So who is Gorsuch? A mixed bag according to this non Trump supporter.

[Doc Savage Fan]

Meanwhile...

Some Senate Democrats have been quietly looking for ways to cut a deal with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) related to Gorsuch. One idea is to agree to give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote ― where he would need just 51 votes for confirmation ― in exchange for Republicans restoring the 60-vote requirement for advancing district and circuit court nominees.​

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...s_58d3da09e4b0f838c630067b?0qvz8fu7a2wovfgvi&

ROFLMAO

 

[Paratus]

I don't think you know what 'quibble' means as I've never objected to those facts.



My way? I never gave him instructions on what to do or mentioned what actions I think he should have taken. I never noted how I would feel if he drove off so that comment also makes no sense. Perhaps your argument would be better if you could be bothered to stick to those pesky facts you were referring to instead of making things up. The point doesn't rest with whether the company gave him good options but whether the company illegally fired him. You are attempting to conflate morality with legality and, while those are often related, they are not the same. Regardless of the morality of the decision the dissension is well reasoned within the legality of the situation. He clearly notes in his dissension that if the law were different he would be inclined to rule differently.

Context is very important to interpreting these statutes.

The whistleblower statute was written to prevent businesses from retaliating against employees who refuse to endanger themselves or the public by operating unsafe vehicles.

The tractor trailer combination (vehicle) was unsafe (to the public and employee) to operate (drive) on the highway due to the frozen brakes. The tractor (vehicle) was unsafe (to the employee) to operate (drive, idle, etc) for long periods of time in the weather conditions due to the cold and failed heater. The trucker drove the tractor to a safe place so he could safely stop operation of the unsafe vehicle.

The fact that they came shortly after he left has no bearing. The driver did not know when they'd be there and had already waited long enough to put himself at risk.

The reasonable interpretation (Chevron) of the statute that both OSHA and the other two judges made was that he declined to operate the unsafe vehicle. Which means he was covered by the statute.

Gorsuch doesn't agree with Chevron and instead interpreted the ambiguous parts of the statute as he saw fit. In doing so he arrives at a dissent that is diametrically opposed to the intent of the statute. Basically affirming why deferring to reasonable interpretations by federal departments is important.

 

[Exterous]

snip

All that would be great if I had taken a stance on the validity of his ruling. My original post was to call into question the validity of using 0.03% of his rulings to determine that he didn't give a shit about people. Further posts were mainly against the flights of fancy being imagined. I can see and understand the reasoning behind decisions without agreeing to the conclusions reached nor do I think a single case should be used as a summary on the stances of a judge. I can appreciate the importance of the cases given the position he is being considered for though

 

[Paratus]

All that would be great if I had taken a stance on the validity of his ruling. My original post was to call into question the validity of using 0.03% of his rulings to determine that he didn't give a shit about people. Further posts were mainly against the flights of fancy being imagined. I can see and understand the reasoning behind decisions without agreeing to the conclusions reached nor do I think a single case should be used as a summary on the stances of a judge. I can appreciate the importance of the cases given the position he is being considered for.

Fair enough.

 

[Sunburn74]

All that would be great if I had taken a stance on the validity of his ruling. My original post was to call into question the validity of using 0.03% of his rulings to determine that he didn't give a shit about people. Further posts were mainly against the flights of fancy being imagined. I can see and understand the reasoning behind decisions without agreeing to the conclusions reached nor do I think a single case should be used as a summary on the stances of a judge. I can appreciate the importance of the cases given the position he is being considered for though

You have a point in that it's hard to judge someone based on a handful of oddball cases or ruling. However the point of these cases is they highlight his true views and likely true positions when he is not explicitly bound to rule in an otherwise obvious way.

I liken it to trying to judge a college QB to see if he's ready for the NFL or will be any good at the next level. The college system has a lot of gimme throws that are basically worthless to NFL scouts for most QBs. These are throws that are to wide open receivers, are easy and require really very little personal talent to execute, and would never exist in the nfl. The reality is even the top QB prospects often in an entire college season only have 100-200 NFL style/quality throws or plays to which to actually evaluate them. Of recent a lot of the top QBs despite throwing for thousands of yards, have maybe 50 NFL type throws to judge them by. The parallel to gorsuch is just that. Most rulings are unanimous and tell you nothing about the judge. It's the few one offs, wrinkles, difficult cases that really give you insight.

As for gorsuch, I get the sense he actually will not be conservative enough for many on the right when he finally gets the position, though know without a doubt, due to his over reliance on textualism he will certainly make at least a few highly questionable rulings. Overall I think he should be confirmed without a filibuster and leave history to paint the GOP as the party of foul play and wrong doing.

 

[agent00f]

People are left inadequately defended by laws all the time. That doesn't mean the Judicial branch has the means of creating laws. (Also its unlikely that another 15min would have caused death so your hyperbole is useless)

It's rather the point of judges/judiciary to interpret whether a rule is applicable given a situation. Gorsuch believes the company rule takes precedence over employee life. Pretty typical conservative move and comes as no surprise to anyone.

 

[Exterous]

It's rather the point of judges/judiciary to interpret whether a rule is applicable given a situation. Gorsuch believes the company rule takes precedence over employee life. Pretty typical conservative move and comes as no surprise to anyone.

Of course it is - especially for the Supreme Court. I never argued otherwise. And its a stretch to attribute that belief to him. I think its fairer to say that he doesn't think the law protected the employee for the decision that was made.

 

[ElFenix]

People are left inadequately defended by laws all the time. That doesn't mean the Judicial branch has the means of creating laws. (Also its unlikely that another 15min would have caused death so your hyperbole is useless)

uh, that's exactly what the common law means. our judicial branch comes from a 1000 year old heritage of creating laws. we're not civil law (aside from louisiana).

 

[Exterous]

uh, that's exactly what the common law means. our judicial branch comes from a 1000 year old heritage of creating laws. we're not civil law (aside from louisiana).

You are correct. My intent was to include "always" in the second sentence as Judges disagree on how far they should go and that there are limits. By omission my statement is grossly incorrect

 

[Mandres]

Gorsuch believes the company rule takes precedence over employee life.

I'm usually on your side, but this is nonsense. The true statement would be "Gorsuch believed the specific provisions of the Whistleblower act did were not relevant to this case, and did not apply". That's a pretty big difference.

 

[brycejones]

Gorsuch is clearly a highly intelligent, thoughtful person, and he is well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. The Senate Republican caucus behaved shamefully in refusing to give a hearing to Merrick Garland (also a highly intelligent, thoughtful, well-qualified nominee), but under the circumstances the Democrats have essentially no leverage to do anything about it. My own view is that it's appropriate that Gorsuch be confirmed without filibuster.

While spot on this is p&n and your thoughtful analysis is unwelcome here needs more rage.

 

[agent00f]

Of course it is - especially for the Supreme Court. I never argued otherwise. And its a stretch to attribute that belief to him. I think its fairer to say that he doesn't think the law protected the employee for the decision that was made.

I'm usually on your side, but this is nonsense. The true statement would be "Gorsuch believed the specific provisions of the Whistleblower act did were not relevant to this case, and did not apply". That's a pretty big difference.

Matter of rhetoric that's the role of competent judges to see through for the reality of the situation: corp punishing employee placed in impossible situation.

---
Separately, if democrats had balls they'd filibusterer any republican pick as long as it takes.

 

[First]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/chuck-schumer-neil-gorsuch-filibuster-scotus-nomination-236441

Can Dems block Gorsuch? I've only heard Susan Collins (R) as a definite no on going nuclear, so that leaves 2 more R's that would have to say no to a rules change to make this work for Dems.

And while nothing new for Washington, what a sight it would be to see R's go nuclear on SCOTUS filibuster's after wetting their pants less than 4 yrs ago when Reid nuked lower court filibusters. Hypocrisy in spades in DC, but of course Dems have no choice but to block him if onlybecause there have to be consequences for not confirming Garland, even if it's easily nuked.

 

[theeedude]

I don't think GOP will nuke the filibuster. They need an issue to turn out their idiot base in 2018, and SCOTUS is pretty reliable with pro-lifers, even if everything else is a disaster.
In any case, either the filibuster survives and it's good the Dems used it, or it doesn't, and they are no worse off than not using it, plus they can then escalate when they retake power and pack the court to their liking.

 

[ivwshane]

If trump were smart he'd make a deal with Democrats to go along with his tax reform plan (say, enough to get it passed) or one of his other to do list items and he'll nominate garland.


But trump isn't that good of a deal maker so that will never happen.

 

[HomerJS]

Gorsuch has refused to give his opinion on 3 landmark cases. Cases that will not come again so that excuse is out the window

He refused to comment on his personal views of three landmark cases: Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned school segregation; Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception; and Eisenstadt v. Baird, which established the right of unmarried couples to use contraception.

This alone makes him unqualified to sit on the bench

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/325343-gorsuch-rewrites-playbook-for-confirmation-hearings

 

[lopri]

I hope the Dems filibuster Gorsuch and the Pubs will invoke the nuclear option. I think this is going to pay off for the Dems in the long run. The Pubs have been much more effective in putting in conservatives judges like forever against the impotent Dem oppositions. There are few federal judges who are more conservative than Thomas or Alito as it is. By all indications Gorsuch is going to be as conservative as them. On the other hand the Democratic presidents have not shown the courage to nominate full-throttled liberals like Brennan and Marshall.

Thus what has happened is that the Pubs have gotten who they want despite filibusters, while the Dems have not gotten who they want because of filibuster. Gorsuch will be confirmed barring an extraordinary situation - take this chance to get rid of filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.

 

[Maxima1]

I hope the Dems filibuster Gorsuch and the Pubs will invoke the nuclear option. I think this is going to pay off for the Dems in the long run. The Pubs have been much more effective in putting in conservatives judges like forever against the impotent Dem oppositions. There are few federal judges who are more conservative than Thomas or Alito as it is. By all indications Gorsuch is going to be as conservative as them. On the other hand the Democratic presidents have not shown the courage to nominate full-throttled liberals like Brennan and Marshall.

Thus what has happened is that the Pubs have gotten who they want despite filibusters, while the Dems have not gotten who they want because of filibuster. Gorsuch will be confirmed barring an extraordinary situation - take this chance to get rid of filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.

It's likely they get two picks. They only need one more to leave because it'll be a few decades until another justice would matter. Though, I don't see the Dems sitting it out that long without doing something with the number of justices.

 

[interchange]

Gorsuch has refused to give his opinion on 3 landmark cases. Cases that will not come again so that excuse is out the window

This alone makes him unqualified to sit on the bench

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/325343-gorsuch-rewrites-playbook-for-confirmation-hearings

I'll share my interpretation:

Looking at his responses and record, we know who Gorsuch is. He's a textualist who is and will continue to be extremely conservative about establishing new precedent for things that aren't spelled out in the law. And he holds to these principles independent to his personal beliefs on the law or its (even unintended) consequences. When it comes to legal precedent or chevron doctrine, he is very cautious but isn't actively seeking to attack judicial liberalism, merely to ensure that his judgments are consistent with the text of the law.

As such, his answers to me indicate that he finds that the legal justification of those rulings were indicative of some judicial reach he would not be comfortable making -- not that he as a person feels that segregation, bans on contraception, etc. are good things for society. He is clear in stating where the supreme court has established precedent (i.e. if a case bumped against this precedent he would honor it unless it directly conflicts with the text of the law) and where it seems unreasonable that such a ruling would ever be challenged (i.e. he might be forced to rule differently but would not wish to be asked to be in such a position).

Essentially, he is arguing for a tight separation of powers. In his ideal, it would be the responsibility of the legislature to fix the laws if the effects are undesired but not clearly in violation of law.

And I applaud him for not saying how he would rule in certain kinds of cases. He readily admits that the ruling could either be in favor of a Republican or Democratic policy position based on the law regardless of where he stands personally.

Personally, were I a judge, I think I would approach things similarly, although I doubt I would be as strictly conservative as him. I certainly would seek to actively inhibit my personal feelings about a desired outcome from my application of the law.

 

[Thebobo]

 

[hal2kilo]

No, I haven't.

Why would commercials be ran? We don't vote on him.

Edit: Just saw your post. Do the commercials you see suggest people call in to their Senator to voice support?

Fern

They are running on the Seattle TV channels. And yes, they are asking you to contact your representative(s). Yea, that's gonna work on the west side of the Cascades.

 

[HomerJS]

I'll share my interpretation:

Looking at his responses and record, we know who Gorsuch is. He's a textualist who is and will continue to be extremely conservative about establishing new precedent for things that aren't spelled out in the law. And he holds to these principles independent to his personal beliefs on the law or its (even unintended) consequences. When it comes to legal precedent or chevron doctrine, he is very cautious but isn't actively seeking to attack judicial liberalism, merely to ensure that his judgments are consistent with the text of the law.

As such, his answers to me indicate that he finds that the legal justification of those rulings were indicative of some judicial reach he would not be comfortable making -- not that he as a person feels that segregation, bans on contraception, etc. are good things for society. He is clear in stating where the supreme court has established precedent (i.e. if a case bumped against this precedent he would honor it unless it directly conflicts with the text of the law) and where it seems unreasonable that such a ruling would ever be challenged (i.e. he might be forced to rule differently but would not wish to be asked to be in such a position).

Essentially, he is arguing for a tight separation of powers. In his ideal, it would be the responsibility of the legislature to fix the laws if the effects are undesired but not clearly in violation of law.

And I applaud him for not saying how he would rule in certain kinds of cases. He readily admits that the ruling could either be in favor of a Republican or Democratic policy position based on the law regardless of where he stands personally.

Personally, were I a judge, I think I would approach things similarly, although I doubt I would be as strictly conservative as him. I certainly would seek to actively inhibit my personal feelings about a desired outcome from my application of the law.

If you are not going to give your opinion on case law history esp if those cases would never come before you then what the fuck are you doing there??

How is anyone supposed to determine you judicial philosophy? If candidates aren't going to answer questions why go through the dog and pony show??

Candidates should be compelled to answer questions unless there would be a future conflict. Answer or get the hell out of the hearing. Failure to answer questions should be disqualifying.