Neil Gorsuch

[Spartanmack]

It's been at least a couple hours since the nomination and bob hasn't started a thread about how the world is going to come to an end?

Don't know much about him but I'm glad to see Trump nominating an nonpartisan Originalist, like Scalia rather than someone who favors politics over the law.

 

[biggunsbob]

Just another Right wingnut Judge so the right can keep their 5 to 4 Voter suppression court rolling under Roberts because You know Roberts is so for the people LOL..This Judge should have been Obama's appointment. I can see 2 to 4 month hold on judge in a election year but 11 months is just obstruction which is McConnell's middle name. Anyway the democrats will mobilize to save face and make a token play to hold him up but in the end they will role over and let them have him. I think the democrats will fight the next on after this one tooth and nail. BTW it is so hypocritical watching the GOP complain about the democrats trying to obstruct. I mean really are you kidding me ?

 

[biggunsbob]

Neil Gorsuch : Just information

https://ballotpedia.org/Neil_Gorsuch#Judicial_career


http://www.newsweek.com/profile-neil-gorsuch-trumps-possible-scotus-nominee-548835

 

[sggatecl]

Probably as close to 'Scalia lite' as they're going to get. Unless the Dems fully intend on blocking the next Supreme Court nomination for four years, they should take Gorsuch. Some of the other choices I saw would have Dems attempting to reanimate Scalia's corpse.

 

[Spartanmack]

Probably as close to 'Scalia lite' as they're going to get. Unless the Dems fully intend on blocking the next Supreme Court nomination for four years, they should take Gorsuch. Some of the other choices I saw would have Dems attempting to reanimate Scalia's corpse.

Scalia was probably the least partisan judge on the panel. He voted with the left way more than any liberal activist justice voted with the right. People think he was ultra conservative because he believed in the constitution and the rule of law so his voting wasn't led strictly by a liberal conscience. I'm not counting Kennedy as a partisan justice one way or the other - he's a switch hitter.

 

[sggatecl]

Scalia was probably the least partisan judge on the panel. He voted with the left way more than any liberal activist justice voted with the right. People think he was ultra conservative because he believed in the constitution and the rule of law so his voting wasn't led strictly by a liberal conscience. I'm not counting Kennedy as a partisan justice one way or the other - he's a switch hitter.

This is what I was referring to as 'Scalia lite'. Gorsuch, like Scalia, is known for make decisions based word for word on the constitution. Scalia is thought of as partisan (imo) because in the headline grabbing cases he took a conservative stance (abortion, death penalty, affirmative action).

Ironically enough Scalia is labeled a racist/sexist by many people when I believe he was anything but. Minorities are always being quoted as wanting to be treated the same and Scalia's decisions and thoughts echoed that. He didn't believe in labeling certain groups as special because we're all Americans. Pretty simple if you ask me.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I've never heard of Gorsuch and I have no idea how right or left he may be, but I feel safe assuming he is very pro-big-business.

 

[Michchamp]

Scalia was fucking awful.

Based on the few things I've read on Gorsuch... he's nowhere near as bad. A couple commentators feel he's actually to the left of Merrick Garland on criminal issues at least, which is good because the court has grown way too deferential of cops and state power since the 80's.

considering how awful Trump's cabinet picks have been, this is... "good" by Trump standards... "not too terrible" by any normal measure.

still there's not a lot of Gorsuch's record to go on; he's relatively young for a supreme court justice.

 

[Spartanmack]

I've never heard of Gorsuch and I have no idea how right or left he may be, but I feel safe assuming he is very pro-big-business.

why?

 

[Spartanmack]

Just another Right wingnut Judge so the right can keep their 5 to 4 Voter suppression court rolling under Roberts because You know Roberts is so for the people LOL..This Judge should have been Obama's appointment. I can see 2 to 4 month hold on judge in a election year but 11 months is just obstruction which is McConnell's middle name. Anyway the democrats will mobilize to save face and make a token play to hold him up but in the end they will role over and let them have him. I think the democrats will fight the next on after this one tooth and nail. BTW it is so hypocritical watching the GOP complain about the democrats trying to obstruct. I mean really are you kidding me ?

1888 was the last time a SC justice was confirmed in an election year and some honest Obama cabinet members even fessed up to playing it the same way with shoe on other foot. But that's not obstruction, is it.

So bob, now that the shoe is on the other foot and panty waste Democrat crybabies aren't even showing up to confirmation hearings is the obstructionism OK? Do you not think it's worse or at least as bad?

 

[Gulo Blue]

why?

Because, big business usually gets what it wants. TTP being the big exception that I still expect to resurface with a different name.

 

[KAWDUP]

Because, big business usually gets what it wants. TTP being the big exception that I still expect to resurface with a different name.

Of course it will - didn't you hear Trump promise to renegotiate it so America wins instead of loses? Whatever the heck that means.

 

[biggunsbob]

1888 was the last time a SC justice was confirmed in an election year and some honest Obama cabinet members even fessed up to playing it the same way with shoe on other foot. But that's not obstruction, is it.

So bob, now that the shoe is on the other foot and panty waste Democrat crybabies aren't even showing up to confirmation hearings is the obstructionism OK? Do you not think it's worse or at least as bad?

Your Semantics are pretty funny you better correct yourself lol. . All of these judges were nominated prior to a election year and comfirmed during the election year. Calling BS on your 11 month window for Garland ,and the GOP has no leg to stand on when it comes to obstruction. Should I fix it for you ? Or do you just want it deleted ?

What about these 6 judges confirmed since 1912 in election years .and 14 total in our history since 1796?
.
Justices Putney 1912.
Justice Brandeis 1916.
Justice Clark. 1916.
Justice Cardozo 1932.
Justice Murphy 1940.
Justice Kennedy 1988.

Like I said the Democrats will posture on this guy and in the end will cave in .

 

[sggatecl]

Your Semantics are pretty funny you better correct yourself lol. . All of these judges were nominated prior to a election year and comfirmed during the election year. Calling BS on your 11 month window for Garland ,and the GOP has no leg to stanr on when it comes to obstruction.

What about these 6 judges confirmed since 1912 in election years .and 14 total in our history since 1796?
.
Justices Putney 1912.
Justice Brandeis 1916.
Justice Clark. 1916.
Justice Cardozo 1932.
Justice Murphy 1940.
Justice Kennedy 1988.

Like I said the Democrats will posture on this guy and in the end will cave in .

Wasn't aware there were that many...damn. Looking forward to SM's response. That's some compelling evidence.

 

[Spartanmack]

Your Semantics are pretty funny you better correct yourself lol. . All of these judges were nominated prior to a election year and comfirmed during the election year. Calling BS on your 11 month window for Garland ,and the GOP has no leg to stand on when it comes to obstruction. Should I fix it for you ? Or do you just want it deleted ?

What about these 6 judges confirmed since 1912 in election years .and 14 total in our history since 1796?
.
Justices Putney 1912.
Justice Brandeis 1916.
Justice Clark. 1916.
Justice Cardozo 1932.
Justice Murphy 1940.
Justice Kennedy 1988.

Like I said the Democrats will posture on this guy and in the end will cave in .

Type-o. my post should have said 1988, not 1888. And how are you calling bullshit on "my 11 month window on Garland"? It's not my window. That statement makes absolutely no sense.

What I find funny is the Dems are coming out of the gates hard with obstructionism - way worse than Republicans ever did with Obama particularly this early in his term. Did Republicans ever refuse to show up for confirmation hearings to stall votes on a technicality? What's funnier, is I don't recall anyone defending obstructionism here - those are your words. You ranted and raved about it for years and now the Dems are doing it and doing it arguably more than Republicans and you're defending it after making it your single biggest issue for years. You still you can't stop with the Republican obstructionism. You're obsessed and you insist on having this argument with yourself in 90% of your posts. It's weird.

 

[biggunsbob]

Type-o. my post should have said 1988, not 1888. And how are you calling bullshit on "my 11 month window on Garland"? It's not my window. That statement makes absolutely no sense.

What I find funny is the Dems are coming out of the gates hard with obstructionism - way worse than Republicans ever did with Obama particularly this early in his term. Did Republicans ever refuse to show up for confirmation hearings to stall votes on a technicality? What's funnier, is I don't recall anyone defending obstructionism here - those are your words. You ranted and raved about it for years and now the Dems are doing it and doing it arguably more than Republicans and you're defending it after making it your single biggest issue for years. You still you can't stop with the Republican obstructionism. You're obsessed and you insist on having this argument with yourself in 90% of your posts. It's weird.

Maybe it should be 99% because that is all the GOP does is obstruct. You do know the Democrats want a infrastructure bill so hey lets do it trumpeters ? Because as you know the GOP killed any bill like that Obama wanted.. Your freaking joking right ? 6+ years of obstruction ? Plus 11 months when hypocritical MM came out right away with fucking 11 months left saying they would not even interview the justice is laughable . You trying to defend it is laughable. I guess the truth is beyond you but whatever so go think what you want you. I know its important to the Right that they have a 5-4 vote on the court and don't worry you will get this guy after posturing by democrats. This was Obama's Judge and there is not 1 righty who would not be pissed if the democrats had did the same thing that Hypocrite McConnell did to Garland. Who by the way was more then qualified. Get rid of citzens united and get ready of dark money .

 

[biggunsbob]

Gorsuch first phone call was Garland that is a class move.

 

[KAWDUP]

Your Semantics are pretty funny you better correct yourself lol. . All of these judges were nominated prior to a election year and comfirmed during the election year. Calling BS on your 11 month window for Garland ,and the GOP has no leg to stand on when it comes to obstruction. Should I fix it for you ? Or do you just want it deleted ?

What about these 6 judges confirmed since 1912 in election years .and 14 total in our history since 1796?
.
Justices Putney 1912.
Justice Brandeis 1916.
Justice Clark. 1916.
Justice Cardozo 1932.
Justice Murphy 1940.
Justice Kennedy 1988.

Like I said the Democrats will posture on this guy and in the end will cave in .

I don't want to rain on your election year confirmations being debunked, but even you have to admit, since Kennedy was actually nominated in the previous calendar year (November - which you did actually mention) there is a difference. The nomination occurred after the Democrats nixed two other nominees by Reagan. So, I imagine a bigger outcry than over Garland not being given a vote, would have happened if a stall was attempted until after the presidential election there. But, hey, as you stated, it was an election year when confirmed. One other tidbit, Kennedy was confirmed 97-0.

So, I guess you still win on a technicality, but I am agreeing on different level. Think, are there any other times in history when the nomination had to wait until after a presidential election? While many attempt to use Biden's words that "as many have done before" to wait until after the election, I don't think there has been too many cases where the court was left one justice short while waiting for the election to occur. Maybe not even any. I am pretty sure Biden was just saying that IF a vacancy occurred, the nomination process shouldn't start until after the election, but it wasn't really happening at the time. I would think that would have made more hay for the Garland supporters. The question is, why wasn't that the main narrative? I truly believe that it wasn't just Fox News that seem to bury this point.

I would say follow the money, as I'm sure someone quite powerful would have lost a lot of money if Garland was confirmed, but I wouldn't even know where to start.

Not sure where this leaves us. Yep, unprecedented to leave the court with 8 for so long. Biden also said (even though it never happened) the few amount of issues that ended up 4-4 could be re-adjudicated rather easily. Minor point.

But here is the question, is this Scalia-lite really where the Democrats ought to go to bat against? It would cost some serious political capital to nix this guy, and for what gain - revenge?

Even though the court was 5-4 leaning conservative for how many years, Roe vs. Wade was never over-turned. I highly doubt it will even come up until the next liberal leaning judge steps down. I believe that is when we might see an all out war, but I think for purely political reasons, enough Democrats will give him a vote, and as you stated, will probably just confirm him anyway.

So are we still arguing?

 

[Spartanmack]

Maybe it should be 99% because that is all the GOP does is obstruct. You do know the Democrats want a infrastructure bill so hey lets do it trumpeters ? Because as you know the GOP killed any bill like that Obama wanted.. Your freaking joking right ? 6+ years of obstruction ? Plus 11 months when hypocritical MM came out right away with fucking 11 months left saying they would not even interview the justice is laughable . You trying to defend it is laughable. I guess the truth is beyond you but whatever so go think what you want you. I know its important to the Right that they have a 5-4 vote on the court and don't worry you will get this guy after posturing by democrats. This was Obama's Judge and there is not 1 righty who would not be pissed if the democrats had did the same thing that Hypocrite McConnell did to Garland. Who by the way was more then qualified. Get rid of citzens united and get ready of dark money .

Here. The 11 months is meaningless, yet you cling to it like a security blanket. Let it go or please, just shut up.

 

[jwlcosu]

I don't know anything about Gorsuch but I love that Pelosi thinks he's "hostile" and that Schumer is still crying crocodile tears. Could those two be more pathetic? I say no.

So when California secedes, will Pelosi be President?