did no one know that Gorsich's mother had gotten removed from the EPA?

[demtenjeep]

I had no clue


who vetted him?

[RockRaven]

1. It was part of his conservative bona fides, part of why they picked him...

Multi-generation RWNJ credentials.

[Ocelot II]

2. I remember Anne Gorsuch very well, one of Reagan's terrible cabinet appointees.

She was actually so terrible she was forced to resign. But before that she did her best to gut the EPA, very much like TFG had tried to do. She was a real piece of work

During her 22 months as agency head, she cut the budget of the EPA by 22%, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, relaxed Clean Air Act regulations, and facilitated the spraying of restricted-use pesticides. She cut the total number of agency employees, and hired staff from the industries they were supposed to be regulating.

In 1982, Congress charged that the EPA had mishandled the $1.6 billion toxic waste Superfund by taking certain inappropriate and potentially illegal actions including withholding disbursements in order to affect a California political campaign. When Congress demanded records from Gorsuch, she refused and as a result became the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for contempt of Congress.

The standoff ended in late February 1983, when Richard Hauser, the White House deputy counsel, confirmed one or more Reagan Administration officials had in fact reported to the White House that they had heard Gorsuch say at an Aug. 4 1982 luncheon that she was holding back more than $6 million in Federal funds to clean up the Stringfellow Acid Pits toxic waste site near Los Angeles to avoid helping the Senate campaign of former Gov. Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat.

The White House then abandoned its court claim that the documents related to this incident could not be subpoenaed by Congress because they were covered by executive privilege and the EPA turned the documents over to Congress. Gorsuch immediately resigned her post effective March 3, 1983, citing pressures caused by the media and the congressional investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Gorsuch_Burford

Is Neil avenging his mother?

[2naSalit]

4. Probably.

[misanthrope]

9. Oh, but we keep hearing Reagan would no longer fit in the GOP

Uh huh. He'd be like a pig in slop.

[elleng]

3. Some of us are old enough to remember.

I expected gorsuch to have written today's decision.

[DET]

5. I remember it well...

…in part because I lived in the same apartment building as Rita Lavelle, who worked for Gorsuch and was in charge of the toxic site cleanup “Superfund”. She was a real piece of work and was ultimately fired herself. Lavelle was despised by the public and our building was picketed; I didn’t feel safe, even back then. Gorsuch and Lavelle were the forerunners of the loathsome Scott Pruitt.

[msfiddlestix]

6. wow! n/t

[Karadeniz]

7. He should have recused himself.

[arthritisR_US]

10. He sure as HELL should have! Fecking sod😡

[Ms. Toad]

8. Gorsuch is no more responsible for his mother's actions

than I am for my mother's, or for those of my spouse, etc.

[arthritisR_US]

11. You are sorely missing the point. He lacks objectivity

in this matter and should have recused himself.

[Ms. Toad]

14. The question was about vetting him.

Justices are not vetted for individual cases.

Not to mention that the obligation to recuse is nowhere near that broad.

[arthritisR_US]

16. When they are asked about Roe Vs Wade they are

being vetted based on that case. His mother is dead and he got her the results she was seeking in life posthumously. He should have recused but didn’t because he’s an entitled fecking sod.

[Ms. Toad]

17. That's not how it works -

The vetting process is not vetting on specific cases, but on suitability to be a justice of the Supreme Court. Judges (and justices) are bound by legal ethics to refrain from commenting on how they would rule on matters which might come before them. So as much as Congress tried to get them to answer about specific cases (and how they might decide in the future), none of them answered as to Roe (or any other case). Which is why the, current - "They lied, impeach them," is so ridiculous

They answered, as the canons of ethics required, in general legal principles , not how they would rule on a particular case.

As to whether he should have recused himself, if judges and justices were required to recuse themselves from every case involving an agency, group of people, etc. in which a family member worked - even as its head - we would have a non-functional justice system - especially as it pertains to the Supreme Court. She resigned after trying to dismantle the EPA. He believes she shouldn't have resigned. That he shares her views on the role of the EPA (or other regulatory agencies) is not sufficient to require him to recuse himself from every case involving the EPA. Had he, rather than his mother, served as head of the EPA that would be a different story.

[arthritisR_US]

19. He didn't need to be the head of the EPA to do her

bidding. Your utopian vetting is not how the Federalists do their vetting and we liberals are now FINALLY waking up, albeit a wee bit late.

[Ms. Toad]

24. I'm addressig the legal process

not how political groups create lists of candidates they find successful. The kind of vetting the Federalist Society did to include him on the list would not have been done, since we would not have considered him as a candidate we would include on any potential list of candidates.

The legal Congressional confirmation process does not include case-specific vetting, as much as Congress tries to make it. It involves inquiring as to general judicial temperament, philosophy, and other general things which qualify (or disqualify ) someone to hold judicial office. It does not extend to promises for ruling on any specific case which may come in front of them.

As to his mother, a lay person's view of a conflict of interest is generally not synonymous with the actual conflict of interest or recusal guidelines. So, no matter how much you believe you might have done your bidding in his shoes, it isn't the basis for a recusal.

[arthritisR_US]

25. Ok..

[budkin]

13. I think that was one of the reasons the Democrats filibustered Gorsuch

And So Mitch killed the filibuster.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

15. The SC cons are all about revenge

it's all about avenging the people who wronged them

[Bettie]

18. I knew

She was f-ing awful....I knew it and I was still in high school.

[arthritisR_US]

20. And sunny boy was there to get the job done for her.

[Bettie]

21. He's working hard at it

and, unless something is done, will succeed.

[arthritisR_US]

23. Yep, our voters have to wake up and realize that off

year elections matter as much as Presidential elections and at every level.

[Hortensis]

22. Yes. As for the other, REPUBLICANS controlled his confirmation hearing.

A look at the transcript shows that he refused to answer MANY questions asked by Democratic senators, then the Republicans voted to confirm.

Majorities rule.