• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Washington (CNN)The Senate Friday morning confirmed Neil Gorsuch, a 49-year-old federal judge who could help cement a conservative majority on the bench for decades, to the Supreme Court, according to a CNN count of the vote.
Click to expand...

Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
 
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

:lamo

And et confirmed unanimously as a Federal judge.
 
MaggieD said:
:lamo

And et confirmed unanimously as a Federal judge.
Click to expand...

It was after he was confirmed as a Federal judge that he began twisting the meanings of laws to suit his corporate benefactors, so the point you are attempting to make is moot.
 
danarhea said:
It was after he was confirmed as a Federal judge that he began twisting the meanings of laws to suit his corporate benefactors, so the point you are attempting to make is moot.
Click to expand...

Examples? Or just watching the anti-Trump news media?
 
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

That is . . . absolutely not what he did. In fact, that's not even what Al Franken accused him of. Quite the opposite, actually.
 
danarhea said:
It was after he was confirmed as a Federal judge that he began twisting the meanings of laws to suit his corporate benefactors, so the point you are attempting to make is moot.
Click to expand...

:roll:

According to Stuart Smalley, he took the specific meaning of the law too literally. That is the diametric opposite of what you're saying here. If you're going to parrot anti-Gorsuch rhetoric, at least get it right.
 
danarhea said:
It was after he was confirmed as a Federal judge that he began twisting the meanings of laws to suit his corporate benefactors, so the point you are attempting to make is moot.
Click to expand...

Corporate benefactors? Do you have some evidence of his taking bribes from businesses?
 
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

I think he's a smart jurist. Hopefully you're very wrong about him being crooked, and I've seen no evidence of him being crooked. I think he'll serve SCOTUS well. I was actually pleased with this pick, especially because I was worried that Trump was going to pick his liberal sister or someone who shared his 2012 desire for gun control that he Tweeted about.
 
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

opinion noted and not shared. the dems would have filibustered ANY GOP pick that was palatable to us who voted for Trump. Unless Trump picked Garland, or another left-winger who is anti gun and pro abortion, the dems would have tried to block the appointment.
 
danarhea said:
It was after he was confirmed as a Federal judge that he began twisting the meanings of laws to suit his corporate benefactors, so the point you are attempting to make is moot.
Click to expand...

that's BS. the trucker case-a dissent, was a fair reading of the law as it was written.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

According to Stuart Smalley, he took the specific meaning of the law too literally. That is the diametric opposite of what you're saying here. If you're going to parrot anti-Gorsuch rhetoric, at least get it right.
Click to expand...

exactly, and as someone who has argued dozens of appellate cases before federal appellate judges (6th circuit and the second circuit) your analysis is spot on
 
danarhea said:
Reading is fundamental.
Click to expand...

so is understanding what you have read. I would suggest you didn't if you are standing by the stupid claims you have made about Justice Gorsuch. (repeat JUSTICE Gorsuch)
 
Middleground said:
Exactly. Just because all the other judges saw it differently is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

you mean two other judges? BFD. some of the justices I bet you adore were often on the losing side of things. RBG for example has been on more dissents than majorities on major cases.

sometimes a dissenting opinion ends up having the most weight down the road too
 
Gorsuch's dissent was actually correct. trying to pretend that the trucker was fired for "whistleblowing" is bogus and the Majority's use of Chevron was silly. Here is the gist of his dissent

It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one. The Department of Labor says that TransAm violated federal law, in particular 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who “refuse[] to operate a vehicle” out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone’s admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help. The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not.
 
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

Right, you parrot the leftwing talking point, but you "support conservative judges". What a lark. He read the law as the law.

The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified.
Click to expand...

Well, you just proved you haven't the intellect to make a judgement on the merits of a judicial nominee's qualifications. Congrats, you managed to walk into a wall in your OP.
 
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/qLY7J9hyykI?t=7m12s

Did you watch this Youtube Video and spit half of it verbatim? Tucker basically debunked half your examples that you stated......

Frozen Trucker, was interpreted strictly to the law, write or wrong morally, his interpretation was how the law was written.

Hobby Lobby Case, Was the exact opposite of the Big Corporation.

its funny.... as Tucker pointed out and this far left leaning individual was put in his place... Just because you do not agree with the choice that Gorsuch made, makes him wrong? Is he supposed to interpret the law, or interpret it based on moral values.....


The law is the law is the law, sorta like Immigration, you over stay your visa, be here illegally, bear a child and then risk deportation. Morally sure it bad to separate the families. but Lawfully they committed a crime. there Job is to interpret and enforce the law.... not change it just because of how someone feels morally.....
 
Last edited:
Spartacus FPV said:
No he really didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes. He really did. He cited two cases that you apparently ignored for political convenience no doubt.

Not two posts later... Post#11, you "liked" a post by a right winger who said he should read the cases he cited. Now, did he cite cases in the op or did he not? Make up your mind.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Republicans went nuclear, and now Gorsuch is a SCOTUS justice.

I have always supported Conservative justices, and with the exception of Harriet Meyers, I was OK with all of Bush's appointments. The issue to me is that Gorsuch is unqualified. Yes, he is brilliant, but tends to take the wording of laws out of context to support corporate values over those of ordinary Americans. The Frozen Trucker case stands out, but there is another decision he made that cemented my opposition to him. That was his ruling that schools could warehouse special needs children instead of teaching them. This decision was overruled this week by SCOTUS 8-0.

Again, a brilliant mind, but a crooked mind too. This was one of the poorest confirmations in US history, and it took the nuclear option to put him on the bench. That will have dire consequences in the future for the Senate. Just wait until the Democrats regain power there (I think in 2020). For all intents and purposes, the filibuster is about to become the dodo bird.

Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...
I dunno, Dana.

The filibuster was pretty much non existent until the 80's. For a variety of reasons it has gone from an obscure "break glass in case of emergency" tactic to standard operating procedure. Maybe doing away with it won't be the worst thing in the world.

I guess we're about to find out...
 
TurtleDude said:
Gorsuch's dissent was actually correct. trying to pretend that the trucker was fired for "whistleblowing" is bogus and the Majority's use of Chevron was silly. Here is the gist of his dissent

It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one. The Department of Labor says that TransAm violated federal law, in particular 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who “refuse[] to operate a vehicle” out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone’s admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help. The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not.
Click to expand...

Actually the dissent was incorrect. The administration was correct in this particular case. Further and I cannot tell if this was brought up or not but a driver is considered the equivalent of a PIC. Pilot in command. The vessel is under his responsibility while operating it almost to exclusivity. Further state laws and drivers manuals universally state that REGARDLESS of the law safety of the motoring public, the community at large and lastly oneself are superior wherever they may conflict. In this particular case the PIC made the call that staying in a freezing vehicle with no heat was dangerous and therefore utilized his vessel which combined was unsafe and immobile as was the disconnected vessels by remaining on the side of the road where the driver made the determination that he would eventually be incapacitated by remaining in the in the disconnected vessel with no heat, at which point he would be in danger, as would the public at large if he did not seek appropriate shelter. The majority opinion in this case was correct and Gorsuch was very much wrong. He failed to take into account the other laws which are in conflict with this law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom