Law The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v2: President Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch

I'm just asking you a question, no need to be defensive. Refusing to go the route the of globalism and "social justice warrior" is not losing my way.

Correct. Losing your way is all of the other stuff you're doing while also refusing to go the route of globalism.

Even labelling others as "social justice warriors" is a sign that you're not being very Christian. Insulting people that don't agree with you via a term you consider derogatory isn't a practice that the Bible smiles upon.
 
Sometimes we get those activist judges. What can you do? Honest people understand that the appropriate remedy to any grievances isn't to twist language but rather to follow the amendment process. Like anything though, corruption seeps in.

Actually, the Constitution was intended to be changed by generational whims. The drafters of the document expected it to evolve with the population and they expected the judiciary to interpret the Constitution with that in mind. If the evolution of the document with society wasn't intended then they never would have given us a method for formally amending the Constitution or given the Supreme Court the jurisdiction it has.

There's a lot of nuance in this point. Judges and legal scholars debate the extent to which these things should occur. It's kind of fallacious to imply that it was never intended or considered though.
 
Which is a subjective opinion. Which is my point. You stating it is inferior doesn't make it so to someone else. This is the very point of the difference between subjective and objective opinion.

All objective opinions aren't equal but you and I aren't the arbiter of which subjective opinions are objectively superior/inferior to other people. To help illustrate the problem - what is the objective standard by which we are to judge these opinions? Objective meaning fact based and since this is a matter of Senatorial procedure, there should be some codified rule as well. I ask because it seems like you don't understand the functional difference between objective opinions and subjective ones.

This really sums up why I don't think Democrats should do the same thing Republicans have been doing. It used to be that some things just weren't done. If all it takes to shatter long-running norms that have worked well is a subjective feeling that it's justified, the norms are all gone.

And good luck trying to get @Cubo de Sangre to answer a direct question.
 
Which is a subjective opinion. Which is my point. You stating it is inferior doesn't make it so to someone else. This is the very point of the difference between subjective and objective opinion.

All objective opinions aren't equal but you and I aren't the arbiter of which subjective opinions are objectively superior/inferior to other people. To help illustrate the problem - what is the objective standard by which we are to judge these opinions? Objective meaning fact based and since this is a matter of Senatorial procedure, there should be some codified rule as well. I ask because it seems like you don't understand the functional difference between objective opinions and subjective ones.

Sounds like we should never listen to your opinion since you're saying it's no better than anyone else's.

Me, I'll stick with inductive logic and consensus-forming. That's where we all use our brain-power to decide what makes relative sense. In this particular case the key objective measure is time. Coupling that with the notion that lacking a judge is harmful and the longer it goes it becomes more harmful, it's not hard to conclude that less time without the judge is superior to more time. Wouldn't you agree?


Actually, the Constitution was intended to be changed by generational whims. The drafters of the document expected it to evolve with the population and they expected the judiciary to interpret the Constitution with that in mind. If the evolution of the document with society wasn't intended then they never would have given us a method for formally amending the Constitution or given the Supreme Court the jurisdiction it has.

Not sure why you're lecturing me about the amendment process when I already acknowledged it as the way to make changes. If you've got a source where the founders suggested that future generations should morph the same old words and understanding of said words into some new meaning that contradicts previous understanding (or legislative intent) then I'd love to see it. Not sure it's all that relevant to the thread topic though.
 
Correct. Losing your way is all of the other stuff you're doing while also refusing to go the route of globalism.

Even labelling others as "social justice warriors" is a sign that you're not being very Christian. Insulting people that don't agree with you via a term you consider derogatory isn't a practice that the Bible smiles upon.
SJW isn't necessarily insulting. They themselves tout "Social Justice." It's just a term to describe these people. Because not all liberals and not all democrats are social justice warriors.
 
SJW isn't necessarily insulting. They themselves tout "Social Justice." It's just a term to describe these people. Because not all liberals and not all democrats are social justice warriors.

Let's not equivocate Rip. The term isn't necessarily insulting but are you using it positively? As a compliment? Neutrally? Don't forget - lying is a no no in the Bible. Even if I won't know, Jesus will.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like we should never listen to your opinion since you're saying it's no better than anyone else's.

Sure, no one's making you, least of all me.

Me, I'll stick with inductive logic and consensus-forming. That's where we all use our brain-power to decide what makes relative sense. In this particular case the key objective measure is time. Coupling that with the notion that lacking a judge is harmful and the longer it goes it becomes more harmful, it's not hard to conclude that less time without the judge is superior to more time. Wouldn't you agree?

Actually the key objective measure is not time. That, again, is a subjective opinion. There is no objective rule that says time is the measure we should use. Time is objective, that it is the measure for evaluating this issue is subjective.

Additionally, your second point is objectively wrong. The Constitution only requires 1 Supreme Court judge, so only having 8 isn't actually harmful except by a subjective standard (that standard being "how many judges we should have?").

You're going to take this the wrong way but you really don't understand the difference between subjective opinions and objective ones.


Not sure why you're lecturing me about the amendment process when I already acknowledged it as the way to make changes. If you've got a source where the founders suggested that future generations should morph the same old words and understanding of said words into some new meaning that contradicts previous understanding (or legislative intent) then I'd love to see it. Not sure it's all that relevant to the thread topic though.

I'm not lecturing you on the amendment process. I'm referring to the judicial process. You're right that it's not relevant. More importantly to me, I doubt that you would acknowledge that the Founding Fathers were largely lawyers, familiar with precedent and how it operates, yet still chose to create a judiciary for the interpretation and ruling on of issues related to the Constitution. All that and yet they didn't ban common law or precedent setting opinions in the Constitution.
 
See my last response to you.

Just quote what you need answered. Otherwise...


Sure, no one's making you, least of all me.



Actually the key objective measure is not time. That, again, is a subjective opinion. There is no objective rule that says time is the measure we should use. Time is objective, that it is the measure for evaluating this issue is subjective.

Additionally, your second point is objectively wrong. The Constitution only requires 1 Supreme Court judge, so only having 8 isn't actually harmful except by a subjective standard (that standard being "how many judges we should have?").

You're going to take this the wrong way but you really don't understand the difference between subjective opinions and objective ones.




I'm not lecturing you on the amendment process. I'm referring to the judicial process. You're right that it's not relevant. More importantly to me, I doubt that you would acknowledge that the Founding Fathers were largely lawyers, familiar with precedent and how it operates, yet still chose to create a judiciary for the interpretation and ruling on of issues related to the Constitution. All that and yet they didn't ban common law or precedent setting opinions in the Constitution.

Great. It's good to know you won't be offering your opinion to the board in any assertive way.

You do understand that time is objective? If so, then you should be able to see how a subjective opinion relying on objective criteria helps its case by incorporating it, yes?

Nothing objectively wrong with what I'm saying. Might be your flawed interpretation. Subjectively humans have decided that when it comes to judging that odd numbers are better. Objectively eliminating the possibility of a tie. You can fathom that, yes? In that regard one justice is better than eight. But we don't have one. We have eight, which can produce a deadlock. If you subjectively don't mind that and don't care that it potentially removes SCOTUS as the final arbiter (i.e. leaving the lower court ruling as the last word) then you're entitled to your subjective opinion.

You can claim I don't understand, but you're the guy who can't speak to reasoning and logic and would rather wage some philosophical debate about how humans can't rightfully make a determination as to what constitutes a better argument. I know it's hard to separate values from the rules of reasoning and you've never shown much aptitude for logic so I understand how you feel it's me that's confused. At some point you need to reconcile all the individual opinions into a course of action. That's where the nuance comes in and where your argumentation against my position falls short.

Can you make a case using logic as to why your rationalizations are as convincing as the GOP's?

Why would I find it difficult to acknowledge that judiciaries are necessary for applying the law? It's pretty basic. If you've got something that shows the founders thought nothing of overturning precedent or ignoring the intent of the law so that they could make socially popular decisions that satisfy the perceived public mood at the time then please share. Otherwise you're not really talking about what I was saying to Rod.
 
Just quote what you need answered. Otherwise...

Well, I know your game. But these are the questions I asked that you were afraid to answer:

"Do you think it's ethically OK to illegally access private data? And put your partisanship aside for a second and answer in a general way: Do you have any problem with a foreign dictator who is hostile to U.S. interests trying to influence our leadership selection process through criminal activities? Or is it just one of those things where you see victory as the only thing that matters and don't apply any ethics to your side (that would explain a lot of your conduct here)?"
 
Great. It's good to know you won't be offering your opinion to the board in any assertive way.

Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. Offering my subjective opinion assertively doesn't require anyone else to accept it as objective truth.

You do understand that time is objective? If so, then you should be able to see how a subjective opinion relying on objective criteria helps its case by incorporating it, yes?

Like I said - you don't even understand the difference between subjective opinions and objective ones despite being provided a simple explanation.

Per usual, I'm going to walk away from this conversation because you don't even understand the basic terms of what you're talking about. You're strident but ignorant (in the technical definition of the word, not as an insult).
 
"Do you think it's ethically OK to illegally access private data?

Do you have any problem with a foreign dictator who is hostile to U.S. interests trying to influence our leadership selection process through criminal activities?

No. Although there's gray areas on whistle-blowing when such action is intended to serve the public good.

Yes. But it wouldn't make me disregard factual information.
 
Offering my subjective opinion assertively doesn't require anyone else to accept it as objective truth.



Like I said - you don't even understand the difference between subjective opinions and objective ones despite being provided a simple explanation.

Per usual, I'm going to walk away from this conversation because you don't even understand the basic terms of what you're talking about. You're strident but ignorant (in the technical definition of the word, not as an insult).

Me neither.

I talked about it. Did it go over your head once I transitioned to how there's generally accepted standards of reasoning?

If all your position amounts to is any reasoning is as good as any other then you should have walked away before you even got started.
 
No. Although there's gray areas on whistle-blowing when such action is intended to serve the public good.

Yes. But it wouldn't make me disregard factual information.

Do you see the Russian hacking as being "intended to serve the (American) public good?"

The last sentence is irrelevant.
 
Me neither.

I talked about it. Did it go over your head once I transitioned to how there's generally accepted standards of reasoning?

If all your position amounts to is any reasoning is as good as any other then you should have walked away before you even got started.

Time is objective. Whether or not it is the measure for evaluating this issue is subjective. This can't be that hard for you.

You're evaluating 2 business transactions. One takes 1 month, the other takes 1 year. The time difference is objective. The value by which you choose to evaluate the transactions on the basis of that time difference is subjective. Time is objective, it's evaluative role is subjective.

I'm not even trying to be difficult here but you really, seriously, don't understand the terms or their application.
 
Do you see the Russian hacking as being "intended to serve the (American) public good?"

The last sentence is irrelevant.

If the Russians did it then most certainly not. If it was from leakers then it very well could be.

Facts are irrelevant or it's not relevant that what your complaining about was factual information (i.e. authentic)?


Time is objective. Whether or not it is the measure for evaluating this issue is subjective. This can't be that hard for you.

You're evaluating 2 business transactions. One takes 1 month, the other takes 1 year. The time difference is objective. The value by which you choose to evaluate the transactions on the basis of that time difference is subjective. Time is objective, it's evaluative role is subjective.

I'm not even trying to be difficult here but you really, seriously, don't understand the terms or their application.

I understand just fine. I've even demonstrated as such in this paragraph.

Subjectively humans have decided that when it comes to judging that odd numbers are better. Objectively eliminating the possibility of a tie. You can fathom that, yes? In that regard one justice is better than eight. But we don't have one. We have eight, which can produce a deadlock. If you subjectively don't mind that and don't care that it potentially removes SCOTUS as the final arbiter (i.e. leaving the lower court ruling as the last word) then you're entitled to your subjective opinion.

What I don't understand is how you're applying this to the evaluation of any stated reasoning. Haven't you already agreed that based on the concept of logic and reasoning that not all arguments are equal? Not sure how many times I need to agree to the difference between subjective and objective before you use that distinction to make a pertinent point as to something I've said. Initially I thought you were going to show how your three rationalizations were as reasonable as the one used by the GOP, but since that hasn't happened I admit I'm confused.
 
What I don't understand is how you're applying this to the evaluation of any stated reasoning. Haven't you already agreed that based on the concept of logic and reasoning that not all arguments are equal? Not sure how many times I need to agree to the difference between subjective and objective before you use that distinction to make a pertinent point as to something I've said. Initially I thought you were going to show how your three rationalizations were as reasonable as the one used by the GOP, but since that hasn't happened I admit I'm confused.

You're confused because you still don't understand the difference between objective and subjective evaluations. You don't even understand that "reasonableness" is itself subjective.

You're asking me to prove how one subjective rationalization is superior to another subjective rationalization. That can't happen precisely because they are subjective rationalizations. Different people will apply different weights to their subjective opinion making. I can't prove that one is as reasonable as another unless you first agree to follow my subjective evaluation process.

That's because without an objective evaluation process, there's no consensus on how to evaluate the proposals.

That's the problem with your constant reference to time. Time is objective but it's role in evaluating this issue (how long to not hear an appointee) is subjective.
 
Last edited:
You're confused because you still don't understand the difference between objective and subjective evaluations. You don't even understand that "reasonableness" is itself subjective.

You're asking me to prove how one subjective rationalization is superior to another subjective rationalization. That can't happen precisely because they are subjective rationalizations. Different people will apply different weights to their subjective opinion making. I can't prove that one is as reasonable as another unless you first agree to follow my subjective evaluation process.

That's because without an objective evaluation process, there's no consensus on how to evaluate the proposals.

That's the problem with your constant reference to time. Time is objective but it's role in evaluating this issue (how long to not hear an appointee) is subjective.

I'm sorry you don't inductive logic bro. It's obviously stunting the conversation. But now that I know more of where you're coming from let me try again.

Here's my post you took umbrage with.

If the Dems didn't agree with waiting six months for the new President to make the choice then surely there's no excuse for blocking an appointee for the next two to four years.

Here's your response.

No one should have agreed with it. The seat should have been filled when it became vacant.

The fallacy with waiting for the new President is that it ignored the existence and responsibilities of a sitting President. The sitting President was elected to fill that role until the new President takes office, not just keep the seat warm. Stating that we can ignore the sitting President in favor of whomever is next really is a slippery slope argument.

Sure, the GOP, disingenuously, argued that the existing President shouldn't be allowed to do his job because of whomever would be next. Now the Dem's can disingenuously argue that the existing President shouldn't be allowed to do his job for whatever self-serving argument they feel like creating.

We cannot excuse how the GOP stymied a basic function of the Executive Branch over childish politics and then cry foul at the suggestion that the Dem's might employ similar tactics.

I've been saying this for a while. People need to grow up. They applaud these spiteful tactics when they have the power to enforce them and never remember that the shoe will eventually be on the other foot. It's the kind of selfish mentality that really undermines our nation.

Your first paragraph suggests you agree. NIce!

I'm not sure what official fallacy you're referring to is and I'm not sure that matters because I agree Obama's job was to offer up a candidate. He did. Then, to my understanding, it's the Senate's job to approve or disapprove. Clearly they disapproved. Saying they wouldn't confirm anyone sounds like bullshit. Obama not offering up any other options (that I'm aware of) isn't what I'd call making much of an effort.

Their reasoning certainly was self-serving, and the dem's could always argue disingenuously (and have). Not sure why this is special license. In this particular context I'm not sure an argument is being put forth. And if the arguments are subjective, why do you care if they're disingenuous?

"Similar" isn't the same. The devil is in the details. You might acknowledge them if you want to characterize someone's actions as childish, rather than pontificate over how everyone's subjectivity is created equal. Pretty fuckin' smug to say that similar shit needs to be treated the same when you can't prove it objectively.

Funny your last paragraph refers to spiteful tactics while you espouse emulation being fair play and denounce my exact same characterization.
 
A Look at Diane Sykes, Possible Trump SCOTUS Nominee

1212dianesykes01.jpg

Diane S. Sykes
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Age: 58

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice

Sykes, who was born and grew up in Milwaukee, became a justice of the state’s Supreme Court in 1999, when the governor appointed her to fill a midterm vacancy. The next year, Sykes was elected to a full 10-year term, which she served until she was commissioned for her current role on the 7th Circuit court in 2004.

Sykes once described herself as an “originalist-textualist.”

“It’s really important when we’re writing our opinions to be transparent about what our decision method in the case is and how we get from Point A to B to C in the analysis,” she said in 2014 at a State Bar of Wisconsin annual meeting.

Before serving on the state Supreme Court, Sykes was a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court bench for seven years. She has two sons. Her former husband, conservative Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes, posted on Twitter that she would make a great justice but added that he doesn’t support Trump. (He’s an outspoken opponent of the president-elect.)

Confirmation

In 2008, Sykes was mentioned as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush. Five years earlier, he had nominated Sykes to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit court, which has jurisdiction over areas of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The U.S. Senate then confirmed her federal appointment in 2004, in a 70-27 vote, with the support of Wisconsin’s two Democratic senators at the time, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

Reproductive Rights

As a federal judge in 2013, Sykes wrote an opinion in Korte v. Sebelius, whichruled in favor of employers in the fight over the Affordable Health Care Act’s contraceptive mandate that requires companies to cover some contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans. On SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston called the decision “the broadest ruling so far by a federal appeals court barring enforcement of the birth-control mandate in the new federal health care law.”

At an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society just shortly after the ruling, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called Sykes “one of our favorite jurists” and joked about appointing her to the Supreme Court if he became president. (He briefly was a presidential contender in 2016.)

LGBT Rights

In 2006, the Christian Legal Society v. Walker case involved a religious student group and Southern Illinois University’s School of Law. The dean said the group’s membership policies, which bar those who engage in or affirm gay conduct, violate the university’s nondiscrimination policies. The group sued the university for violating its First Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

In court, Sykes said the group didn’t violate the university’s affirmative action policy and has a constitutional right to continue receiving government subsidies. “Subsidized student organizations at public universities are engaged in private speech, not spreading state-endorsed messages,” she wrote.

First Amendment

Sykes played a role in advancing the First Amendment right to record police. In the majority opinion in American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois v. Anita Alvarez in 2012, she declared as unconstitutional an Illinois state law making recording police officers on-duty and in public a felony offense. The law, considered one of the harshest eavesdropping measures in the country, “restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests” and “likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free press guarantees,” Sykes said.

Voting Rights

In Frank v. Walker, Sykes and two other Republican judges in August ruled that a Wisconsin voter ID law requiring nearly all voters to present approved photo identification to cast a ballot was constitutional. Opponents of such laws, often favored by conservative legislators as a means to fight voter fraud, view the measures as voter suppression.

Second Amendment

In a post on its website in 2011, the National Rifle Association suggested that readers “put her on your Supreme Court shortlist for the next Republican administration” because of the unanimous opinion she wrote in Ezell v. City of Chicago. In the majority opinion, she held that firing ranges are protected under the Second Amendment, and she granted a preliminary injunction against Chicago’s ban on firing ranges inside city limits.

What the Right Is Saying

Speaking on Meet the Press in February, Trump said, “I think we have some great people out there. Diane Sykes from Wisconsin, from what everybody tells me, would be outstanding. We need a conservative person.”

Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, tells Newsweek Sykes “is seen as one of the rock stars on the list.” Her nomination, he adds, “would be extremely well received by constitutional conservatives.”

He highlights her decisions related to the First and Second amendments, including Christian Legal Society v. Walker and Ezell v. City of Chicago, respectively. In the Christian Legal Society case, he says, “the left likes to construe this as something other than what they are, which is the right of individuals in groups to worship and pursue their views as they see fit to truly exercise their religions. The left would have you believe that the free exercise of religion is limited to the right to go to church on Sundays.” But it’s about Americans exercising their religious freedom all week, he says.

What the Left Is Saying

Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, says Sykes is a “far-right” judicial activist. “Her record shows she’s willing to put women’s lives at risk to further her personal ideology,” she says.

“She’s also undermined principles fundamental to our Constitution throughout her career,” Baker continues. “For instance, she was the sole dissent in a case reversing a conviction because a juror did not understand English, and she ruled that a group that violated a campus ban on anti-gay bias was still entitled to government funding, a view later rejected by the Supreme Court. She should not sit on the Supreme Court.”

http://www.newsweek.com/profile-diane-sykes-trumps-possible-scotus-nominee-531588
 
Back
Top