Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS. Good choice or Bad?

[esmith]

So you think Gorsuch should get a hearing?

Yes and not only that be confirmed by the Senate. Don't you, or do you have a issue with his record?

 

[esmith]

I believe the "intent" of the framers was clear (for a timely vetting process), and I'm not alone:

From wikipedia:

Everyone has an right to their opinions and that is all that was presented. You and those sited in your link did not have a legal leg to support their opinions. You will note the one wording that invalidates their argument

truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous...

as you can easily read they do not provide a legal argument.

 

[icehorse]

Everyone has an right to their opinions and that is all that was presented. You and those sited in your link did not have a legal leg to support their opinions. You will note the one wording that invalidates their argument

as you can easily read they do not provide a legal argument.

Much of the law is based on intention. And many court cases do nothing more than make finer distinctions around the edges. If the law was complete (which it will never be), many court cases would just vanish. Instead, a situation comes up that tests a new cranny of life, and the courts have to figure out what was intended to handle that cranny. So absence of a specific law doesn't mean the action taken is A-okay, it just means we need to dig into it.

The quote I cited summarized the opinions of hundreds of top lawyers, it's more than just my layman's opinion.

 

[esmith]

Much of the law is based on intention. And many court cases do nothing more than make finer distinctions around the edges. If the law was complete (which it will never be), many court cases would just vanish. Instead, a situation comes up that tests a new cranny of life, and the courts have to figure out what was intended to handle that cranny. So absence of a specific law doesn't mean the action taken is A-okay, it just means we need to dig into it.

The quote I cited summarized the opinions of hundreds of top lawyers, it's more than just my layman's opinion.

Therein lies the problem.........opinions.

 

[icehorse]

Therein lies the problem.........opinions.

Not all "opinions" are of equal value. And ultimately the SC is presumably populated with 9 people whose opinions we think are best.

So I think the hundreds of collected "opinions" from all of those lawyers, concerning the GOP's stall tactics last year, should count much more heavily than a few congressmen's.

 

[Acim]

I believe Gorsuch was perhaps the best possible choice from Pub perspective that Trump could have gone with.

If somehow, magically, the LW didn't resist the nomination I would wonder if I were dreaming and in some alternate political reality.

 

[esmith]

Not all "opinions" are of equal value. And ultimately the SC is presumably populated with 9 people whose opinions we think are best.

So I think the hundreds of collected "opinions" from all of those lawyers, concerning the GOP's stall tactics last year, should count much more heavily than a few congressmen's.

The Congress is the representatives of the people, lawyers are not (unless they are members of Congress). Therefore all the non-Congress lawyers have no standing in making decisions that affect the entire country. Most lawyers are of the liberal persuasion therefore in my eyes they have no standings.

 

[Curious George]

Not all "opinions" are of equal value. And ultimately the SC is presumably populated with 9 people whose opinions we think are best.

So I think the hundreds of collected "opinions" from all of those lawyers, concerning the GOP's stall tactics last year, should count much more heavily than a few congressmen's.

Not to mention the opinions of the Supreme Court on the tactic. I don't believe even conservative justices approved. But, it is what it happened. Should we stand for similar obstructionism because we would like a different justice?

 

[Curious George]

I believe Gorsuch was perhaps the best possible choice from Pub perspective that Trump could have gone with.

If somehow, magically, the LW didn't resist the nomination I would wonder if I were dreaming and in some alternate political reality.

I would say that if they did approve it would send a message.

 

[icehorse]

The Congress is the representatives of the people, lawyers are not (unless they are members of Congress). Therefore all the non-Congress lawyers have no standing in making decisions that affect the entire country. Most lawyers are of the liberal persuasion therefore in my eyes they have no standings.

Congress is constrained by the law.

 

[icehorse]

Not to mention the opinions of the Supreme Court on the tactic. I don't believe even conservative justices approved. But, it is what it happened. Should we stand for similar obstructionism because we would like a different justice?

It's tricky, but I could argue that the people wanted Obama to choose, and that the GOP blocked the people's will. From that angle, obstructionism is a valid option.

 

[metis]

I think the Republican obstructionist was awful, I hope the Democrats do not do the same.

The Dems will put up a fuss but then let it go through as they're not as repulsive as the Pubs. As Will Rogers said, "I do not belong to any organized party-- I'm a Democrat".

 

[icehorse]

The Dems will put up a fuss but then let it go through as they're not as repulsive as the Pubs. As Will Rogers said, "I do not belong to any organized party-- I'm a Democrat".

I'm not a fan of obstructionist activity, but I have to say that I don't feel well represented by my Dem congressmen if they roll over on this. We elected Obama twice and his nominee was consistent with why we voted for him.

 

[esmith]

I'm not a fan of obstructionist activity, but I have to say that I don't feel well represented by my Dem congressmen if they roll over on this. We elected Obama twice and his nominee was consistent with why we voted for him.

I assume you are referring to the Merrick Garland nomination.
I look at it this way, yes the Senate could have taken up the process, then brought his nomination up for a vote and he would have not gotten the 60 votes required. So, it would have been a waste of time but nothing more than a courtesy.
Yes Obama was elected twice, but he lost the Senate and the House. What does that say about the countries mood. In addition, those that voted for President Trump indicated that the Supreme Court was one of the top two areas of concern.

 

[Curious George]

I assume you are referring to the Merrick Garland nomination.
I look at it this way, yes the Senate could have taken up the process, then brought his nomination up for a vote and he would have not gotten the 60 votes required. So, it would have been a waste of time but nothing more than a courtesy.
Yes Obama was elected twice, but he lost the Senate and the House. What does that say about the countries mood. In addition, those that voted for President Trump indicated that the Supreme Court was one of the top two areas of concern.

Not really. He likely would have found some Republican support. He was a good pick.

 

[esmith]

Not really. He likely would have found some Republican support. He was a good pick.

14 Republicans would have had to vote for him and that wasn't about to happen
Senate make-up Nov 6 2016
Republicans 54
Democrats 44
Independents 2 (normally vote Dem)

 

[icehorse]

I assume you are referring to the Merrick Garland nomination.
I look at it this way, yes the Senate could have taken up the process, then brought his nomination up for a vote and he would have not gotten the 60 votes required. So, it would have been a waste of time but nothing more than a courtesy.
Yes Obama was elected twice, but he lost the Senate and the House. What does that say about the countries mood. In addition, those that voted for President Trump indicated that the Supreme Court was one of the top two areas of concern.

Even if you're prognostication is correct, you're making a "ends justify the means" sort of argument.

 

[Curious George]

14 Republicans would have had to vote for him and that wasn't about to happen
Senate make-up Nov 6 2016
Republicans 54
Democrats 44
Independents 2 (normally vote Dem)

Again, he was a good pick. If they hadn't voted for him it would have been more obstructionist hurting the country for spite of Obama. He would have made the votes. The reason I say this is because otherwise he would have been reviewed. The whole reason for not was to prevent Republicans from this deviation. For someone who favors states rights, you sure have a high regard for Central power.

 

[Mister Emu]

Those shoes, for better or worse, a large shoes to fill. Do you think Gorsuch is up to that task?

I certainly hope so; I have heard it suggested that he is an even more strident proponent of the Constitution than Scalia, and closer to Thomas's view. That gives me hope.

 

[metis]

I certainly hope so; I have heard it suggested that he is an even more strident proponent of the Constitution than Scalia, and closer to Thomas's view.

But Scalia could be and was hypocritical at times, and one example is when the Republican majority on the court interfered with Florida's right to call and go forth with a recount, thus giving the election to Bush. And one of his gun-control statements was beyond bizarre and into Fruit-Cake Land.