Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case

[Harshaw]

But you turned the conversation into something that I was not talking about. I never once talked about whatever methodology Gorsuch used in his decision. I only highlighted the response to different cases and why I feel it would be bad for conservatives in the long run and that he sided with liberals, and you acted like I was some type of hypocrite when I never wavered from that point. The decision process may have been conservative, but that's not the point I was arguing. I was arguing that it would result in a policy that liberals would favor. Which is what the article originally said.

In this post, you confirmed the last sentence of the post you quoted.

 

[NeverTrump]

In this post, you confirmed the last sentence of the post you quoted.

Considering the fact that Trump picked Gorsuch out of a list of pre-approved conservative Judges. As far as partisan politics go, it's ironic that cons would have problems with pointing out that Gorsuch sided with liberals.
I know you can't believe it and that's why you want to pretend that you don't care about the partisans, but when you boil it down that's what he did!

 

[Harshaw]

Considering the fact that Trump picked Gorsuch out of a list of pre-approved conservative Judges. As far as partisan politics go, it's ironic that cons would have problems with pointing out that Gorsuch sided with liberals.
I know you can't believe it and that's why you want to pretend that you don't care about the partisans, but when you boil it down that's what he did!

Everything that does't fit what you want to be true just bounces off that impenetrable shell of extreme hackery you've constructed around yourself, doesn't it?

(Once again, rhetorical: of course it does.)

 

[NeverTrump]

Everything that does't fit what you want to be true just bounces off that impenetrable shell of extreme hackery you've constructed around yourself, doesn't it?

(Once again, rhetorical: of course it does.)

Please don't act like you aren't any different.

 

[Harshaw]

Please don't act like you aren't any different.

I'm not acting like I'm not any different. Unlike you, I'm making actual arguments based on understanding of the issues and sound reasoning, not tribalism.

But at least you're kinda sorta acknowledging what you do, which is the best I can hope for here. With that, I'm out.

 

[NeverTrump]

I'm not acting like I'm not any different. Unlike you, I'm making actual arguments based on understanding of the issues and sound reasoning, not tribalism.

But at least you're kinda sorta acknowledging what you do, which is the best I can hope for here. With that, I'm out.

I've always known what I was doing it's you and Zyphlin who tried to make it a different conversation because you didn't want to admit that Gorsuch sided w/liberals.

 

[Zyphlin]

I've always known what I was doing it's you and Zyphlin who tried to make it a different conversation because you didn't want to admit that Gorsuch sided w/liberals.

 

[dcsports]

I didn't change my tune. I added to it. There's a difference.

1. Cons expected Gorsuch to be conservative in everything he rules on
2. Reality comes knocking now cons don't care about Gorsuch making conservative or liberal decisions.

1. If Clinton elected Cons would expect liberal judge from her
2. Reality comes knocking and liberal judge would have ruled same way as Gorsuch. Cons would be livid.

Do I really have to explain partisan hypocrisy to you?

Didn't four justices rule with Gorsuch on the matter? Was there Republican outrage against them?

Conservatives tend to want judges to be conservative and CONSISTENT in their application of the law, not necessarily to adhere to a specific party stance. Gorsuch explained his stance on the issue, and it had to do with the legal merits, which most on the right are OK with. They may not agree, but the ruling makes sense.

Is it really necessary to get wound up about this? You seem to be upset by the fact that others aren't upset, and playing what if games to justify the lack of outrage. Are you saying that the decision by Gorsuch was wrong?

 

[dcsports]

But you turned the conversation into something that I was not talking about. I never once talked about whatever methodology Gorsuch used in his decision. I only highlighted the response to different cases and why I feel it would be bad for conservatives in the long run and that he sided with liberals, and you acted like I was some type of hypocrite when I never wavered from that point. The decision process may have been conservative, but that's not the point I was arguing. I was arguing that it would result in a policy that liberals would favor. Which is what the article originally said.

Judicial rulings should NOT enact policy. They should only determine if specific actions are in compliance with the law.

 

[Tangmo]

When Neil Gorsuch awoke on Tuesday it was neither a great awakening nor was it out of the ordinary. What it wuz was Gorsuch's 365th day on the Court. It was the same as the previous 364 dayze and it was the first day of the rest of what everyone in the country predicted. While justices agree, disagree, concur, dissent, abstain, recuse or are unanimous, Gorsuch himself surprises no one....



With a decade-long record as a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch’s nomination pleased conservatives. And now one year since he was sworn in, Republicans are largely in agreement that the newest justice has met their expectations.

“Trump made a promise to appoint someone in the mold of Justice Scalia, and from what we’ve seen, that’s exactly what he did,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network. “All of those principles he’s talked about — the commitment to the Constitution, the text of the law and not overstepping the text of the law — those are pages right out of Justice Scalia’s own approach to the law, and that’s something we’ve seen from him since he started as well.

While Gorsuch’s supporters haven’t been surprised by what they have seen, neither have detractors who criticize his conservative judicial philosophy.

"Unfortunately, Justice Gorsuch has fulfilled most of our expectations by taking up residence on the extreme right wing of the Supreme Court,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. “The same narrow-minded elitism we saw in his rulings on the 10th Circuit are reflected in his work on the high court, where he has questioned the principle of 'one man one vote,' showed willingness to uphold President Trump’s discriminatory travel ban, and ruled against the rights of LGBTQ Americans and civil rights plaintiffs.”

Last year, several legal analysts hinted that Gorsuch was not getting along with his fellow justices and suggested his style was bothersome to his colleagues. Jaffer says Gorsuch has proven himself to be the same jurist he was before joining the high court. "He has shown himself to be the judge that everyone thought he was going to be. There are no surprises here,” he said. “He had a 10-year record on the bench, had a long, extended conversation with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and nothing has changed from when he was on the 10th Circuit."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-conservatives-in-first-year-on-supreme-court



SCOTUSblog has documented that Gorsuch has asked an average of 13.7 questions per argument and agreed with Thomas 100 percent of the time. He agreed with Alito 94 percent of the time. So there's just no question of which side Gorsuch is on. In September Gorsuch showed up with Mitch McConnell to an event at the University of Louisville. A couple of dayze later Gorsuch waltzed into the Trump International Hotel in Washington to deliver a predictable rightwing speech to the Fund for American Studies -- the place that is at the center of a lawsuit arguing the president is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

So there's much more to Gorsuch than parts I, III, IV-B, and V or parts II and IV-A. Gorsuch likes to think he writes opinions that the common people can access and relate to. What Gorsuch does do is to carry on predictably and without shame.

 

[Moon]

So you think the conservative judges did not make a reasonable decision?

I'm sure they thought it was reasonable. All I'm saying is if a majority of the court says congress did a crappy job writing the legislation, I don't have a problem with that. This is something Congress could fix in short order to make the law pass SCOTUS muster. The question is, will they?

 

[lurchadams]

You really should try to figure out if the reality of the Citizens United case matches what you've been told and are choosing to believe about it. That, of course, is ultimately up to you.

You're probably successful into bullying people into convincing them you're smarter than them. Unfortunately for you, I'm not one of them.

Money and congressional elections
Whether the decision will lead to a surge in corporate political spending is anyone’s guess. When federal campaign finance law changes, money is typically redirected. For example, when the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act outlawed unlimited soft money contributions to the national party organizations, soft money contributors (corporations and unions, among others) created “527 committees” which could legally accept and spend money in unlimited amounts. Because the Citizens United decision grants corporations unlimited political spending rights, the need for 527 committees is all but eliminated. The decision could result in more spending, but it could also result in similar amounts of money being spent in different ways.

https://gai.georgetown.edu/the-impact-of-citizens-united-on-congressional-elections/

Run along now, "counselor".

 

[OscarLevant]

Do you agree or disagree with the majority decision, and why?

The ruling is correct as the law is vague, which, as Gorsuch stated, leaves too much from for arbitrary power. No one is suggesting that the ruling is siding with criminals, only that the law needs refinement.

 

[OscarLevant]

I believe both were wrong and some of the court was right.

How can someone be charged with a violent act when no violence was committed.

I don't know the case but I suspect the possibility of threats, intimidation could have lead to charges.

Easy, for example, an overzealous prosecutor could call the throwing of a shoe at a lover as "violent".


That is why the law needs refinement, to prevent "arbitrary power" as Gorsuch correctly stated.

 

[Harshaw]

You're probably successful into bullying people into convincing them you're smarter than them. Unfortunately for you, I'm not one of them.



https://gai.georgetown.edu/the-impact-of-citizens-united-on-congressional-elections/

Run along now, "counselor".

:roll: As I said, you're choosing to believe what other people tell you about the case because it's what you want to believe.

Why don't you cite the language from the actual opinion of the Court which does what you claim, rather than selectively quoting from an unsourced blog post which, taken in whole, actually does your argument much more harm than good?

 

[markjs]

But I thought he was tough on crime, wall, and will do the things Trump wanted??? Are you telling me Trump lied again?? or is this the deep state's mind control at work?



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...immigration-law-leading-deportatio/840229001/

Trump needs to fire his ass then. I know it's not strictly constitutional, but he should just write an executive order and fire the lot of them, nominate 9 "yes men" who will put loyalty first, make 'murica great again and all. A third of the country would suppport the action without question. If something is "constitutional in Trump's opinion, then it's good enough for his base, hell he could just terminate that branch of government, they'd eat it up... :roll:

 

[NeverTrump]

You're probably successful into bullying people into convincing them you're smarter than them. Unfortunately for you, I'm not one of them.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics these people go through just to say that they were right. I will say this. The law as it stands to "deport criminal offenders," is a conservative stance itself, but to rewrite that law in order to make it more specific will lead to more a more liberal law. Such as keeping illegals who non-violent drug offenders and apparently those accused of burglary. Although, I'm not really sure why conservatives are celebrating that, because it seems they like to link high rate of crimes and high drug use to illegal immigration... I mean heck that was Trump's very first public stance.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime." -- Donald J. Trump Campaign Announcement.

 

[lurchadams]

:roll: As I said, you're choosing to believe what other people tell you about the case because it's what you want to believe.

Why don't you cite the language from the actual opinion of the Court which does what you claim, rather than selectively quoting from an unsourced blog post which, taken in whole, actually does your argument much more harm than good?

You know, you are just like Trump when he says, "No collusion" or "No obstruction", or "Millions of people voted for Hillary illegally". You hope that if you yell and stomp your feet loudly enough, you'll get enough lazy idiots to believe you.

The effect of the C.U. is clear. But unlike you, I'm not arrogant enough to say, "believe me 'cause I say so". Here's a Supreme Court Justice's opinion:

In a dissent from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer called the majority opinion a disturbing development that raised the overall contribution ceiling to “the number infinity.”

“If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html

 

[lurchadams]

It's amazing the mental gymnastics these people go through just to say that they were right. I will say this. The law as it stands to "deport criminal offenders," is a conservative stance itself, but to rewrite that law in order to make it more specific will lead to more a more liberal law. Such as keeping illegals who non-violent drug offenders and apparently those accused of burglary. Although, I'm not really sure why conservatives are celebrating that, because it seems they like to link high rate of crimes and high drug use to illegal immigration... I mean heck that was Trump's very first public stance.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime." -- Donald J. Trump Campaign Announcement.

Oh, N.T. I think you intended to respond to someone else's post here.

 

[lurchadams]

Rejecting arguments based entirely on tribalism -- pretty much all of yours -- is demanded by logic and reason.

Tribalism... interesting. Hey, I have a question. Why do you think your tribe is constantly attacking U.S. law enforcement all of the sudden? Do you really think that risking national security, provided by these same agencies you're attacking is worth defending possibly the most corrupt politician in modern history? You don't think that's the most stark example of "tribalism"? Seriously, dude. You should clean up your own house before you have the veracity to come over hear and complain!

 

[Harshaw]

You know, you are just like Trump when he says, "No collusion" or "No obstruction", or "Millions of people voted for Hillary illegally". You hope that if you yell and stomp your feet loudly enough, you'll get enough lazy idiots to believe you.

The effect of the C.U. is clear. But unlike you, I'm not arrogant enough to say, "believe me 'cause I say so". Here's a Supreme Court Justice's opinion:



https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html

You have yet to actually quote from the opinion of the Court. Why can't you do that?

FYI, when Justices file dissents, they often get pissy and snipe at the majority opinion, often mischaracterizing it. They also often substitute their own theories of the case for the majority's. Thus, what the dissents say usually doesn't mean much, and should always, always be taken with a grain of salt. In any case, citing the dissent is never citing the actual decision.

If you want to establish your claim as true, you need to cite language from the majority opinion which says what you claim it does.

Until you do, indeed, you're doing nothing but accepting what other people tell you about the case because it's what you want to believe.

If it upsets you that I hold you to the standard which reason demands, that's really too bad. Logic, fact, and truth care not for your feelings.

(And I didn't say "because I said so." I quoted you the holding of the case.)

 

[Harshaw]

Tribalism... interesting. Hey, I have a question. Why do you think your tribe is constantly attacking U.S. law enforcement all of the sudden? Do you really think that risking national security, provided by these same agencies you're attacking is worth defending possibly the most corrupt politician in modern history? You don't think that's the most stark example of "tribalism"? Seriously, dude. You should clean up your own house before you have the veracity to come over hear and complain!

What is it that you think my "tribe" is? I, personally, am pretty anti-cop, which even goes beyond the typical skepticism of law enforcement inherent in libertarians.

But please, do tell me what my "tribe" is.

 

[lurchadams]

If it upsets you that I hold you to the standard which reason demands, that's really too bad. Logic, fact, and truth care not for your feelings.

You see, Harsh? Again... you demean... you condescend ... hoping, praying that if you bully, if you wring your hands and shout loudly enough you'll break down the lazy and uninformed. That's ok. I'm tough. I can take it.
You might try a little humility with others - just a suggestion.

 

[Harshaw]

You see, Harsh? Again... you demean... you condescend ... hoping, praying that if you bully, if you wring your hands and shout loudly enough you'll break down the lazy and uninformed. That's ok. I'm tough. You might try a little humility with others - just a suggestion.

Really? I'm pretty sure it's you who have been the snarky one, with all the references to "lawyers" and saying I'm lying because I'm a lawyer -- which by the way, I didn't bring up, you did. I never cited my credentials at all, let alone use them as some kind of proof that I'm right, but you've treated it as some kind of indication that I'm a liar. So spare me this nonsense about "bullying" when it's been you spouting the bona fide ad hominems.

It isn't bullying to expect you to support your claims, it isn't bullying to dismantle your arguments, and it isn't bullying not to let you off the hook when your arguments come up short. It's debate. If you can't deal with rigorous debate, you shouldn't be on a debate site.

Look, you claim the Citizens United decision did certain things. But instead of actually quoting anything from that decision which proves it, you've quoted blog posts and a dissenting opinion. If you're right, you should be able to cite the language from the opjnion. But you can't.

 

[lurchadams]

What is it that you think my "tribe" is? I, personally, am pretty anti-cop, which even goes beyond the typical skepticism of law enforcement inherent in libertarians.

But please, do tell me what my "tribe" is.

You know Harsh.. I just did a little research, because frankly, to me you're interesting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think you're a nice guy or you're honest... I'm saying you're interesting. I only looked at your posts from about 6am, my time this morning because right about then I started shaking my head. You seem to have one category and one sub-category of postings:

1. Strike down as many of what you consider to be left-wing myths or facts you feel might strengthen the cons and weaken liberals.
1a. Insult, condescend, and attempt to humiliate as much as possible those who disagree with you.

Again, as you accuse others of "tribalism" how can you at the same time be so self unaware?