Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Neil Gorsuch nominated to Supreme Court


Careful_perspective

Recommended Posts

President Trump selected Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court Nominee!!

 

Edited by Rinna
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure liberals are hurrying to find as much dirt on him as humanly possible but I think he is a really capable conservative Judge! Very excited about this pick!

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just briefly turned on CNN and nobody's head was exploding but they did say the mail was pouring in from progressives filled with all the usual labels.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way he thinks when it comes to the constitution.
 

Quote

 

Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism, the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as the Founding Fathers would have interpreted it, and of textualism, the idea that statutes should be interpreted literally, without considering the legislative history and underlying purpose of the law.[3][4][5]


 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I just briefly turned on CNN and nobody's head was exploding but they did say the mail was pouring in from progressives filled with all the usual labels.

CNN IS SAYING HE HAS IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS..AND MIGHT BE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR "BOTH SIDES"

Am I dreaming??!?????

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how he will interpret birthright citizenship.   To me it says if you are a citizen of another country your kids don't get citizenship.
 

Quote

 

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”


 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/constitution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rinna said:

I'm sure liberals are hurrying to find as much dirt on him as humanly possible but I think he is a really capable conservative Judge! Very excited about this pick!

I think you don't quite realize what got accomplished that liberals approve of with Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices ever seated.  The supreme court isn't about winning or losing.  It's about the Justices putting their political beliefs aside and interpreting the constitution.  So, time to take your cheerleader outfit off, it's no surprise he picked a "conservative".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when Sonya Sotamayor said the court would benefit from having a wise Latina woman seated on the bench because you know that just had everything to do with a knack for constitutional interpretation and nothing to do with a sociopolitical bias you had an equally stern and antagonistic opinion on the matter. Right?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rinna said:

CNN IS SAYING HE HAS IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS..AND MIGHT BE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR "BOTH SIDES"

Am I dreaming??!?????

No, they still see "both sides" just like they see it every day.   A one dimensional line bifurcated for ease of application.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from the Wiki, Gorsuch is a textualist and an originalist.   Sounds good.  It's like I always love to say whenever possible, if you don't like something in the Constitution, change it!   But we can't just snap our fingers though.  We can't push a button on an iPhone, or try to rule over society with the tyranny of the majority.   People have suffered and died to change unconstitutional laws in the past and this is the least our founders would expect of us today.    So with a textualism guy like Gorsuch I'm relieved that Article 5 is in the text.  

On originalism, he strongly resembles Scalia in that he favors the "original meaning theory" more than the "original intent theory." which is also listed as the dominant form of originalism today in the "Original meaning" Wiki page and so described below as well.

From the Gorsuch Wiki page:

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.

At a glance, I think he'll offer a layer of protection for the Constitution, at least on balance.   I doubt anyone will ever agree with him on everything but isn't that true with every judge and justice.  

I see he founded "The Fed" which refreshingly refers to a newspaper and not a central bank.

Okay now what's wrong with him?   He sounds like a big death penalty guy.  

The States already have capital punishment laws on the books.  If a crime or terrorist attack occurs in Texas, the rangers can handle it.  It's up to Texas to decide the issue.   If any confused pro-war democrats wound up in Texas court they'd do much better as hostile witnesses, last minute subpoenas, or maybe even co-defendants. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the main reasons I supported Turmp. There are a few other reasons, but the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge(s) was one of my biggest concerns. I'm hoping Trump has the opportunity to pick one or possibly two more in his time in office.   Good pick.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to be a no go.

Quote

Republican leaders announced last March that they would not consider any nominee. They did so even though Barack Obama still had 10 months left in his term and even though other justices (including Anthony Kennedy) had been confirmed in a president’s final year.

The refusal was a raw power grab. Coupled with Republican hints that no Hillary Clinton nominee would be confirmed either, it was a fundamental changing of the rules: Only a party that controlled both the White House and the Senate would now be able to assume it could fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

The change is terribly damaging for the country’s political system. It impedes the smooth functioning of the court and makes it a much more partisan institution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/neil-gorsuch-how-democrats-should-respond.html

These are the rules Republicans wanted to play by. So Houston, we do not have lift off, I repeat, Houston, we will not have lift off.

Quote

So what can Democrats do?

First, they need to make sure that the stolen Supreme Court seat remains at the top of the public’s consciousness. When people hear the name “Neil Gorsuch,” as qualified as he may be, they should associate him with a constitutionally damaging power grab.

Second, Democrats should not weigh this nomination the same way that they’ve weighed previous ones. This one is different. The presumption should be that Gorsuch does not deserve confirmation, because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate.

Now another seat will likely open soon maybe two, who knows.

Had Republicans not stolen this and played fair they could have been able to fill those with bipartisan support. 

They should have thought of that before. Now go tell Trump not to throw a twitter tantrum. It makes our country look bad.

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

First, they need to make sure that the stolen Supreme Court seat remains at the top of the public’s consciousness. When people hear the name “Neil Gorsuch,” as qualified as he may be, they should associate him with a constitutionally damaging power grab.

Second, Democrats should not weigh this nomination the same way that they’ve weighed previous ones. This one is different. The presumption should be that Gorsuch does not deserve confirmation, because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate.

I'm still not sure what Democrats are supposed to do?   Not follow the Constitution from here on out until it's their turn again?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Republican leaders announced last March that they would not consider any nominee.

Democrat leaders, why and how in the world did you let Republicans get away with that?

I beat that announcement with a stick when it came out and the Democrats?   The Democrats just dreamed the deep sleep of the Democrats, confident in their great slumber that Her was all they needed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US were a true Republic, no new nominees to the SC would be considered until the previous nominees had been cleared, and Obama's nominee would be on the Court.

Since the Republicans pulled that stunt, the Democrats should sit on their hands regarding any new nominees and no ruling he participates in will be legitimate.  They clearly violated the Constitution.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Yamato said:

I'm still not sure what Democrats are supposed to do?   Not follow the Constitution from here on out until it's their turn again?

It was the first time in history that a nominee was not even given a hearing.

It is likely Gorsuch will be given that but no go on the votes.

It was the Republicans who were being unconstitutional and your excuse is you beat it with a stick.

But now? Some are willing to roll over like a lump eh? The fight is not over just because some switch sides and wish to Republican up now. 

And Gorsuch sides with corporate interests where they wish to not allow their female employees to receive contraceptives. 

Plus he opposes dying with dignity. Why should the government control the life and death of another when their time has come and they know it. Very libertarian huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

If the US were a true Republic, no new nominees to the SC would be considered until the previous nominees had been cleared, and Obama's nominee would be on the Court.

Since the Republicans pulled that stunt, the Democrats should sit on their hands regarding any new nominees and no ruling he participates in will be legitimate.  They clearly violated the Constitution.

Glad to hear this. I also thought the same but decided to not even mention it as it will gain no real world traction. Republicans are not honorable to give Mr. Garland his fair hearing . 

And they claimed Trump was an apolitical outsider who would change things for better while rising above both parties. Nope just more of the same spineless and honorless tactics started by Mitchy McConnell.

Of course Trump is willing to sink lower than both parties but when he does come up like a rat out his nest it is only to nibble cheese and play Republican.

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now go tell Trump not to throw a twitter tantrum. It makes our country look bad."

What makes us look bad is when our representatives act like spoiled 3rd graders who are gonna take their ball and go home. Do the job you were hired to do and quit making up nonsense to justify what you want to do instead of what you should do. This "revenge" crapola is immature. I'm starting to think we need to dock their pay every time they waste OUR time.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, skliss said:

Now go tell Trump not to throw a twitter tantrum. It makes our country look bad."

What makes us look bad is when our representatives act like spoiled 3rd graders who are gonna take their ball and go home. Do the job you were hired to do and quit making up nonsense to justify what you want to do instead of what you should do. This "revenge" crapola is immature. I'm starting to think we need to dock their pay every time they waste OUR time.

Nah, Trump definitely makes you look bad. I mean the US is the laughing stock of the World right now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Agent0range said:

I think you don't quite realize what got accomplished that liberals approve of with Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices ever seated.  The supreme court isn't about winning or losing.  It's about the Justices putting their political beliefs aside and interpreting the constitution.  So, time to take your cheerleader outfit off, it's no surprise he picked a "conservative".

I comprehend more than you probably believe of me. Though, thank you for the lesson and I think I'll keep my Cheerleader outfit on for now. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ....I cant complain. 

Im an anti death penalty guy and as Yam pointed out it appears hes pro death penalty but other than that this seems like the most reasonable of Trumps choices yet. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I ....I cant complain. 

Im an anti death penalty guy and as Yam pointed out it appears hes pro death penalty but other than that this seems like the most reasonable of Trumps choices yet. 

Are you feeling okay? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.