliberals who is boss and got peace with Russia!


#11

True that


#12

Any way you look at it, Gorsuch is in. The hearings will allow some Democrats to make a token show of resistance, but so far, most have been deferential to Gorsuch. More importantly, there are more than enough of those "Republican Democrats" that Wereflea mentions to get the simple majority of votes needed, should McConnell need that option. The Democrats haven't voted, unanimously, to oppose any of Trump's picks, yet, and they're not likely to do so with Gorsuch. The ever corporate-friendly Democratic party will have no problem signing off on Gorsuch.


#13

Judge Gorsuch wrote the 10th Circuit’s opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, which found that under the 1st Amendment, Hobby Lobby, Inc., – the corporation, not the individuals who own it – had the right to use of religion as an excuse to discriminate against women, and opened the door to discrimination against LGBTQ people.

The fact that Judge Gorsuch allowed that discrimination is bad enough, but his ruling is made even worse by his belief that Corporations – as opposed to the individuals who own them – have ANY inalienable Constitutional rights at all.

I challenge Judge Gorsuch – who claims to be a strict constructionist – to find any reference in the U.S. Constitution to Corporate Constitutional rights. He can’t do it, because there are NO references to it in the Constitution. And that is not because there were no corporations back then – there were. And it is not because the Founders simply forgot to include it – they did not.

The Constitution is silent as to Corporate Constitutional Rights because the Founders did not intend Corporations to have any inalienable rights under the Constitution. They recognized Corporations for what they were – dangerous artificial legal entities that needed to be closely regulated by State law.

Corporations were NEVER intended to have, and they DO NOT NEED, inalienable Constitutional Rights to do business. Corporations should only have, and only need, those legal, statutory, rights that we give them under our laws of Incorporation.

Any Judge – including Judge Gorsuch – who believes that artificial legal entities, such as Corporations, should have the same God-given, inalienable, Constitutional Rights that we, natural human beings, have, has no business being on the Supreme Court.

Steve Justino
Chair, Colorado Move to Amend
http://www.MoveToAmend.org


#14

Both Bush eras were chosen presidential joker heads of state.
=Impeachment by 2018= if not SOONER
(emphasis on sooner)
Ladies and gentlemen, this is world wide war in the making
with mister trump. Grounds 4 impeachment perhaps?