Neil Gorsuch

[*bfine32*]

Discuss

[*bfine32*]

"A judge that likes every decision he makes is most likely a bad judge".

[Benton]

npr part piece pointed out parallels between him a Scalia. Dont know a lot about him, but my only real issue is he doesn't believe in assisted suicide. Not a huge deal, but I think if more people volunteered at a hospice, they'd be less inclined to take a hard line against making someone suffer indefinitely.

[HarleyDog]

I think you will hear more stories of how Trump groped his wife on the national stage.

[CKwi88]

Hope he is treated better than Garland was. Not holding my breath though.

[Belsnickel]

I like a split court, so this doesn't bother me. He is much like Scalia in his judicial positions, so no biggy. Garland was a moderate judge and I like those as well, but if we can't put more moderate on the bench then one that is split is a decent consolation prize.

[GMDino]

Assuming he gets the seat...I wonder what happens the first time he disagrees with Trump on a case?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 10:32 PM)Benton Wrote: npr part piece pointed out parallels between him a Scalia. Dont know a lot about him, but my only real issue is he doesn't believe in assisted suicide. Not a huge deal, but I think if more people volunteered at a hospice, they'd be less inclined to take a hard line against making someone suffer indefinitely.

Good lord do I agree with this.  It galls me that we allow our pets to die with dignity but we force our loved ones to rot away and suffer prolonged agony.  I'm dealing with this issue with my mother right now, not that I didn't empathize with this before, and it's god damn soul draining.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-31-2017, 11:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: Assuming he gets the seat...I wonder what happens the first time he disagrees with Trump on a case?

Angry tweet and that's about it.

[NATI BENGALS]

There should be term limits for supreme court justices.

No position as powerful as this that isnt directly voted on by the people shouldnt get to stay indefinitely.

Instead of congress obstructing like the Republicans did and the Democrats probably will do. A steady turnover at a set rate would keep congress from screwing around and keep the positions filled.

Medicine continues to advance. Even faster if you are rich. If this guy lives over 100 he gets 50+ years on the job and there is nothing the American people can do about it. So if he shits the bed like his mom did at the EPA we just have to live with it until most of us are dead.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-31-2017, 10:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Discuss

(01-18-2017, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: These things generally work better with a link.

Or so I've seen you tell others. 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2017, 02:08 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: There should be term limits for supreme court justices.

No position as powerful as this that isnt directly voted on by the people shouldnt get to stay indefinitely.

Instead of congress obstructing like the Republicans did and the Democrats probably will do. A steady turnover at a set rate would keep congress from screwing around and keep the positions filled.

Medicine continues to advance. Even faster if you are rich. If this guy lives over 100 he gets 50+ years on the job and there is nothing the American people can do about it. So if he shits the bed like his mom did at the EPA we just have to live with it until most of us are dead.

I've always thought so.  15 maybe 20 years.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2017, 02:08 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: There should be term limits for supreme court justices.

No position as powerful as this that isnt directly voted on by the people shouldnt get to stay indefinitely.

Instead of congress obstructing like the Republicans did and the Democrats probably will do. A steady turnover at a set rate would keep congress from screwing around and keep the positions filled.

Medicine continues to advance. Even faster if you are rich. If this guy lives over 100 he gets 50+ years on the job and there is nothing the American people can do about it. So if he shits the bed like his mom did at the EPA we just have to live with it until most of us are dead.

(02-01-2017, 09:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I've always thought so.  15 maybe 20 years.  

The reason they have the job for life is that, ideally, the position is apolitical. Making it a lifetime appointment reduces the politicization of the SCOTUS. It doesn't make it zero, the justices are politicians as well, but putting limits on their time on the bench does make it more political than it already is. Even long terms like the 15-20 politicize the job more.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2017, 10:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The reason they have the job for life is that, ideally, the position is apolitical. Making it a lifetime appointment reduces the politicization of the SCOTUS. It doesn't make it zero, the justices are politicians as well, but putting limits on their time on the bench does make it more political than it already is. Even long terms like the 15-20 politicize the job more.

What if they had a particular retirement age?  65 or 70 say.

And they know they can't be removed otherwise so it would be the same as now only with a predetermined end date.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2017, 10:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: What if they had a particular retirement age?  65 or 70 say.

And they know they can't be removed otherwise so it would be the same as now only with a predetermined end date.

An age cap is an effective term limit, though. It would still politicize the position more. Think of it this way, any way that you can look at a justice's seat and know when it is going to become empty will allow the bench to become more politicized.

I'm not sitting here and just saying this is wrong, mind you. Just that the reason is a lifetime appointment is to reduce the politicization, and any move to put a limit on their service will make it more politicized. There is no way around that, really.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2017, 10:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An age cap is an effective term limit, though. It would still politicize the position more. Think of it this way, any way that you can look at a justice's seat and know when it is going to become empty will allow the bench to become more politicized.

I'm not sitting here and just saying this is wrong, mind you. Just that the reason is a lifetime appointment is to reduce the politicization, and any move to put a limit on their service will make it more politicized. There is no way around that, really.

No I know it's just a discussion.

My thought on an upper limit is that once they reach that number there is less of a chance they will leave the bench and get back into politics as a lobbyist or representing someone.

If we say a 20 year limit Gorsuch would be around 70 when he left anyway.

At that age you'll have the rare bird that stay active in politics for 10 more years or more....but more that will simply retire.

I don't think we're going to see a 25 or 30 year old nominated but I'd have to run the numbers on the average age when nominated for the SC.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2017, 10:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: An age cap is an effective term limit, though. It would still politicize the position more. Think of it this way, any way that you can look at a justice's seat and know when it is going to become empty will allow the bench to become more politicized.

I'm not sitting here and just saying this is wrong, mind you. Just that the reason is a lifetime appointment is to reduce the politicization, and any move to put a limit on their service will make it more politicized. There is no way around that, really.

Explain how you think a single long term politicizes it?  i'm not arguing I'm just not sure I get it.

[samhain]

Not too bad. I think it would be a generally bad idea for the Dems to filibuster and dig their heels in on this one. Save that for a later pick. The only change in outcome would probably be a worse nominee and a nuked filibuster.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2017, 11:03 AM)samhain Wrote: Not too bad.  I think it would be a generally bad idea for the Dems to filibuster and dig their heels in on this one.  Save that for a later pick.  The only change in outcome would probably be a worse nominee and a nuked filibuster.

I wouldn't blame the dems after what happened to Garland, but then Harry did introduce the nuke option.  both sides act like the shoe will never be on the other foot.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2017, 10:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Explain how you think a single long term politicizes it?  i'm not arguing I'm just not sure I get it.

When you have a known end to a term for the bench it means that the process for filling that spot becomes a more regular thing and is folded into the election process even more than it currently is. With that happening, you will have people jockeying for the role in a more active manner because they know an appointment is coming up. This will make it a more political process. It's political right now, but that adds another layer.