Honorable Justice Gorsuch

Absentglare · Feb 8, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
...FFS, private bias? What is private bias? How in the world can you know private bias? Quit making stuff up!

You are projecting things you cant even begin to prove onto Gorsuch because RBG made comments as a citizen that strain her impartiality towards our current executive. There is nothing to explain when its the product of your imagination.

Your argument is that only displaying bias counts:

OpportunityCost said:
Why do you think Justices keep their personal opinions of candidates to themselves almost all of the time? Displaying personal animus one way or another hints at bias. You are arguing partiality qualifies a judge when justice demands they be impartial. You want activism, not justice.

I'm challenging you to explain why.

OpportunityCost · Feb 8, 2018

Absentglare said:
Your argument is that only displaying bias counts:

I'm challenging you to explain why.

If you don't display bias we don't know it exists. How can you exclude something we don't know exists? As usual, you are arguing from a position of making crazy crap up and then asking me to explain your warped thinking.

Judges can't be asked to recuse themselves based on something they may be thinking, but rather based on their actions and comments we have seen, not imaginary liberal bull****.

Fishking · Feb 8, 2018

Rexedgar said:
So, when Special Counsel Robert Mueller goes through the legal maneuvers and the case goes before the Supreme Court, do you think Trump will wink at Justice Gorsuch and expect loyalty?

Why would it got to the Supreme Court?

Fishking · Feb 8, 2018

Absentglare said:
Thank you for admitting that you want her to recuse herself because she would uphold her constitutional obligation to scrutinize the president.

Lol...that went quite fare above your head if that's what you read from his statement. Of course, you know it isn't, you're just being dishonest.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
If you don't display bias we don't know it exists. How can you exclude something we don't know exists? As usual, you are arguing from a position of making crazy crap up and then asking me to explain your warped thinking.

Judges can't be asked to recuse themselves based on something they may be thinking, but rather based on their actions and comments we have seen, not imaginary liberal bull****.

Okay so Scalia could quietly accept "gifts" from those involved with cases he oversees, but if RBG notes that President Trump has an ego, she should be kicked off the court.

Do i have that absolutely stupid metric right?

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

Fishking said:
Lol...that went quite fare above your head if that's what you read from his statement. Of course, you know it isn't, you're just being dishonest.

If "impartially" means "unable to criticize President Trump", then i'm the ****ing dalai lama.

OpportunityCost · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
Okay so Scalia could quietly accept "gifts" from those involved with cases he oversees, but if RBG notes that President Trump has an ego, she should be kicked off the court.

Do i have that absolutely stupid metric right?

Did I argue that? Read my argument, don't make up one of your own from straw to knock it down easier.

I didn't even mention Scalia. Gifts do hint at bias, as do political remarks of a personal nature. I never said anyone should be kicked off the court.

Quit swinging wild. No straw men, no wild exaggerations, no making things up, just argue what's there.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
Did I argue that? Read my argument, don't make up one of your own from straw to knock it down easier.

I didn't even mention Scalia. Gifts do hint at bias, as do political remarks of a personal nature. I never said anyone should be kicked off the court.

Quit swinging wild. No straw men, no wild exaggerations, no making things up, just argue what's there.

YOU identified any "display" of "impartiality" as disqualifying. That is absolutely absurd. I explained why. Please explain why you think RBG is disqualified.

OpportunityCost · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
YOU identified any "display" of "impartiality" as disqualifying. That is absolutely absurd. I explained why. Please explain why you think RBG is disqualified.

This is kind of silly. She, as a private citizen, displayed animus towards Donald Trump, as a candidate. This hints at bias. It does not disqualify her as a Justice, it does hint at possible partiality against Trump. Justices should stick to topics and not engage in adversarial politics for this reason. It invites a quagmire of issues.

Gaius46 · Feb 9, 2018

digsbe said:
During the election that crone made unprecedented comments against candidate Trump. She can't be trusted to judge fairly or impartially as a justice given her commentary made public. Did Elena Kagan or Sotomayor recuse themselves during the trial when Obama's health insurance mandate was being heard?

So would she judge more fairly if she kept those opinions to herself?

Judges have opinions on politics. That's life. We expect them to be impartial - or as impartial as any human can - and follow the law as they interpret it regardless.

Gaius46 · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
He's hard right, associated with republicans, republicans used the nuclear option to get him in, President Trump demands loyalty from his subjects, and he chose to give a public speech at a Trump hotel.

His conscious use of a Trump hotel spits in the face of the emoluments clause of the constitution.

Historically SC judges have by and large shown a nasty independent streak once confirmed. No reason to think any different of Gorsuch.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

Gaius46 said:
Historically SC judges have by and large shown a nasty independent streak once confirmed. No reason to think any different of Gorsuch.

When one of the five or so emoluments case proceeds to the supreme court, i expect Gorsuch to recuse himself because of his voluntary association. He won't, because he's an activist judge in the vein of legislating from the bench in favor of corporations.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
This is kind of silly. She, as a private citizen, displayed animus towards Donald Trump, as a candidate. This hints at bias. It does not disqualify her as a Justice, it does hint at possible partiality against Trump. Justices should stick to topics and not engage in adversarial politics for this reason. It invites a quagmire of issues.

How had she "displayed animus"? You are confusing bias with judgement.

SirGareth · Feb 9, 2018

Rexedgar said:
So, when Special Counsel Robert Mueller goes through the legal maneuvers and the case goes before the Supreme Court, do you think Trump will wink at Justice Gorsuch and expect loyalty?

What case?

Whats the crime?

The only people we know have been colluding with the Russians are the Clintonistas

Gaius46 · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
When one of the five or so emoluments case proceeds to the supreme court, i expect Gorsuch to recuse himself because of his voluntary association. He won't, because he's an activist judge in the vein of legislating from the bench in favor of corporations.

If you're talking about the trucker case I've read it. Gorsuch applied the law as written. He was actually right the other justices wrong. Granted it led to an outcome that no one wanted but he did his job, the legislature fell down in drafting the law and his compatriots on that court were the activists.

OpportunityCost · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
How had she "displayed animus"? You are confusing bias with judgement.

I am not. Her personal opinions regarding a political candidate can be used to call into questions her judgment on cases regarding that government official, its why judges usually don't say much about political candidates and stick to being policy advocates.

Fishking · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
If "impartially" means "unable to criticize President Trump", then i'm the ****ing dalai lama.

Sorry, you're still not getting it. I don't know how I can help you figure out something so basic if you can't do it on your own.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

Gaius46 said:
If you're talking about the trucker case I've read it. Gorsuch applied the law as written. He was actually right the other justices wrong. Granted it led to an outcome that no one wanted but he did his job, the legislature fell down in drafting the law and his compatriots on that court were the activists.

In that case, TransAm could not legally fire an employee for failing to operate equipment that credibly put the employees life in jeopardy. The law was NOT on Gorsuch's side unless you ignore the very law that Maddin sued under: a law protecting drivers that refuse to operate a vehicle under dangerous conditions. That particular case was an egregiously hateful case, it's hard to believe anyone could be so cruel or ignorant other than to get the attention of President Trump who quickly nominated him.

Novell v Microsoft
Hobby Lobby v Sebelius

There's the $10 million in dark money used to help force him through the senate, the billionaire he has shady ties to, the fact that he sides with employer over employee more than 90% of the time; hell, i could go on.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
I am not. Her personal opinions regarding a political candidate can be used to call into questions her judgment on cases regarding that government official, its why judges usually don't say much about political candidates and stick to being policy advocates.

You'd have a hard time convincing me that the observation "Trump has an ego" somehow prohibits them from weighing in on, say, the travel ban.

ludin · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
And you evaluate that she is "biased" toward holding President Trump accountable under the constitution. Thank you for confirming that you want only justices who are favorable to President Trump.

thank you for confirming that you can't honestly address what someone says.

her public outcrys against the sitting president would give enough warrant for her to recuse herself.

ludin · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
He's hard right, associated with republicans, republicans used the nuclear option to get him in, President Trump demands loyalty from his subjects, and he chose to give a public speech at a Trump hotel.

His conscious use of a Trump hotel spits in the face of the emoluments clause of the constitution.

YOu have once again proven you have absolutely 0 clue what you are talking about.

The emoluments clause does not apply to the president.
Maybe if the democrats decided to play ball instead of crying then well they wouldn't have had to use the nuclear option.

please see the 1st amendment for everything else.

so basically you have no evidence or support for your case just the same ol same ol TDS ranting.

Gaius46 · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
In that case, TransAm could not legally fire an employee for failing to operate equipment that credibly put the employees life in jeopardy. The law was NOT on Gorsuch's side unless you ignore the very law that Maddin sued under: a law protecting drivers that refuse to operate a vehicle under dangerous conditions. That particular case was an egregiously hateful case, it's hard to believe anyone could be so cruel or ignorant other than to get the attention of President Trump who quickly nominated him.

Novell v Microsoft
Hobby Lobby v Sebelius

There's the $10 million in dark money used to help force him through the senate, the billionaire he has shady ties to, the fact that he sides with employer over employee more than 90% of the time; hell, i could go on.

If I recall correctly Madden claimed he was legally protected by a whistleblower statute that would protect him for refusing to operate a vehicle that he considered unsafe. Gorsuch concluded that statute didn't apply in this case because he wasn't being asked to operate an unsafe vehicle. He was in fact told to not operate it and did anyway. The majority had to stretch the meaning of the word "operate" very far to get it to cover non-operation.

What happened to the guy sucks and TransAm seems like a dick-bag operation and firing him wasn't right. But that's a totally different question from whether what they did was legal.

And btw - the case was decided months before the election when things looked good for Mrs. Clinton so to suggest he wrote his opinion the way to he did to get Trumps attention is a similar stretch.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

Gaius46 said:
If I recall correctly Madden claimed he was legally protected by a whistleblower statute that would protect him for refusing to operate a vehicle that he considered unsafe. Gorsuch concluded that statute didn't apply in this case because he wasn't being asked to operate an unsafe vehicle. He was in fact told to not operate it and did anyway. The majority had to stretch the meaning of the word "operate" very far to get it to cover non-operation.

What happened to the guy sucks and TransAm seems like a dick-bag operation and firing him wasn't right. But that's a totally different question from whether what they did was legal.

And btw - the case was decided months before the election when things looked good for Mrs. Clinton so to suggest he wrote his opinion the way to he did to get Trumps attention is a similar stretch.

That's actually false. Gorsuch erroneously claimed that Maddin waived the law by choosing to take the only course of action he had available to avoid freezing to death. That's why the other 6 judges unanimously disagreed with Gorsuch, and how Gorsuch signaled his willingness to **** individuals over to protect unlawful decisions by corporations.

I don't believe any interpretation for his unconscionable ruling except that Gorsuch was grandstanding for his ~~conservative~~corporatist principles. He soon showed up on President Trump's short list for SCOTUS nominees.

OpportunityCost · Feb 9, 2018

Absentglare said:
You'd have a hard time convincing me that the observation "Trump has an ego" somehow prohibits them from weighing in on, say, the travel ban.

That's cute, to quote her once in a mistaken attempt to portray that as all that she has said about Trump. But, it isn't, is it?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
That's cute, to quote her once in a mistaken attempt to portray that as all that she has said about Trump. But, it isn't, is it?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump-faker/index.html

Here's the rest from that link:

He is a faker. ... He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.

He is a faker, he is inconsistent, he does speak in a stream of consciousness, he does have an ego, and he did get away with not turning over his tax returns.

I see nothing in there that credibly jeopardizes her ability to assess the travel ban, for example. Hell, even if his lack of turning over tax returns somehow makes its way into court, her statement is legitimate so it doesn't jeopardize impartiality: he did get away with not turning over his tax returns.