Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[SCOTUS] : Eight is not great - Gorsuch confirmation hrgs started

1356711

Posts

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Stories about Gorsuch are starting to surface


    Former Law Student: Gorsuch Told Class Women 'Manipulate' Maternal Leave

    A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.

    Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.

    This thread is much better than the throwaway tagline from @JoeUser or this goosey comment from you. Did either of you read the article?

    "A group of 11 female former law clerks for Gorsuch have also submitted a letter to the committee in support of the nominee.

    "We each have lived long enough and worked long enough to know gender discrimination when we see it. Some of us have experienced it professionally on occasion," they write. "When we collectively say that Judge Gorsuch treats and values women fairly and without preference or prejudice based on their gender, we do not say that in a vacuum. We say it with the perspective of those who know that unfortunately, even in 2017, female lawyers are not always treated as equals."

    The letter goes on to detail how the former clerks say Gorsuch mentored them in their careers. "The judge has spoken of the struggles of working attorneys to juggle family with work obligations; not once have we heard him intimate that those struggles are, or should be, shouldered by one gender alone," they write."

    But if his legal interpretation is more like the alleged classroom discussion and he rules based on that belief, who fucking cares about his individual treatment of women. This is the whole problem with conservative views of sexism and racism making it all about an individual character flaw. It's the systemic stuff that's really the problem, especially when we're considering people for high office like a Supreme Court justice.

    If his inclination is to rule against workplace protection for women, that's something we need to know about. And the line about manipulating maternal leave is indicative of that far more than how he treated his clerks.

    Except that the line is disputed in the first place. Others in the article say that it never happened, or wasn't meant in the way this one person says.

    What we're reading is a single person misinterpreting something as "problematic" (her word), and nearly a dozen other people saying "no, the class didn't happen like that, and this guy understands women's struggles in the workplace". Cue confirmation bias and "just asking questions". I mean, sure, ask him: "Justice Gorsuch, one person said you were problematic and even though eleven others refuted that claim, do you have an inclination to rule in a way that you have not hinted might be your legal opinion?"

    We all know that the character assassination is a sad part of every confirmation now. We ought to rise above though! There are already good reasons to oppose him (any anyone else) without resorting to progressive scarlet letters.

    This is why we have confirmation hearings. Someone should ask him about this directly in front of cameras and stuff.
    They really shouldn't, because they should ask him about actual things that are based on facts in the record instead of baseless refuted rumors from a single law student. Being asked this, for this reason, is the height of "just asking questions" and y'all should be disturbed it might happen.

    JoeUser wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    @spool32 Sorry, that article was updated after I first posted it.

    Edit: It's still a charge he has to answer though

    I absolutely reject that "a student said I was problematic one time" is a charge he needs to answer.

    Well he's going to be asked about it, so he'll have to say something
    yeah, he probably will be. This is the state of our SCOTUS confirmation hearings, when we even have them. What a shitshow we've created.

    spool32 on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    I fail to see how asking a judge a question about a topic he might rule on is a shitshow we have created.

    Kayne Red RobeArdolHonkPhoenix-Demp123HakkekageshrykeSpoitskyknytzepherinhippofantVeagleKraintQanamilLoisLaneiTunesIsEvilSleepKetBraLabelGnome-InterruptusMan in the Mists
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    if the blow up the filibuster, the next time the dems take power they should just copypaste a scandanavian government over ours

    Hi...we're Norway now. Deal with it.

    KraintEinzel
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    I have a weird hypothetical/constitutional appointment law question.

    If we have a change in the senate. Let's say RBG kicks it in 3 years and we have a dem seat majority (pretty big if).
    Could the senate immediately move to confirm Merick Garland?
    Because he was appointed to the roll, never voted to confirmed, is there a limit on how long an appointment can just hang out there?

    Appointments end with the Session.
    Boooo hiss.

    On a side note Gorsuch is not the worst person Trump could have nominated... So there is that?

    Appointments end with the session because someone explicitly wrote it down on a golden tablet and there is a literal, unquestionable law that says...

    "Law 10002 - Appointments end with the session. No outsies. This is a law. The Senate can't just change it whenever it wants because of a Gentlemans Agreement to not be stupid"

    Or appointments end with the session because the Senate agreed that was what 'can't bind a future congress' means and we've just always done it that way because Jimmy Senator agreed back in 1812 that he would let that nomination slide. Because if its the latter, then its time for a change.

    Also, on the Gorsuch front, I'm not saying we shouldn't filibuster. I'm saying we need to Filibuster the PROCESS, not the man. No talk about Gorsuch, no debate about Gorsuch other than asking him "How would you address the constitutional crisis of a Senate refusing to even hold a vote on a Supreme Court justice for 250 days in direct violation of every democratic principle?" and "How would you address the fact that your presence on the court would make it an illegitimate institution in the eyes of many, including almost the entirety of this institution and the majority of American voters? Why should anyone ever listen to one of your rulings?"

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
    spool32
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    nevermind

    LoserForHireX on
    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Like, for example, if the president was rumored to have a bunch of improper connections with right wing extremists or Russian diplomats, it wouldn't be a shitshow if he was asked questions about it.

    Burtletoy on
  • ElkiElki learned nothing, and forgotten nothing Moderator, ClubPA mod
    spool32 wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Stories about Gorsuch are starting to surface


    Former Law Student: Gorsuch Told Class Women 'Manipulate' Maternal Leave

    A former law student of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, alleges that in a course she took from Gorsuch at the University of Colorado Law School last year, the judge told his class that employers, specifically law firms, should ask women seeking jobs about their plans for having children and implied that women manipulate companies starting in the interview stage to extract maternity benefits.

    Oh yes, how fucking inconvenient for society that women have babies.

    It seems like the height of male privilege to make women choose between independence and a career or motherhood.

    Please don't shit up the thread with this sort of thing. I'm sure there are other places to take this opinion, and since it's utterly disconnected from the nominee or the SCOTUS in general, it really doesn't belong here.

    Use your report button. You're a not mod here, and we're not open to any freelance work.

    cUDCKQq.jpg
    spool32PolaritieZomroSo It GoeszepherinDamnItCohaagenMan in the Mists
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I fail to see how asking a judge a question about a topic he might rule on is a shitshow we have created.

    I think what you mean is "I disagree with you"? Just say it like that, dude. Because I already set out the problem I have with the origin of that line of questioning. Sisk has effectively poisoned the well with what appears to be at best a confused interpretation.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I fail to see how asking a judge a question about a topic he might rule on is a shitshow we have created.

    I think what you mean is "I disagree with you"? Just say it like that, dude. Because I already set out the problem I have with the origin of that line of questioning. Sisk has effectively poisoned the well with what appears to be at best a confused interpretation.

    I said exactly what I meant to say, thank you very much.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I fail to see how asking a judge a question about a topic he might rule on is a shitshow we have created.

    I think what you mean is "I disagree with you"? Just say it like that, dude. Because I already set out the problem I have with the origin of that line of questioning. Sisk has effectively poisoned the well with what appears to be at best a confused interpretation.

    I said exactly what I meant to say, thank you very much.

    Well then! I'm left assuming you willfully twisted things.

    " I mean, sure, ask him: "Justice Gorsuch, one person said you were problematic and even though eleven others refuted that claim, do you have an inclination to rule in a way that you have not hinted might be your legal opinion?"
    We all know that the character assassination is a sad part of every confirmation now. We ought to rise above though! There are already good reasons to oppose him (any anyone else) without resorting to progressive scarlet letters."

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    spool32 on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Or skip that entire first part!

    Judge, what is your feeling on maternity leave.

    Look at that. I did it!

    hippofantLoisLaneSurfpossumGnome-InterruptusMegaMekMan in the Mists
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?

    shrykeSpoitmrondeauLoisLaneLovelyMegaMek
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    spool32 on
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I agree that we should be above character attacks, but I think you're taking it too far. It doesn't really matter why you ask questions, so long as they are good questions. His views on maternity leave and women's rights issues in general are important regardless of any other information.

    I also reject the notion that confirmations should be limited to a select number of "higher" priority issues. It is a lifetime appointment and should cover every topic that could even remotely be of importance.

    So long as the questions pertain to what his actual beliefs are, and are not statements about his character couched as questions, then I don't really care if it's alien conspiracies that are leading the line of questions.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    emp123BurtletoySpoitGnizmospool32Kayne Red RobehippofantKraintmrondeauForarkimeArdolLoisLaneN1tSt4lkerJuliusSleepLabelGnome-InterruptusMegaMekMan in the Mists
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I would undoubtedly say, yes, his opinion in the hobby lobby ruling is probably enough reason to ask him his opinion on all sorts of issues of women in the workplace. And even this specific issue he is rumored to have a bad opinion on!

    Yes, even though his 11 former subordinates at work have defended his character as a person who would totally never do that.

    Burtletoy on
    emp123Phoenix-DSpoitGnizmomrondeauDamnItCohaagenEdith UpwardsArdolLoisLaneN1tSt4lkerSleepLovelyMegaMekMan in the Mists
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Honestly I think that for the position of Supreme Court justice, considering it is effectively a life appointment with no possibility for correction, anyone being nominated should have a near flawless character with only vices which are irrelevant to the function of the court.

    Many positions have much more opportunity for correction, and such can tolerate far higher levels of 'unknown' when it comes to the character of the nominee. Perhaps vice B wont affect their ability to do the job. We can always recall, impeach or vote them out if it does. With a supreme court justice we have no such recourse.

    If we wanted a more achievable nomination process, we should reform the court to prevent exactly what we've just seen. A situation where purely partisan bias has stolen a nomination from one party (and entire section of the public) and passed it to another for no reason beyond simple corruption. Court nominations should be explicit and clearly laid out, in order to achieve the 'very slow to respond to swings in public opinion, very cautious' branch of government that it was supposed to be.

    I've posted this elsewhere but, this is how it should be done...

    1) Each elected president gets to replace the longest serving seated justice during the first year of their term. They can nominate whomever they wish, including the current justice. If the current justice is re-nominated his time served resets to zero.
    a) The Senate shall be required review and affirm or decline this nomination within 100 days. They shall only be allowed three refusals. Each time they do refuse, they are obligated to provide a list of 3 new candidates that they would approve. This list shall be selected from currently serving justices from lower courts. If they refuse three times, the President may select any of the 9 candidates they stated they would approve, or a nominee selected by a panel of three currently serving supreme court justices.
    2) Should a justice choose to retire, they may choose the justice to replace them from any lower court justice.
    3) Should a justice die in office, their replacement will be chosen by all surviving supreme court members from any lower court justice.
    4) A replacement justice will be considered to have served the years his predecessor did.

    This way justices (or their 'heirs') serve for up to 36 years but retirement will be far more common (you can pick your own successor). There's still almost no way to get a 'stooge' onto the court (unless you have corrupted the Presidency, and the Senate or 3 Supreme Court Justices) and the court slews as public opinion does. No spikes where it simply happens that the Republicans get the Presidency in a period where 4 democratic justices just can't hold on any longer and get to slew policy for 40 years with their nominations. You want utter dominance of the courts for decades? Win 6 elections in a row.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    He's a stolen Republican appointment to the SCOTUS. Given that the GOP is actively hostile to women's rights on every level, his opinion on the matter of women's rights is absolutely a top priority in any confirmation hearing.

    Same with questions about race, labour, the police, religion, voting rights, etc.

    Spoitemp123Phoenix-DRiemannLivesskyknyttbloxhamAistanZomroJoeUserkimeEdith UpwardsArdolLoisLaneN1tSt4lkeriTunesIsEvilLovelySquigieLabelGnome-InterruptusMegaMekMan in the Mists
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I would undoubtedly say, yes, his opinion in the hobby lobby ruling is probably enough reason to ask him his opinion on all sorts of issues of women in the workplace. And even this specific issue he is rumored to have a bad opinion on!

    Yes, even though his subordinates at work have defended his character as a person who would totally never do that.

    At this point I believe that your goal is to elevate the rumor and intentionally misrepresent (former law clerks become "subordinates") the article. The path is well-trod.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I agree that we should be above character attacks, but I think you're taking it too far. It doesn't really matter why you ask questions, so long as they are good questions. His views on maternity leave and women's rights issues in general are important regardless of any other information.

    I also reject the notion that confirmations should be limited to a select number of "higher" priority issues. It is a lifetime appointment and should cover every topic that could even remotely be of importance.

    So long as the questions pertain to what his actual beliefs are, and are not statements about his character couched as questions, then I don't really care if it's alien conspiracies that are leading the line of questions.

    I agree with this in spirit. The article we've jumped off from works against this sentiment though, and is nothing more than a former staffer for a current Democratic Senator starting unsubstantiated rumors.

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I would undoubtedly say, yes, his opinion in the hobby lobby ruling is probably enough reason to ask him his opinion on all sorts of issues of women in the workplace. And even this specific issue he is rumored to have a bad opinion on!

    Yes, even though his subordinates at work have defended his character as a person who would totally never do that.

    At this point I believe that your goal is to elevate the rumor and intentionally misrepresent (former law clerks become "subordinates") the article. The path is well-trod.

    But former law clerks were subordinates; what's your point there?

    kedinik on
    BurtletoySpoitLoisLaneN1tSt4lkeriTunesIsEvilMan in the Mists
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    The GOP has spent the last as long as I can remember proving they don't give a single crap about minorities or women outside of ensuring their subordinate status to white men, so I think there is a healthy amount of skepticism that should be present when interacting with any GOP pick for SCOTUS.

    Coming out so strong with a "how dare people question his attitudes toward women" is real silly given the circumstances, imo.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
    minirhyderAistanemp123DundershrykeKraintRiemannLivesmrondeauPhoenix-DMartini_PhilosopherForarQanamilArdolKrieghundLoisLaneiTunesIsEvilSurfpossumSleepLovelyLabelGnome-InterruptusMegaMekRedTideMan in the Mists
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    I guess I could be wrong. I was under the impression that judges picked their clerks, and the clerks worked for their boss, the judge. Clearly, no one in that position would have anything to gain by claiming this rumor is wrong because their boss is so nice to people and would never do that thing he was rumored to have done. Their boss whom is currently up for promotion to the highest lever obtainable in his career path.

    But if that IS the case, and the clerks do work for the judge, why should we willing discredit her rumor because she worked for a democratic senator, but believe the clerks that worked for a republican judge? I mean, the clerks weren't in the class, they don't know whether or not it happened.

    One student says it happened. Made a facebook post about it the day after it happened. And had an email chain with the school discussing why/how it happened. And another male student in her class says it was only hypothetical situation and she took it out of context. And then a bunch of people that worked for the judge claimed he would never say that because hes so nice to work for.

    You might think that settles the issue once and for all. I disagree, and even if it did settle the issue as a baseless character attack, the question is worthy of being asked regardless of this attack. The judge would possible rule on things like maternity leave in corporate workplaces. His opinion on that issue is germane to his confirmation.

    Edit:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/does-scotus-nominee-neil-gorsuch-support-pregnancy-discrimination-w472885
    Worth noting: The rolling stone article on this topic has links to her facebook complaining about this issue the day after gorsuch talked at her school, and a copy of the email chain where she talks with the school about it. And it also has a 'anonymous declaration' from someone else previously in one of his classes. I don't know if there has been any vetting or anything on that last thing tho, so I don't mind ignoring it.

    Burtletoy on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    RealClearPolitics reporter here telling us Dems are already starting to cave on Gorsuch

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    kedinik wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I would undoubtedly say, yes, his opinion in the hobby lobby ruling is probably enough reason to ask him his opinion on all sorts of issues of women in the workplace. And even this specific issue he is rumored to have a bad opinion on!

    Yes, even though his subordinates at work have defended his character as a person who would totally never do that.

    At this point I believe that your goal is to elevate the rumor and intentionally misrepresent (former law clerks become "subordinates") the article. The path is well-trod.

    But former law clerks were subordinates; what's your point there?

    It transforms people (11 ppl!) who have no current incentive to lie, into people who are currently employeed by the person they're defending.

    Burtle is implying that the 11 are lying to cover for their boss, which is an intentionally deceptive manipulation. He is promoting an agenda and twisting the facts to suit it.

    spool32 on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    My agenda being..?

    That it is okay to ask Gorsuch about his opinion on issues he might later rule judgement on?

    Yup, you got me good on that one.


    You are suggesting that we shouldn't believe what someone who worked for a democrat said because she would have things to gain politically by it, but we should totally believe the things said by 11 former workers for a republican because why would they lie, it isn't like they have anything to gain from that.

    Do you see your hypocracy here? I am not saying he totally has it our for women because of this rumor. I am saying, it is okay to ask him about his opinion on maternity leave, either with or without this rumor.

    Burtletoy on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I would undoubtedly say, yes, his opinion in the hobby lobby ruling is probably enough reason to ask him his opinion on all sorts of issues of women in the workplace. And even this specific issue he is rumored to have a bad opinion on!

    Yes, even though his subordinates at work have defended his character as a person who would totally never do that.

    At this point I believe that your goal is to elevate the rumor and intentionally misrepresent (former law clerks become "subordinates") the article. The path is well-trod.

    But former law clerks were subordinates; what's your point there?

    It transforms people (11 ppl!) who have no current incentive to lie, into people who are currently employeed by the personnthey're defending.

    Burtle is implying that the 11 are lying to cover for their boss, which is an intentionally deceptive manipulation. He is promoting an agenda and twisting the facts to suit it.

    11 people with no first hand knowledge of the event in any way, shape, or form. There is actual evidence posted in this thread to support the claims far beyond what you portray here. It is quite common for many old employees and co-workers to defend the person they knew when a scandal like this hits. It is in no way a refutation of the event, nor even particularly relevant to any attempts to determine if it were likely to happen. Professional decorum is basically designed to limit the impacts of things like misogyny on the every day work experience.

    Phoenix-Demp123shrykeSo It GoesArdolLoisLaneiTunesIsEvilSleepLovelyMan in the Mists
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I would undoubtedly say, yes, his opinion in the hobby lobby ruling is probably enough reason to ask him his opinion on all sorts of issues of women in the workplace. And even this specific issue he is rumored to have a bad opinion on!

    Yes, even though his subordinates at work have defended his character as a person who would totally never do that.

    At this point I believe that your goal is to elevate the rumor and intentionally misrepresent (former law clerks become "subordinates") the article. The path is well-trod.

    But former law clerks were subordinates; what's your point there?

    It transforms people (11 ppl!) who have no current incentive to lie, into people who are currently employeed by the person they're defending.

    Burtle is implying that the 11 are lying to cover for their boss, which is an intentionally deceptive manipulation. He is promoting an agenda and twisting the facts to suit it.

    Ok, I understand your point now, but a former law clerk does have a strong incentive to make their old judge look good

    A federal judicial clerkship is usually a bright spot on a lawyer's resume, but less so if your old judge has become infamous for, say, misogyny or incompetence

    Former clerks also commonly rely on their old judges as references

    Which largely explains why former clerks have, if anything at all, only good things to say in public about their old judges

    kedinik on
    SleepGnome-InterruptusMan in the Mists
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I agree that we should be above character attacks, but I think you're taking it too far. It doesn't really matter why you ask questions, so long as they are good questions. His views on maternity leave and women's rights issues in general are important regardless of any other information.

    I also reject the notion that confirmations should be limited to a select number of "higher" priority issues. It is a lifetime appointment and should cover every topic that could even remotely be of importance.

    So long as the questions pertain to what his actual beliefs are, and are not statements about his character couched as questions, then I don't really care if it's alien conspiracies that are leading the line of questions.

    I agree with this in spirit. The article we've jumped off from works against this sentiment though, and is nothing more than a former staffer for a current Democratic Senator starting unsubstantiated rumors.

    I didn't read the article but I agree with your point. Either you (the metaphorical you not spool specifically) are making an argument that his character is so flawed that his legal beliefs aside he is unfit to be a judge; in which case the evidence provided sounds extremely dubious. Or you are merely using it as a reminder that we should find out his actual beliefs about women's rights issues, in which case continuing to bring up the article is just a character attack with no real basis.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    spool32
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    edited March 20
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    Nope, he is tainted, and any decision he takes part in will be tainted as a result.

    JoeUser on
    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
    Edith UpwardsLoisLaneYamiB.SleepLovelyLabelEinzeljdarksunMan in the Mists
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    The Supreme Court cannot perform its duty with Gorsuch as a justice without special consideration and care being taken of HOW he would become a justice. A supreme court nomination is important enough that it cannot be blemished with an asterisk. There is a path for Gorsuch to the court, but it is not the normal nomination pathway. The court would be better with 8 justices if proper care is not taken.

    Stealing the supreme court nomination was effectively a bloodless coup by the previous administration. The lack of casualties and the complexity of the power that has been stolen doesn't make the situation any better.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
    mrondeauKnight_MatevSo It GoesEdith UpwardsArdolLoisLaneiTunesIsEvilN1tSt4lkerCommander ZoomKraintYamiB.SleepGnome-InterruptusVeagleMegaMekMan in the Mists
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    If I had to predict I'd say it'll be about as tainted as the Bush admin was from Bush v Gore

    as in, people are always going to gripe about it but nobody's going to try and nullify the rulings

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    emp123BurtletoyJebus31438thDoeSpoitSo It GoesEdith UpwardsArdolLoisLaneiTunesIsEvilCommander ZoommonikerSurfpossumSleepKwoaru
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    If I had to predict I'd say it'll be about as tainted as the Bush admin was from Bush v Gore

    as in, people are always going to gripe about it but nobody's going to try and nullify the rulings

    Far worse than that. Bush vs Gore was contained, and fingers could be pointed in all kinds of directions. This would literally be a problem with Gorsuch. ANY time he votes against a liberal viewpoint it would erode the courts ability to function.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
    mrondeauSleep
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    I'm over 2 hours into the video of the hearing, and it's still preliminary statements

    What a waste of time

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    What portion of our community will never accept the SCOTUS as a legitimate body after his confirmation? Is anyone willing to say the Supreme Court can still perform its duty with Gorsuch as a Justice?

    I think most will accept the supreme court as a governing body regardless of what happens here. But hopefully there will be real pressure to create some lasting changes to senate norms if the republicans go extreme, nuke the fillibuster, and confirm Gorsuch without any concessions to the issues they caused with Garlands delay.

    At this point I don't know what those changes would need to look like, but I think you start by filibustering Gorsuch and demanding the republicans make concessions before crossing that bridge.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    spool32tbloxhamSo It Goeshanzo
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    My agenda being..?

    ....


    You are suggesting that we shouldn't believe what someone who worked for a democrat said because she would have things to gain politically by it, but we should totally believe the things said by people who work for a republican because why would they lie, it isn't like they have anything to gain from that.

    Do you see your hypocracy here? I am not saying he totally has it our for women because of this rumor. I am saying, it is okay to ask him about his opinion on maternity leave, either with or without this rumor.

    Your agenda is apparently, from the bolded, to intentionally and repeatedly confuse the past for the present when it suits you, as well as conflating the motivations of a former law clerk for a judge and a former staffer for a politician. Also to suggest I'm saying it's Sisk's former job that makes her unbelievable, when it's 12 contrary statements that do so, while you are actually confusing current and former employment to actually cast doubt on the 11 contradictory people for no reason.

    Your intent seems to be creating confusion and hoping to get a rumor to stick to him, because that's what you keep doing.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    And now an email chain is "evidence" and it's a "scandal".

    It's like trying to stand in the way of a moving truck when the cries of "problematic" start coming. Being wrong, or even Constitutionally illegitimate, isn't enough - he's not stupid, so he's got to be evil.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    kedinik wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »

    There are thousands of questions Senators could ask him. To pull this thread now is to respond to apparently baseless, already refused characters attacks. Your reframing of the issue to strip all context away is dishonest and manipulative.

    And to me? You are suggesting that no one could ever ask him about women's rights issues, because, obviously any question about those issues are baseless and refuted character attacks, and to me, those seem like important issues that should receive questioning before confirmation.

    Are there questions about maternity leave that judge Gorsuch can be asked, in your opinion, or are they all entirely off limits now?
    Are there cases in his record or other justifications for pursuing that line of questioning over other ones, given limited time and opportunity? I'm unaware of any. I'm certain we could craft a question that would expressly avoid the taint of a baseless, refuted accusation. Why spend time on an issue where you don't disagree, when there are points of actual contention to pursue?

    edit: This isn't even about "women's rights issues" as a broad category and by framing it that way you're doing yet another bit of dishonest manipulation. Of course it's legitimate to ask about "women's rights issues". Don't do this thing you're doing.

    I would undoubtedly say, yes, his opinion in the hobby lobby ruling is probably enough reason to ask him his opinion on all sorts of issues of women in the workplace. And even this specific issue he is rumored to have a bad opinion on!

    Yes, even though his subordinates at work have defended his character as a person who would totally never do that.

    At this point I believe that your goal is to elevate the rumor and intentionally misrepresent (former law clerks become "subordinates") the article. The path is well-trod.

    But former law clerks were subordinates; what's your point there?

    It transforms people (11 ppl!) who have no current incentive to lie, into people who are currently employeed by the person they're defending.

    Burtle is implying that the 11 are lying to cover for their boss, which is an intentionally deceptive manipulation. He is promoting an agenda and twisting the facts to suit it.

    Ok, I understand your point now, but a former law clerk does have a strong incentive to make their old judge look good

    A federal judicial clerkship is usually a bright spot on a lawyer's resume, but less so if your old judge has become infamous for, say, misogyny or incompetence

    Former clerks also commonly rely on their old judges as references

    Which largely explains why former clerks have, if anything at all, only good things to say in public about their old judges

    A fair point, but they could have chosen to say nothing though, and been entirely safe.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    And now an email chain is "evidence" and it's a "scandal".

    It's like trying to stand in the way of a moving truck when the cries of "problematic" start coming. Being wrong, or even Constitutionally illegitimate, isn't enough - he's not stupid, so he's got to be evil.

    In a world where you Spool had just been elected Senate Majority leader for the New Republicans, who had swept out the alt-right conspirators of the old Republicans, on a platform of integrity, detailed understanding of the law, and careful debate I think there would be no need for the level of 'rage' the democrats are trying to drum up. You could be shown the facts, consider the challenges that the previous Senate had created for you and would likely sensibly settle on a policy of...

    "Look, Gorsuch might be fine, but we can't have people deciding when to and when not to nominate someone based on how close it is to an election. Trump, go nominate Garland again. We reject all other nominees until we at least have a fair hearing for him"

    No need for the fear, terror and hate. But we don't have you in charge. We have emotional folks who don't listen to argument much of the time. The Democrats need (considering the tack they've taken, which isn't what I would have done) Gorsuch to be an evil manipulative goose who even republicans can't vote for. He needs to be a bad person, not just a Republican person.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
    Commander Zoom
Sign In or Register to comment.