General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsas a CO native I have to say, Gorsuch seems to be a straight shooter.
He shows the brilliance of a broad liberal education. He is a bit slow on drawing lines between dots, and I think it's a mistake to claim he can be totally above politics. Judges listen to people, and people are nothing if not politics. But it is a judicial attitude, and I appreciate that. He seems to be utterly respectful of the law, which in itself is a hopeful sign. Some on the Roberts court could care less.
If it weren't for the FACT of the astounding crime of withholding Merrick Garland's hearing, in itself obviously a travesty of civil rights, I could live with this. ANY FUCKING VERTEBRATE would be better than Scalia.
flamingdem
(39,787 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)But just as much a corporate shill.
dhol82
(9,396 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)If so, we are in trouble.
dhol82
(9,396 posts)I don't trust him.
Also wanted to puke when he started to look like he was going to cry while responding to a question about his compassion.
The man will be fair and balanced only as long as it agrees with his right wing principles.
SharonAnn
(13,833 posts)BannonsLiver
(17,464 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(32,146 posts)No, this appointment signals the end to the last 100 years.
Everything accomplished, gone.
JudyM
(29,476 posts)Motley13
(3,867 posts)Maybe RBG can educate him
spanone
(137,234 posts)i'll go with the goose.
he's going to be on the court for decades.
and trump nominated this guy so he's suspect as hell.
Ninga
(8,500 posts)should be affronted any rights. Including nominating a life time judge.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)brush
(56,305 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Roberts did the same thing.
The Dems should filibuster no matter if the repugs threaten the nuke option, or even do it (I don't think they will though because they know they won't be in power for forever).
Remember, this is a stolen nomination. F_uck them.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)No?
Then he's amoral partisan scum.
librechik
(30,776 posts)During Leahy's questions
like I said, I think it's a mistake for him to simply ignore politics. But it is a "judicial" stance.
Jonny Appleseed
(960 posts)librechik
(30,776 posts)I don't think anyone knows what to do about it. Except of coure the PuKKKes want to just ignore it and continue sipping their juleps on the plantation veranda.
Tanuki
(15,103 posts)during Obama's administration is itself a "political issue" in an of itself, and a disgraceful one at that. It is profoundly dishonorable of him to be not only a party to this offense against the order of law, but a direct beneficiary of unconscionable corruption for the rest of his life. I will not cut him an inch of slack. He is actively colluding with an overthrow of our system of government. The only name in legitimate consideration is Merrick Garland. Placing anyone else on the court will taint every decision in the next 30 years in which Gorsuch casts a deciding vote. This is intolerable.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(119,204 posts)and if he isn't they'll just come up with another right-winger. The sad thing is that the two runners-up for this appointment were even worse.
MoonRiver
(36,927 posts)I know he'll probably be pushed through by McTurtle, but at least we will have stood up for our principles. Plus, once we take back the Senate and presidency, WE will be completely justified in using the nuclear option for OUR SCOTUS nominees.
emulatorloo
(45,465 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)On deference to administrative agencies, Scalia was actually slightly better than Gorsuch. The latter has called into question whether or not courts should defer to agencies at all, whereas the former has often deferred to agencies (and supported such deference when it was called into question).
Scalia is likely more socially conservative than Gorsuch, but I don't think that would affect the vote of any case. On cases involving abortion/gay rights/etc, Gorsuch is clearly in the Republican "mainstream" that opposes judicial intervention.
JudyM
(29,476 posts)librechik
(30,776 posts)until after the hypothetical Merrick Garland hearing. It's the little things you let slip by that turn a civilization bad.
tblue37
(66,015 posts)FakeNoose
(34,713 posts)I totally agree.
If Gorsuch is tone-deaf to the politics of his nomination, then he'll be tone-deaf to everything on the Supreme Court too. What is there in his judicial record got him noticed by Trump anyway?
Does Trump even know this guy? I don't think so.
We can't rush into this when there's an impeachment on the horizon.
tblue37
(66,015 posts)writing and therefore must deal with a lot of seriously bad writing, I do like to read something written well.
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)Gorsuch comes across as phony, awful full of himself and a bit of a tool.
Reminded me of Scalia with a better haircut.
Trump is going down. If the republicans want to resurrect their brand they should pull Gorsuch's nomination and put up Garland. It would go along way to offer penance for what the leader of their party has done. They could crow all across media about genuinely bringing Americans together. That would be an act of true leadership.
And as a bonus, they can still fund-raise like mad on the fact that Roe v Wade remains the law of the land.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Ari Berman Reveals Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading GOP Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/20/college_classmate_neil_gorsuch_attacked_anti
College Classmate: Neil Gorsuch Attacked Anti-Apartheid & Civil Rights Protesters & Defended Contras
Iggo
(48,062 posts)Freethinker65
(10,747 posts)Unlike Republicans, the Democrats tend to vote to confirm qualified nominees regardless of the nominee's ideology. That was admirable when it was expected all nominees would respect the constitution and realize they will be working on behalf of all American citizens. Unfortunately now, in the age of loyalty oaths to Trump/Bannon, all bets are off.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Harriet Myers and a few of reagans like bork. No democratic nominee has been stopped except gerrick. Heck RBG got 99 votes. That's unheard of today regardless of party.
Freethinker65
(10,747 posts)Was Ms. Myers voted on? I thought her nomination got pulled. Yes, Bork was "borked".
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)True Myers was pulled.
Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #38)
Kingofalldems This message was self-deleted by its author.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Garland is a former prosecutor and hardly super liberal.
There are no equivalents of Bork and Miers on the left because Democratic administrations have appointed skilled patriotic lawyers, and Republicans like Nixon and Bush appoint lawyers who put party and personal loyalty over country.
Bork followed Nixon's orders after two other more patriotic GOP lawyers had demurred. Miers had few qualifications other than loyalty to Bush.
MFM008
(19,959 posts)Or Noone endorsed by the maggot in chief.
BainsBane
(54,017 posts)That said, anyone else Trump appoints would probably be worse.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,984 posts)librechik
(30,776 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,984 posts)I rather talk about Russia and Chump Care. Those are winners for us.
gilbert sullivan
(192 posts)grr
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,984 posts)If we filibuster the Republicants will just vote for cloture.
Thomas Hurt
(13,905 posts)after the GOP Senate arguably violated their oaths and absconded with it.
Being the originalist and conservative christian.......you would think he would have a problem with that.
But I guess power and money makes those absolutist conservative christians more flexible.
Vinca
(50,737 posts)It's hard to imagine he could be as bad as Scalia, but time will tell. I'm more worried about the next opening.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)He's wanted out for awhile. Kennedy after that.
redwitch
(15,033 posts)librechik
(30,776 posts)milestogo
(17,048 posts)mrsv
(209 posts)He can't be good...the devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for ...don't be fooled by Gorsuch!
Skittles
(156,970 posts)he had a couple of CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS do the selection for him
niyad
(117,956 posts)What Neil Gorsuch, Trumps SCOTUS Pick, Means for American Women
Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trumps nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court, is a consistently conservative judge whod enter the court at a critical moment for reproductive rights. Though Gorsuch, a federal judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has never ruled on an abortion rights case, his record shows him to be hostile to womens health care and willing to give broad leeway to institutions that want to discriminate against women.
Women will be affected by every decision that comes out of the next iteration of the Supreme Court, of course, whether the cases deal with voting rights, labor issues, immigrant rights, civil liberties, criminal justice, or any other area of law. Because women make less money than men, shoulder the bulk of home and family responsibilities, and have less access to traditional spheres of power, they are in fact particularly dependent on legal protections, and they will likely be disproportionately impacted by any harm that comes from the courts decisions.
Nowhere is that clearer than in the field of public health. Anti-abortion advocates believe Trump and his pick will lead their fight to overturn Roe v. Wade, a strong, if imperfect, safeguard of abortion rights. A recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights found that 22 states would be likely to roll back abortion rights immediately if Roe were overturned. Some of these states already have anti-abortion laws on the books that predate Roe (that means theyre currently unenforceable but would become effective if Roe fell) or laws passed specifically to go into effect in the event that Roe gets axed.
. . . .
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/01/31/what_neil_gorsuch_trump_s_scotus_pick_means_for_american_women.html
librechik
(30,776 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)niyad
(117,956 posts)Neil Gorsuch: Corporations Have Rights. Women? Not So Much.
?cb=c29eeb745bbd1cb090828d7a8a62f64e&w=640&h=
Rally against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, in front of the United States Supreme Court. Washington DC January 31, 2017.
Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional originalist, has taken an expansive view of corporate rights as a federal judge on the Tenth Circuit. Women have not fared as well in his court, where Gorsuch has demonstrated a commitment to curtailing workplace protections for female employees, not to mention aggressive opposition to reproductive freedom. The contrast between Gorsuchs record of coddling corporations and his rebuff to womens basic rights, shows a big-business bias that crushes actual human beings and humane, progressive values.
As a Tenth Circuit judge, Gorsuch joined the majority in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, which argued that corporations are persons and have a right to exercise their religious beliefs under the Religions Freedom Restoration Act. Based on this doctrine, Hobby Lobby won the freedom, upheld by the Supreme Court, to withhold birth control coverage from its female employees.Thanks to that case, soulless corporations can assert spiritual rights that trump the health care needs of women.
And thats not all. Gorsuch has a long record of protecting big companies from consumers, workers, and employees whose claims of fraud and discrimination threaten to make a dent in profits. A fact sheet put together by People for the American Way outlines Gorsuchs pro-corporate, anti-human-rights record.
In a working paper for the Washington Legal Foundation, Gorsuch staked out the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from consumer financial protection advocate Elizabeth Warren, lamenting securities class-action fraud claims that prompt corporate defendants to pay dearly to settle, and recommended making securities fraud class actions more difficult to pursue. In an article titled LiberalsNLawsuits for National Review, Gorsuch argued that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.
. . . . .
http://progressive.org/dispatches/gorsuch/
DonCoquixote
(13,647 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 22, 2017, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)
to the author of the original OP, what I'm going to say is going to sound harsh, but I don't mean it that way. Normalizing Neil is deadly. Yes he is very much not a clown like Trump, that is exactly what makes him deadly. The Heritage foundation picked him, and they knew that they want someone who, even if Trump crashed the clown car in the Washington Monument,, would be slick enough to last and not be challenged. They picked this young, smart, charming fellow who just happens to believe that corporations should be only do whatever the hell they want to their employees and that agencies should not be able to do anything to protect people. Let's not forget, the whole reason of the Chevron ruling, which he opposes, was that when you deal for federal agency, the people who actually are the experts should be deferred to. In other words a judge should not be able to override an astronomer at NASA, a surgeon at the CDC, and other scenarios were frankly you do not want the equivalent of a plumber doing your brain surgery. If Neil gets in, he is going to do his best to make sure that federal agencies have to defer to judges, namely because the judges will be conservative, which means that the billionaires will have already told them what to say or at least made it very clear.
I mean, look at this quote:
In an article titled LiberalsNLawsuits for National Review, Gorsuch argued that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.
Let's be attention to the language: he says that liberals have become an "addicted to the courtroom", which coincidentally is the one area where Corporations were and churches can be held accountable. It's no accident he uses the language of addicts, which she of course can easily interpret as criminals, to describe the one area were Corporation can actually lose. He also uses the term "social agenda", as if trying to go ahead and take tax dollars and pay everyone from private Christian schools to private prison companies is not some sort of social agenda. This is a person who does not believe that people who have been failed by their elected leaders, and yes failed at the ballot box, should have any defense. This is not someone we want on the Supreme Court, and yes Trump could've picked a fire breather, but the fact this guy is wrapped in some sort of slick package again makes them more dangerous because we do not pay attention to the actual words he says. Those words will outlive him, they will outlive us, and thereby probably shorten the lives of our children and grandchildren!
No normalizing Neil,.! He needs to be opposed, because even if the short-term fight is not one, thanks to be bought and paid for Congress, an honest critique of them will pave the way to where we can and start to help undo the agenda that the GOP is set in motion.
niyad
(117,956 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Gorsuch will further strengthen the money corporations can spend on elections.
Gorsuch is going to vote to destroy the working and middle class.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)as Gorsuch decided to have a signing letter to convince everyone - meh, not so bad..McCain was too demanding we shouldn't do this torture, at the time...he was about to have a law anti-torture bill - I believe 2005...
Gorsuch found the torture system "extraordinarily impressive" and "something that the nation can be proud of," he should fit reicht in -
librechik
(30,776 posts)Panich52
(5,829 posts)Evasion is his "answer" to virtually every question.
denbot
(9,906 posts)And all of his supporters.
lame54
(36,333 posts)uponit7771
(91,133 posts)librechik
(30,776 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Just because he doesn't look like a constipated Danny Devito wearing a black robe doesn't make Gorsuch a tolerable alternative to Scalia. He is an originalist, sphincter-dwelling douche siphon. He will not be better than Scalia because he's a carbon copy of Scalia.