Noem Statement on Supreme Court Nominee

Pat Powers

Noem Statement on Supreme Court Nominee

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today issued the following statement regarding President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court:

“I am very encouraged by the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, who not only has exceptional qualifications but has shown a commitment to the Constitution and the liberties contained within it. While the House does not vote on Supreme Court nominations, I look forward to watching the upcoming Senate hearings, which will further clarify the perspective he’ll bring to the bench.”  

###

63 thoughts on “Noem Statement on Supreme Court Nominee”

  1. While Kristi is doing important meaningful work in DC, AG Jackley is trying to legalize medical marijuana in South Dakota. This is why I’m voting for a real republican Kristi Noem.

    2. I just spit milk out of my nose. You Noem staffers are funny. Only someone from D.C. Would brag about the “meaningful work” they are doing. I see tons of look-at-me-working photos on social media from people in congress but they don’t really do anything. They can’t even balance a budget. How about less photo opps and more action.

      1. I highly doubt this comment is from a staffer. Likely an overzealous supporter. I give her staff credit to come up with less obvious comments (I have no doubt that they’re commenting, as are Jackley staffers).

      3. Obummer has only been gone about two weeks, so you can’t expect to get the train back on the rails in that short time span. I guess folks like you expect Kristi to try to not be seen in public so they aren’t ever photographed.

      4. Team Jackley must be unhappy with the comments made about Marty on him letting Bollen walk free. I love the fight between Jacqueline no home when Matt Michaels gets in he’s going to be clean and win this election .

    3. It will be interesting. I do not hear a lot of support for her compared to Jackley. Maybe she will surprise us.

      2. I hear nothing but criticism of Marty and his inaction on EB5, GearUp, and crony capitalism on Marsy’s Law. This guy is a phony.

  2. “…. has shown a commitment to the Constitution….”

    Oh really? What do you call not holding hearings for the Garland nomination?…… Perhaps, a non commitment to the Constitution shall we say?

    1. Um Gorsuch isn’t a Member of the Senate. Her comment was about HIM and his service on the 10 District Court. Nice try though

        1. You were either trying to infer that he doesn’t follow the Constitution because of the lack of hearings, or your comment was incoherent. One or the other.

          1. No you don’t get it. I was just amazed that our Representative was impressed with Gorsuch’s respect for the constitution, while she ignored the Republicans (Her political party) disrespect for the constitution and the nominating process, when it came to Garland.

              1. The Senate never acted on the nomination. They failed on their Constitutional duty. An up or down on consent means deliberation and not silence…

                1. Apparently, you need to read the Constitution.

                  Unconstitutional does not mean “whatever you don’t like.”

                  1. When did I say it was unconstitutional?

                    Failing or not fulfilling a constitutional duty is not unconstitutional rather it is either a sign of incompetence or insubordination…. And often of a partisan nature….

                    1. you believe the senate failed….I believe they fully fulfilled their constitutional duty

                    2. I am responding to Anonymouse below, since I have no reply button for some reason:

                      So no action is fulfilling a constitutional duty. huh? That is an interesting argument. But I don’t think it was the original intent of our founding fathers on this matter…. and I know you guys love “original intent.” Isn’t that what Gorsuch is all about, huh?

        2. I guess I read Noem’s statement and interpreted it using the English language. Maybe you should go back to school.

          If you knew that he wasn’t in the Senate, then it just makes your comment look even more unintelligent.

          1. No, it doesn’t. Don’t try to cloud the debate through attempts to challenge the issue with statements that are not even tangent to the germane point that I made…

              1. Yes it was. How could Noem know “commitment to the Constitution,” when she can’t recognize a failure of constitutional duty by Senators from her own partisan party?

    2. The Constitution was followed the Senate has its own rules….maybe read the Constitution not just your talking points

      1. But according to your claim, shouldn’t I be reading the rules and not the Constitution so much?

        1. no…the senate shall advise and consent…period…it doesnt say one thing about how or when..100% within the confines of the senate’s power…executive branch has zero say

          1. But that time frame you mention is meant within the context of a given nominee and not nominees of the Senate’s choice as far as consideration is concerned…

              1. Why waste my time? It would most likely end in a 4 to 4 tie, thanks to the Senate Republicans…

                  1. No, I just understand that with a SCOTUS tie that the lower court prevails and your comment made mention of the SCOTUS and not the lower court.

                    I guess thanks to the Republican Senate I should take it all the way to the Court of Appeals, huh?

    3. Gee, I didn’t know Gorsuch was in the Senate. You must know something the rest of the country doesn’t; is Gorsuch a secret member?

      Also, I guess the Senate didn’t consent to Garland, another crappy Obummer nomination, so he didn’t get a vote. I’m glad we’re not replacing someone who cared about the Constitution like Scalia did with someone that Obummer saw fit to be on the court. Look at Obummer’s SCOTUS nominees, and you’ll see people who don’t give a flying fig about following the Constitution.

      1. When did I say he was a member of the Senate?

        Oh, and following the Constitution means that money is free speech? (Citizens United decision) Wow!

  3. I have an idea, to help Gorsuch get confirmed by the Senate maybe he should film himself running up the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art in true “Rocky” formation and all dressed in black… Yah, there you go….

    No better yet, since he is a Marshall Scholar who attended Oxford, perhaps he should have himself filmed running along the ocean shore line to the music from the movie “Chariots of Fire”…. Yah, that’s better,,,,,,Definitely……

      1. Oh, my arguments are great, but I would agree on the material part though…. Best I keep my day job, huh?

          1. Who? Me or the AG? I am very conservative when it comes to the issue of marijuana, actually.

  4. Trump again looks good but she wouldn’t campaign for him.

    Thanks for saving the republic Donald. I wish you had more help from SD.

  5. Noem’s Lincoln Co Lincoln Day Dinner speech was the best promotion of Trump I heard all election in SD.

  6. Jackley just another corrupt career politician using his state employees to run his campaign. He’s the law at its worst. Please don’t vote for this corrupt politician.

  7. Elections are expressions of voter desires.

    1). Democrats reference the Senate’s failure to approve Garland. What they seem to forget is voters rewarded Republicans with the Senate majority.

    2). Exit polls say a critical reason they voted for Trump was his promise to appoint a Justice in the mold of Scalia, which Trump did.

    Their current strategy of playing to their extreme base is going to put in jeopardy the 10 Democrat Senators running in states carried by Trump. I am shocked the instinct for self-preservation of these Dem Senators isn’t engendering push-back to Schumer & Company.

    But then again, when I observe the SDDP and their Legislators, I shouldn’t be so surprised.

    1. 1) The Constitution makes no mention of political parties. The Senate, under Republican leadership last year, failed to fulfill its constitutional duty with the Garland nomination to deliberate that nomination regardless of the potential and eventual outcome of that nomination.

      2) Are you talking about the Trump vote which was less than Hillary’s?

      3) As far as the legislature is concerned, at least the Democrats in Pierre don’t think that they are members of the House of Lords, where the Lords think it is their duty to delay and or prevent the legislation of the Commoners, whether it be on minimum wage or ethics reform for example….

        1. I don’t know. You tell me. Are you suggesting that absent a court ruling on every word or phrase of the Constitution that the other branches cannot act? If so, then we have no government, I guess.

          But absent a court ruling, I would think that confirming or not confirming a nomination necessitates an action. Else, the Senate has not fulfilled its obvious Constitutional duty…. Oh I forgot, nothing is obvious, so as you suggest then we have no federal system or government, huh?

          1. You’re the one that keeps making unfounded claims about “constitutionality,” yet demonstrate nothing but your own bloviation as evidence.

            On the other hand, just keep talking.

            That’s how we got Trump.

            1. You keep confusing “constitutionality” with “duty.” They are not necessarily one in the same. If Trump had failed to show up for his swearing in, then that would be a failure of “duty.” If the legislative branch had decided to host the inauguration and only swearing in on the 19th, instead of the 20th, then that would be “unconstitutional.”

  8. A Supreme Court justice nominee is supposed to be vetted according to his/her qualifications for the job, and IMO this nominee surpasses all the necessary criteria.

    And the Dems conveniently forget that there is precedent for not vetting Garland. In 2007 Schumer stated that no Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved. And in 1992 Joe Biden said the same thing — that President George H.W. Bush should wait to fill any
    Supreme Court vacancies until after the presidential election.

    1. Wait, you expect the Democrats to be held to the standards they themselves use? Good luck with that, Springer. Remember, the Democrats own hypocrisy. Remember how we had to get behind Obama because he was now our President? Pity Trump doesn’t deserve the same consideration.

      1. Obama won the popular vote in both of his presidential elections. Plus,
        there is no “Access” tape of an Obama conversation with Billy Bush… Maybe that is why Trump’s political honeymoon looks more like divorce proceedings…

      2. And remember Obama saying “I won.” And “elections have consequences.” Well, on that note he was right, and this time the conservatives won. The telling feature is how the losing side handles their loss, and on this too the conservatives are the adults in the room.

        1. Actually, that quote is from John McCain. And the election which matters conceding Mr. Garland is the 2012 election and not the 2016 election, which Trump only won through the electoral college.

          The Republicans have now established a tradition that a president only gets his or her SCOTUS nominee considered if his or her party controls the Senate. Given current demographic trends, the GOP should be worried about the future and getting any GOP Justice nominees even considered. I am sorry, but no electoral college in the future is going to be able to help you Republicans with this inevitable reality….

            1. How about the credibility of a popular vote victory, too, so that you can actually be credible when saying, “and this time the conservatives, won” as Springer suggests.

              There was no mandate, no majority, nor even a plurality victory for Trump that in and of itself justifies the Gorsuch nomination.

            1. The polls were actually right about the popular vote. Trump’s victory was the by product of the electoral college, which was discussed much less among the pundits both conservative and liberal alike….

  10. AG Jackley is in the process of allowing medical marijuana in South Dakota. Jackley has taken South Dakota one step closer to recreational use being legal. This is what our Republican AG is working on.

    1. Marty is no Republican. Conservatives don’t push medical marijuana because they know it leads to the recreational use. He may be the worst AG South Dakota has ever had.

Comments are closed.