Neil Gorsuch

[GMDino]

(03-21-2017, 10:59 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Oooohhh.... I gotta find this !

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/21/al-franken-grills-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-hearing-frozen-trucker-case

Here's one.

Gorsuch is sticking with "I only look at the law".

I don't even know if he got the law right.  His argument (while I was listening today, not in the linked article) was that the driver had an option to not drive the vehicle as it was dangerous.  Since he chose to drive it he gave up his safety rights and the firing was justified. (Paraphrasing a bit.)

I believe they said he was the only one out of 9 to dissent.

I'm sure there are a few sites that took Gorsuch's side in the question and answer.  I saw the right loved that he rolled his eyes. 

[Rotobeast]

(03-21-2017, 11:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/21/al-franken-grills-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-hearing-frozen-trucker-case

Here's one.

Gorsuch is sticking with "I only look at the law".

I don't even know if he got the law right.  His argument (while I was listening today, not in the linked article) was that the driver had an option to not drive the vehicle as it was dangerous.  Since he chose to drive it he gave up his safety rights and the firing was justified. (Paraphrasing a bit.)

I believe they said he was the only one out of 9 to dissent.

I'm sure there are a few sites that took Gorsuch's side in the question and answer.  I saw the right loved that he rolled his eyes. 

Thanks !
I'll check it out.
I've been wrapped up with Twitter, all evening.
I'm surprised I didn't see it there.

[*bfine32*]

(03-21-2017, 11:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/21/al-franken-grills-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-hearing-frozen-trucker-case

Here's one.

Gorsuch is sticking with "I only look at the law".

I don't even know if he got the law right.  His argument (while I was listening today, not in the linked article) was that the driver had an option to not drive the vehicle as it was dangerous.  Since he chose to drive it he gave up his safety rights and the firing was justified. (Paraphrasing a bit.)

I believe they said he was the only one out of 9 to dissent.

I'm sure there are a few sites that took Gorsuch's side in the question and answer.  I saw the right loved that he rolled his eyes. 

It was a common theme of the day. The left kept trying to jam up Gorsuch because he didn't rule based on his feelings. It was a concept that they could not grasp. He said it's his job to rule based on the 4-corners of the documentation and that congress should litigate it. Once again, not what they are used to seeing.

I think there were 3 cases brought up all day (over and over and over). Someone brought up that the Dems are focusing on 3/1,000ths of Gorsuch's ruling to try and establish a trend. His record of being on the right (majority) side is staggering. 

[GMDino]

(03-21-2017, 11:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was a common theme of the day. The left kept trying to jam up Gorsuch because he didn't rule based on his feelings. It was a concept that they could not grasp. He said it's his job to rule based on the 4-corners of the documentation and that congress should litigate it. Once again, not what they are used to seeing.

I think there were 3 cases brought up all day (over and over and over). Someone brought up that the Dems are focusing on 3/1,000ths of Gorsuch's ruling to try and establish a trend. His record of being on the right (majority) side is staggering. 

The majority is always right?  Interesting take there.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 12:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: The majority is always right?  Interesting take there.

It is why I put majority in parenthesis beside right to show the context I was using it. From a legal POV the Majority ruling is right. I think you are trying to point more to the moral right.

Remember earlier when I said ruling based on the law and not your feelings was foreign to the left? You have just helped me validate it. 

[GMDino]

(03-22-2017, 12:16 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is why I put majority in parenthesis beside right to show the context I was using it. From a legal POV the Majority ruling is right. I think you are trying to point more to the moral right.

Remember earlier when I said ruling based on the law and not your feelings was foreign to the left? You have just helped me validate it. 

Remember when you said:

(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

Not much about "feelings" or "right" or "majority" in that statement.

Glad I could help.

FWIW Gorsuch seems very nice and knowledgeable....and a strictly by the book type guy.  Don't know that I like that too much mainly because he seems to be denying that it is his interpretation of the book (how he "feels" about the law) and then claims he was only using the law to make his decisions.

His take on the Hobby Lobby crap annoyed me too.  But that's because of the inane ruling in the case as much as his defense of it.

[Belsnickel]

(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

I don't know if I'd consider him "down the middle." He's a textualist, and considered to be more conservative than Scalia if you look at JCS.

[xxlt]

(02-01-2017, 12:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I have several friends who do advocacy work on this issue. Groups under various names - Hemlock Society, Right to Die, Compassion & Choices, etc. have small chapters around the county. If you haven't already you may want to seek out such a local group in your community. There could be at least two benefits - you may find support during this soul draining experience, and you may also find a way to honor your mother and others going forward by becoming an advocate if you are not one already. Best to you and your mother as the situation plays out.

[xxlt]

(03-21-2017, 11:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/21/al-franken-grills-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-hearing-frozen-trucker-case

Here's one.

Gorsuch is sticking with "I only look at the law".

I don't even know if he got the law right.  His argument (while I was listening today, not in the linked article) was that the driver had an option to not drive the vehicle as it was dangerous.  Since he chose to drive it he gave up his safety rights and the firing was justified. (Paraphrasing a bit.)

I believe they said he was the only one out of 9 to dissent.

I'm sure there are a few sites that took Gorsuch's side in the question and answer.  I saw the right loved that he rolled his eyes. 

Ol' Neil really pwned Franken in that exchange. The truck driver chose to not operate a trailer without brakes and to not sit outside in subzero temperature in a truck with no heat and potentially freeze to death, and to not walk and potentially freeze to death. Instead he unhooked the cab from the trailer and drove to shelter/safety and warmth. He returned with a tow truck driver (I believe it was less than an hour later) and for this he was fired. Franken argued that defending firing this man was absurd, and Gorsuch defended how he looked at the law. The man was fired because when he couldn't feel his extremities he went to seek shelter. Concern for the safety of other motorists and the instinct for self preservation are terminable offenses in America. You may die at your post, but you damn sure won't leave it, especially if there are company goods there. Yep, it was a pwning all right.

[*PhilHos*]

Haven't watched the hearings, but from the clips I've seen and the things I've read, i really like Gorsuch and would love to see him on the SC.

[xxlt]

(03-22-2017, 12:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Haven't watched the hearings, but from the clips I've seen and the things I've read, i really like Gorsuch and would love to see him on the SC.

Well, I'm stunned.

[xxlt]

And I am oh so proud of how Senator Flake from Arizona is conducting himself:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/jeff-flake-asks-neil-gorsuch-irrelevant-questions-during-senate-confirmation-hearing-9181239

"My family's been texting me throughout this process, asking me to ask questions that they would ask," he said when his turn to ask questions came up. "My son Dallin, a teenager, said, 'Ask him if he would rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or a horse-sized duck.'"

Gorsuch looked at him blankly, with the expression usually reserved for someone trying to figure out whether the crazed-looking guy on the light-rail platform is about to murder them, or just wants some money.
Related Stories

25 Dumbest Things Jeff Flake's Son Said on YouTube
Jeff Flake's Son Pretends to Commit Suicide in YouTube Video
Black Leaders Still Waiting to Hear From Jeff Flake After His Son's Racist Comments

"I'd never heard that either," Flake added. "Apparently it was a question on Reddit a while ago."

"You can tell that I'm very rarely at a loss for words," Gorsuch replied, blinking a bit. "But you got me."

(The question has been a meme on the internet at least since 2013 and has been pontificated on by such heavyweights as New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof.)

Flake then followed up with another hard-hitting line of inquiry: "My brother Scott asked me if you've ever worn gym shorts and a tank top under your robe."

Finally catching on to the fact that Flake was just burning up time so that other senators couldn't ask about relevant topics like, you know, women's rights, Gorsuch jokingly responded that he'd have to plead the Fifth. That earned him some fake laughter from the other Republicans in the audience.


But while we'll never know whether or not Gorsuch wears gym attire under his judge's robe, he did answer additional queries from the Flake family, such as what he does for fun (ski) and where he likes to go on vacation (Winter Park, Colorado). Illuminating!

Also, Flake asked him about the largest trout he'd ever caught, and Gorsuch rambled a bit about how fishing is great and he also likes to read novels. Great.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 10:33 AM)xxlt Wrote: Ol' Neil really pwned Franken in that exchange. The truck driver chose to not operate a trailer without brakes and to not sit outside in subzero temperature in a truck with no heat and potentially freeze to death, and to not walk and potentially freeze to death. Instead he unhooked the cab from the trailer and drove to shelter/safety and warmth. He returned with a tow truck driver (I believe it was less than an hour later) and for this he was fired. Franken argued that defending firing this man was absurd, and Gorsuch defended how he looked at the law. The man was fired because when he couldn't feel his extremities he went to seek shelter. Concern for the safety of other motorists and the instinct for self preservation are terminable offenses in America. You may die at your post, but you damn sure won't leave it, especially if there are company goods there. Yep, it was a pwning all right.

As I said and Gino validated; ruling by the Letter of the Law and not your personal feelings is a concept foreign to the liberal. As I have pointed out Gorsuch's ruling have been validated at an extremely high rate, but per Liberal SOP they dug and found one case that they can use to try and point to him being a bad person (Picking the big man over the little man).

Gorsuch said he can feel bad for the driver but he cannot change the law because of it. It is what he has said he would do all along. If dude would have done anything else but drive the truck he would have been fine legally. It's not his fault that the only other option sound adults can come up with is "freeze to death". I'm sure there are cases that he has ruled in that the opposite population would not agree with. This confirmation hearing is a display of all that is wrong with the Nation's political system and those few citizens that agree with what they are doing is the reason for these acts.

[xxlt]

https://thinkprogress.org/while-gorusch-was-testifying-the-supreme-court-unanimously-said-he-was-wrong-33b9ff7eca77#.phluqhjsj

From the article:

All eight justices rejected Gorsuch’s approach. IDEA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de minimis’ test applied by the Tenth Circuit.” Indeed, Roberts added, Gorsuch’s approach would effectively strip many disabled students of their right to an education. Roberts went on:

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to “sitting idly . . . awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’”

To the contrary, the unanimous Supreme Court concluded, in most cases a student’s progress should be measured according to whether they are able to keep up with their non-disabled peers.

[GMDino]

(03-22-2017, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said and Gino validated; ruling by the Letter of the Law and not your personal feelings is a concept foreign to the liberal. As I have pointed out Gorsuch's ruling have been validated at an extremely high rate, but per Liberal SOP they dug and found one case that they can use to try and point to him being a bad person (Picking the big man over the little man).

Gorsuch said he can feel bad for the driver but he cannot change the law because of it. It is what he has said he would do all along. If dude would have done anything else but drive the truck he would have been fine legally. It's not his fault that the only other option sound adults can come up with is "freeze to death". I'm sure there are cases that he has ruled in that the opposite population would not agree with. This confirmation hearing is a display of all that is wrong with the Nation's political system and those few citizens that agree with what they are doing is the reason for these acts.

Yeah, no.

He interpreted the law different than 9 others.

Maybe, probably, possibly, based on his "feelings" not about the people involved...but the law.

[*michaelsean*]

Wow they found a single case they thought he decided poorly on? Why is this guy still there?

[GMDino]

(03-23-2017, 09:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Wow they found a single case they thought he decided poorly on?  Why is this guy still there?

They also talked about lots of cases that he went against the "little guy" complaints.

I don't buy it all.  Sometimes the "big guy" is right.  No judge is perfect.  Some of them have "feelings" about the law and how it should be interpreted while presenting that as simply "following" the law.

I did like when Frankin (I think, was listening on the radio) made a point that the Republicans kept saying there is no Democrat judge or Republican judge and yet they didn't even allow a hearing on the Obama nominee...so what was the difference?

They also asked really dumb questions just to kill time.

But Gorsuch did cite Douglas Adams so he can't be that bad.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-23-2017, 09:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: They also talked about lots of cases that he went against the "little guy" complaints.

I don't buy it all.  Sometimes the "big guy" is right.  No judge is perfect.  Some of them have "feelings" about the law and how it should be interpreted while presenting that as simply "following" the law.

I did like when Frankin (I think, was listening on the radio) made a point that the Republicans kept saying there is no Democrat judge or Republican judge and yet they didn't even allow a hearing on the Obama nominee...so what was the difference?

They also asked really dumb questions just to kill time.

But Gorsuch did cite Douglas Adams so he can't be that bad.

Oh I defeinitely think the Dems should get their pound of flesh after what happened to Merrick Garland.  Just doesn't seem to be a whole lot there.

[Benton]

(03-23-2017, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I defeinitely think the Dems should get their pound of flesh after what happened to Merrick Garland.  Just doesn't seem to be a whole lot there.

I haven't listened because it really doesn't matter. It's a show, the guy is moving forward regardless of how many duck-sized horses he fights.

But it would have been great if the Dems had focused all their questions on Merrick Garland.

"Judge Gorsuch, have you ever met Judge Merrick Garland? In [insert year] Merrick Garland ruled [insert ruling]; how would you have ruled? Merrick Garland likes roast beef; how do you feel about roast beef?"

If it's going to be a partisan whiny **** show, at least make it an entertaining one.

[Rotobeast]

(03-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Benton Wrote: I haven't listened because it really doesn't matter. It's a show, the guy is moving forward regardless of how many duck-sized horses he fights.

But it would have been great if the Dems had focused all their questions on Merrick Garland.

"Judge Gorsuch, have you ever met Judge Merrick Garland? In [insert year] Merrick Garland ruled [insert ruling]; how would you have ruled? Merrick Garland likes roast beef; how do you feel about roast beef?"

If it's going to be a partisan whiny **** show, at least make it an entertaining one.

This would have been fantabulous !