Neil Gorsuch Headed for Supreme Court

Before his announcement, T-Rump worked his carnival barker schtick:



But there wasn't a soul on the planet who didn't know what that was about.

“Make no mistake, Senate Democrats will not simply allow but require an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch’s fitness to be a supreme court justice,” said Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

  Guardian

Is that the Chuck Schumer who has voted in favor of all five of Trump's cabinet picks so far?

And is that pronounced Gor-such or Gor-suck. Serious question.

Many Democrats are particularly bitter about the confirmation process after Republicans’ refusal last year to consider the nomination of circuit court judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s selection to replace Scalia.

Awww. But how many of them will go ahead and confirm? Democrats are just plain bitter these days, because they can't play the game well enough to beat the Republicans.

But a Democratic blockade seemed unlikely after Dick Durbin, the number 2 ranking Democrat in the Senate, issued a statement calling for a floor vote on Gorsuch.

“I will meet with Judge Gorsuch and support a hearing and a vote for him—both of which were denied to an eminently qualified nominee presented by President Obama,” Durbin said in a statement.

That'll teach 'em.

The previous Democratic leadership of the Senate changed the rules to require fewer votes for the confirmation of most executive nominees.

The brilliance is awesome, isn't it?

Working for the last year with an even number of justices, the court issued split 4-4 decisions on high-stakes questions such as the protection of undocumented immigrants and the health of public unions, leaving lower court rulings in place.

The next justice to be confirmed may break such ties, giving new strength to the court’s conservative bloc, which could be further buttressed by future Trump nominations in the case of the retirement or death of a justice.

[...]

[Gorsuch] has shown himself to be solicitous to claims of religious exemptions from the law, to gun rights claims and to the prosecution of death penalty cases.

[...]

He is the author of a book about euthanasia in which he writes, “to act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests only on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends.”

I bet he doesn't extend that idea to war. And, isn't that a Republican basic argument about life anyway?

Before he left the lectern, Trump sought confirmation that his primetime announcement had gone over as planned.

“So was that a surprise?” he said. “Was it?”

No, you dick. No, it wasn't. WTF is wrong with you?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.