NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Judge neil gorsuch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge neil gorsuch. Show all posts

23 March 2017

Franken to Supreme Court nominee: “That’s absurd.” & Will Senate Democrats Use the Only Power They Have—the Filibuster—to Block Trump's Supreme Court Nominee? 22&17MAR17

Image result for gorsuch memes
(NOT MY) president drumpf's/trump's Supreme Court nominee is the nightmare we feared. neil gorsuch is a fascist, a right wing extremist who, if approved, will impose on the nation the elements of the theocratic plutocracy the drumpf/trump-pence administration can not get passed by Congress. How? He will be the deciding vote in favor of corporate policies that violate the civil rights, civil liberties and human rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, imposing the will of the 1% and "christian sharia" on the rest of us. The Democrats and Independents in the U.S. Senate must unite in opposition to gorsuch and if necessary must filibuster his nomination. This nomination, this vote, is not the time for capitulation to the right wing neo-con agenda of drumpf/trump-pence. Contact your Senators (here), Democrats and republicans, and demand they oppose gorsuch and stop his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. And check out this video of Sen Al Franken D MN questioning gorsuch during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings followed by an e mail from the PCCC / Progressive Change Campaign Committee.....

Franken to Gorsuch: "I question your judgement."


Last night, every MSNBC show mentioned the grilling Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) gave Trump's Supreme Court nominee yesterday over a nakedly anti-worker decision he made as a federal judge.
And, there's video that's going viral because it shows the kind of backbone the public is yearning for from Democrats (above).
Based on polling PCCC members chipped in to conduct, we've been pushing Democrats in red states like North Dakota and West Virginia to oppose Gorsuch on economic populist grounds. Al Franken just showed how it's done.
Then, Virginia residents, call Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine and urge them to publicly oppose Gorsuch and to support a filibuster of his Supreme Court nomination. Residents of other states can find their Senator's contact information here.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
-- Keith Rouda, PCCC organizer

Will Senate Democrats Use the Only Power They Have—the Filibuster—to Block Trump's Supreme Court Nominee?

The process moves ahead Monday with Judiciary Committee hearings for Neil Gorsuch.


“We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court justice,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer declared days after President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, a conservative federal appellate judge, to the high court in January.
Will Senate Democrats impede the process? Or will they use the only power they have left, a filibuster, to block Gorsuch?
The country will soon see.
Schumer was among 13 Democratic senators who pledged they would filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination on the Senate floor. Unlike upcoming Judiciary Committee hearings, the Senate’s rules require Gorsuch to get at least 60 votes to be placed on the court. Democrats hold 48 Senate seats, meaning they’re positioned to block Gorsuch unless Republicans revoke the filibuster rule.
“There will be 60 votes for confirmation. Any one member can require it,” Schumer said. “Many Democrats already have, and it is the right thing to do. On a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan support should be a prerequisite. It should be essential. That’s what 60 votes does.”
Senate Democrats, still burned by the GOP stealing Obama’s majority-changing court pick by refusing to act on Merrick Garland’s nomination, issued statements promising a Supreme Court fight. Because the court is often split four-four on the most divisive issues, this Supreme Court appointment is seen as defining its decision-making majority well into the foreseeable future.
Thirteen Democrats immediately pledged to filibuster, which means holding the floor to stop any further business until the nomination is withdrawn. Twelve didn’t commit, but seemed to support a filibuster. Twenty were uncommitted. Two wouldn’t comment. Only West Virginia’s Joe Manchin opposed a filibuster, but wouldn’t say what he’d do if fellow Democrats began one.
“Now more than ever, America needs Supreme Court justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans—civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and all other protections guaranteed by our laws,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, who backs a filibuster. “We don’t need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence.”
“Obama’s nominations required 60 votes. So should Trump’s,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT. “If 60 people vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch, he will become the next justice.”
But since these statements in early February, the majority of Senate Democrats haven't revived the filibuster threat. The exceptions are the dozen senators like Schumer, Warren and Blumenthal who were quick to go on record supporting a filibuster.
Whether that is smart politics, taking a wait-and-see approach hinging on how Gorsuch fares in Judiciary Committee hearings, or keeping mum after meeting with him (a courtesy many Senate Republicans did not extend to Garland) is hard to say. AlterNet’s inquiries to the body’s political arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, were not returned on Friday.
However, the DSCC Chair, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, this week said, “We’ve been really clear that you need to meet the 60-vote standard…. As of right now, I think they’re a long way from getting to that number.”   
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are hearing from a growing grassroots chorus to stand firm and oppose Gorsuch—no matter what Republicans do, or what pollsters will likely say is a public frustration with obstructionist tactics. That was the takeaway from a series of national polls in early February, where apart from support or opposition falling along predictable partisan lines, a majority said that just because Republicans behaved like thugs with Garland, Democrats shouldn’t follow suit with Gorsuch.     
“Most Americans disapprove of Senate Republicans’ decision to block an up-or-down vote for Garland after his nomination by then President Obama in 2016, with 56 percent of voters saying Republican senators were wrong to prevent the vote in the Quinnipiac poll taken earlier this month,” the Washington Post’s roundup of Gorsuch polls said.
“Approval for Gorsuch breaks down on clear partisan lines. Republicans are united in their support, with the CNN poll finding over 8 in 10 saying the Senate should confirm him (84 percent). About 6 in 10 Democrats are opposed, while independents favor nomination by a 47 to 35 percent margin,” the Post said, although it added that the Democratic base wasn’t opposed to playing hardball—a Senate filibuster.
“As with Republican-led opposition to Garland, it’s not clear Democrats will face significant blowback for resisting Gorsuch’s nomination. The CBS poll found 51 percent saying Democrats would be justified in using Senate procedures to prevent an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch,” the Post said.
While Schumer and Warren held or joined anti-Gorsuch events this week, the party’s activist base was also revving up its presence and pressure on Democrats to filibuster. Fifty-five reproductive health, human rights and justice organizations sent a letter to senators this week urging them to reject Gorsuch because of his anti-choice beliefs.
“Gorsuch has demonstrated he will go to extraordinary lengths to reach a result that would block women’s access to basic reproductive healthcare. Moreover, Trump established an outrageous litmus test for his Supreme Court nominees: they must be committed to overturning Roe v. Wade,” the letter said.
On Wednesday, Sen. Ed Markey, D-MA and Jeff Merkley, D-OR joined Warren for a rally on the Capitol’s steps to deliver nearly 1 million petition signatures demanding all senators reject Gorsuch. Markey and Merkley pledged to filibuster in early February.
Meanwhile, longtime economic and social justice groups were turning to the internet and social media networks urging their members to join the fight in blocking Gorsuch.
“We know that you care about money in politics, and Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Gorsuch has a longstanding record of defending money in politics as free speech,” People for the American Way said. “A Koch brothers-linked pro-money in politics organization, the Judicial Crisis Network, even launched a $10 million multi-state campaign to pressure senators to confirm Gorsuch.”
So far, only one Democratic senator, West Virginia’s Manchin, has opposed a filibuster. The party can only afford to see six more defections if its filibuster strategy is to hold. The Senate Republicans can revoke the filibuster rule, the so-called nuclear option, and ram Gorsuch through. They may very well end up doing that.
But for now, filibustering a U.S. Supreme Court nominee is the only power that the Democratic members of Congress have—in all other matters they are in the minority.  
Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America's democracy and voting rights. He is the author of several books on elections and the co-author of Who Controls Our Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privatization Is Destroying Democracy and the Charter School Industry (AlterNet eBook, 2016).

10 February 2017

Trump Slams Senator Who Revealed Gorsuch's Criticism Of Remarks On Judges & Trump wrong on Sen. Blumenthal's CNN interview and Vietnam 8&9FEB17


THE drumpf/trump-pence administration's disdain for the US justice system may be because drumpf/trump has lost so many lawsuits he has brought to the courts. He doesn't like being told he is wrong and that he can not do some things. His latest twitter attacks on the judges ruling on the trump university case and the immigration ban and then his twitter attacks against the circuit court upholding the injunction against the immigration ban are those of a spoiled child and do not reflect demeanor expected of the president of the U.S. Screaming and stomping his feet are not going to result in him getting his way, we are still a nation of laws, not the dictatorial theocratic plutocracy this administration wishes we were. This from +NPR and +PolitiFact .....

Trump Slams Senator Who Revealed Gorsuch's Criticism Of Remarks On Judges

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch meets with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., on Wednesday.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Updated at 3:20 p.m. ET
President Trump started the day by blasting a Democratic senator who revealed criticism of Trump from his nominee to the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Judge Neil Gorsuch told Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal that he found President Trump's recent attacks on judges to be "demoralizing" and "disheartening." Gorsuch made the comments during a private meeting, and a member of the Supreme Court nomination team escorting Gorsuch through the get-acquainted meetings also confirmed the remarks to NPR's Tamara Keith.
Even though Gorsuch's team confirmed the comments, Trump says they were "mischaracterized." He also attacked Blumenthal for exaggerating his military service. While running for Senate in 2010, he was discovered to have falsely said that he had served in Vietnam.
Blumenthal described his meeting with Gorsuch on Wednesday by telling reporters, "He certainly expressed to me that he is disheartened by the demoralizing and abhorrent comments made by President Trump about the judiciary."
Gorsuch has been meeting with senators in preparation for confirmation hearings.
Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska revealed even stronger comments by Gorsuch when they met. "He got pretty passionate," Sasse told MSNBC on Thursday. "He said, 'Any attack on any of' — I think his word to me was — 'brothers or sisters of the robe is an attack on all judges.'"
Trump's attacks on the judiciary are highly unusual for a sitting president. Gorsuch has been a member of that branch of government as a federal judge since 2006. Senators will be considering whether he will remain independent should he be on the Supreme Court.


Trump began his latest attack last Friday with tweets disparaging federal Judge James L. Robart, who temporarily blocked the president's ban on immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries. Trump first called Robart a "so-called judge," called his ruling "a terrible decision," and then suggested Robart would be responsible if a terrorist attack should occur.
At the Thursday afternoon press briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer doubled down on the assertion that Gorsuch wasn't specifically talking about Trump's tweet about the "so-called" Judge Robart, pointing to a statement from former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., who is helping Gorsuch.
"The judge was very clear that he was not commenting on a specific matter," Spicer asserted, though it's unclear why the Supreme Court nominee would bring up criticism of judges unless to talk about the president's recent statements that did just that. And the statements also contradict Sasse's account of their talk.
On Tuesday, three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments about whether to lift Robart's temporary block on the president's executive order.
Wednesday morning, Trump switched his attack to them, or at least one of them whom he did not name. The president told a gathering of chiefs of police and sheriffs that he doesn't understand how any judge could rule against him.
"And I don't ever want to call a court biased, so I won't call it biased. And we haven't had a decision yet. But courts seem to be so political and it would be great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right," Trump said.
The statement Trump referred to is the federal law granting a president authority to restrict who enters the United States.
Trump's attack on Blumenthal refers back to a controversy during the senator's 2010 campaign.
The New York Times uncovered at the time that Blumenthal said at a 2008 event honoring veterans and service members, "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam." Except Blumenthal had received several deferments from going to Vietnam, and served in the Marine reserves, though not overseas. Blumenthal later apologized and said he meant to say, "I served during Vietnam."
Blumenthal responded to Trump's tweet in an interview on CNN, and Trump was apparently watching. The president sent out another tweet falsely claiming CNN didn't ask Blumenthal about the controversy over his military record.
Jessica Taylor contributed.

Trump wrong on Sen. Blumenthal's CNN interview and Vietnam

By Jon Greenberg 
Donald Trump
President of the United States

Says CNN’s Chris Cuomo "never asked" Sen. Richard Blumenthal about Blumenthal's misstatements on his own service in Vietnam.
President Donald Trump lashed out at CNN New Day anchor Chris Cuomo for failing to get tough with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D- Conn. Cuomo had interviewed Blumenthal after the senator made headlines by saying that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch had told him he was "disheartened" by the president’s dismissive comments about federal judges.
Blumenthal drew Trump’s wrath first. The president tweeted, "Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?"
Cuomo’s turn came next. After he spoke with Blumenthal, Trump tweeted on Feb. 9, 2017, "Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave "service" in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS!"

Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave "service" in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS!
Actually, Cuomo did ask about that.
CNN posted Cuomo’s interview with Blumenthal. Cuomo’s first question was: "What is your response to the president of the United States saying you should not be believed because you misrepresented your military record in the past?"
Blumenthal didn’t answer the question. Instead, he repeated his account of what Gorsuch said to him. The interview moved on to details about the Gorsuch nomination.
After Trump took his shot at Cuomo, the CNN anchor defended himself on air.
"The president, with all due respect, is once again off on the facts," Cuomo said. "He just said, ‘You never asked him about it.’ I did. He ducked it, and that’s okay. Politicians duck things all the time."



"The President ... is once again off on the facts": @ChrisCuomo's response to @realDonaldTrump's tweet about him
We reached out to the White House for comment and did not hear back. If they do respond, we will update this fact-check.
Vietnam legacy
Both Blumenthal and Trump avoided serving in Vietnam, but while Trump never claimed to have been there, Blumenthal did.
In 2010, the New York Times reported that at a 2008 ceremony for veterans and senior citizens, Blumenthal said, "We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam."  In 2003, Blumenthal spoke at a rally supporting troops overseas. "When we returned, we saw nothing like this," he said, a comparison with soldiers who came back from Vietnam.
Blumenthal told the New York Times he had "misspoken" about his Vietnam record. In reality, between 1965 and 1970, he received at least five deferments for military service. In 1970, he obtained a slot in the Marine Reserves and was stationed in America.
As we’ve reported before, Trump benefited from four student deferments in college and one medical deferment (Trump later said that was for bone spurs in his heels), before being classified 4-F, unfit to serve. Trump played baseball, tennis and squash during his college years. He once said attending a private military-style boarding school gave him "more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military."
Our ruling
Trump said Cuomo failed to ask Blumenthal about his "long-term lie" about his service in Vietnam. The video record shows that Cuomo asked Blumenthal to respond to the charge that he lacked credibility after misrepresenting his military record.
Cuomo might not have mentioned Vietnam, but he certainly brought Blumenthal’s past distortions into the conversation. Cuomo could have pressed Blumenthal with follow-up questions, which he failed to do. But he did ask.
We rate this claim False.

About this statement:

Published: Thursday, February 9th, 2017 at 2:49 p.m.
Researched by: Lauren CarrollJon Greenberg
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Subjects: EthicsSupreme Court

Sources:

Donald Trump, tweet, Feb. 9, 2017
CNN Communications, tweet, Feb. 9, 2017
PolitiFact, Was Trump a 'draft dodger'?, July 21, 2015