Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Chris Matthews: Dems who vote for Gorsuch “will have to answer” for it for 30 years

Chris Matthews: Dems who vote for Gorsuch “will have to answer” for it for 30 years

He will “be on that court for 30 years … they will have to answer for this guy”

On MSNBC this evening, Chris Matthews cautioned Democratic Senators that if they vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, they will have to answer for it for the rest of their political career.

His reasoning was a supremely political one: that at age 49, Gorsuch is likely to be on the Court for 30 years. And that any Dem voting to confirm him would have to answer, over all those years, for his decisions on controversial issues such as abortion and gun rights: “it will be on you,” warned Matthews.

Note: Earlier, Matthews predicted that the Gorsuch nomination will fail because Senate Majority Leader MitchMcConnell will not invoke the “nuclear option.” And since, according to Matthews, no Dems will vote to confirm, the nomination will fall short of the required 60 votes.

This Insurrectionist disagrees. No matter how much McConnell reveres Senate tradition, he will not let such a qualified jurist, and Trump’s first Court nominee, go down to ignominious defeat. If push comes to shove, I predict that McConnell will invoke the nuclear option, and Gorsuch will be confirmed on a simple-majority vote.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: The key thing here is, the guy’s 49. And Gorsuch again, he’s probably a good guy. Like Scalia was — I really liked the company of Scalia. He’s a very family-minded, good guy and his way of looking at life generally, if not the Court. But for 49, that means he will be on that Court for 30 years. That means the life of anybody in politics today, their political career. They will have to answer for this guy.

Can you imagine, a Democrat, I don’t care if you’re from Alaska, you’re from North Dakota. Wherever you’re from, you’re goint to have to answer for almost a true lifetime multigenerational career on the Court. Every ruling this guy Gorsuch makes, is a decisive vote in, in any way influences your belief about Citizens United, about abortion rights, about gay, equal marriage, equality of marriage.

Any one of the issues you care about: gun rights, every time he votes the wrong way it’s going to be on you. So I’m not encouraging these guys to think left and think future but they are damn well going to do it. They’re thinking about their own futures and you don’t want to have on your belt the notch that says “I voted for Gorsuch. I’m proud of it.”

So I think it’s 52 votes maximum. We’re going to have a real fight here, a real fight over that 60-vote threshold.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

There’s a duplicate paragraph.

This Insurrectionist disagrees. No matter how much McConnell …

LOL… he was unanimously confirmed previously.

Yes votes included:
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chuck Schumer

Trump, you magnificent bastard!

    clintack in reply to redc1c4. | January 31, 2017 at 11:01 pm

    Turns out not. It was just a voice vote.

    Link: https://www.congress.gov/nomination/109th-congress/1565?r=31

    But still, great talking point for Trump. If the media spends the first whole day after the nomination screaming about the difference between a voice vote and unanimous consent, the main fact that will get through to the American people is that Gorsuch (whose name my spellchecker hates) was so uncontroversial as an appeals court judge that no Senator bothered to speak against him, vote against him, or derail the process in any way. Which is a *great* starting point for Gorsuch. (Seriously. My spellchecker wants that to be “Grouch”.)

      Sanddog in reply to clintack. | February 1, 2017 at 12:00 am

      He made it out of committee on a unanimous vote. There was no dissent on the voice vote.

        clintack in reply to Sanddog. | February 1, 2017 at 12:22 am

        Yep.

        But Senators Clinton and Obama didn’t actually vote *for* him, they just didn’t raise an objection, and probably weren’t even in the room, when the chair called for the voice vote.

        (Senators Biden and Schumer however were on the Judiciary Committee…)

        ((In passing, my spellchecker insists that Gorsuch should be Grouch and Schumer should be Schemer.))

on a side note: Rinsed Penis needs to call the GOPe leadershit in Congress over to the White House and give them their marching orders.

steamroller the Dems and get things done of President Trump (gawd, how i love typing that) will go straight to the public, naming names and your sorry asses will be primaried out of existence.

so MUCH winning! 😎

    Valerie in reply to redc1c4. | January 31, 2017 at 10:23 pm

    “Rinsed Penis”
    “GOPe”
    “leadershit”
    “steamroller the Dems”
    “your sorry asses will be primaried out of existence.”

    “so MUCH winning!”

    Nope. This is the language of rude, unsophisticated, and above all supremely unpersuasive children.

    This is how you who get banned from adult spaces.

      CloseTheFed in reply to Valerie. | January 31, 2017 at 10:58 pm

      Dear Valerie:

      Some people can’t take a joke.

      CTF

      P.S. We’ve put up with Rags and his… ramblings….a little humor never hurt anyone. The P.C. thing is so OVER.

        kenoshamarge in reply to CloseTheFed. | February 4, 2017 at 3:10 pm

        There’s a difference between PC and civility among adults.

        Such terms are common on-line and among prepubescent boys on the playground.

        Conservatives/Republicans are supposed to be the adults in the room and the people in search of decency.

      redc1c4 in reply to Valerie. | February 1, 2017 at 1:27 am

      oh dear!

      how EVER will i deal with such HARSH rejection???

      which way to my safe space?

      /me clutches pearls…

      🙂

      snopercod in reply to Valerie. | February 1, 2017 at 9:37 am

      I guess I’m rude and unsophisticated, too, because I thought all that was funny.

    mrtoad21 in reply to redc1c4. | February 1, 2017 at 1:01 am

    I’d be surprised if Reince isn’t considered “A Traitor colluding with The Enemy” who will get no help by more than few Republican lawmakers.

    inspectorudy in reply to redc1c4. | February 1, 2017 at 10:46 am

    I think most of us appreciate a little humor but when you make 7th grade jokes over and over then it is just tiresome. You left out the fart jokes and could have mentioned other anatomy areas. Maybe Yahoo or the daily beast is for you.

Of course Democrats will fight the nomination. They feel like they are wholly justified to oppose everything after hearing from Obama and other Democrats for 8 years that Republicans did nothing but oppose everything and obstruct them.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Dejectedhead. | January 31, 2017 at 10:59 pm

    Dear Dejected Head:

    I daresay that perhaps the foot soldiers of the left think that way, but the leadership consciously decides to do whatever it takes to get more power. Whatever it takes, for power’s sake only.

    CTF

When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Chris Mathews didn’t encourage Republicans to block Garland’s nomination, instead he called them racist for blocking the nomination.

https://youtu.be/SGxPVUIm27s

So … putting a “good guy” on the Court is something that the Democrats will have to “answer” for.

And that’s the modern D’rat Party in a nutshell, isn’t it?

So that means no thrill up the leg?

Those “tingles” are now nerve pain. The vote was held up to let the People of the United States make the decision. They did….

The Fifth Column (formally called the 4th Estate) and the DNC was ready for battle…. let it begin. Note to the Senate Republicans… “don’t go wobbly” on us!!! This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to right the course of the country.

So, Matthews is an abortionist from the twilight zone, a [class] diversitist from the DNC, a warrior who wages social justice, and he fondly remembers the trail of tears a.k.a. refugee crises.

And the NYT has gone from just crazy wrong to pathologically psychotic.

Beautiful thing to watch.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Daiwa. | February 1, 2017 at 10:26 am

    I don’t advise you even wrap 3-day-old fish in it – because it would cause the fish to stink. LOL

A bunch of liberals who vote against Gorsuch will have to answer for it in 2018.

actually the Republicans might have to pay for it in 30, some of the most liberal judges appointed to the Supreme Court have been appointed by Republican presidents

Meanwhile R’s the voted for Kagan and Sotomayor get a free pass.

This is why Mcconnel’s wife is in the cabinet. Defcon 3 is on the table.

This is only tangentially related to this story, but I think a new post-election euphemism needs to catch on: libsplaining.

Let me libsplain to you why you are wrong and I am right…these are facts, Trump is the antichrist, fact.

DINORightMarie | February 1, 2017 at 3:16 am

Sadly, there are still people who listen to, and believe, this clown.

MSNBC still has viewers. Why?!?!

Let’s nominate a baby galapagos tortoise for the supreme court. Once it digs its way to the surface, we’ll have a solid conservative on the bench for the next 175 years.

The good news is that enough conservatives ignored #NeverTrump on Nov 8 so that it’s the libs who have to adjust for the next 30 years and not us.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | February 1, 2017 at 8:01 am

    It goes without saying, that’s a lie. Of course.

    What’s true is that enough conservatives AND #nevertrumpers were compelled by the awful choice this election cycle presented to hold their noses and vote for your cult man-crush.

    Several of them are commenters and authors here, liar.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 8:59 am

      rags,
      I see we agree. It was a good thing that they chose to ignore your terrible advice during the election and instead voted with me (and others) for change. Who can deny that Trump is proving himself far better than the alternative? Imagine what would have happened if people had agreed with you. Hillary would have won. I hate to think of enduring 30 years of her liberal judicial appointments. TTFN

        Rags is a known lefty troll. Ignore him and hope he goes away.

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | February 1, 2017 at 11:02 am

        My advice was for all of us to vote our conscience.

        I said it many, many times. This was, of course, anathema to you and your cult. You insisted we all submerse conscience in favor of cult worshiping delusions.

        Just like now.

        Has T-rump done some things of which we all approve? Sure. He’s a Populist who reads the common weal. That is NOT a conservative, and a lot of what he’s done and is doing is ANTI-conservative, ANTI-liberty, and manifestly BIG GOVERNMENT.

        You approve by knee-jerk. I don’t. Suck it.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 12:23 pm

          Rags,
          If you actually wanted people to vote their conscience, you wouldn’t be calling them T-rump suckers for doing it.

          LIAR

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 4:31 pm

          Voting and sucking are two remarkably different things, sucker.

          Gawd, you’ra a lying POS. You just HAVE to play the ThoughtPolice goon here.

          It seems a role you were made to play.

Now for the obvious.
>
A much greater number of Democrat Senators are up for reelection in 2018. A large number of these Senators come from states that Trump won, many by a large margin.
>
Uncle Chucky has a choice. He can force a down vote on an extremely well qualified candidate like Gorsuch, but this will result in another extremely well qualified, conservative candidate being offered and so forth. It should be obvious that the Democrats are not in a position to force Trump to place a staunch liberal up for the position.
>
How long will it take these Democrats up for reelection to realize that their reelection chances trend to zero if they are viewed as nothing more than ideologue obstructionists? The bottom line is that Uncle Chucky’s chances of blocking these appointments or making other stands does not have the power he thinks they do.

Matthews, what a bozo.

No Chris, the Dims are ALREADY answering for the horrible votes they made over the past eight years while they, like you, were under the spell of Obama. To wit: Obamacare and the historic shellacking Dims suffered since then. Your beatings will continue until your attitude improves.

What really gags me is when I think back to when justices like Ginsberg and Sotomayor were confirmed the Repubs didn’t make a fuss even though many didn’t vote for them. Gorsuch is such a solid choice that for any of the Dems to vote no is just plain evil politics and nothing to do with payback or mainstream. It appears that Trump is going to get this treatment at every turn so he needs to turn it to his advantage. Put this fine man out into the public and let the country see what a great choice he is and then we will see the fruits of the Dems hatred. They will plunge even deeper into the abyss that they have created with identity politics. The red states that have a Dem Senator coming up for re-election can have their Republican candidates run against this anti-American nonsense and politics of personal destruction. That will be very hard to defend by the Dems.

Who’s answering for Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Who’s asking?

McConnell has no choice. No conservative will make the dems happy, so if Gorsuch doesn’t get 60 votes, what does Trump do appoint a liberal to get 60 votes? This is too important a nomination and he is extremely qualified for the job. If necessary the rules will be changed just like the dems did it when they were in power. Schumer’s argument that they didn’t change it for the Supreme Court is silly. There was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend