SCOTUS watch! Who is in the box?

[Exterous]

Yeah, so regulations have no teeth. You realize a lot of conservatives wish the federal government went back to the feckless central government of the Articles of Confederation?

Citation needed for the first part and the second is complete hyperbole. There might be a handful but to say 'a lot' given how much they like strong federal organizations is more than a stretch. His actual statements show a moderation streak when it comes to federal power not a complete (or even close to) reversal of regulations. I'll change my mind if you could provide cases of his that support his nomination going along with your claim of 'regulations have no teeth'

I don't see the point on showcasing someone who was a part of the Obama administration. Look at Comey.

The point is to show that he is has supporters from both sides. Several Democratic judges have made favorable statements regarding him as well. You'd be hard pressed to find much favorable opinions from Democrats regarding the other candidates. For example he was confirmed to his current position without a dissenting vote because he "was not controversial". Meanwhile Pryor faced a pretty tough battle to get confirmed - one that I believe took years

Pryor had a good point about him -- judicial deference (i.e. basically what Roberts resorted to when upholding Obummercare). People fixate too much on abortion and gays. If abortion was banned or stymied, it wouldn't last. I don't see why so many get freaked out over it.

Who said anything about abortion on gays? He's supported tying prison inmates to posts and leaving them in the sun if they didn't work on the work detail and stated that the SCOTUS made a terrible decision when it came to Miranda v Arizona. And if you're against Grousch on his minor states right leanings you should really not like Pryor as he's staunchly more states rights than Grousch

 

[Exterous]

that's the spirit! begin discrediting her before it even starts! She's clearly, already, worse than Trump. Never forget!

In his defense I still haven't seen anything supporting her statement come up

 

[Mandres]

Well his SCOTUS nominations were what worried me the most about Trump being president. A lot of things we can recover from but his picks will be able to exert influence long after hes gone. Granted this is only based on what I have read so far but he doesn't seem nearly as bad as it could have been.
...
So not great but far better than I expected - at least so far. I mean William H. Pryor Jr was supposedly a consideration...

I agree completely. My biggest fear about the Trump presidency was that he would appoint Sean Hannity, his own immediate family, or someone else that would completely undermine the institution of the SCOTUS.

I don't agree with all of Gorsuch's views, but I respect the pick. He's young, thoughtful and completely qualified. It demonstrates a rare nod to competence, over loyalty, from Trump's team.

 

[Maxima1]

Citation needed for the first part

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ce/2017/01/neil_gorsuch_is_not_a_villain.html

"Still, liberals are sure to be distressed by Gorsuch’s rather severe attitude toward an increasingly controversial area of the law: judicial deference to agency decisions. Under the current doctrine of “Chevron deference,” courts must defer to an executive agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous federal statute, so long as that interpretation is reasonable. The principle here is one of democratic accountability: Executive agencies are part of a political branch, and if the people do not like an agency’s interpretation, they can vote out the executive and demand change. Judges are independent, and if the people do not like a judge’s interpretation, they cannot do much to change it.

While Chevron was once endorsed by Scalia himself, conservatives have come to attack the doctrine in recent years, arguing that agencies exert too much legislative authority and corrupt the constitutional design of separation of powers. Gorsuch agrees with that stance. In a recent opinion, he all but called for the Supreme Court to overturn Chevron and let judges decide for themselves whether agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes are reasonable."

Edit: Btw, look at his past (high school/college). He's a real piece of work.

and the second is complete hyperbole.

Is it? Look at Mike Lee and others. Others act more pragmatically (less fringe) and wish to only overturn precedents that they think is feasible to do. For instance, I believe many of them wish to overturn Roe v. Wade, but wouldn't do it (despite thinking it's murder!) and would act more discretely to dismantle some of the restrictions. To put simply, go too far and that court would not last.

The point is to show that he is has supporters from both sides. Several Democratic judges have made favorable statements regarding him as well. You'd be hard pressed to find much favorable opinions from Democrats regarding the other candidates. For example he was confirmed to his current position without a dissenting vote because he "was not controversial".

What? We're suppose to like him simply because the media says he writes well, is handsome, is humorous, and has an Ivy League education, etc.? I'll look at his rulings. The opinions of the corporate Democrats who idiotically want to maintain the status quo on the filibuster and legitimize this SC pick or Democrats who are merely commenting on his qualifications/likeability have little value. If he sides with gerrymandering while saying money is free speech, he is a partisan and phony! We can tell he's very conservative alone from the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Meanwhile Pryor faced a pretty tough battle to get confirmed - one that I believe took years

Yeah, because of the significant weight put on Roe v. Wade.

Who said anything about abortion on gays?

That's been the major critique of Pryor.

He's supported tying prison inmates to posts and leaving them in the sun if they didn't work on the work detail and stated that the SCOTUS made a terrible decision when it came to Miranda v Arizona. And if you're against Grousch on his minor states right leanings you should really not like Pryor as he's staunchly more states rights than Grousch

My commentary on Pryor is about how he follows judicial deference rather than textualism, which is what Gorsuch tries to adhere to, and that there are reasons to think textualism would lead to more problematic conclusions.

 

[Maxima1]

I agree completely. My biggest fear about the Trump presidency was that he would appoint Sean Hannity, his own immediate family, or someone else that would completely undermine the institution of the SCOTUS.

And why would that matter any more than a conservative that would rule more pragmatically? All fringe positions would need multiple justices to join and some positions would likely lead to ousting that court via court packing and wave elections in favor of liberals.

 

[kage69]

I think liberals have a reason to be a little fearful. The Chevron deference issue is a real one considering it's not just Scalia's wit and intelligence they are trying to recreate, but also his activism. We'll see.

I'm just glad Dump didn't pick Gary Busey or some sht. It would make as much sense as DeVos and a few others. Nice to see we're all fans of Ivy league education again now, how about that?

There's still something really grotesque about this giant orange turd, who insulted a judge born in Indiana due to Mexican heritage, getting to select seats for the highest court in the land, subject to lifetime appointment.

 

[Maxima1]

The point is to show that he is has supporters from both sides. Several Democratic judges have made favorable statements regarding him as well. You'd be hard pressed to find much favorable opinions from Democrats regarding the other candidates. For example he was confirmed to his current position without a dissenting vote because he "was not controversial". Meanwhile Pryor faced a pretty tough battle to get confirmed - one that I believe took years

So I just found out he is now working on cases in front of the SC as a defender of corporate interests. He would benefit from Gorsuch being confirmed. It obviously stank!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/...al-supreme-court-liz-spayd-public-editor.html

 

[werepossum]

I agree completely. My biggest fear about the Trump presidency was that he would appoint Sean Hannity, his own immediate family, or someone else that would completely undermine the institution of the SCOTUS.

I don't agree with all of Gorsuch's views, but I respect the pick. He's young, thoughtful and completely qualified. It demonstrates a rare nod to competence, over loyalty, from Trump's team.

Agreed.

Makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with him.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Right now it's looking to me as if he's got 56 or so votes in the Senate, the Republicans may not even have to use the Constitutional Option for this nomination. They may need it when Pryor gets nominated, we can wait and see.
http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=383

 

[theeedude]

No judge who accepts a stolen seat is fit for SCOTUS.

 

[pcgeek11]

No judge who accepts a stolen seat is fit for SCOTUS.

That was funny. So we will have to leave the seat open permanently, for all time.

 

[Maxima1]

That was funny. So we will have to leave the seat open permanently, for all time.

When Gorsuch called Garland, he was suppose to tell him it was his!

 

[zinfamous]

That was funny. So we will have to leave the seat open permanently, for all time.

Nah, I don't expect Garland to live forever.

 

[Exterous]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ce/2017/01/neil_gorsuch_is_not_a_villain.html

"Still, liberals are sure to be distressed by Gorsuch’s rather severe attitude toward an increasingly controversial area of the law: judicial deference to agency decisions. Under the current doctrine of “Chevron deference,” courts must defer to an executive agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous federal statute, so long as that interpretation is reasonable. The principle here is one of democratic accountability: Executive agencies are part of a political branch, and if the people do not like an agency’s interpretation, they can vote out the executive and demand change. Judges are independent, and if the people do not like a judge’s interpretation, they cannot do much to change it.

While Chevron was once endorsed by Scalia himself, conservatives have come to attack the doctrine in recent years, arguing that agencies exert too much legislative authority and corrupt the constitutional design of separation of powers. Gorsuch agrees with that stance. In a recent opinion, he all but called for the Supreme Court to overturn Chevron and let judges decide for themselves whether agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes are reasonable."

If you read the actual opinion it calls for judges to exercise judgement when a case involves an ambiguous law that conflicts with an existing judicial precedence. Which means there is already a judicial ruling on the legitimacy\constitutionality of an action that conflicts with an ambiguous law. Thats a far cry from 'regulations have no teeth' as several things need to happen before a regulation could be invalidated. First the law must be ambiguous. Second there must be a judicial precedence that conflicts with the law. Third the judge must decide the previous ruling is more applicable to the current situation.

Is it?

Yes - yes it is. Mike Lee and Rand Paul and the like make up a tiny percentage of Republicans. Not nearly enough to call 'a lot'. To return to the Articles of Confederation style government would mean giving up or at least drastic cuts to big government programs like the military, CIA, DHS and immigration, not to mention the various financial aspects. I think the R voting record on military funding alone should make it clear that saying a return to that is hyperbole.

What? We're suppose to like him simply because the media says he writes well, is handsome, is humorous, and has an Ivy League education, etc.?

I have no idea why you brought that up since I never said that - anywhere.

The opinions of the corporate Democrats who idiotically want to maintain the status quo on the filibuster and legitimize this SC pick or Democrats who are merely commenting on his qualifications/likeability have little value.

On the contrary they mean a great deal given the lack of any sort of D support for the alternate candidates. They show that there is one candidate that is somewhat acceptable. Oppose too strongly and the Republicans can just decide to put someone else in the chair and prevent the Democrats from doing anything about it. If the situation were different it would matter less but the R can essentially push through who ever they want if they really want to. I'm not saying he is a candidate that I like or that the Democrats will like. I am saying he is far better than the alternatives IMO and given the information at hand. (And no I don't use the activities of someone when they are 16-18 to judge their qualifications when they are almost 50 - unless there are better signs those trends currently continue. For example his stance on states rights clearly doesn't coincide with the 'Fascist Club' even assuming it was a real club)

We can tell he's very conservative alone from the Hobby Lobby ruling.

We could tell he was conservative because he was nominated.

My commentary on Pryor is about how he follows judicial deference rather than textualism, which is what Gorsuch tries to adhere to, and that there are reasons to think textualism would lead to more problematic conclusions.

There we will disagree on who would be more problematic

 

[Maxima1]

If you read the actual opinion it calls for judges to exercise judgement when a case involves an ambiguous law that conflicts with an existing judicial precedence. Which means there is already a judicial ruling on the legitimacy\constitutionality of an action that conflicts with an ambiguous law. Thats a far cry from 'regulations have no teeth' as several things need to happen before a regulation could be invalidated. First the law must be ambiguous. Second there must be a judicial precedence that conflicts with the law. Third the judge must decide the previous ruling is more applicable to the current situation.

It helps the interests of corporations and sticks it to the little guy, which is more of the same from him.

Yes - yes it is. Mike Lee and Rand Paul and the like make up a tiny percentage of Republicans. Not nearly enough to call 'a lot'. To return to the Articles of Confederation style government would mean giving up or at least drastic cuts to big government programs like the military, CIA, DHS and immigration, not to mention the various financial aspects. I think the R voting record on military funding alone should make it clear that saying a return to that is hyperbole.

That's the funny part. Basically they want a federal government that provides defense and that's about it. Although, authoritarianism does kick in, so they do like their pet issues being enforced on the federal level (e.g. marijuana, gay marriage, abortion etc.) if they have the power to do so. Sorry, but I disagree about Mike Lee and Rand Paul being just a few Republicans. There's a reason why there was a huge backlash against the establishment Republicans. Many of the conservative voters want no property tax, very little to no federal tax, voting to be stripped from non-land owners and anyone receiving any kind of government assistance, no HUD, no food stamps, no TANF, no Department of Education, no Department of Energy,etc.You see that crap all the time on forums that shouldn't be a haven for the most extreme e.g. archery/hunting forums.

I have no idea why you brought that up since I never said that - anywhere.

You didn't, but that's essentially what those who disagree with his positions are saying in the corporate media, which you're telling me to look at.

On the contrary they mean a great deal given the lack of any sort of D support for the alternate candidates.

It means zip, zada, zero! He's Scalia 2.0.

They show that there is one candidate that is somewhat acceptable.

He will mirror Scalia, so basically they're all essentially acceptable then. Just admit it. The corporate Democrats want to shy away from rocking the boat that much.

Oppose too strongly and the Republicans can just decide to put someone else in the chair and prevent the Democrats from doing anything about it. If the situation were different it would matter less but the R can essentially push through who ever they want if they really want to. I'm not saying he is a candidate that I like or that the Democrats will like. I am saying he is far better than the alternatives IMO and given the information at hand.

That's an asinine strategy. They'll use the nuke option regardless. They should filibuster NOW, get them to use the nuclear option, and if they get a second one, make the case later when in power to court pack and put in limits as a compromise because the court is illegitimate!

(And no I don't use the activities of someone when they are 16-18 to judge their qualifications when they are almost 50 - unless there are better signs those trends currently continue. For example his stance on states rights clearly doesn't coincide with the 'Fascist Club' even assuming it was a real club)

It wasn't just the Fascist club or quoting Kissinger. Defending Iran-Contra? Etc. His mind was already made up. I feel most judges try to seek the result they want. Bush v. Gore was an excellent example of it.

We could tell he was conservative because he was nominated.

That makes no sense. Conservatives feared another Souter if a record was lacking. That ain't going to happen with this guy.

There we will disagree on who would be more problematic

I'm not really sure either, btw. I can't tell the extent of activism with inconsistent rulings that would go on.

 

[theeedude]

That was funny. So we will have to leave the seat open permanently, for all time.

Until a moderate fills it. Nothing in the Constitution about 9 seats on SCOTUS.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Awesome tags OP

 

[imported_tajmahal]

No judge who accepts a stolen seat is fit for SCOTUS.

It sucks when they obey the law and still get the Supreme Court seat.

 

[pcgeek11]

Until a moderate fills it. Nothing in the Constitution about 9 seats on SCOTUS.

Ha ha that is still going to be quite a wait for that to happen.

 

[werepossum]

That was funny. So we will have to leave the seat open permanently, for all time.

Not permanently, just until the next Obama becomes President.

Until a moderate fills it. Nothing in the Constitution about 9 seats on SCOTUS.

A moderate like, say, Darth Bader Ginsberg?

 

[theeedude]

Not permanently, just until the next Obama becomes President.


A moderate like, say, Darth Bader Ginsberg?

Like Garland.

 

[pcgeek11]

I see no Garland in your future.

 

[theeedude]

OK. But if SCOTUS majority is seen as stolen, then its decisions will be seen as illegitimate by a large part of the country. We went through this with Dred Scott, when the country stopped viewing SCOTUS decisions as the last word in resolving disputes, and started viewing them as political acts.

 

[pcgeek11]

OK. But if SCOTUS majority is seen as stolen, then its decisions will be seen as illegitimate by a large part of the country. We went through this with Dred Scott, when the country stopped viewing SCOTUS decisions as the last word in resolving disputes, and started viewing them as political acts.

By some disillusioned individuals.

You can view the SCOTUS decisions anyway you like, but they are still the last word in resolving disputes. Many have viewed the decisions as political acts for a very long time. That is why these appointments carry so much weight to begin with.

 

[theeedude]

By some disillusioned individuals.
You can view the SCOTUS decisions anyway you like, but they are still the last word in resolving disputes. Many have viewed the decisions as political acts for a very long time. That is why these appointments carry so much weight to begin with.

Was Dred Scott decision the last word in resolving slavery? Or some disillusioned individuals had other ideas?