What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Think so. Question is how much does he rule based on his personal political lens.

Graham has been in pretty insufferable monologue mode. I'm surprised that Gorsuch hasn't excused himself to go get a bite until after he's done.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Gorsuch refuses to say how he'd rule on hypothetical cases. Think I'd ask Gorsuch:

Here are 8 recent SCOTUS critical cases - which outcome do you agree with and which do you disagree with...and why?
Click to expand...

If I were Gorsuch I would say I didn't have the benefit of listening to the arguments or the chamber discussion with the other justices, and without that I don't feel comfortable answering.

Roberts proved that a nominee can just lie his way through the hearing. He gave that whole silly umpire answer and turns out he's the most activist CJ since Warren. You can't trust the nominees' statements at the hearing because they know the hearings are BS political theater and they aren't going to dignify them with any sort of a nuanced answer.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Gorsuch refuses to say how he'd rule on hypothetical cases.
Click to expand...

IIRC, that is standard for every nominee since the mid 1960s.
-- hypothetical cases always omit some key "facts and circumstances" detail, that's why they are "hypothetical" in the first place,
-- you don't want to put yourself on record, have an actual case then come along, and have to recuse yourself because your answer to the hypothetical now precludes your ability to judge the case in front of you with fresh eyes and ears; you might be tempted to rule solely to be consistent with your prior answer.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

ScoobyDoo said:
The Democrats have nothing to stand on. They followed the GOP's lead and saved the nomination till the election. Their best bet is to let this guy sail through and save the big fight for the next pyscho that comes up for confirmation. They do it now they're done.
Click to expand...

It is a bit surprising to me that they are trying to criticize a few Gorsuch decisions in which the overall vote was unanimous... :rolleyes:
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Think I'd ask Gorsuch:

Here are 8 recent SCOTUS critical cases - which outcome do you agree with and which do you disagree with...and why?
Click to expand...

very nice tactic, I admire your clever thinking!

My guess is that he'd mumble something about stare decisis and move on without answering, though...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Watched a few minutes of Gorsuch. Anybody else notice he has a little bit of a Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington sort of thing going on? (Or I guess Jimmy Stewart in pretty much anything.)

Anyway, that can't hurt a guy.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
If I were Gorsuch I would say I didn't have the benefit of listening to the arguments or the chamber discussion with the other justices, and without that I don't feel comfortable answering.
Click to expand...

'Fine. We are considering you for a life long position in one of the country's most important roles...we need to know something of your thought process in approaching these cases. Give us some of what you think of these cases and how you unpack them.'

'Unless you're telling us you really don't know much about high profile Supreme Court cases themselves, the legal foundation for court decisions at all levels.'
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Gorsuch is as good a nominee as the left can expect from Trump just as Garland was as good a nominee the right could expect from Obama.

Be ****ed that the GOP stole the seat, be even more ****ed that the electorate ratified the theft, but this isn't the time to force the nuclear option.

And Gorsuch will probably fall near Roberts on the overall ideological scale. Definitely right of Kennedy, but not nearly as far as Thomas or Alito.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
Gorsuch is as good a nominee as the left can expect from Trump just as Garland was as good a nominee the right could expect from Obama.

Be ****ed that the GOP stole the seat, be even more ****ed that the electorate ratified the theft, but this isn't the time to force the nuclear option.

And Gorsuch will probably fall near Roberts on the overall ideological scale. Definitely right of Kennedy, but not nearly as far as Thomas or Alito.
Click to expand...

Others won't, but I'll take another Roberts. We do have a Trump presidency here.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
'Fine. We are considering you for a life long position in one of the country's most important roles...we need to know something of your thought process in approaching these cases. Give us some of what you think of these cases and how you unpack them.'

'Unless you're telling us you really don't know much about high profile Supreme Court cases themselves, the legal foundation for court decisions at all levels.'
Click to expand...

Oh, it's a valid question for us to ask of the nominee. But to the extent the question is specific they'll evade it, and to the extent it's general the nominee will answer with broad platitudes.

Better to just look at the actual opinions the judge has authored. Or, as a shortcut, look which party placed him in nomination. During the past decade plus that's been enough to tell you basically how the judge is going to vote. Scrutiny and partisanship is now so intense there will be "no more Souters."
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Others won't, but I'll take another Roberts. We do have a Trump presidency here.
Click to expand...

I would, too. But I fear what we're going to get is a Thomas or an Alito: ideologues who call their partisanship "neutral" and precedent that is inconvenient for them "activist." That's been the Originalist Scam since Scalia, and by all account Gorsuch is Not-dickish Scalia.

We can't stop it, but that's not the same as it's healthy.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

5mn_Major said:
Others won't, but I'll take another Roberts.
Click to expand...

Ironic how many right-wing Republicans would say about Roberts, "you can have him!"


I thought his petulance in the NFIB vs Sebelius ruling was childish and unbecoming. I would not have expected a Chief Justice to be so petty and passive-aggressive.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Chief Justice means squat in the scheme of things. I mean, it gets you the right to pen opinions more or less, but it doesn't get you out of making the coffee.

I suppose the right of refusal on opinions is a big deal, but only if you're in the majority. But it doesn't come with any more or less decorum than an associate justice.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

@dick_nixon: Don't let a psychiatrist get hold of this. https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/844233855892709376

@GovMikeHuckabee: Breaking News! Jimmy Dean Sausage Co will be renamed GORSUCH SAUSAGE because he's grinding up some Democrat Senators into PURE PORK SAUSAGE!


I associate myself with the former President's remarks.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Hahaha. God that man is as queer as a $3 bill.

First the cross dressing comments now an obsession with sausage. I wish he would just come out of the closet and be happy.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Question to the court experts here (which is pretty much one person.... )

Gorsuch was challenged on his written decision of the "frozen trucker" case- I don't know much of the details, as I just heard the about the case this morning. But basically a trucker abandoned his trailer because the brakes locked up, and he could not move, and after so many hours of getting really cold, he left to warm up, and came back when a rescue finally arrive. He was fired.

In the decision, Goursuch claimed that he ruled against the trucker because of what the law said in it. For other items, he claims that he was not happy with many of his decisions, as all he could do was rule on the law.

So. Here's the question- isn't part of the job of a judge, especially a federal judge, to rule on the legality of a written law? If it's clear that the law is flawed, shouldn't the judge make a ruling based on that??

In this case (again not knowing all of the details) given the life and health of the truck driver, shouldn't it be ok to drive off to not freeze and risk your life and NOT be fired over that? And if the law sides with the company, does that not take away rights of the worker for his own safety?

If it IS proper for a federal judge to rule on the legality of a law- I'm wondering why Franken didn't challenge him on that particular aspect as well.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

alfablue said:
Question to the court experts here (which is pretty much one person.... )

Gorsuch was challenged on his written decision of the "frozen trucker" case- I don't know much of the details, as I just heard the about the case this morning. But basically a trucker abandoned his trailer because the brakes locked up, and he could not move, and after so many hours of getting really cold, he left to warm up, and came back when a rescue finally arrive. He was fired.

In the decision, Goursuch claimed that he ruled against the trucker because of what the law said in it. For other items, he claims that he was not happy with many of his decisions, as all he could do was rule on the law.

So. Here's the question- isn't part of the job of a judge, especially a federal judge, to rule on the legality of a written law? If it's clear that the law is flawed, shouldn't the judge make a ruling based on that??

In this case (again not knowing all of the details) given the life and health of the truck driver, shouldn't it be ok to drive off to not freeze and risk your life and NOT be fired over that? And if the law sides with the company, does that not take away rights of the worker for his own safety?

If it IS proper for a federal judge to rule on the legality of a law- I'm wondering why Franken didn't challenge him on that particular aspect as well.
Click to expand...

Gorsuch only believes in rich and corporate "people" (Corporations are people now). That's well documented. That's why he was nominated. And that's why the ruling in the trucker case is not surprising. I personally find it appalling but I have a conscience.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Dont Just Read The Article Watch The Video

Franken owns him...Gorsuch cant even answer a simple question. Then Franken uses his own terminology to destroy his opinion. Brilliant theater.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Handyman said:
Dont Just Read The Article Watch The Video

Franken owns him...Gorsuch cant even answer a simple question. Then Franken uses his own terminology to destroy his opinion. Brilliant theater.
Click to expand...

I agree. He nailed him. But, the corporation in that case is way more important than the life of that truck driver.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Handyman said:
Dont Just Read The Article Watch The Video

Franken owns him...Gorsuch cant even answer a simple question. Then Franken uses his own terminology to destroy his opinion. Brilliant theater.
Click to expand...

As I see it, he only owns him partially. Just about the basic interpretation vs. absurd conditions.

What he doesn't point out is the way the law is written that there's an obvious gray area that isn't spelled out correctly. THAT is what I am asking- as a judge, you interpret the language of the law. If the law does not make sense, and how it's written vs. the intent conflicts need to be ironed out. This is an obvious place where Franken could have challenged him on that aspect, which is a HUGE portion of being on the SCOTUS.

It's not just about interpreting the law as written, it's interpreting the correctness of the law. That's is where Franken could have REALLY nailed him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top