Gorsuch: 'I'm sorry' for ruling against autistic student
Source: Politico
By BENJAMIN WERMUND 03/22/17 01:15 PM EDT
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch said an opinion he wrote siding with a Colorado school district over the family of an autistic student was "wrong" and "I'm sorry" for it but he had been bound by precedent.
The 10th Circuit judge made the comments after Sen. Dick Durbin announced during Gorsuch's confirmation hearing that the Supreme Court had just ruled unanimously in a similar case that school districts must go the extra mile to accommodate students with disabilities.
"Its a powerful decision, its a unanimous decision, it was written by the chief justice of the court, Durbin said. "Why in your early decision did you want to lower the bar so low ... ?" Gorsuch responded that he is often asked whether he abides precedent and whether he always like the rulings he reaches.
"Heres a case for you," he said. "If anyone is suggesting that I like a result where an autistic child happens to lose, thats a heartbreaking accusation to me. Heartbreaking. But the fact of the matter is I was bound by circuit precedent," Gorsuch continued. "I was wrong because I was bound by circuit precedent and Im sorry."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-im-sorry-autistic-student-236364
world wide wally
(21,718 posts)No wonder Trump picked him.
And why is the media saying this prick is so great?
LisaM
(27,758 posts)and that he's willing to hide behind precedent rather than take a stand. This is kind of similar to the frozen trucker incident.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)judicial activist--whenever either suited him. Gorsuch claims, and is believed to be, a great admirer of Scalia and his rulings are supposed to be in Scalia's pattern.
The Senate should be looking for secret meetings with unidentified people in isolated resorts.
BeyondGeography
(39,276 posts)let me know.
Marie Marie
(9,999 posts)exboyfil
(17,857 posts)He added the word "merely" to the decision thus warping the precedent. The precedent was open ended and looking for some compassionate interpretation. Good luck for anybody but the rich and powerful getting any compassion from this quarter.
Nitram
(22,663 posts)I highly doubt it.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Would he have felt bound by the precedent of Plessy v Ferguson?
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)The one consistent feature of all of Gorsuch's rulings seems to be that he screws the ordinary, regular, working class person who is a part to any lawsuit.
That ought to tell everyone SOMETHING!!!
benld74
(9,888 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Buckeyeblue
(5,491 posts)If the precedent is wrong he has a duty to correct. In this case he just clogged the system.
And even Thomas disagreed. This puts him to the right of Thomas, which is somewhere close to whackoland.
Javaman
(62,438 posts)Lanius
(599 posts)other right-wing interests?
turbinetree
(24,631 posts)Gorsuch your a disgrace..............
Vinca
(50,168 posts)What if precedent is wrong?
harun
(11,348 posts)More_Cowbell
(2,190 posts)In general, the circuit courts make their own precedent unless they're following US Supreme Court precedent. Lower courts in the 10th Circuit would have been bound by the earlier 10th Circuit decision, but Gorsuch and the others had the chance to follow the 10th Circuit's own narrow reading of the federal IDEA statute, or they could have joined other circuit courts that had gone the other way (in effect, making new 10th Circuit precedent). When the circuits are "split" like this, the US SCt generally takes up a case to decide the issue one way or the other, which is what happened here.
Often a lower court judge will unwillingly follow the circuit's precedent, and sometimes they note it in the decision. For instance, in 2015 a district court in New York was forced to follow 2nd Circuit precedent when it held that Title VII didn't prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation, because of "the line the Second Circuit has drawn, rightly or wrongly, between sexual orientation and sex-based claims."
But the judge clearly didn't agree with the Second Circuit precedent: "In light of the EEOC's recent decision on Title VII's scope, and the demonstrated impracticability of considering sexual orientation discrimination as categorically different from sexual stereotyping, one might reasonably ask and, lest there be any doubt, this Court is asking whether that line should be erased."
elleng
(130,126 posts)I hope others see it.
Vinca
(50,168 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)one:
Act II, scene 3. The Porter pretends he's at Hell's Gate:
(Knock.) Knock, knock! Whos there, in th
other devils name? Faith, heres an equivocator
that could swear in both the scales against either
scale, who committed treason enough for Gods
sake yet could not equivocate to heaven. O, come in,
equivocator.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
dalton99a
(81,065 posts)surrealAmerican
(11,339 posts)He's used that word before, in the truck driver's case I think.
He doesn't mean it. If he actually found his own decisions heartbreaking, he would not still be the kind of Judge he is.