Gorsuch Won’t Answer Democrats’ Questions | Soshal Network, Social Circle Connection

Gorsuch Won’t Answer Democrats’ Questions

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

The Democrats' strikes against Neil Gorsuch were rather weak yet even their best inquiries he refused to respond to. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, the hosts of The Young Turks, reveal you the Democrats best shot. Inform us just what you believe in the remark section below. Support Justice Democrats:

" High court candidate Neil Gorsuch throughout his verification hearing on Tuesday specifically declined Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-R.I.) request that he publicly ask conventional benefactors funding a $10 million marketing campaign run by the conventional Judicial Dilemma Network to recognize themselves.

Though he did not name Judicial Situation Network by name, Whitehouse asked why the team spent at least $7 million to keep Head of state Obama's candidate, Merrick Garland, from obtaining a confirmation hearing and also is now spending $10 million to get Gorsuch verified.

" Ask them," Gorsuch said.

" I cannot, because I do not know who they are," Whitehouse responded.

High court nominee Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday specifically declined Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-R.I.) request that he publicly ask conservative contributors funding a $10 million marketing campaign run by the traditional Judicial Dilemma Network to identify themselves.

Though he did not call Judicial Crisis Network by name, Whitehouse asked why the team spent at least $7 million to maintain President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, from getting a confirmation hearing and is currently investing $10 million to obtain Gorsuch confirmed.

" Ask," Gorsuch stated.

" I cannot, because I don't know who they are," Whitehouse replied."

Read more right here:

Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian

Cast: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian

***

The Largest Online Information Program in the Globe. Held by Cenk Uygur and also Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.

Young Turk (n), 1. Youthful modern or insurgent member of an organization, motion, or political party. 2. A young adult that rebels versus authority or societal assumptions.( American Heritage Dictionary).

Download and install sound as well as video of the full 2 hr show on-demand + the members-only post game show by coming to be a participant at. Your membership sustains the everyday procedures and also is crucial for our continued success as well as growth.

Obtain The Young Turks Mobile Application Today!

Download the iOS version here:.

Download the Android version right here:.

Share Your Comments

54 comments

  1. Posted by jarjon76, at Reply

    Merrick Garland.

    • Posted by Spartacus FPV, at Reply

      Matt Damon

    • Posted by Drew Gaughan, at Reply

      jarjon76 Will smiff

  2. Posted by eliw 6965, at Reply

    He got the money through his microwave. It’s more than a camera. Believe me.

    • Posted by Brandt Steiner, at Reply

      eliw 6965 don’t spread that around trumpets may actually believe it

  3. Posted by IWILLEATYOUfully, at Reply

    run for senate cenk

    • Posted by freewillobjector, at Reply

      He’s not an American citizen

    • Posted by RushOrbit, at Reply

      +freewillobjector I’m sure he’s an American citizen by now. He came when he was 8. He’s definitely an American citizen after all these years.

    • Posted by TheAed38, at Reply

      If he wins he will be the first Buffalo to serve in the senate.

    • Posted by SilentSputnik, at Reply

      LOL YES. I would love to see him get destroyed

    • Posted by jamviator, at Reply

      SilentSputnik … You don’t have to like Cenk but seriously, tell me who in the Senate could “destroy” Cenk. They’re all a bunch of transparent hypocrites.

  4. Posted by Sarah J, at Reply

    Gorsuch looks like he should be soaking in a tub on a Cialis commercial.

    • Posted by The Dave West Show, at Reply

      Lol live now!!!!

    • Posted by Martin Shkreli, at Reply

      Lets just hope they hire him before Clarence Thomas or Stephen Breyer… *shudders*

    • Posted by John W, at Reply

      very funny. great

    • Posted by Dave Dave, at Reply

      Sarah As apposed to Sanders that pretty much looks like a refugee from an old folks home.

  5. Posted by Paul Duffy, at Reply

    What bull crap..he is the man for the job..Cenk is such a jerk.

    • Posted by Rock Hash, at Reply

      Herman Heir- Because of his dads money you redneck buffoon.

    • Posted by Herman Heir, at Reply

      @Rock Hash you are trying to insinuate that he isnt right for the job cuz he was raised on a cattle farm. zero importance. he studied law at the best law school in the world. moron

    • Posted by King Stannis Baratheon, at Reply

      Rock Hash He is a constitutionalist, he has never mixed opinion into his rulings, only what is written in the law and the constitution.

    • Posted by ruirodtube, at Reply

      Paul Duffy
      Merrick Garland’s stolen seat.
      Democrats should block until Merrick Garland gets a hearing.

  6. Posted by Darksider, at Reply

    Hey Cenk why won’t you answer for your Armenian genocide denial?

    • Posted by Darksider, at Reply

      FishBayVI420H20 Hey the sooner you realize that TyT and Cenk in particular is cancer to the left the better off you guys will be. Don’t be surprised when my camp keeps beating yours.

    • Posted by FishBayVI420H20, at Reply

      I dont know what you mean by “camp”…Im an American Citizen who looks at politics with more than a dumbed down 2-party mentality….

      What “camp” do you belong to exactly? The Troll Brigade Camp? The Awkward High Schooler Camp? The Enjoying Anonymity While Pretending to be Political Camp?

    • Posted by FishBayVI420H20, at Reply

      What a shocker. More vague lables and more anti tyt bullshit

    • Posted by FishBayVI420H20, at Reply

      Youre just not ready to discuss politics yet.

  7. Posted by g313classified, at Reply

    ana lookin gorgeous

  8. Posted by Jackie Chun, at Reply

    But the Dems will confirm Gorsuch and not filibuster him anyway

    • Posted by Auraruth8, at Reply

      Martin Shkreli Seems u have a very limited understanding of politics.

    • Posted by Jackie Chun, at Reply

      hey Shkreli, the Repubs ended up stealing a SCOTUS appointment from the Democrats, so don’t tell us there is nothing to be gained from obstruction

    • Posted by Levon Gevorgyan, at Reply

      They can delay it. He is already humiliating them one by one. Give him a month and the word Democrat will be synonymous with idiot.

  9. Posted by Jillian V., at Reply

    it pisses me off how the Democrats have no backbone when going through these hearings

    • Posted by Trippy Traveler, at Reply

      intelligence? he just repeated the same talking point. I would see that as the opposite.

    • Posted by Technicolor YaYa, at Reply

      Mikey Hagan, Jr., that wasn’t “intelligence”… it was deflecting, skirting around and not answering questions asked of him. He must think that the people around him are dumb. What I heard loud and clear when he refused to answer the question about the people that paid ten mill for his seat, was definitely a politically corrupt move, not really panning out in his statement “I am not going to discuss politics”. Ya gotta be blind not to see it for exactly that, politics. He didn’t destroy anyone… he showed us all that he can be bought just like Trumpty Dumpty.

  10. Posted by Brian Miller, at Reply

    I don’t answer to English. It’s just too political of a language for me.

    • Posted by JACK HQ, at Reply

      Brian Miller HA!

    • Posted by Paul Karpowich, at Reply

      Brian Miller
      At 1:09 you can see he doesn’t want to get political because that’s not his job. He isn’t suppose to be political. He is a judge.

    • Posted by Mandi Pickett, at Reply

      Paul Karpowich I don’t pretend to know law, but if they are not political then why are there judges considered either liberal or conservative?

  11. Posted by Marino Jackson, at Reply

    So depressing being a democrat, the republicans are bout to take us right back to 2008, maybe worse. And the democratic leaders refuse to grow a spine.

    • Posted by Ronin Dave, at Reply

      +War Cloud you’re still a moron

    • Posted by Rick Grimes, at Reply

      Marino Jackson oh you just love what Obama has done to this country. don’t you find it staggering that one man is responsible for changing the country so much. a little too much power for one man don’t you think? but you see happy with it. Weakboi.

  12. Posted by marlonious76, at Reply

    The Dems are in on the $500 Billion also. They are no different than the Trumpards.

    • Posted by Eironeia JSPS, at Reply

      This guy gets it.

  13. Posted by King Stannis Baratheon, at Reply

    Gorsuch handled this beautifully he is an Ivy League And experienced judge, he interprets the law as it stands, the left is just upset he won’t allow their agenda to violate the constitution and the law.

    • Posted by Moninn Yem, at Reply

      Yo King name one judge from This Supreme court that is not? Of course they have to be superbly experienced. They are expected to make judgements for supreme cases For The Rest Of Their Lives. That’s a given.

      He has a track record of interpreting the law in favor of Corporations and police officers who were found abusing their citizens. The Judiciary branch aka SCJ’s hold great respect like Congress and the POTUS but especially SCJ’s bc they are the last lines of defense for checks and balances to this great nation, Republic/democracy. There is doubt bc of dark money that he is interpreting the law due to influence.

      It still stuns me why some people argue against there own interest.

    • Posted by Martin Shkreli, at Reply

      +Moninn Yem I see no evidence for your claim that he has any bias in favor of police. In _Fisher v. Las Cruces_, he concurred disagreeing with the other justices only on the grounds that their standard for excessive force was *too high.* In _A.M. v. Ann Holmes_, Gorsuch *dissented* from the pro-cop majority by saying that the arrest of a 13-year old for belching in class was unjustified, since the department had already been notified that the law used to arrest the kid didn’t apply to “noises or diversions.” In _U.S. v. Miguel Games-Perez_, Gorsuch ruled that someone who is unaware they are a felon cannot be arrested for owning a firearm. In every case I’ve been made aware of, Gorsuch has leaned solidly *left* on police power and civil liberties.

      As for corporations, I don’t see much of an established pattern there either. His only ruling related to campaign finance that I’m aware of involved striking down a law that selectively capped campaign funding for write-in candidates.

      As for “dark money,” there’s *zero* reason to believe this has biased Gorsuch’s rulings in the past, since the $10M mentioned was only announced by the “Judicial Crisis Network” in 2016. Gorsuch himself almost certainly has no knowledge of the individuals who donated, so the question was moot. If congress has an issue with the ads bought supporting Gorsuch, they can simply pass a law requiring 501(c)(4) organizations to disclose donors (at least the major ones). That is well within _Citizens United_ and completely outside the purview of anything Gorsuch is likely to deal with. Finally, the idea of any _quid pro quo_ here is incredibly unlikely, given that Supreme Court justices serve for life, so possible loss of reelection campaign funding isn’t something that the donors can hold over his head.

      Maybe instead of jumping on the simplistic narrative that anyone on the right works against the interests of “the people” is childish and does nothing to move the dialogue forward (and Gorsuch appears more far more libertarian than conservative anyway). It’s really a travesty that progressives have focused so exclusively on overturning _Citizens United_ that they have completely ignored noncontroversial and constitutional regulations that would make “dark money” 501(c)(4) organizations like Wellspring Committee reveal their major donors.

    • Posted by mellamosean, at Reply

      Martin Shkreli Yet he could have answered anyway (assuming he did know). The Senate is engaged in politics, and it’s their job to confirm him. If you aren’t going to answer that question, then it’s a reasonable political position to say, “you refused to answer, I will vote you down.” In fact, until he is nominated, he is in the political realm as well. This was Obama’s pick, and by even accepting the nomination, Gorsuch is complicit in the Republican charades, and thus making a political move. It would be no less political to refuse the nomination based on principle. And if I were a Democratic senator, I would not refuse to vote on ALL Republican nominations. This is the key point. Gorsuch isn’t the real problem here—the problem is that Republicans refused to abide by standard procedure, and stole Obama’s pick. There should be a bipartisan consensus in the country that this was wrong. Democrats must refuse to vote to replace Scalia until a New Democrat is in office. They should, however, vote on all the other seats that need to be filled over the course of Trump’s presidency, even if it’s in the last month.

    • Posted by Martin Shkreli, at Reply

      +mellamosean You say “Yet he could have answered anyway (assuming he did know),” but that’s making a huge assumption. Given that the fact that judges are appointed for life renders the usual implicit form of _quid pro quo_ impossible, there’s no reason Gorsuch would be in such an abnormally privileged position to know who donated to the 501(c)(4) that sourced the ad money. Further, if he somehow did, it may well not even be legal for him to disclose that. The issue of whether 501(c)(4) organizations should have to disclose major donors is a fundamentally legislative one, as _Citizens United_ doesn’t address it.

      “The Senate is engaged in politics, and it’s their job to confirm him. If you aren’t going to answer that question, then it’s a reasonable political position to say, “you refused to answer, I will vote you down.””
      Not if the question was one of politics when the position Gorsuch is to be appointed for is fundamentally apolitical. This is akin to a job interviewer for a fast food job basing hiring decisions on applicants’ ability to harvest corn and wheat. A senator can choose to vote based on whatever reasons he wants, but to reject a judge for irrelevant reasons is irrational.

      “In fact, until he is nominated, he is in the political realm as well.”
      No one’s denying that, but the evaluation of his ability to render just and reasonable decisions as a justice should be based on legal considerations, not his views on campaign finance laws outside of the purview of any foreseeable Supreme Court decision.

      “This was Obama’s pick, and by even accepting the nomination, Gorsuch is complicit in the Republican charades, and thus making a political move. It would be no less political to refuse the nomination based on principle.”
      First, it wasn’t “Obama’s pick” in the sense that Obama owned it and had a right to determine Scalia’s replacement. If it were, then since Obama is now a citizen, no future president would ever have the right to make that pick; a future Democratic president has no more right to fill the seat than Trump. Second, responding to a nomination as one would independent of political considerations is the default position. The presence of a controversial political situation surrounding the nomination doesn’t somehow implicate anyone indirectly participating as complicit. Refusing absolutely would be the political decision, as he would acting outside of the norm as a reaction to a distasteful political situation, unless the refusal were grounded in personal reasons.

      “And if I were a Democratic senator, I would not refuse to vote on ALL Republican nominations. This is the key point.”
      Assuming that you mean you *would* refuse to vote. That would be your choice, but there’s no logically consistent reason to vote on a Democratic nomination. The incidental fact that the President at the time of Scalia’s death happened to be a Democrat doesn’t entitle Obama’s successor to the pick. Suppose Trump somehow runs a second time as a Democrat (presumably due to a monumental political realignment); would he somehow become entitled to make the pick at that point? That strikes me as fundamentally absurd and without constitutional basis.

      “Gorsuch isn’t the real problem here—the problem is that Republicans refused to abide by standard procedure, and stole Obama’s pick.”
      If it’s “Obama’s pick,” then again, why would the next Democratic President be the natural inheritor of the pick?

      “There should be a bipartisan consensus in the country that this was wrong.”
      I don’t think there’s too many people who agree with the Republican majority’s decision not to give Garland a hearing. That said, it was perfectly constitutional and there’s no rational way of resolving this situation now, as any future Democrat would be every bit as “unworthy” of picking Scalia’s replacement. I dislike the decision, mainly because it was justified as “giving the voters a say” in an upcoming election, which is contrary to the non-populist intent of the court. That doesn’t mean that the Democrats should react in an equally irrational manner.

      “Democrats must refuse to vote to replace Scalia until a New Democrat is in office. They should, however, vote on all the other seats that need to be filled over the course of Trump’s presidency, even if it’s in the last month.”
      Again, there’s no reason that political parties ought to have some sort of “ownership” of appointments. The Constitution makes it clear that the job of filling a seat is the duty of the sitting president, and that happens to be Trump at the moment. As such, Trump is well within his rights to nominate a replacement. Not to mention, Democrats don’t have a majority so they _can’t_ block confirmations in the same way the Republicans did. The most they can do is filibuster (which can now be stopped) or vote against the nominee.

  14. Posted by jessica, at Reply

    so, given that somebody put a lot of money into putting him on the bench, why do you think they’re lobbing beach balls at him, cenk?

    • Posted by jessica, at Reply

      this idea that they’re just spineless and ineffective is kind of naive.

  15. Posted by Henry Townshed, at Reply

    justice democrats v the. infowarriors

  16. Posted by Prince Benedict, at Reply

    Ana let her hair down Oh lala hot!

  17. Posted by Suzanne Merriman, at Reply

    Gorsuch is as slimy as they come.

  18. Posted by God'sPotential, at Reply

    People like Neil Gorsuch don’t play those leftist games.