Gorsuch

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1394
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Gorsuch

Post by JimZipCode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:58 pm

I really like this girl Dahlia Litchwick, who writes on judicial stuff for Slate.

Neil Gorsuch's Disturbing Views On Religious Freedom
What that means going into this week’s hearings is that religious liberty works only one way. All of this tremendous deference to the religious sensitivities of the objectors is balanced against, well, no solicitude at all for the interests on the opposing side.
This has nothing to do with being anti-religion. It is simply not a defense of religious liberty to accept, without question, a religious adherent’s beliefs as if they are judicially determined facts, especially if those beliefs contradict empirical fact and even more so when they create tangible suffering for others.
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20570
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Turdacious » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:14 pm

Her argument, that women with jobs that provide health insurance are being denied the ability to get birth control when employers don't pay the out of pocket cost, is not supported by any evidence.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ption.html
She's arguing for a middle class entitlement, nothing more.

Eugene Volokh argues that Gorsuch's thinking is both in line with legislative intent and judicial precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... a1d5459126
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1394
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by JimZipCode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:54 pm

Turdacious wrote:Eugene Volokh argues that Gorsuch's thinking is both in line with legislative intent and judicial precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... e-confused
Nice overview, thanks for linking.
Turdacious wrote:She's arguing for a middle class entitlement, nothing more.
Bullshit.
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20570
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Turdacious » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:00 pm

JimZipCode wrote:
Turdacious wrote:She's arguing for a middle class entitlement, nothing more.
Bullshit.
How so?
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1394
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by JimZipCode » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:15 pm

Turdacious wrote:How so?
What, you didn't find my argument persuasive?
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20570
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Turdacious » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:04 am

JimZipCode wrote:
Turdacious wrote:How so?
What, you didn't find my argument persuasive?
It was close, but ultimately no.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
syaigh
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Surrounded by short irrational people

Re: Gorsuch

Post by syaigh » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:02 pm

I listened to a few hours of his hearing this morning. As a liberal, i think he will make a good justice.

On another tangent entirely everyone always touts Scalia as someone who did not like to legislate from the Bench. However I find that to be ridiculous. His very biased ideas seem to heavily influence his interpretation of the Constitution.

Of course if Gorsuch is true to his word and his record, he seems to be an equal-opportunity law defender. I find that somewhat refreshing.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.

climber511
Gunny
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by climber511 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:25 pm

i wanted to find something wrong with the guy but having listened to quite a bit I can't see much I didn't think was all right. Oh sure he's a little too much religion for me in some past decisions but that's kind of a party platform issue.................

User avatar
Pinky
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7100
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:09 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Pinky » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:34 am

JimZipCode wrote:
Turdacious wrote:How so?
What, you didn't find my argument persuasive?
The contraception mandate in the ACA has little to do with public health and everything to do with pandering to female voters. The price elasticity of demand for birth control is tiny for all but the poorest women (those on Medicaid).
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1394
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by JimZipCode » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:25 am

syaigh wrote:everyone always touts Scalia as someone who did not like to legislate from the Bench. However I find that to be ridiculous.
Oh yeah, totally ridiculous. His so-called "judicial conservatism" is a complete myth. One that he worked hard to spread.

Not saying he wasn't brilliant.
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by dead man walking » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:15 pm

isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20570
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Turdacious » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:42 pm

dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.
Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by dead man walking » Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:08 pm

Turdacious wrote:
dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.
Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...
aren't you conflating two different things: what corporations have always done and what they are?

sure they've been buying pols forever. but that doesn't mean they were persons in the original conception.

citizens sanctified the corruption of democracy (isn't that hifalutin'), when perhaps we had a chance to make it more responsive to "we, the people."

as original conceived, you're saying "we" meant exxon, microsoft, goldman sachs, et al?
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
syaigh
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Surrounded by short irrational people

Re: Gorsuch

Post by syaigh » Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:33 pm

dead man walking wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.
Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...
aren't you conflating two different things: what corporations have always done and what they are?

sure they've been buying pols forever. but that doesn't mean they were persons in the original conception.

citizens sanctified the corruption of democracy (isn't that hifalutin'), when perhaps we had a chance to make it more responsive to "we, the people."

as original conceived, you're saying "we" meant exxon, microsoft, goldman sachs, et al?
In his hearing, he said this is a thing that needs to be challenge by the legislature. However what I would have liked to hear someone ask him, and maybe they did, is what does he think about all the gerrymandering going on. Because with that the legislature is never going to act on things that are against their self-interest. In my state of North Carolina, the legislature is pretty much just trying to strip the Democratic governor of all his power and not really do anything useful to the state. And we had a really big problem with gerrymandering here. Hopefully that will be over soon because challenges to it have been upheld in one of the federal courts.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20570
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Turdacious » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:48 pm

dead man walking wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.
Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...
aren't you conflating two different things: what corporations have always done and what they are?

sure they've been buying pols forever. but that doesn't mean they were persons in the original conception.

citizens sanctified the corruption of democracy (isn't that hifalutin'), when perhaps we had a chance to make it more responsive to "we, the people."

as original conceived, you're saying "we" meant exxon, microsoft, goldman sachs, et al?
What is the original conception? The East India Company?

Maybe I just look at this from a different perspective- I accept that big money will influence politics, I just want to know where it's coming from and where it's going. I've never seen an effective answer to that.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Yes I Have Balls
Top
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Yes I Have Balls » Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:14 pm

Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

User avatar
johno
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7817
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:36 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by johno » Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:57 pm

Citizens United haters.

Political Parties.
Bowling leagues.
Clubs.
Unions.
Small Businesses.
Churches.
Neighborhood associations.
ACLU, NRA, etc.
Charities.
Indian Tribes.

Which of the above organizations are not "people," along with corporations?
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 20570
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Turdacious » Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:47 pm

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.
Yes I Have Balls wrote:This could be fairly indicative of why despite every best effort in the last 20 years, that HRC is gonna be your president.
Pretty sure your crystal ball is broken.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Schlegel
Top
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Schlegel » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:58 am

If free speech belongs only to an actual individual person , buying political speech on a grand scale would be the sole purview of Michael Bloomberg and the like. Not an improvement. You don't like the Koch brothers? Imagine if their only competition on tv was 10 rich individuals instead of every collective checking account out there.
"Why do we need a kitchen when we have a phone?"

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1394
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by JimZipCode » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:55 am

johno wrote:Citizens United haters.
Political Parties.
Bowling leagues.
Clubs.
Unions.
Small Businesses.
Churches.
Neighborhood associations.
ACLU, NRA, etc.
Charities.
Indian Tribes.
Which of the above organizations are not "people," along with corporations?
Yeah. That was the first argument I ever heard that made me understand that there was another side to Citizens United. "Corporations" are things that people organize themselves into, to further goals.

I mean, maybe there's an argument that election rules should be different for for-profit corporations, as opposed to other entities. Maybe. But I wouldn't argue that, say, ATT has no right to be heard on the topic of network infrastructure. Or that oil companies have no right to be heard on energy policy.

Citizens U is still a bad decision, because of the specific state policy it was striking down – a creative effort to deal with the question, that would seem to fit squarely into the states' wheelhouse as "laboratories of democracy". But the issues are knottier than Democrats generally acknowledge.
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

JimZipCode
Top
Posts: 1394
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by JimZipCode » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:57 am

Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.
Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11483
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Gorsuch

Post by nafod » Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:58 am

JimZipCode wrote:
Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.
Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.
They should do a back room deal...Gorsuch for Trump's tax returns.
Don’t believe everything you think.

TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: Gorsuch

Post by TerryB » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:32 pm

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.
You haven't been right on any prediction yet.
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

User avatar
Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: Gorsuch

Post by Herv100 » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:39 pm

nafod wrote:
JimZipCode wrote:
Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.
Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.
They should do a back room deal...Gorsuch for Trump's tax returns.
How bout Obama's college transcripts for Trumps tax returns?
Image

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11483
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: Gorsuch

Post by nafod » Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:03 pm

Herv100 wrote:
nafod wrote:
JimZipCode wrote:
Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.
Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.
They should do a back room deal...Gorsuch for Trump's tax returns.
How bout Obama's college transcripts for Trumps tax returns?
Last checked, Trump is the current President and Obama's done, but sure, Obama's transcripts instead of a Gorsuch confirmation.
Don’t believe everything you think.

Post Reply