Leahy Is An Elitist Snob And Partisan Obstructionist

[Robo]

How much absurd political brass or just plain arrogance does it take for a Democrat Senator to have, before he proves his political partisan bias and contempt for a sitting President and the traditional civility of the U.S Senate?



Apparently all it takes is the elitist snobbery and obstructionist agenda of Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, who first loudly and proudly proclaims he won’t vote for the conformation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but he, (Leahy), has 20 plus more questions he wants to put to the nominee Gorsuch.



Why in hell would Leahy even believe that since he has already committed himself as a no vote, he should have any right or authority to badger the nominee a second further? He had several days of hearings for the Judge to ask all he wanted. So by what continued verbal besmirching is any real service to the Senate, the people or the Judge fulfilled?



It should be oh so evident to any honest person that Leahy’s agenda and objective is simply to badger the Judge, hold up his full Senate vote and obstruct as long as possible any and every act of the President.



Who in hell elects elitist, partisan snobs the likes of Leahy?

[pjohns]

The people of Vermont--who are about as liberal, on average, as the people of Massachusetts--continue to elect Leahy.

Clearly, Leahy is just playing to his (very liberal) base. In other words, he is grandstanding.

But he is surely no worse that New York's Chuck Schumer (not that that is a very high bar to clear).

[jigglepete]

The constituents of Vermont, that's who.

Do you know what questions he wants to ask? No? How do you know they will be libelous and besmirching (great word BTW)?

How can you assume that they aren't important and relevant questions??

[Common Sense]

LOL...the OP is fucking hilarious when put in the context of the last 8 years.

Give me a break.

[Robo]

The constituents of Vermont, that's who.

Do you know what questions he wants to ask? No? How do you know they will be libelous and besmirching (great word BTW)?

How can you assume that they aren't important and relevant questions??

He's already committed himself as a no vote. It's not like he trying to make up his mind. He has no credible reason to badger the appointee and obstruct the full Senate vote, which is clearly to any honest folk his agenda.

[Robo]

LOL...the OP is $#@!ing hilarious when put in the context of the last 8 years.

You mean like the last two Judges Obama appointed that Republicans voted for? We'll see how many Democrats vote for Gorsuch, huh? Schumer is threatening a filibuster.

Give me a break.

[Safety]

LOL...the OP is fucking hilarious when put in the context of the last 8 years.

Give me a break.

I almost thought about it, then remembered the "we will not consider the nomination of Merrick" and then chuckled.

[Cletus]

How can you assume that they aren't important and relevant questions??

Because Leaky wants to ask them.

He should be rotting in a prison instead of polluting the US Senate with his presence.

[Tahuyaman]

LOL...the OP is $#@!ing hilarious when put in the context of the last 8 years.

Give me a break.

Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion?

[Tahuyaman]

He's already committed himself as a no vote. It's not like he trying to make up his mind. He has no credible reason to badger the appointee and obstruct the full Senate vote, which is clearly to any honest folk his agenda.


His vote is based strictly on the party line. He hasn't had an independent thought in his political life.

[resister]

His vote is based strictly on the party line. He hasn't had an independent thought in his political life.Like all the hard left, no names! LOL

[Tahuyaman]

Like all the hard left, no names! LOL


Based on current events, obviously Democrats are more loyal to the party line than Republicans are.

I admire elected officials who place loyalty to their constituents over their party.

[decedent]

How much absurd political brass or just plain arrogance does it take for a Democrat Senator to have, before he proves his political partisan bias and contempt for a sitting President and the traditional civility of the U.S Senate?



Apparently all it takes is the elitist snobbery and obstructionist agenda of Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy, who first loudly and proudly proclaims he won’t vote for the conformation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, but he, (Leahy), has 20 plus more questions he wants to put to the nominee Gorsuch.



Why in hell would Leahy even believe that since he has already committed himself as a no vote, he should have any right or authority to badger the nominee a second further? He had several days of hearings for the Judge to ask all he wanted. So by what continued verbal besmirching is any real service to the Senate, the people or the Judge fulfilled?



It should be oh so evident to any honest person that Leahy’s agenda and objective is simply to badger the Judge, hold up his full Senate vote and obstruct as long as possible any and every act of the President.



Who in hell elects elitist, partisan snobs the likes of Leahy?
What makes Leahy an elitist?

[pjohns]

I almost thought about it, then remembered the "we will not consider the nomination of Merrick" and then chuckled.

It is customary for a sitting president not to nominate a person to the Supreme Court, whenever that president is in the last year of his second term as president.

But then-President Obama had no real respect for custom.

For instance, Barack Obama changed the rules, in the waning days of his presidency, as to who could have access to raw intelligence.

As Joseph Rago, on The Journal Editorial Report, summarized it:

"According to the New York Times report, the president feared that his successor would try to destroy evidence or something, so it needed to be spread very widely through non-regular channels."

Moreover, to have replaced an [B]originalist and a textualist with a Living-Document theorist would have moved the court a bit to the left--thereby giving the latter a 5-4 majority. (I always thought it was the Living-Document theorists who wished not to upset the "balance" of the Court. But perhaps that applies only whenever a textualist and originalist would potentially replace a Living-Document theorist.)

[Robo]

What makes Leahy an elitist?

(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society: elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don't care about anybody else.)

Dictionary.com

[hanger4]

Leahy also said “I am not inclined to filibuster, even though I’m not inclined to vote for him,”

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/27/oh-my-pat-leahy-says-hes-not-inclined-to-filibuster-gorsuch/

Maybe he's giving Schumer an out.

[decedent]

(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society: elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don't care about anybody else.)

Dictionary.com

Leahy thinks of himself as superior? Is it because he has all his teeth?

[resister]

Leahy thinks of himself as superior? Is it because he has all his teeth?Don't be silly, it is because he is one of those cultured Democrats!

[NapRover]

Term limits!!!

[Robo]

Leahy thinks of himself as superior? Is it because he has all his teeth?


More likely because he's been able to hoodwink the voters in his State to supply him with a lifetime job whereby he has terrific connections to insider information whereby he can pass on to his investment manager and make himself rich beyond belief just like the rest of Congress who come to their offices with meager financial means and retire as very wealthy snobbish political hacks. He's an elite member of the duopoly dictatorship racket!