Image 01 Image 03

TRUMP NOMINATES NEIL GORSUCH for Supreme Court Scalia Seat

TRUMP NOMINATES NEIL GORSUCH for Supreme Court Scalia Seat

Conservative judicial superstar

UPDATE: It’s Neil Gorsuch

I’ll admit it, I did some trolling tonight


Who will it be?

Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman are considered the two most likely nominees to fill the Scalia Seat.

The gossip (i.e. media reports based on conversations with unnamed “sources”) claim it’s Gorsuch. Regardless of the choice — or if Trump pulls a surprise — Democrats have promised a fight to the death. They need to put on a show for the base. So it looks like this is going to go nuclear option.

Trump has played this masterfully, with the networks breaking into their nightly schedules for the announcement. He will have a yuge audience.

Featured Image source: IJR


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It would be pure metaphysical justice if it is a “Scalia” type.

Scalia and T-rump were at swords-points on liberty and property. He won’t like a real conservative justice. Not. At. All.


    Aboluntionist in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2017 at 9:02 pm

    Well, Rags, I would give you an up-vote, but you did not give me anything to vote up to. However, Cousin Neil really is an orginalist and is very much a Scalia type jurist. See his decision on Hobby Lobby and his book on assisted suicide and euthanasia. He has a judcial history, just do a little research and find it.

    You poor deluded hack. It’s killing you. Trump is doing precisely what he said he would do, and all conservative. So now, Rags states he won’t like his nominee. How pathetic.

    I notice he did not nominate his sister. You remember her, you said that would be his nominee, IIRC.

      Rags’ has long ago become a near perfect contra indicator of what is reality, true, and rational. He is a sad parody of Johnny one note.

      Let it also be remembered that Rags was not alone in denying Trump would appoint conservative justices. All of the crazy never Trump crowd would deny Trump would appoint conservative justices. Just one more never Trump irrational lie.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 1, 2017 at 7:45 am

      No, Butt-hurt Berri, you DO NOT “remember” correctly.

      I fact, you lie as usual, you and the other members of the cultist turd swirl here.

      I correctly pointed out that T-rump and Scalia were often opposed philosophically on matters of liberty and property, and that he has warmly spoken of his Progressive sister as a swell Supreme Court Justice.

      All of that is a matter of record, you lying sacks of excrement.

        “…and that he has warmly spoken of his Progressive sister as a swell Supreme Court Justice.”

        In other words I recalled correctly. Just because you used weasel language doesn’t make it incorrect.

        “cultist turd swirl”

        LOL, you and the nevertrumpers have always been toilet divers, a true cult if ever. Keep doubling down on stupid though, you are entertainment.

      MarkSmith in reply to Barry. | February 1, 2017 at 11:20 am

      Wow, the Jacobin liar kibitzer will not give up. You are a key opposition party and you show it everyday. We almost had a SC pick by Hillary. You wanted that. What a fake. 27 down votes show it. Sorry you are off the team to the true conservatives in this county. You can twist things all you want, but your classless trash talk shows your true level of intellect.

      There is a great article for you over at the Treehouse:

      Sorry #NeverTrumpers But You Don’t Get To Dismount Your High Horse Today…

      You had a choice. You chose a direction, you lost; and you damn near lost the entire friggin’ country. Just because the team you ridiculed and attacked has overcome all opposition and gained victory, that doesn’t mean you get to backtrack now and expect the bruised and bloodied recipients to forget those who launched the stones and arrows.

      Save your wine-spritzers and crust-less triangle sandwiches. We didn’t have well financed high-horses, we launched boots, well-worn boots, scratched, clawed and advanced despite your hoighty-toighty principles, intransigence and unwillingness to cuss or get your hands dirty.

    Like clockwork

    …the smaller you get

    VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2017 at 11:43 pm

    More little heads exploding. The lie of ‘collectivist thug’ is now exposed. He might not ride the bull to an 8, but I bet on a 7 at least.

    TRUMP 2020!!

    snopercod in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 8:57 am

    Congratulations, Rags! I think you may have set a thumbs-down record here.

Democrats better confirm.
Forcing Republicans to go nuclear will open Pandora’s box, and right now, I don’t see Democrats coming out on top in such scenario.

    clintack in reply to Exiliado. | January 31, 2017 at 7:57 pm


    The “nuclear” option (horrible, horrible name) is a done deal. The next time there’s a SC nomination from either party that can get 51 votes but not 60, the need for 60 will be gone.

    The idea that it takes 60 votes to confirm a SC nominee is just a polite Washington insider fiction. Like the money in the Social Security lockbox. Or the idea that confirmation hearings are anything but a chance for senators to make speeches.

      Cybrludite in reply to clintack. | February 1, 2017 at 1:14 am

      It depends on what’s going on when the next seat opens up. Say that it’s 2019 and the Republicans took a shellacking in the mid-terms, and it’s Ginsberg or Breyers who’s being replaced. The Republicans might not have the political capital to go nuclear at that time. If they force the issue with Gorsuch, who doesn’t effect the balance on the court, they won’t have the fillibuster available when it’s someone who will.

    tom swift in reply to Exiliado. | January 31, 2017 at 8:41 pm

    Forcing Republicans to go nuclear will open Pandora’s box

    Liberals are not good with the concept of the future. They want things now; implications and inevitable results are not even on their mental horizons.

    Minimum wage increase? Great! Inevitable decreased employment? Huh?

    The consequences of deficit spending, open borders for criminals and terrorists, etc … all obvious things which are simply invisible to them. And with no concept of the future, “cause and effect” is simply inexplicable.

    The Dems—at least the more liberal wing, which is most of them—won’t hesitate to go nuclear the instant they think it’s to their immediate advantage to do so. They won’t emulate any prudence or restraint they see from their opponents; they’ll consider it an opportunity to attack, and attack as hard as they can. In such a situation, the only reasonable tactic for the Republicans is to attack first.

The Democratic Party at the national level asked for this. They should have cleaned house over the last two years, before the election. Now, they are out in the wilderness, and the poor fools have doubled down on the stupid.

Democrats! You had a Presidential campaign that used rent-a-rioters. In the U. S. of A., you used rent-a-rioters. You have people at the top of your party calling for the assassination of the current President. How the holy hell do you think that plays with normal voters?


Now if the quota chicks were to retire, this could be a real constititional court again.

Humphrey's Executor | January 31, 2017 at 8:16 pm

I hope the poor guy is ready for a public proctological exam.

If you look at he current SCOTUS bench, you would swear that every 4 year Presidential term gives the occupant of the White House the right to appoint one new Justice.

    Granny in reply to Neo. | January 31, 2017 at 8:41 pm

    President Trump is going to get the opportunity to nominate at least two. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 83 years old and has a heart condition. Had to have stents put in a year or two ago. She’ll be retiring soon.

      tom swift in reply to Granny. | January 31, 2017 at 9:35 pm

      Stents aren’t terribly debilitating.

      And with Ginsburg, neither are colon cancer and pancreatic cancer.

      She’s a sturdy old boot. I expect serious mental deterioration long before the rest of her gives out.

My only concern about Gorsuch’s judgment is that, from the top picture, he appears to have a fiberglass drift boat. Sad!

Seems like a good pic.

Congratulations to Justice Gorsuch.


Like many other people, I voted for Trump hoping that he would choose from the pre-election list of Supreme Court possibilities. He has kept the promises he made on this and on several other issues. Excellent choice.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 31, 2017 at 9:28 pm

I read his bio and background at SCOTUSblog this afternoon when people seemed pretty sure Gorsuch was the pick.

The guy is like Scalia, only better. Scalia supported the so called “Chevron deference” doctrine that empowers the bureaucracy. Gorsuch is skeptical of it. I think it needs to be rolled back to disempower the bureaucracy.

Loving this pick. Trump is dealing.

If you want to learn more about the Gorsuch, this is a good summary.

I honestly don’t understand why the liberals ever thought they should get to pick a liberal to replace Scalia. They should be pleased with a guy with his qualifications. Or do they whine about the court being balanced/consistent only when the Right is going the selection?

    Evan3457 in reply to katiejane. | February 1, 2017 at 1:11 am

    They thought it because an opening happened while a Democrat was president…conveniently forgetting the many Democrats who promised to file any nominations to the Court by Republican presidents in their “lame duck” year, because, being a Democrat means never having to remember today what you said yesterday.

    Cosmic karma, indeed.

It would be great to have another Justice who doesn’t receive his instruction from the twilight zone. Positive progress.

Any second now we are going to discover the geezer has been a clan member for decades because our super inquisitive media is on top of their game (but didn’t notice Barry’s Muslim ban in 2011 because they are sooooooo focused on the ball)!!


Good thing Biden wasn’t around to “congratulate” Gorsuch’s wife while he spoke.

Bitterlyclinging | February 1, 2017 at 9:27 am

Clerked for Byron “Whizzer” White a JFK nominee and Justice Anthony Kennedy, neither of whom are conservatives.
A sheep in wolf’s clothing.

    Clerking for ANY Supreme is a signal honor, and almost an essential for a candidate for any appellant court.

    Clerks both learn from and have the opportunity to influence the jurists for whom they work.

    This does not have any clear implications for Gorsuch’s own philosophy. For that, you need to look to his own record and the opinions of his colleagues.

    I see nothing to impeach Gorsuch’s record. I dearly hope that he IS a real Scalia quality nominee.

    Mike Lee likes him very much, and this is a good sign.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 12:46 pm

      Remind me, how many of Trumps cabinet picks does Mike Lee support? Gee maybe he was wrong about Trump after all.

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | February 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm

        I don’t know, T-rump sucker. Do you have links?

        I doubt very much he really supports the RINO Price (Bohner Boi), the very model of the modern insider Mnnuchkin, or the other Deemocrat voters and the Soros employee. Or, hell, Mrs. McConnell.

        I know I don’t, and that’s all that matters to me, troll.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 3:01 pm

          Oh no, I am have called a troll by the Jacobin Liar. Boo Hoo, cry me a river.

          Sorry, but your Mike Lee is a #NeverTrumper. It is apparent that he did get the memo that Trump won and is falling in line.

          Sundance said it all

          Your arrogant self-righteous efforts not only didn’t help, but they actually opposed our common sense objective. You were as much a benefit to Hillary Clinton and Mitch McConnell as Media Matters and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, perhaps even more. Lest you need a reminder

          I bet you have a pretty pink pussy hat.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 3:56 pm

          OK, you admit you don’t have any links, AND you are a T-rump sucking cultist who slups up the shit from NOT-Conservative Tree Sloughs.

          I’ve known this for some time, troll. Just a blood and soil(ed) boi and clock-sucker.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 4:07 pm

          how old are you?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 4:36 pm

          WAY old enough to know a lying VaPigman when you make yourself obvious, lying POS.

          Are YOU attacking me for having the temarity to post what I did about Gorsuch, like your butt=boi here?

          Or just on general ThoughtPolice goonishness…???

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 5:06 pm

          You’ve got anything at all to worry about from the THOUGHTPolice. Nothing at all.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 5:13 pm

          You didn’t answer the question, VaPigman. I show a LOT more thought than do you, sucker.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2017 at 8:51 pm

          Jacobin Liar Rags, you need to get out of your bedroom before your mom starts yelling at you to get to work. She would be very upset with the language you use.

          Back on topic, Gorsuch is an excellent pick that will continue to make heads explode. Tomorrow, more explosions coming with Mexican Drug dealers the target.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | February 2, 2017 at 1:19 am

          rags, since you asked, but I fear it is wasted effort on my part. If you don’t know why people here find you offensive, you haven’t been paying attention. But you know why, don’t you? It’s not an accident. You go out of your way to be offensive. You don’t just state your case. You add foul language, a gratuitous insult, and anything else you can in your attempt to get attention.

          Your post here ( Ragspierre | February 1, 2017 at 3:56 pm ) is absolutely despicable. The foul insults you used added nothing to your argument. They were just there to belittle your opponent – to tear him down in a feeble attempt to make yourself look good. You have no respect for the rest of us on LI and no self respect either. And that’s why people here find you offensive – you earn it every day, with almost every post.

          State our case. Defend it passionately. Do it politely. If the only way you can make yourself look big is by making the other guy look small, you weren’t shit to start with.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | February 2, 2017 at 12:21 pm

          Well said VAGentleman. I did a quick search on

          “Ragspierre says lying sack of shit” and I got something like 191 hits. Below is one going back to 2013. I remember seeing something in a response back in 2009. I doubt he will get the clue even with a post with over 30+ thumb downs.

          My apologies to all the other folks here that I egged him on.

          Sadly, we could have a good discussion about say Steven Mnuchin sainthood with Westbank or Soros. It is too bad because I believe he probably has some good information to share, but just can’t get control of his emotions.

          Ragspierre says:
          November 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm

          Yeah, because you can’t read, you lying sack of shit.