Oh yeah and the President is under investigation for potential treasonous actions. We don't know what happened yet, but we are going to change the rules for a lifetime appointment while the investigation is just beginning? That's insane. How would we remove him from the bench if it turns out 45* is illegitimate, as many suspect? Is there even a mechanism in the Constitution for that?

Plagarism should be a big deal for a SCOTUS nominee. More can be read about it here: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-court-236891
Gorsuch took passages from other sources, changed them slightly, then did not attribute:

Okay for a manager of Arby's. Not okay for a Justice to the goddamned Supreme Court.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...e-court-236891

There are many good reasons to oppose Linda McMahon's appointment. This is not one of them. Many small business owners would gladly put their direct competitors out of business for obvious reasons. That's hardly surprisingly.

Why is it white people are so goddamned eager to support Gorsuch, even people who supposedly don't align with his extreme politics? Is it that they see their own white privilege as directly attached to his white mediocre fate, and fear that they will actually have to sharpen up and improve if they lose that white privilege edge?

It's the American people's seat to fill.

Former presidents don't have a role in the process. Consider putting the American people first before your partisan desires.

Well qualified means the obvious. He went to a great law school and excelled there. He clerked for the Supreme Court. He worked at a good firm. He worked in the government before becoming a judge. He currently is a federal circuit court judge. That is a very standard background for a Supreme Court nominee.

If you want to argue that he's extreme or that he's dishonest, that's a different argument.

As for the plagiarism charge, that's a gray area. The reality is that what Gorsuch did happens all the time -- that is, changing the language but failing to provide a source for factual events that you read about in someone else's work. It's certainly not best practice for an academic, but those sorts of attributions are rarely made in journalistic writing.

The bottom line is that there is a big difference (at least to me) between paraphrasing someone else's ideas and analysis and paraphrasing a description of factual events.

un

****ing

real

People voting for Obama > people voting for Romney

People voting for Hillary > people voting for Cheeto


what else you got

Who are the white Democrats who are so eager to support Gorsuch? Every white Democrat is the Senate is probably going to vote against him.

Why are you guys responding to that drivel?

Well-qualified means affirmative action for white people. This guy is an intellectual scrub along the lines of Paul Ryan, but because he's white and he went to an elite school (so did Trump btw. That doesn't make him smart. It means he comes from a certain pedigree, more likely) we automatically consider him a lock for the job. What a joke.

Well Manchin for one. But I'm more referring to commentators and people I've engaged in conversations more than the actual Senators.

Anyway that's my rant. I'll take a break and let someone else take up some oxygen in the room for awhile. /whiteprivilegerant

I wonder how many people have opted for the 'Watch from the beginning' option?

Failed presidential candidates don't have a role in the process either.

Mandatory filibuster meme:

What about Russian internet trolls?

I don't know what to tell you. Supreme Court clerkships are incredibly coveted in the legal profession and incredibly difficult to obtain. Any lawyer will tell you the same thing. I've never met Gorsuch, but I've met a bunch of Supreme Court clerks over the course of my life. Only one would I describe as being of mediocre intelligence, and as best I can tell, she was hired because she was a family friend of the justice.

And don't jump to any conclusions. This isn't my subtle way of telling you that I clerked, or could have clerked, for the Supreme Court. I didn't, and I couldn't have gotten the job even if I had tried for it.

Gorsuch's education and credentials are vastly superior to Trump and Ryan and the analogy is not great. Ryan is a faux intellectual scrub. Having not met Gorsuch I can't say but I'd strongly bet against him being Paul Ryan style dumb.

Robert Reich has posted a video of his four grounds to impeach Trump. Criticizing the press is one of them, so take with a grain of salt. Short fun video to watch.

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/vid...6274210718503/

He's still an extremist political hack. He's far outside of the judicial mainstream and would be rotten to the core for the American people.

Gorsuch is a core part of the GOP's plan to control all branches of government while never winning popular votes, never doing anything for the people, and never having to listen to certain segments of the population (black people, people of color, women, atheists, muslims, LGBT people, and more). He's a huge step back for humanity. And I still don't know of any mechanism in the Constitution that we would use to remove him from the bench when/if 45* is removed from office for treason. Can anyone answer that question? Unless such a mechanism is clear, there's no way this guy can be seated.

45* is going to finish his term and may even be re-elected.

Gorsuch graduated cum laude from Harvard Law. That distinction means he was between the 60th-90th percentiles for his graduating class i.e. not the very top (Obama was magna cum laude, 90th percentile+). Maybe he has risen above his talents because his mom was EPA administrator under Reagan and consequently he has conservative bonafides by birth.

I see a lot of disrespect for the 120+ million people who took the time and effort to cast a vote several months ago. That's sad.