Honorable Justice Gorsuch

[Rexedgar]

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?

 

[Harshaw]

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?

Do you think Gorsuch would oblige? If so, specifically why?

 

[Rexedgar]

Do you think Gorsuch would oblige? If so, specifically why?

Oh, I have no idea. From what has been going on lately, I would not be surprised if POTUS expected 'favorable' treatment. If you feel I meant to impugn Justice Gorsuch, you are mistaken. Given the climate and the statements from the Administration, would you be shocked to find that POTUS expected quid pro quo?

 

[roughdraft274]

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?

I wouldn't expect improper actions by Gorsuch. But would I expect Trump to try to meet up with him and ask him for loyalty? You bet your ass.

 

[digsbe]

Doubtful. A better question is will Ginsburg properly recuse herself if such a trial would happen?

 

[Absentglare]

Doubtful. A better question is will Ginsburg properly recuse herself if such a trial would happen?

Why would she recuse herself when Gorsuch is the one with his head up President Trump's ass?

 

[Harshaw]

Oh, I have no idea. From what has been going on lately, I would not be surprised if POTUS expected 'favorable' treatment. If you feel I meant to impugn Justice Gorsuch, you are mistaken. Given the climate and the statements from the Administration, would you be shocked to find that POTUS expected quid pro quo?

Trump might, but it won't make any difference. Nothing about Gorsuch says he's that guy.

 

[reinoe]

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 does it matter? If Mueller's request is Constitutionally sound then there's no trouble.

 

[digsbe]

Why would she recuse herself when Gorsuch is the one with his head up President Trump's ass?

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?

 

[Absentglare]

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?

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

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Yes, Trump would expect loyalty. But my guess is Gorsuch would stick to doing what he thinks is right. It is easier to stick to your principles when you have job security for life which is why I tend to trust appointed judges more than elected officials.

 

[reinoe]

Yes, Trump would expect loyalty. But my guess is Gorsuch would stick to doing what he thinks is right. It is easier to stick to your principles when you have job security for life which is why I tend to trust appointed judges more than elected officials.

The Taney Supreme Court was one of the most politically activist in American history, if not the most.

 

[holbritter]

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?

He could try. I very much doubt it will get him anywhere.

 

[digsbe]

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

No. Because she's obviously biased and cannot judge impartially.

 

[holbritter]

Why would she recuse herself when Gorsuch is the one with his head up President Trump's ass?

Where in the world would you get the idea the Gorsuch's ass is up Trump's ass? Is every appointed judge's head up the ass of the President who they were appointed under?

 

[OpportunityCost]

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

She has no constitutional obligation to scrutinize the President. Her job is adjudication of the constitutionality of laws, not to make public statements about how she feels personally about elections.

She can have an opinion, but that can have consequences when it comes to political considerations on cases.

 

[Absentglare]

No. Because she's obviously biased and cannot judge impartially.

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.

 

[Absentglare]

Where in the world would you get the idea the Gorsuch's ass is up Trump's ass? Is every appointed judge's head up the ass of the President who they were appointed under?

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.

 

[Absentglare]

She has no constitutional obligation to scrutinize the President. Her job is adjudication of the constitutionality of laws, not to make public statements about how she feels personally about elections.

She can have an opinion, but that can have consequences when it comes to political considerations on cases.

You've never heard of checks and balances? The three branches of government aren't supposed to protect one another, they're supposed to criticize one another.

 

[holbritter]

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.

But the emoluments clause forbids office-holders from accepting compensation from foreign governments without a go-ahead from Congress. Has nothing to do with that speech.

 

[AlbqOwl]

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?

So do you expect Obama appointees to support anything unfavorable to President Trump out of loyalty whether or not that anything is credible?

Can we say that is a really crappy question that impunes on the character of the justices without having any evidence that suggests such alluded misconduct is likely?

 

[Rexedgar]

So do you expect Obama appointees to support anything unfavorable to President Trump out of loyalty whether or not that anything is credible?

Can we say that is a really crappy question that impunes on the character of the justices without having any evidence that suggests such alluded misconduct is likely?

Yeah, you go with that crappy question thing......how many of Trump's 'servants' has he asked for loyalty?

 

[OpportunityCost]

You've never heard of checks and balances? The three branches of government aren't supposed to protect one another, they're supposed to criticize one another.

No they aren't. They have outlined duties. Publicly criticizing candidates isn't one of their duties. Its a personal decision and has nothing to do with checks and balances.

 

[Absentglare]

But the emoluments clause forbids office-holders from accepting compensation from foreign governments without a go-ahead from Congress. Has nothing to do with that speech.

That doesn't matter. There are several cases revolving the emoluments clause and Trump hotels that Gorsuch is no longer able to credibly oversee.

 

[Absentglare]

No they aren't. They have outlined duties. Publicly criticizing candidates isn't one of their duties. Its a personal decision and has nothing to do with checks and balances.

I don't think you understand the meaning of several of those words if that's honestly your argument.