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

The Higher Power said:
I don't what what that is.
Click to expand...

Binary (like digital 1-0) Male-Female
Apparently there are states in between Male and Female called the Gender Spectrum: FTM - MTF - FTN - MTN
This is mental illness (or creativity) at its finest:
 
Can someone with a legal background explains to me his decision on Dura pharmaceutical vs Broudo, where he says that securities fraud litigation imposes an enormous toll on the economy?

Is he saying that securities fraud should be legal?
 
dfoster said:
Binary (like digital 1-0) Male-Female
Apparently there are states in between Male and Female called the Gender Spectrum: FTM - MTF - FTN - MTN
This is mental illness (or creativity) at its finest:
Click to expand...

Ml6Mga.gif
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Comforting.
Click to expand...

He actually ruled that a felon who didn't know he was a felon, didn't break the law by having a gun. I think he is good on the 2nd.

He opposes the interstate commerce clause so strongly that he fully supported a Colorado state mandate on renewable energy law that was passed. I like that one, shows it isn't partisan.

I didn't get my wish on CU

Concerned by what I read about his opinion of securities fraud.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Can someone with a legal background explains to me his decision on Dura pharmaceutical vs Broudo, where he says that securities fraud litigation imposes an enormous toll on the economy?

Is he saying that securities fraud should be legal?
Click to expand...
His background is in a BigLaw corporate defense firm. It's in his nature to be pro-client. And he's seen firsthand the costs of litigation when he stares at the steering wheel of his BMW, and spent many a restless night on his pillow top mattress four post bed worrying about the poor plight of the corporation.
 
PolishHeadlock said:
What are the consequences of the nuclear option though? Is this guy worth requiring a simple majority in future votes?
Click to expand...
No. Gorsuch is a strong candidate, but nothing spectacular. There's somebody like him in every circuit, more or less. He's at the higher end of the pool, but not really a do-or-die type candidate. He just checks the boxes nicely - young, charismatic, conservative, reliable/predictible, scandal-free, very smart, credentialed. If they don't get him, they have other options who hit the same boxes (for example, Kethledge).

Consequences mean the GOP is wide open for a kicking if the Trump presidency negatively impacts elections for the senate. The senate is generally too smart for that, even if the house isn't.

Cubo de Sangre said:
Comforting.
Click to expand...
Gorsuch is not terribly strong on civil liberties. He's stronger on gun control than he is on privacy and due process, but that's faint praise. He's more willing to see a 'compelling government interest' to infringe than most of the current justices, except maybe Alito, who is from the same mold.
 
ncordless said:
I hope not. I am Team Hardiman. Gorsuch is like a worse version of Alito. He writes well like Scalia, but without the respect for constitutional rights protected against the government.
Click to expand...

Well.

The rogue WH staff twitter account had called it
 
Quipling said:
No. Gorsuch is a strong candidate, but nothing spectacular. There's somebody like him in every circuit, more or less. He's at the higher end of the pool, but not really a do-or-die type candidate. He just checks the boxes nicely - young, charismatic, conservative, reliable/predictible, scandal-free, very smart, credentialed. If they don't get him, they have other options who hit the same boxes (for example, Kethledge).

Consequences mean the GOP is wide open for a kicking if the Trump presidency negatively impacts elections for the senate. The senate is generally too smart for that, even if the house isn't.


Gorsuch is not terribly strong on civil liberties. He's stronger on gun control than he is on privacy and due process, but that's faint praise. He's more willing to see a 'compelling government interest' to infringe than most of the current justices, except maybe Alito, who is from the same mold.
Click to expand...

I wonder if his lack of rulings on privacy issues is what got him the nomination.
 
LOL @ NYT editorial board

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-the-nominee-for-a-stolen-seat.html?_r=0

Even absent such dishonesty, any Democratic impulse to mimic the Republican blockade by filibustering Judge Gorsuch would be understandable. But Senate Democrats should be wary of stooping to the Republicans’ level, especially because any such effort is likely to prove futile, since Republicans have the votes to simply eliminate the use of the filibuster against Supreme Court nominees.

So they will not stoop to their level, mainly because they can't.
 
Blatant obstructionism worked well for Republicans.

Now it's the Democrats turn.
 
Question for Democrats: Is Gorsuch illegitimate or extreme?
By Michael McGough
800x450

In choosing Judge Neil Gorsuch — a credentialed and cerebral conservative — for the Supreme Court, President Trump probably assured himself of success in the Senate even if Democrats remain united in opposition to the nominee. If the Democrats successfully filibustered the nomination, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell always could engineer a rules change that would allow the nomination to be approved by a simple majority.

But within an hour of Trump’s uncharacteristically concise introduction of Gorsuch to the nation, it seemed unlikely that there would be a solid wall of Democratic opposition to Gorsuch’s nomination.

True, some Democratic senators declared their immediate opposition in unyielding terms. But even among the opponents there was a divergence between those who asserted that Gorsuch was extreme — or “far outside the judicial mainstream,” as Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio put it — and those who echoed the argument that the Gorsuch nomination shouldn’t even be given the time of day because the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia should have been filled by President Obama.

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon enunciated the latter position even before he knew whom Trump would nominate, telling Politico: “This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat. We will use every lever in our power to stop this.” (After Trump picked Gorsuch, Merkley issued a statement repeating the “stolen seat” charge and suggesting that Trump should have renominated Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s ”centrist” nominee. But Merkley also chose from Column B, calling Gorsuch “ideological and extreme.”)

But once Democrats focus on whether Gorsuch is “extreme,” they are conceding that his record is up for discussion. That inevitably normalizes the nomination.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he had “deep, serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch," and specifically mentioned “privacy rights including women’s healthcare,” an allusion to abortion rights. The notion that Gorsuch harbors the intention of overturning Roe vs. Wade seems to be based mostly on an inference from his writings about assisted suicide — and the fact that Trump promised to appoint “pro-life judges.”

But Blumenthal said that Democrats should give Gorsuch the hearing that Republicans denied Garland so that they can take his measure. It’s likely that Gorsuch will be just as nimble in parrying questions about Roe as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was at his confirmation hearings.

Other Democrats were even more welcoming. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he looked forward to meeting with Gorsuch and urged his colleagues to “put partisan politics aside and allow the vetting process to proceed.”

That’s another way of saying the nomination, while it might turn out to be extreme, isn’t illegitimate. (My guess is that several Democratic senators will decide in the end that it’s neither extreme nor illegitimate and vote for Gorsuch’s confirmation.)

It would take only a handful of Democrats to decide that Gorsuch is not, after all, outside the mainstream to make him a Supreme Court justice — and without the need to do away with the filibuster.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gorsuch-scotus-20170131-story.html
 
indrid said:
He should just nominate a guy with a Russian name, just to troll everyone.
Click to expand...

he should hire me, when people try to read my name, they always say, "oh geez" or say my first name followed by a long pause.
 
Both the Dems and the Republicans can get fucked on this for how they've been treating SC nominations for decades. Appointing SC Judges shouldn't be politicized, trying to engineer an outcome for two or three issues. Appointments should be made on legal reasoning, not merely the outcome reached.

  • Is the judge objective?
  • Is the judge honest and of upstanding character?
  • Does the judge have a long track record outstanding legal anaylsis?
  • Expert in constitutional law?
  • Statutory interpretation?

if the answer to these questions is yes, crown his ass.
 
m52nickerson said:
what-the-hell-2.jpg


So you are advocating that while the Dems block Trumps Supreme Court nomination the GOP should make sure none of Trumps other agenda items, like the repeal of Obama Care should move foreword?

Okay!
Click to expand...

They are going to fight them also so anything the Democrats want gets blocked. That's how the "game" is played right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,181
Messages
57,972,888
Members
175,888
Latest member
whatsername

Share this page

Back
Top