Watching the Gorsuch hearing the other day, I felt that he tended to exaggerate his indignation around some questions as if he were acting on a stage rather than expressing an honest thought. His repetition of the mantra "no man is above the law" while avoiding direct answers about Trump also indicates a rehearsed response -- not a sincere response. The same is true of the repeated role out his demurring "I can't comment on something that may come before me" formula. His formulation of an executive statement under Bush that a law against torture did not necessarily apply to the executive, also shows that his "no man above law" point is rather empty. All in all he seems like a slick but average careerist who would rather use some slogan generated from the exact wordings of old documents than make any interpretation of law that would be a disadvantage to him or the interests he supports. It is time Democrats put away their own insincere posturing around the big tent of politics. They need to adamantly oppose this nomination and all that are like him because Gorsuch is little more than a shill for plutocratic interests and will do nothing to diminish their power and the exploitation of the people as a whole and the planet.
If'n I were a Senator, here's my presentation:
First, this is NOT Scalia's seat, this is President Obama's seat.
Secondly:
So Called President Trump promised to build a wall along our southern border.
He is in the process of fulfilling that promise.
The So Called President promise to ban Moslem travel into the Fatherland.
He is attempting to fulfill that promise.
He promised to approve Keystone xl pipeline.
He is attempting to fulfill that promise.
So called President Trump promised to fill Obama's supreme court seat with a judge opposed to abortion, willing to overturn Roe v Wade, and oppose any limitations on firearms.
With Judge Goresuch
He is attempting to fulfill that promise.
SAD
unacceptable.
First, this is NOT Scalia's seat, this is President Obama's seat.
Secondly:
So Called President Trump promised to build a wall along our southern border.
He is in the process of fulfilling that promise.
The So Called President promise to ban Moslem travel into the Fatherland.
He is attempting to fulfill that promise.
He promised to approve Keystone xl pipeline.
He is attempting to fulfill that promise.
So called President Trump promised to fill Obama's supreme court seat with a judge opposed to abortion, willing to overturn Roe v Wade, and oppose any limitations on firearms.
With Judge Goresuch
He is attempting to fulfill that promise.
SAD
unacceptable.
1
All I can say is: good for you, Senator Leahy. Judge Garland was treated shamefully. I have no idea why any of the Democrats are even participating in these hearings. The nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, seems strangely unwilling to participate himself.
Lindsey Graham was worried about Trump picking a TV judge? I say, hey, why not? I bet they'd get more answers out of Judge Judy.
Lindsey Graham was worried about Trump picking a TV judge? I say, hey, why not? I bet they'd get more answers out of Judge Judy.
2
Gorsuch makes it clear that as Supreme Court Justice he would rather rule against our civil rights based on the letter of the law than protect them based on the intent of the law. Such hairsplitting is certainly not what our Founders intended when they purposely built flexibility into our Constitution so it could remain viable as our country grew and changed. Such rigidity of mind in a Supreme Court Justice threatens all of us.
If Gorsuch had any integrity, he would agree with Dems and delay this until we're sure we have a legitimate president.
Filibuster.
In laying out the process for electing a president, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." If it turns out that conspiracy and malfeasance by Trump and his campaign aides, in collusion with foreign interests, violated aspects of state laws regarding the selection of Electors, then his Electoral College total will have been reached in violation of the Constitution.
In other words, we cannot yet be sure that Donald Trump is the Constitutionally-elected President of the United States, and only such a person can nominate Supreme Court justices. This appointment therefore must wait and if filibuster is the only mechanism available to achieve that then so it must be.
In laying out the process for electing a president, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." If it turns out that conspiracy and malfeasance by Trump and his campaign aides, in collusion with foreign interests, violated aspects of state laws regarding the selection of Electors, then his Electoral College total will have been reached in violation of the Constitution.
In other words, we cannot yet be sure that Donald Trump is the Constitutionally-elected President of the United States, and only such a person can nominate Supreme Court justices. This appointment therefore must wait and if filibuster is the only mechanism available to achieve that then so it must be.
Leahy, FRankel, Feinstein and Schumer are a disgrace to this country. They forget the Biden Rule, and let's hope they remember Reid's Nuclear Option.....Gorsuch WILL be the 9th Supreme, with or without these obstructionists. More important, when will they demand Ruth Ginsberg's resignation? Her outspoken biased comments and derogatory remarks about Republicans and President Trump are enough to bring her down and force her into retirement. Her extreme politics will affect her decisions in the negative.
1
Merrick Garland would have made a fabulous Supreme Court Justice.
1
The US cannot survive another 5/4 republican supreme court. The past ones brought us Bush vs. Gore, Citizens United, Shelby vs. Holder. Let the court stay at 8 members. It will do less damage.
1
Judge Gorsuch and his Republican handlers just threw away an amazing opportunity to shift the current discourse in Washington and the nation at large, but his stonewalling only supported the polarized status quo. Had he spoken more about his legal philosophy, about how he interprets questions of law in relation to the constitution, about the relationship between politics and the judiciary--any window into his thinking--he may have moved everyone a little closer to consensus.
Let us not forget that this is (insanely) a lifetime appointment; if he was to hold the seat for ten years the stakes would be so very different. But this is more like an arranged marriage--in which you meet your spouse for the very first time at the wedding... and it's for life.
Let us not forget that this is (insanely) a lifetime appointment; if he was to hold the seat for ten years the stakes would be so very different. But this is more like an arranged marriage--in which you meet your spouse for the very first time at the wedding... and it's for life.
As a lifelong Democrat I would urge the Democratic Party to let the Gorsuch nomination go forward. There is little there to object to, I hold out hope he may surprise us all (even the GOP). There is something to be said for keeping your powder dry and saving your ammunition for a better day.
Try as I may I don't see anything objectionable other than he was put forward by the President. If the Dems fight, they will still lose so just save it.
Try as I may I don't see anything objectionable other than he was put forward by the President. If the Dems fight, they will still lose so just save it.
1
He is the smartest man in the room--everyone should see that regardless of political affiliation.
3
Gorsuch should be asked a simple question: Is Citizen's United antithetical to good government, law, common sense, basic integrity and morality? If he does not answer with a resounding yes, Senators should vote NO.
2
Citizen's United was such a disaster... but I'm afraid that Gorsuch is going to follow precedent, and the precedent here is to uphold stuff like Citizen's United which is a recipe for an even-bigger disaster
Republicans stonewalled Judge Garland's nomination so that someone of Judge Gorsuch's "qualifications" could fill the seat. The "qualifications" include a big boost from ultra conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz. Judge Gorsuch has been nominated to restore the 5-4 majority of the Roberts court. Let's be clear: the author of the Hobby Lobby decision holds uber-conservative values that are outside the norm of the majority of Americans, and he will impose them upon us. The regulatory framework that ensures us clean air and water, consumer protection, financial regulation, workplace safety and free and fair elections will be dismantled by this court. He may be skilled, intelligent and articulate, but he does not reflect "mainstream America".
1
Judge Gorsuch seems to be under the illusion that being a good judge is enough to be a good justice, but it's not all that simple.
Also significant is the fact that Judge Gorsuch thinks that the US is pretty much the "only" country on Earth where the government can lose in its own courts. Well, he is wrong if you have deep enough pockets you can win against the government even in China, to say nothing of Europe.
I'm really concerned that he's going to follow in the steps of other Republican-nominated justices by continuing to undermine the intrinsic interests of the American people by ruling in favor of the big corporations and moneyed interests. This is a real problem that is going to have broad implications for the rest of the world if it is not addressed in the foreseeable future.
I mean, someone has got to reign in the big corporations because they are getting out of control and if Gorsuch is not up to the task... well, we better hope he is.
Also significant is the fact that Judge Gorsuch thinks that the US is pretty much the "only" country on Earth where the government can lose in its own courts. Well, he is wrong if you have deep enough pockets you can win against the government even in China, to say nothing of Europe.
I'm really concerned that he's going to follow in the steps of other Republican-nominated justices by continuing to undermine the intrinsic interests of the American people by ruling in favor of the big corporations and moneyed interests. This is a real problem that is going to have broad implications for the rest of the world if it is not addressed in the foreseeable future.
I mean, someone has got to reign in the big corporations because they are getting out of control and if Gorsuch is not up to the task... well, we better hope he is.
You interest me Stas, are you really from Russia? You have a better grasp of what's at stake in this country than most Americans.
Yes, courts can be bought outside America by those "deep pockets" you mention. That's why we fight corruption here tooth and nail, and our judiciary, quite frankly, is our last line of defense. Our fight against corruption diminishes with every case that increases corporate power and gives a stronger voice to moneyed interests.
I worry with you at the direction America is moving. Everyone on this planet thought of us, until recently, as flawed, but honest Americans. Our honesty and trustworthiness is coming into question now, and if the U. S. becomes corrupt, the globe is doomed. No doubt about it.
Yes, courts can be bought outside America by those "deep pockets" you mention. That's why we fight corruption here tooth and nail, and our judiciary, quite frankly, is our last line of defense. Our fight against corruption diminishes with every case that increases corporate power and gives a stronger voice to moneyed interests.
I worry with you at the direction America is moving. Everyone on this planet thought of us, until recently, as flawed, but honest Americans. Our honesty and trustworthiness is coming into question now, and if the U. S. becomes corrupt, the globe is doomed. No doubt about it.
To me it is absolutely clear, from questions by Democratic Senators, that Gorsuch is a very cold man, parsing the law, supposedly because the "law" is above everything, even people (like the fired frozen truck driver), but, in the end, always ruling in favor of corporations (22 our of 24 times). It is clear he was very carefully coached, and no doubt practiced a great deal in order to seem as warm and human as possible. Gorsuch will be exactly what all the dark money that has supported him expects from him, and he will be, therefore, another nail in the coffin of the America that Whitman praised and loved, another nail in the coffin of an American truly of all people, regardless of gender, color, and background, another nail in the coffin of an America that, under Obama, was at least attempting to turn toward helping confront climate change. A sad sad day because the Republicans can finagle to get him confirmed.
1
Gorsuch is Bork in a more attractive package. Don't be fooled. He's a dangerous man who will rule over our court system for the next 40 years if confirmed. He has no business even getting a hearing after Merrick Garland.
1
Entirely appropriate tonight that he is "qualified" yet not suitable to serve. As no recent appointee to the court has explained their judicial philosophy it is impossible to know how they might rule. Alternatively, as Sen.McConnell has made clear Grouch will be confirmed "one way or another", that is, Democratic opposition is pointless (meaningless) as McConnell will invoke the "nuclear option". It seems to me that Democrats have no reason to support this man, his appointment is the result of Republican obstruction of Obama and as Republicans have learned obstruction of the "enemy" motivates their base and, presumably, the result will be the same for Democrats.
1
We don't have to hear Judge Gorsuch's views, philosophies, or judicial tenets to know where he stands.
All you need to hear is the veritable silence and lack of curiosity or skepticism on the part of the GOP committee members.
All you need to hear is the veritable silence and lack of curiosity or skepticism on the part of the GOP committee members.
3
Let's not forget Merrick Garland!
Gorsuch appears to be a great guy. These hearings have shown he is personable, he is adept at parrying focused queries, he knows his law, and he can endure 12 hours of Senate grilling with nary a bathroom break. We know this about Gorsuch because he is given this opportunity to present before the Senate as part of his confirmation hearing. Merrick Garland was not given such an opportunity.
It does not matter how qualified Gorsuch is, just as it did not matter how Garland is, to be a Justice of the SCOTUS. What matters is that Republicans refused to allow Garland this same opportunity.
Withholding support for Gorsuch by Democrats has nothing to do with the man or his qualifications. Withholding support is a political action that is so much greater than the qualifications of the man.
Whether McConnell decides to go 'nuclear' now or later on approval will not change the outcome of the SCOTUS.
Democrats, I urge all of you, be one, be unified, and do NOT vote for this.
Gorsuch appears to be a great guy. These hearings have shown he is personable, he is adept at parrying focused queries, he knows his law, and he can endure 12 hours of Senate grilling with nary a bathroom break. We know this about Gorsuch because he is given this opportunity to present before the Senate as part of his confirmation hearing. Merrick Garland was not given such an opportunity.
It does not matter how qualified Gorsuch is, just as it did not matter how Garland is, to be a Justice of the SCOTUS. What matters is that Republicans refused to allow Garland this same opportunity.
Withholding support for Gorsuch by Democrats has nothing to do with the man or his qualifications. Withholding support is a political action that is so much greater than the qualifications of the man.
Whether McConnell decides to go 'nuclear' now or later on approval will not change the outcome of the SCOTUS.
Democrats, I urge all of you, be one, be unified, and do NOT vote for this.
2
A question for Judge Gorsuch: Was Senator McConnell's refusal to let the Senate consider President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland for the Scalia vacancy on the Court within the original intent of the framers of the Constitution? And if not, should he be removed from office for this treasonous act which violated the Constitution?
6
It's a sad day when the process is abused--the stonewalling refusal to hear President Obama's nominee to the court, Merrick Garland--and a smiling, polished nominee with some questionable, if not mean-spirited interpretations of the law, is set to ascend to the SCOTUS. Like President Trump's appointments and philosophy, another unfortunate and likely challenge to the nation's progress over the last half century.
5
Gorsuch's remark that the emoluments clause has "sat in a rather dusty corner" is indicative Gorsuch views it as antiquated.
That alone is worrisome. Like the electoral college's role in preventing the election of a president who is unfit, it only confirms the founders' foresight. In U.S. history, both are more relevant than ever.
That alone is worrisome. Like the electoral college's role in preventing the election of a president who is unfit, it only confirms the founders' foresight. In U.S. history, both are more relevant than ever.
I believe Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed, but many Americans, myself included, will always think of him as an illegitimate justice, as long as he serves. This is unquestionably a stolen seat and I do not trust him. Perhaps over time, he will earn the people's respect. But his presence on the Court will always be marred by the anti-democratic, deeply disrespectful actions taken last year by Republicans in the Senate. I can't help but associate Neil Gorsuch with Vladimir Putin, as without Putin, Gorsuch would probably not have been nominated.
Al Franken's questioning of Gorsuch was masterful.
Gorsuch "pretzelated" himself in trying to justify his position which sanctions reckless endangerment of an employee seeking to take safe refuge in a storm. Gorsuch's "crocodile tears" over the ramifications of his opinion are disingenuous at best.
Franken once again demonstrates that he is one of the sharpest minds in the Senate in the tradition of Jonathan Swift (who used biting humor to make serious points). He seriously did his "homework" and showed up prepared. I suspect he had gone through fifty of Gorsuch's decisions in such detail that he was prepared to examine Gorsuch on the merits of the law, and the humanity behind them.
Gorsuch "pretzelated" himself in trying to justify his position which sanctions reckless endangerment of an employee seeking to take safe refuge in a storm. Gorsuch's "crocodile tears" over the ramifications of his opinion are disingenuous at best.
Franken once again demonstrates that he is one of the sharpest minds in the Senate in the tradition of Jonathan Swift (who used biting humor to make serious points). He seriously did his "homework" and showed up prepared. I suspect he had gone through fifty of Gorsuch's decisions in such detail that he was prepared to examine Gorsuch on the merits of the law, and the humanity behind them.
5
It's a stolen seat. The Republicans can't be rewarded for their blatant power grab with a Supreme Court pick. I hope the Dems filibuster - and if the Republicans go nuclear, then good! The Republicans can't hold the majority much longer, even with gerrymandering.
5
"I can't get involved in politics," said the nominee.
Excuse me, but Judge Garland was denied even a hearing because of politics by the Republican friends and cronies of Gorsuch.
I can't get involved in politics. He is the poster boy for moral and political corruption.
Excuse me, but Judge Garland was denied even a hearing because of politics by the Republican friends and cronies of Gorsuch.
I can't get involved in politics. He is the poster boy for moral and political corruption.
The country is in the hands of wall street thieves and theocrats. One day, honest, secular people may have a voice again, but probably in other countries.
As to helping trump in any way- nope. that would be a crime against human decency.
As to helping trump in any way- nope. that would be a crime against human decency.
3
Garland got Borked fair and square.
1
Wrong. Bork received a hearing, fair and square, Garland did not even receive the *courtesy* of private meetings with Senators.
2
Gorsuch speaks in soothing platitudes void of any meaningful substance. Americans are easily bamboozled by superficial appearances, so I expect Gorsuch to be appointed.
I do not trust Gorsuch because he is the Republican party's top choice to replace Scalia, and they would not push him forward unless they were absolutely certain he would push their agenda of anti-labor, anti-human rights, anti-democracy.
Republicans mean business to roll back every progressive decision of the twentieth century, and that is why they boycotted Garland and now push for Gorsuch.
It would be flatly unethical and cowardly for Democrats to reward Republican corruption by voting for Gorsuch whose presence at these hearings if the product of that same corruption.
I do not trust Gorsuch because he is the Republican party's top choice to replace Scalia, and they would not push him forward unless they were absolutely certain he would push their agenda of anti-labor, anti-human rights, anti-democracy.
Republicans mean business to roll back every progressive decision of the twentieth century, and that is why they boycotted Garland and now push for Gorsuch.
It would be flatly unethical and cowardly for Democrats to reward Republican corruption by voting for Gorsuch whose presence at these hearings if the product of that same corruption.
2
These hearings should be canceled. No matter Judge Gorsuch's qualifications, that's a subject for another day. This administration should be put on hold. They should not be allowed any more appointments until the FBI concludes it's investigation into Trump and Co. In the meantime, the Supreme Court will manage to carry on just as the GOP forced it to do for the last year.
4
It is clear that Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. Why doesn't this charade end. All this posturing by Senators of both parties is ridiculous. The Democrats are not going to filibuster, so why delay?
3
Wanna bet?
If the repeal-and-replace debacle blows up in the Republicans' faces, the Dems may smell blood in the water. It will be a filibuster of this rogue administration, not of SCOTUS nominee.
If the repeal-and-replace debacle blows up in the Republicans' faces, the Dems may smell blood in the water. It will be a filibuster of this rogue administration, not of SCOTUS nominee.
Clearly, you know whats best for the American public. Were you clamoring for an end to the "charade" when the Republicans denied Judge Garland a fair hearing?
1
Democrats should not go along with this process. Let me make the case for the filibuster, and I have a very simple point to make: Gorsuch is the fruit from a poisoned tree -- the process that led to this nomination was illegitimately derived from collusion / treason. Trump's tiny Electoral College victory swung on 78,000 votes spread over MI, PA & WI. Comey's double standard with respect to the FBI investigation, as well as Trump's collusion with Russia, certainly could have persuaded 39,000 people across three states to change their vote. Therefore, given that the democratic election is now in doubt, and that the normal process for confirmation was interrupted by Republicans with Obama, this process led to an illegitimate outcome. The only way to correct this is to refuse to go along with the way they subverted our normal process, to do all they can to stop them. If they get away with it, they will continue to break rules and bend the normal process in their direction with every opportunity. The filibuster is a **minimum**. Yes, they can "nuke" it and change the rules, but realize that their extremism will live on in history. They are standing behind an illegitimate president in opposition to the standard rules and norms and processes. They are the fringe, and they must be pointed out as such. Do not give them this SCOTUS robbery. Fight it!
2
The GOP has turned the whole process of seating a Supreme Court Justice into a partisan exercise, so much so that the answers that a nominee gives do not matter. Get to the vote! The Senate Democrats better stand firmly against any Trump nominee.
1
Yes, they need to stand firmly.
1
O, to have had a chance to listen in on the recent phone conversation between Judges Gorsuch and Garland! What could Gorsuch have said, other than, "So sorry you got black-balled by my peers, the so-called 'lawmakers' of the ethically challenged Republican party. Poor ol' friend -- try to put it behind you."
Actually, they probably just talked about the weather.
Actually, they probably just talked about the weather.
Why are we pretending this hearing is anything but a sham and a charade? Even the Times seems to be asking us to take it seriously. Why? We all know that the nominee will answer nothing and will evade, dodge, avoid, smile, attempt to charm and yes, lie. It's so fake it's laughable.
Nothing will be learned about this nominee by this ridiculous sideshow. Senator Franken managed to crack Gorsuch's aw-shucks, golly-gee performance temporarily - THANK YOU AL! - but the judge soon slid back into his studied smile and phony, "I don't have an opinion on anything I'm just a puppet" act.
The New York Times should call this circus what it is, a CIRCUS. We've got clowns and elephants aplenty, time to bring out the trapeze act. That's the only thing missing.
Nothing will be learned about this nominee by this ridiculous sideshow. Senator Franken managed to crack Gorsuch's aw-shucks, golly-gee performance temporarily - THANK YOU AL! - but the judge soon slid back into his studied smile and phony, "I don't have an opinion on anything I'm just a puppet" act.
The New York Times should call this circus what it is, a CIRCUS. We've got clowns and elephants aplenty, time to bring out the trapeze act. That's the only thing missing.
3
Commenters keep saying Gorsuch is conservative but fair. You know who I think is fair? The NAACP Legal Defense Fund. They oppose Gorsuch (http://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/naacp-legal-defense-fund-releases-... because, based on his record, we can't count on him to defend our civil rights. So Democrats, it's time to do everything possible to deny this confirmation! Worried about the nuclear option? Well, don't! It will work in favor of Progressives in the upcoming years, especially if we obstruct Trump nominations until the democratic comeback in 2020.
7
Drama over the nomination? What drama? There is no drama. After all, democrats have put themselves on record as saying they will not respond to the public or dare to anger republicans:
“[W]e should be open to supporting any nominee. I get pressure from the left all the time. I wasn’t sent here to respond to pressure.” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat. (So much for petitions and phone calls to Senators)
Sen. Joe Manchin says he is “truly and totally concerned” that a Democratic filibuster might prompt republicans to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees.
Senator Menendez issued a similar warning, saying that the work of what he calls "outside groups" who demand that democrats say “reflexively no” on Gorsuch “works to put at risk the Republicans moving to change the rules and go to a simple 51” votes to confirm Supreme Court nominees.
Well, what good is the threshold of you don't use it?
By their own words, it is clear that democrats will ignore the public as they tremble in fear of republicans.
And still democrats send out emails begging for money so the can grandly call themselves "the resistance."
Some resistance.
With resistance like this in 1776, Americans today would be taking afternoon tea breaks.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
“[W]e should be open to supporting any nominee. I get pressure from the left all the time. I wasn’t sent here to respond to pressure.” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat. (So much for petitions and phone calls to Senators)
Sen. Joe Manchin says he is “truly and totally concerned” that a Democratic filibuster might prompt republicans to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees.
Senator Menendez issued a similar warning, saying that the work of what he calls "outside groups" who demand that democrats say “reflexively no” on Gorsuch “works to put at risk the Republicans moving to change the rules and go to a simple 51” votes to confirm Supreme Court nominees.
Well, what good is the threshold of you don't use it?
By their own words, it is clear that democrats will ignore the public as they tremble in fear of republicans.
And still democrats send out emails begging for money so the can grandly call themselves "the resistance."
Some resistance.
With resistance like this in 1776, Americans today would be taking afternoon tea breaks.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia. Why are we holding hearings on someone who is being nominated by this utterly corrupt and compromised administration? That's the issue. Who Gorsuch is isn't even relevant here. Russia is the issue. This entire administration* is a fraud and we're about to let them appoint someone for LIFE? Wake up Amerika!
7
Since Mr Trump and his Administration are under investigation for ties to Russia., Mr Trump should not be given the right to nominate a supreme court judge. This is a lifetime appointment and the Democrats should not vote for a Judge nominated by a Man who might be guilty of treason.
Democrats should follow McConnell playbook, and wait until the investigation is over before considering Mr Gorsuch nomination.
Democrats should follow McConnell playbook, and wait until the investigation is over before considering Mr Gorsuch nomination.
7
I'm still rattled by the refusal to give Garland a hearing and feel that resistance to Gorsuch is justified in response. I know the system fails without compromise, but I feel like the past few years have been a pattern of Republicans risking/undermining the system for political gains and Democrats backing down for the greater good.
The Garland pick was denied based on the argument that Obama's appointment power lost its legitimacy in the final year of his presidency; is it not equally reasonable to resist Gorsuch based on the argument that we must resolve the accusations against the Trump administration before we can treat his appointment power as legitimate?
I know the slippery slope this feeds into, but I just can't square the idea that Trump, with all of the potential impropriety surrounding his administration, should be afforded a degree of legitimacy denied to Obama in 2016.
That said, despite my strategic preference to resist (and my personal disagreement with the originalist approach to interpretation), I do respect Gorsuch as a reasonable choice for SCOTUS under normal conditions.
The Garland pick was denied based on the argument that Obama's appointment power lost its legitimacy in the final year of his presidency; is it not equally reasonable to resist Gorsuch based on the argument that we must resolve the accusations against the Trump administration before we can treat his appointment power as legitimate?
I know the slippery slope this feeds into, but I just can't square the idea that Trump, with all of the potential impropriety surrounding his administration, should be afforded a degree of legitimacy denied to Obama in 2016.
That said, despite my strategic preference to resist (and my personal disagreement with the originalist approach to interpretation), I do respect Gorsuch as a reasonable choice for SCOTUS under normal conditions.
2
I would prefer we wait 4 years or until the current president who's legitimacy is in serious question be impeached/forced to resign so that we have a supreme court nominee who truly reflects the prevailing views of the electorate.
7
Agreed.
God, I wish the Democrats would stop playing the role of *Grownup*, and refuse to show up for any remaining time devoted to this Confirmation Charade. Their votes doesn't matter anyway.
3
"... the driver had unhitched his vehicle from the trailing cargo to get to safety in frigid weather. “He chose to operate,” Judge Gorsuch said, adding, “I think by any plain understanding, he operated the vehicle.”
To equate unhooking a truck from its cargo to drive yourself to safety (and) prevent Freezing to death- as evidence of "plainly deciding to operate" ( the basis of deciding the Trucker willingly abandoned Company Property) is Sick, Absurd and reveals this "Mild-Mannered" soft speaking Judge as far more dangerous than Antonin Scalia: Narrow application of the law or abdication of the law?
To equate unhooking a truck from its cargo to drive yourself to safety (and) prevent Freezing to death- as evidence of "plainly deciding to operate" ( the basis of deciding the Trucker willingly abandoned Company Property) is Sick, Absurd and reveals this "Mild-Mannered" soft speaking Judge as far more dangerous than Antonin Scalia: Narrow application of the law or abdication of the law?
8
I absolutely agree that this guy is FAR worse than Scalia. Much as I disagreed with Scalia, he was not a narcissicist. This guy has all the hallmarks of the charming narcissicist if you pay attention closely. Loves listening to himself talk, loves telling "heartwarming" or bragging stories about himself, feigns poutrage with over the top emotional acting. He makes my skin crawl.
As day 1, day 2 is another disgusting charade and the drama is that this man will be elected to the Supreme Court, that's that.
1
This seat should not be vacant. It was stolen by the antics of the spiteful, arrogant, and obstructionist McConnell, Grassley, and the rest of the extremist, un-American Republican party.
4
I think Feinstein should run for president.
1
Democrats: What's the rush? Trump won't be in office much longer.
1
With originalism and textualism as philosophy how does one arrive at the notion that corporations have Constitutional rights? The Constitution begins 'We the PEOPLE". It's hypocritical to claim to be an originalist and also support Citizens United.
4
Someone needs to ask him if he would step down from the court in the event that Donald Trump is impeached or resigns.
6
Who stepped down when Clinton was impeached?
The constitutional clause about life terms for Supreme Court justices needs to be changed this year. In the 18th centuries, life spans tended to be much shorter. There is no justification to give today's men and women a life term on the SCOTUS. I think that would make the vast majority of people more comfortable with whoever is rubber stamped for, say, five years.
5
No Trump nominee should be approved until after the Honorable Merrick Garland gets a vote.
13
And if not a vote, at least a fair chance.
5
They should ask him how he interprets the Constitution and was the previous senate in error when they refused to offer President Obama's candidate, Merrick Garland, a hearing at that time.
9
Why do we allow our judicial nominees to indulge in the fiction that if they refuse to discuss an issue that may come before them in the court, then it means that they're open-minded and unbiased? What would it take to change this broken process? Could the senators at least ask and expect answers to some basic questions about the nominees' grasp on reality, such as, "how old do you think the Earth is?", "are humans are evolved primates?", and "has human activity resulted in global warming?"
1
I don't consider anyone who believes that nature has a personality a person of sound judgment.
2
Everybody who claims that coerced religion is free exercise of religion is a bloody idiot or liar who should be denied power over anyone.
1
I do not believe him or trust him. I have a very bad feeling about him having read a lot of background info. Unfortunately he is very handsome and looks the part. This is one of the worst aspects of Trump's win.
4
I believe him and trust him. I have a very good feeling about him having read a lot of background info. AND, he is very handsome and looks the part. This is one of the best aspects of Trump's win.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who gets a bad feeling about this guy. His charm is so superficial and fake, but it fools so many people.
If/when Gorsuch is nominated, he will be an illegitimate justice, just like the "president" who nominated him. Everyone knows this is Merrick Garland's seat and the Republican obstruction of a hearing for that seat is unconstitutional and amounts to treason. A true sign of Gorsuch's blind ambition to even want to accept a tainted nomination from a tainted "president."
9
Gorsuch has been nominated - you mean confirmed. If confirmed, he will be 100% legitimate; the seat doesn't belong to Merrick Garland, Obama, or anyone else. And Trump is 100% legitimate in terms of the Constitution, even if you don't like him (I don't either). There's no "unconstitutional" and no "treason" here.
4
@ Yaffe
If the seat doesn't belong to Merrick Garland, it doesn't "belong" to Neil Gorsuch either.
Another thing.
President Obama was also 100% legitimate in terms of the U.S. Constitution in putting forth a nominee -- and it doesn't really matter wheher you like him or not.
It's the LAW.
If the seat doesn't belong to Merrick Garland, it doesn't "belong" to Neil Gorsuch either.
Another thing.
President Obama was also 100% legitimate in terms of the U.S. Constitution in putting forth a nominee -- and it doesn't really matter wheher you like him or not.
It's the LAW.
4
I agree completely. The seat doesn't belong to Neil Gorsuch until/unless he's confirmed. And Mr. Obama's nomination of Garland was 100% legitimate and constitutional.
It's nice to agree.
It's nice to agree.
The Democrats lost by showing up instead of refusing to participate in this charade.
5
Yes, they lost their image of being irredeemably petulant children. At least some of them did.
2
If you have been in the room with a President, you know walking out is not much of an option. If push comes to shove, you demur courteously and should your views be met with incomprehension, you decide afterwards whether you want to break with the administration. Judge Gorsuch is a learned, caring person but his "I would have walked out" has a phony ring .
Given his welcome belief that judges should write opinions in clear English so that the public may understand judicial rulings, his response about his strange dissent about the truck driver was incomprehensible, Would have been better off quoting Samuel Johnson, "The Law Is An Ass". Does Judge Gorsuch have too much pride to omit a mistake?
I hope Judge Gorsuch will rethink his response to Senator Feinstein when, in effect, he said he could not tell us whether he would rule against torture. I understand that he cannot comment on future cases, but if this is not, in his mind, settled law then Senators ought to vote against him for trimming his sails or, alternatively, for an addiction to parsing what should not be parsed.
The central question is whether you believe Judge Gorsuch when he says he is able to rule against the President because no one is above the law? We need Supreme Court judges with the moxie to preserve the Republic against a Presidential assault against our liberties and institutions.
Given his welcome belief that judges should write opinions in clear English so that the public may understand judicial rulings, his response about his strange dissent about the truck driver was incomprehensible, Would have been better off quoting Samuel Johnson, "The Law Is An Ass". Does Judge Gorsuch have too much pride to omit a mistake?
I hope Judge Gorsuch will rethink his response to Senator Feinstein when, in effect, he said he could not tell us whether he would rule against torture. I understand that he cannot comment on future cases, but if this is not, in his mind, settled law then Senators ought to vote against him for trimming his sails or, alternatively, for an addiction to parsing what should not be parsed.
The central question is whether you believe Judge Gorsuch when he says he is able to rule against the President because no one is above the law? We need Supreme Court judges with the moxie to preserve the Republic against a Presidential assault against our liberties and institutions.
4
All we will really get is doubling-down on stupid and unconstitutional laws.
1
Which relevant laws do you believe are unconstitutional? (Re stupid, there are too many to list.)
2
Be tough now, ask the questions you want to ask but have been encouraged not to ask. If he is confirmed you'll no longer have the chance.
Pause for a moment before your questions. Bring a few moments of silence. It will make him uncomfortable.
Of course he's skilled, knowledgable, etc. he couldn't be where he is if that wasn't the case.
Take him to uncharted territory. Get personal. Maybe ask him about what if his wife was the truck driver, or his child. He applied the letter of the law and a trucking company (Corporation anyone? Hobby lobby anyone?) wins while the gentleman loses his job. Ludicrous. Even more ludicrous that the company took this action. Material goods over a person. I sure don't want to work for a company like that. But hey., companies rule.
The letter of the law... Not my idea of really thinking.
The spirit of the law includes the human being.
Pause for a moment before your questions. Bring a few moments of silence. It will make him uncomfortable.
Of course he's skilled, knowledgable, etc. he couldn't be where he is if that wasn't the case.
Take him to uncharted territory. Get personal. Maybe ask him about what if his wife was the truck driver, or his child. He applied the letter of the law and a trucking company (Corporation anyone? Hobby lobby anyone?) wins while the gentleman loses his job. Ludicrous. Even more ludicrous that the company took this action. Material goods over a person. I sure don't want to work for a company like that. But hey., companies rule.
The letter of the law... Not my idea of really thinking.
The spirit of the law includes the human being.
5
Ask him about is stance on Roe vs. Wade, the 25th Amendment, and the Emoluents Clause to the U.S. Constitution.
If he sticks to the strict interpretation of the original law, which is one of the reasons he was nominated to begin with, his answers should provide a keen insight on how he might rule.
If he sticks to the strict interpretation of the original law, which is one of the reasons he was nominated to begin with, his answers should provide a keen insight on how he might rule.
1
He won't answer about Roe vs. Wade - as he shouldn't - which deals with a subject not addressed in the Constitution. As for the other two, what is there to have a "stance" about? They're part of the document.
1
@Yaffe
Unless you are well-versed in Constitutional Law, which I have every reason to doubt, you are hardly in the position of commenting on what is allowed, and what is not alowed to be asked.
And just for the record; in this case, his "stance" refers to his interpretation of the statute.
Hopefully that is clear enough.
Unless you are well-versed in Constitutional Law, which I have every reason to doubt, you are hardly in the position of commenting on what is allowed, and what is not alowed to be asked.
And just for the record; in this case, his "stance" refers to his interpretation of the statute.
Hopefully that is clear enough.
1
Neil Gorusch is cut of the same cloth as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. We can expect nothing less or nothing more.
6
Judge Gorsuch displayed a strong intellect with powerful forensic skills which can't be out-argued. He would probably make a decent judge, but no Souter. But he was rather disingenuous when stating that "judges are not Democrats or Republicans, they are just judges". Surely he knows what the political views of the parties are and that Scalia was a Republican or Sotomayor is a liberal. His response is only explained by another disingenuous statement that he "only use the facts and the law". Obviously he, and all judges don't just "use", they INTERPRET the law and interpret the facts as they connect to the Law.
5
I love it when 'originalists' opine about a document penned by an 18th century rebel government that didn't even acknowledged the power of their branch until thirty years after its founding (due to an ingenious ruling by one Chief Justice John Marshall). If our highest courts never told us what the law is, our highest courts would have never come to be. That in itself is a huge break from the way the founders intended the country's offices to function. What's 'original' about that?
And then we have other factors, like the size and complexity of our society, money's influence over politics (brought to you by a right-leaning Supreme Court, FYI), and institutional racism, that have in no small way shaped our political system to be absolutely nothing like the way it seems to have been intended, and ideas like 'originalism' red meat to throw to The Constitution's devotees.
I'm not saying we need to abandon considering how The Constitution factors into a prospective Justice's potential decision making, but in spite of these platitudes about the apolitical nature of judges, party affiliation and - perhaps more importantly - the source of financial backing for that party, will provide a more than sufficient means to map the seemingly inevitable road to perdition this country seems to be traveling.
I hope I'm wrong, but after fifty years of a right leaning court, starting with Nixon's Burger Court, these 'strict constitutionalists' deeply worry me.
And then we have other factors, like the size and complexity of our society, money's influence over politics (brought to you by a right-leaning Supreme Court, FYI), and institutional racism, that have in no small way shaped our political system to be absolutely nothing like the way it seems to have been intended, and ideas like 'originalism' red meat to throw to The Constitution's devotees.
I'm not saying we need to abandon considering how The Constitution factors into a prospective Justice's potential decision making, but in spite of these platitudes about the apolitical nature of judges, party affiliation and - perhaps more importantly - the source of financial backing for that party, will provide a more than sufficient means to map the seemingly inevitable road to perdition this country seems to be traveling.
I hope I'm wrong, but after fifty years of a right leaning court, starting with Nixon's Burger Court, these 'strict constitutionalists' deeply worry me.
10
Judge Gorsuch does indeed seem thoughtful and well prepared for the responsibilities of being a Supreme Court Justice. That said, it is important to recall that Merrick Garland may well have been just as thoughtful and well prepared. The American public will never know however because, unlike Gorsuch, he was denied the right to hearings to evaluate his fitness for the position.
8
Recall all you want, at this point what happened with Garland is irrelevant. Gorsuch will be confirmed.
4
No, it will NEVER be irrelevant. It has forever tainted the SC, the Senate, the Constitution, and the respect and legitimacy of the Office of the President.
Gorsuch is inside the alt right Trojan horse, that dispenses Pence after Trump is impeached and banished to Russia. If we let him on the court, we are stuck with him. Not responding to questions about his views on prior rulings is grounds for rejecting him.
8
What about the Supreme Court's 2010 decision on Citizens United? Where does Gorsuch stand on overturning this decision?
This nefarious Supreme Court decision is what helped get Trump elected.
This nefarious Supreme Court decision is what helped get Trump elected.
3
How? Clinton and her super pacs outspent Trump and his.
2
Nyalman – you seem to have forgotten that it was HRC who brought suit against Citizens United, and lost.
But it would be exceptionally foolhardy not to take advantage of the law. In any event, just raising more money than the other guy doesn't guarantee success. (e.g., HRC, Romney)
But it would be exceptionally foolhardy not to take advantage of the law. In any event, just raising more money than the other guy doesn't guarantee success. (e.g., HRC, Romney)
Gorsuch claims he would rule against #45 if his position called for it.
This comment is why Gorsuch is a poor choice for a judgeship. A legitimate candidate would not rule against any political figure. He would rule against/for the case in front of him regardless of proponents. Poorly done Gorsuch.
This comment is why Gorsuch is a poor choice for a judgeship. A legitimate candidate would not rule against any political figure. He would rule against/for the case in front of him regardless of proponents. Poorly done Gorsuch.
5
“That’s absurd,” said Mr. Franken, a veteran of “Saturday Night Live” in a previous life.
No, it's the same life, he didn't first die and then reincarnate as a Democratic US senator. Somehow Democrats like to feel the criticism is only valid for them against former Republican entertainers who seek political office.
No, it's the same life, he didn't first die and then reincarnate as a Democratic US senator. Somehow Democrats like to feel the criticism is only valid for them against former Republican entertainers who seek political office.
4
You either haven't been paying attention, or have a selective memory situation.
There was plenty of criticism flung at both Bill Clinton, and yes, even Obama.
Turning this into an "Democrat vs. Republican" scenario is doing nothing to detract from the fact that there is presently one dangerous inept in the Oval Office, controlled by an even more dangerous one.
There was plenty of criticism flung at both Bill Clinton, and yes, even Obama.
Turning this into an "Democrat vs. Republican" scenario is doing nothing to detract from the fact that there is presently one dangerous inept in the Oval Office, controlled by an even more dangerous one.
6
When someone refers to something they did in "a prior life" Iver, it means that they have re-invented their life from what they did previously. They have learned and/or adapted to a new and different role.
Franken has obviously transitioned from SNL comedian to become a serious United States Senator and thus remade himself. By contrast, everyday Trump acts like he is still part of a cheap reality TV show, and demonstrates everyday that he has not remade himself.
Franken has obviously transitioned from SNL comedian to become a serious United States Senator and thus remade himself. By contrast, everyday Trump acts like he is still part of a cheap reality TV show, and demonstrates everyday that he has not remade himself.
6
"against former Republican entertainers who seek political office".
You wouldn't happen to be referring to B-movie actor Ronald Reagan? Reagan couldn't hold a candle to Franken.
You wouldn't happen to be referring to B-movie actor Ronald Reagan? Reagan couldn't hold a candle to Franken.
a judge needs to be able to interpret the "spirit " of the law, not hold tot he "letter" of it. What is the point of having a judge if not to progress and adapt previous laws to current times. If one only will hold to literal interpretations, why not just ask siri?
3
If Judge Gorsuch is appointed to the Supreme Court, he has been assessed to fall ideologically somewhere between Judge Alito and Judge Thomas, based upon his past rulings. It doesn't matter how reasonable he SEEMS or how much support he has garnered from this source or that: his ideology is unacceptable, and he must be denied this seat. If the Democrats allow him to squeak in, this country is headed toward a generation or more of corporate and special-interest domination of our political system.
7
Money is already the only thing that talks in the negotiation of US public policy.
3
Gorsuch is obviously already a made man of the interlocked directorship that actually runs the US.
4
Failure of the Democrats to treat exactly Gorsuch like Garland was treated by the GOP is a sign of weakness that the Republicans will exploit again and again. What part of NO! do the Democrats not understand? This is a power struggle from an admittedly weak position but trying to "play by the rules" was discarded by the Republicans the day Obama was elected. The Democrats need to call out the farce our democracy has become and show some spine in doing so.
13
Being in the senate minority while representing tens of millions more people is the fate of the Democrats under the utterly fraudulent travesty of democracy the US really is. Cows in Kansas have more voting power than cosmopolitans on the coasts.
1
You are in denial of reality. When Garland was nominated, the Republicans controlled Congress. When Gorsuch was nominated, the Republicans controlled Congress.
The Democrats cannot "show some spine" until they win enough elections to be in the majority.
The Democrats cannot "show some spine" until they win enough elections to be in the majority.
2
What a farce to watch how you sons of liberty base your tyranny on the vestiges of slavery that still infest the whole US structure of government.
1
"No man is above the law." That's what Mr. Gorsuch says now, and no wonder; he's an intelligent man who knows not to perjure himself before he gets the confirmation, which owing to the Republican control of the government he most definitely will get.
But most everyone else knows that's not the way it works in Trump's court -- where he is not only above the law, he IS the law.
Case closed.
But most everyone else knows that's not the way it works in Trump's court -- where he is not only above the law, he IS the law.
Case closed.
4
Every Gorsuch or Trump wannabe in this fatuous nation claims to have a skyhook to God to jump the shark of law. Look how respectfully Gorsuch treated the preposterous claims of post-mortal injuries that Hobby Lobby lodged to evade the requirements to provide certain services under Obamacare.
2
@Bolger
Of course, Gorsuch is only there to discredit and abrogate Obamacare -- that's how he got the nod to begin with.
But the worst part of this scenario is that he's guaranteed to say one thing, then turn around an do something else, and there's absolutely nothing Democrats can do about it outside of keeping their powder dry.
Of course, Gorsuch is only there to discredit and abrogate Obamacare -- that's how he got the nod to begin with.
But the worst part of this scenario is that he's guaranteed to say one thing, then turn around an do something else, and there's absolutely nothing Democrats can do about it outside of keeping their powder dry.
2
I think Gorsuch seems fair and thoughtful.
I do not believe he would give special treatment to someone like Hillary Clinton, for example, and would find that even a well-connected Washington Democratic woman who hides national secrets on a personal email basement server could be guilty of various violations of the U.S. Code involving the misuse of classified documents.
Unless the attorney general recuses herself after meeting with Bill Clinton on an airplane to discuss golf, and your FBI director gets to decide to not charge a suspect because the attorney general abdicates her job to make that decision.
I think if such a case went before Gorsuch, he could be fair.
I do not believe he would give special treatment to someone like Hillary Clinton, for example, and would find that even a well-connected Washington Democratic woman who hides national secrets on a personal email basement server could be guilty of various violations of the U.S. Code involving the misuse of classified documents.
Unless the attorney general recuses herself after meeting with Bill Clinton on an airplane to discuss golf, and your FBI director gets to decide to not charge a suspect because the attorney general abdicates her job to make that decision.
I think if such a case went before Gorsuch, he could be fair.
7
The Breitbart editors would be in full agreement with this comment.
11
As would Move on .org with that of the above.
1
Unless all 33,000 emails were in her "Drafts" folder, they weren't "hidden; most people either sent or received the emails in their mailboxes, and AFAIK, none of the emails were to or from Vladimir Putin.
He's very smooth. He's white. He has grey hair. He's tall. He is young. He, therefore, has all of the qualities that Trumpness admires. Oh yes, he comes from a wealthy family and is a child of privilege.
As for the words he speaks, why consider them? I can just look at his record. He is a corporatist, his view on religion is beyond the mainstream with regard to what religion is supposed to mean, that is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I believe that is a basic tenet of his and the faith of those he supports who insist on being in control of others with whom they disagree and those who demand to be able to discriminate against others with whom they disagree.
He is in a difficult position but he is not a victim. Garland should be the justice and we should not be writing these words because he should not be testifying.
Why are we supposed to ignore Garland and the theft of the seat? Are all republicans always victims? Is everything "just politics" when people disagree with republicans in power? I believe we already know how he will rule on the issues set forth in the article. Guns--in defense of; travel ban--in defense of; holding Trump accountable? What's the problem? And he "can't get involved in politics." Well, Neil, wrong job then because so far, looking at your record, that's all you have been involved with--politics.
As for the words he speaks, why consider them? I can just look at his record. He is a corporatist, his view on religion is beyond the mainstream with regard to what religion is supposed to mean, that is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I believe that is a basic tenet of his and the faith of those he supports who insist on being in control of others with whom they disagree and those who demand to be able to discriminate against others with whom they disagree.
He is in a difficult position but he is not a victim. Garland should be the justice and we should not be writing these words because he should not be testifying.
Why are we supposed to ignore Garland and the theft of the seat? Are all republicans always victims? Is everything "just politics" when people disagree with republicans in power? I believe we already know how he will rule on the issues set forth in the article. Guns--in defense of; travel ban--in defense of; holding Trump accountable? What's the problem? And he "can't get involved in politics." Well, Neil, wrong job then because so far, looking at your record, that's all you have been involved with--politics.
15
Judge Gorsuch elevates the quality of Supreme Court to greater, new heights. Judge Gorsuch makes me wish we could recall all other justices, and nominate new ones who are as qualified and judicially intelligent as him.
I was particularly interested in his views on legislative penumbra and originalist interpretation. I think that Judge Gorsuch will interpret the second amendment very differently than Justice Scalia did. I specifically think he will give due weight and consideration to the phrase "well regulated militia", that it truly deserves.
How do we get the Supreme Court to relook at its egregious ruling on the second amendment ?
I was particularly interested in his views on legislative penumbra and originalist interpretation. I think that Judge Gorsuch will interpret the second amendment very differently than Justice Scalia did. I specifically think he will give due weight and consideration to the phrase "well regulated militia", that it truly deserves.
How do we get the Supreme Court to relook at its egregious ruling on the second amendment ?
3
The "prenumbra" of the Constitution is the entire body of human powers and capabilities. Only a limited set of these have been delegated by the people to the government to be exercised for the common benefit.
1
@Steve Bolger
Are you saying that the American people get to tell our government what they can legislate and what they cannot ?
I do not remember Americans granting the government permission for surveillance, even incidentally, on citizens or a President-elect.
Are you saying that the American people get to tell our government what they can legislate and what they cannot ?
I do not remember Americans granting the government permission for surveillance, even incidentally, on citizens or a President-elect.
The fact that this guy was allowed to have a hearing, while Obama nominee last year didn't, is proof enough of how worthless the Democratic Party is.
2
Exactly how are the Democrats going to stop anything if they are in the minority in both the House and the Senate?
Very sad that no one seems to know basic civics anymore.
Very sad that no one seems to know basic civics anymore.
2
It is a measure of how the distortions of apportionment in this nation of lies cheat liberals of any power at all.
1
It's called a "filibuster".
On going through the confirmation hearing, I see Judge Gorsuch as a fair and able person to hold the position of Judge in U.S. Supreme court.
I endorse Judge Gorsuch's refusal to answer questions about abortion and gun rights. It is a hypothetical question. A Judge is not a politician to answer any question, left, right and center. A judge decides a case based on materials placed before him in the form of documents, evidence etc. A politician may withdraw his statement or change his stand later. But a judgment given by a judge will be quoted as precedent unless is overruled by a higher court. Being Supreme court, the highest court of land, any judgment from it cannot be overruled. At best, it could be reviewed by a larger Bench.
Let not Democrats make an issue of whatever Trump administration does. Let his nomination sail through.
I endorse Judge Gorsuch's refusal to answer questions about abortion and gun rights. It is a hypothetical question. A Judge is not a politician to answer any question, left, right and center. A judge decides a case based on materials placed before him in the form of documents, evidence etc. A politician may withdraw his statement or change his stand later. But a judgment given by a judge will be quoted as precedent unless is overruled by a higher court. Being Supreme court, the highest court of land, any judgment from it cannot be overruled. At best, it could be reviewed by a larger Bench.
Let not Democrats make an issue of whatever Trump administration does. Let his nomination sail through.
4
Neil Gorsuch will be the first of many judges who President Trump will appoint to the Supreme Court over the next 8 years. Thank you.
4
Of course, that's assuming he lasts 8 years. Thank you.
7
We'll all go to war trying to force religion on each other under the judicial guidance of Trump's appointees.
3
Super cute you think Trump will make it through his first term, much less be elected for another.
2
Want to know more about Neil Gorsuch? Here's a link to a recent article in the Columbia Spectator, with links to articles about/op-eds by Gorsuch during his undergraduate years. I'm a Columbia alum who attended grad school/law school at the same time that Gorsuch attended Columbia College. I searched the Spectator web site after reading Gorsuch's bio in yesterday's NYT and realizing for the first time: "OMG, he's THAT Neil Gorsuch!"
http://spc.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/2017/02/01/columnist-would-be-...
http://spc.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/2017/02/01/columnist-would-be-...
6
Gorsuch has to actually say 'no man is above the law'? That's like confirming that the earth is round. The smarts bar is hugging the bottom; an ant couldn't crawl under. To maintain some sanity we're distancing ourselves from intelligence, truthfulness, morality and plain-speak. We now interpret and translate trump's every action back to that of a child. Maybe that's the only level by way to communicate in a language he may understand. Maybe.
4
Any judge who denies that money determines the outcomes of litigation in the US has to be brain dead.
1
Gorsuch should be given a fair hearing, right after Garland is confirmed.
14
Democrat Senators didn't put a dent in him. To me, he comes off as very conservative/technical in his approach to deciding cases, even nerdy, but he is clearly qualified and will be confirmed. End of story.
7
Define "qualified." All the right Ivy League schools and clerkships? what about a sense of compassion, broad life experiences, someone who can think outside the legal box.
2
It's not the role of a judge to have "feelings" about a case. His life experiences should have no bearing on a case. His job is to interpret the law as it is written.
3
He got his doctorate from Oxford and clerked for John F.Kennedy's appointment, and fellow Coloradoan, Byron White.
He's not from the Bronx. He's a middle class kid from Colorado. If confirmed, he will be the only westerner on the court. There is something to be said for that, including the fact that he has experience dealing with aboriginal issues.
If by "think outside the legal box", you are asking whether he's going to be a legal activist and visionary, I think it unlikely. In today's hearing, he came off as having a fairly narrow view about the role of judges. I'm not a fan of the legal philosophy he seems to espouse, but it is well within the mainstream.
He's not from the Bronx. He's a middle class kid from Colorado. If confirmed, he will be the only westerner on the court. There is something to be said for that, including the fact that he has experience dealing with aboriginal issues.
If by "think outside the legal box", you are asking whether he's going to be a legal activist and visionary, I think it unlikely. In today's hearing, he came off as having a fairly narrow view about the role of judges. I'm not a fan of the legal philosophy he seems to espouse, but it is well within the mainstream.
2
When it comes to politics and the law, Republicans are always eating the lunch of Democrats. And Democrats scream and cry and then do nothing about preventing it from happening again.
5
A Jesuit on the Supreme Court. Something to look forward to for the next thirty years.
3
Cut the anti-Catholicism please
6
Wow, what a mess Trump has wrought. The Democrats are right to go through the established procedure with Gorsuch and hear him out, but this is not an ordinary time. Under no circumstances should the Democrats sanction the illegitimate process that will bring the Gorsuch nomination to a vote by actually voting. Nor should they waste a filibuster. Schumer's position that no vote should take place as long as a criminal investigation hangs over the Trump Administration, is a proper course of action to follow. But even without that, this is a crucial moment for Democrats to withhold a vote and walk out of the chamber in protest on whatever day a vote is scheduled to be held. All the party faithful wants to see is party leadership act in unison on principle without compromise at crucial moments like this.
9
That "principle" (walking out) would do any group of kindergarteners proud. Just abstain.
2
This will drone on for another week or two and then he will be confirmed. The Russian narrative will probably drone on for another six months and then Comey will have to come forward with the conclusion that the FBI has nothing. President Trump will fundamentally transform the federal government and the Democrats simply do not have the votes to stop it.
7
If the FBI comes to any conclusion about anything, it'll be that they have nothing on Trump's unsubstantiated wiretap allegations.
The Democrats simply have to bide their time until this House of Cards falls...
The Democrats simply have to bide their time until this House of Cards falls...
1
As long as the Democrats bide their time for eight years and then another eight years for President Pence I am fine with them doing so.
It sounds superficial, I know, but getting past that "smile" of his is difficult. Notice the air quotes.
8
Oh no. I haven't watched any clips of him, but if he's anything like DeVos, I'm terrified.
1
If anything, he's more smug than Scalia was, and I didn't think that was possible.
3
Gorsuch is a parasite. If he had any decency, he would have refused to have the nomination to another judge. He is basically a careerist who is hiding behind a facade of politesse. Just like Judge Roberts, polite on the outside but what did we get from him - a straight (almost) always conservative line. And Constitutional original-ism is a backward idea that makes no sense. Where would this country be if we always looked backward. Let him stay where he is.
8
Amazing what we all say in a job interview and that we don't really mean!
7
The Democrats need to stand as one and do everything in their power to block this nomination.
10
I agree, but what could they possibly do?
Judge Gorsuch argues that the Constitution's language doesn't change, only the world around us changes. This is the problem with the concept of originalism. Judge Gorsuch and other originalists have said that they are bound by the the language of the founding fathers. But while the language of the Constitution, the words on the parchment, doesn't change, meaning--particularly after about 250 year--does change, and sometimes not subtly. What early Americans considered a gun, for example, is very different than what Americans today understand a gun to be.
By the very word interpretation, originalists signal that they are attempting to "translate" old American English into modern English and ideas. There is always a gap, a division in translation--in this case between old and new language, so it is essentially impossible to truly bridge it. Any interpretation other than the original words themselves causes a gap, a change in meaning.
That doesn't mean judges can simply write what they want, make decisions with bizarre logic. Most judges interpret the law as they understand it, with deep understanding and in good faith. That's why in our founding fathers' collective wisdom, they created layers of courts to check and balance poor legal decisions.
That's how I interpret it.
By the very word interpretation, originalists signal that they are attempting to "translate" old American English into modern English and ideas. There is always a gap, a division in translation--in this case between old and new language, so it is essentially impossible to truly bridge it. Any interpretation other than the original words themselves causes a gap, a change in meaning.
That doesn't mean judges can simply write what they want, make decisions with bizarre logic. Most judges interpret the law as they understand it, with deep understanding and in good faith. That's why in our founding fathers' collective wisdom, they created layers of courts to check and balance poor legal decisions.
That's how I interpret it.
3
The seat belongs to Garland. Period.
If the Republican get away with theft - the precedent is set.
If in 2018 the Democrats take over the Senate and a seat on the court opens up, they have a legitimate argument that the next President should fill the seat. What is the difference between waiting 11 months or 23 months?? Obama still had 25% of his Presidency remaining. He was still the President. His pick should be on the Count already. A can of worms has been opened and the Republicans will not be in control for too much longer. Pay back is coming.
If the Republican get away with theft - the precedent is set.
If in 2018 the Democrats take over the Senate and a seat on the court opens up, they have a legitimate argument that the next President should fill the seat. What is the difference between waiting 11 months or 23 months?? Obama still had 25% of his Presidency remaining. He was still the President. His pick should be on the Count already. A can of worms has been opened and the Republicans will not be in control for too much longer. Pay back is coming.
6
No better way to illustrate how our brave new country has changed: it is now headline material -- and considered a cause for relief -- when a prospective Supreme Court justice says “No man is above the law.”
7
But is the law even sane in the US?
Neil Gorsuch is so popular there are millions (10 or so I think) of dollars lobbying to get him appointed to pronounce judgement over our country.
Dark money is bribing Congress to appoint our new Supreme Court Justice. Congress is being bribed to appoint a judge?
How do you like that America?
Dark money is bribing Congress to appoint our new Supreme Court Justice. Congress is being bribed to appoint a judge?
How do you like that America?
10
No man is above the law ... except the Republicans in Congress who refused to obey their constitutional duty to vote on Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
15
On NPR Nina Totenberg found some of his replies "disingenuous" and "remarkably unresponsive." Even his response on torture was less than straightforward, despite Lindsay Graham's theatrical attempt at spin.
Instead of the Democrats (and the NYT) throwing in the towel, please at least force this unfortunate game into overtime. Citizens Unite was a disaster for good government and contrary to Mr Gorsuch the privacy needs of donors do not outweigh the urgent need for transparency in politics.
Instead of the Democrats (and the NYT) throwing in the towel, please at least force this unfortunate game into overtime. Citizens Unite was a disaster for good government and contrary to Mr Gorsuch the privacy needs of donors do not outweigh the urgent need for transparency in politics.
12
And no Democrat was savvy enough to ask Gorsuch what he thinks of the Emoluments Clause ... as he is such a great 'Originalist." Disappointing.
7
I hope that the Democrats stand up and say no. The Republicans should not be allowed to stop Obama's pick.
3
I am glad the Judge Gorsuch retains confidence in the judicial system, but Trump has managed to use his money to keep the law far enough from himself to think that he is above the law. Most very wealthy people do manage to escape the legal entanglements which most other people cannot avoid so easily.
2
Justice is auctioned to the highest bidder, just as law is, in this nation that puts a $ value on everything.
5
While no man is above the law, it might have been useful to try to pin down whether Judge Gorsuch believes the law (the Constitution) gives the President unlimited authority under certain conditions. In other words, is there anything that the President can not legally do in special conditions (presumably that the President gets to define)?
If a person doesn't believe that whatever a Republican president does or orders is legal, they aren't a real Republican.
2
I found Gorsuch's sanctimonious line of self-flattery disguised as "aw shucks" downhome wisdom to be nauseating. His contorted ballet of half-baked aphorisms posing as straight answers had his Republican softball pitchers swooning.
A white entitlement jamboree masquerading as advise and consent.
Bring on the filibuster. Please.
A white entitlement jamboree masquerading as advise and consent.
Bring on the filibuster. Please.
14
That's our seat. This is war.
5
The Republicans don't even consider non-Republicans citizens.
3
It's not "your" seat - it belongs to all of us.
Let us know how the war works out.
Let us know how the war works out.
6
There's no more "all of us", Carl. You permanently divided us. There is no unity, so stop pretending. Get used to it.
3
I keep reading comments that he is "fair." If my rights to my own body are taken away, I'm not going to see that as "fair." If my employer can take my job away if I become pregnant and have the child, I'm not going to see that as "fair." It sounds like with Gorsuch, no man is above the law, and no woman is protected by it.
14
"Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the committee, also pressed Judge Gorsuch for his views on precedent generally, naming a few cases, including a Second Amendment case and the matter of Bush v. Gore.
“I know some people in this room have some opinions on that,” Judge Gorsuch joked, declining to outline firm positions.
The nominee likened precedents to “our shared family history as judges.”
“As a good judge, you don’t approach that question anew as if it has never been decided,” he added."
So he's saying that as a judge he HAS to assume that all decisions that all judges have made from this moment backward into the past are 100% accurate. Bizarre.
“I know some people in this room have some opinions on that,” Judge Gorsuch joked, declining to outline firm positions.
The nominee likened precedents to “our shared family history as judges.”
“As a good judge, you don’t approach that question anew as if it has never been decided,” he added."
So he's saying that as a judge he HAS to assume that all decisions that all judges have made from this moment backward into the past are 100% accurate. Bizarre.
Past is Prologue and Gorsuch's past rulings paint him as a right winger. He talks the good talk and he plays the role of the perfect nominee well but....he's got two right arms. Democrats should mount a full court press against this Trumper.
6
Judge Gorsuch is qualified, but that is not relevant to me at this point in time. What is relevant is that the person who should be going through this process is equally qualified Judge Garland. Judge Gorsuch is an illegitimate candidate, and Democrats should block his nomination to demonstrate to Mitch McConnell that Democrats can use the same slimy tactics as Republicans. Just as Judge Garland was collateral damage, so should Judge Gorsuch. Otherwise, Republicans are going to use the same dirty and unethical tactics in the future.
If the Republicans change the rules for confirmation due to a lack of votes to confirm Judge Gorsuch, so be it. It will reinforce how unethical Mr. McConnell is, and will set a precedent for when the Democrats are back in power - if the Republicans in the majority don't create a police state in the meantime.
If the Republicans change the rules for confirmation due to a lack of votes to confirm Judge Gorsuch, so be it. It will reinforce how unethical Mr. McConnell is, and will set a precedent for when the Democrats are back in power - if the Republicans in the majority don't create a police state in the meantime.
8
I feel as though many people praising Gorsuch, or even giving him a pass in the hearings, are subconsciously doing it on the basis of his looks. As one earlier NYT article pointed out, he is right out of "central casting" : tall, handsome, white, married to a supportive wife, and with a head of hair that suggests experience and wisdom. The quintessential 'All-American' image.
To be fair, his educational, and judicial record more than qualify him. But the same platitudes of 'confidence', 'strong presence', and 'independence' are being doled out while he himself has said very little. Furthermore, this was also not said of plainer looking folk like Merrick Garland, or worse, women, like Hilary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. They have similar, if not more substantial, educational, and political, accomplishments as Gorsuch, yet do not get the benefit of the doubt.
Just because he looks the part doesn't mean he should get a free-pass in these hearings, or that the tough questions in the hearings emanate from bitterness on behalf of the democrats. If confirmed, Gorsuch could be making important judicial decisions that will impact a lot of people, something which requires more than just looking the part.
To be fair, his educational, and judicial record more than qualify him. But the same platitudes of 'confidence', 'strong presence', and 'independence' are being doled out while he himself has said very little. Furthermore, this was also not said of plainer looking folk like Merrick Garland, or worse, women, like Hilary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. They have similar, if not more substantial, educational, and political, accomplishments as Gorsuch, yet do not get the benefit of the doubt.
Just because he looks the part doesn't mean he should get a free-pass in these hearings, or that the tough questions in the hearings emanate from bitterness on behalf of the democrats. If confirmed, Gorsuch could be making important judicial decisions that will impact a lot of people, something which requires more than just looking the part.
4
"the president isn't above the law" and it makes a headline. That's pretty much where we've come to.
5
Every SC nomination hearing in the 30 years since that of Robert Bork has been a sham, a con job. The popular narrative, of course, is that Democrats "politicized" the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork over his refusal to endorse the logic underlying the Court's Roe v. Wade decision, and that Republicans ever since have sought to shield their nominees from such "politicization." What that narrative leaves out is that there were many good reasons to question Bork's fitness to serve on the Court, not least of which was the willingness with which he enabled and carried Nixon's infamous Saturday Night Massacre, For those too young to remember, that was when Nixon ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. When Richardson refused, Nixon fired him. And when the deputy AG likewise refused and resigned in protest, Nixon had his solicitor general, Robert Bork, sworn in as Attorney General, and immediately fired Cox. Bork's role in that affair, by itself, should have disqualified Bork from consideration for the SC.
In any case, SC nominees ever since have refused to answer even benign and abstract legal questions during their confirmation hearings. It is, frankly, a disgrace.
In any case, SC nominees ever since have refused to answer even benign and abstract legal questions during their confirmation hearings. It is, frankly, a disgrace.
3
The awful citizens united supreme court decision was endorsed by Gorsuch. Enough said. Trump's deeply divisive and short sighted move must be blocked.
7
We should be having impeachment hearings instead of appointment hearings. The lie accusing an upright man with no evidence that is then proven to be a lie is grounds for those charges.
How can we accept a SCOTUS appointment from this embarrassment of a president.
If the R's wouldn't even give Judge Garland a hearing for almost a year , we need to reject any appointment at least 'till the investigation of collusion with a foreign enemy is concluded. Benedict Arnold Trump must be rejected on every issue.
Every congress person will carry the shame of this president if they do not ask Mr. Trump for a public apology to our citizens and to President Obama.
How can we accept a SCOTUS appointment from this embarrassment of a president.
If the R's wouldn't even give Judge Garland a hearing for almost a year , we need to reject any appointment at least 'till the investigation of collusion with a foreign enemy is concluded. Benedict Arnold Trump must be rejected on every issue.
Every congress person will carry the shame of this president if they do not ask Mr. Trump for a public apology to our citizens and to President Obama.
11
an eye for an eye politics. that works well for the country.
3
Trump will absolutely ruin the federal judiciary with judges who indulge specious plaintiffs engaged in judicial harassment in just two years.
1
"It's showtime!"
As with Scalia, Alito, Thomas, the result is inevitable.
What makes this such a bitter pill to swallow is the Republican majority's failure to meet its job description and responsibility by refusing to hold a hearing on President Obama's legally tendered nominee...
As with Scalia, Alito, Thomas, the result is inevitable.
What makes this such a bitter pill to swallow is the Republican majority's failure to meet its job description and responsibility by refusing to hold a hearing on President Obama's legally tendered nominee...
6
These preposterously presumptuous people deny that we have any right to be in this country, even as native-born, for seeing though their lies, deceits and frauds.
3
Why don't the Senators ask Judge Gorsuch Law questions? Why do we have a 1st Amendment, a 2nd Amendment, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.? He can hide his views when asked about specific cases. But your correspondent Linda Greenhouse describes a question Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ilinois) posed to Prof Bork during his failed confirmation hearing. And when Simon asked whether expanding liberty for one expands liberty for all, Bork denied that it does. And Bork failed.
My question to Judge Gorsuch: does The 13th Amendment clause permitting enslavement for crimes apply to the children or spouses of the criminals as slavery was interpreted by the Framers?
That is, as collateral damage of sentences served by a family member can deprive his or her children of material needs as a consequence of non-support, so does the Judge believe that damage of a sentence to innocent family members is just under the 13th?
My question to Judge Gorsuch: does The 13th Amendment clause permitting enslavement for crimes apply to the children or spouses of the criminals as slavery was interpreted by the Framers?
That is, as collateral damage of sentences served by a family member can deprive his or her children of material needs as a consequence of non-support, so does the Judge believe that damage of a sentence to innocent family members is just under the 13th?
2
Ask the bloody dissimulating con-artist what powers are reserved to the people, if any.
1
so because we hate trump, the questions and procedures should be different?. Didn't dems also unanimously approve him for his current judgeship? should, because we hate trump and he nominated him assume he is no longer the same person we previously felt was qualified
3
Thank you Hillary for handing the Supreme Court over to conservatives for the next thirty years. It was not your fault. It was your turn Hillary because your the most qualified women ever. If it wasn't for Comey, Barzil, Shultz, Podesta, and Russia you would have had a landslide just like you did with Bernie Sanders.
4
Baloney. She was such a bad candidate she lost to Donald Trump. No energy, no passion.
2
@Josh
Correction. She didn't lose to Trump.
She lost to the antiquated Electoral College.
And she won by 3 MILLION votes! -- there's your passion.
Correction. She didn't lose to Trump.
She lost to the antiquated Electoral College.
And she won by 3 MILLION votes! -- there's your passion.
5
In any other country, if the President were under investigation for election fraud and treason in collusion with a hostile foreign power - and therefore the legitimacy of both the election and his right to that office are highly suspect at best - there would be calls for a new election, with huge demonstrations.
THAT's what we should be doing. THAT's what the Democrats in Congress and Democrats, progressives, and independents everywhere else should be doing.
NOT considering this hand-picked-by-Koch brothers rightwing extremist for the Supreme Court - a lifetime position! - with less due diligence than choosing a new cellphone carrier.
Not unless you're OK with turning this country into the Corporate Kleptocracy and Oligarchy of America for decades or generations to come.
Whether or not Gorsuch is "qualified" is irrelevant - the person who nominated him is not qualified. He's not our legitimate, lawfully elected President and is therefore does not have the authority to nominate him.
THAT's what we should be doing. THAT's what the Democrats in Congress and Democrats, progressives, and independents everywhere else should be doing.
NOT considering this hand-picked-by-Koch brothers rightwing extremist for the Supreme Court - a lifetime position! - with less due diligence than choosing a new cellphone carrier.
Not unless you're OK with turning this country into the Corporate Kleptocracy and Oligarchy of America for decades or generations to come.
Whether or not Gorsuch is "qualified" is irrelevant - the person who nominated him is not qualified. He's not our legitimate, lawfully elected President and is therefore does not have the authority to nominate him.
12
Yes! I wish Congress thought the way you do.
1
And I wish the Americans who voted for him thought the way you do...But when that G.O.P. health plan kicks into action, and they get the first bill -- they'll get there.
3
The Gorsuch nomination should be held up until the FBI has completed the investigation into Trump campaign and administration ties to Russia. Other nominations were held up for far less.
7
It's unfortunate for Democrats that instead of reflecting on the reasons for their disastrous political fortunes during the Obama years, many of them just want to carry on about the (admittedly unjust, but perfectly legal) treatment of Merrick Garland and the absurd claims that the 2016 presidential election was stolen. This suggests that they're going to be out of power for a long time to come.
6
Just a quick reminder:Those "disasterous political fortunes" you refer to, were brought about in great part by the previous administration of GW Bush.
Or, do you think that recession started itself on the day Obama was inaugurated?
Or, do you think that recession started itself on the day Obama was inaugurated?
2
Yes, he is smooth but Gorsuch is lying like Roberts. Conservatives, deceive, distort and manipulate to win. Hasn't that become obvious yet? Apparently not!
4
I see your point, but I feel that Justice Roberts has more integrity as a human being. Yes, I know - Citizens United (not! good) but there's still more essential goodness there, in my opinion.
1
He looks straight from central casting, for the role as " judge ". Judicial Apprentice. So very trumpian.
5
I have a problem with a judge who would defend his trucker's decision. I have a problem with a judge who would not condemn waterboarding. The problem with language is defending originalist thought. It always comes down on the the side of a constitution that seems to favor the rights of money before humanity. We are a deeply conservative country defending deeply conservative ideas. We go kicking and screaming into the courtly night of humanity.
7
Judge Gorsuch may be a decent fellow and an honorable man from a conservative perspective, but the process of the Senate's advise and consent is severely contaminated on 2 counts and should not be allowed to proceed until 2 matters are settled:
1. Mitch McConnell and the GOP's political refusal to even let the Senate consider President Obama's nomination of Garland, nominated by Obama a year ago on March 16, 2016--8 months before the November 2016 election. That political stonewalling set an extremely bad precedent for future presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, and the Democrats should refuse to participate in the Gorsuch hearings until the nomination of Garland is settled legally.
2. President Trump is under FBI investigation and could be impeached. If President Obama was not allowed to have his nominee considered, why should a president who is under FBI investigation and perhaps a "short-timer" be given any deference?
1. Mitch McConnell and the GOP's political refusal to even let the Senate consider President Obama's nomination of Garland, nominated by Obama a year ago on March 16, 2016--8 months before the November 2016 election. That political stonewalling set an extremely bad precedent for future presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, and the Democrats should refuse to participate in the Gorsuch hearings until the nomination of Garland is settled legally.
2. President Trump is under FBI investigation and could be impeached. If President Obama was not allowed to have his nominee considered, why should a president who is under FBI investigation and perhaps a "short-timer" be given any deference?
6
Judge Gorsuch said that "no one from the White House asked him to make any commitments on legal issues that could come before him on the Supreme Court."
What about his billionaire, ultra-conservative promoters, including Phil Anschutz? Ask him that.
What about his billionaire, ultra-conservative promoters, including Phil Anschutz? Ask him that.
4
Here's a question that DEMANDS to be asked:
Judge Gorsuch,you deflected a question about Judge Garland, saying you couldn't get into political matters, but this is not political. You are a strict constructionist whose overriding principle is to adhere to the intentions of the founders as you interpret them. Do you believe refusing to give a hearing for ten months to a nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court in order to hold it open comports with the intention of the founders and a strict construction of the Constitution?
Judge Gorsuch,you deflected a question about Judge Garland, saying you couldn't get into political matters, but this is not political. You are a strict constructionist whose overriding principle is to adhere to the intentions of the founders as you interpret them. Do you believe refusing to give a hearing for ten months to a nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court in order to hold it open comports with the intention of the founders and a strict construction of the Constitution?
5
If, as expected, Judge Gorsuch says "Yes, the senate's not holding hearings leading to advise and consent for ten months is within the intent of the founders," as he surely would, then follow up by asking...
Judge, is there a time, any length of time, the senate's failure to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court exceeds the intention of the founders and the constitution when they and it call(s) for the senate to do so...and if there is, what is that length of time and, strict constructionist that you are, on what do you base your answer?
Judge, is there a time, any length of time, the senate's failure to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court exceeds the intention of the founders and the constitution when they and it call(s) for the senate to do so...and if there is, what is that length of time and, strict constructionist that you are, on what do you base your answer?
No man should be above the law, but some, like Mr. Trump have seemed to get away with a lot. How he has avoided contempt of court charges, fraud, theft of wages, contact violations, etc. I cannot fully grasp... though he clearly knows when he has to settle out of court or declare bankruptcy. I have to give him credit for that. Rich people do manage to get away with many things that poorer people clearly do not. Does this mean they are above the law? or simply that the law is inconsistently applied?
3
"No man is above the law,” he said." Even those who defame others?
2
Gorsuch could be the "gold standard" in judicial prudence, but two things jump out at me:
1. Obama, the sitting president with almost one year left in his term, was denied his Constitutional right to name Scalia's successor to the court. This alone should ring some bells for Gorsuch, who has said that he respects the law and the Constitution of the United States.
2. The current president is being investigated by the FBI and our security apparatus. This should ring all of the bells, whistles, and alarms and be just as valid a reason for not naming a judge at this time to our Supreme Court. Maybe it's even a more important reason to suspend hearings at this time.
1. Obama, the sitting president with almost one year left in his term, was denied his Constitutional right to name Scalia's successor to the court. This alone should ring some bells for Gorsuch, who has said that he respects the law and the Constitution of the United States.
2. The current president is being investigated by the FBI and our security apparatus. This should ring all of the bells, whistles, and alarms and be just as valid a reason for not naming a judge at this time to our Supreme Court. Maybe it's even a more important reason to suspend hearings at this time.
5
The Republican majority has disabled their bells and whistles apps.
1
Some of the biggest waste of time and resources I have ever seen. The senate is incompetent and ineffective. Those asking questions that clearly have either been answered or should not be answered should have their time removed. He should have been voted on in the senate already, this is just all political theater that I don't know how anybody would stand for.
3
While I do have sympathy that Judge Garland was Bidened I do not think Judge Gorsuch will be Borked.
And since the Democrats Reided the filibuster in 2013 it seems Judge Gorsuch is a shoe in for the Supreme Court.
And since the Democrats Reided the filibuster in 2013 it seems Judge Gorsuch is a shoe in for the Supreme Court.
6
This is silly. Of course Gorsuch doesn't have to make any promises about how he'll rule. We already know he's against civil rights that aren't specifically listed in the Constitution. We also know he's for corporations before people.
He will without a doubt swing the court far to the right and away from the will of the nation. But hey, the angry, uninformed trump base will love him. And their evil overlords, the Koch brothers, will be extatic.
He will without a doubt swing the court far to the right and away from the will of the nation. But hey, the angry, uninformed trump base will love him. And their evil overlords, the Koch brothers, will be extatic.
3
"No man is above the law, but only some get to make the law and they make it to favor those like themselves." We need to divest ourselves of any quaint notion that the making and application of "the law" is ever value-neutral, ideologically -transparent and nonpartisan.
The "originalism" theories propounded by Gorsuch and Scalia have never been concepts followed by any of the most august, honored justices in the last 230 years. Interpreting the law through the eyes of men long dead is simply an invitation to decide without regard to two centuries of precedent. And one could reach reactionary results: Does the word "arms" mean that we have the right only to bear muskets? That's originalism, but the NRA wouldn't buy that argument. Gorsuch is a wolf in sheeps clothing: smart and polished, but he doesn't believe in any of the progressive ideas that have protected women and their bodies, LGBTs and their right to marry, and he will not protect voter's rights, transgender rights, environmental rights, or workers' rights. Yes, "left" and "right" may mean little to him, but be assured, his is a regressive look through eyes that, like Scalia, believes that the hand of God wrote the Constitution. His god, not yours or mine. The Democrats should stand united and filibuster this nomination. 41 nays, PLEASE.
3
I know there are so many issues to debate, as other commenters have listed, but I just can't get past Gorsuch's cruel ruling against a man who could have died had he not abandoned his trucking company's trailer. From CNN:
"The driver called in again, but this time a dispatcher warned him not to leave the freezing truck. He called the dispatcher again, saying he couldn't feel his feet and was having trouble breathing."
With this icy cruelty, Gorsuch makes Scalia look like Santa Claus.
"The driver called in again, but this time a dispatcher warned him not to leave the freezing truck. He called the dispatcher again, saying he couldn't feel his feet and was having trouble breathing."
With this icy cruelty, Gorsuch makes Scalia look like Santa Claus.
7
This man will say anything to get the job. Clarence Thomas, a PRODUCT of affirmative action, turned against affirmative action, the exact mechanism that got him where he sits today, once he got his place on the Supreme Court. I don't believe for ONE MINUTE anything this man has to say. Please, spare me.
2
Gorsuch is an extremist. He shares Bannon's goal of 'deconstructing' the laws that protect our health, the environment, workers, and family bank accounts.
Gorsuch was only appointed because of his ties to a billionaire Republican. He was not appointed on his own merits.
Gorsuch's statement that there are no Republican judges or Democratic Judges is a bald-faced lie. Yes there are. Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are all Republicans. They decide the outcome of a case ideologically and then twist the law to support their conclusion.
Gorsuch will overturn regulations for environmental protection and pharmaceuticals.
Gorsuch will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade so the govt can force a woman to have babies.
Gorsuch will also vote to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges so states do not have to recognize same sex marriage.
Elections do have consequences.
The ignorance of voters can result in the end of a Republic. We are presently facing the demise of our Republic now.
Gorsuch was only appointed because of his ties to a billionaire Republican. He was not appointed on his own merits.
Gorsuch's statement that there are no Republican judges or Democratic Judges is a bald-faced lie. Yes there are. Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are all Republicans. They decide the outcome of a case ideologically and then twist the law to support their conclusion.
Gorsuch will overturn regulations for environmental protection and pharmaceuticals.
Gorsuch will vote to reverse Roe v. Wade so the govt can force a woman to have babies.
Gorsuch will also vote to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges so states do not have to recognize same sex marriage.
Elections do have consequences.
The ignorance of voters can result in the end of a Republic. We are presently facing the demise of our Republic now.
6
Rule against any person, especially an ignorant megalomaniacal president? I think that would likely occur.
1
I am one of the strongest opponents of Trump and the RNC.
But this Judge Gorsuch far exceeds any bar of intellect, humility and knowledge.
Just denying and pre judging because of what Republicans did to our nominee is wrong.
At the end of the day two wrongs does not make it right.
But this Judge Gorsuch far exceeds any bar of intellect, humility and knowledge.
Just denying and pre judging because of what Republicans did to our nominee is wrong.
At the end of the day two wrongs does not make it right.
5
Has anyone brought up how the Senate refused for some 10 months to hold hearings on Merrick Garland? You know, Gorsuch's fellow judicial brethren who should be holding the seat on the Supreme Court?
For example, if Gorsuch is so fierce a supporter of the judiciary being an independent, co-equal branch of government, how is it that he is allowing the legislative and executive branches to manipulate it in the way they did? Why doesn't he decline the nomination on behalf of judicial independence?
For example, if Gorsuch is so fierce a supporter of the judiciary being an independent, co-equal branch of government, how is it that he is allowing the legislative and executive branches to manipulate it in the way they did? Why doesn't he decline the nomination on behalf of judicial independence?
55
Judicial brother, not brethren.
No one manipulated anything. The Senate's not scheduling hearings for Garland was as much in line with the Constitution as Mr. Obama's nominating him. Maybe there should be an amendment to impose time limits, but that's not going to happen in the current political climate.
No one manipulated anything. The Senate's not scheduling hearings for Garland was as much in line with the Constitution as Mr. Obama's nominating him. Maybe there should be an amendment to impose time limits, but that's not going to happen in the current political climate.
2
I concede the minor grammatical point Carl. I'm fairly sure it doesn't add anything to the substance of your comment, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.
I am using "manipulate" in the well-accepted sense of "to adapt or change to suit one's purpose or advantage." If that isn't a fitting description of McConnell's and the Republican's unprecedented delay in holding confirmation hearings, for purely political motives, I don't know what is.
I am using "manipulate" in the well-accepted sense of "to adapt or change to suit one's purpose or advantage." If that isn't a fitting description of McConnell's and the Republican's unprecedented delay in holding confirmation hearings, for purely political motives, I don't know what is.
1
Dan88 brings up the questions: "If Gorsuch is so fierce a supporter of the judiciary being an independent, co-equal branch of government, how is it that he is allowing the legislative and executive branches to manipulate it in the way they did? Why doesn't he decline the nomination on behalf of judicial independence?"
These are the questions I've been asking myself all along. And I believe that they get at the question of the Constitutionality of what the Republican Senate did last year. A question that should not remain unanswered because it is supposedly "political" in nature, thus preventing Gorsuch from responding.
I believe they get at the heart of our Constitution to prevent such abuses of power from one branch of Government, in this case the Legislative branch. I also believe it will show whether this judge has the courage to stand up against such forces, even if it were to his personal detriment.
These are the questions I've been asking myself all along. And I believe that they get at the question of the Constitutionality of what the Republican Senate did last year. A question that should not remain unanswered because it is supposedly "political" in nature, thus preventing Gorsuch from responding.
I believe they get at the heart of our Constitution to prevent such abuses of power from one branch of Government, in this case the Legislative branch. I also believe it will show whether this judge has the courage to stand up against such forces, even if it were to his personal detriment.
2
It seems to me that all of these "originalists" misunderstand the powers "reserved by the people". This is the "prenumbra" of the Constitution they like to blow smoke about. Gorsuch's views on euthanasia are specious because our power to decide to live or die are retained by we the people. The government simply lacks the authority to legislate it away from us. The Constitution lists only the delegated powers of government. Reserved powers of the people are not listed anywhere.
2
Why even discuss it. The seat is stolen and the person who appointed him is under investigation by the FBI. Enough.
11
Many of the questions raised by senators in this hearing, along with answers by judge Gorsuch, raised important points. I fear the appointment of another Scalia and its effects on the rights of the average American. However, it is clear that the problem is often not the judge, but the law to which the judge is bound. If we really want to make a difference, we need to be more active in who we elect as law-makers.
If we used as much scrutiny researching and electing the many members as Congress as we are for this single SC nomination, maybe we wouldn't feel such terror right now. We as citizens must be more active in local and state politics, instead of simply checking off one box during Presidential elections, thinking we've done our job and that the system will take care of the rest.
If we used as much scrutiny researching and electing the many members as Congress as we are for this single SC nomination, maybe we wouldn't feel such terror right now. We as citizens must be more active in local and state politics, instead of simply checking off one box during Presidential elections, thinking we've done our job and that the system will take care of the rest.
3
It is interesting that in an op-ed today, the author suggests that Gorsuch should be asked if the Constitution recognizes the fetus as a "person" subject to rights under the equal protection clause.
This is a bizarre question, just as meaningless as asking what point the Constitution defines as the beginning of life - conception, birth or something else. The Constitution is silent on both these matters and it up to the citizens of the US (directly or through their representatives) to decide via the democratic process. It is not a judicial decision.
This is a bizarre question, just as meaningless as asking what point the Constitution defines as the beginning of life - conception, birth or something else. The Constitution is silent on both these matters and it up to the citizens of the US (directly or through their representatives) to decide via the democratic process. It is not a judicial decision.
5
" No man is above the law"? He's wrong.
Reality is; the President is as Commander in Chief with the power of life and death without regard for law. The Congress that legislates and can repeal laws. The Judges who reinforce existing laws, set precedent which is de facto law, can vacate laws, and can render unto people death judgements contrary to our laws against killing. The police who kill people without just cause and get away with it.
Lots of Americans are above the law. I'm no lawyer and I know. Why doesn't Gorsuch?
Reality is; the President is as Commander in Chief with the power of life and death without regard for law. The Congress that legislates and can repeal laws. The Judges who reinforce existing laws, set precedent which is de facto law, can vacate laws, and can render unto people death judgements contrary to our laws against killing. The police who kill people without just cause and get away with it.
Lots of Americans are above the law. I'm no lawyer and I know. Why doesn't Gorsuch?
2
I'd love to see just one of the Democratic Senators on the committee begin each of their questions with "What do you think Judge Garland would think about…."
4
Teflon Don does not care about laws or judges, bad (or sick) guy if they dare cross him.
3
These hearings are a total charade. This guy is a right wing toadie. Period. Nominees ALWAYS assure the senators that they will be fair, every single one of them. This is a test of whether, at long last, the Dems have any principles. And, if they do, let's see whether McConnell then abandons the agreement he made with the Dems re the "nuclear option".
The whole thing is disgusting, befitting the seating of a fascist as president.
The whole thing is disgusting, befitting the seating of a fascist as president.
7
The trucker case is one of those you take home with you. Well he did, he took home the arguments, thought about them, then chose to write a stinging dissent, that completely ignored the truckers life or death predicament, to upheld the truck company's firing.
4
If Judge Garland's ill treatment was such a great wrong, why didn't Clinton promise to renominate him if she were elected? Why didn't Schumer and Leahy and Durbin demand it from Clinton? Why didn't the party platform include that? So much fake outrage. So much political posturing.
7
Wow, you built that argument out of a HUGE pile of straw.
3
This is a valid question. I never once heard Clinton support Garland, who seemed like a reasonable choice. I wish Trump would have re-nominated him in an effort to heal the wounds from the election..
1
How can we allow a President, whose team may have worked with an adversarial foreign government to place him in power, choose a member of the Supreme Court?
How can we allow it when his predecessor, an exemplary President with no scandal attached to his eight years in office, was denied his right to make a Supreme Court appointment for that same seat?
And who is better equipped to make such an appointment - an extremely competent President with seven years experience or an inexperienced rookie a few weeks into the job, who consistently demonstrates he is not up to the job and not interested in mastering it.
How can we allow it when his predecessor, an exemplary President with no scandal attached to his eight years in office, was denied his right to make a Supreme Court appointment for that same seat?
And who is better equipped to make such an appointment - an extremely competent President with seven years experience or an inexperienced rookie a few weeks into the job, who consistently demonstrates he is not up to the job and not interested in mastering it.
7
" I have offered no promises on how I would rule for Anyone."
Judge Gorsuch said.
I'm sure he is aware of his own views and those of the Administration.......
But he made no promises, I'm sure. That's how it works.
Judge Gorsuch said.
I'm sure he is aware of his own views and those of the Administration.......
But he made no promises, I'm sure. That's how it works.
3
Why do people keep referring back to Robert Bork's failed nomination as some sort of turning point? What happened to Bork (who was eminently UNqualified) was simply a rewind of what happened to Lyndon Johnson's nominees to the Supreme Court, Abe Fortas as Chief Justice to replace Earl Warren, and Homer Thornberry to take Fortas's Associate seat. Both of them were "Borked" by the Republicans long, LONG before Robert Bork. And, like Merrick Garland, Fortas and Thornberry had their legitimate seats stolen by the Republicans and awarded to empty suit Warren Berger and his close, dear friend, Harry Blackmun. Happily, Blackmun was a major disappointment to the GOP, but Nixon got 2 other picks as well, including William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell.
1
Only in the GOP sociopath mind was it a turning point.
1
Gorsuch will get his seat on SCOTUS. Then Justice Kennedy (whom Gorsuch clerked for) will retire. Kennedy is the swing vote who mostly votes conservative but occasionally swings liberal. Kennedy will be replaced by a reliable young conservative like Gorsuch. There will be a solid 5-4 conservative majority
Then the watch will begin on how long octogenarians RBG and Breyer can hang in there, and if not conservatives will expand their control.
Then the watch will begin on how long octogenarians RBG and Breyer can hang in there, and if not conservatives will expand their control.
2
Illegitimate pick, imagine the Repubs whining if this were a Dem.
Imagine the reaction if this was Hillary's pick.
Imagine the reaction if this was Hillary's pick.
4
Listening to Gorsuch's reply to Senator Franken's question as to how he could have ruled to uphold the firing of the truck driver was chilling. It may be admirable for a jurist to rule on the facts and the law, but this man's life was imperiled and, while Gorsuch is a competent judge, he's also a person who displayed an astonishing heartlessness for the circumstances of that situation.
11
The vacancy was hijacked. The election was hijacked. Don't reward the hijackers. Vote no.
7
I don't care what anyone else thinks, this guy has a lot of common sense. Politics shouldn't count on someone that is charged in deciding what is right and what is wrong.
7
Common sense? I listened to Gorsuch talk about the case involving the trucker. Given the circumstances of this case, Gorsuch not only demonstrated an appalling lack of common sense, he also displayed a disturbing lack of humanity both in his ruling and in his accounting of the case today. As far as a decision based on "what is right and what is wrong", well, I have no problem whatsoever deciding what is right here and it has nothing to do with politics.
1
Democratic senators, hear this loud and clear --
The only six words that are relevant here:
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
The only six words that are relevant here:
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
8
"can't comment on politics"
the real point to make to this (very qualified) "originalist" ...
He is only there being considered because congress ignored the clear "originalist" intent of the constitution and denied a sitting president consideration of a fully qualified candidate ... that is an abrogation of constitutional duty by congress ... if Gorsuch had respect for the the "original intent" of the constitution he would stand up and say "I'd be honored to be considered for this appointment after judge Garland stands before this body" ...
If he is confirmed - his position on the highest bench will always be partly fraudulent despite his obvious qualification. And our constitution and democracy will be diminished.
the real point to make to this (very qualified) "originalist" ...
He is only there being considered because congress ignored the clear "originalist" intent of the constitution and denied a sitting president consideration of a fully qualified candidate ... that is an abrogation of constitutional duty by congress ... if Gorsuch had respect for the the "original intent" of the constitution he would stand up and say "I'd be honored to be considered for this appointment after judge Garland stands before this body" ...
If he is confirmed - his position on the highest bench will always be partly fraudulent despite his obvious qualification. And our constitution and democracy will be diminished.
10
I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Trump sees the cable news reports of Gorsuch saying "no man is above the law".
6
No problem. Donald regards himself as a god.
2
No man is above the law, but whose law are you talking about? The Federalist Society?
3
Judge Neal Gorsuch has a lot of self confidence and a great presence. The Democrats are trying to intimidate him with their line of questioning but it is not working. He is very bright and is not easily flustered. He has a lot of experience and he comes across as extremely intelligent and very well spoken. He is not a puppet of President Trump and will not be swayed by anyone. He will make an excellent Supreme Court justice and will most likely be nominated. He is very impressive and should be allowed to sit on the bench.
27
As you back up few of your assertions, we'll have to take what you say at face value. You're impressed? Ok...
Who are you, again?
Who are you, again?
3
WMK my sentiments exactly.
I disagree with Trump but Gorsuch is no puppet.
He has a lot of common sense and knowledge unlike Trump.
Let the guy sit at the Supreme Court.
I disagree with Trump but Gorsuch is no puppet.
He has a lot of common sense and knowledge unlike Trump.
Let the guy sit at the Supreme Court.
2
@KMW - Your party party refused even a hearing for Obama's nominations and you're complaining about the Democrats' line of questioning?
LOL...you're actually serious.
Good grief.
LOL...you're actually serious.
Good grief.
1
For me, the jury is still out on how effective Judge Gorsuch would make as a Supreme Court Justice. The bigger question I have is could Donald Trump recommend ANYONE who would be able to survive these hearings? The line has become so blurred, with no doubt good reason, that any recommended Justice will be viewed with a jaundice eye, either consciously nor not.
3
If Gorsuch were a truly honest and understanding judge he would not stand for confirmation unless, and until, Merrick Garland was considered in Senate hearings. His continuous mantra of wanting to avoid "politics" is disingenuous at the least, since all justices of SCOTUS are nominated and voted on by politicians and, as such, it is a political position.
7
Clearly that trucking company treats its employees abominably, and I hope the attention it gets about this puts it out of business.
But I am very concerned when a judge hones so closely to the law that he loses his common sense, and with it his humanity.
But I am very concerned when a judge hones so closely to the law that he loses his common sense, and with it his humanity.
68
That is exactly why you are not a judge and he is. Your personal opinions or beliefs must be left somewhere else.
2
TransAm Trucking seems to be very much in business. But you can send them a message through their website, if you're so inclined. (https://www.transamtruck.com/contact/)
Oh please - the man has been coached by right wingers to deflect deflect deflect them after he gets on the court it'll be destroy destroy destroy rights for women, minorities, LGBT etc. just wait and see - to use a word "sad"
11
Democrats should hold a news conference with Merrick Garland before the next Gorsuch hearing.
Take a hint from the Trump playbook, where he tried to embarrass or disturb Hillary Clinton with a pre-debate panel of Bill Clinton accusers.
The Garland panel could include legal experts explaining how Mitch McConnell obstructed Constitutional procedure and how that makes the Gorsuch nomination illegitimate.
For Go's sake, Dems, make some noise and stop rolling over!!
Take a hint from the Trump playbook, where he tried to embarrass or disturb Hillary Clinton with a pre-debate panel of Bill Clinton accusers.
The Garland panel could include legal experts explaining how Mitch McConnell obstructed Constitutional procedure and how that makes the Gorsuch nomination illegitimate.
For Go's sake, Dems, make some noise and stop rolling over!!
6
Gorsuch refused to condemn waterboarding.
Under Bush, Gorsuch helped implement and justify torture.
Confirmation would be wrong.
Under Bush, Gorsuch helped implement and justify torture.
Confirmation would be wrong.
10
Tell that to Trump. He seems to think that the laws don't apply to him, your honor.
3
When he says, repeatedly and emphatically, that he follows "the law", someone needs to ask him which law comes first, his religious "law", or the law of the constitution.
4
I agree with the many comments re stolen seat, past decisions, etc., but oh snap, what Lindsey Graham said about being worried about "who he'd pick". Any indication that Republicans are having a hard time with Trump being president is at least a little heartening.
3
A good day for Gorsuch but elsewhere chaos continued to reign.
No sooner had a closed-door meeting between Trump and Republican representatives concluded than, with delicious irony, the press knew pretty much everything that had transpired behind the doors that supposedly were ...... closed.
And you have to feel for Spicer. Imagine closing your eyes at night knowing that you're going to have to lie again tomorrow to cover for the lie you told today and do so in such a way that the lie you have to tell the following day willl get you through to the day after that.
Or perhaps it's a lot easier for him than I imagine because it has become a practised and refined art.
This administration is becoming farcical, dysfunctional and unmanageable.
No sooner had a closed-door meeting between Trump and Republican representatives concluded than, with delicious irony, the press knew pretty much everything that had transpired behind the doors that supposedly were ...... closed.
And you have to feel for Spicer. Imagine closing your eyes at night knowing that you're going to have to lie again tomorrow to cover for the lie you told today and do so in such a way that the lie you have to tell the following day willl get you through to the day after that.
Or perhaps it's a lot easier for him than I imagine because it has become a practised and refined art.
This administration is becoming farcical, dysfunctional and unmanageable.
4
'no man is above the law'
Pssh. He's just saying that because Trump yanked his arm around with that stupid handshake in front of the whole world and now he doesn't want to look weak.
Pssh. He's just saying that because Trump yanked his arm around with that stupid handshake in front of the whole world and now he doesn't want to look weak.
2
What Gorsuch thinks or doesn't think is not the key issue. The key issue is whether or not the Democrats will fight tooth and nail against Trump. Th tis what is on the table.
2
No man is above the law. Of Course- not just one man; but a whole group of citizens in the top 1% or in very high political circles are protected from legal consequences of their actions. Torture; wars of aggression; 2008 financial collapse, American Auto Companies applying pressure on Takata to leave the lethal bags as is (only executives of foreign car companies can be indicted); authorizing and reauthorizing massive domestic spying by the NSA;
4
Q: Are you Merrick Garland?
A: No, I am Neil Gorsuch.
Q: Can you articulate any principled reason why Merrick Garland has not been given due consideration by the US Senate, as President Obama's nominee, as prescribed by the US Constitution?
A: No, I am Neil Gorsuch.
Q: Can you articulate any principled reason why Merrick Garland has not been given due consideration by the US Senate, as President Obama's nominee, as prescribed by the US Constitution?
13
"Q: Can you articulate any principled reason why Merrick Garland has not been given due consideration by the US Senate, as President Obama's nominee, as prescribed by the US Constitution?"
A: I can't get involved in politics.
Q: I'll take that as a "no."
A: I can't get involved in politics.
Q: I'll take that as a "no."
1
Lindsey Graham was worried! Would The Donald choose a TV star?
And you supported his campaign for President, didn't you, Sen. Graham.
You're comfortable with a man who has bizarre visions for our nation's future, visions which appear to coincide -- upon occasion :) -- with those of Russia it's leader Vladimiri Putin.
I think any loyal American who can tolerate such bizarrities in a Presidential candidate needs to be examined a tad more closely himself.
Or does political expediency "trump" the nation's great interests?
And you supported his campaign for President, didn't you, Sen. Graham.
You're comfortable with a man who has bizarre visions for our nation's future, visions which appear to coincide -- upon occasion :) -- with those of Russia it's leader Vladimiri Putin.
I think any loyal American who can tolerate such bizarrities in a Presidential candidate needs to be examined a tad more closely himself.
Or does political expediency "trump" the nation's great interests?
3
Gorsuch: heavy on bromides, light on credibility.
11
What the mystery? Look at the right-wing groups he's associated with. So, all of a sudden he's totally neutral? I loooove Chuck Shumer's idea to put off the vote until the FBI investigation is done. Why should a traitor be allowed to set the direction of this country for the next thirty years, like when Clarence Thompson replaced Thurgood Marshall on the court (in name only). To me: another good reason to despise the Bushes is because the old man said that Clarence Thomas was the best legal mind in America.
What are the Republicans say then? The Dems have a perfectly reasonable defensible position now to justify their non-cooperation on the guy. What's the rush Mitch?
This Trump thing is going to get verrrrrrrrry ugly before it's over with cries of "stabbed in the back" from Trump and his militias. I'm seventy and have seen the country split open politically in my lifetime. Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes kept riling things up for their own political benefit. But that's what Republicans do. It's about the power, stupid.
What are the Republicans say then? The Dems have a perfectly reasonable defensible position now to justify their non-cooperation on the guy. What's the rush Mitch?
This Trump thing is going to get verrrrrrrrry ugly before it's over with cries of "stabbed in the back" from Trump and his militias. I'm seventy and have seen the country split open politically in my lifetime. Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes kept riling things up for their own political benefit. But that's what Republicans do. It's about the power, stupid.
12
We democrats are not going to be able to stop Gorsuch from being on the bench because if the Senate democrats filibuster, then the republicans will go nuclear on it, which McConnell doesn't want to have to do. Make him do it!
6
I do not believe he will be good for the nation, but Judge Gorsuch will probably be confirmed. Senators are just using this nomination to grandstand--especially the Republicans. Ted Cruz' barroom reminiscences about Justice Byron White was embarrassing. John Cornyn's attempt to pander to the religious right was egregious and silly. These hearings are a waste of time. Gorsuch is following the playbook for these events--say little or nothing and appear reasonable. Then stick it to the progressives after being confirmed.
8
Congratulations Dems. You let the GOP steal a Supreme Court seat. Pathetic.
Above what law? If all laws were clear in their meaning we wouldn't need a SCOTUS. But they interpret the laws according to their congenitally acquired biases.
5
No man is above the law. Let's hope that means women too.
I still cannot accept that his daughter has any legitimate business in the administration, let alone an office in the west wing and a security clearance.
This woman increasingly appears to be someone who thinks the perks of presidency are hers for the taking and she, and her father, see a security clearance as some sort of badge of privilege and exclusivity. What exactly are her non-compensated duties as first daughter, of questionable legitimacy, that require her to have access to classified national security information???
It's a glamorous game for her. This behavior is the equivalent of Daddy buying her a pony.
I still cannot accept that his daughter has any legitimate business in the administration, let alone an office in the west wing and a security clearance.
This woman increasingly appears to be someone who thinks the perks of presidency are hers for the taking and she, and her father, see a security clearance as some sort of badge of privilege and exclusivity. What exactly are her non-compensated duties as first daughter, of questionable legitimacy, that require her to have access to classified national security information???
It's a glamorous game for her. This behavior is the equivalent of Daddy buying her a pony.
14
The Republicans won
.Does anyone think there will anyone better than Gorcuch coming if they don't confirm him? Or maybe the Dems can continue to deny confirmation on anyone for the next four years.
.Does anyone think there will anyone better than Gorcuch coming if they don't confirm him? Or maybe the Dems can continue to deny confirmation on anyone for the next four years.
3
Why not wait??? Remember, the people wii speak in the next election. Sound familiar???
7
Obama won in 2012, but that didn't matter with Garland, so what's your inane point?
7
It doesn't matter to me how righteous Gorsuch is; Senator Whitehouse made a very strong case that he would vote for the interests of the 1% and against the broader interests. The Republicans forfeited any right they have to get Scotus people through after blocking Garland's hearings.
11
Oh please. And Sessions is going to be impartial and all the other cabinet nominees are their own person. What do they have in common? An impressive record of lying. Yes, lies we know already. Am I supposed to believe that Trump has finally nominated an upstanding guy?
12
He sounded too smooth by half to me. The product of a PR firm that coach him in content, tone, physical presence -- even when to lightly pound the . It would have been nice to see the human being behind that Barbie Doll. Sadly, we just saw Barbie.
12
Agreed. Worse yet...it was the Ken Doll.
4
This a man vastly more intelligent than our congressmen/women who got to this point because of recognized intellect and fairness from his peers (ie, NOT you or I or other folks who are not lawyers or judges). As a liberal I'll say unless there is a specific character flaw or flaw of experience that precludes him, he should pass through. It seems most prominent government lawyers and judges, right or left, think he is a qualified and, frankly, upstanding candidate. That Al Franken hates Donald Trump has no relevance here. That Al Franken hates his interpretation of a law has no relevance here (that's what the judicial system is to decide via appeals, not some senator from Somewhere Cold USA).
4
Hobby Lobby invests in companies hat kanufacture abortion pills.
How can any judge allow a company like Hobby Lobby to CLAIM religious objection but not have to provide measurable actions that demonstrate that claim?
He helped set dangerous precedent. I don't trust him one bit.
How can any judge allow a company like Hobby Lobby to CLAIM religious objection but not have to provide measurable actions that demonstrate that claim?
He helped set dangerous precedent. I don't trust him one bit.
12
Deflect. Dissemble. Deny. Supreme Court nominees are dangerously dishonest. Gorsuch knows he was appointed to follow in the footsteps of Scalia. He will vote to overturn Roe vs Wade in a heartbeat.
17
Unquestionably Judge Gorsuch is eminently qualified. These hearing are politicized and serve not as a truth finding mission but as political payback against republicans refusing Garland's nomination. I witnessed Gorsuch questioning today and what many call evasive, I called it lawfully tactful. Opinions do not matter and should not be a determining factor in court rulings. For Judge Gorsuch, precedence is the determining factor. When asked about his opinion on past rulings he deferred to precedence as the foundation of all laws. To cherry pick a few cases out of thousands to categorize him as for or against certain issues is dishonest and blatantly partisan. He admitted in the trucker case he was troubled by the circumstances but would not allow personnel opinion cloud his decision. He follows the law as written and stated if it falls short of its intent, congress must alter the law. He is a strict constitutionalist and a staunch believer of separation of powers. To use these hearings as denial to any Trump legislative victory is troubling, as it was under the Obama administration. The House and Senate was for the public welfare; but now it has transformed into warfare between us against them: Trump haters and Hillary zealots against President Trump. For them obstructionism and failure will be their success!
20
you mean just like the Republicans acted to obstruct Obama for 8 years and not even have the courtesy to hold hearings for Garland? hmm.
3
When were hearings in Congress on any subject not political? To object that Democrats are politicizing the process is facile and unfair. To pretend that the Supreme Court is not political is to deny reality. And it's a bit rich to complain about obstructionism after 8 years of it from the Republicans.
Do you not understand, or simply not care due to partisanship, at all about the damage the Republicans did to the integrity of the SC, to the Constitution, to the Senate, and to the respect of the office of the Presidency itself when they refused to even hold hearings and a vote on Obama's nominee for this seat? Do you know why the would not even hold hearings? Because Merrick Garland was such a moderate and a consensus candidate, that they KNEW he would be confirmed with bipartisan support, and they simply refused to allow that to happen.
Shameful.
Shameful.
We all know that during confirmation hearings the person being questioned tends not to be forthcoming (and sometimes straight out lying since 20 January), so what they say does not matter. What matters is how they will act once in office. And this guy, Gorsuch, has published opinion papers as well as judged cases that tell us how he thinks - against a woman's right to choose, against sensible gun control, pro-business/anti-consumer, etc. He may be academically qualified but he is a strong conservative and that is what he will be on the bench. Another nail in the coffin of American democracy.
6
These hearings are political theater and nothing else. All the Republican members of the committee will vote for him, and it remains to be seen whether any of the Dems will as well.
The real issue is whether the Dems in the full Senate choose to force the nuclear option, or keep their powder dry.
The real issue is whether the Dems in the full Senate choose to force the nuclear option, or keep their powder dry.
3
He will say whatever gets him to SCOTUS. Once he is there he will sbow his true colors.
13
After maybe 225 years, we are deemed to know, that confirmation hearings, are kabuki, or, since Judge Gorsuch says he will say NO when appropriate, these are NOH theater
(oops)
(oops)
2
Breaking news - Does Trump know he is not above the law? Do his supporters know this?
Compared to Trump - and his cabinet - of course Gorsuch appears like a decent intelligent man. But don't let that fool you. He should remember, as long as he is a Justice, he is an illegitimate Justice installed in a stolen seat by an illegitimate president and a complicit Republican Senate.
Compared to Trump - and his cabinet - of course Gorsuch appears like a decent intelligent man. But don't let that fool you. He should remember, as long as he is a Justice, he is an illegitimate Justice installed in a stolen seat by an illegitimate president and a complicit Republican Senate.
7
I think that Gorsuch' ruling on the trucker is everything we need to know. Ask any highway patrolman anywhere: There is a double yellow line you are now legally allowed to cross. There is an accident blocking traffic. There is no traffic in the other direction and it is clearly visible that it is safe. What do you do? Yet Gorsuch says given the choice of freezing to death and crossing the yellow line, you should choose to kill yourself. How ludicrous can the conservatives including this man be?
9
The reason why the Democrats should filibuster this nominee is this: It is precisely the only meaningful (and perhaps last) stand they have against the increasingly fascist state this Republican Congress is installing.
Never mind that Gorsuch may be as qualified as other sitting judges. The fact is that the Republican Senate ignored their clear Constitutional duties to consider nominee Garland. They chose to ignore those duties to which they were elected, and they've been rewarded for doing so. If the Democrats fail to at least challenge this nominee, they too, will be complicit.
I use the term fascism advisedly. One need only consider the writings of Shirer and Paxton to understand we are very much approaching a fascist state, with corrupt, one-party control in which disregard for our Constitution has become routine. I say this as an attorney who practiced law for nearly forty years.
The Democratic party needs to understand that its base has lost hope. We understand that there is nothing we may do "within the system" to remove a deranged tyrant from the White House -- a tyrant whose antics have been gleefully supported by this Republican Congress, and whose recklessness puts us all at risk. At the very least, our Democratic representatives can speak for us, and can continue to fight for us. We know they will lose more battles than they will win in the coming months. What matters to us though, is that they do not give up that fight.
Never mind that Gorsuch may be as qualified as other sitting judges. The fact is that the Republican Senate ignored their clear Constitutional duties to consider nominee Garland. They chose to ignore those duties to which they were elected, and they've been rewarded for doing so. If the Democrats fail to at least challenge this nominee, they too, will be complicit.
I use the term fascism advisedly. One need only consider the writings of Shirer and Paxton to understand we are very much approaching a fascist state, with corrupt, one-party control in which disregard for our Constitution has become routine. I say this as an attorney who practiced law for nearly forty years.
The Democratic party needs to understand that its base has lost hope. We understand that there is nothing we may do "within the system" to remove a deranged tyrant from the White House -- a tyrant whose antics have been gleefully supported by this Republican Congress, and whose recklessness puts us all at risk. At the very least, our Democratic representatives can speak for us, and can continue to fight for us. We know they will lose more battles than they will win in the coming months. What matters to us though, is that they do not give up that fight.
11
So far, I see little evidence that Judge Gorsuch Gorsuch harbors the prejudices evidenced by a previous Supreme Court nominee who said that a "wise" person of a specific gender and ethnicity would "more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life".
White male or not, Judge Gorsuch seems to meet the most important qualification - that he understands and respects the law. Dems who have previously said that THEY would abolish filibuster rules oppose this nomination at their own peril.
White male or not, Judge Gorsuch seems to meet the most important qualification - that he understands and respects the law. Dems who have previously said that THEY would abolish filibuster rules oppose this nomination at their own peril.
2
The dilemma for conservatives is that the constitution, at its heart, is a liberal document. It was designed to assert and protect the rights of individuals against both tyrannical governments and populist mobs. That is one of the reasons that most conservative justices have tended to drift towards the middle over time. Even Scalia couldn't escape the gravity of individual rights when while opposing gay marriage he predicted, if not actually defined, its path to becoming the law of the land. So while we might rightfully refer to the nominee as Merrick Gorsuch, the dems should not waste too much powder on opposing his confirmation.
3
Reading these comments I see politics has apparently become a blood sport. Resist and vote no just to spite those you disagree with, revenge is the goal. I guess the good of the country now comes after party. So sad.
4
Dear Baba, does the name Merrick Garland ring a bell in your brain? You know the eminently qualified, well-spoken federal judge that was nominated by our last real President Barack Obama. The one the GOP Senators didn't even give a hearing?
1
Does anyone remember that the presidency was stolen from the democrats by the republicans in 2001. And a what a stiff of a president we got. Now they want to do the same thing with the supreme court justice vacancy. What is going on here. Wasn't there a republican senator who, anticipating that Hillary was going to win, stated that Obama's nomination should be held in limbo for four years. The republicans are pulling the wool over our eyes.
9
Hobby Lobby ???
Says he looked up the law and Corporations are people, so.......instead of saying "You have a right to your own religion but it Ends there!" He allows the "religious" bully to force others to obey its teachings or else You lose your job.
Here is the real Gorsuch.
"This is a computer speaking, the Corporation can put its religion on you"
Aside from the horror of anyone being able to shove or coerce their religion down your throat, Gorsuch hasn't the mental clarity of a Democrat to see the wrong in a Corporation doing it also. As if a corporation has a religion! Give us a break Gorsuch. Stop your weasel answers. We are human, not robots.
We have feelings and need Judges who have feelings. Not republicans in a White or Black robe who call themselves Judges.
You have no moral right to that stolen seat. As with most republicans, your flawed logic is anathema to American values.
If republicans confirm you in this theft. You will be as despised and illegitimate as Trump.
Says he looked up the law and Corporations are people, so.......instead of saying "You have a right to your own religion but it Ends there!" He allows the "religious" bully to force others to obey its teachings or else You lose your job.
Here is the real Gorsuch.
"This is a computer speaking, the Corporation can put its religion on you"
Aside from the horror of anyone being able to shove or coerce their religion down your throat, Gorsuch hasn't the mental clarity of a Democrat to see the wrong in a Corporation doing it also. As if a corporation has a religion! Give us a break Gorsuch. Stop your weasel answers. We are human, not robots.
We have feelings and need Judges who have feelings. Not republicans in a White or Black robe who call themselves Judges.
You have no moral right to that stolen seat. As with most republicans, your flawed logic is anathema to American values.
If republicans confirm you in this theft. You will be as despised and illegitimate as Trump.
10
I watched Senator Al Franken's interview. Franken was articulate, succinct, and persuasive which raised serious concerns about Gorsuch's ability to serve as a justice on the U.S. supreme court. Franken will have my vote for president during the next election. Please keep up the pressure Senator Franken.
13
Franken did a great job interviewing Sessions, too. At least he got us the recusal.
He's in and the rule of law is done. I'm out...
3
I am so tired of this guy and his sham constitutional lawyering. He's an embarassment to Colorado.
The question is not whether Gorsuch will "overturn Roe v. Wade"; its whether he will review legislation through (a) a faux-originalism or (b) through the "right of the child/person" framing of the US Constitution and its English antecedents.
Under the latter, a father's failure to take equal responsibility for all the child's needs until adulthood violates the child's rights (a focus only on abortion is prima facie evidence that the father is incapable and unwilling and may have psychiatric-level incompetence in recognizing boundaries and a child's needs). Unless there is an adoptive parent or single mother assuming,
with full consent and accountability, the equal responsibility, it rests with the father. And even a consenting-and-accountable single mother or consenting-and-accountable adoptive parent does not have the power to override the child's rights to have both (or in the case of mito-DNA, all three) bio parents listed on his/her birth cert. There's a whole host of federal legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution in this respect.
The question is not whether Gorsuch will "overturn Roe v. Wade"; its whether he will review legislation through (a) a faux-originalism or (b) through the "right of the child/person" framing of the US Constitution and its English antecedents.
Under the latter, a father's failure to take equal responsibility for all the child's needs until adulthood violates the child's rights (a focus only on abortion is prima facie evidence that the father is incapable and unwilling and may have psychiatric-level incompetence in recognizing boundaries and a child's needs). Unless there is an adoptive parent or single mother assuming,
with full consent and accountability, the equal responsibility, it rests with the father. And even a consenting-and-accountable single mother or consenting-and-accountable adoptive parent does not have the power to override the child's rights to have both (or in the case of mito-DNA, all three) bio parents listed on his/her birth cert. There's a whole host of federal legislation that violates the U.S. Constitution in this respect.
2
This is a stolen seat and no hearings or vote should be held. Dems better stand up and represent us or they can expect no more dollars or votes from me. Stop trying to get along, it doesn't work. The other side doesn't try to work with us so why should we make any effort. Block this nomination until there Judge Garland is confirmed and Trump can nominated Judge Gorsuch for the next vacancy.
3
"Your brain is programmable. If you are not programming it, someone else will."
-Jeremy Hammond
Global Corporate Mass Media is programming. That is what they call it. TV programs. They came up with this lingo while some people were releasing films and shows under pseudonyms because Senator McCarthy had them blacklisted from television. At the same time those that were in favor, we're making shows that justified rich people getting richer.
The global 1% owns at least 75% of all voting stocks, Ahmad almost all of the executive positions, and most of the seats of congress.
They own at least 75% of every mass media outlet.
They claim that completion should be forcing each of these organizations to give news catered to different audiences, but the reality is they all talk about the same subjects all day long, and almost all of them seem to ignore the same things.
Am I implying that some order goes out?
"Don't mention TPP!"
It's not necessary. The market works perfectly as described. Those who spend the money are the big customers, and they get the content that their lawyers and lobbyists prefer. It's a huge industry, programming consumers to consume, at any cost.
We are told we must go to war if our consumption is threatened.
No body in the Middle East ever thought about terrorizing America until we started making wars for oil.
Trump is taking this to a new level, where the president can say anything. This is the most dangerous time since the civil war.
-Jeremy Hammond
Global Corporate Mass Media is programming. That is what they call it. TV programs. They came up with this lingo while some people were releasing films and shows under pseudonyms because Senator McCarthy had them blacklisted from television. At the same time those that were in favor, we're making shows that justified rich people getting richer.
The global 1% owns at least 75% of all voting stocks, Ahmad almost all of the executive positions, and most of the seats of congress.
They own at least 75% of every mass media outlet.
They claim that completion should be forcing each of these organizations to give news catered to different audiences, but the reality is they all talk about the same subjects all day long, and almost all of them seem to ignore the same things.
Am I implying that some order goes out?
"Don't mention TPP!"
It's not necessary. The market works perfectly as described. Those who spend the money are the big customers, and they get the content that their lawyers and lobbyists prefer. It's a huge industry, programming consumers to consume, at any cost.
We are told we must go to war if our consumption is threatened.
No body in the Middle East ever thought about terrorizing America until we started making wars for oil.
Trump is taking this to a new level, where the president can say anything. This is the most dangerous time since the civil war.
You wrote: Judge Gorsuch praised Judge Merrick B. Garland, but declined to wade into the partisan fight. “I can’t get involved in politics,” he said."
This is not a political issue as much as a constitutional issue. Is he saying he won't delve into the constitution? SCOTUS must make some sort of deliberation about the speed in which a nominee must be evaluated by the Congress.
This is not a political issue as much as a constitutional issue. Is he saying he won't delve into the constitution? SCOTUS must make some sort of deliberation about the speed in which a nominee must be evaluated by the Congress.
3
If Dylan Roof can get 27 months for lying to the FBI, then Mr. Trump should get life for lying to the American people!
Given Trump's picks as AG and at HHS, rabidly corrupt men with not the slightest modicum of integrity, Gorsuch by comparison is a god send. But Democrats should vote no. We can see the conservative agenda in a recent ruling where the 4 rabid right wing justices, presented with overt racism on a jury trial found a way to justify to ignore it. Gorsuch will undoubtedly based on his record, vote with this bloc.
The only valid jurist choice is Merrick Garland
Every one else will be sitting in a stolen seat
The stink will never leave this nomination
Every one else will be sitting in a stolen seat
The stink will never leave this nomination
4
The fake media led me to believe that Ted Cruz was the smartest man in the Senate. I watched a number of brilliant people today Republicans and Democrats. Senator Cruz was not among the brilliant. He was not even among the smartest Senator Cruz is mediocre at best.
Judge Gorsach is brilliant his puns were of the highest order and his sense of humour thoroughly engaging. His genius is not in question only his sophistry.
I find it remarkable that the only Senator to articulate what is going on was Senator Franken. Maybe he is the only Senator who understands the law is there to serve us.
Maybe it is time to teach America that what We the People replaced was We His Majesty.
Judge Gorsach is brilliant his puns were of the highest order and his sense of humour thoroughly engaging. His genius is not in question only his sophistry.
I find it remarkable that the only Senator to articulate what is going on was Senator Franken. Maybe he is the only Senator who understands the law is there to serve us.
Maybe it is time to teach America that what We the People replaced was We His Majesty.
5
Republicans refused to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee because they claimed the people should weigh in. The people had already weighed in twice, choosing Obama, not only with clear electoral college wins, but also with popular vote majorities in both 2008 and 2012. With nearly a year left in his second term, President Obama had plenty of time to do a good job of filling the Supreme Court vacancy, and his selection of Merrick Garland a month after Justice Scalia's death was an undeniably excellent start to the process.
Now we have a so-called president who barely squeezed into office, losing the popular vote by the largest margin of any candidate who has ever "won." Even his electoral college win is not necessarily legitimate. The FBI and Justice Department have concluded that a foreign power interfered with the election to help him win, and several members of his campaign are under investigation for their ties to this same foreign power and for possible collusion in the vote-swaying effort.
Even without the Republicans' hijacking of this vacancy, it would seem inappropriate to allow this so-called president to select a supreme court justice while we're still investigating such serious questions about how he came to power. When you add the Garland snub, the idea of rewarding the senators who hijacked the vacancy, along with the campaign that might have colluded with a foreign power to hijack the election, is simply too absurd to contemplate.
Now we have a so-called president who barely squeezed into office, losing the popular vote by the largest margin of any candidate who has ever "won." Even his electoral college win is not necessarily legitimate. The FBI and Justice Department have concluded that a foreign power interfered with the election to help him win, and several members of his campaign are under investigation for their ties to this same foreign power and for possible collusion in the vote-swaying effort.
Even without the Republicans' hijacking of this vacancy, it would seem inappropriate to allow this so-called president to select a supreme court justice while we're still investigating such serious questions about how he came to power. When you add the Garland snub, the idea of rewarding the senators who hijacked the vacancy, along with the campaign that might have colluded with a foreign power to hijack the election, is simply too absurd to contemplate.
5
"No man is above the law"?
What about women?
What about women?
2
The judge seems to be saying the right answers to the questions. If he is confirmed, only time will tell if he really meant what he said or just did it to get the life time job on the Supreme Court.
4
Stolen election. Stolen seat. Do NOT allow Gorsuch to steal this seat no matter what! Nor any other Republican'ts. Jail all Republican'ts now immediately today. Allow them to go no further no matter what. Will save this nation, this earth, Democracy.
3
One, and just one question that needs to be asked:
Judge Gorsuch, will you knowingly buy a stolen car? A car stolen from your neighbor's driveway in broad daylight, and you know was stolen, for it was hot-wired and driven away into oblivion while you were watching wide-eyed next door, from behind the window curtains, or on your TV. You saw it all with your own eyes. Will you buy that hot car?
That car was Judge Merrick Garland. And that ninth seat, that hot seat, was for Judge Garland to refuse, or be denied to him in an established, constitutional fashion and procedure. Let us find out if Judge Gorsuch a strict constitutionalist who respects this Republic in his heart, or not.
Judge Gorsuch, will you knowingly buy a stolen car? A car stolen from your neighbor's driveway in broad daylight, and you know was stolen, for it was hot-wired and driven away into oblivion while you were watching wide-eyed next door, from behind the window curtains, or on your TV. You saw it all with your own eyes. Will you buy that hot car?
That car was Judge Merrick Garland. And that ninth seat, that hot seat, was for Judge Garland to refuse, or be denied to him in an established, constitutional fashion and procedure. Let us find out if Judge Gorsuch a strict constitutionalist who respects this Republic in his heart, or not.
13
No - to this confirmation hearing. And, remember what Sessions said under oath -- attorney general should be dismissed for perjury.
This candidate has been nominated by a President under investigation that is criminal and likely to face impeachment. It cannot go forward.
What a year or two -- right Republicans? Is Garland his name?
This candidate has been nominated by a President under investigation that is criminal and likely to face impeachment. It cannot go forward.
What a year or two -- right Republicans? Is Garland his name?
6
Judge Gorsuch is issuing the usual legal bromides. When one reflects on his large number of favorable rulings where corporations were involved, the bromides fade into being just bromides and his innate conservative bias starts to come to the front. A Republican Congress that would not give a hearing to President Obama's SC nominee now fawns over Judge Gorsuch and wants him to get a hearing. That's not fairness nor honesty nor acceptable. Trump's nominee should get the same hearing treatment that the Republicans were so righteous in imposing on :Mr. Obama's nominee. The Court becomes a Republican puppetry if only Republican nominees are granted hearings. We don't need another staunch conservative packing the Court in the person of Judge Gorsuch. The Court is nothing if it is not independent, and Judge Gorsuch would unbalance the scales with too much conservative weight.
1
Will Judge Gorsuch say, "No institution is above the law"?
We need individual members of the executive branch including the president to collectively stay within the law as well.
We need individual members of the executive branch including the president to collectively stay within the law as well.
ummm, wasn't he confirmed in his previous judgeship unanimously by both republicans and democratics? so now democrats should not like him any more because the president we don't like nominated him. or vote him down because we need an "eye for an eye"? yes that all sounds like good meaningful politics
3
I'm amazed by how much liberals demand clear answers from judicial nominees. Where were you protesting Sotamayor or Kagan for using the same evasion tactics?
5
And the fact that your party deprived and denied tens of miliions of voters their voices viz. a hearing for Merrick Garland goes riiiiggghhht over your head.
Good grief.
With each passing day, we see how and why Trump gets away with stealing food from the mouths of babies and veterans while subsidizing his billionaire buddies.
Good grief.
With each passing day, we see how and why Trump gets away with stealing food from the mouths of babies and veterans while subsidizing his billionaire buddies.
2
Some Democratic senators have been airing an odd critique of Judge Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch they say, favors the big man over the little man. Suppose a homeless but sane man, vandalizes Walmart. Would the criticizing Democrats expect Judge Gorsuch to rule in favor of the homeless man?
2
If this judge wants to interpret the Constitution literally, he should demand that in order to keep and carry a gun, you must first be a member of a militia, and not any militia, but a militia that is necessary for the preservation of the state. That is what the Constitution very clearly says, and that is what a literal interpretation of the constitution is, there is no way around it.
He won`t do any of this, however, because he, like Scalia before him and most conservative judges anywhere in the country, is a hypocrite for whom some aspects of the Constitution are to be interpreted more literally than others, the degree of literalness adjusted to suit his prejudices.
He won`t do any of this, however, because he, like Scalia before him and most conservative judges anywhere in the country, is a hypocrite for whom some aspects of the Constitution are to be interpreted more literally than others, the degree of literalness adjusted to suit his prejudices.
3
If this judge wants to interpret the Constitution literally, he should demand that in order to keep and carry a gun, you must first be a member of a militia, and not any militia, but a militia that is necessary for the preservation of the state.
======================
Under US law (10 USC 311) pretty much everyone is a member of the militia and can be called to service even today.
If you look at the original militia acts of 1791, written by many of the same people who wrote the Second Amendment, you will see that militia members (again pretty much the entire free male population) were expected to own and provide for service their own arms.
======================
Under US law (10 USC 311) pretty much everyone is a member of the militia and can be called to service even today.
If you look at the original militia acts of 1791, written by many of the same people who wrote the Second Amendment, you will see that militia members (again pretty much the entire free male population) were expected to own and provide for service their own arms.
The Constitution says you must be a member of an ORGANIZED militia - what is the name of the ORGANIZED militia you are a member of?
Would anyone with any sense of honor or justice take this seat?
Anyone that would take this seat under these circumstances is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Anyone that would take this seat under these circumstances is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
If Gorsuch isn't appointed how does Supreme Court Justice Andrew Napolitano sound?
1
I so enjoyed this hearing; the parts from senators Franken and Coons who showed us what an intelligent senator sounds like. The Republicans Cruz and Sasse questions and the Judge's answers felt too collegiate and un informative.
4
I may be in the minority here, but I believe that Trump made sure that any person he nominated to the Supreme Court would be in lock step with his goals, i.e., reverse Roe vs. Wade, approve of torture, approve his immigration ban, etc., etc. Why would anyone think otherwise?
9
Anyone that Trump wants in any office is to be suspect. Trump's affinity to working with yes people and people who are incredibly shallow, are the kind of people we do not need. So no to Gorsuch and no to anyone who wants to be associated with Trump. Democrats need to grow a spine and say no to everything and give the Republicans a dose of their own medicine.
5
"‘No Man Is Above the Law,’ Gorsuch Says About Trump"?
Utterly worthless mealy-mouthed platitudes!
Why not ask him specifically:
"If a presidential candidate colludes with a hostile foreign power to steal an election, is he fit to serve as president?"
or
"If a sitting president is found to have colluded with a hostile foreign power to steal an election and subsequently lies about it while in office as president, should he be removed from office post haste?"
Utterly worthless mealy-mouthed platitudes!
Why not ask him specifically:
"If a presidential candidate colludes with a hostile foreign power to steal an election, is he fit to serve as president?"
or
"If a sitting president is found to have colluded with a hostile foreign power to steal an election and subsequently lies about it while in office as president, should he be removed from office post haste?"
14
You don't answer hypothetical questions about the law that may be have be decided in the future by a justice. Kagen didn't, Sotomayor didn't, Roberts didn't, Ginzburg didn't along with all other recent sitting justices, and neither should Gorsuch. His answer is exactly correct, and your suggestion is absurd on its face. And if you were in his position, you'd be absolutely wrong to answer any other way, and a fool as well. The Democrats on this committee have absolutely nothing on Gorsuch. Period. He is pummeling them.
If you were looking for straight answers you won't find them here. Judge Gorsuch said nothing to hurt his chances. In fact, he said nothing at all.
But we can all be sure that he will rule as a typical conservative - in favor of corporations, against the little guy. Forget supporting a woman's right to choose.
Democrats need to grow a pair and do everything they can to block his nomination - or anyone Trump picks. The only legitimate nominee is Merrick Garland.
But we can all be sure that he will rule as a typical conservative - in favor of corporations, against the little guy. Forget supporting a woman's right to choose.
Democrats need to grow a pair and do everything they can to block his nomination - or anyone Trump picks. The only legitimate nominee is Merrick Garland.
16
That would, frankly, be childish. Not to mention Mitch McConnell being tempted to go Harry Reid one better with the nukyoolur option. If you think the Senate should be required to hold hearings on a nominee within a certain time frame, try to get the Constitution amended. (And lots of luck with that!)
1
Since everything NG says is cliches and solipsistic tripe, why bother quoting him?
11
My problem with Gorsuch is that Trump announced, more than once, his appointments to the Supreme Court would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That sounds a lot like a pre-qualification for the appointment that would either make the vote a certainty or grounds for automatic recusal by any Justice that Trump appoints on decisions about abortion. It also makes me wonder about any other pre-qualification "deals" that Trump put on the table as a quid-pro-quo for his nomination.
10
I am hoping Judge Gorsuch means what he says , he is only in his 40`s. With Republicans in the majority perhaps he will pass to be in the Supreme Court .
If the Judge ends up to be otherwise we are so screwed .
I hope He puts Donald trump where he belongs with his constant lies and more of it.
If the Judge ends up to be otherwise we are so screwed .
I hope He puts Donald trump where he belongs with his constant lies and more of it.
2
I don't care what he says. He is taking a seat that another judge should have been sitting in over a year ago. The person who nominated him is a criminal and a traitor. And, worse, he's an originalist and will find against women's right to control their own bodies, and everyone's right to die gracefully. I hope my Democratic leaders say no, no, no.
13
Tillerson gave some satisfying words during his confirmation hearing. How did that turn out now that he is confirmed? How do we know Gorsuch is not just saying things Democrats want to hear?
5
The obsession with the Hobby Lobby case is mystifying.
The company covered 16 out of the 20 possible methods of birth control. It was not about shoving their religious beliefs on anyone. If you really, really have to have one of the four methods they did not cover, and cannot afford to purchase them, take a job somewhere else where they are covered. It is that simple.
And Hobby Lobby never said they would fire employees if they used one of the four methods of birth control. And no, they were not spying on their employees.
The company covered 16 out of the 20 possible methods of birth control. It was not about shoving their religious beliefs on anyone. If you really, really have to have one of the four methods they did not cover, and cannot afford to purchase them, take a job somewhere else where they are covered. It is that simple.
And Hobby Lobby never said they would fire employees if they used one of the four methods of birth control. And no, they were not spying on their employees.
5
"Take a job somewhere else" is exactly how a company forces its views on its employees. What, you think thumbscrews are required?
4
No it doesn't. They provide 16 out of 20 methods of birth control. That means you don't have to get pregnant or get someone pregnant if you don't want to. They view the other for methods as "abortion." If any prospective employee can't deal with that, they can look elsewhere. Jobs in retail are always available.
As someone who's outraged at the Republicans' refusal to even give Judge Garland a hearing, I feel conflicted. Considering the unprecedented circumstances of this nomination, which arguably shouldn't even have happened, the partisan in me says Democrats should vote Gorusch down. An eye for an eye, so to speak. But another part of me says Gorusch seems extremely qualified, intelligent and very likely to stand up to Trump. He also appears to have compassion, something that can't be said of many in his party. So I reluctantly would vote yes if I were in the Senate. Democrats should save their "no" votes in case Trump (or Pence, as the case may be), nominates an extremist when another SC seat opens.
1
There questions for Judge Gorsuch. First is whether, on walking down a deserted street he found something of value would he feel obligated to return it to its rightful owner? Second is whether, on being offered something of value by a individual who was not the rightful owner of that item, would he take it. And third is whether he believes a substantial number of Americans would argue the supreme court nomination he is being offered belongs to the current administration?
7
The two big business parties want Gorsuch to be confirmed. The Democrats will put on their usual show of resistance, and Garland's seat will go to the Heritage Foundation and the Chamber.
Even the big media corporations are proclaiming the Democrats can't filibuster (they can) and pretending like the game is over. Democrats will eventually suggest that Mitch McConnell would have used the nuclear option, and Democrats didn't want to force his hand. They will claim honor. This is such a farce.
Enjoy the show.
Even the big media corporations are proclaiming the Democrats can't filibuster (they can) and pretending like the game is over. Democrats will eventually suggest that Mitch McConnell would have used the nuclear option, and Democrats didn't want to force his hand. They will claim honor. This is such a farce.
Enjoy the show.
5
Seriously, can this organization, the most powerful, most prestigious and in many ways best media organization in the world, sink any lower? Or are the vaunted names on this article so blinded by partisanship that they can't hear what the judge is saying? He made it clear - no man is above the law. Of course that includes Trump. If they need the syllogism - No man is above the law. Trump is a man. Therefore Trump is not above the law. For goodness sake, my paper of choice for a half century seems to have lost all sense of honesty.
I've watched about 5 hour of it so far. He's doing great. The Ds are making themselves look as foolish as the Rs did when they grilled H. Clinton in the Benghazi hearing. But, they are politicians and we can't expect much from them. I use to expect more from The Times and I'm trying not to lose all hope for them to reclaim their credibility and dignity.
As I say in almost all my comments, not a Trump supporter, not an R or conservative, but I couldn't be more ashamed of the behavior of the left since the campaign started. I don't like to vote for either Ds or Rs (and didn't this election), but the left has outdone themselves the past year.
I've watched about 5 hour of it so far. He's doing great. The Ds are making themselves look as foolish as the Rs did when they grilled H. Clinton in the Benghazi hearing. But, they are politicians and we can't expect much from them. I use to expect more from The Times and I'm trying not to lose all hope for them to reclaim their credibility and dignity.
As I say in almost all my comments, not a Trump supporter, not an R or conservative, but I couldn't be more ashamed of the behavior of the left since the campaign started. I don't like to vote for either Ds or Rs (and didn't this election), but the left has outdone themselves the past year.
3
"No man is above the law"? I'm afraid our current POTUS would disagree with you, Judge Gorsuch!
4
The whole thing is a ridiculous sham no adult can take seriously. A judge enters the court in his clownish robes and all must rise. How vulgar and infantile. People didn't all rise when Beethoven walked into the room, but these mediocre nobodies believe they are some kind of deity. Senate, House, the President, the Supreme Court--the whole spectacle is stomach turning.
3
Democrats never cease to disappointnt me. They should have point-blank refused to discuss this nomination. Anything else vindicates odious Republican tactics.
3
Democrats never cease to disappointnt me. They should have point-blank refused to discuss this nomination.
=================
Republicans would have been fine with that. They would have gone ahead without any Democrat questions
=================
Republicans would have been fine with that. They would have gone ahead without any Democrat questions
3
This has been painful to listen to. Does this guy relish the spotlight or what?
He's supposed to be a judge but comes across as slippery as any wily politician.
The Democrats should be tearing him up but I think he's boring them to death...
He's supposed to be a judge but comes across as slippery as any wily politician.
The Democrats should be tearing him up but I think he's boring them to death...
7
I was hoping someone from the Committee had watched PAT ROBINSON's "700 Club" this a.m. when he and his guest agreed that Trump was a "King Cyrus...anointed by God..." to take the Supreme Court. They delighted in thinking they "might get 2 or even 3 more seats". The reason this "was what the election was about" is "we can now get rid of Roe v Wade and the ban on school prayer. We can stop religious persecution in this country." Wouldn't that have made a good question. And why are they so sure Gorsuch will do this?
3
Gorsuch has "ties to Trump?" I'll wager that Trump had never heard of Gorsuch, much less ever met him or had "ties" to him, before he created his list of potential SC nominees.
It's fair to challenge Gorsuch, but let's not lose our grip on reality here.
It's fair to challenge Gorsuch, but let's not lose our grip on reality here.
5
If, "No man is above the law", then how do you explain Mitch McConnell ignoring The Constitution and his Oath of Office without immunity?
Isn't The Constitution part of the laws of this country anymore?
Or, is it only for non-GOP members? As I suspect it is.
Remember Clinton being impeached? Remember what that was for?
It wasn't for blocking a SC nomination. And it wasn't for starting an illegal war. And it wasn't for colluding with the Russians to steal and election.
It was about the really important stuff. Like an extramarital affair.
If people were smart the GOP wouldn't even exist.
Isn't The Constitution part of the laws of this country anymore?
Or, is it only for non-GOP members? As I suspect it is.
Remember Clinton being impeached? Remember what that was for?
It wasn't for blocking a SC nomination. And it wasn't for starting an illegal war. And it wasn't for colluding with the Russians to steal and election.
It was about the really important stuff. Like an extramarital affair.
If people were smart the GOP wouldn't even exist.
9
If, "No man is above the law", then how do you explain Mitch McConnell ignoring The Constitution and his Oath of Office without immunity?
Isn't The Constitution part of the laws of this country anymore?
===============
The Constitution merely says that SCOTUS nominees must receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate to take office. It doesn't say when or give a time limit.
Garland didn't receive that consent of the Senate and didn't get the seat.
Isn't The Constitution part of the laws of this country anymore?
===============
The Constitution merely says that SCOTUS nominees must receive the "advice and consent" of the Senate to take office. It doesn't say when or give a time limit.
Garland didn't receive that consent of the Senate and didn't get the seat.
It doesn't say when or give a time limit only because the founding fathers couldn't have predicted the current GOP's utter moral bankruptcy.
Is 50 years reasonable? Only to the party that brought us the Iraq War. 9/11.The Housing collapse. And the depression.
Is 50 years reasonable? Only to the party that brought us the Iraq War. 9/11.The Housing collapse. And the depression.
Let's resurrect Judge Merrick Garland.
Christ, apocryphally, rose from the dead.
Christ, apocryphally, rose from the dead.
3
Of course, Rule by Law depends on ...Facts. And the Administrations attitude toward such is increasingly apparent.
1
If Mr. Gorsuch were a truly honorable person he would have turned down the Republican offer to join the Supreme Court on the basis of how Republicans abused this constitutional process during President Obama's final term. He didn't do that, so he's not truly honorable, and thus we must be skeptical of anything he says regarding what he'd do in the future. Period.
5
These hearings are worthless. The person being questioned doesn't answer any questions and the Senators use the hearing simply to grandstand. We all know the man will be confirmed. And the fact is he's at least equivalent to Scalia in his conservative, racist and bigoted views. The Democratic Senators should have refused to participate. He'll be confirmed anyway. The seat was stolen. The Democrats in congress are normalizing what was essentially an anti-constitutional play to maintain control over the Supreme Court. That the Democrats are participating in this farce is giving cover to the bullies known as the Republican Party. As a Democrat I am disgusted in my party. They have no backbone. They all gave pretty speeches at the beginning stating the obvious--the seat was stolen. Then they did what they always do--capitulate. Shame on them. Shame on the more than 40% of Americans who didn't vote and shame on Obama and the Democratic "leadership" for not making a bigger deal of the Republican grab for more power.
5
The seat was held open by a corrupt bargain. Gorsuch became a part of the corruption by accepting the nomination. Therefore his claim of independence is false.
6
The seat was held open by a corrupt bargain.
==================
What corrupt bargain? It was a gamble by Republicans that their candidate would win. And they won the gamble
==================
What corrupt bargain? It was a gamble by Republicans that their candidate would win. And they won the gamble
For much of our nation's history, the Supreme Court has been a very conservative body. In fact, the Supreme Court has often been behind the times. These conservative courts issued rulings that were so unjust that progressive elements in society demanded and achieved long term change.
The Dred Scott decision helped to rally the North to the cause of abolition. It indirectly led to the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
Plessy v Ferguson led to a generation of injustice and disenfranchisement. But, it also helped to galvanize a Civil Rights Movement that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Lochner helped to fan the flames of the Progressive movement that led to worker protections.
Judge Gorsuch is not wrong that liberals--and I have long proudly counted myself one--have become too dependent on the courts for remedy. Our most permanent protections of rights lie through the legislatures at the state and federal level and, ultimately, through the constitutional amendment process. And, sometimes we need an out of touch, backward, conservative court to remind us that we must fight long and hard to elect forward thinking representatives who can bring about lasting change.
There are long, dark days ahead as the court tilts ever rightward. And, we'll lose rights that seemed dependable. But, the ensuing anger at injustice can lead to the long term protection of rights that are equal for all.
The Dred Scott decision helped to rally the North to the cause of abolition. It indirectly led to the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
Plessy v Ferguson led to a generation of injustice and disenfranchisement. But, it also helped to galvanize a Civil Rights Movement that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Lochner helped to fan the flames of the Progressive movement that led to worker protections.
Judge Gorsuch is not wrong that liberals--and I have long proudly counted myself one--have become too dependent on the courts for remedy. Our most permanent protections of rights lie through the legislatures at the state and federal level and, ultimately, through the constitutional amendment process. And, sometimes we need an out of touch, backward, conservative court to remind us that we must fight long and hard to elect forward thinking representatives who can bring about lasting change.
There are long, dark days ahead as the court tilts ever rightward. And, we'll lose rights that seemed dependable. But, the ensuing anger at injustice can lead to the long term protection of rights that are equal for all.
2
Installing Gorsuch would only put the court back where it was before Scalia, though Gorsuch doesn't appear to have Scalia's ego and would be an improvement. Anthony Kennedy's opinion would continue to be the only one that matters.
Letting emotion override common sense will only result in the removal of the filibuster and the likely addition of further right-leaning justices. Republicans' refusal to even grant Garland a hearing, for political purposes, was abominable but the Democrats didn't have enough votes to overcome the inevitable filibuster (or even a majority), so the end result would have been the same.
Supreme Court nominations will always be a lottery, depending on which party got lucky enough to hold the presidency at the time of a vacancy. What we really need is a constitutional amendment to remove the Senate's "advice and consent". When we elect a president we're implicitly electing anyone he or she nominates for a vacancy on the court. Nomination hearings have become a political circus and we'd all be better off without them. Not to mention that Garland would by now be on the court, and there would be no vacancy to fill.
While we're at it we should also make the filibuster illegal. Members of a Senate majority were elected by us and allowing a minority to essentially veto the majority is undemocratic. Apart from a few things that already require a two thirds majority everything should be done by a simple majority.
Letting emotion override common sense will only result in the removal of the filibuster and the likely addition of further right-leaning justices. Republicans' refusal to even grant Garland a hearing, for political purposes, was abominable but the Democrats didn't have enough votes to overcome the inevitable filibuster (or even a majority), so the end result would have been the same.
Supreme Court nominations will always be a lottery, depending on which party got lucky enough to hold the presidency at the time of a vacancy. What we really need is a constitutional amendment to remove the Senate's "advice and consent". When we elect a president we're implicitly electing anyone he or she nominates for a vacancy on the court. Nomination hearings have become a political circus and we'd all be better off without them. Not to mention that Garland would by now be on the court, and there would be no vacancy to fill.
While we're at it we should also make the filibuster illegal. Members of a Senate majority were elected by us and allowing a minority to essentially veto the majority is undemocratic. Apart from a few things that already require a two thirds majority everything should be done by a simple majority.
Any chance Gorsuch is going to want to avenge what happened to his mother in Washington?
I like that he knew 42 was the correct answer. Douglas Adams lives on!
No man is above the law? Had such a preposterous statement any basis in reality, most Republicans, including former presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II would have been put on trial and executed in the electric chair instead of having libraries built in their name with taxpayer money.
5
The ONLY way I'd watch this ghoulish spectacle was if a sampling of Gorsuch's torture victims were permitted to give testimony concerning what this monster's nightmarish policies did to their lives.
3
Gorsuch has the patrician, Ivy League look down pat. If I were a casting director, I'd give him the part of a Supreme Court judge in a movie.
In real life, not so much.
In real life, not so much.
3
The whole process for seating justices has gone terribly wrong. There was a time when Supreme Court cases were far less political. The issues at stake related far more to procedural matters than to politically charged disputes. In 2013, there were 14 amicus briefs filed per case. In 1981, there was just 1. Today's cases are politically charged in a way they weren't in 1981. That means that the politics of our justices are constantly being tested, whereas technical legal matters are left to the lower courts
When virtually every case is political, a political selection process is too partisan and unfair. What worked in 1981, no longer works today. Judicial selection needs to be purged of partisanship. Just one suggestion -- nominate a Democrat and a Republican and let 40 members of each party vote. Require that they continually re-vote until they have a nominee. If we had a choice between Gorsuch and Garland, that would be fair.
When virtually every case is political, a political selection process is too partisan and unfair. What worked in 1981, no longer works today. Judicial selection needs to be purged of partisanship. Just one suggestion -- nominate a Democrat and a Republican and let 40 members of each party vote. Require that they continually re-vote until they have a nominee. If we had a choice between Gorsuch and Garland, that would be fair.
4
At the interview phase of a job application, pretty much like dating, anyone will give the expected answers to please the would-be boss! Such answers from a lawyer (judge or not) are not the gold standard, just down-right forked-tongue.
The pattern of history of the judge's rulings/behavior has to bear more weight, but not just in themselves. When ruling against, say for e.g., abortion, there might have been corollaries (attachments), that might've swayed his decisions. An overall predilection to rule on one side of the middle will still overrule all the justifications (excuses) of the minutia of the individual cases.
So, will he be a judge for the Constitution or select ideology and/or groups of people?
The pattern of history of the judge's rulings/behavior has to bear more weight, but not just in themselves. When ruling against, say for e.g., abortion, there might have been corollaries (attachments), that might've swayed his decisions. An overall predilection to rule on one side of the middle will still overrule all the justifications (excuses) of the minutia of the individual cases.
So, will he be a judge for the Constitution or select ideology and/or groups of people?
2
I've heard it all before from Republican nominees to the bench who swore they would only call strikes and fouls (i.e., apply the law to the facts) and who then went on to overturn 100 years' worth of legal precedent to allow unlimited spending on elections by corporations and secret donors. Filibuster, obstruct and deny any Trump appointment until we can remove Trump from office.
12
Do you also object to overturning over 200 years of precedent when it came to same sex marriage?
Do you object to overturning the precedent of separate but equal that was the foundation of Jim Crow laws?
Do you object to overturning the precedent of separate but equal that was the foundation of Jim Crow laws?
1
I object to disregarding precedent when it is done for the sole purpose of allowing corporations, criminals, drug dealers and foreign governments to contribute unlimited, secret money to buy elections. I don't object to the careful and considered overturning of precedent for the purpose of expanding human liberty.
I object to disregarding precedent when it is done for the sole purpose of allowing corporations, criminals, drug dealers and foreign governments to contribute unlimited, secret money to buy elections.
===================
Citizens United says nothing about campaign contributions. Those are still limited.
CU was about whether corporations and trade unions had First Amendment rights to make statements about politics. The law said a group named Citizens United wasn't allowed to release a movie critical of Hillary Clinton within a certain time period of an election.
SCOTUS saw the absurdity that a corporation owned by Michael Moore was apparently perfectly free to release movies critical of George Bush in the middle of an election yet Citizens United couldn't
===================
Citizens United says nothing about campaign contributions. Those are still limited.
CU was about whether corporations and trade unions had First Amendment rights to make statements about politics. The law said a group named Citizens United wasn't allowed to release a movie critical of Hillary Clinton within a certain time period of an election.
SCOTUS saw the absurdity that a corporation owned by Michael Moore was apparently perfectly free to release movies critical of George Bush in the middle of an election yet Citizens United couldn't
The constitution should be interpreted literally so that the judges don't become unelected lawmakers who serve for life, short circuiting our government's design and usurping the role of the legislative branch. If times change then update the law, don't just reinterpret it. Big, big difference.
3
They purposely pick judges with a thin record on controversial matters. Those are the judges who say they will decide their caseload according to the law. Then, when they get on the Supreme Court, every case is political and they decide every case based on their politics. This has happened enough that somebody should ask Gorsuch why he'll be the only judge this century to break from that pattern.
2
Listening to the answers today from a man who has spent his whole life studying the law we, the people, must demand that a plea of 'ignorance of the law' is perfectly valid.
The President has already thrown his hat in the ring for 2020. Since the Republicans are going to invoke Joe Biden's decades-old comment about not making such big decisions during the campaign season, I suggest that these hearings be cancelled until the people have chosen a new President.
8
What stood out for me was Gorsuch's contention that Supreme Court judges are neither Republican or Democrat when it comes to making rulings, that their positions are or tend to be impartial. What disingenuous nonsense. The fact that all judges do have partisan leanings is a key reason that 'conservative' leaning judges generally vote straight down the Republican line, and similarly, so do judges whose party affiliation is Democrat.
To contend that it is otherwise is absurd.
To contend that it is otherwise is absurd.
18
I agree that Justices' ideologies matter. But you should be aware that the four "liberal" Justices (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg) have voted the same more often than the four "conservative" Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts) did.
Surprised to hear that. As Casey Stengel, the crusty former Yankees manager liked to say: "You can look it up."
Surprised to hear that. As Casey Stengel, the crusty former Yankees manager liked to say: "You can look it up."
2
Fake 45 has routinely flouted the law and gotten away with it. Refusing to rent to black and hispanics. Sexually assaulting women. Lying to congress. These are just a few of his crimes. He pays a fine and life goes on. The rest of us would be in jail if we had the same track record.
15
All anyone needs to know about Gorsuch is that he places more value on a corporation than on a human being. He's the Hobby Lobby guy who agreed that that company had a right to shove their religious beliefs upon their employees. He does NOT represent the interests of individual human beings, never has, never will. Democrats should block this nomination for as long as they can. He "comforts the comfortable, and afflicts the afflicted." We don't need any more of his kind in positions of life time power. I wouldn't let him in my home. He's a political monster who wishes to legislate from the bench, like most conservatives.
13
Fair point:
"It is all very arbitrary when a fertilized egg becomes a human."
Right now, the line is drawn when the child emerges from the mother's womb. Before then, it's called a "partial birth abortion." After then, it's called "infanticide."
Like it or not, that's where the line is drawn right now.
"It is all very arbitrary when a fertilized egg becomes a human."
Right now, the line is drawn when the child emerges from the mother's womb. Before then, it's called a "partial birth abortion." After then, it's called "infanticide."
Like it or not, that's where the line is drawn right now.
5
Trump said he would only nominate someone that would overturn Roe v Wade. So if Gorsuch didn't promise anything to anybody, how did he land the nomination? Was it just a wink and a nod when he was asked about it by Trump? Is that how he could maintain deniability?
Any judge that could support the Hobby Lobby decision has his head screwed on crooked! Denying people the opportunity to make their own decisions on such matters is coerced morality and just a step away from Taliban in America. Start training the ax men and prepare the stoning centers (these must be the new jobs Trump was promising).
Any judge that could support the Hobby Lobby decision has his head screwed on crooked! Denying people the opportunity to make their own decisions on such matters is coerced morality and just a step away from Taliban in America. Start training the ax men and prepare the stoning centers (these must be the new jobs Trump was promising).
13
So far, at least, the Democratic Party has benefitted more from Citizens United than the Republican Party has. Clinton outspent Trump by a substantial margin. In 2014, the top donor gave almost as much (all to liberal candidates) as the next 9 donors combined.
I know the standard refrain: "You can't take a sling shot to a knife fight." But let's get real here: Barack Obama (whom I voted for) raised and spent over a billion dollars to get elected in 2008. HRC raised about the same, far more than Trump. It's not that the Democrats are short of campaign money; it's just that they can't seem to get voters to vote for them.
I'm also familiar with the "shoulda been da popular vote" argument. Two responses: First, it wasn't, as Clinton well knew. Second, if it had been, both candidates would have campaigned differently. For example, Trump would have held a rally in, say, Fresno, California rather than attend his 47th county fair in Pennsylvania.
I know the standard refrain: "You can't take a sling shot to a knife fight." But let's get real here: Barack Obama (whom I voted for) raised and spent over a billion dollars to get elected in 2008. HRC raised about the same, far more than Trump. It's not that the Democrats are short of campaign money; it's just that they can't seem to get voters to vote for them.
I'm also familiar with the "shoulda been da popular vote" argument. Two responses: First, it wasn't, as Clinton well knew. Second, if it had been, both candidates would have campaigned differently. For example, Trump would have held a rally in, say, Fresno, California rather than attend his 47th county fair in Pennsylvania.
4
The primary process would also likely be different, so the candidates in the general election would likely also be different.
At one point in the hearings, Judge Gorsuch, declared that he was not an algorithm. Yet after watching him testify that is exactly how he came across.:When questioned about hard cases, he repeatedly said " I just apply the law to the facts." Thus in a case in which a truck driver whose rig was frozen on a highway at temperatures close to zero, he ruled against the driver who detached the rig and drove the cab to a coffee stop to warm up. Seven other judges on his appellate panel ruled in favor of the driver, who was fired by his company. Judge Gorsuch said he felt bad for the plaintiff but it was up to Congress to change the law.
The facts were not in dispute, but the law, any law, has a penumbra of meaning surrounding it, and cannot be interpreted mechanically. Thus if the law says that the speed limit is 65 miles/hour, the police will normally treat a driver differently if he is clocked at 70 than at 80.
Not, apparently, Judge Gorsuch. I predict that on the Court, he will chart a narrow course--to the right of Scalia and to the left of Thomas and Alito. He believes in the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the law.
The facts were not in dispute, but the law, any law, has a penumbra of meaning surrounding it, and cannot be interpreted mechanically. Thus if the law says that the speed limit is 65 miles/hour, the police will normally treat a driver differently if he is clocked at 70 than at 80.
Not, apparently, Judge Gorsuch. I predict that on the Court, he will chart a narrow course--to the right of Scalia and to the left of Thomas and Alito. He believes in the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the law.
3
"Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, pressed Judge Gorsuch on a central question: Can he hold President Trump accountable? “No man is above the law,” he said.
I really wish he had said "person" - as in "no person is above the law."
Limiting his phrase to "man" (and yes, I know he was referring to Trump, but still not necessary to limit his response) already tells me that in his eyes women are second class citizens. I'm so, so tired of this.
I really wish he had said "person" - as in "no person is above the law."
Limiting his phrase to "man" (and yes, I know he was referring to Trump, but still not necessary to limit his response) already tells me that in his eyes women are second class citizens. I'm so, so tired of this.
6
I appreciated his references to Plato/Socrates and his exposure to the legal minds at Oxford. Glad of this background. Champion. But those worlds are androcentric, and yeah, I would have been more reassured of his ability/tendency to critique his own place in them -- a la his mention of DF Wallace-s fish-story -- if he-d said
It bothered me too.
Likewise the apparent inhumanity of the truck-driver ruling.
It bothered me too.
Likewise the apparent inhumanity of the truck-driver ruling.
And where, exactly, will that "base" go?
"The Democrats need to mount an all-out filibuster to prevent the theft of this seat. Anything less and their base will rightly abandon them."
The likely answer is: the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. If so, I think the Republicans would welcome that turn of events. If not Elizabeth Warren, who, exactly?
I doubt the Democrats will filibuster on Gorsuch, nor should they. After all, it's just a conservative replacing another conservative.
The Democrats won't filibuster Gorsuch. They'll wring their hands, complain about Gorsuch, emphasize that they're retaining their right to try to block future nominees, and then they'll let Gorsuch be voted on. He'll get confirmed, the Republicans will duly note that Democrats' unambiguous reservation of rights, and that will be that.
Until the next vacancy occurs, of course. That will be a quite different matter.
"The Democrats need to mount an all-out filibuster to prevent the theft of this seat. Anything less and their base will rightly abandon them."
The likely answer is: the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. If so, I think the Republicans would welcome that turn of events. If not Elizabeth Warren, who, exactly?
I doubt the Democrats will filibuster on Gorsuch, nor should they. After all, it's just a conservative replacing another conservative.
The Democrats won't filibuster Gorsuch. They'll wring their hands, complain about Gorsuch, emphasize that they're retaining their right to try to block future nominees, and then they'll let Gorsuch be voted on. He'll get confirmed, the Republicans will duly note that Democrats' unambiguous reservation of rights, and that will be that.
Until the next vacancy occurs, of course. That will be a quite different matter.
Love Senator Al Franken of Minnesota. All that time spent as a radio host have rendered him the best interviewer in this DC cesspool, with the most fruitful follow up questions. He obliterated Jeff Sessions, no doubt.
Gorsuch is too friendly and seemingly familiar with Republicans, who keep tossing soft ball questions. It's made a boring afternoon. The chumminess is appalling.
Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska seems as if he's giving Gorsuch the high-five to do as he pleases as a Supreme Court Justice.
For his part, Gorsuch is good at memorizing this and that for answering questions before him. But his role in Hobby Lobby ruined it for us all.
Gorsuch is too friendly and seemingly familiar with Republicans, who keep tossing soft ball questions. It's made a boring afternoon. The chumminess is appalling.
Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska seems as if he's giving Gorsuch the high-five to do as he pleases as a Supreme Court Justice.
For his part, Gorsuch is good at memorizing this and that for answering questions before him. But his role in Hobby Lobby ruined it for us all.
5
I'm a Trump supporter and no fan of Al Franken, but, as I write this, he is nailing Gorsuch for his inconsistencies and hypocrisy. Gorsuch always has his faithful wife behind him (lucky him), but he comes across as a frozen product of white male privilege but no more so than when he tries to engage in folksy anecdotes or lame humor. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.
12
I highly doubt you are a Trump supporter.
1
You are likely the only Trump supporter in the country to ever say "white male privilege" without treating the idea as a joke or an evil concept.
Then again, you might not really be a Trump supporter.
Then again, you might not really be a Trump supporter.
1
The democrats are accomplishing nothing. They are wasting time acting like children. Confirm him and get on with something like making the country great again.
2
Impeachment hearings will definitely make this country great again.
1
Did you feel the same way when the Republicans refused to have a hearing on Obama's SC pick last year? If so, then I'll assume you're sincere. If not, you should reconsider.
The only way this country will be "great again" is when #45 steps down!
1
He may be too conservative for those on the left but let's consider the diversity argument. The SJC is comprised of only Catholics or Jews, so he would be an affirmative action choice.
1
Judge Gorsuch says, "No man is above the law."
Fine, I get it.
As I got all those sweet things Republican-nominated Justices in the past promised us at their hearings.
John Roberts told us (in all sincerity?) that a Justice's role was to "call balls and strikes." Then he told the Citizens United team to come back and argue a larger case -- and now we have a horrible law, courtesy of The High Court doing a heckuva lot more than calling balls and strikes.
Of course no man is above the law in America; that's not a very novel thought for a judicial nominee to express. But the implied promise is a hollow one and we should not be sucked in by it.
Judge Gorsuch also seems to believe corporations can hold religious beliefs! That is an absurd opinion; no corporation has ever been burned at the stake or hung on a cross for its religious beliefs.
Furthermore, this could be Donald Trump's last year as president, so the senate should not hold any hearings on any Trump nominees to The high Court until we know if Mr. Trump is going to be indicted, found guilty and removed from office.
Fine, I get it.
As I got all those sweet things Republican-nominated Justices in the past promised us at their hearings.
John Roberts told us (in all sincerity?) that a Justice's role was to "call balls and strikes." Then he told the Citizens United team to come back and argue a larger case -- and now we have a horrible law, courtesy of The High Court doing a heckuva lot more than calling balls and strikes.
Of course no man is above the law in America; that's not a very novel thought for a judicial nominee to express. But the implied promise is a hollow one and we should not be sucked in by it.
Judge Gorsuch also seems to believe corporations can hold religious beliefs! That is an absurd opinion; no corporation has ever been burned at the stake or hung on a cross for its religious beliefs.
Furthermore, this could be Donald Trump's last year as president, so the senate should not hold any hearings on any Trump nominees to The high Court until we know if Mr. Trump is going to be indicted, found guilty and removed from office.
9
Gorsuch's parsing and prevarication certainly confirm that he, as he said, is a "lawyer," and not a "politician." His statement that he "made no commitments to the White House" about how he might rule begs the issue, to say the least: if the ultra conservative Federalist Society put forth his name, you can be certain that they were assured of his rulings, even if he made no such assurances to the White House. Res ipsa loquitur - the man is a very right wing conservative who has been rehearsed and coached for this charade. Unfortunately, the Democrats seem, as usual, gutless and spineless in their ability to question and move beyond all of the smoothly urbane parsing. I, for one, am not sold. This is a stolen seat, and Gorsuch should be blocked - if for no other reason than the fact that Con Man is under FBI investigation. 3/21, 4:24 PM
7
The first questions they should have asked: What are you doing here? Where is Mr. Garland?
12
Judge Gorsuch is as qualified by education, experience and temperament as any SCOTUS nominee in my lifetime. The American Bar Association called him "well qualified" to serve, its' highest rating.
After the Democrats are done with their partisan Kabuki dance this good, decent man ought to be affirmed.
After the Democrats are done with their partisan Kabuki dance this good, decent man ought to be affirmed.
4
I believe the same was said about Merrick Garland...
6
Did you feel the same way last year when Obama nominated a decent man who was qualified by education, experience and temperament? Or did you think the Republicans had the right to do a "partisan Kabuki dance" by refusing to give him a hearing? The shoe is on the other foot now, Nancy. You can't say it's OK for one party to do something and then condemn the other party for doing the same thing. Unless you believe different rules apply, which evidently you do.
3
Yeah? So was Judge Garland. Republicans were so blindly partisan that they didn't even give him a hearing.
3
Imagine Pence as evangelical President and SCOTUS with a strong evangelical tilt... welcome to American theocracy.
9
I support Judge Gorsuch.
Why is it that none of the Democratic Senators are asking Judge Gorsuch's views on the Emoluments Clause?
Why did the Founders put the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution?
Does a cash payment equal an Emolument?
Is Trump violating the Constitution?
Why did the Founders put the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution?
Does a cash payment equal an Emolument?
Is Trump violating the Constitution?
Lots of complaints on here about Garland, which to be fair was not Gorsuch's doing, and about the Democrats' reluctance to filibuster, which most likely would result in the so-called nuclear option and leave the Democrats in a much worse position in the future. Do you really want to block Gorsuch now and leave yourself with no ability to block Pryor (or someone even worse) a year or two down the line? This is one time when Democrats need to think longer term. There's lots I don't like about Gorsuch, but the choice could have been much, much worse.
5
If Judge Gorsuch were a decent man, he would acknowledge that the Republicans' refusal to hold hearings for Judge Garland was unacceptable. He would withdraw from the nomination and invite Judge Garland to sit there in his place. He would place decency and democracy above his personal career.
9
Except Trump would not nominate Judge Garland. So what is the point?
As stated in a previous comment, this is the wrong hill to die on. Democrats do not have the power to stop this nominee's ascension to the SC. Pick your battles. The democrats actions will doom the filibuster and make future Trump nominations simpler and quicker. The balance on the court, prior to Scalia's death, will not change. The next retirement/open seat will. Keep the powder dry until it is essential to use it. Its a long game. Play it as such...
4
Unfortunately, contrary to what all nominees for the last 30 years state, an appointment to the Supreme Court is political. Mr. Gorsuch is the nominee because the nominators know exactly how he will judge without having to crudely ask him directly.
2
These right wing guys have long wanted to change the law to their views that are not in the pregmatic reality of our Constitutional founders. Where would a early court ever give a corporation the rights of a person? Never, but these rightwingers know how to control the Country through oligopolistic law. This is who Gorsuch is. This is what he does.
3
With all due respect to our judiciary, being an Originalist means that he would interpret the Constitution as the framers intended. An originalist will ignore many recent rulings as "political" and instead try to read the minds of persons who spoke early American English, held (1/2 free persons) slaves and had massive land holdings near Boston (population 75,000).
I don't want that at all. Is he going to require that State Rights remain sacrosanct when the GOP gerrymanders more than half the Country? Is he going to argue that waterboarding isn't cruel and unusual?
This is the horrible price Progressives will pay for voting for Johnson and Stein.
I don't want that at all. Is he going to require that State Rights remain sacrosanct when the GOP gerrymanders more than half the Country? Is he going to argue that waterboarding isn't cruel and unusual?
This is the horrible price Progressives will pay for voting for Johnson and Stein.
6
Until the Russia/Trump investigation is concluded, this appointment should be delayed.
6
Yes to Gorsuch, if they confirm Merrick too
1
The reason we will have a right-wing, activist Supreme Court for more than a generation is simple: Donald Trump was elected President. This is no surprise to anyone who followed the Presidential campaign. I trust that all the commenters who are whining about the Democrats not being able to block Gorsuch's nomination voted for Hillary Clinton, and don't include Jill Stein voters, Bernie or busters, or "progressives" who just couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
4
Thanks. Have a look at the roster of people who might have regrets after the fact. Jill Stein wasn't even a proper Green, and her VP hated Obama. What was up with that?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/19/1645085/-Documenting-History-S...
"Documenting History So It's Not Repeated: Naming Regressive Leftists Who Tried to Help Trump Win"
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/19/1645085/-Documenting-History-S...
"Documenting History So It's Not Repeated: Naming Regressive Leftists Who Tried to Help Trump Win"
1
Can't say how much I'm impressed by Senator Al Franken's questioning of Gorsuch. I was fan of Franken when he was - as he coined it today - a chronicler of the absurd, and I'm a fan of his performance as a Senator.
His frustration with the taciturn Gorsuch is evident and quite understandable. Gorsuch repeatedly invokes the defence that he knows nothing about politics, and can't be seen to engage in it - which would be fine were it not for the fact that, as Franken points out - he was once an enthusiastic Bush/GOP campaigner.
It will be interesting to see whether Democrats - and moderate, conscientious Republicans - will hang a Garland around Gorsuch's neck - at least to the point his promoters are forced to go nuclear to get him confirmed.
His frustration with the taciturn Gorsuch is evident and quite understandable. Gorsuch repeatedly invokes the defence that he knows nothing about politics, and can't be seen to engage in it - which would be fine were it not for the fact that, as Franken points out - he was once an enthusiastic Bush/GOP campaigner.
It will be interesting to see whether Democrats - and moderate, conscientious Republicans - will hang a Garland around Gorsuch's neck - at least to the point his promoters are forced to go nuclear to get him confirmed.
5
We should reflect on the democratic criticisms and republican praise directed at David Souter back in 1990. Recall all the what-ifs that seemed so certain: Edward Kennedy voted against him; Biden worried he'd chip away at abortion rights; Strom Thurmond thought he would be a reliable vote for the Right. Well, I think it's best for democrats to be fair to Gorsuch now, especially given that, worst case scenario, he's as conservative as Scalia and so keeps the court's current partisan divide. And who knows: given Trump's ineptitude at most everything he goes near, maybe he's giving yet another gift to a powerless Left. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not pulling my hair out either.
1
Some are saying that they should not confirm any nominee to the Supreme Court as long as Trump is president. Considering the age of four of the current justices we could end up with a Court of only 5 or 6 members in 2 or 3 years. How would that work?
1
I simply do not trust the man.
3
Judge Gorsuch's record on voter suppression/voting rights, women's rights, and torture are deeply disturbing. He has favored corporations over people again and again. Corporations are not people; they have no morals other than profit, and you cannot put them in jail. They wield immense power, the more profitable and amoral they are, the more they can pollute and mistreat their employees and seek profit over long-term benefit to the community of humanity.
Make no mistake, we are a community of humanity, and we are under threat from this immense power to loot and pollute, not only the hospitable earth we inhabit (becoming less so because of same), but the communities we inhabit.
The Constitution is a fine document, created by intelligent humans, but it is not the "tablets of Moses" sent down from on high (a metaphor). Nonetheless, its framers made every effort to separate religion from the state, unlike these self-labeled "originalists".
If we were first and foremost a Christian nation, I'd like to see us heed more carefully the teachings of Jesus as represented in the Gospels. I don't see anything there that puts corporations before people. Preachers who say different exploit.
We're stuck with all this, but the idea that we should all shut up because a minority "won" is unpatriotic to an extreme. Dissent, loyal opposition, is an important part of democracy.
I can hope Judge Gorsuch will break from his dangerous heritage, but I weep on behalf of our earth and all of us.
Make no mistake, we are a community of humanity, and we are under threat from this immense power to loot and pollute, not only the hospitable earth we inhabit (becoming less so because of same), but the communities we inhabit.
The Constitution is a fine document, created by intelligent humans, but it is not the "tablets of Moses" sent down from on high (a metaphor). Nonetheless, its framers made every effort to separate religion from the state, unlike these self-labeled "originalists".
If we were first and foremost a Christian nation, I'd like to see us heed more carefully the teachings of Jesus as represented in the Gospels. I don't see anything there that puts corporations before people. Preachers who say different exploit.
We're stuck with all this, but the idea that we should all shut up because a minority "won" is unpatriotic to an extreme. Dissent, loyal opposition, is an important part of democracy.
I can hope Judge Gorsuch will break from his dangerous heritage, but I weep on behalf of our earth and all of us.
16
I will never in a million years understand why a fetus is so much more precious than a born child and its mother (and father, if men could be held as responsible as women are).
Kind of explains male enhancement approval doesn't it? Women don't deserve health care and assistance with contraception but the male sex drives has rights? For some humor on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Kind of explains male enhancement approval doesn't it? Women don't deserve health care and assistance with contraception but the male sex drives has rights? For some humor on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
3
Wouldn't it be great, though, if the precedent of Hobby Lobby could be used to show, once and for all, that in a culture with religious diversity we CAN'T have this foolish system of private, employer provided health care? There are so many thorny issues when employers are delivering health care - religious objections, genetic information privacy, runaway costs because health care is not a regular marketplace... Maybe decidions like Hobby Lobby serve to throw policy problems back to the legislature. Our lawmakers stopped doing their jobs long ago and I think justices on both sides of the aisle are sick of it. Maybe, in the long run, well reasoned judicial thinking will help force the hand of policy makers to a solution that bends toward real justice.
1
Yes anon, wouldn't it be great if up was up and down was down, right was right and wrong was wrong. If perverted alternatives to the truth were not labeled facts but lies and fictions?
Indeed, we need universal health care. But this perverted corrupt unpatriotic kleptocracy is only interested in power and wealth. They've got their hands on the wheel and they're determined to take charge, humanity be damned.
Indeed, we need universal health care. But this perverted corrupt unpatriotic kleptocracy is only interested in power and wealth. They've got their hands on the wheel and they're determined to take charge, humanity be damned.
4
This for me comes down, not to whether Gorsuch is qualified- he is; but whether it is in the best interests of Democrats and liberals to approve the nomination or stage a fight 'til the end. Republican vigilantes stole the Garland nomination - a last act of defiance agains Obama> I have no respect for them or Trump.
I dislike a couple of his well known rulings, and certainly didn't want a conservative. BUT I strongly suspect that he is the best person we will see this Administration put forward.
This situation to me looks like a lose-a-little vs lose-a-lot for Dems. And I can pray that within his love for rule by law there is a love of justice, which will mean that he won't be 100% Scalia reincarnate.
I dislike a couple of his well known rulings, and certainly didn't want a conservative. BUT I strongly suspect that he is the best person we will see this Administration put forward.
This situation to me looks like a lose-a-little vs lose-a-lot for Dems. And I can pray that within his love for rule by law there is a love of justice, which will mean that he won't be 100% Scalia reincarnate.
3
Republicans held this Supreme Court seat open for nearly a calendar year while President Obama was in office,” he said from the Senate floor, “but are now rushing to fill the seat for a president whose campaign is under investigation by the F.B.I.”.................so says Chuck Schumer. Apparently he suffers from memory loss as to his OWN actions back in 2007. Hypocrisy thy name is Chuck.
3
Is it not reasonable to delay a vote on Gorsuch until the Trump ties to Russia are thoroughly vetted? If the shoe were on the other foot, McConnell et al would be apoplectic about letting a Democratic President's nominee be confirmed while said Democrat was being investigated.
Wait a minute! That's exactly what McConnell et al threatened last fall when it appeared HRC might become President. Those emails, remember. And Benghazi?
At the very least a pause is in order if only because there is serious reason to believe that Trump conspires with the Russians in order to have all his outstanding debts to Russian oligarchs forgiven.
C'mon, Democrats. Fight for a change, or in this case, a pause.
Wait a minute! That's exactly what McConnell et al threatened last fall when it appeared HRC might become President. Those emails, remember. And Benghazi?
At the very least a pause is in order if only because there is serious reason to believe that Trump conspires with the Russians in order to have all his outstanding debts to Russian oligarchs forgiven.
C'mon, Democrats. Fight for a change, or in this case, a pause.
10
Judge Gorsuch is a very poor critical thinker. I do not want his warped sense of logic to be part of my government. He has stated his belief in the "inviolability" of life.
From another Times article today:
"He rejected the role of states in granting the terminally ill a right to die and offered a legal framework that could be applied to abortion. allowing these practices in any state would violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Such a law for allowing this kind of euthanasia, would treat “the lives of different persons quite differently” by prohibiting the murder of the healthy while allowing the killing of the sick, he wrote."
On abortion, he states: "“Abortion would be ruled out by the inviolability-of-life principle I intend to set forth if, but only if, a fetus is considered a human life.” He noted that had the court “found the fetus to be a ‘person’ for purposes of the 14th Amendment, it could not have created a right to abortion because no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life.”
He has no understanding of the Confusius statement: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” First of all, it is not murder if a very sick, terminally ill person decides he or she wants to die and requests it. To call a fetus a human being requires a definition that could be argued for twenty years and we could not agree. It is all very arbitrary when a fertilized egg becomes a human.
From another Times article today:
"He rejected the role of states in granting the terminally ill a right to die and offered a legal framework that could be applied to abortion. allowing these practices in any state would violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Such a law for allowing this kind of euthanasia, would treat “the lives of different persons quite differently” by prohibiting the murder of the healthy while allowing the killing of the sick, he wrote."
On abortion, he states: "“Abortion would be ruled out by the inviolability-of-life principle I intend to set forth if, but only if, a fetus is considered a human life.” He noted that had the court “found the fetus to be a ‘person’ for purposes of the 14th Amendment, it could not have created a right to abortion because no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life.”
He has no understanding of the Confusius statement: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” First of all, it is not murder if a very sick, terminally ill person decides he or she wants to die and requests it. To call a fetus a human being requires a definition that could be argued for twenty years and we could not agree. It is all very arbitrary when a fertilized egg becomes a human.
5
They also think that the fourteenth amendment gives equal protection to corporations as people, and they are still equal when corporations have most of the money and most of the lawyers.
No where does the condition say a corruption is a person.
No where does the condition say a corruption is a person.
1
Yeah, right Neil. Sounds good.
Fifty years ago my torts professor at Yale asked us why we were here. Some future politician raised his hand (there were only three women in the class back then) and said "to see justice done."
"Justice? Justice?" He proclaimed. "You're in the wrong building. You want the Philosophy Department."
Fifty years ago my torts professor at Yale asked us why we were here. Some future politician raised his hand (there were only three women in the class back then) and said "to see justice done."
"Justice? Justice?" He proclaimed. "You're in the wrong building. You want the Philosophy Department."
2
Trump would offer nothing without a big payola in return. He believes there should be some punishment for abortion, this was said to Chris Matthews in an interview. Very extreme, do not be fooled, AGAIN!
3
Any Congressional Democrat who votes for Gorsuch will be thrown out of office. Millions will remember that you don't have the spine needed to resist steroidal fascism.
If a Republican says "Yes", you automatically and always say "NO". There is nothing to consider and nothing to think about. Your entire job is "NO".
Don't be like Liz, who weakly said "Yes" to Haley. She's 100% gone.
Except for Obamacare. Make sure the Republicans have enough votes to repeal it. Hang it around their necks and help them drown.
Then call it TrumpCare and talk about Republican Death Panels every chance you get.
If a Republican says "Yes", you automatically and always say "NO". There is nothing to consider and nothing to think about. Your entire job is "NO".
Don't be like Liz, who weakly said "Yes" to Haley. She's 100% gone.
Except for Obamacare. Make sure the Republicans have enough votes to repeal it. Hang it around their necks and help them drown.
Then call it TrumpCare and talk about Republican Death Panels every chance you get.
4
Ask Gorsuch if he thinks it would be appropriate or the right thing to do to step down if, after he were seated on the Supreme Court, the pr*sident who appointed him were to be impeached and removed from office. When it turns out that Trump and/or his henchmen colluded with the Russians to get him elected, and he is forced to resign, do we get something of a do-over? Would it really be the Constitutionally-correct thing to do to seat Mike Pence as the president when the person on whose coattails he rode into office got there illegally?
12
100% agree. I can't believe that even if this so-called president loses an impeachment hearing or resigns after "winning" the election with the help of election interference by a foreign power, his team would still benefit from the fraudulent election.
1
When I think @ how Gorsuch got to this point (See: M. Garland), I have very little respect for the guy, none, in fact. It's as if he bought a stolen car here in town, a car that everyone knows was stolen from the local (pick it: school, church, hospital, post office, dem office, etc.). And he'll drive around proud and clueless with his shiny, new toy while we all know the real story. It's a tainted nomination and will forever be. He should have stood-up, shown some guts and turned the job down. Now that would have been impressive, a regular Gary Cooper moment.
15
@MikeC: Here, here. Well said.
Could Senator Ted Cruz be anymore unctuous?
What an ego.
What an ego.
11
Oh, don't be too persuaded by the "no man is above the law" remark. Sean Spicer I am sure will explain how it doesn't apply to Trump. He'll perhaps say, "The Judge meant what he said and said what he meant. 'No man is above the law.' He didn't say 'no president' he said 'no man.' And Donald Trump is more than just a man, he is the president." Sounds about par for this press secretary's logic and games, don't you think? Believe nothing.
8
The Supreme Court interprets the law, so they can declare it legal for the president to steal everything, just line they declared our legal to steal a presidential election, and legal to buy elections.
Read between the lines people. Republicans have teams off people whose job it is to make up words phrases and sentenced that mean the opposite of what any English teacher would say.
Read between the lines people. Republicans have teams off people whose job it is to make up words phrases and sentenced that mean the opposite of what any English teacher would say.
2
Exactly. Republicans have already made it clear they believe Trump is above the law because laws don't apply to the President. Gorsuch's statement is a joke.
"Were the [Supreme Court] to reverse [Roe v. Wade,] it is widely assumed the issue would be left to the states to decide. However, under the Finnis view [Gorsuch's thesis adviser at Oxford], if the court were to deem a fetus a constitutional person, abortion would be prohibited nationwide."
Interesting point, but if we can yank ourselves back to reality here, a reversal of Roe v. Wade almost certainly would NOT be coupled with an adoption of the Finnis new. It would simply declare that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to an abortion. That effectively would leave it up to each state to decide. Many would say abortion is a right (NY and CA, for example). Many others would prohibit abortion (OK and KS, for example).
In other words, a reversal of Roe v. Wade wouldn't end the abortion debate. It would just kick it down to the state level.
Interesting point, but if we can yank ourselves back to reality here, a reversal of Roe v. Wade almost certainly would NOT be coupled with an adoption of the Finnis new. It would simply declare that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to an abortion. That effectively would leave it up to each state to decide. Many would say abortion is a right (NY and CA, for example). Many others would prohibit abortion (OK and KS, for example).
In other words, a reversal of Roe v. Wade wouldn't end the abortion debate. It would just kick it down to the state level.
Judge Gorsuch claims to hold the law as something like a fetish. Yet we are listening to him precisely because the Senate decided that the Constitution's rules on Supreme Court appointments are open to multiple interpretations.
He is bleeding credibility. I sense that he is governed by his personal politics every bit as much as Ted Cruz is. And that being brilliant will be no more successful for him in dealing with President Trump than it was for Ted Cruz. If confirmed, Gorsuch will be fighting off Trump's wild-eyed accusations about his mother, just as Cruz had to about his father.
He is bleeding credibility. I sense that he is governed by his personal politics every bit as much as Ted Cruz is. And that being brilliant will be no more successful for him in dealing with President Trump than it was for Ted Cruz. If confirmed, Gorsuch will be fighting off Trump's wild-eyed accusations about his mother, just as Cruz had to about his father.
2
I voted for Clinton(s), am appalled by Trump & co., believe this is a stolen seat...but don't believe filibustering this pick would make any sense. He seems as reasonable a person as one can expect under present circumstances. And the likelihood is there will be another seat open in the next 4 years. Save the filibuster for Justice Bannon.
4
Filibuster all of them. What makes you think Goodrich is not ready to sell everything you and your family have worked for? Would anyone with any sense of justice or honor take this seat?
Anyone that would take this seat is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Anyone that would take this seat is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Gorsuch posted a quote from Henry Kissinger in his senior high school yearbook. "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Surely he got some feedback on that one. Three years later, none the wiser apparently, he doubled down and repeated the quote in Columbia's yearbook. If that doesn't summarize where he gets his ideas from, I don't know what will open folks' eyes.
At Columbia he wrote for the student newspaper, the misnamed "Columbia Daily Spectator." He consistently sided with far right viewpoints and never failed to bash liberals. That wasn't sufficient so he started his own campus publication "The Federalist Paper," which was nothing but a right wing platform.
His views were formed at a young age, and he's never given any credence to opposing viewpoints. His opinions are identical to what he thought as a pimply fourteen year old, shaped by his Republican mom. She was appointed lead the EPA by Reagan, and commenced slashing its budget by 22%, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, relaxed Clean Air Act regulations, and facilitated the use of restricted-use pesticides. Sound familiar? Eventually she was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions and destroying records, the first director to earn such an accolade. She should have served time in a federal prison for that. Would that have made young Neil second guess his positions?
At Columbia he wrote for the student newspaper, the misnamed "Columbia Daily Spectator." He consistently sided with far right viewpoints and never failed to bash liberals. That wasn't sufficient so he started his own campus publication "The Federalist Paper," which was nothing but a right wing platform.
His views were formed at a young age, and he's never given any credence to opposing viewpoints. His opinions are identical to what he thought as a pimply fourteen year old, shaped by his Republican mom. She was appointed lead the EPA by Reagan, and commenced slashing its budget by 22%, reduced the number of cases filed against polluters, relaxed Clean Air Act regulations, and facilitated the use of restricted-use pesticides. Sound familiar? Eventually she was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions and destroying records, the first director to earn such an accolade. She should have served time in a federal prison for that. Would that have made young Neil second guess his positions?
8
Many lawyers -- I included -- struggle with the concept of "stare decisis." Judges are inclined to respect precedent, especially precedent that's been around a long time, as Roe v. Wade has been. On the other hand, the Supreme Court is free at any time to reverse any precedent -- that's what "Supreme" means. There's the rub.
In any case, the Supreme Court is different from all lower courts, which have no choice but to follow a precedent (if any) established by the Supreme Court. Maybe the lower court doesn't like that precedent, and maybe it can find a way to distinguish it from the case at hand. But if it can't distinguish the case at hand from that precedent, the lower court has no choice: It must follow that precedent.
The Supreme Court is not required to do that, however. Only the (frankly, vague) doctrine of stare decisis restrains the Supreme Court, and that doctrine may or may not be enough. Personally, I think few if any abortion opponents would risk putting another Roe case before the SC until at least one more liberal Justice has been replaced by one more conservative Justice. If Gorsuch gets confirmed (as seems close to certain, unless he gets hit by a truck sometime soon), a conservative Justice (Scalia) will just be replaced by another conservative Justice; not enough. If, however, Ginsburg (for example) retires or dies and is replaced, predictably, by a conservative Justice, I'd say Roe v. Wade's days will be numbered.
In any case, the Supreme Court is different from all lower courts, which have no choice but to follow a precedent (if any) established by the Supreme Court. Maybe the lower court doesn't like that precedent, and maybe it can find a way to distinguish it from the case at hand. But if it can't distinguish the case at hand from that precedent, the lower court has no choice: It must follow that precedent.
The Supreme Court is not required to do that, however. Only the (frankly, vague) doctrine of stare decisis restrains the Supreme Court, and that doctrine may or may not be enough. Personally, I think few if any abortion opponents would risk putting another Roe case before the SC until at least one more liberal Justice has been replaced by one more conservative Justice. If Gorsuch gets confirmed (as seems close to certain, unless he gets hit by a truck sometime soon), a conservative Justice (Scalia) will just be replaced by another conservative Justice; not enough. If, however, Ginsburg (for example) retires or dies and is replaced, predictably, by a conservative Justice, I'd say Roe v. Wade's days will be numbered.
How does the good judge feel knowing is nomination was at the cost of denying another viable candidate.
4
Republicans are offering the new rule that a President cannot confirm a Supreme Court Justice once a presidential campaign starts. Given that President Trump is now officially on the campaign trail, collecting campaign money and having campaign rallies, it would follow that Gorsuch should not get a confirmation hearing.
11
When does the filibuster start?
6
Never, at least not on Gorsuch.
2
Why not 3cents? The GOP highjacked our republic. Why do you think we should let them put anyone but Garland on the bench??
He does not seem like a horrible pick per se, but make no mistake about it: This is a stolen seat that rightfully belongs to Merrick Garland.
12
After watching the hearings for a half hour, it is obvious that no Senator could reasonably cast a vote against Judge Gorsuch. He is clearly qualified to sit on the Court. Besides his obvious intellectual qualifications, he is thoughtful, fair, intelligent and principled. While you may disagree with his judicial philosophy, that issue was settled by the election. As Senator Graham noted, he voted for Justices Kagan and Sotomayer despite sharply disagreeing with their judicial philosophy because they were clearly qualified and President Obama had the right to appoint qualified justices. These hearings have descended to the point of an auto de fe, where the qualifications of the candidate are ignored and the Democratic members are angry over other extraneous issues. Democrats are frustrated that Judge Garland, who also was clearly qualified, was not confirmed and seem to be more interested in pandering to the extreme base.
5
The idea of a judge without biases has to go. Any person who rests on this should be ashamed, as it is a blatant lie. For too long, under many consecutive administrations very serious people have allowed this charade to continue. It is dangerous, it is fraudulent, and it should stop.
It is about time for all judges to acknowledge that all people have biases, and previous thoughts on subjects and that these are part of the humanity that we expect people to bring into the judicial process. We do not wish to have justices accomplished by people who have never thought about the issues of the day, and have no philosophies as to how justice is to be administered.
To say, I will not discuss this or that issue because it may come up before the court and may prejudice a decision is just an evasion. The prejudice and bias is already there, to not address it does not make it go away. To not address it does not mean that a judge will not be affected by it.
Further, we expect judges to bring their humanity and sense of justice into the law. Their sense of interpretation into the very imperfect process of interpreting the laws others have made. It is not easy, and they will use their philosophies to do it.
Maybe we should expect those already on the court to discuss fully their biases so that those coming on have the cover of truth to support them. I don't think there is a member of the court who has not benefited from this charade, so maybe it should be them to start the clean up.
It is about time for all judges to acknowledge that all people have biases, and previous thoughts on subjects and that these are part of the humanity that we expect people to bring into the judicial process. We do not wish to have justices accomplished by people who have never thought about the issues of the day, and have no philosophies as to how justice is to be administered.
To say, I will not discuss this or that issue because it may come up before the court and may prejudice a decision is just an evasion. The prejudice and bias is already there, to not address it does not make it go away. To not address it does not mean that a judge will not be affected by it.
Further, we expect judges to bring their humanity and sense of justice into the law. Their sense of interpretation into the very imperfect process of interpreting the laws others have made. It is not easy, and they will use their philosophies to do it.
Maybe we should expect those already on the court to discuss fully their biases so that those coming on have the cover of truth to support them. I don't think there is a member of the court who has not benefited from this charade, so maybe it should be them to start the clean up.
1
We need to remember -- and never forget -- that the Republicans not only refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing, they also assumed Hillary Clinton would win the presidency so they added that they would NOT confirm ANY nominees to the Supreme Court for as long as she was president.
For the Republicans to now pretend they are people of honesty and integrity is laughable.
For the Republicans to now pretend they are people of honesty and integrity is laughable.
17
McConnell said ONLY that the next President should pick the nominee. If HRC had won, she would have been allowed to pick -- IF McConnell was being honest. If HRC had won and McConnell tried to block her nominee, that would have been entirely inappropriate and I would have objected strongly.
Garland's timing was unfortunate, but it was what it was. If he'd got a "hearing," he would have been rejected; I have no doubt about that. Maybe the Republicans' act of rejecting Garland would have tipped the scales in Hillary's favor, maybe not. Either way, though, Garland would have been rejected if he'd been given a "hearing" before the election. I think we all know that.
Garland's timing was unfortunate, but it was what it was. If he'd got a "hearing," he would have been rejected; I have no doubt about that. Maybe the Republicans' act of rejecting Garland would have tipped the scales in Hillary's favor, maybe not. Either way, though, Garland would have been rejected if he'd been given a "hearing" before the election. I think we all know that.
1
For those not old enough to remember, Teddy Kennedy started the partisan battles over the SJC with the Robert Bork nomination and it is only going to get worse in the future
3
It's probably ironic that Judge Gorsuch should say "No man is above the law." What he is not saying is that institutions may be. Look no further than the current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Police [both state and federal] continue to apply brutal enforcement [some of which is either misuse or abuse] techniques and racially profile in non-emergency situations.
Americans' liberties and freedoms continue to erode away at the hands of the policing apparatus and the Supreme Court, particularly the conservative bloc.
The Judiciary has also interpreted the Constitution and statutes so that the President of the United States gets absolute immunity in judicial proceedings. That means even if he intentionally discriminated against individual Americans [and anyone else in that scenario would be deemed illegal], or abused his power [again, anyone else would be answerable to the law], he gets no recrimination.
Americans' liberties and freedoms continue to erode away at the hands of the policing apparatus and the Supreme Court, particularly the conservative bloc.
The Judiciary has also interpreted the Constitution and statutes so that the President of the United States gets absolute immunity in judicial proceedings. That means even if he intentionally discriminated against individual Americans [and anyone else in that scenario would be deemed illegal], or abused his power [again, anyone else would be answerable to the law], he gets no recrimination.
2
Yes, Virginia, there may be a Santa Claus but No, Virginia, a Zygote is not a person.
4
Words are one thing. His actions are another. And his track record is not good.
2
And so here we are with a Nominee for SC whose views are substantially outside of mainstream society. Gorsuch himself has said that laws should be made in the Legislature, not in the courts.
McConnell has control now with Gorsuch protecting his conservative social agenda. He is doing his best to postpone dealing with unhinged President Trump while ramming through a half baked health bill and soon to follow tax reforms.
The Democrats will only hurt themselves in the long run by obstructing the voting process for what will inevitably be Gorsuch's approval. All that is left in the legislative rules for the Dems to do is make a powerful statement before the vote - essentially coloring the Reps as anti-democratic stomping on the Constitution, maybe even a funeral for the great document.
Then get out the citizens to vote to get rid of the Rep majority showing Mitch that he made a tactical error in not allowing Garland a hearing. He has awoken the sleeping majority. If the courts are not going to protect the rights of all people under the constitution then the laws will have to be changed. Gorsuch's legal positions can be defeated by people power.
McConnell has control now with Gorsuch protecting his conservative social agenda. He is doing his best to postpone dealing with unhinged President Trump while ramming through a half baked health bill and soon to follow tax reforms.
The Democrats will only hurt themselves in the long run by obstructing the voting process for what will inevitably be Gorsuch's approval. All that is left in the legislative rules for the Dems to do is make a powerful statement before the vote - essentially coloring the Reps as anti-democratic stomping on the Constitution, maybe even a funeral for the great document.
Then get out the citizens to vote to get rid of the Rep majority showing Mitch that he made a tactical error in not allowing Garland a hearing. He has awoken the sleeping majority. If the courts are not going to protect the rights of all people under the constitution then the laws will have to be changed. Gorsuch's legal positions can be defeated by people power.
So far, Mr. Gorsuch has sidestepped any question that lets us know where he stands on most of the important issues the Supreme Court may consider. His "I don't get involved in politics," answer could not be more disingenuous. How does he think he got this nomination in the first place? Frankly, we know everything we need to know about a man who considers Antonin Scalia to be his role model, advised the George W. Bush administration on the legalities of torture, and supported corporations above individuals. The Democrats will be expected to be principled, which translates as: "We will vote for him because we aren't as craven as the Republicans and we don't have the nerve to simply refuse to consider him." Thus, we will have a conservative Justice for the next twenty or twenty-five years.
Disappointed no Democrat asked the question I, as a woman, mother, grandmother and mother-in-law, wanted to hear answered. "Do you or do you not view the right to a legal abortion as a woman's civil right that no state or legislative body can take away from her?" And, "What is your stand on personhood? How can personhood rights co -exist with a woman's civil rights and reproductive rights?"
2
So--Gorsuch utters "No man is above the law." Does this make him a brilliant judge??? His statement regarding Citizen's United and "dark money" -- he tells his interlocutor, “With all respect, the ball’s in your court." Well, let's get this straight--it was in the legislative "court." But it was the Supreme Court that ruled this disastrous and corrosive law into efficacy. How disingenuous!
13
Based on all the other Trump "picks" i.e., DeVos, Tillerson, Sessions, etc. I have no confidence in Judge Gorsuch. Trump sold a bag of goods when he promised jobs, fair trade despite his own Ivanka selling cheap, made-in-China trinkets, (no tariff on these items) and with Conway adverting on Fox News to rush out and buy her junk. No confidence. Period. No vote until after the FBI findings and decision as to how to proceed against Trump.
10
Time to put the brakes on this nomination until the cloud over the presidency is cleared. The American people have said so.
13
Actually the American citizens spoke loud and clear in November. Loud enough to win the Electoral College . The same way all others picked.
2
He avoided answering many, many relevant questions involving scenario - "It would be improper for me to say..."
He laughed and smirked a lot. What, this isn't a serious interview for him?
Also: his hair. I think Trump chooses candidates for all his posts based solely on photos of their hairlines and "silveriness."
Also: "No man is above the law." How about, "no person is above the law." I know he's a lawyer, but it's 2017.
He laughed and smirked a lot. What, this isn't a serious interview for him?
Also: his hair. I think Trump chooses candidates for all his posts based solely on photos of their hairlines and "silveriness."
Also: "No man is above the law." How about, "no person is above the law." I know he's a lawyer, but it's 2017.
We have a President we cannot respect.
We have a Congress we cannot respect.
We are assured to have a Court we cannot respect.
Three strikes...
We have a Congress we cannot respect.
We are assured to have a Court we cannot respect.
Three strikes...
12
Neil Gorsuch should NOT have been granted these hearings, after the shameful treatment President Obama's candidate received.
Why are the Democrats so spineless? Why do they perpetually 'reach across the table' or 'try to seem reasonable'?
You've got to fight fire with fire at some point.
When Gorsuch gets in and eviscerates Roe v. Wade and other civil liberties, Schumer and Durbin can congratulate themselves on their non-partisanship.
I'm heart-sick.
NOT my president.
Why are the Democrats so spineless? Why do they perpetually 'reach across the table' or 'try to seem reasonable'?
You've got to fight fire with fire at some point.
When Gorsuch gets in and eviscerates Roe v. Wade and other civil liberties, Schumer and Durbin can congratulate themselves on their non-partisanship.
I'm heart-sick.
NOT my president.
20
Gorsuch is one of THEM, a Republican with ties to Trump. Sadly, the last two months have proven that not one of them can be trusted to tell anything even faintly resembling the truth. If Gorsuch told me the sky was blue, I'd get out the Pantone color wheel to check.
Besides, this seat is not Trump's to appoint. It's Obama's, and anyone Trump tries to put in is illegitimate.
Besides, this seat is not Trump's to appoint. It's Obama's, and anyone Trump tries to put in is illegitimate.
5
Simple question. Do you support personhood for a fetus and all that entails up to and including denying girls/women liberty?
3
Judge Gorsuch says he can't get involved in politics. But looking at Supreme Court decisions over the last few decades, it's all about politics. He was nominated because conservatives believed in would rule in line with their political views- on abortion, taxes, voter suppression, money in politics, etc.
Judges don't talk about issues that might come before the Supreme Court. But what else is there that we are concerned about in a potential Supreme Court justice? Things that they would never have to deal with? Their picks for March Madness? Or is this March Madness?
Judges don't talk about issues that might come before the Supreme Court. But what else is there that we are concerned about in a potential Supreme Court justice? Things that they would never have to deal with? Their picks for March Madness? Or is this March Madness?
4
Given that Judge Garland would not have been approved by the
Republican Senate, why the hue and continual outcry about this
being a "Stolen Seat" ?
Were I President, I would nominate Judge Garland, if a Liberal Justice
stepped down from the Court, urging Republicans to vote for him
as a first step to ending the ideological wars.
As far as we know Judge Gorsuch had nothing to do with the possible
interference in the Presidential Elections and why some commentators
wish the Senators would "grill" him on the matter is beyond me.
What I would like to know is when are we going to get a Supreme Court Justice
who went to Law School at Night, was a Public Defender, and as a County Court Judge, hearing all the various cases that come before a County Judge,
understands what a typical citizen must endure when swept up, in our less
that Just, Justice System.
Republican Senate, why the hue and continual outcry about this
being a "Stolen Seat" ?
Were I President, I would nominate Judge Garland, if a Liberal Justice
stepped down from the Court, urging Republicans to vote for him
as a first step to ending the ideological wars.
As far as we know Judge Gorsuch had nothing to do with the possible
interference in the Presidential Elections and why some commentators
wish the Senators would "grill" him on the matter is beyond me.
What I would like to know is when are we going to get a Supreme Court Justice
who went to Law School at Night, was a Public Defender, and as a County Court Judge, hearing all the various cases that come before a County Judge,
understands what a typical citizen must endure when swept up, in our less
that Just, Justice System.
4
How is Gorsuch convinced the tables won't be turned on his family with the Hobby Lobby decision? It will. As it stands, an employer's "sincere" religious/cult belief, ANY belief, can interrupt an employee's healthcare coverage. Scientologists are as vehemently opposed to psychological treatment as the Hobby Lobby Corporation is against birth control. Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions. Some religions are opposed to vaccines, surgery or any medical care, altogether.
3
Yet these same scientists believe that if you are a man who wants to be a woman then your gender is not decided by biological sex? Only liberals see logic in absolute nonsense
Increasingly Democrats are in the bag for Gorsuch because he has establishment credentials, smiles a lot, and isn't worse. That's why Democrats deserve to lose. Filibuster!
3
I was listening to on the radio, and without knowing anything about Judge Gorsuch, I thought this would be a good pick, since he kept saying that no one is above the law, even the President. Now I'm reading the comments, I'm not so sure. So I will have to say, that I will pray that we don't go down the road of Citizen united. I think that is the dumbest decision we've ever made. It's selling our Presidency and the country to the highest bidder. Look at who we have not, a Russian elect president. Next, it will be a Chinese elected president. Corporations and companies are not people, unless you are mentally ill.
3
This whole process is pointless theater and it is insulting to the public. Sure, we can pretend that it is "political" or "unfair to litigants" if a judge were to voice his views. But, it these judges were able to talk about both sides of decision, instead of not talking, at least we would be able to see how they think. Not only is Gorsuch essentially saying nothing, but in the few circumstances where he has spoken about anything of note, he just sounds like someone who can't address the legal slippery slope.
Personally, I don't admire people who pretend that a complex field, one that is clearly filled with gray areas, can be reduced to black or white rules. It doesn't work that way. The mind and heart matter and it is important to hear about one's world view. We know he is conservative, but how conservative? Please speak, Mr. Gorsuch.
So, from the article regarding the man who abandoned his trailer to get to safety in a snow storm...
“He chose to operate,” Judge Gorsuch said, adding, “I think by any plain understanding, he operated the vehicle.”
I am not a lawyer, but logically, he chose NOT TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE WITH THE TRAILER. A truck may be safe, a truck hitched to a trailer may not be. This is not so simple, and he sounds like a fool to pretend this is black and white. I don't trust people like that. Judges need to see both sides. Sorry Judge, I vote no.
Personally, I don't admire people who pretend that a complex field, one that is clearly filled with gray areas, can be reduced to black or white rules. It doesn't work that way. The mind and heart matter and it is important to hear about one's world view. We know he is conservative, but how conservative? Please speak, Mr. Gorsuch.
So, from the article regarding the man who abandoned his trailer to get to safety in a snow storm...
“He chose to operate,” Judge Gorsuch said, adding, “I think by any plain understanding, he operated the vehicle.”
I am not a lawyer, but logically, he chose NOT TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE WITH THE TRAILER. A truck may be safe, a truck hitched to a trailer may not be. This is not so simple, and he sounds like a fool to pretend this is black and white. I don't trust people like that. Judges need to see both sides. Sorry Judge, I vote no.
3
Except you don't have a vote.....
2
There should be no votes and no more hearings until the FBI completes it's investigation. An illegitimate President cannot be allowed to nominate anyone, period.
3
Right on! NO Senate approval vote should take place while #45 is under a very serious investigation. Furthermore, that Mr. Gorsuch dares to volunteer to be a member of the Supreme Court under this presidency should disqualified him instantly. Plus, being a woman, with a man like Mr. Gorsuch, we are doomed, once again.
3
From " Party of rivals, to party of nutty partisan hacks!"Gorsuch's nomination should be blocked on principle alone after Obama's pick was stolen. However, Schumer is going to roll over like all good corporate Democrats do!
2
I've said this before, Gorsuch's nomination is the fruit of two poisoned trees. The first is Mitch McConnell's perfidy in denying Obama's legitimate nominee a full and fair hearing (which he would have aced), and second, Trump's illegitimate razor thin election win due to interference by Comey and the Russians (likely with complicity of the Trump campaign).
Nothing against Gorsuch. He just doesn't belong in front of a senate confirmation hearing at this time.
Nothing against Gorsuch. He just doesn't belong in front of a senate confirmation hearing at this time.
3
Gorsuch is more prepared than his inquisitors. He is running rings around those trying to trip him up. He will certainly be confirmed and be a conservative judge but not an ideologue. There was only one Scalia. . Most Democrats will vote against him. A vote for him will invite a primary challenge from the left. That's the facts of life they all face. School is out on this one. Democrats, all of them, need to turn out in 2018 and 2020. Elections have consequences. That much is crystal clear and all the resist lapel buttons I see won't change that.
1
Supreme Court nomination is one of the biggest reasons why America cannot afford another president who does not understand the legal system, or why America could not afford Trump at the top to begin with.
Each justice could serve 30-40 years on the bench. Together their judgments often more forcefully impact the rights and lives of individual Americans, and more consistently than the executive and legislative branches individually, or maybe even combined. In effect, Americans would hardly recognize our own country without decisions like Brown v. Board of Ed, Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections; New York Times v. Sullivan, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges.
That makes the case that much stronger that America deserves to have someone at the top who actually understands, or in the alternative, at least respects the judicial process. We definitely do not want nor need someone occupying the highest office in the land who holds hostile views toward the fundamental American value of the rule of law and the role of judges to help build a more just society; and we do not need the executive branch coercing Congress into submission to pass laws that it alone prefers, without regard to the constituencies of the particular congressional member.
It's up to each of the 435 members of Congress to arm him/herself with the constitutional shield and sword endowed not by the Russians or an authoritarian, but by the American people.
Each justice could serve 30-40 years on the bench. Together their judgments often more forcefully impact the rights and lives of individual Americans, and more consistently than the executive and legislative branches individually, or maybe even combined. In effect, Americans would hardly recognize our own country without decisions like Brown v. Board of Ed, Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections; New York Times v. Sullivan, Roe v. Wade, United States v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges.
That makes the case that much stronger that America deserves to have someone at the top who actually understands, or in the alternative, at least respects the judicial process. We definitely do not want nor need someone occupying the highest office in the land who holds hostile views toward the fundamental American value of the rule of law and the role of judges to help build a more just society; and we do not need the executive branch coercing Congress into submission to pass laws that it alone prefers, without regard to the constituencies of the particular congressional member.
It's up to each of the 435 members of Congress to arm him/herself with the constitutional shield and sword endowed not by the Russians or an authoritarian, but by the American people.
2
I believe those who are opposed to the Republican president must not overlook context. For Judge Garland, the Republicans violated congressional standards and guidelines, and denied him the required hearings and a vote. Clearly, they would rather destroy our own democracy, so long as it means not having to approve President Obama's nominee (who was, it must be noted, right of center). It very much looks as if Senator McConnell and Representative Ryan would do anything to preserve or increase their power. They would, it appears, destroy our very democracy. If they can't have what they want, they will burn it all to the ground. It is in this context that we must approach the Judge Gorsuch nomination. Arguments for compromise or accommodation seem inappropriate to say the least.
4
Unfortunately, the precedent set by Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon has made it clear that the high-minded assertion that "no man is above the law" is without effect for U.S. Presidents: they may not be above the law, but they will almost certainly escape its consequences.
How can Gorsuch claim to be a strict textualist who will do everything in his power to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution, while accepting a nomination before Merrick Garland has had a hearing? Until Merrick Garland is voted down by the Senate, there is no vacancy.
4
When Justice Roberts was questioned at his hearings, he assured the panel that he would be guided by judicial precedents, which, as it turned out, was a lie. He has ignored precedent in many cases. They will say anything to get confirmed. That said, at least Gorsuch is not as pugnacious and offensive as Scalia.
These judicial hearings are becoming increasingly political in nature, this the result of judicial involvement in issues which in the past were more normally handled by the legislative branch, which in the U.S. Constitution was designed to be the premier power Branch, as it more accurately represened the Will of the People' vs the Executive or Judicial branches.
1
No one is above the law, but President Obama, his power to nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court, get the Senate's advice and consent, and last but not the least, Judge Merrick Garland himself, are quite below, and quite non-existent in the law, as none of these were accorded the actions that the Constitution of these United States requires.
I keenly look forward to the response of a strict constitutionalist like Judge Gorsuch to these multiple abrogations of the Constitution.
I keenly look forward to the response of a strict constitutionalist like Judge Gorsuch to these multiple abrogations of the Constitution.
1
We need to get some sense and sanity back in this country I am so sick of the partisan bickering from both sides that is why America is falling apart. We are too busy pointing the finger at each other instead of working together. Wake up Americans it is time we clean up this country for the betterment of the next generation.
4
This is meaningless rhetoric. He would not have been picked if his previous writings and opinions did not tell his supporters what they wanted to hear. Sure, some judges become a bit disappointing to their backers, but give me a break here. And he is totally illegitimate anyway, and if he had one ounce of respect for the Constitution and the laws of the land, he would be saying " I appreciate the complement but the job belongs to Judge Garland.
11
Stand tough, Democrats!
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Oct. 9, 2016:
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Oct. 31, 2016:
“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Oct. 9, 2016:
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Oct. 31, 2016:
“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.”
You can't leave your "priciples" at home. Nor can you set aside conservative or liberal leanings. DT nominated Gorsuch. DT is a liar, a false accuser, and the person he chose for the highest court will follow his lead. I do not expect it to be otherwise.
4
While I am sure Mr. Gorsuch is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, Republicans have violated the spirit of the US Constitution by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland. For that reason, I am urging ALL Democrats to vote against him.
7
The number 1 reason Gorsuch is unfit is obvious. He's a Republican. They are not people and we must never treat them as people.
5
Republicans are people, they're just people we need to be careful about. I used to be a Republican.
1
The majority of the comments here remind of Trump's tweets. They are mindless partisan drivel that have little or nothing to do with the topic and are seemingly designed for those who live in a mirror.
5
Joe, your voice is one of reason but it's hard to hear amidst the echoes...
Neil Gorsuch is the first many judges who President Donald J. Trump will appoint to the Supreme Court of the United States of America over the next 8 years. How refreshing. Thank you.
Why are you quoting him? It means nothing!
Lots of holier than thou comments regarding Mr Gorsuch and Mr Garland.
Reality should force objective people to consider what they would do in such an instance. Hang themselves out to dry on the basis of other men's pique and whim?
Judge Gorsuch is answering questions in a forthright, reasonable manner which is all anyone can ask. A judge should keep his responses regarding hypotheticals to himself as there is no way reality can be addressed by such questioning.
Friendships and associations may indicate to some that a certain predisposition exists which denies and/or precludes the ability to accept change yet we have seen innumerable people come to grips with the responsibility of judging another human being make decisions which are in keeping with anyone's sense of reason. This is what a judge is asked to do with every decision he or she makes.
Politics is a game that politicians play while any person worth their salt refuses to become engaged in the sort of squabble too many who purport to represent us ascribe as needed. He is seeking appointment as a judge to our highest court of law and both as a man and a potential Supreme Court Justice he should be scrutinized but not politicized.
Congress certainly plays it's games while my sense is Judge Gorsuch will not stoop to that level
Reality should force objective people to consider what they would do in such an instance. Hang themselves out to dry on the basis of other men's pique and whim?
Judge Gorsuch is answering questions in a forthright, reasonable manner which is all anyone can ask. A judge should keep his responses regarding hypotheticals to himself as there is no way reality can be addressed by such questioning.
Friendships and associations may indicate to some that a certain predisposition exists which denies and/or precludes the ability to accept change yet we have seen innumerable people come to grips with the responsibility of judging another human being make decisions which are in keeping with anyone's sense of reason. This is what a judge is asked to do with every decision he or she makes.
Politics is a game that politicians play while any person worth their salt refuses to become engaged in the sort of squabble too many who purport to represent us ascribe as needed. He is seeking appointment as a judge to our highest court of law and both as a man and a potential Supreme Court Justice he should be scrutinized but not politicized.
Congress certainly plays it's games while my sense is Judge Gorsuch will not stoop to that level
5
Not only should Democrats not vote for any nominee who fails to state unequivocally that he supports the rulings in Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, they should also not vote for anyone nominated by a president who is likely to be impeached.
3
It is apparent that the liberal media does not like him. But what is new?
2
The Garland nomination is ancient history. Time to move on with a vote on Gorsuch. He's a very experienced, with no hint of scandal in his background and will make a fine replacement for Scalia's seat.
7
One simple question: Do you believe a sitting president has the right to appoint a supreme court justice under the law of the constitution? Yes or no.
Done. Next applicant.
Done. Next applicant.
"Judge Neil M. Gorsuch said that he would have “no difficulty” ruling for or against any party."
Precisely--"no difficulty" ruling for or against a party. It'll really be exciting to watch and see which party he favors. At this point it's impossible to guess which party he will favor.
It's funny because I've heard a few thousand times in recent years that "constitutionalists" like Roberts and Scalia are only serving as impartial umpires.
Precisely--"no difficulty" ruling for or against a party. It'll really be exciting to watch and see which party he favors. At this point it's impossible to guess which party he will favor.
It's funny because I've heard a few thousand times in recent years that "constitutionalists" like Roberts and Scalia are only serving as impartial umpires.
1
Nothing coming from anyone whom in any way is associated with Trump should be believed. I didn't create that. Trump did.
3
And John Roberts said he would just call balls and strikes. . . .
Right.
Right.
The silence from the left was deafening when in 2007 Chuck Schumer put the kibosh on George W Bush's pick for a Supreme. Said it could wait until the new President stepped in. The words irony and hypocrisy seem to be missing from the Left's vocabulary.
5
I sat thru the hearings of Roberts and Alito while they smiled and dissembled, and repeated the Latin words over and over.
Then they went right out and did what we knew they would do.
This is a farce. He's a liar. Nothing will change.
Then they went right out and did what we knew they would do.
This is a farce. He's a liar. Nothing will change.
6
"No man is above the law." Fair enough. But still and all it would demonstrate more sensibility were Gorsuch to have said no "person" is above the law.
He is illustrating inbuilt sexism. Just saying.
He is illustrating inbuilt sexism. Just saying.
3
Just like that sexist poem "'No Man is an Island" by Donne, right? Guess we better rewrite that...
He forgets he has a record that the public can see and judge the man. His record would strongly indicate otherwise. To many Catholics on the SCOTUS. A good protestant would/could be a good change. The Catholic on the court have never given women equal rights. FACT.
Do you really think he forgot?
Gorsuch lies - very rehearsed lies - like the Liar-in-Chief and his cronies.
Merrick Garland. Republicans orchestrated a grand theft and they're proud of it. Lying, cheating traitors.
Merrick Garland. Republicans orchestrated a grand theft and they're proud of it. Lying, cheating traitors.
7
Without a doubt, Gorsuch is the smartest nominee since at least Scalia. This guy is fast, nibble, and polished. This is a slam dunk. It's over. The Democrats are whiffing all over the place. Best job on their side has been Feinstein. She's been solid as usual.
4
I'm a Democrat and what the Republicans did last year was shameful, but we need to take the high road and NOT be like them!! We need to pick our battles also, and he seems a fairly good pick. From Mr. Trump's record, we know it could be much worse.
3
Gorsuch says he made no commitment to Trump on how Gorsuch would rule on certain cases.
ANY president will discuss with his Court nominee how the nominee would decide.
Trump has said he would only appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe.
Doesn't that mean Trump has gotten a promise from Gorsuch that Gorsuch would vote to overturn Roe.
Same question about Citizens United?
Heller?
Hobby Lobby type cases?
ANY president will discuss with his Court nominee how the nominee would decide.
Trump has said he would only appoint justices who would vote to overturn Roe.
Doesn't that mean Trump has gotten a promise from Gorsuch that Gorsuch would vote to overturn Roe.
Same question about Citizens United?
Heller?
Hobby Lobby type cases?
3
No promises to Trump? He doesn't have to make any promises. A tiger doesn't change his stripes and neither will this guy. Resist, resist, resist.
8) Democratic Senators are both rude AND stupid.
3
I am so relieved he offered no promises. Gimme a break. He is reliably ultra-conservative.
Democrats need to do their best not to fill the vacant seat for as long as possible. Power is already way to one-sided, and aimed against the vast majority of citizens. No Garland, No Gorsuch.
He should have nominated Garland.
Democrats need to do their best not to fill the vacant seat for as long as possible. Power is already way to one-sided, and aimed against the vast majority of citizens. No Garland, No Gorsuch.
He should have nominated Garland.
He's an actor on the stage, prepared + rehearsed. No wonder the conservative think tanks chose him for Mr. Trump. We're watching Reality Legal Television. He's even acting like a contestant.
This judge believes in supremacy of the executive. Executive power would grow in Donald Trump's presidency.
Religion's a major part of his decisions. In American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport & Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners, this judge sided with gov't being able to allow public displays of religious expression.
Freedom from religion, and freedom of no religion, as offered in the Constitution, mean nothing.
For-profit corporations are considered people by the judge when it comes to the owners' personal religion.
Despite it's an insurance company providing medication prescribed by doctors, less well placed people, such as millions of women in the U.S., would lose their rights to receive contraception, for example. Thus a corporation has so much power and influence it can constrain the rights of anyone.
We little women would have no power. That gives the executive way to much power.
In Hobby Lobby, he went as far as to say this: “No doubt, the Greens’ religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens’ beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are SINCERELY HELD religious beliefs. This isn’t the case, say, of a wily businessman seeking to use an insincere claim of faith as cover to avoid a financially burdensome regulation.”
BALONEY.
This judge believes in supremacy of the executive. Executive power would grow in Donald Trump's presidency.
Religion's a major part of his decisions. In American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport & Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners, this judge sided with gov't being able to allow public displays of religious expression.
Freedom from religion, and freedom of no religion, as offered in the Constitution, mean nothing.
For-profit corporations are considered people by the judge when it comes to the owners' personal religion.
Despite it's an insurance company providing medication prescribed by doctors, less well placed people, such as millions of women in the U.S., would lose their rights to receive contraception, for example. Thus a corporation has so much power and influence it can constrain the rights of anyone.
We little women would have no power. That gives the executive way to much power.
In Hobby Lobby, he went as far as to say this: “No doubt, the Greens’ religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens’ beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are SINCERELY HELD religious beliefs. This isn’t the case, say, of a wily businessman seeking to use an insincere claim of faith as cover to avoid a financially burdensome regulation.”
BALONEY.
3
He is just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. He refuses to answer questions even on cases that have already been decided. Another coward. IF he had any integrity, he would step aside .
2
In ordinary times, I would experience little difficulty in supporting the appointment of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. I have differences with the man, but his legal qualifications are impeccable.
But these are not ordinary times, and with President Trump facing the likelihood of impeachment in coming months, I do not see how the approval of any nominee of his to the Court -- no matter how well qualified --can be justified at the present time.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee interested in seeing the term of our 45th President come to a swift and just conclusion should express their gratitude to Judge Gorsuch for his devoted services to this country as a Federal Judge -- a courtesy that was never extended to Judge Garland -- and close down his confirmation hearing. Posthaste.
But these are not ordinary times, and with President Trump facing the likelihood of impeachment in coming months, I do not see how the approval of any nominee of his to the Court -- no matter how well qualified --can be justified at the present time.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee interested in seeing the term of our 45th President come to a swift and just conclusion should express their gratitude to Judge Gorsuch for his devoted services to this country as a Federal Judge -- a courtesy that was never extended to Judge Garland -- and close down his confirmation hearing. Posthaste.
3
oh my god can we get some senators aside from whitehouse who have a pulse?? leahy can barely speak two sentences, what is up with TERM LIMITS for these geezers? Gorsuch is a company drone,low hanging fruit, but any pulse with the democrats is non-existent!!.
I watched a good bit of the procedure and came to a few common sense conclusions. 1) This man is as well qualified or even superior to any previously appointed SCOTUS judges. 2) The dem questioners were pursuing a political party and/or personal agenda designed more to try to entrap Gorsuch than to do their sworn duty to the nation and the citizens to evaluate him based upon his qualifications. This appears part of their efforts to obstruct the Trump administration and by extension, the fed government. THAT is shameful and bordering upon treasonous! 3) We are being led by childish legislators concerned with their political party agenda and personal ambitions first and their sworn duty as an insignificant third. They should be replaced in the elections in two years by people that have ethics, integrity and take their sworn duty seriously.
42
Perhaps, you didn't notice that the republicans for the last four years or more obstructed almost everything from Obama. And, the level of intimidation in the republican party, now out in the open, is regarded as a friendly joke.
1
You're right, Murr. The grand-standing partisan buffoons on both sides should be tossed out...
1
I agreed with you stating he was qualified. You lost me at dem questioners pursuing a political agenda. Constitution says they must advice and consent. Any line of questioning they want to take to feel comfortable is up to them.
LOL. Next Trump will leave Obamacare alone. The Tooth Fairy will buy us dinner. Lotto will be free. Fat will just fall off of us no matter what we eat. I won't grow old. Pinnochio's nose won't grow. Yeah, 'no favorites". Oh, and Paul Ryan has a soul. Too much. Another lying swampy.
1
“In fact, Judge Gorsuch said, the driver had unhitched his vehicle from the trailing cargo to get to safety. “He chose to operate,” Judge Gorsuch said, adding, “I think by any plain understanding, he operated the vehicle.”
I know nothing about the case but I can see clearly here that Mr Gorsuch has intentionally avoided the fact that the cargo being attached to the cab was the issue, not the operability of the cab without the cargo attached.
To assert that he “operated” the vehicle without acknowledging that fact is the height of dishonesty, the same sort of dishonesty that Mr. Scalia was/is so famously admired by morons near and far, for.
The fact is he is clearly going to be the political hack Scalia was and every GOP pol has been trying to get onto courts across this nation since reagan got elected.
All of this is based on the false idea that the court rulings freeing black people from official racism was wrong. But to hide that irrefutable fact they chose to use religion and women’s right to control her body as a proxy to whip up the electorate into believing in “activist judges”. Honest folks were fooled and fellow racists knew what it really meant.
Today most of these Gop’s seem to have fully dissociated the racist origins of this “conservative” ideology they promote to the point that they actually do seem to believe they have a moral argument for these policies which are intended to subjugate and deny rights to those of whom they do not approve.
I know nothing about the case but I can see clearly here that Mr Gorsuch has intentionally avoided the fact that the cargo being attached to the cab was the issue, not the operability of the cab without the cargo attached.
To assert that he “operated” the vehicle without acknowledging that fact is the height of dishonesty, the same sort of dishonesty that Mr. Scalia was/is so famously admired by morons near and far, for.
The fact is he is clearly going to be the political hack Scalia was and every GOP pol has been trying to get onto courts across this nation since reagan got elected.
All of this is based on the false idea that the court rulings freeing black people from official racism was wrong. But to hide that irrefutable fact they chose to use religion and women’s right to control her body as a proxy to whip up the electorate into believing in “activist judges”. Honest folks were fooled and fellow racists knew what it really meant.
Today most of these Gop’s seem to have fully dissociated the racist origins of this “conservative” ideology they promote to the point that they actually do seem to believe they have a moral argument for these policies which are intended to subjugate and deny rights to those of whom they do not approve.
1
He looks like the type that looks good in black robes. Tall with just the right amount of grey. What more does anyone need in a Supreme Court Justice than that?
dems need to get over Garland. The Repubs didn't violate the constitution. And dems like Joe Biden have stated that no SC nominee in the last year of a presidency(of a Repub) should be confirmed.
Dems may not like what the Repubs did re Garland but it has no bearing on Gorsuch's qualifications -- and despite the partisanship of dems, no one can lay a glove on Gorsuch or question his qualifications.
Dems may not like what the Repubs did re Garland but it has no bearing on Gorsuch's qualifications -- and despite the partisanship of dems, no one can lay a glove on Gorsuch or question his qualifications.
4
He is qualified to be a judge but his interpretation of Constitutional law is narrow and a throwback to a society that no longer exists.
2
This is (we can certainly hope and expect) the last year of Trump's "presidency" - so as a natural consequence, no SCOTUS candidates should even be considered.
1
It's more than the republicans' obstruction to Garland, it is the constant eschewing of working through any legislation in an open manner with democrats and perhaps even with other republicans. Now we learn that a republican becomes a robot upon taking office -- no representing the constituents' interests yet still taking their salaries and amenities from the constituents they can no longer be said to represent effectively. We learn that upon being elected to serve the public, they have instead made a Faustian pact to serve at the pleasure of republican leaders. Is that blackmail?
It is quite possible that Trump will be impeached and possibly tried for Treason. It would be reckless in the extreme to allow a President to appoint a Supreme Court justice at this time.
13
Corrupt and immoral republicans stole this seat.
Please press on with investigations into Trump and the Russians.
Please press on with investigations into Trump and the Russians.
5
Is it a crime for him to say that he would walk away from Trump is he asked him to overturn Roe V Wade and then over turn Roe v Wade?
I mean, think of all the ways a man who knows that law can speak persuasively.
How often is the practice of law about tripping people up, by saying something that trips up our perception because of what we do not understand.
As isn't it ridiculous, that we have leaders who could be teaching us how to discern reality instead of taking advantage of our lack of experience and ability to think.
So, for example, would it be a crime for him to say he would walk away from Trump if he asked him to overturn Roe v Wade, and then over turn Roe v Wade.
And how many of you read that as aligning with Roe v Wade? Is he not, in fact, saying that he will not be persuaded by the President in making his decisions?
It isn't about the issue, it is about him saying he is going to act like a judge. Although if he is in fact being persuaded by others, is that even a crime? Or even if it is, how do you prosecute? Unless you have someone in there undercover.
Please, have someone on the inside under cover.
I mean, think of all the ways a man who knows that law can speak persuasively.
How often is the practice of law about tripping people up, by saying something that trips up our perception because of what we do not understand.
As isn't it ridiculous, that we have leaders who could be teaching us how to discern reality instead of taking advantage of our lack of experience and ability to think.
So, for example, would it be a crime for him to say he would walk away from Trump if he asked him to overturn Roe v Wade, and then over turn Roe v Wade.
And how many of you read that as aligning with Roe v Wade? Is he not, in fact, saying that he will not be persuaded by the President in making his decisions?
It isn't about the issue, it is about him saying he is going to act like a judge. Although if he is in fact being persuaded by others, is that even a crime? Or even if it is, how do you prosecute? Unless you have someone in there undercover.
Please, have someone on the inside under cover.
Remember how John Roberts testified how he would be only a referee, calling the plays. Funny how that all changed as soon as he was sworn in. He became the Justice for the Corporations. Beware the smiling conservatives.
3
One thing I learned after Chris "I will not touch your pensions" Christie , is never ever ever trust a Republican again. They say what ever they have to to hoodwink people, lie and go back on their word. Trump has done the same and I feel Gorsuch is doing the same. The DNC has to be just as bit obstructionist as the GOP has been for the country;s sake
12
To me, it's simple. President Obama was re-elected on 2012. *He* was empowered to nominate for the Supreme Court. I think the Democrats should never be a part of elevating Gorsuch. If the Republicans go to the nuclear "option," why can't the Democrats educate the public on how the Republicans were refusing move on a large number of federal judgeships and how they had abused the filibuster all during Obamas term. Just get the numbers out there, the rest of the story tells itself.
4
Many "Scribes" have assisted Dictators and Authoritarian Governments to violate Human Rights. The fact that Mr. Gorsuch did not resign and publicly condemn the Bush practices on Surveillance and Torture/Waterboarding shows he has no understanding how the US violations of basic human rights caused so much suffering. I have not heard him apologize for participating in those actions. Instead he uses a defense of "I was just a scribe (aka following orders)" when I worked at the Bush DOJ.
Yes, the Democrats could get tougher with this, but they need to save their all fire to investigate Trump and get his crooked self out of the White House. This confirmation hearing is just a formality...and there goes Roe vs Wade.
This Nomination Process is such a farce. As the Chief Justice said, do everything to not give the Nomination Committee any fodder to not vote for the Nominee i.e be dishonest by omission or commission because once in that seat is your's until you die when you can follow your agenda or your Party's without interference and without fear. The answer would be term limits for the SC Justices.
How can anyone believe what this man says? He's back-pedaled on his writings, his teachings, his record, the unlawfulness of a president to conduct surveillance without warrants, just to get this nomination. Well, all except "torture," which he wouldn't comment on. Fine choice, GOP.
Looks exactly like an ad featuring a " judge ". Therefore, perfect. Reality TV is now our reality.
2
It is unfitting and improper for a president who did not win the popular vote to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. A clear majority of voters opted for a different president, and a different Supreme Court nominee.
The seat will have to remain vacant until we have a president who won the popular vote.
The seat will have to remain vacant until we have a president who won the popular vote.
4
It looks as if there is a very good chance that this will be the last year of Trump's presidency. Therefore, according to "Republican Rules", Democrats should block Gorsuch's nomination.
If Trump somehow manages to weasel out of being convicted of Treason, then we should revisit his SCOTUS pick.
If Trump somehow manages to weasel out of being convicted of Treason, then we should revisit his SCOTUS pick.
7
Has anyone asked Gorsuch if the Constitution provides a time limit for when a President may nominate Judges to the Supreme Court?
He strikes me as rational and reasonable as well as highly qualified. Were I a Democratic senator, I would hard-pressed to vote against him.
3
Gorsuch is like a late passenger racing to board the Titanic.
3
The court is so politicized that there isn't a qualified individual in the whole country. Term limits would alleviate many people's fears and concerns. This guy is a billionaires lawyer, enough said.
4
Fruit of a poisoned vine. No 5 - 4 decision by the Supreme Court which is decided by Gorsuch's vote will ever be legitimate. His presence on the SC is nothing but an expression of power and will ultimately rob the SC of any remaining authority that it requires to function as an independent branch of our government.
3
I do not believe him...so many of the choices have lied at their hearings for confirmation, Flynn being a prime example. Sessions another one, and the list is long.
2
I don't care how Gorsuch ruled. The refusal to give Garland a hearing was unconstitutional. No nomination other than that of Garland should be considered legitimate.
4
If the majority of the NYT readers disapprove of Judge Neal Gorsuch, he must be a fine choice for Supreme Court Justice. They will never like any of President Trump's picks as they will be too conservative for them. Maybe that is why some of us like him. We need some balance brought back to the Supreme Court and Judge Gorsuch is the man who can achieve this goal. Great choice as Supreme Court justice and is sure to be chosen. He is brilliant and his credentials are top notch. How many of us can say that about ourselves?
3
I wish you would be specific about what you like about Gorsuch's past positions and legal opinions. I personally worry about his right to life stand - he doesn't even support any form of assisted death for the terminally ill. Practically any personal choice is against his naturalist beliefs since God makes those choices not people.
The rights of the individual should be the supreme tenet when adjudicating legal matters dealing with the constitution.
The rights of the individual should be the supreme tenet when adjudicating legal matters dealing with the constitution.
Klobuchar who is well-prepared for this hearing is questioning Gorsuch and it looks like he might have a tendency to "run the clock" when he is up against tough questioning.
1
Don't ask if he was treated fairly, ask if the Senate failed its constitutional duty by refusing to hold a hearing for Judge Garland.
I almost feel badly for whoever ends up in that seat--he or she will have a cloud hanging over them for the rest of their career.
2
By accepting the nomination, Judge Gorsuch, contrary to what he said, is very much involved in politics.
3
As a right-wing activist judge, it is odd that he would say he didn't want to be involved in politics. At any rate, he will continue the assault on labour and the other efforts to destroy the middle class. Sure is amazing how the country is being dragged down by the right.
3
Why wasn't the very first question to Gorsuch to weigh in on the legitimacy of his nomination. I want to hear Gorsuch state in no uncertain terms whether he thinks it was constitutional for the GOP not to hold hearing on Merrick Garland and the legal basis for his argument. Until Gorsuch is on the record on this issue - he will forever be an illegitimate and stolen seat.
2
I think the Democrats should filibuster for exactly the number of days that the Republicans filibustered Garland's nomination. And when McConnell squeals, gently remind him that he loved the filibuster when it served his nefarious purposes.
6
Paul Ryan said, "We should let the American people decide the direction of the court." This citizen demands that Supreme Court appointments be limited, as required by the Constitution, to individuals who have been nominated by a legitimate president (i.e., one who has been cleared of allegations of illegal conspiracy to interfere with the election as well as libel and other impeachable crimes). This appointment must wait.
2
In all honestly Trump has done so much damage to this administration's credibility not only in terms of demeanor, poor communications, and out right lies, but selecting dubious cabinet picks who quite frankly has filled this government's swamp to over the brim, it's really hard to believe anything Gorsuch says. He might very well make a fine Supreme Court Justice, but as it stands now with his checkered right wing nationalist tendencies and playing kick the ball with the dark money question, it's hard to accept any promises he makes in this hearing.
1
If unconstitutional activity (denying Garland a hearing) is "politics," Goresuch is hardly an "originalist."
2
What is the purpose of these "hearings" when the nominee answers no questions about his views on issues. This idea of judges being above politics is nonsense. Without Brown vs the Bd of ED, the Dred Scott decision and so forth, we would be a different country. When Congress fails to legislate, which is historically common,the Court steps in. So this definition of a modest, apolitical court is and always has been false and these hearings are a charade.
Gorsuch's responses sounds a lot like Roberts' answers, and what a disaster he has been for this country.
Actions speak louder than words. Gorsuch has clearly demonstrated throughout his judicial career, when he consistently ruled in favor of corporations and other regressive forces as well as during his pre-judicial years when he passionately promoted "fascism forever", that he is no friend of democracy, human rights, civil rights or even the US Constitution. His appointment to the SCOTUS would clinch the right-wing tyranny of the Trump regime with its near totalitarian control of not just the current two but all three major branches of our federal government, an unmitigated American tragedy and disaster.
1
At 49, Judge Neil Gorsuch, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, could conceivably serve as a justice for 30 to 40 years. Consequently, he represents a long term treasure for conservatives and headache for progressives. Therefore, a careful examination in these hearings of his judicial decisions and past public comments are crucial in determining his suitability for the nation's highest court by both ends of the political spectrum. So far he has made no mistakes in his answers to Senate committee members questions and seems likely to be confirmed. For conservatives it could mean a golden age of desired judicial decisions. For progressives an era of tarnished rulings, in their view, may have begun.
3
Judge Gorsuch has such a profoundly impressive constellation of attributes that one is compelled to ask, "Where is his weakness?" To this observer there has been only one glimpse into the Judge's weakness: his dissent on the appellate court in which he decided against the truck driver who was stranded in 14 degrees below zero weather because the brakes controling his flatbed were frozen, and taking it on the road would have endangered lives. The driver decided to uncouple a component of his vehicle, the cab, whose brakes did work, in order to drive to a gas station for fuel and warmth -- an action necessary for self-preservation for which the driver was fired. Judge Gorsuch erroneously decided that the uncoupled component, the cab, was the entire "vehicle" under the law, rather than the cab and flatbed combined. The fact that the flatbed is a vital component of the vehicle because it holds the products is self-evident. But Judge Gorsuch did not comprehend that key fact at all as evidenced by his testimony today. This error is significant because it gives us a glimpse of Judge Gorsuch's flaw, a flaw all but hidden by his charm and intellectual brilliance. The tragic flaw is a blinding intellectual hubris and veiled arrogance that imprsons this good and brilliant man in a dark tunnel where the light of basic common sense and reason can find no entrance -- as was the case with his unjust and clueless dissent in the freezing truck driver's case.
1
Brilliant man with an even keel as it pertains to the law. He will be confirmed so just deal with it!
2
Clearly the American people should decide. No President with only 3+ years left on his term should be allowed to choose a Supreme Court Justice.
2
The democrats should filibuster. That would show if there are any moderate senators among GOP (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Toomey, John MCcain, Lindsey Graham?) who would prevent GOP from exercising nuclear option. If GOP removed filibuster then at least Democrats will not have stonewalled in the future like it happened with Judge Garland.
2
Within the circumscribed universe of possible Trump picks, Gorsuch is probably as good as we are going to see. Absent late discovery of a smoking gun, he will be approved, perhaps with enough Democratic votes to avoid GOP resort to the nuclear option. If I were a Democratic senator, I would lean toward thinking that this is not a good time to test the filibuster rule. Better to wait for an egregious partisan hack to whom any benefit of the doubt would not attach.
Gorsuch himself comes across as very bright, very confident and a serious student of the law. His show of humility smacks of the feigned modesty of noblesse oblige. But he seems to truly pride himself on being an independent actor, which is likely the most we can hope for under present circumstances.
Gorsuch himself comes across as very bright, very confident and a serious student of the law. His show of humility smacks of the feigned modesty of noblesse oblige. But he seems to truly pride himself on being an independent actor, which is likely the most we can hope for under present circumstances.
It should have taken two hours to approve this nominee from start to finish. I do not have to share his political views to realize that he is qualified and who won the election.
1
Republicans in Congress said they were prepared to filibuster any Supreme Court appointment by Hillary Clinton if she were elected President regardless of qualifications.
Republicans did not even give President Obama's nominee the courtesy of a hearing much less a vote.
With the cloud over the Presidential election and the refusal of Republicans in Congress to seat any qualified jurist to the Supreme Court appointed by a Democrat, no further appointments to the Supreme Court should occur until a party has a 60 vote filibuster proof majority.
If Republicans want to end their ability to filibuster future nominees, let them. But don't do their work for them.
Breaking with historical precedent to deny President Obama's nominee a hearing and a foreign nation's influence in a Presidential election cannot be grounds for coronating the GOP's nominee.
Republicans did not even give President Obama's nominee the courtesy of a hearing much less a vote.
With the cloud over the Presidential election and the refusal of Republicans in Congress to seat any qualified jurist to the Supreme Court appointed by a Democrat, no further appointments to the Supreme Court should occur until a party has a 60 vote filibuster proof majority.
If Republicans want to end their ability to filibuster future nominees, let them. But don't do their work for them.
Breaking with historical precedent to deny President Obama's nominee a hearing and a foreign nation's influence in a Presidential election cannot be grounds for coronating the GOP's nominee.
3
Anything to do with the Trump administration reeks of corruption and dishonesty. The Gorsuch nomination has the added stench of seditious partisanship by the Senate Republicans who refused, for purely partisan reasons, to even grant a hearing to Merrick Garland.
Gorsuch was already going to be viewed by a majority of Americans as an illegitimate Supreme court Justice. That was going to damage the court and it's role in our society enough but now he will also be viewed as the Putin nominee.
What a mess the Trump administration and the hyper-partisan Republican senators have made of this procedure.
Gorsuch was already going to be viewed by a majority of Americans as an illegitimate Supreme court Justice. That was going to damage the court and it's role in our society enough but now he will also be viewed as the Putin nominee.
What a mess the Trump administration and the hyper-partisan Republican senators have made of this procedure.
2
Gorsuch's tone with Senator Amy Klobuchar is condescending and sounds much different from the one he's used with male senators.
His vague cynicism with her is rather exhausting.
By the way, in his introductory remarks, Senator Grassley sounded like he was prepping Gorsuch as if he was the quarterback for the big game.
Senator Graham disappointed me, and became very petty in his view of Democrats. particularly calling out Nancy Pelosi by name for criticism.
That's pretty rich:
On the heels of the smallness and partisanship of Republicans in the Comey hearing on Trump-Russia, I find Republicans rather overbearing. Especially given how they handled Merrick Garland with such anti-democratic behavior.
His vague cynicism with her is rather exhausting.
By the way, in his introductory remarks, Senator Grassley sounded like he was prepping Gorsuch as if he was the quarterback for the big game.
Senator Graham disappointed me, and became very petty in his view of Democrats. particularly calling out Nancy Pelosi by name for criticism.
That's pretty rich:
On the heels of the smallness and partisanship of Republicans in the Comey hearing on Trump-Russia, I find Republicans rather overbearing. Especially given how they handled Merrick Garland with such anti-democratic behavior.
1
He is coming across to me as a guy who is arrogant and pretty full-of-himself. Which is not to say that he is not an accomplished man. An occupational hazard of being an accomplished judge who is tall, thin and looks like judges are supposed to look like is that they get fawned over a lot by other people and start believing the ridiculous stuff they are telling you about yourself.
Concerning Gorsuch's reply to Leahy re: Judge Garland. The appropriate question to be asked of Gorsuch would be, "Explain the Senates responsibility to advise and consent on nominations to the Supreme Court according to the Constitution. Do you think that the Senate complied with that responsibility in 2016." Let Gorsuch explain why on a constitutional basis why he thinks he should be not be treated the same as Garland's.
Everyone needs to read Russ Feingold's article on the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/judge-gorsuch-conf..., as to what's at stake w/Gorsuch nomination...
Gorsuch's record as a federal judge should disqualify him from being a Supreme Court Justice. He advocates, in his decisions, an activist agenda to overturn settled precedent designed to protect individuals and to, instead support a conservative agenda, putting individual rights at risk. For example, he has advocated abandoning 40 years of precedent establishing a structure for proving discrimination cases. This well-settled law helps both plaintiffs and defendants sort out difficult questions of motive in the employment setting. Abandoning it to a judiciary with a conservative political bent invites more discrimination litigation and a more difficult burden of proof put on the employee. He apparently thinks this is a good idea. So too his advocacy for abandoning years of precedent holding that courts should generally defer to public agency rule making to enforce various laws (the Chevron rule). He believes that the courts are better qualified than experts who work in the arena daily to understand the reasons and evidence supporting reasonable application of rules, and providing guidance to the public on application of those rules. Someone should ask him how long it takes to get a hearing before a court of appeal (generally years) or the Supreme Court (more years) and what that would do to the public's understanding of the application of various agency rules. He knows what rules he doesn't like, but he wants us to trust him about what would happen next. Filibuster.
Judge Neal Gorsuch is being "grilled" by the Democrats and is answering honestly and will follow the constitution to the best of his ability. This brilliant man has excellent credentials and will undoubtedly be conformed as our next Supreme Court justice. He will serve our country honorably and will be one of the best judges on the Court. He will make us proud to be American. This man will be our new justice very soon.
1
Judge Merrick Garland. He is the only person that can legitimately fill the Scalia vacancy. All others should have declined candidacy of a stolen seat on our nation's highest court.
3
Who cares what he offers the guy who will not be in office by next year?
He is not a legitimate pick because the guy who picked him is not legitimate.
He has a long track record as a reactionary extremist.
He is a terrible choice because he is so extremist he would tip the court back to the mid 19th century.
Democrats can and must block his nomination.
He is not a legitimate pick because the guy who picked him is not legitimate.
He has a long track record as a reactionary extremist.
He is a terrible choice because he is so extremist he would tip the court back to the mid 19th century.
Democrats can and must block his nomination.
Uhm, yeah, it seems like we have heard this before.
The plain fact remains that no matter his qualifications Judge Neal Gorsuch is an illegitimate nominee to the Supreme Court. For the Democrats to assent is to condone the un-Constitutional action taken by Senate Republicans in refusing to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland by former President Obama. To do otherwise is the equivalent of surrendering to hostage taking. Both parties need to step back from the partisan polarization of the Court by agreeing that a super-majority (of 67 votes) is required to approve this and future nominees.
“I can’t get involved in politics,” he said. (from the article)
But the refusal of the Republican party to proceed with a hearing for Merrick Garland IS a legal issue, not political. The President is legally mandated to make a nomination and thwarting that nomination is an act against a legal process.
But the refusal of the Republican party to proceed with a hearing for Merrick Garland IS a legal issue, not political. The President is legally mandated to make a nomination and thwarting that nomination is an act against a legal process.
1
Listening to Gorsuch *answer* Senator Dianne Feinstein's question about his one-word answer (NO) to his position on Torture- was an interesting mix of Feigned Memory loss and "need to refer to documents." She came prepared with the needed "memory refreshers". Suddenly he was capable of laying down the background of his position without taking a breath.
This man is slicker and Swarmier than other Supreme Court Nominees. Gorsuch doesn't use the Bork-Bombast or the Thomas Righteously-Indignant shtick; just the old-fashioned "Gee golly folks- I'm just here to cooperate" while hiding his extreme right-wing ideology. I'm sure- though, a sufficient number of DINOs will purchase the game.
This man is slicker and Swarmier than other Supreme Court Nominees. Gorsuch doesn't use the Bork-Bombast or the Thomas Righteously-Indignant shtick; just the old-fashioned "Gee golly folks- I'm just here to cooperate" while hiding his extreme right-wing ideology. I'm sure- though, a sufficient number of DINOs will purchase the game.
1
Both Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Merrick Garland are well respected in their work. It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Garland did not get the same opportunity to be seated where Mr. Gorsuch is today answering questions at the Senate Confirmation Hearings. But that is the difference between the Republicans, and in particular Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and the Democrats. What they did to Judge Garland was unconscionable.
Judge Gorsuch should and likely will get a fair hearing from the Democrats.
Judge Gorsuch should and likely will get a fair hearing from the Democrats.
Gorsuch is a long-time member of the Federalist Society. No one has to do anything as crude as ask him how he'd rule; these things are simply understood in those right-wing circles.
2
I do not recall Senator Feinstein *asking* him how he would rule on any matter. Did you listen to the exchange? Neither Senator Feinstein or many of the listeners and watchers are part of the Right-wing circle.
1
He is more of a politician than a good judge. Reading his decision on the freezing truck driver is telling. He couldn't find a way to rule in favor of the guy's life over the company he worked for. The other judges did, he was the holdout. Not a good sign. He repeats that he "follows" the law, but it's easy to see he puts not a lot of thought into "applying" the law. He's hard on everyday people and extremely hard on women in court and out. I don't like him.
1
He seems fair. The democrats are the minority and have little choice.
This nominee's work in the courts indicate he is a constitutional purist of sorts.
However, we could have been discussing a worse nominee. Remember, Trump the master of chaos can do anything as the legislature cowers before him like mere serfs and not an equal branch of government.
As a lawyer, and concerned American who has been closely watching the dizzying ineptitude of Trump's destruction of our American experiment of democracy, this nominee seems to be relatively acceptable in the scheme of near total failure of our democracy, as we continue to witness the ineptitude of this disconnected and inept president.
This nominee's work in the courts indicate he is a constitutional purist of sorts.
However, we could have been discussing a worse nominee. Remember, Trump the master of chaos can do anything as the legislature cowers before him like mere serfs and not an equal branch of government.
As a lawyer, and concerned American who has been closely watching the dizzying ineptitude of Trump's destruction of our American experiment of democracy, this nominee seems to be relatively acceptable in the scheme of near total failure of our democracy, as we continue to witness the ineptitude of this disconnected and inept president.
39
At the point where government cannot solve the problems related to the people's health, housing, education, quality of life, &c, it is ineffective. Would Gorsuch move the country further down that spiral or move it closer to the ideals of constitutional equality and of happiness for all.
No the guy is bought and sold by conservative special interests. the same people who paid millions to block Merrick Garland have pushed for Neil Gorsuch with millions. Sick/Bad
Just like Trump, Gorsuch is a liar and he is lying his way through these hearings.
12
Gorsuch could walk on water and cure cancer and liberals would still complain. He will be confirmed and at 49 years of age serve a long, long, long time!
2
Textbook hearings where the judge refuses to answer some questions, answers others in an unsatisfactory manner and, on the whole doesn't give much away. Both sides play this game to get their nominees onto the Supreme Court. The only thing that changes are the occupants of the White House. The most shameful thing about this is that the GOP was disrespectful of the president's right and duty, even in his last year in office, to have his choice treated fairly. I hope that Gorsuch is a justice like Souter was: unexpected and his own man. It would truly serve the GOP right for all the dysfunctional things they did during Obama's years in office.
55
Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that Gorsuch is a justice like Souter. His past rulings tell us exactly who is he is and how he would act on the Supreme Court: as an extreme rightwing ideologue who will consistently side with big corporations against average citizens and who would take the Court - and this country - back 100 years.
1
Unsatisfactory to you, that such were even asked is offensive, not to mention the massive waste in digging up all that irrelevant information.
Garland was treated fairly, Washington style.
Republican senators refused to consider Obama's (the people's) SCOTUS nomination because it occurred during a presidential campaign. The same refusal should be applied to Trump's SCOTUS nomination, since Trump continues to campaign for his current/future presidency, but mostly because our so-called President is under investigation for collusion with an enemy to subvert our democracy. Trump and his perennial campaign team have been under investigation since July for treason.
16
Chuck Schumer and friends did the same thing back in 2007, such short memories from all of you. And here I thought you were supposed to be the smartest people in the room. At least that's what you keep telling the rest of us.
2
Ok I'm cooked there are many reasons this person, this Judge should be disqualified Hobby Lobby being the most obvious one. He just promoted the Green's company as a small, christian owned company thus because of RIFRA they had every right to pull coverage of contraception for women under their employment. What a joke. What they did because I can prove there is very little christian about them was set up companies to negate benefits they feel are unfit particularly when they're christians & find specifics distasteful. What a joke.
6
Imagine if a liberal answered questions like this. He'd be run out of town by the Democrats.
5
As Trump and members of his administration increasingly appear to be guilty of traitorous and criminal offenses, both before and while in office, the possibility of impeachment or some other form of meltdown becomes increasingly likely. Aside from Trump's moral and ethical depravity, it is little different than the last year of Obama's term when his Supreme Court nominee was blocked. It would be eminently reasonable for Senate Democrats to use all means possible to block Gorsuch on the grounds that, irrespective of his electoral vote majority, Trump's reign has become illegitimate and is soon to become completely untenable, meaning that he does not deserve to have such a nominee confirmed.
19
Backfull -- there is absolutely no evidence of traitorous or criminal offenses -- except in the addled minds of progressives.
Columbia, Harvard Law School, Oxford and the very highest rating from the American Bar Association
I'm a Democrat and loathe Trump but there are no grounds to oppose this nomination.
I'm a Democrat and loathe Trump but there are no grounds to oppose this nomination.
17
Judge Garland did not get a hearing on his nomination. That is one ground enough for me to oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination.
3
except that Garland was equally qualified but did not get a hearing.
3
Josef Mengele graduated medical school Magna Cum Laude. Look it up.
4
Gorsuch would be one of those Judges who votes yes to employer genetic testing. The environment requires it.
3
I don't think Gorsuch is the "issue" where Democrats should take a stand and force the "nuclear option". Unlike Mr. Trump's Cabinet picks, Gorsuch is someone who any "normal" Republican would have nominated. He is not Bork.
There are much bigger fish to fry. Pick your battles.
There are much bigger fish to fry. Pick your battles.
90
I actually agree with you. I do wish, as I said in an earlier comment that they had bargained to give Gorsuch a quick nomination in return for removing the worst of the cabinet picks - the agents of destruction in Pruitt, Price and Devos. Those needed to be blocked.
3
Yeah, let's get DT under oath.
1
Pruitt, Price and DeVos are not appointed for life. There are no bigger fish.
1
Wasn't there a rally last night? I thought we didn't vote on Supreme Court Justices during a campaign.
4
Gorsuch is a monster of white privilege. If he sneaks onto the Supreme Court, expect the women of New York to be dying not only in the back alleys but right in the gutters before anti-choice headquarters!
6
how is he a monster of white privilege? I know WP is a synonym for hard work but exactly how did his achievements result from WP?
This is Scalia's seat. Trump has selected the right candidate to fill it. Any debate on the issue ended on November 8, 2016.
Let's get to the vote already....
Let's get to the vote already....
3
The last time I checked, Justice Scalia is dead and Supreme Court Justices don't get to "reserve" their seats.
Judge Merrick Garland should've been given a hearing and confirmed and should be serving on the Supreme Court.
Let's get to the filibuster already...
Judge Merrick Garland should've been given a hearing and confirmed and should be serving on the Supreme Court.
Let's get to the filibuster already...
Just what we need, another privileged, pious, middle-aged white man who thinks he knows what's best for all of us lesser beings. It makes me sick to look at the TV set and see his smug, sanctimonious, smirking face.
22
I'm pretty much respected this Guy Neil Gorsuch, But now he's starting to sound a little mealy mouth, avoiding direct answers and obfuscating. So now it's apparent that he is hiding behind answers or nonanswers and he's going to go ahead with his own agenda.
3
A wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't fall for it. This guy is an ideologue, was picked for that reason and will rule with that in mind. This is a illegitimate candidate who doesn't even deserve to go before this body since the legitimate candidate, Gerrick, was kept from even getting this far. Reject, Reject. Let them use the nuclear option. At least you would have stood for important principles.
13
yes.. get judge gerrick his seat! oh my god.. all hope is lost
Durbin and Leahy trying to match intellect and wits with Neil Gorsuch is such a lopsided debate. Gorsuch is just crushing them. I actually feel bad for the Democrats going through this smearing Gorsuch charade and getting their pants pulled down.
5
~
~~
Well, what if...
Americans follow the example of Republican politicians
who ignored the Constitution to steal the Supreme Court seat for Gorsuch
and Americans simply ignore any laws from decisions that depend on Gorsuch
for the deciding vote.
~~
Well, what if...
Americans follow the example of Republican politicians
who ignored the Constitution to steal the Supreme Court seat for Gorsuch
and Americans simply ignore any laws from decisions that depend on Gorsuch
for the deciding vote.
2
Actually, this is not a precedent, but follows a previous issue from long ago involving the replacement of a SCOTUS judge during the campaign to replace a sitting President. This is in accordance with the mandates of the constitution.
Brilliant pick.
Biggest worry though is that he might go wobbly and "moderate" after getting confirmed.
Biggest worry though is that he might go wobbly and "moderate" after getting confirmed.
2
So you admit he is not "fair" and "impartial"!
You missed the whole point. A judge is mandated to not allow his political, religious or personal preferences interfere with his relentless and strict interpretation of the legal merits of each issue under the constitution and the properly executed congressional laws. Gorsuch has an impeccable record of adhering to the ethics and integrity of his capacity as judge, unlike some of the misfits that have been in the news lately that are unwilling to live up to their lofty sworn duty.
Forget for now the FBI investigation, Putingate. NYT: keep your eyes on the ball(s). They would be: Gorsuch and Trumpcare!
2
Trump picked the right guy -- he's articulate photogenic and charming. And that's the problem. It's like packaging poison in a crystal spray-bottle. What could go wrong? Dianne Feinstein had it right. Very helpful speech.
11
Every candidate says whatever he or she wants without apparent repercussion. Trump told a hundred lies and made extensive promises. He never meant to keep any of them. He looked the ubiquitous fact checker in the eye and laughed. At first we all laughed as well. Then we stopped and began to panic...
His administration picks lied continuously under oath to the panel at the confirmation hearings. Outrageous, blatant, documented lies. No one cared. The fact checker ran for cover.
To think or assume that Gorsuch is any different would be simply crazy.
His administration picks lied continuously under oath to the panel at the confirmation hearings. Outrageous, blatant, documented lies. No one cared. The fact checker ran for cover.
To think or assume that Gorsuch is any different would be simply crazy.
6
I listened to a portion of he confirmation hearings this morning. I am not a lawyer (for which I am forever grateful), but the Judge's answer on protecting the religious rights of employers (i.e. Hobby Lobby, Various Catholic Orders, etc.) left some very important questions unanswered. In granting employers and businesses the right to withhold services to certain groups (LGBT/Women) are we to assume that he is comfortable violating the rights of those groups? I found the questioning by the Senate committee very lacking in terms of getting at these important issues.
10
Exactly...religious freedom has somehow come to mean in the minds of the conservatives the freedom to discriminate against those whose freedom is objectionable to you.
12
The problem with most 'conservative' judges is that they are both ideologically religious and hypocritical when it comes to personal rights.
True conservativism should always move towards greater, not lesser, freedoms, and yet we have seen a steady erosion of civil liberties over the last 20 years foisted on us by conservative judges with moral agendas.
Gorsuch is another such judge.
True conservativism should always move towards greater, not lesser, freedoms, and yet we have seen a steady erosion of civil liberties over the last 20 years foisted on us by conservative judges with moral agendas.
Gorsuch is another such judge.
11
As Gorsuch pointed out, and his career record exemplifies, his religious and personal and/or political preferences have nothing to do with his unbiased interpretation of the law as it applies to any issue brought before him. His track record proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that, unlike some other judges that have recently been in the news recently, he stringently adheres to that duty. The erosion of civil liberties you refer to are largely due to liberal legislators anxious to appeal to minority groups for votes at the expense of the majority of citizens' wishes. A judge should never be a "conservative" or "liberal" judge but a strict enforcer of the constitution and the laws enacted by Congress.
Republicans CONVENIENTLY said the will of the people (voters!) ought to be reflected in the next SCOTUS pick.
What if 45 was just the will of the Russians?
Doesn't the Russian Cloud now infect the legitimacy of SCOTUS as well??
Efforts to sweep the Russian taint under the rug may seal the deal on our downfall....its infectious...is it deadly too???
What if 45 was just the will of the Russians?
Doesn't the Russian Cloud now infect the legitimacy of SCOTUS as well??
Efforts to sweep the Russian taint under the rug may seal the deal on our downfall....its infectious...is it deadly too???
11
The will of the people was subverted by not just the Russians but by the scam of a campaign...while some had the SCOTUS nomination in mind while voting for Trump, the vast majority of his voters think that magic jobs and higher incomes, along with really incredible health insurance is somehow going to appear...one of these days....
1
The will of the people was Mrs. Clinton, by about 3 million.
I am willing to believe that almost all members of the Supreme Court (including this nominee) are highly qualified jurists, with impeccable credentials, and all top-class experts in the US Constitution.
So how is it that, in examining the particulars of a case, these individuals - bringing similar law-school training, similar experience in lower courts, and all consulting the same Constitution - can come to diametrically opposite conclusions?
Give a group of eminent scientists, in the same discipline, the same set of evidence for a theory, and they will more or less reach the same conclusions. Why not the highest court of the land?
There must be some hidden factor, unrelated to the facts, or the Constitution, or maybe even personal political preference, that is tilting a justice one way or the other.
This factor (is it "judicial philosophy"?) that MUST be exposed during confirmation hearings in order to determine the acceptability of a nominee. Little else matters.
So how is it that, in examining the particulars of a case, these individuals - bringing similar law-school training, similar experience in lower courts, and all consulting the same Constitution - can come to diametrically opposite conclusions?
Give a group of eminent scientists, in the same discipline, the same set of evidence for a theory, and they will more or less reach the same conclusions. Why not the highest court of the land?
There must be some hidden factor, unrelated to the facts, or the Constitution, or maybe even personal political preference, that is tilting a justice one way or the other.
This factor (is it "judicial philosophy"?) that MUST be exposed during confirmation hearings in order to determine the acceptability of a nominee. Little else matters.
2
Not true. There are many scientific issues that are spiritedly debated between scientists. There are many legal issues that are not 100% black and white and that is the raision-d-etre of the Supreme Court rather than having only one Supreme Judge. The founders of our nation recognized this and wisely provided us with by far the most fair method of resolving legal disputes of any nation in the world.
As an Afro-American, I must view Merrick Garland as a Christ-like figure, heaving the cross of racism for me up the mountain of Golgotha.
I would hope that Senator Chuck Schemer would do his duty to challenge Gorsusch to accept his Christian duty to step aside and urge the Trump-mad GOP to confirm Garland by acclamation.
I would hope that Senator Chuck Schemer would do his duty to challenge Gorsusch to accept his Christian duty to step aside and urge the Trump-mad GOP to confirm Garland by acclamation.
3
Right because Schumer is such a pious wonderful man. Google him and see what he did in 2007 when the same situation reared its ugly head. You know how to do that don't you? I mean what's fair is fair. Or are you saying it's only good when a Democrat decides to hold up a nominee for SCOTUS when a nom is brought forth by a republican?
2
The case is Merrick Garband was the most qualified individual since Justice Taney who championed the Dred Scott decision.
Senator Amy Schumer should grow a backbone and fight Gorsuch tooth and nail as public opinion demands!
Senator Amy Schumer should grow a backbone and fight Gorsuch tooth and nail as public opinion demands!
Well I definitely believe that Trump would nominate a Justice that hadn't sworn complete fealty to the Trump empire, because that totally sounds like something a man who is installing monitors to ensure his cabinet picks "stay loyal" would do.
3
This man is loyal ONLY to the Constitution and the legally passed Legislative law. He is not afraid to stand up to anyone including the President. He REPEATEDLY stated to both dem and rep questioners that even the President is not above the law.
Slippery little devil, isn't he?
Gorsuch seems to have some fine qualities, but his answers to many questions, including the one about Judge Garland, make me think he's way more political and cozy with money than he likes to let on, and that he thinks an appointment to the Supreme Court is his preordained destiny. Either should be enough to disqualify him.
Gorsuch seems to have some fine qualities, but his answers to many questions, including the one about Judge Garland, make me think he's way more political and cozy with money than he likes to let on, and that he thinks an appointment to the Supreme Court is his preordained destiny. Either should be enough to disqualify him.
14
If Trump's brownoser candidate, Gorsuch, was a grown up instead of being a selfish fool, he'd choose not to step over Garland's body in order to be a Supreme Court Justice who will always have an asterisk* beside his name. He does not measure up for the job, he a childish opportunist and a disgrace.
11
Oh please!
Does Kennedy's presidency have an asterisk due to the voter fraud in Illinois? Didn't think so.
Does Kennedy's presidency have an asterisk due to the voter fraud in Illinois? Didn't think so.
1
"He does not measure up for the job, he a childish opportunist and a disgrace."
You can condense that thought into one word, republican.
You can condense that thought into one word, republican.
GOP power brokers know the answers to ALL the questions that Judge Gorsuch is not answering before the committee. If he were not under oath, but instead sitting at a bar with a fellow GOP traveler, believe me, he'd be quite clear about every issue that the American people are not going to know before a vote is held.
Confirmation hearings for SCOTUS candidates is a national embarrassment.
Confirmation hearings for SCOTUS candidates is a national embarrassment.
19
To be a republican is to know the answer to every question before the events that result in the questions ever occur.
A republican knows the answers to every question they are asked long before the events leading to that question take place.
How has Gorsuch ruled on cases involving the environment, civil rights...things that matter. What does he think of Citizens United? Where are these questions and the reporting on them. NPR's coverage leads me to believe that he's conservative but fair. And the fact that he's conservative should surprise no one. The whole mess with Garland is over. Move on. No evidence has yet been reported that should cause a Democrat not to vote for Gorsuch. Political vendetta's have gotten this country no where and only facilitated the election of the Zero President, trump. Republicans already have enough explaining to do to their constituents thanks to trump and their legislative incompetence. In the meantime, the Democrats should get to work on governing and articulate a strategy that captures what voters wanted in 2016 but did not get and that the Republican's will never provide as evidenced by Republicare, executive cabinet appointments and a so-called budget proposal.
39
His records on Citizens United, the environment, women's and other civil rights are available, have been reported and do not bode well.
No. This is a lifetime appointment by a so-called president under investigation for impeachable offenses. Not fighting this rewards the repugnicans for their unprecedented behavior to the Garland nomination. No.
1
congress disregarded the clear intent of the constitution ... that fact is not "over"
this man is clearly qualified, but so was Garland ...
this man is clearly qualified, but so was Garland ...
1
Is he Merrick Garland? No? Then he should not be confirmed.
59
In 2007, the New York Senator Chuck Schumer said that the Democratic majority should block any of President George W. Bush’s remaining Supreme Court nominations. “”We should reverse the presumption of confirmation… we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” he argued. “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
OK if you're a Democrat not good when you are a republican senator doing same. Funny how you libs forget when one of your own does things like this.
OK if you're a Democrat not good when you are a republican senator doing same. Funny how you libs forget when one of your own does things like this.
1
Yeah, right. What do you think Gorsuch would say, "Sure, I know I've got to back the so-called president, because he's given me this opportunity with the express proviso that I approve any and all decisions HIS way."?
Let us be serious. Here's a man given the opportunity to STEAL a seat on the SCOTUS, a LIFETIME job, and does anyone really believe he's do ANYTHING that might jeopardize his chances of confirmation? This is just another sad sideshow event brought to us by the cowardly racists that are the republicans in the Senate, especially ole droopy himself, McConnell, who doesn't give a whit about the Constitution, nor the duties and responsibilities he took an OATH to "defend and protect".
Merrick Garland should be the 9th SCOTUS justice, not anyone else. That our "government" has fallen so far, so fast; that it is run by corrupt, morally vacant oligarchs pretending to be responsible elected officials, is beyond depressing. Those of us who have served this country will NOT allow the erosion to continue. We will not be "led" by a traitorous fraud.
Let us be serious. Here's a man given the opportunity to STEAL a seat on the SCOTUS, a LIFETIME job, and does anyone really believe he's do ANYTHING that might jeopardize his chances of confirmation? This is just another sad sideshow event brought to us by the cowardly racists that are the republicans in the Senate, especially ole droopy himself, McConnell, who doesn't give a whit about the Constitution, nor the duties and responsibilities he took an OATH to "defend and protect".
Merrick Garland should be the 9th SCOTUS justice, not anyone else. That our "government" has fallen so far, so fast; that it is run by corrupt, morally vacant oligarchs pretending to be responsible elected officials, is beyond depressing. Those of us who have served this country will NOT allow the erosion to continue. We will not be "led" by a traitorous fraud.
23
Gorsuch seems rather right-wing and is trying to "Aw, shucks" his way around it.
Advocating on behalf of corporations and billionaires against private citizens. Greasing the skids for the Bush administration's torture policies. I see Gorsuch acting much as Roberts and Alito did during their hearings- attempting to present themselves as restrained and judicious, and then acting as a Republican rubber-stamp once on the Court.
Gorsuch should not even be in this situation. This seat was stolen from President Obama and Justice Garland. Democrats had better vote accordingly - No.
Advocating on behalf of corporations and billionaires against private citizens. Greasing the skids for the Bush administration's torture policies. I see Gorsuch acting much as Roberts and Alito did during their hearings- attempting to present themselves as restrained and judicious, and then acting as a Republican rubber-stamp once on the Court.
Gorsuch should not even be in this situation. This seat was stolen from President Obama and Justice Garland. Democrats had better vote accordingly - No.
48
You are assuming rather broadly that all corporations are inherently wrong all the time and that citizens are always right. That's a rather big assumption on your part.
1
There's plenty to fault in Gorsuch's judicial, but the truck-driver case is particularly revealing. He refuses to temper his understanding of justice with mercy or understanding. Instead of going the established formula, he could have dissented and established new case law. It happens all the time, and rightly so.
154
It reminded me of the last scene in "The Verdict" when Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) says, "...if we are to have faith in justice... we need to ACT with justice." Gorsuch didn't act with justice and the truck-driver was never able to work in his field again. Typical of conservatives to have such little regard for labor.
The law, and rulings regarding it, are absolutely devoid of "mercy and understanding." Emotion has no place in legal decisions. The law is dispassionate. We are a nation of laws, not emotion. You need to understand that. You want a different decision, then change the law through legislation. That is what Judge Gorsuch did in this case and he explained it quite clearly and elegantly.
Ah, yes. If you don't like what the law says, change it! Somewhere along the line you missed the class that explained that the Legislative branch makes the laws and the Judicial branch interprets the laws.
Gorsuch sided with Hobby Lobby.
He believes corporations are people and have First Amendment rights such as unlimited campaign donations.
He believes in the molding of corporations and government into one entity.
He is the Friendly Face of Fascism.
He believes corporations are people and have First Amendment rights such as unlimited campaign donations.
He believes in the molding of corporations and government into one entity.
He is the Friendly Face of Fascism.
15
The Dems should block Judge Gorsuch regardless of his credentials, ability, etc because his nomination represents an absolute corruption of the system perpetrated by a power-hungry GOP that committed an unprecedented theft in broad daylight when it denied President Obama's nominee a hearing and a vote. That crime cannot and should not be simply papered over, it should be resisted. I hope at least one Dem will point to McConnell and Grassley and tell them to their face that they represent just the latest instance of white men stealing from a black man what was his and that they should be ashamed of themselves for putting partisanship and ideology ahead of the process that has been used for centuries.
3
Neil Gorsuch is being disingenuous. He is sitting in a stolen seat.
He should admit that Merrick Brian Garland should be in his place, get up and walk out.
That he chose NOT to admit this makes him the same as anyone who accepts and receives stolen goods.
He shockingly paints himself as a fair person and claims he is not a crony for Trump. Yet accepting the stolen goods (Garland's Supreme court seat), sheds light on that lie and makes him partners in crime with Mitch McConnell.
No matter how he tries to wash his hands of this crime, calling it "Politics", a thief should not be confirmed as a judge for any court in our land.
The only person we should be listening to, in these hearings, is Judge Merrick Brian Garland.
Gorsuch is like the person handed the trophy that was robbed from the real winner.
And Gorsuch accepts it! What a crime. Not fit to be a Judge.
He should admit that Merrick Brian Garland should be in his place, get up and walk out.
That he chose NOT to admit this makes him the same as anyone who accepts and receives stolen goods.
He shockingly paints himself as a fair person and claims he is not a crony for Trump. Yet accepting the stolen goods (Garland's Supreme court seat), sheds light on that lie and makes him partners in crime with Mitch McConnell.
No matter how he tries to wash his hands of this crime, calling it "Politics", a thief should not be confirmed as a judge for any court in our land.
The only person we should be listening to, in these hearings, is Judge Merrick Brian Garland.
Gorsuch is like the person handed the trophy that was robbed from the real winner.
And Gorsuch accepts it! What a crime. Not fit to be a Judge.
12
"Neil Gorsuch is being disingenuous. He is sitting in a stolen seat."
Did you say the same thing about Kennedy?
Did you say the same thing about Kennedy?
“You don’t approach that question anew as if it has never been decided.” I think it’s an excellent character trait to believe in a preexisting reality.
1
"Delay, delay, delay" is what Donald Trump told Senate Republicans about President Obama's choice of Garland for the Supreme Court.
So, Senate Democrats, straight from the horse's mouth" "delay, delay, delay."
Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans deserve no consideration that they failed to show President Obama.
So, Senate Democrats, straight from the horse's mouth" "delay, delay, delay."
Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans deserve no consideration that they failed to show President Obama.
4
Exactly, just like Chuck Schumer did back in 2007. You lefties must be suffering from collective memory loss.
I thought the Senate had decided not to consider Supreme Court nominees made in the final year of a President's administration.
45
You were almost too hip for my room, but I get it and it's very clever IMHO.
Like most people that Trump nominated, he will say anything to be confirmation. He is another enemy of the people. Do not confirm.
13
Who care what Gorsuch says?
In these times more than ever, what matters is track record, what people DO, NOT what people say.
In these times more than ever, what matters is track record, what people DO, NOT what people say.
10
I don't believe him.
11
It seems we've entered a new era of politics when no one is held accountable for what that say. We have entered an era where falsehoods and lies are just as valid as facts and truth. Gorsuch's words in these hearings are useless regarding his decisions in the future. I beg those against Trump to resist this appointment with facts. Use Gorsuch's record. Use the republican's denial to have hearings on Merrick. And use the fact the the current president is under investigation for impeachable offenses.
6
Chief Justice John Marshall was nominated by President Adams in January 1801, two and one half months after the presidential election of 1800 (won by Adams' adversary Jefferson).
I just can't figure out why Gorsuch thinks that the date on which President Obama's nomination power expired is a political question. I suspect that it is the answer, not the question, that is political. And that Gorsuch's insistence that the law be enforced is equally political.
I just can't figure out why Gorsuch thinks that the date on which President Obama's nomination power expired is a political question. I suspect that it is the answer, not the question, that is political. And that Gorsuch's insistence that the law be enforced is equally political.
7
I would be OK with Gorsuch on the SCt.
We could do a lot worse.
And if he is defeated we may have to deal with others who are
not so acceptable.
We could do a lot worse.
And if he is defeated we may have to deal with others who are
not so acceptable.
6
We could actually do a lot worse than Trump - but with that pesky Constitution requiring that you be a US Citizen Putin didn't qualify. But we did get his puppet.
3
Yup we could do worse than a judge who thinks it's OK to fire a truck driver who wouldn't freeze to death, or tells his law school class that they "know" how women manipulate job interviews so they can get pregnant later. Sharp stick in the eye and all that.
1
Mr. Gorsuch needs to be asked if he has assured Mr. Trump in his private meeting with him that he would vote to do so, or if Mr. Trump is lying.
Dan Kravitz