Thoughts on Gorsuch

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 55 of total 55 in this topic

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.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 22, 2017 - 05:54pm PT

LOL... you've set a predictably low bar, Locker.

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

Sands Motel , Las Vegas

Mar 22, 2017 - 06:01pm PT

Splater stole my thoughts...4 more years without back alley abortions is a good thing..

Trashman

Trad climber

SLC

Mar 22, 2017 - 06:08pm PT

Seems like a decent pick if this pres had any business being involved.

Since there are no more rules, apparently, then I agree with Splater, we can wait another 4 years. They should definitely force the hand. Eliminating the filibuster will hurt this time but just imagine how fun it will be to replace Thomas with Elizabeth Warren.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 22, 2017 - 06:24pm PT

Definitely better to take the long view.

That also reduces present frothing at the mouth, which those around you will appreciate.

10b4me

Mountain climber

Retired

Mar 22, 2017 - 06:28pm PT

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-senate-final-20170322-story.html

crankster

Trad climber

No. Tahoe

Mar 22, 2017 - 06:42pm PT

Creepy guy.

guido

Trad climber

Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific

Mar 22, 2017 - 06:59pm PT

D#@&%ebag disguised as a brilliant and impartial lawyer. Shut the process down like Mitch and his cronies did for a year. If only the Dem had any balls.................

When the house burns down then maybe get serious about an appointee.

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

Sands Motel , Las Vegas

Mar 22, 2017 - 07:17pm PT

Guido....Same....! Dems needs to grow a pair...

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 22, 2017 - 07:35pm PT

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

No, it isn't - not even remotely. It's a result of gop members of the senate absolutely abandoning their their responsibilities as senators, but you keep telling yourself that.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 22, 2017 - 07:39pm PT

but you keep telling yourself that.

Right back atcha.

No laws were broken, and the gamesmanship was entirely predictable. That fact that your side was on the losing side is what motivates the froth and angst. Had the roles been reversed, be intellectually honest now!, you would have said the same thing to frothing Rebumblecons.

It's a giant game, the most amusing ever invented. And we watch, sometimes clap, sometimes cry, and sometimes get angry. In the end, though, we're all just powerless watchers in a grand comedy of errors orchestrated by power-brokers that are rarely if ever in the news.

Your side is sucking hind-tit at present. Don't worry, it will come around.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Outside the Asylum

Mar 22, 2017 - 10:07pm PT

If nothing else, one hopes that the Democrats have learned:

1. Have your nominees ready when there's a vacancy, and nominate them as soon as is decently possible.

2. Push their nominations by all reasonable (at least) means.

3. Nominate only younger people - more bang for your buck.

And the Republicans should remember that their gerrymandering, and dubious tactics, will eventually come back to bite them. Once the Democrats have a majority in one or both houses, it'll be payback time.

Todd Eastman

climber

Bellingham, WA

Mar 22, 2017 - 10:15pm PT

Entitled prick...

WBraun

climber

Mar 22, 2017 - 10:20pm PT

3. Nominate only younger people

Yes, this is the modern way.

The younger could be a real moron and then when the moron is elected you'll have a longer moronic period.

Just pick people by age and not by intelligence is the new modern way.

They are giving PHd's out of cereal boxes now.

Modern education is now the slaughterhouse of the soul .......

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Mar 22, 2017 - 10:42pm PT

You liberal guys should be delighted. I hear Hillary is coming out of the woods, maybe to run again. Third time is a charm, right?

Cragar

climber

MSLA - MT

Mar 23, 2017 - 08:48am PT

Guido makes sense, hella sense.

Fat Dad

Trad climber

Los Angeles, CA

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 23, 2017 - 10:46am PT

D#@&%ebag disguised as a brilliant and impartial lawyer.

That's the feeling I get as well. Clearly very smart and well pedigreed. Everyone says he's a fine chap, etc., but I can't shake having the same vibe about him. I think I went to law school with too many guys like him who are friendly and cordial, but then revert to a smug, arrogant side when presenting their conservative views of the law. I dislike that he was a member of the Federalist Society during law school (which is almost exclusively white and male), the reason being, when you go to grad school to learn about the law and know little to nothing about it, why would you join a group that advocates only a particular view of the law, rather than listening to all points of view and then making a decision of what you believe. It doesn't mean he's not smart, nor unqualified. I just can't get around what I believe to be a very clear bias.

crankster

Trad climber

No. Tahoe

Mar 23, 2017 - 11:16am PT

I hear Hillary is coming out of the woods, maybe to run again. Third time is a charm, right?

You "hear" this on rightwing media, the realm of alternative facts.

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Mar 23, 2017 - 11:26am PT

Actually, FOX recorded her saying she's coming out of the woods. The bit about her running again was my own interpretation. FWIW. Don't be upset.

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Mar 23, 2017 - 11:30am PT

Actually, FOX recorded her saying she's coming out of the woods. The bit about her running again was my own interpretation. FWIW. Don't be upset.

Then you need to write a little more coherently. what you wrote stated, in clear terms, what you had heard.

And you didn't.

Another GOP alt-fact.

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Mar 23, 2017 - 11:43am PT

You guys need to calm down. The thought of Hillary running again must trigger anxieties. Sorry I ruffled your feathers!

;>(

crankster

Trad climber

No. Tahoe

Mar 23, 2017 - 11:45am PT

I'd be fine with it. She'd trounce Pence in '20.

monolith

climber

state of being

Mar 23, 2017 - 12:10pm PT

..like she was supposed to trounce Trump.

BooDawg

Social climber

Butterfly Town

Mar 23, 2017 - 12:12pm PT

Gorsuch ruled that a truck driver should have chosen to either freeze to death in sub-zero weather or drive his truck & trailer on the interstate highway with frozen brakes, endangering himself and everyone else on the highway. Fortunately, the driver chose to unhitch his trailer with the frozen brakes and drive his truck (safely) to a safe place. Gorsuch's ruling may be legally understandable, but his common sense and humanity are completely missing. He does not qualify to be a Supreme Court justice IMHO.

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber

Douglas, WY

Mar 25, 2017 - 04:18pm PT

Gorsuch was also mentored by Byron "Whizzer" White; the only Supreme Court Justice to have ever led the NFL in rushing. Oh, he was the only SCOTUS appointment by John Kennedy.

chainsaw

Trad climber

Mar 25, 2017 - 04:42pm PT

This thread can lick my salties!

Norton

Social climber

Mar 25, 2017 - 06:31pm PT

Yes and he then sided with the employer who fired him for leaving his rig

And that is called being a "strict constructionist " of the law.

He could have simply over ruled the employer on the grounds of the driver's safety but no.

That kind of decision is narrow and a "conservative" approach.

And it is exactly why I personally do not want him on the SC for the rest of his life.

drF

Trad climber

usa

Mar 25, 2017 - 06:57pm PT

^^^^^
Nortl00n is now a lawyer.....#gagfest#

You gobbled up some spoon-fed-bs like you always do.

He will be voted in w/o the Nuclear option being used b/c he's legit...albeit conservative.

You might actually learn something if you weren't festering ALL day on the taco-Politard threads.

You creepy Crankl00ns constantly frothing

Entertaining. ;-)

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Mar 25, 2017 - 07:12pm PT

I hope you all caught Real Time with Bill Maher this week, it was very good and so on point.

Thank you Bill Maher!

Risk

Mountain climber

Olympia, WA

Mar 25, 2017 - 08:10pm PT

Disqualified for lacking common sense, despite any so called "letter of the law."

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Mar 25, 2017 - 08:18pm PT

For conservatives he is certainly an appropriate replacement for Scalia.

John M

climber

Mar 25, 2017 - 08:29pm PT

He should be there to rule on the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. His ruling on the trucker shows he has no heart. That, or he lacks the courage to rule according to his heart. We have enough heartless people without courage in leadership roles.

Imagine you are bleeding to death and you are driving 3 mph over the speed limit to the hospital. A police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket. Thats the letter of the law. Not the spirit of the law.

A judge needs

Wisdom
Heart
Discernment
and
Courage

WBraun

climber

Mar 26, 2017 - 06:32am PT

For conservatives, he is certainly an appropriate replacement for Scalia.

Scalia was a criminal.

Why would you want to replace a criminal with another criminal?

Why you Americans so corrupt and care so little for your nation and the world?

crankster

Trad climber

No. Tahoe

Mar 26, 2017 - 06:37am PT

Gorsuch is one reason the GOP is looking the other way at Trump's total ineptness, Russia connections and motley crew of alt-right goons like Bannon. As long as he's doing their bidding they'll cross their fingers this amateurish, belligerent sucker doesn't totally sink the ship. No morals, no principles and no aptitude for governing.

Fat Dad

Trad climber

Los Angeles, CA

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 26, 2017 - 08:04am PT

Mr. Gill is correct in that he would be replacing Scalia with a similarly reliable conservative vote, actually more conservative whenit comes to issues such as federal regulations.

While I can't say that all his opinions are poor, the frozen trucker case is troubling. I have similar issues with him as I did with Scalia. While there's no disputing that both are very intelligent, I also believe that a judge should have qualities shown by the old story of King Solomon dividing the baby. A judge should also be wise, i.e., he or she should "get" or understand the equities of the underlying matter. A judge who abandons this concern because he or she is relying on some imaginary framework for how the Constitution should be interpreted fails that test.