Thoughts on Gorsuch

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 20 of total 55 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Fat Dad

Trad climber

Los Angeles, CA

Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 22, 2017 - 02:16pm PT

Sorry for staring yet another political thread. Other than reading the NY Times, which has had lots of coverage, I'm wondering what others think of this guy. Definitely very bright and very well qualified, but I get bad vibes from the guy. His refusal to discuss issues and specific cases, his membership in the Federalist Society and originalist philosophy (which I believe is a false construct to justify issuance of conservative decisions) suggest that he's a dispassionate robot happy to occupy an ivory tower. There are reasons why Trump picked him after all. Not who I'd like to see on the SCOTUS.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Mar 22, 2017 - 02:21pm PT

His refusal to discuss issues and specific cases

I have a lot of lawyer friends and trying to get a one of 'em to be specific
about any damn thing is like herding cats. I rather doubt he's any more
reluctant to discuss specifics than any Supreme Court nominee of the last
50 years. Besides, what's the point of discussing anything with a bunch of
clowns in the House?

Norton

Social climber

Mar 22, 2017 - 02:25pm PT

Sorry for staring yet another political thread

then why start one?

it was just a few days ago that the last remaining political thread was shut down by the Admin

Just as they shut down all the other ones, it seems very clear Chris's attitude on this.

Why not respect his wishes......

Fat Dad

Trad climber

Los Angeles, CA

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2017 - 02:47pm PT

Norton, I didn't see anything from the administrator about this. Maybe wasn't looking that hard. I started this because, despite being a lawyer, I'm a solo and so don't have an immediate pool of people to discuss this with.

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

Nothing creative to say

Mar 22, 2017 - 02:51pm PT

cf. Bork hearings on why they don't answer questions.

SteveW

Trad climber

The state of confusion

Mar 22, 2017 - 03:10pm PT

He shouldn't be approved by the senate. Unfortunately, he probably
will be.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Mar 22, 2017 - 03:13pm PT

. . . he's a dispassionate robot happy to occupy an ivory tower.

That's not at all in-line with the descriptions of people who actually know him.
Aside from having the typical qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice (double Ivy education, clerked for several courts including SCOTUS, now Ct. of Appeals Judge), he seems to have at least as much of a "real" personality as any of them.
A resident of Boulder (County, not City, but close enough), outdoor sportsman (apparently more skiing/fishing than climbing, but again, close enough)--he seems like a great guy, regardless of what you think of his jurisprudential approach.

There was a bit of smear by a recent University of Colo. law school grad who said he made some comments that hurt her feelings (something about a hypothetical about a soon-to-be pregnant woman who may take maternity benefits, and then quit as soon as they expire--as someone who worked for many years in a prestigious "Biglaw" firm, I can say with complete confidence that it happens all the time).

But the vast majority of comments from students were very positive, and those are coming from a very liberal student body.

While being a Court of Appeals judge doesn't give him carte blanche to act like a jerk in class, I think it's commendable that he volunteered his time to teach at CU.

I lot of people are still smarting over the Republican dirty trick that put him in a position to be nominated in the first place, but that's not his fault. Time to get over it.

We'll see how things unfold, but I predict a long and distinguished tenure for him.

bobinc

Trad climber

Portland, Or

Mar 22, 2017 - 03:39pm PT

Well, he's Anne (Burford) Gorsuch's son, for what that's worth. Not the most encouraging bloodline in my opinion. In this now very zany world, I liked Udall's proposal: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/27/politics/tom-udall-gorsuch-garland-scotus-plan/

Reeotch

climber

4 Corners Area

Mar 22, 2017 - 03:49pm PT

His refusal to discuss issues and specific cases,

If you check into it, you will find that most SCOTUS nominees never discuss "specific cases".

hooblie

climber

from out where the anecdotes roam

Mar 22, 2017 - 03:53pm PT

definitely a stolen seat, it's questionable that we should allow a rush to fill it until trump quits gaslighting
the electorate about being a putin asset. first things first. eight or fewer on the bench is the answer

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber

SLO, Ca

Mar 22, 2017 - 03:54pm PT

I disagree with his judicial philosophy and, as a bleeding heart liberal, would never have picked him as a nominee. That said, he seems very qualified and I see no reason he shouldn't be confirmed. Also, I hope he would bring some much needed western state perspective to the court.

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Mar 22, 2017 - 04:32pm PT

ABA gives him their highest rating. I've read their letters before (which has not been released yet), and the thoroughness with which they examine the candidates is breathtaking.

I don't expect a republican President to nominate someone with which I'd agree, but my threshold is that he be qualified, intelligent, and know the law.

I'd vote for him.

10b4me

Mountain climber

Retired

Mar 22, 2017 - 04:47pm PT

I have mixed feelings about him.
A big negative his is association with scalia.
A somewhat positive his is association with Kennedy.

Yeah, his mother was EPA director under Ronnie ray gun. She was an 80s version of Pruitt.

Splater

climber

Grey Matter

Mar 22, 2017 - 04:52pm PT

A lawyer cousin of mine knows him and said he's a very good lawyer,
which is great when it comes to making a decision based on facts.

Unfortunately many Supreme Court decisions are made based more on political opinion these days, and he tends to be quite conservative(politically).

Nominees don't often speculate about what they would do in another case, but they can and do go into plenty of detail about their own past decisions, and a few of his are quite questionable to Democrats such as Hobby Lobby and his minority opinion on the truck driver case.

Since he is so clearly a conservative vote, a seat that this president has no business deciding since it should have been voted on a year ago,
this seat should be put on hold for another 4 years. If it's ok for the Repubs to deny a seat then it's fine to put the shoe on the other foot. The supreme court can just operate with 8 justices until 2021 or until another seat opens up which they are then justified in nominating a replacement.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 22, 2017 - 04:54pm PT

There's a process. It's being followed.

That libs aren't getting the "ideal" result in the SCOTUS is a necessary function of our elections and their implications.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 22, 2017 - 04:56pm PT

a seat that this president has no business deciding since it should have been voted on a year ago

The "should" in your statement is an invention. The legally-allowed process was followed. That it did not produce your desired result just means that for this point in time the shoe is on the other foot. Don't worry, the system will produce other shoes in the future, and they will be on other feet. Then the other side will complain in terms of its own invented "shoulds".

Splater

climber

Grey Matter

Mar 22, 2017 - 05:02pm PT

The legally allowed process means that
anyone who thinks the common people deserve equal rights
should do everything legal to oppose this nomination for this seat.

micronut

Trad climber

Fresno/Clovis, ca

Mar 22, 2017 - 05:10pm PT

I really like him and appreciate what I've seen of his character and judicial record. Its a rare thing to have such a fine reputation as far as your character is concerned across such a diverse breadth of colleagues. Hard to find somebody who doesn't appreciate him as a person or a man of integrity, despite the obvious fact that a more liberal person is inherently going to have issues with his worldview or political stances.

I think he'll be a fine addition to the court. We need more like him out there.

I'd think Democrats could do much worse with a Republican President right now. What would they expect? A flaming liberal of a nomination? He's conservative. And highly educated. And a nice guy. And highly respected among his peers on both sides of the aisle.

John M wrote

Well said.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 22, 2017 - 05:53pm PT

The legally allowed process means that
anyone who thinks the common people deserve equal rights
should do everything legal to oppose this nomination for this seat.

Absolutely!

Good luck with that.