Neil Gorsuch

[GMDino]

(02-01-2017, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Okay.  I was looking at it from the perspective of the Justice...not from those wanting the seat when it opens up.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2017, 11:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Okay.  I was looking at it from the perspective of the Justice...not from those wanting the seat when it opens up.

Yeah, it's more about the process of filling the seat. Much like POTUS, a justice is not going to really do much after retirement other than charity work, giving talks on things, and occasionally commenting on issues when they feel so inclined. There is a bit more gravitas to those roles than a legislator and they tend to be the last job for them.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2017, 11:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: Okay.  I was looking at it from the perspective of the Justice...not from those wanting the seat when it opens up.

Yeah me too.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2017, 12:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah me too.

And I get that, because that it important as well. If it is a single term, you obviously take that part of the politicization out, but there is more to it. The unpredictability of the end of a lifetime appointment makes it difficult to really fold it in to the political process.

[BmorePat87]

So basically younger, better looking Alito, which brings us back to the same court that we have had for 8 years. Liberals should be angry that Obama was denied the ability to have a nomination given a fair hearing, but they should also step off the ledge.


Sounds like a well qualified pick that is truly an intellectual, academic, and ideological successor to Alito.

[Dill]

(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.

Well said. The Federalist Papers hash this over (e.g. #51 and #78) as part of the balance between branches of gov.  The point was to make the top representatives of this branch as independent of "emoluments" from the others as possible, and their "powers" as well.  Also the point was to insulate the position from the always changing currents of elections and party politics.

 Madison and Hamilton always seem to have had the "long game" of politics in view, recognizing that "factions" could for a short term dominate the executive or legislative. As the system is supposed to work, if one or two judges tend to skew decisions in favor of one faction, then this will favor an eventual counter-balancing appointment.

To put this another way, no one politician or appointment can really be apolitical, but the effect of the system as a whole prevents any faction from dominating long term. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Term Limits for SC Justice or an age of retirement for SC Justice is a bad idea.

This is why, I believe, Trump was elected since Republicans came out to vote to keep the nomination from Hillary. A garrenteed nomination and the possibility of another nomination got Trump elected. Republicans saw the possibility of having 40+ years of a Right leaning SCOTUS and jumped at the chance.

You give any presidential election the chance to nominate a SC Justice, it will turn the SCOTUS more political than it is now. 

[xxlt]

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/02/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-in-his-youth-fascism-forever_partner/

"Fascism Forever!" - Neil Gorusch

[Benton]

(02-04-2017, 10:13 PM)xxlt Wrote: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/02/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-in-his-youth-fascism-forever_partner/

"Fascism Forever!" - Neil Gorusch

Meh. If that's the worst they find, he's cleaner than 7/8ths of Congress. Kids are smart alec's. He was a kid.

Comments on that site are pretty horrible, though. 

[*wildcats forever*]

(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.

I went through this with my Mother 2 years ago, for the last four days of her life. Most miserable experience I could ever imagine; one that I will never forget. Empathy is a lost word in our society regarding this issue.

[Aquapod770]

(02-04-2017, 10:13 PM)xxlt Wrote: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/02/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-in-his-youth-fascism-forever_partner/

"Fascism Forever!" - Neil Gorusch

http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/

Salon is about as cancerous as they come.  

[xxlt]

(02-05-2017, 07:10 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/

Salon is about as cancerous as they come.  

I actually read that before you posted the link....talk about weaseling out. I guess now snopes wants to be all things to all people - their article hardly debunks a serious concern, it minimizes it with little cause other than "youth." Luckily no youth has ever had destructive or wrong headed thoughts that shaped his or her life and impacted his or her community in any significant way. :andy:

[*michaelsean*]

(02-05-2017, 07:10 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/

Salon is about as cancerous as they come.  

Yup.  Seems there was no group.  It was a joke at himself because of how conservative he was in comparison to most others there.

[Aquapod770]

(02-06-2017, 04:34 PM)xxlt Wrote: I actually read that before you posted the link....talk about weaseling out. I guess now snopes wants to be all things to all people - their article hardly debunks a serious concern, it minimizes it with little cause other than "youth." Luckily no youth has ever had destructive or wrong headed thoughts that shaped his or her life and impacted his or her community in any significant way. :andy:

Gorsuch is a good pick. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-06-2017, 04:34 PM)xxlt Wrote: I actually read that before you posted the link....talk about weaseling out. I guess now snopes wants to be all things to all people - their article hardly debunks a serious concern, it minimizes it with little cause other than "youth." Luckily no youth has ever had destructive or wrong headed thoughts that shaped his or her life and impacted his or her community in any significant way. :andy:

Well at least you are approaching it with an open mind

[*bfine32*]

Thought I'd bump this because his confirmation is going on today. From the bits I've seen he seems pretty down the middle. Shurmer has said no Dems are sold on him and pointing to the reason being as he "hasn't answered questions". There is also talk the the GOP made a mistake by not going more conservative. The reason being that if the Dems are not going to get behind someone as close to center as Gorsuch, then what would it had mattered.

I also heard it was humorous to watch Al Franken try to go toe to toe with him on Constitutional Law

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2017, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thought I'd bump this because his confirmation is going on today. From the bits I've seen he seems pretty down the middle. Shurmer has said no Dems are sold on him and pointing to the reason being as he "hasn't answered questions". There is also talk the the GOP made a mistake by not going more conservative. The reason being that if the Dems are not going to get behind someone as close to center as Gorsuch, then what would it had mattered.

I also heard it was humorous to watch Al Franken try to go toe to toe with him on Constitutional Law

To be fair the GOP poisoned the well on any Trump pick by obstructing on Garland.  The Dems have to oppose any Trump nominee or their constituency, currently whipped into a rabid froth, would go apeshit.  Gorsuch is certainly a qualified nominee, and he will be confirmed, but going more conservative would have been a bad idea, politically, regardless of whether you get any Dem votes or not.  If the Republican president nominates a more moderate justice and the Dems still obstruct it then the Dems come out looking unreasonable.  People don't have long memories, so the fact that the Dems are merely reacting to an unreasonable (and while underhanded extremely successful political maneuver) action by the GOP in the case of Garland.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2017, 09:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be fair the GOP poisoned the well on any Trump pick by obstructing on Garland.  The Dems have to oppose any Trump nominee or their constituency, currently whipped into a rabid froth, would go apeshit.  Gorsuch is certainly a qualified nominee, and he will be confirmed, but going more conservative would have been a bad idea, politically, regardless of whether you get any Dem votes or not.  If the Republican president nominates a more moderate justice and the Dems still obstruct it then the Dems come out looking unreasonable.  People don't have long memories, so the fact that the Dems are merely reacting to an unreasonable (and while underhanded extremely successful political maneuver) action by the GOP in the case of Garland.

I was vocal of my criticism of the GOP's stance to not at least give Garland his hearing and I fear they are going to change the rules (51 votes) to make Congress more divided.  I just listen the the Senator from NC (Tiller?) admonish the Dems for not following the rule of law and all I could do but laugh.. Too bad Gorsuch and Garland had to be pawns in this shit-show.

I did get a bit of amusement when the Senator from HI (female) tried to get Gorsuch in a gotcha on "Sincerely held belief" rule. 

[Rotobeast]

(03-21-2017, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I also heard it was humorous to watch Al Franken try to go toe to toe with him on Constitutional Law

Oooohhh.... I gotta find this !

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I only watched part of the hearings when Graham was questioning Gorsuch.

I got bored and turned the channel because everything, both questions and answers were canned and pre-written. There will be no "Gotcha" moments no matter how much spin is applied.

Democrats will ***** and moan while Republicans confirm Gorsuch and after 6 months, no one will remember except for the hardcore Democrats and Republicans which memories will be foggy at best.

I just wonder how hard Democrats looked for that "Pubic hair on the pop can"?