I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
Nope, I don't think it has to be an "R vs D court" to say that the president/party gets a benefit from appointing someone who better reflects their viewpoint to the court.
No Justice is a mortal lock. Even Thomas isn't reliably "conservative" in the political sense. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that the TX law is stupid and if he were in the legislature he'd vote to repeal.
Just because they're not a "lock" doesn't mean that the president/party gets no benefit from bending the court a little bit in one direction or another.
Schumer suggesting moving forward on confirmation is irresponsible while FBI probe is ongoing.
Not wrong.
I wish (but doubt) someone would ask Gorsuch "if it is found President Trump colluded with a foreign power in his bid for the Presidency, would you agree to retire from the bench immediately, lest all your decisions be tainted?"
Only probably a bit less snarky, but I think the point is valid.
I think a senate confirmation shields him from any taint resulting from a possible Trump impeachment. Nixon appointed Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist...
And they brought us resegregation, hooray!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
Nope, I don't think it has to be an "R vs D court" to say that the president/party gets a benefit from appointing someone who better reflects their viewpoint to the court.
No Justice is a mortal lock. Even Thomas isn't reliably "conservative" in the political sense. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that the TX law is stupid and if he were in the legislature he'd vote to repeal.
Just because they're not a "lock" doesn't mean that the president/party gets no benefit from bending the court a little bit in one direction or another.
After all, isn't that what the GOP blocking Obama's appointment was all about? Obama appointed a total moderate who clearly wasn't bent in one direction or another. Who Republicans were on record saying they would be happy with him on the court. Conservatives didn't want that because he was replacing right-wing originalist Scalia.
Are there Dems out there (and not Joe Manchin) who have said before Gorsuch is a guy they would be happy to have on the court? Doubt it.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
It's called the Ginsburg standard. Comment on your previous judgement and writing but not how you would rule on other things.
Watching this, my first thought was: finally a possible appointee that knows how to play the goddamn game. I can't believe how this administration has warped my expectations of congressional hearings.
He seems like a competent jurist and although I don't agree with him in any kind of normal time I don't think it would be a very controversial pick and he would get the nod for sure. Now who knows.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
But the Republicans DID use means which undermine our democracy to manufacture the situation where he could receive this nomination. They didn't do this on a lark. They did it because they think Gorsuch will be better for them than Garland would have been. So they believe they will benefit from the situation.
Perhaps Gorsuch believes they wont benefit, but his perception doesn't matter. He, as a judge, should know that the value of something stolen lies most strongly in the perceived value it had to the person it was taken from. Not in the perceived value it has to the person receiving it, or the person doing the stealing. The GOP created this situation becuase they believed they would benefit, the Democrats certainly believe they have lost something of real value, I'm sure Garland and Obama do. I certainly do.
If I own a piece of art which I display proudly on my wall, and you decide to steal it to use it to bribe someone who you know is also an art lover, then it doesn't make it not a crime if the second art lover says, "This is just a child's painting, it has no real value. It was silly of you to steal it. I'll still take it, but I plan on being independant."
Both the thief and the recipient are guilty here, regardless of the recipients opinion of the value.
"If Judge Gorsuch can't receive 60 votes in the Senate can anyone nominated by a Republican president?" - McConnell
Maybe you should have thought of that when you blocked the Democratic nominee for 2/3 of a year, Mitch!
ANSWER:
Yes. After Gorsuch's nomination is rescinded, and Merrick Garland is re-nominated, confirmed, and appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
No Justice is a mortal lock. Even Thomas isn't reliably "conservative" in the political sense. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that the TX law is stupid and if he were in the legislature he'd vote to repeal.
Except that the part about the Texas sodomy law being silly was, legally, meaningless fluff and his dissent, based on his denial of a Constitutional right to privacy, was reliably conservative.
Presuming that a SCOTUS nominee vetted by the Trump-era GOP has any chance of becoming the next David Souter is disingenuous.
A lot of Gorsuch's testimony feels evasive and disingenuous to me
Like, sometimes he gets asked something simple, and he grandstands about generic legal principles that don't have much to do with the question
Can you give an example?
Paraphrased question: How would you respond to the criticism that you're no friend of the little guy?
Answer: Talks about fearlessness; talks at length about how a bust of Byron White inspires him to put "getting it right" above anything else
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
No Justice is a mortal lock. Even Thomas isn't reliably "conservative" in the political sense. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that the TX law is stupid and if he were in the legislature he'd vote to repeal.
Except that the part about the Texas sodomy law being silly was, legally, meaningless fluff and his dissent, based on his denial of a Constitutional right to privacy, was reliably conservative.
Presuming that a SCOTUS nominee vetted by the Trump-era GOP has any chance of becoming the next David Souter is disingenuous.
No one will ever be the next Souter, from either party.
A lot of Gorsuch's testimony feels evasive and disingenuous to me
Like, sometimes he gets asked something simple, and he grandstands about generic legal principles that don't have much to do with the question
Can you give an example?
Paraphrased question: How would you respond to the criticism that you're no friend of the little guy?
Answer: Talks about fearlessness; talks at length about how a bust of Byron White inspires him to put "getting it right" above anything else
Hasn't he also responded to that question several times with specific cases that disprove or mitigate the accusation though?
A lot of Gorsuch's testimony feels evasive and disingenuous to me
Like, sometimes he gets asked something simple, and he grandstands about generic legal principles that don't have much to do with the question
Can you give an example?
Paraphrased question: How would you respond to the criticism that you're no friend of the little guy?
Answer: Talks about fearlessness; talks at length about how a bust of Byron White inspires him to put "getting it right" above anything else
Hasn't he also responded to that question several times with specific cases that disprove or mitigate the accusation though?
Maybe eventually? But this is when I got tired of listening to the hearing
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
No Justice is a mortal lock. Even Thomas isn't reliably "conservative" in the political sense. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that the TX law is stupid and if he were in the legislature he'd vote to repeal.
Except that the part about the Texas sodomy law being silly was, legally, meaningless fluff and his dissent, based on his denial of a Constitutional right to privacy, was reliably conservative.
Presuming that a SCOTUS nominee vetted by the Trump-era GOP has any chance of becoming the next David Souter is disingenuous.
Denying a right to privacy is not reliably conservative. It's just that both sides are inconsistent in the application of the concept.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
This was interesting. I had never listened to a supreme court confirmation hearing before. I caught a decent amount throughout the day. I really enjoyed Whitehouse's line of questioning. I don't really know anything about Gorusch, though. I don't know if his evasiveness was genuinely due to his law background and ethical principles or if he was just being evasive because the answers would be unpopular. He really didn't want to go into his own personal beliefs, he came off as wanting to be a robot processing through written law. But I'm not convinced that's who he actually is.
Senator Flake sure phoned it in tho. Not familiar with him at all but it looked like he forgot to write up questions so he asked Reddit his family for help.
It's a solid move I think since it both pivots attention back to a major issue for Trump and puts the SCOTUS issue off without doing it so permanently that it risks McConnell nuking the filibuster/backlash. It's an easy excuse for stalling.
+39
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
The GOP set the precedent that you can't confirm a SCOTUS justice during an election.
By the way, Donald Trump has already filed for 2020, meaning that the next election has begun.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+27
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The GOP set the precedent that you can't confirm a SCOTUS justice during an election.
By the way, Donald Trump has already filed for 2020, meaning that the next election has begun.
The GOP also blocked Johnson's appointment for a replacement for Earl Warren in 1968, I found out when I was checking on the Justices Spool listed upthread.
Really interested by this series that gives some context for how Gorsuch has very little interest in taking human life into account in his rulings.
That's an unfair and partisan reading, as Gorsuch has demonstrated over and over with cases where the law led him to rule in favor of individuals over corporate interests.
Also I learned today that a whole 15 minutes passed from the time that trucker left his load to when help arrived and he had to turn around.
Edit: not to suggest he was wrong to leave. Dude (afaik) had no idea when help would arrive and had to make a decision.
Really interested by this series that gives some context for how Gorsuch has very little interest in taking human life into account in his rulings.
That's an unfair and partisan reading, as Gorsuch has demonstrated over and over with cases where the law led him to rule in favor of individuals over corporate interests.
Also I learned today that a whole 15 minutes passed from the time that trucker left his load to when help arrived and he had to turn around.
True, It is a problem that they were so determined to fire him they did so for "abandoning" his trailer for a whole 15 minutes. Like, as much time as you might take to use the restroom at a truck stop.
He ruled against a trucker who already had hypothermia and had been waiting for hours and had no idea when help would arrive. It doesn't really matter how you look at it, it's inhumane.
He ruled against a trucker who already had hypothermia and had been waiting for hours and had no idea when help would arrive. It doesn't really matter how you look at it, it's inhumane.
Like the law often is. And again, he's gone the other way many times.
Has the law been changed? Condemn the Senators who haven't proposed bills to fix it!
He ruled against a trucker who already had hypothermia and had been waiting for hours and had no idea when help would arrive. It doesn't really matter how you look at it, it's inhumane.
Like the law often is. And again, he's gone the other way many times.
Has the law been changed? Condemn the Senators who haven't proposed bills to fix it!
Or you know consider that his interpretation of the law was stupid and needlessly specific.
He ruled against a trucker who already had hypothermia and had been waiting for hours and had no idea when help would arrive. It doesn't really matter how you look at it, it's inhumane.
Like the law often is. And again, he's gone the other way many times.
Has the law been changed? Condemn the Senators who haven't proposed bills to fix it!
The law didnt say he had to be fired, it simply allowed a company to do so if they chose to.
Are you proposing that laws should more stringently restrict the freedoms of corporations in how they retain their employees?
Really interested by this series that gives some context for how Gorsuch has very little interest in taking human life into account in his rulings.
That's an unfair and partisan reading, as Gorsuch has demonstrated over and over with cases where the law led him to rule in favor of individuals over corporate interests.
Also I learned today that a whole 15 minutes passed from the time that trucker left his load to when help arrived and he had to turn around.
Edit: not to suggest he was wrong to leave. Dude (afaik) had no idea when help would arrive and had to make a decision.
He waited for two hours prior to that though
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The problem is spool that I dont belive he, or anyone else, is a semi sentient law robot who only considers the law as it is written and framed. His brain does not work that way. He is inherantly a product of his beliefs and voted just as we all are. The reality we perceive is 50% made of our opinion of what it should be.
'You are biased' is close to the only fundamental truth of human consciousness. It's what makes it so frustrating to see him up there pretending his opinions and thoughts on issues don't matter.
The problem is spool that I dont belive he, or anyone else, is a semi sentient law robot who only considers the law as it is written and framed. His brain does not work that way. He is inherantly a product of his beliefs and voted just as we all are. The reality we perceive is 50% made of our opinion of what it should be.
'You are biased' is close to the only fundamental truth of human consciousness. It's what makes it so frustrating to see him up there pretending his opinions and thoughts on issues don't matter.
I would like to judge an issue against my personal beliefs at least once
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
Just because they're not a "lock" doesn't mean that the president/party gets no benefit from bending the court a little bit in one direction or another.
And they brought us resegregation, hooray!
After all, isn't that what the GOP blocking Obama's appointment was all about? Obama appointed a total moderate who clearly wasn't bent in one direction or another. Who Republicans were on record saying they would be happy with him on the court. Conservatives didn't want that because he was replacing right-wing originalist Scalia.
Are there Dems out there (and not Joe Manchin) who have said before Gorsuch is a guy they would be happy to have on the court? Doubt it.
He seems like a competent jurist and although I don't agree with him in any kind of normal time I don't think it would be a very controversial pick and he would get the nod for sure. Now who knows.
But the Republicans DID use means which undermine our democracy to manufacture the situation where he could receive this nomination. They didn't do this on a lark. They did it because they think Gorsuch will be better for them than Garland would have been. So they believe they will benefit from the situation.
Perhaps Gorsuch believes they wont benefit, but his perception doesn't matter. He, as a judge, should know that the value of something stolen lies most strongly in the perceived value it had to the person it was taken from. Not in the perceived value it has to the person receiving it, or the person doing the stealing. The GOP created this situation becuase they believed they would benefit, the Democrats certainly believe they have lost something of real value, I'm sure Garland and Obama do. I certainly do.
If I own a piece of art which I display proudly on my wall, and you decide to steal it to use it to bribe someone who you know is also an art lover, then it doesn't make it not a crime if the second art lover says, "This is just a child's painting, it has no real value. It was silly of you to steal it. I'll still take it, but I plan on being independant."
Both the thief and the recipient are guilty here, regardless of the recipients opinion of the value.
Not happy with them giving Grassley a platform yesterday though.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
A lot of Gorsuch's testimony feels evasive and disingenuous to me
Like, sometimes he gets asked something simple, and he grandstands about generic legal principles that don't have much to do with the question
Between this and muttonbusting, I feel like some of the Senators are not interested in a serious line of questioning....
Can you give an example?
ANSWER:
Yes. After Gorsuch's nomination is rescinded, and Merrick Garland is re-nominated, confirmed, and appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
You fucking shitsack.
Except that the part about the Texas sodomy law being silly was, legally, meaningless fluff and his dissent, based on his denial of a Constitutional right to privacy, was reliably conservative.
Presuming that a SCOTUS nominee vetted by the Trump-era GOP has any chance of becoming the next David Souter is disingenuous.
Paraphrased question: How would you respond to the criticism that you're no friend of the little guy?
Answer: Talks about fearlessness; talks at length about how a bust of Byron White inspires him to put "getting it right" above anything else
Lawyers
No one will ever be the next Souter, from either party.
Hasn't he also responded to that question several times with specific cases that disprove or mitigate the accusation though?
Maybe eventually? But this is when I got tired of listening to the hearing
Denying a right to privacy is not reliably conservative. It's just that both sides are inconsistent in the application of the concept.
Senator Flake sure phoned it in tho. Not familiar with him at all but it looked like he forgot to write up questions so he asked Reddit his family for help.
Though he has come through in a pinch at a few crucial moments. Could've nuked the ACA, for one.
Cry me a fiving river.
"We're having trouble filling the seat we stole, boo hoo."
GORSUCH: There are lots of cases where I ruled in favor of real human beings! Really!!
SEN. HIRONO: Yeaaaahhh I don't care about those cases
I sympathized, and I laughed
Just hamstringing the Medicaid expansion bit did vast harm to the American people and may yet lead to repeal.
By the way, Donald Trump has already filed for 2020, meaning that the next election has begun.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The GOP also blocked Johnson's appointment for a replacement for Earl Warren in 1968, I found out when I was checking on the Justices Spool listed upthread.
Really interested by this series that gives some context for how Gorsuch has very little interest in taking human life into account in his rulings.
That's an unfair and partisan reading, as Gorsuch has demonstrated over and over with cases where the law led him to rule in favor of individuals over corporate interests.
Also I learned today that a whole 15 minutes passed from the time that trucker left his load to when help arrived and he had to turn around.
Edit: not to suggest he was wrong to leave. Dude (afaik) had no idea when help would arrive and had to make a decision.
True, It is a problem that they were so determined to fire him they did so for "abandoning" his trailer for a whole 15 minutes. Like, as much time as you might take to use the restroom at a truck stop.
Like the law often is. And again, he's gone the other way many times.
Has the law been changed? Condemn the Senators who haven't proposed bills to fix it!
Or you know consider that his interpretation of the law was stupid and needlessly specific.
The law didnt say he had to be fired, it simply allowed a company to do so if they chose to.
Are you proposing that laws should more stringently restrict the freedoms of corporations in how they retain their employees?
MWO: Adamski
He waited for two hours prior to that though
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
'You are biased' is close to the only fundamental truth of human consciousness. It's what makes it so frustrating to see him up there pretending his opinions and thoughts on issues don't matter.
I would like to judge an issue against my personal beliefs at least once
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.