UPDATE: Day Two Senate Confirmation Hearing wasn’t re-sawing sawdust the progressive went “Full Scorched Earth Feinstein leads the way

The reader need not watch the entire video below as I took excellent notes.

Dianne Feinstein’s input is certainly worth the price of admission, you may see her in action below,

 

Without being partisan, here are my observations.

Today’s designated attack dog was Senator Diane Feinstein

She made an excellent case for defining deviancy down while removing traditional family values by replacing them with their constant harang on abortion, and L.G.B.T. protection and abortion rights.

It never ceases to amaze how the progressives on the Senate Confirmation continue to make their case for what many might say is defining deviancy down while attempting to make America no longer a semblance of what it was before Barrack Hussein Obama and his junta darkened the doorstep at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The highlight of the day was when one of the members of the senate defined the word, “Politics.”  Broken down to its roots, we have “Poli”= many and “Tics= blood sucking parasites,” which aptly describes today’s legislative branch of the government

Broken down to its roots, we have “Poli”= many and “Tics= blood sucking parasites,” which aptly describes today’s legislative branch of the government.

In keeping the aforementioned definition in mind, they repeatedly asked the same questions over and over to which nominee Gorsuch could have easily replied, “Asked and answered.”

 

He, of course, chose not to do so and patiently answered the same questions, over and over and over again.

In summary, it was a great day for nominee Gorsuch who handled the opposition’s questions like a very patient school teacher on he second day of kindergarten.

Diane Feinstein proved once again that she is a “Clear and Present Danger,” to the entire United States of America.

She swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, yet she has made it her life’s work to destroy they 2nd Amendment.

At 83 she is a senile old dowager and needs to be replaced.

Only in a state like CA or NY would the voters be so ignorant as to continue reelecting her !

Think of Feinstein’s brain as a piece of Swiss Cheese.

Now take a look at the image below.

This is what a brain with Alzheimer’s Disease looks like.

 

 

Until the Republicans took over the U.S. Senate, she was the Chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Odd that a woman with so little understanding about the role of a judge would have been in charge of such an important committee.

Well, this is Washington, D.C. and far stranger things than that have happened.

“Other than that, how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln?

 

 

For the progressives on the committee, they seem to be quite comfortable playing the fool.

So well in fact if they keep it up it will be to the detriment of your fathers Democrat Party.

There are few certainties in life, one can be said today.

Progressive democrats have ultra short memories or they were pushing their leftist agenda upon the hearings, I suggest both!

Didn’t hear any moaning or notice any hand wringing when leftist justices Sotomayor and Keagan lied their way through their senatorial confirmation hearing.

Each said Heller was confirmed case-law by the Supreme Court of the United States. (Source)

Each changed their minds every time the were confronted with gun law cases and voted for more control.

There is only one word to describe their later decisions, they “LIED.”

See the entire article below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is taking questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee in the second day of his confirmation hearing. The federal appeals court judge has clarified comments about maternity leave he made in a legal ethics class and defended a controversial dissenting opinion about a fired trucker. 

But on abortion and campaign finance, Gorsuch has not tipped his judicial hand, insisting: “Your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with a good judge.” As in his opening statement, Gorsuch stressed his independence.

Franken Goes On The Attack, And Gorsuch Coolly Dodges

 

Democratic Sen. Al Franken listens to Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch testify on the second day of his confirmation hearing.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

The “frozen trucker” case came up once again on Tuesday, when Minnesota Sen. Al Franken questioned Judge Gorsuch.

This is a 10th Circuit case about Alphonse Maddin, a trucker who was fired for abandoning his trailer to seek warmth in extremely cold weather. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found in favor of Maddin, but Gorsuch dissented.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also questioned Gorsuch about the case on Tuesday, and as NPR’s Nina Totenberg has reported, (Source) the case has been a focal point of Democrats’ arguments against Gorsuch.

Though the case had been discussed earlier, Franken went through the facts again and tried to get Gorsuch to say what he would have done in Maddin’s situation. Gorsuch eventually said he didn’t know.

Franken’s aggressive inquiry included several more pointed questions, including how Gorsuch felt about the way Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland “was treated by the Republican senators,” about Gorsuch’s views on same-sex marriage and about how White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus has characterized Gorsuch as a part of President Trump’s political agenda.

As with the conversation about the frozen trucker, the line of questioning became more an exercise in the Minnesota Democrat making points than in Gorsuch providing new information in his answers. As Supreme Court nominees often do (and as Gorsuch did earlier in the day), the judge dodged or demurred on many of the questions Franken asked.

A moment of levity as Sen. Ben Sasse begins his questioning of Judge Gorsuch.

The Nebraska Republican read off a question from his wife that she just had to know about the Supreme Court nominee: “How in the world is Gorsuch able to go so many hours at a time without peeing?”

(We’re on Hour 7 of today’s hearing, and the committee has taken only two breaks)

“The SCOTUS bladder is something the country stands in awe of,” Sasse said to guffaws in the room as Gorsuch chuckled.

As he has with most other issues that may come before the Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch deftly sidestepped a query from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., about whether cameras should be permitted in the high court’s oral arguments. The Supreme Court has to date refused the intrusion, although it does release audio of its arguments.

Gorsuch called it “a very important question,” although he confessed it’s not one he has given a great deal of thought.

“I’ve experienced more cameras in the last few weeks than I have in my whole lifetime,” Gorsuch observed.

But pressed, Gorsuch would commit only that he would “treat it like any other case. … I would want to hear the arguments.”

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”Gorsuch was responding to a line of questioning about whether he has been too hard on the “little guy” in his judicial decisions.

He used the fish anecdote to illustrate what he characterized as the U.S.’s commitment to protecting all people equally, which he called “the most radical guarantee I’m aware of in the history of human law.”

Any Gorsuch skeptics may be particularly interested in exactly how much he’d be willing to disagree with the president in upholding that rule of law. Many of Trump’s critics have claimed that the president is a threat to the rule of law, due to his attacks on the judiciary, the press and his political opponents. (Source)

 

Longing For A Simpler Confirmation Process

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., pressed Judge Gorsuch on the high court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures for political causes.

Gorsuch said it was up to Congress to change the law if it wishes to outlaw such contributions, a prospect Whitehouse thought highly unlikely.

He then asked Gorsuch his thoughts about what Whitehouse sees as an outgrowth of that decision, a “$10 million” political campaign to lobby the Senate to approve Gorsuch.

Gorsuch said there was much about the process that he regretted.

“When Byron White sat here, it was 90 minutes,” Gorsuch said.

“He was through this body in two weeks and he smoked cigarettes while he gave his testimony.”

While there is definitely no smoking in the Capitol these days, Gorsuch’s nomination is expected to be voted on by the full Senate almost as quickly, although almost certainly not by voice vote as White’s was.

Gorsuch Defends Textualism: It’s About Due Process, Avoiding ‘Armies Of Lawyers’

See the entire article below

Questioned by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, about his judicial philosophy, Judge Gorsuch explained that his belief in sticking strictly to the text of the law — as opposed to trying to divine intent — is about due process.

“Before I put a person in prison, before I deny someone of their liberty or property, I want to be very sure that I can look them square in the eye and say, ‘You should have known,’” Gorsuch said.

But he also linked it to making sure that common, non-wealthy Americans have access to the judicial system.

“I don’t want to have to say, ‘How am I supposed to tell? I need an army of lawyers to figure that out,” he said. “Some people can afford armies of lawyers. Most Americans can’t.”

While many Americans may not particularly care about phrases like “textualism” and “strict constructionist,” that populist framing of judicial philosophy may help Gorsuch to win over people watching Tuesday’s hearing (perhaps Trump supporters, in particular).

One more factor working in his favor, fully 37 percent of Americans believe lawyers have “low” or “very low” levels of “honesty and ethical standards,” according to Gallup. Meanwhile, only 18 percent say “high” or “very high.” (Incidentally, that puts lawyers just below journalists … but well above members of Congress.)

 

Gorsuch Clarifies Maternity Leave Question

Judge Gorsuch was asked by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., about a young woman who alleged that Gorsuch asked students in a legal ethics class he taught to raise their hands if they knew of a woman who had taken maternity benefits from a company and then left the company after having a baby. The student’s allegation was reported by NPR here.  (Source) But Gorsuch said the student was mistaken about the question he asked during the class discussion. Gorsuch says the actual question he asked was a part of this lesson:

“The problem is this: Suppose an older partner, woman at the firm that you’re interviewing at, asks you if you intend to become pregnant soon. Your choice as a young person [is] you can say yes, tell the truth…. And not get the job and not be able to pay your debts. You can lie, maybe get the job…That’s a choice, too, that’s a hard choice.

You can push back in some way, shape or form

. And we talk about the pros and the cons in a Socratic dialogue so they can think through for themselves how they might answer that very difficult question. And senator, I do ask for a show of hands, not about the question you asked, but about the following question and I ask it of everybody: ‘How many of you have had questions like this asked of you in the employment environment, an inappropriate question about your family planning.’ And I am shocked every year, senator, how many young women raise their hand. It’s disturbing to me.”

Gorsuch said his mother, lawyer and former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, had to wait a year to take the bar exam because of her gender, and also pointed to former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who he said first worked as a legal secretary because no law firm would hire her as an attorney. And Gorsuch thanked Sen. Durbin “for the opportunity to clarify that.”

Gorsuch On ‘Frozen Trucker’ Case: I Applied The Law As Written

 

Sen. Durbin also pressed Judge Gorsuch on a case that popped up several times Monday in Democratic senators’ opening statements: (Source) a dissenting opinion in which Gorsuch ruled against a trucker who lost his job after his truck broke down in freezing temperatures. He was instructed by his company to stay with the trailer, but as he was growing numb he left to find warmth. (NPR’s Nina Totenberg has more on the case).

On Monday, Durbin slammed Gorsuch’s legal rationale for ruling against the trucker, saying that while it was 14 degrees below zero that night,  “but not as cold as your dissent, Judge Gorsuch.” The majority of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the trucker, Alphonse Maddin.

Gorsuch admitted that the case was a difficult one for him, saying that it was “one of those you take home at night.” But he said he had to apply the law as written by Congress even if it was a “bad decision” and he stood by his interpretation that the trucker was at fault because he chose to operate the truck at the outset, and that he would have been protected if he had refused to operate the truck from the beginning.

“My job isn’t to write the law; it’s to apply the law,” Gorsuch said.

The Supreme Court nominee also said it was unfair to pull out that one decision — out of more than 2,700 he has decided — to paint him as too pro-business.

“I can point you to so many where I’ve found for a worker in an employment action,” Gorsuch said.

 

Durbin Tries To Tie Gorsuch To Steve King Comments 

After a brief 30-minute recess for lunch and Senate votes, the Judiciary Committee hearing is back in full swing with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois up to grill Gorsuch.

Durbin brought up Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King’s inflammatory tweet last week, where he tweeted the U.S. couldn’t be restored “with somebody else’s babies.”

The connection Durbin was trying to make was to Gorsuch’s dissertation adviser at Oxford University,

John Finnis, who has also made inflammatory statements about same-sex marriage.

Durbin pointed to statements Finnis had made about the dropping birth rate in the United Kingdom.

Gorsuch pointed out that he has not tolerated lawyers who make racist remarks in the past and has even reported them to the bar association for possible discipline. And he also reaffirmed that in same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court’s precedent stands.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution,” Gorsuch said.

Pressed On Trump Travel Ban, Gorsuch Says ‘No Man Is Above The Law’

Gorsuch Clarifies Maternity Leave Question

 

Judge Gorsuch was asked by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., about a young woman who alleged that Gorsuch asked students in a legal ethics class he taught to raise their hands if they knew of a woman who had taken maternity benefits from a company and then left the company after having a baby. (The student’s allegation was reported by NPR here.) But Gorsuch said the student was mistaken about the question he asked during the class discussion. Gorsuch says the actual question he asked was a part of this lesson:

“The problem is this: Suppose an older partner, woman at the firm that you’re interviewing at, asks you if you intend to become pregnant soon.

Your choice as a young person [is] you can say yes, tell the truth…. And not get the job and not be able to pay your debts.

You can lie, maybe get the job…That’s a choice, too, that’s a hard choice.

You can push back in some way, shape or form. And we talk about the pros and the cons in a Socratic dialogue so they can think through for themselves how they might answer that very difficult question.

And senator, I do ask for a show of hands, not about the question you asked, but about the following question and I ask it of everybody: ‘How many of you have had questions like this asked of you in the employment environment, an inappropriate question about your family planning.’

And I am shocked every year, senator, how many young women raise their hand. It’s disturbing to me.”

Gorsuch said his mother, lawyer and former EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, had to wait a year to take the bar exam because of her gender, and also pointed to former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who he said first worked as a legal secretary because no law firm would hire her as an attorney. And Gorsuch thanked Sen. Durbin “for the opportunity to clarify that.”

 

 

Gorsuch On ‘Frozen Trucker’ Case: I Applied The Law As Written

Sen. Durbin also pressed Judge Gorsuch on a case that popped up several times Monday in Democratic senators’ opening statements: a dissenting opinion in which Gorsuch ruled against a trucker who lost his job after his truck broke down in freezing temperatures.

He was instructed by his company to stay with the trailer, but as he was growing numb he left to find warmth. (NPR’s Nina Totenberg has more on the case). On Monday, Durbin slammed Gorsuch’s legal rationale for ruling against the trucker, saying that while it was 14 degrees below zero that night,  “but not as cold as your dissent, Judge Gorsuch.” The majority of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the trucker, Alphonse Maddin.

Gorsuch admitted that the case was a difficult one for him, saying that it was “one of those you take home at night.” But he said he had to apply the law as written by Congress even if it was a “bad decision” and he stood by his interpretation that the trucker was at fault because he chose to operate the truck at the outset and that he would have been protected if he had refused to operate the truck from the beginning.

“My job isn’t to write the law; it’s to apply the law,” Gorsuch said.

The Supreme Court nominee also said it was unfair to pull out that one decision — out of more than 2,700 he has decided — to paint him as too pro-business.

“I can point you to so many where I’ve found for a worker in an employment action,” Gorsuch said.

After a brief 30-minute recess for lunch and Senate votes, the Judiciary Committee hearing is back in full swing with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois up to grill Gorsuch.

Durbin brought up Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King’s inflammatory tweet last week, where he tweeted the U.S. couldn’t be restored “with somebody else’s babies.”

The connection Durbin was trying to make was to Gorsuch’s dissertation adviser at Oxford University, John Finnis, who has also made inflammatory statements about same-sex marriage. Durbin pointed to statements Finnis had made about the dropping birth rate in the United Kingdom.

Gorsuch pointed out that he has not tolerated lawyers who make racist remarks in the past and has even reported them to the bar association for possible discipline. And he also reaffirmed that in same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court’s precedent stands.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution,” Gorsuch said.

 

Pressed On Trump Travel Ban, Gorsuch Says ‘No Man Is Above The Law’

Judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during the second day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Judge Gorsuch was pressed by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., about a matter he’s very likely to see before him if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court — President Trump’s controversial travel ban that bars people from six Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S.

Gorsuch said he, of course, couldn’t get into the specifics of the ban, which has currently been temporarily halted by a federal trial court judge in Hawaii.

“If you are asking about how to apply it to a specific case, I can’t talk about that for understandable reasons. You ask me to apply it to a set of facts that look an awful lot like a pending case in many circuits now,” Gorsuch said.

But Gorsuch did agree that any religious test is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Trump administration has claimed that the president has wide purview when it comes to making executive orders on national security, but Gorsuch said that such orders are reviewable. “No man is above the law,” Gorsuch said, pointing to the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer decision, which did limit some executive powers in the case of steel seizure for national emergencies.

If Trump Had Asked About Roe V. Wade, Gorsuch Says He Would Have Walked Out

In questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Judge Gorsuch again reiterated he gave President Trump no guarantees on how he would rule on abortion rights, despite Trump’s campaign trail promise that views on abortion would be an important consideration for him in picking a justice.

Gorsuch was blunt on what he would have done if Trump had broached that topic with him in his interview for the Supreme Court: “I would have walked out the door.”

 

Shadow Of Garland Reappears On Gorsuch Hearing Day 2

The man most Democrats think should be before them right now — President Obama’s initial nominee Judge Merrick Garland — cast a large shadow over Day 1 of the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch. But it took almost two hours for Garland to pop up on Day 2.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., on Monday blasted Garland’s blockade by Senate Republicans, and he asked Gorsuch Tuesday what he thought about Garland and how the Obama nominee had been treated.

Gorsuch said Garland, who is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is someone he greatly admires and called him an “outstanding judge.”

“Whenever I see his name attached to an opinion, it’s one I read with special care,” Gorsuch said.

However, as to whether Garland should have been considered for the Supreme Court, Gorsuch sidestepped the question, saying that “I cannot get involved in politics.”

Gorsuch Defends Business Rulings

On Day 1 of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, it became clear a major theme Democrats were ready to pursue was that his rulings have been too friendly toward corporations and skewed against the “little guy.”

The Supreme Court nominee pushed back on that characterization Tuesday when he was asked by ranking member Dianne Feinstein, “How do we have confidence in you that you won’t just be for the big corporations?… I’m just looking for something that would indicate you would give a worker a fair shot.”

“I’d like to convey to you from the bottom of my heart that I’m a fair judge,” Gorsuch responded, listing off several cases where he had, in fact, ruled against corporations.

Gorsuch Won’t Tip Hand On Abortion, Campaign Finance

Nominee Neil Gorsuch wouldn’t give the Senate Judiciary Committee a hint on how he would rule on certain hot-button issues, but reiterated he has respect for precedent set by past Supreme Court decisions.

“Your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with a good judge,” Gorsuch said.

“They haven’t yet replaced judges with algorithms, though I think eBay is trying,” he quipped, though the joke largely fell flat in the Senate hearing room.

As Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley ticked off some of the most debated Supreme Court decisions — Roe v. Wade on abortion, Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance and Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 presidential election — Gorsuch wouldn’t tip his hand on how he felt about them other than to say that they were important precedents that any good judge would take into account.

“Precedent is kind of like our shared family history as judges,” Gorsuch said. “It deserves our respect because it reflects our collective wisdom.”

If he were to say how he would rule on certain issues or to name which precedents were his favorites, Gorsuch argued that would be “suggesting to litigants that I have already made up my mind about their cases.”

Pressed next by committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein whether the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade was a “super precedent,” Gorsuch said, “It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that.”

 

Gorsuch: ‘I Don’t Believe In Litmus Tests For Judges’

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch continued to stress his independence during his questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, relaying that he offered no promises to President Trump on how he would rule on certain cases or issues if he is confirmed.

“I don’t believe in litmus tests for judges,” Gorsuch said.

Throughout the campaign, Trump promised he would nominate a conservative jurist to the bench to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. That vacancy became a major campaign issue after Senate Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s pick for the seat, Judge Merrick Garland, saying no one should be confirmed during an election year. Trump also said he would look to nominate someone who would overturn the seminal abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade.

But Gorsuch reiterated he made no promises to the White House about how he would or wouldn’t rule on a case.

“I’m here to report you should be reassured because no one in the process asked me for any commitments or any promises about how I’d rule in any case,” Gorsuch said. “I have offered no promises on how I would rule in any case to anyone and I don’t think it’d be appropriate for a judge to do so.”

 

Could Gorsuch Rule Against Trump? ‘That’s A Softball Question,’ He Says

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley was quick out of the gate with a question on both Republicans’ and Democrats’ minds for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch: Could you rule against President Trump, if warranted?

Gorsuch was ready and unflappable. “That’s a softball question,” he responded confidently. “I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other than based on what the law and the facts of a particular case require.”

“There’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge — we just have judges in this country,” he added.

Gorsuch said he would use his mentor and fellow Coloradan, the late Justice Byron White, as a model for judicial independence if confirmed.

“I take the judicial process very seriously and through it, step by step, I keep an open mind through the entire process as best I can, and I leave all the other stuff at home,” Gorsuch said.

 

Blumenthal Wants To Know If Gorsuch Will Stand Up To Presidential Overreach

Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told NPR’s Rachel Martin on Morning Edition Tuesday he’ll be looking for signs from Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch during today’s hearings that he will be willing to recognize and push back on executive branch overreach — even if that means offending the man who nominated him, President Trump.

“The question is not whether he is aware of the danger of overreach or infringement on the powers of other branches, but whether he is willing to stand up to it, speak out against it as I’ve asked him to do…. The possibility that the Supreme Court may have to rule on a subpoena for the president is no longer an idle possibility because of the news yesterday that the FBI is investigating Donald Trump’s associates in connection with Russian meddling in our elections,” Blumenthal said.

The Connecticut Democrat stirred controversy last month when he revealed that in his meeting with Gorsuch, the nominee had expressed concerns over President Trump’s attacks on the judiciary.

And while Blumenthal said he was heartened by those comments, he wants Gorsuch to be forthcoming in his testimony today about how he would deal with real-life situations if he is confirmed to the bench.

“The awareness of presidential overreaching is fine,” Blumenthal continued. “The question is whether he will demonstrate in action, not just in words.”

Blumenthal also echoed Democratic complaints from Monday over how President Obama’s nominee for the same seat, Judge Merrick Garland, was treated by Senate Republicans and denied a hearing during an election year. But, Blumenthal said he would give Gorsuch a fair consideration.

“There is no question that many of us continue to be very angry about the constitutional dereliction and obstruction in the Republican leadership’s action preventing a vote, even a hearing, on Merrick Garland, who was eminently qualified,” Blumenthal said. “And in fact Judge Gorsuch, I think would concede that he was eminently qualified; he shares many of the resume and credential aspects that Judge Gorsuch does. But I am going to review this nominee’s merits, qualifications, credentials independently of that anger, because I think we have a very important responsibility.”

 

Grassley: Gorsuch Is ‘Agnostic’ On Business Cases

 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, looks on during the first day of the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch on Monday.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley spoke to NPR’s Rachel Martin on Morning Edition ahead of the second day of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing. (Source) The Iowa Republican defended President Trump’s pick from Democratic accusations on Monday that he was too pro-business in his approach to many cases he had previously decided.

“You’ll hear today probably from Democrats and maybe some Republicans that maybe he takes the side of corporations and as the Democrats would say leave out the little guy. I think he’s agnostic to those points of view,” Grassley said. “If you read his decisions sometimes he takes the business point of view and the other times he takes the little guy point of view.”

“He sees his job as looking at the laws and the facts of the case and being dispassionate. And I think if you would take a look at some of his 154 decisions he’s written and 65 decisions that he’s helped write or be a part of you’d find out that he pretty aggressively follows it,” the Judiciary Committee chairman added.

Grassley also dismissed Democratic complaints on Monday that it was Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick for the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who should be sitting before them instead of Gorsuch. Senate Republicans denied Garland a hearing, arguing that no nominee should be confirmed during an election year.

Grassley predicted that ultimately Gorsuch would get enough Democratic votes to avoid a filibuster from derailing his nomination, which could push Republicans to change the 60-vote threshold that remains for Supreme Court nominees.

“I don’t accept the premise that he’s got to have 60 votes, he would have to have 60 votes if there is a filibuster and some people have threatened to venture forth with a filibuster, but I’m not sure that’s going to be the case,” Grassley said. “We want to assume that it’s going to take 51 votes to get him through and we aren’t even going to spend any time talking about the necessity of 60. If it arrives at that we would hope that we would be able to deliver him and try to do that. But I think at the end of two days when he’s done answering his questions, there’s a lot of Democrats that are going to have a difficult time justifying the vote against him.”

Advertisements

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.
This entry was posted in UPDATE: Day Two Senate Confirmation Hearing wasn't re-sawing sawdust the progressive went "Full Scorched Earth Feinstein leads the way and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to UPDATE: Day Two Senate Confirmation Hearing wasn’t re-sawing sawdust the progressive went “Full Scorched Earth Feinstein leads the way

  1. ken says:

    What a joke hearing hahahahaha

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: