Thune Statement on Confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch
“Judge Gorsuch is the kind of judge all of us should want on the nation’s highest court, and I wish him the best as he begins this next chapter in his judicial career.”
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) released the following statement after the Republican-led Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Today the Senate voted to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch, preserving the nearly 230-year tradition of approving Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority vote. While Democrats tried – on a purely partisan basis – to block this nomination, Republicans ensured Judge Gorsuch received an up-or-down vote, and he was ultimately confirmed with the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate.
“Judge Gorsuch is known for his impartiality and commitment to the rule of law. He is a jurist with a distinguished career who understands that the job of a judge is to apply the law as it is written, even when he disagrees with it. Judge Gorsuch is the kind of judge all of us should want on the nation’s highest court, and I wish him the best as he begins this next chapter in his judicial career.”
###
Funny stuff, Johnny. Merrick Garland got robbed and you nuked the senate. Looming like Lurch behind Mitch McTurtle ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.
yeah Darn “Biden and Schumer” rules…GOP actually followed them and now the Democrats are mad #hypocrites
Trust me, I ain’t happy about changing Senate rules THEN or NOW. The fact remains however, that holding out for nigh on a year with Garland in the pipeline was complete BS and you know it. Don’t pretend this is about Dems getting thier comeuppance for nuking fed judges…. which the Republicans also drug ass on confirming. It’s a damn mess and a tragedy – not a friggin’ team sport.
Biden said Senate shouldn’t confirm Supremes during election season, next President should get pick. Deal with it.
The whole 60 vote thing is a made up rule anyway, not some unbreakable vow. Not in Constitution. And never used for a Supreme anyway.
And Robert Bork says hi!
“yeah Darn “Biden and Schumer” rules”– They are NOT “rules” it was simple opinion and no vacancy was in the SCOTUS at the time, those opinions did NOT stop one nominee from being confirmed and Biden voted for several— What Biden said is a RWNJ, bulltrump, excuse for manipulating the system for politics..
Bork?– The reason for confirmation hearings is to try to determine if a nominee is qualified…. that is what happened …”live with it”
How about telling me how the Constitution is limited to certain people—as Bork said.. Do you think some Americans have less Constitutional rights than others?
I am very glad that Gorsuch has been confirmed as a Justice who will uphold the meaning of the Constitution. The liberals want a “living, breathing” Constitution that waves in the political winds, which is in reality no Constitution at all. This Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc has served this nation well over 200 plus years and made this nation one that is a beacon of hope to many in the world. It is up to us as citizens to ensure that our nation continues as such, and this confirmation is a great next step.
“Justice who will uphold the meaning of the Constitution.”– Give examples when the Constitution meaning was NOT upheld….. I do agree with your sentiments about the Constitution and strongly believe it should not be tampered with as the promoters of the article 5 convention of states
would do to “fix” the parts they don’t like…Do you support that movement after saying— ” This Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc has served this nation well over 200 plus years and made this nation one that is a beacon of hope to many in the world.”?
Jae Dee, if you have a minute, could you help me find that right to an abortion in the Constiution? Which article or amendment says that . I missed it???
I’m not surprised, it is spelled out in the R v, W. decision…. Maybe you could tell me where in the Constitution it gives the power of forced pregnancy to the government……………….hey, do you drive your car on the sidewalks because the drivers manuals do not specifically tell you not to? The manuals also do not say ” do not run over school kids” —-is that legal?
“Which article or amendment says that?”– that could be asked of hundreds of things, just because they aren’t specifically mentioned doesn’t mean they are not allowed, the courts interpret the Constitution so folks like faux-bithers can’t deny Constitutional rights to other Americans based on ignorance, bigotry, or some goofy personal interpretation of a religion….they try to impose on all….
Tell me sir, should women have the right to vote or those slaves at the time have the right to marry a white? Those are just 2 examples of things not specifically in the 1st. amendment, should they not be allowed because there are some today that would restrict both and base their opinion on their bible just as they base their gay bigotry on their bible—- Do you think any segment of this society should have less Constitutional protections than your segment because they are not mentioned in the Constitution?
The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.
Jae Dee,
So apparently you couldn’t find that language in the constitution either (you didn’t provide a reference to an article of amendment that says it). Thank you. I thought it was just me and most of the literate world that thought it was a made up right by a court unconstrainded by the language of the document. Thanks for confirming
PS there are places where your politics and the Constitution align, but defending Roe is just not an intellectual winner for you