APP - Thoughts on Gorsuch

Teflon Don

Teflon Don

I'm back baby
On the surface it looks like a solid pick that conservatives can rally around. However, conservatives have been burned too many times in the past by Republican appointees (O'Connor, Kennedy, and most recently Roberts). So the jury is out until we see him rule on a few contentious issues.

As for the politics?

Trump wins so far with his base as he kept his word.

Will the democrat party filibuster? I think they would prefer not doing that this time around, but they are getting tremendous pressure from their base. Personally, I think they should hold their fire until someone like Ginsberg or Kennedy retire. But, common sense never reigns supreme (no pun intended) in politics.
 
Celticguy said:
Voice vote for his old gig and clear about the significance of the letter of the law.

Good pick
Click to expand...

Like I said, on paper it looks good. But we have been burned before. Democrat party nominees never burn their side, but ours do.

Now as to the politics. I am thinking that the democrat party is trying to force the GOP into ending the filibuster once and for all.
 
Ted Cruz (who I trust on judicial nominees) said the guy was a homerun and has his seal of approval. Many other conservatives and scalia admirers also feel this is a good pick. I am worried slightly though because I have see quite a few liberals say this guy is also great. I read a new york times op ed by some liberal saying liberals should pass this guy, lawrence krauss, a physicist and massive hillary supporter thinks it's a good pick. So I am left wondering a couple of things

Is there something liberals know that we don't?

or:

Were they so terrified of anything trump could possibly do that getting a normal supreme court justice has them relieved. (I.e. their expectations were so low that they couldn't help but breathe a sigh of relief?)

Additionally perhaps some liberals are ok with not having a judicial activist on the bench. Maybe they view him as someone that wont enact their agenda but wont legislate towards the conservative position instead.

Or the bottom line is this guy is just an awesome judge and there is no denying it while being intellectually honest and a few liberals have just had to admit that.

But those liberals aside, everything I have heard from hard line conservatives say this guy is a great pick.
 
Teflon Don said:
Like I said, on paper it looks good. But we have been burned before. Democrat party nominees never burn their side, but ours do.

Now as to the politics. I am thinking that the democrat party is trying to force the GOP into ending the filibuster once and for all.
Click to expand...

gorsuch said a very interesting thing the other night "if you are judge and you are liking all of your rulings, you are doing it wrong" <--- paraphrased

The point being, a judge must stick to the law, not their personal feelings. And if a judge is always getting the outcome they want, then they are letting their own beliefs influence their rulings.

Re: roberts, I don't feel betrayed by him the way you do. While I hate the ACA and think it's bullshit, the US Gov taxes for all types of bullshit, and while I hate the ruling on obamacare, it's not something that really blew my mind, and I don't think a mandate being looked at as a tax is something akin to an act of sedition. I think roberts was just doing his job and ruled in an honest (in his mind) way.

Conservatives, as should be readily evident, are much more principled then liberals. Conservatives have core beliefs and a status quo that they support. Liberals are usually the judicial activists where the ends justify the means.

This brings us back to your point. The reason I think you see conservatives being "burned" by their judicial nominees is that conservatives are willing to make the hard choices sometimes. Conservatives are willing to resist their feelings and rule by the letter of the law. Concurrently, liberals will NEVER do this. They don't care what the constitution says, they will always legislate from the bench. This results in an unfair game being played, and thus conservative judges ultimately will be exploited, because conservative judges will throw a liberal a bone now and then out of principled adherence to the constitution, but liberals will never do such a thing in return.

Our judges play by different rules and standard of conduct.
 
however we definitely get tricked with souter. There is a difference I suppose with a conservative judge that goes against you vs. just a straight up liberal judge which is what we got with souter. what a waste.
 
One hopes that the man does not allow his obvious religious bias to control his decisions. But then again he wasn't selected for nothing. It has always stuck me as hypocritical how a religious test is now the determining factor in selecting judges in America by the republicans. But it also points out that the religious choice must coincide with your religious values. No religious Mormons or Muslims allowed. Imagine a Mormon judge ruling in favor of multiple wives? That would be funny. In this case for some it is only the right of religious discrimination and the love of the unborn that mattered. The born by the way don't count, they must fend on their own. Religion, like that Constitution document thing, must work in the right way or all is lost. Interesting piece below.

'Constitutional Law, Moral Judgment, and the Supreme Court as Super-Legislature' By Brian Leiter

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11995&context=journal_articles


"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right." H. L. Mencken

Stuff on Gorsuch.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14450024/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
 
+ said:
gorsuch said a very interesting thing the other night "if you are judge and you are liking all of your rulings, you are doing it wrong" <--- paraphrased

The point being, a judge must stick to the law, not their personal feelings. And if a judge is always getting the outcome they want, then they are letting their own beliefs influence their rulings.

Re: roberts, I don't feel betrayed by him the way you do. While I hate the ACA and think it's bullshit, the US Gov taxes for all types of bullshit, and while I hate the ruling on obamacare, it's not something that really blew my mind, and I don't think a mandate being looked at as a tax is something akin to an act of sedition. I think roberts was just doing his job and ruled in an honest (in his mind) way.

Conservatives, as should be readily evident, are much more principled then liberals. Conservatives have core beliefs and a status quo that they support. Liberals are usually the judicial activists where the ends justify the means.

This brings us back to your point. The reason I think you see conservatives being "burned" by their judicial nominees is that conservatives are willing to make the hard choices sometimes. Conservatives are willing to resist their feelings and rule by the letter of the law. Concurrently, liberals will NEVER do this. They don't care what the constitution says, they will always legislate from the bench. This results in an unfair game being played, and thus conservative judges ultimately will be exploited, because conservative judges will throw a liberal a bone now and then out of principled adherence to the constitution, but liberals will never do such a thing in return.

Our judges play by different rules and standard of conduct.
Click to expand...


I believe Roberts allowed himself to be bullied into his abysmal decision. The writers of Obamacare were clear to say it was not a tax. In fact they argued before the court that it was not a tax during oral arguments. Using that at the backdrop, Roberts had to twist himself into a pretzel to then call it a tax and actually go against what the defendants were arguing.

One that does not get talked about regarding politics is the nature of life in DC. It is a liberal town through and through, and while people may hold particular political beliefs, they are still fundamentally human beings and desire to be liked and part of the "in crowd". Additionally, there ends up being lots of pressure on wives and children which I think often times sways decisions.
 
maybe so, but I still feel roberts is overall a reliable conservative on most issues. I expect him to have our back on gun rights, striking down affirmative action etc

So ILA what are your thoughts on gorsuch given that cruz has given his seal of approval, among others?
 
+ said:
maybe so, but I still feel roberts is overall a reliable conservative on most issues. I expect him to have our back on gun rights, striking down affirmative action etc

So ILA what are your thoughts on gorsuch given that cruz has given his seal of approval, among others?
Click to expand...

True on Roberts. But, Obamacare was a big miss. Hard to overlook

As for Gorsuch? Like I said, my initial impressions are positive and I do respect Ted Cruz's opinion. But, the proof will be in the pudding when it comes to a ruling.

The only question now is how do the democrats play it. I think they will be forced by their base to make McConnell go Nuclear.

They want a scalp and won't get it with Gorsuch.

The real judicial fight will be if Ginsberg dies because she sure as heck isn't retiring. Maybe Kennedy will retire. I hear Thomas is thinking about it. Now would be a good time to replace him with a conservative.
 
This was a great pick and the MAIN reason I voted for Trump. So my kids and grand kids would have a decent chance at a decent life instead of the scorched earth they were looking at under progressive strategies.
 
I am infinitely fascinated by the idea that progressive ideals are bad or detrimental to society. Every single thing that America has created that helps other people is and was progressive. Standing still doesn't work. But that the very ideas that made America great are criticized proves how powerful propaganda can be on humans. An excellent read below tells us why but I still ponder why.

"Which are the arguments and how many are there? I must have an inbred urge toward symmetry. In canvassing for the principal ways of criticizing, assaulting, and ridiculing the three successive "progressive" thrusts of Marshall's story, I have come up with another triad: that is, with three principal reactive-reactionary theses, which I call the perversity thesis or thesis of the perverse effect, the futility thesis, and the jeopardy thesis. According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment." Albert Hirschman 'The Rhetoric of Reaction'


More on Gorsuch: http://withoutbullshit.com/blog/clarity-neil-gorsuch-trumps-nominee-supreme-court

Liberal: https://aeon.co/essays/everyone-was-a-liberal-now-no-one-wants-to-be

How and who managed to make American values backward is covered in two books below.

"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" Jane Mayer
'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein

Another fascinating read for history buff or someone who want to know is 'White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America' by Nancy Isenberg.


"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'" William Manchester quote from 'The Power and the Glory'
 
+ said:
Ted Cruz (who I trust on judicial nominees) said the guy was a homerun and has his seal of approval. Many other conservatives and scalia admirers also feel this is a good pick. I am worried slightly though because I have see quite a few liberals say this guy is also great. I read a new york times op ed by some liberal saying liberals should pass this guy, lawrence krauss, a physicist and massive hillary supporter thinks it's a good pick. So I am left wondering a couple of things

Is there something liberals know that we don't?

or:

Were they so terrified of anything trump could possibly do that getting a normal supreme court justice has them relieved. (I.e. their expectations were so low that they couldn't help but breathe a sigh of relief?)

Additionally perhaps some liberals are ok with not having a judicial activist on the bench. Maybe they view him as someone that wont enact their agenda but wont legislate towards the conservative position instead.

Or the bottom line is this guy is just an awesome judge and there is no denying it while being intellectually honest and a few liberals have just had to admit that.

But those liberals aside, everything I have heard from hard line conservatives say this guy is a great pick.
Click to expand...
Yea...Democrats know that GOP Senators would like nothing better than to get Ted Cruz out of the Senate. LOL
 
+ said:
maybe so, but I still feel roberts is overall a reliable conservative on most issues. I expect him to have our back on gun rights, striking down affirmative action etc

So ILA what are your thoughts on gorsuch given that cruz has given his seal of approval, among others?
Click to expand...
Roberts has also authored two of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history in his Citizens United and Exxon decision. If Roberts can be counted on to make reliably conservative decisions he can also be relied upon to make terribly damaging ones. Chief Justice Roberts is well on his way of earning a legacy as the Roger Tanney of our times.
 
midcan5 said:
I am infinitely fascinated by the idea that progressive ideals are bad or detrimental to society. Every single thing that America has created that helps other people is and was progressive. Standing still doesn't work. But that the very ideas that made America great are criticized proves how powerful propaganda can be on humans. An excellent read below tells us why but I still ponder why.

"Which are the arguments and how many are there? I must have an inbred urge toward symmetry. In canvassing for the principal ways of criticizing, assaulting, and ridiculing the three successive "progressive" thrusts of Marshall's story, I have come up with another triad: that is, with three principal reactive-reactionary theses, which I call the perversity thesis or thesis of the perverse effect, the futility thesis, and the jeopardy thesis. According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment." Albert Hirschman 'The Rhetoric of Reaction'


More on Gorsuch: http://withoutbullshit.com/blog/clarity-neil-gorsuch-trumps-nominee-supreme-court

Liberal: https://aeon.co/essays/everyone-was-a-liberal-now-no-one-wants-to-be

How and who managed to make American values backward is covered in two books below.

"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" Jane Mayer
'Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal' Kim Phillips-Fein

Another fascinating read for history buff or someone who want to know is 'White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America' by Nancy Isenberg.


"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'" William Manchester quote from 'The Power and the Glory'
Click to expand...
Aww Midcan you were doing so well until you segued into this ham handed reference. Why don't you tell us the importance of progressive ideas instead of deflecting us to some ivory towered academic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top