gorSuch a Great Choice

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It was pretty selfish of RBG not to retire after Obama was re-elected.

[Spracne]

this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.

If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.

I tried to find the one I think you are talking about but found this one and it seemed cooler:

Well, it was a tough fight, but: chart 1, William O. Douglas 0.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

this guy seems fine. similar to the obama guy who people crap their pants over. both good.

If you care about such things his ideology is pretty far right, even right of Scalia. There is some think tank that has a left to right continuum in which they place the current justices. Three of the current four conservatives are either centrist, Chief Justice Roberts, or center right. Justice Long Dong Uncle Tom is far right on the scale and this dude was just slightly left of JLDUT.

I tried to find the one I think you are talking about but found this one and it seemed cooler:

Well, it was a tough fight, but: chart 1, William O. Douglas 0.

Obvious case of long term dementia over his last 25 years.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

When is this Gorsuch stud getting confirmed?

[sonofdaxjones]

When is this Gorsuch stud getting confirmed?

The failed comic is doing his best to stop.

[SdK]

Franken?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

They don't have the votes to stop it.

Probably butthurt he made top 5 dumbest questions:

The questioner: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
The issue: Gorsuch's by now well-known dissent in the TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board case. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the company had to rehire a trucker who had been fired for leaving a malfunctioning rig in freezing weather. Several senators have browbeat the nominee already for his dissent, but Franken couldn't resist taking another pass Tuesday.
The question: Referring to testimony that the driver was suffering hypothermia and that the brakes were failing, the senator said, "I don't think you'd want to be on the road with him, would you, Judge?"
The answer: Gorsuch said he does not blame the driver for doing what he did and added that he empathizes with him but explained — again — that his dissent was based on the language of the statute, which protected a worker from dismissal for refusal to operate an unsafe vehicle. But the driver did operate the truck, he said. Gorsuch also explained that Franken incorrectly described the doctrine of absurdity, which the senator had argued allowed for a departure from applying the statute as literally written. The judge said that neither side in the case even raised that issue. "And it usually applies when there's a scrivener's error, not when we just disagree with the policy or the statute," he said.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

They don't have the votes to stop it.

Probably butthurt he made top 5 dumbest questions:

The questioner: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
The issue: Gorsuch's by now well-known dissent in the TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board case. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the company had to rehire a trucker who had been fired for leaving a malfunctioning rig in freezing weather. Several senators have browbeat the nominee already for his dissent, but Franken couldn't resist taking another pass Tuesday.
The question: Referring to testimony that the driver was suffering hypothermia and that the brakes were failing, the senator said, "I don't think you'd want to be on the road with him, would you, Judge?"
The answer: Gorsuch said he does not blame the driver for doing what he did and added that he empathizes with him but explained — again — that his dissent was based on the language of the statute, which protected a worker from dismissal for refusal to operate an unsafe vehicle. But the driver did operate the truck, he said. Gorsuch also explained that Franken incorrectly described the doctrine of absurdity, which the senator had argued allowed for a departure from applying the statute as literally written. The judge said that neither side in the case even raised that issue. "And it usually applies when there's a scrivener's error, not when we just disagree with the policy or the statute," he said.

This just demonstrates the difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to the rule of law. Liberals believe that judges should fulfill a role like King Solomon, making decisions based upon the right and "just" outcome. Conservatives, who respect the Constitution, believe that this usurps the authority of the legislature, and that a judge is to adhere to the laws and interpret them as written, without regard to outcome. This is why the selection of judges has become so politicized - if you're selecting a judge to fulfill your partisan desires in making policy, you obviously want judges who match your partisan views.

[star seed 7]

They don't have the votes to stop it.

Probably butthurt he made top 5 dumbest questions:

The questioner: Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).
The issue: Gorsuch's by now well-known dissent in the TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board case. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the company had to rehire a trucker who had been fired for leaving a malfunctioning rig in freezing weather. Several senators have browbeat the nominee already for his dissent, but Franken couldn't resist taking another pass Tuesday.
The question: Referring to testimony that the driver was suffering hypothermia and that the brakes were failing, the senator said, "I don't think you'd want to be on the road with him, would you, Judge?"
The answer: Gorsuch said he does not blame the driver for doing what he did and added that he empathizes with him but explained — again — that his dissent was based on the language of the statute, which protected a worker from dismissal for refusal to operate an unsafe vehicle. But the driver did operate the truck, he said. Gorsuch also explained that Franken incorrectly described the doctrine of absurdity, which the senator had argued allowed for a departure from applying the statute as literally written. The judge said that neither side in the case even raised that issue. "And it usually applies when there's a scrivener's error, not when we just disagree with the policy or the statute," he said.

This just demonstrates the difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to the rule of law. Liberals believe that judges should fulfill a role like King Solomon, making decisions based upon the right and "just" outcome. Conservatives, who respect the Constitution, believe that this usurps the authority of the legislature, and that a judge is to adhere to the laws and interpret them as written, without regard to outcome. This is why the selection of judges has become so politicized - if you're selecting a judge to fulfill your partisan desires in making policy, you obviously want judges who match your partisan views.

Yes, you certainly do

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

And this is how liberals respond: "well conservatives are being partisan too by selecting judges who will just apply the law without regard to outcome." Liberals cannot see the difference.

[star seed 7]

Activist judges 

[sonofdaxjones]

Libs are enraged after answer regarding political judges. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sys]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gorsuch-supreme-court-filibuster-nuclear-236563

 

[catastrophe]

Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.

[Tobias]

is your dick out @sys

[sys]

all true americans have their dicks out today, tobias.

[wetwillie]

Aren't they just going to change the rules or some crap?

[sys]

it wouldn't surprise me, wetwillie.  they're dirty as eff.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.

There's nothing to be gained in drawing it out. Very few people understand or care about this stuff, and it's not like the GOP will get any help from the media. Vote for cloture, vote fails, change the filibuster rule, done. Then Dems hope and pray this doesn't bite them in the ass in the next three years (probably a bad bet from an actuarial standpoint).

[Gooch]

Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.

There's nothing to be gained in drawing it out. Very few people understand or care about this stuff, and it's not like the GOP will get any help from the media. Vote for cloture, vote fails, change the filibuster rule, done. Then Dems hope and pray this doesn't bite them in the ass in the next three years (probably a bad bet from an actuarial standpoint).

Oh the hypocrisy.

[Kat Kid]

Does anyone really believe if Democrats voted for Gorsuch, Republicans would then allow them to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they didn't like later in a Trump administration?

The fact some moderate Democrats were making that argument tells you everything you need to know about how dumb the Democratic leadership is.

[sys]

Does anyone really believe if Democrats voted for Gorsuch, Republicans would then allow them to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they didn't like later in a Trump administration?

it's the stupidest rough ridin' argument.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Would be a dumb move, IMO. Republicans should let Democrats keep filibustering at least another few months if they want to gain back some public opinion.

There's nothing to be gained in drawing it out. Very few people understand or care about this stuff, and it's not like the GOP will get any help from the media. Vote for cloture, vote fails, change the filibuster rule, done. Then Dems hope and pray this doesn't bite them in the ass in the next three years (probably a bad bet from an actuarial standpoint).

Oh the hypocrisy.

You either don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy or you don't understand how the Senate works. In the case of both Garland and Gorsuch, the GOP is doing what their majority status allows them to do. If Dems don't like it they should have won back the Senate and held the WH.

Now if the GOP had been in the minority and had filibustered Garland, or any SC nominee, that would be hypocritical, but they haven't.

[wetwillie]

The filibuster is stupid, hopefully this does away with it as a standard for both parties.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The left does a great job of getting people to forget what a majority is.