PDA

View Full Version : Gorsuch hearing


Southpaw2012
03-21-2017, 10:01 AM
Feinstein: "Our job is to determine whether Judge Gorsuch is a reasonable mainstream conservative or is he not."

One of many examples why the Democratic Party is dying. Crazy nuts like Feinstein making disgustingly pathetic statements such as that ^. It's irrelevant what type of conservative Gorsuch is. If he's to be a great justice, he will interpret the law as it's written, under original public meaning. However, that way of judging is a mystery to most Democrats who believe it's the role of the judge to interpret the law how they see fit at that particular time.

And, to make it clear, original public meaning does not necessarily mean original intent (liberals conflate the two constantly to bash originalism).

I'm still awaiting legitimate questions, such as his views on Chevron and the administrative state. We already have a general idea, but I'd like to hear more. It'd be nice to get some of the nuts out of the room who are making this hearing about Gorsuch hating workers and gays and whatever else liberals can pull out of the realm of stupidity.

GonzoTheGreat
03-21-2017, 10:45 AM
Why bother with a hearing at all?
Why not just do what was apparently good enough not all that many months ago: just wait for another president?

Kimon
03-21-2017, 12:03 PM
Why bother with a hearing at all?
Why not just do what was apparently good enough not all that many months ago: just wait for another president?

There is always the slight chance that he makes some mistake, i.e. is too forthcoming in his testimony, and provides the dems with more ammunition for their opposition, but in general, yes, the hearing in this instance is almost entirely pointless. The main rationale for opposition here is purely about Garland, not about Gorsuch.

As an aside, not that there is likely much point to trying to debate this matter with Southpaw, but this isn't just about Garland, as Southpaw points out, though only to denigrate the philosophical position of all those who disagree with his hero Scalia, is also about whether the constitution should be viewed as a living, and evolving law, or, as Scalia apparently saw it, like the ten commandments, something unchanging, frozen in time and interpretation. I do wish he would at least admit that there is validity to the philosophical positions held by each side, but then it is this type of divide that is symbolic of the schism that runs through, and poisons, seemingly all of American politics.

Davian93
03-21-2017, 12:18 PM
By dying, you mean winning the popular vote by 3 million.

GonzoTheGreat
03-21-2017, 12:26 PM
If the US Constitution were truly interpreted as written, then no American who wasn't in the National Guard would have a right to own or carry firearms. Or, alternatively, in any case where having a firearm would be allowed, having a sword or a knife or a vial of anthrax would be allowed too.

But that's not how the 2nd is interpreted by the courts. All those activist judges decide that "arms" means "firearms" and that the whole bit about the "well regulated militia" is irrelevant flapdoodle which can be safely ignored.

Nazbaque
03-21-2017, 12:29 PM
There is always the slight chance that he makes some mistake, i.e. is too forthcoming in his testimony, and provides the dems with more ammunition for their opposition, but in general, yes, the hearing in this instance is almost entirely pointless. The main rationale for opposition here is purely about Garland, not about Gorsuch.

As an aside, not that there is likely much point to trying to debate this matter with Southpaw, but this isn't just about Garland, as Southpaw points out, though only to denigrate the philosophical position of all those who disagree with his hero Scalia, is also about whether the constitution should be viewed as a living, and evolving law, or, as Scalia apparently saw it, like the ten commandments, something unchanging, frozen in time and interpretation. I do wish he would at least admit that there is validity to the philosophical positions held by each side, but then it is this type of divide that is symbolic of the schism that runs through, and poisons, seemingly all of American politics.

He can't admit that. Not because of symbolism. He personally can't admit it. If he did admit any possibility of change then he would have to constantly adjust his opinions to keep up with the changes. Most people recognise this process as "thinking" and it is beyond southpaw's abilities. He worships Scalia as the greatest of all heroes because he told southpaw that it was okay that he can't think and it's better anyway that he does it for him. We are all very bad people who try to force southpaw to think for himself.

Davian93
03-21-2017, 12:32 PM
If the US Constitution were truly interpreted as written, then no American who wasn't in the National Guard would have a right to own or carry firearms. Or, alternatively, in any case where having a firearm would be allowed, having a sword or a knife or a vial of anthrax would be allowed too.

But that's not how the 2nd is interpreted by the courts. All those activist judges decide that "arms" means "firearms" and that the whole bit about the "well regulated militia" is irrelevant flapdoodle which can be safely ignored.

Technically, the argument is that the legal definition of "militia" in the United States includes basically all citizens therefore anyone can own a firearm.

Granted, SCOTUS adamantly did not agree with that definition from the 1930s until the 2000s but that's a moot point somehow.

It all turns on how you interpret the phrase "well-regulated" Scalia and his faction of the court said it meant anyone while John Paul Stevens adamantly disagreed in his dissent and had decades of precedent to back him up unlike Scalia.

Kimon
03-21-2017, 04:10 PM
Sounds like the dems, in addition to the obvious issue of Garland, are also focusing on this so-called "frozen trucker" case.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/03/neil_gorsuch_s_arrogant_frozen_trucker_opinion_sho ws_he_wants_to_be_like.html

have tried to be balanced in reviewing Judge Neil Gorsuch’s record. In a post right after his nomination, I called his decision criticizing “Chevron deference” (Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch) brilliant, a thorough and deep defense of judges deciding “what the law is” rather than deferring to agency officials. His opinion in TransAm Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, though, exposes a big hole in Gorsuch’s anti-Chevron theory, showing that judges can abuse statutory interpretation just as badly as bureaucrats. Gorsuch’s opinion in what’s known as the “frozen trucker” case also demonstrates an arrogant and cold judicial personality. I have read very few modern opinions that were more callously written than Gorsuch’s TransAm dissent.

Here are the basic facts. Alphonse Maddin was a truck driver for TransAm. Late on a January night in temperatures below zero, he discovered that his trailer’s brakes had locked up due to the cold weather. (The truck itself could drive but not when attached to the trailer). He called TransAm’s road service for help at 11:17 p.m., and then discovered that the truck cabin’s heat was broken. He fell asleep and woke up two hours later with a numb torso. Maddin also could not feel his feet. He called the road service again, and they told him to “hang in there” despite the life-threatening conditions. He waited about 30 more minutes before unhitching the broken trailer. Although his supervisor ordered him to stay, Maddin decided to drive off with the truck after almost three hours in the subzero cold. A service truck did arrive 15 minutes after he left, but it’s hard to blame him for deciding not to risk his life. It’s amazing he waited so long at all.

TransAm fired Maddin for abandoning his trailer. Maddin filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, an agency of the Department of Labor. He claimed that TransAm had violated the whistleblower part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, which prohibits an employer from firing an employee who “refuses to operate a vehicle because ... the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public.” The agency concluded that he had indeed been fired for refusing to operate his vehicle, and that he had a reasonable apprehension of danger.

Here’s where we get to the legal dispute. TransAm argued that Maddin did operate his truck, so he was not covered by the text of the statute. In the appeal to Gorsuch’s panel (three judges on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals), two judges applied a rule called “Chevron deference,” which means that if a statute is ambiguous, and if Congress delegated interpretive power to an agency, then courts must defer to any reasonable interpretation by the agency. The statute did not define the word operate. The agency decided the word operate includes not only driving but “other uses of a vehicle when it is within the control of the employee.” In other cases, the agency had decided that partially unloading an overweight trailer and driving counted as a “refusal to operate,” because it was a refusal to operate in the directed manner. The majority of the panel also noted that Congress passed the statute so employees would be protected for bringing safety risks to their employers’ attention. Considering all of those factors, the majority found the agency’s interpretation of the ambiguous statute was reasonable.

Look, we know that this guy has a good resume for the court. We know that he is pro-life, not only in his obvious stance against abortion, but also against euthanasia and doctor-assisted-suicide, which is a ludicrously and egregiously religious infringement upon the public. And we obviously know that he is very pro-business. But this is pretty overtly callous even for a republican. It is, indeed, quite Scalian.

As an aside, it is too bad that Franken is already 65, if he was even just 5 years younger he'd be a great choice for 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-hearings-updates-and-analysis-on-the-supreme-court-nominee/franken-presses-gorsuch-on-garland-snub-same-sex-marriage/?utm_term=.79b5df725d4d

fionwe1987
03-21-2017, 07:44 PM
I liked how Franken asked his question. It showed the utter absurdity of Gorsuch's opinion on that case.

Davian93
03-21-2017, 08:32 PM
Franken?!? Let's get real, America would never elect a former comedian/actor to the Presidency.

We only elect highly respected statesmen like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump...

Southpaw2012
03-24-2017, 12:15 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/23/grilling-gorsuch-and-fearing-the-federalist-society/?utm_term=.18567a93f045

As president of The Federalist Society at my somewhat conservative/libertarian law school, this makes me smile.

Davian93
03-24-2017, 01:17 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/23/grilling-gorsuch-and-fearing-the-federalist-society/?utm_term=.18567a93f045

As president of The Federalist Society at my somewhat conservative/libertarian law school, this makes me smile.

That you're in charge of anything, even a college society, terrifies me and makes me weep for the future.

Southpaw2012
03-28-2017, 01:43 PM
That you're in charge of anything, even a college society, terrifies me and makes me weep for the future.

Ha, that's hilarious. I have to do something to further my future earning potential because I'm sure it'll go towards supporting bums like you. Leading the society is more out of interest than need as I've had a post-graduation legal job since beginning my last year of law school. It's been painful to not have more time to slice through every ignorant "fact" you spew onto the pages of this fantasy forum, but perhaps someday I will.


And a question to you liberals (socialists?):

You believe Garland should have gotten the open seat, however, you oppose a lot of the executive action going on with Trump in office. Gorsuch has been more opposed to executive action than Garland while on the court of appeals. Therefore, do you oppose Gorsuch because you believe he "stole" a seat, or just clueless and want another liberal hack who will vote whichever way the winds of social change blow?

Davian93
03-28-2017, 02:01 PM
Ha, that's hilarious. I have to do something to further my future earning potential because I'm sure it'll go towards supporting bums like you. Leading the society is more out of interest than need as I've had a post-graduation legal job since beginning my last year of law school. It's been painful to not have more time to slice through every ignorant "fact" you spew onto the pages of this fantasy forum, but perhaps someday I will.


And a question to you liberals (socialists?):

You believe Garland should have gotten the open seat, however, you oppose a lot of the executive action going on with Trump in office. Gorsuch has been more opposed to executive action than Garland while on the court of appeals. Therefore, do you oppose Gorsuch because you believe he "stole" a seat, or just clueless and want another liberal hack who will vote whichever way the winds of social change blow?

ROFLMAO. Um, good luck with that, idiot. Are you under the misunderstanding that I'm somehow unemployed or that I don't have a career?

Also, on Gorsuch, I think he's about the best pick we could expect out of Trump...but I also don't think the Dems should allow the nomination to proceed due to the rampant corruption and potential criminal acts we're seeing evidence of from this Administration.

I wouldn't mind a "liberal hack" like Earl Warren or Thurgood Marshall or even John Paul Stevens.

I do find it ironic that you claim not to have time to dispute facts but you clearly have time to spew garbage on a regular basis. As a future lawyer, you should really learn better time management skills or become more efficient in your research abilities. Both are somewhat critical to your chosen profession.

Ozymandias
03-28-2017, 02:05 PM
Ha, that's hilarious. I have to do something to further my future earning potential because I'm sure it'll go towards supporting bums like you. Leading the society is more out of interest than need as I've had a post-graduation legal job since beginning my last year of law school. It's been painful to not have more time to slice through every ignorant "fact" you spew onto the pages of this fantasy forum, but perhaps someday I will.

Oh give it a rest. You are leading the Society because it looks good on a resume, and you likely aren't planning to stay an associate attorney for your whole life. If you are, you aren't gonna make much (you probably won't anyway, but still).

And frankly, having a job as a 3L just means you have a basic level of legal competence, such that your internship firm offered you a job. It's extremely common, I wouldn't be crowing too loudly about that.

You believe Garland should have gotten the open seat, however, you oppose a lot of the executive action going on with Trump in office. Gorsuch has been more opposed to executive action than Garland while on the court of appeals. Therefore, do you oppose Gorsuch because you believe he "stole" a seat, or just clueless and want another liberal hack who will vote whichever way the winds of social change blow?

I won't speak for anyone else, but there are so many problems here. Firstly, Merrick Garland is completely irrelevant to the problem with the open SCOTUS seat, which is that the GOP controlled Senate literally refused to even consider doing it's job. It doesn't matter if the nominee was Merrick Garland or Neil Gorsuch or you, the Senate had a job to do and no good reason for delaying it. Contrary to the views expressed at the time, the American people explicitly do NOT have a right to decide who is appointed and/or confirmed to the Court.

Second, you're opinion on "social change" is an explicit argument that we should still have slavery, Jim Crow, etc. The problem with accepting the Constitution as a document with a set intent that isn't open to re-interpretation is that the Constitution as written is shit. Women can't vote. There goes 50% of the country. Black people can't vote. There goes another 6%. You can be damn sure South Americans weren't being given real voting privileges unless they looked white, so goodbye another 8%. Two thirds of modern America is actively oppressed by the original Constitution. It's only the wonderful liberal penchant for, you know... justice, that has allowed women to vote, blacks to escape physical and then socio-economic bondage, the integration of multiple waves of immigrants, all of whom you and your bigoted ilk have tried to keep out.