Jump to content

Trump's Supreme Court Pick


lawman

Recommended Posts

Some of you probably aren't going to like this, but I think the SC functions best when it's in balance - which this appointment would do. I think a SC biased heavily to either side of the political spectrum is dangerous.

 

If the supreme court is filled with judges who interpret law and the constitution as written then there is no need for balance. Seeking balance over idealogical or political terrain is to ask for something the supreme court was not intended to be, which is why judicial activism is akin to not taking the bat and going home, but not giving the bat back and making everyone play football with it.

The founding fathers and the political leaders at that time were flawed as much as the current ones are, the constitution was designed to be the great equalizer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholic League approves.

 

http://www.catholicleague.org/gorsuch-is-a-great-pick/

 

The Catholic League has a narrow focus when it comes to prospective U.S. Supreme Court judges.

We want someone who is intellectually admired by his colleagues, a person who has a well developed jurisprudential philosophy. We want someone who resists imputing his own political preferences when ruling on constitutional cases, and who instead interprets the law the way the Framers intended it to be understood.

Regarding the issues, we want someone who puts a premium on our two most important rights: the right to life, from fertilization to natural death, and religious liberty for all.

Judge Neil Gorsuch fits that description. He has a towering intellectual reputation, having studied at Columbia, Harvard, and Oxford. He is not an ideologue bent on affirming his politics in law. He is a judge who understands the dangers that assisted suicide and euthanasia pose to the most vulnerable members of society. He is a man who values religious liberty, holding that conscience rights are paramount.

President Trump has selected an incredibly gifted person for the Supreme Court. The Senate deserves to give him a fair hearing, acting without delay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's remarkable people have labeled different "types" of Justices (power grab...) Over time we have Originalism vs Prudentialism, Structuralism, Constructionism, Strict Constructionism, Textualism, and whatever new philosophy might come up.

 

In net, there is the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as written (label = Originalism), vs subjective opinions.

 

Since the Revolutionary War, the U.S. Constitution has been the law of the land. It's the bedrock for all new laws. Many of us (including elected officials) have taken Oaths that included "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

 

Interpretation has always been based on how the Constitution was written. The "labels" have snuck in little by little over time to facilitate the injection of partisan philosophies into the Constitution. Any deviation, "left" or "right" applied to the Constitution, undermines it. It can only be interpreted, as is. There's no need for any "labels."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be April before this one is done so Dems have 6 weeks to release documents and photos of Gorsuch having lunch with Putin and getting inside trading information for Goldman Sach stock.

...and he was responsible for, Benghazi, Ferguson and the Russian hack of the DNC.

Has suspected ties to Julian Paul Assange as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It will be April before this one is done so Dems have 6 weeks to release documents and photos of Gorsuch having lunch with Putin and getting inside trading information for Goldman Sach stock.

 

 

Don't forget about a "secret dossier" that describes his golden shower escapades with hookers in a Moscow hotel room.

 

 

EEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwww!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It will be April before this one is done so Dems have 6 weeks to release documents and photos of Gorsuch having lunch with Putin and getting inside trading information for Goldman Sach stock.

 

 

Don't forget about a "secret dossier" that describes his golden shower escapades with hookers in a Moscow hotel room.

 

 

EEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwww!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those wishing Bill Pryor had been nominated....he just authored an opinion in a case where a Sheriff actually stated that the "War on Drugs" is a genuine war and wishes to escalate said "war." He had a SWAT team raid a low-level pot dealer (nickel and dime bags) at 5 a.m., no knock warrant of course. Deputy blindly tosses a flashbang into a room and it severely burned a pregnant woman who was not subject to the arrest warrant. The panel declined to strip the Deputies of qualified immunity despite the rash of LEOs blindly chucking flashbangs into occupied rooms, severely burning or killing innocent bystanders (remember the case where a SWAT team raided someone in Georgia, chucked a flashbang into a crib and torched the baby in the crib). Ruling that (in layman's terms) the constitutional right to not be seriously injured or killed by a reckless LEO tossing flashbangs into a room is NOT clearly established. Pryor also called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." He's also wishy-washy on religious freedom. Can anyone imagine the massive stink that the left would make over his nomination? Not just Roe v. Wade but ruling in favor of police who carelessly or recklessly injure civilians (when it is arguably overkill to no-knock a street level dealer at 5 a.m., treating it like a raid on a drug kingpin) during raids, when they could've just tailed him and arrested him without the massive police presence, injuring innocents in the process.

 

No, I'm glad Gorsuch is the nominee. Hardiman is strong on 1A and 2A, not so great on government vs. its citizens, as in he almost always defers to the government.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's room for both of them on the Supreme Court.

 

Well, I mean, there soon will be room for both of them on the Supreme Court...

 

 

If the republicans in Congress pass a law that raises the number of judges to 11 on SCOTUS, then sure. That's 3 Trump nominees.

 

(for those not in the know, FDR wanted to do something like this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for splitting up the Ninth Circuit, which is a more pressing issue than increasing the number of SCOTUS Justices. The judicial activism notwithstanding, that circuit is far too large to be effectively and efficiently managed and I'm sure that Arizona, among other states, wants out of that Circuit. It's absolutely unacceptable to wait years to have a case resolved at the circuit level. A gross miscarriage of justice. CA7 has a rule, decide cases within 60 days of hearing them or 180 for more complex issues.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here is another endorsement from Senator Richard J. Durbin. The irony burns. His replies all read the same condescending way.

 

------------------------

Thank you for contacting me about President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.

Judge Gorsuch is an appellate judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School with a Ph.D. in Legal Philosophy from Oxford University.

Judge Gorsuch began his legal career as an attorney in private practice in Washington, D.C.. In 2005 he joined the U.S. Department of Justice as Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General. In 2006, Judge Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where he now serves.

Senators have a constitutional responsibility to perform careful due diligence on Supreme Court nominations. Decisions by the Supreme Court affect issues of fundamental importance to the American people, including workers’ rights, women’s health, environmental protection, criminal law, immigration, privacy, civil rights and voting rights.

Nominees to the Supreme Court must demonstrate that they will uphold and defend the Constitution for the benefit of all, not just for the advantage of a privileged few. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had an opportunity to ask tough questions of Judge Gorsuch. He was given a full and fair hearing, where he had every opportunity to explain his judicial record and his views. For the majority of questions from Democratic Senators at his hearing, Judge Gorsuch failed to meaningfully respond at all. He had a standard set of evasions and non-answers that he used whenever he was asked about fundamental legal principles and landmark cases.

I did not find assurance in Judge Gorsuch’s testimony last week, and I did not find assurance in his record. He received a fair hearing, but he did not earn my vote.

We are at a unique moment in history. The President has already fired an Attorney General and had his unconstitutional executive actions blocked by several federal courts. The President, in the first few weeks, has also launched unprecedented attacks on the integrity of the federal judiciary. And now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed it is investigating Russian involvement in the recent U.S. election. In this context, the Senate cannot simply rubber stamp a lifetime Supreme Court appointment for the President.

I cannot support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. I will vote no when his nomination comes before the Judiciary Committee, I will vote no on cloture, and I will oppose his nomination on the Senate floor.

Thank you again for contacting my office. Please feel free to keep in touch.

signed, Dick Durbin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just Durbin being Durbin.

I got the same form letter back.

My response to him:

 

Sen. Durbin,

 

All recent SCOTUS nominees have followed the lead set by Justice Ginsburg of not answering hypothetical questions. Judge Gorsuch answered exactly as Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor did and you voted for them.

I

The vote for Justice Sotomayor was 68-31 which included 9 Republican votes and Justice Kagan won approval by a vote of 63-37 with 5 Republican votes. I can only hope Judge Gorsuch, who many say is more qualified than the two previous nominees, is extended the same courtesy by the Democrats.

 

Your partisan NO vote against Judge Gorsuch earned you my NO vote in your next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in 2014... nothing changes <sigh> -

 

The arrogance of those politicians who fight to take away our rights is appalling. In emailing Dick Durbin - the long tenured Democrat Senator from Illinois - I urged him to vote YES to The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014 (S. 1908) which would allow those with a valid Concealed Carry permit to carry into other States - just like your drivers license. His response showed the hubris and pomposity of someone who believes in the omnipotence of the Government and his own, overblown, narcissistic ego...

"The elected representatives of each state are in the best position to know and understand the needs of the state. They should be allowed to determine for themselves the policies that govern their homes, streets, neighborhoods, and workplaces."

Senator Durbin believes that once elected, he should be a Dictator. That you, the stupid, ignorant masses who huddle in fear and trepidation, should look to him as your single guiding light - and he is happy to do whatever he wants... his constituents be damned. This is how anti gunners think, this is what they believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...