"Consideration."
Not a word one associates with Republicans nowadays.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Consideration."
Liberalism is a Serious Mental Disease, and these Democrat Senators are Exhibiting major Symptoms
The way Judge Garland's nomination was handled was unfortunate, but it is what we have come to expect of a government of professional politicians who care more about themselves than the good of the citizens they represent. Had the situation been reversed, the Democrats would have done the same thing the Republicans did. This is just another reason why we need term limits.
There is zero doubt that Judge Gorsuch is a qualified nominee and his confirmation is certain. The Democrats are just putting their butthurt on display during these confirmation hearings, and it is disgraceful. The country is watching and they are just confirming that they are glad these bozos are not in charge anymore, nor will they be for a long time unless they get their acts together.
Judge Gorsuch will be a fine Supreme Court Justice.
It's funny when you type "Gorsuch" and it comes up "Grouch". LOL
His his separate opinion in the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores is concerning to me over and above everything else I have heard. It is something I would not have been aware of without the hearings so IMHO they are doing their job.
But what can you do? The election was very much about the appointments to the court and 63M dopes hired a racist, sexist, misogynistic, lying megalomaniac to be President. So you get what you get. Elections have consequences.
His his separate opinion in the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores is concerning to me over and above everything else I have heard. It is something I would not have been aware of without the hearings so IMHO they are doing their job.
The simple finding in Burwell v Hobby Lobby is that a corporation is a group of individuals and that when a group of individuals decides to enter into a business arrangement the Constitution does not require them to surrender their first amendment rights under the First Amendment.
In what way is the the most qualified since Scalia?
That's not what the case held at all.
Tell me how it differs from what I suggested.
It was narrowly limited to a closely held corporation and under specific legislation. There were no First Amendment implications at all.
It was narrowly limited to a closely held corporation and under specific legislation. There were no First Amendment implications at all.
So you're saying that religious freedom played no part in this ruling?
It was, indeed, a "narrowly limited" decision with respect to the "personhood" of for-profit "closely held" corporations. But the specific legislation just happened to be the Religious Freedom Reform Act of 1993, so I think you both have some legitimate points.
Here is the case syllabus. I think it will help you both. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-354/
“And what would you have done?” Franken asked. “I’m asking you a question. Please answer the question,” Franken pressed.
“Senator, I don’t know,” the finest legal mind in all of conservative America answered. “I wasn’t in the man’s shoes, but I understand why…”
“You don’t know what you would’ve done,” Franken summed up for him. “OK, I’ll tell you what I would’ve done. I would’ve done exactly what he did. And I think everybody here would’ve done exactly what he did. And I think that’s an easy answer. Frankly, I don’t know why you had difficulty answering that.”
From there, Franken turned to the dissent Gorsuch wrote. As Franken described it, the issue came down to a “plain meaning” rule: “When the plain meaning of a statute is clear on its face, when its meaning is obvious, courts have no business looking beyond the meaning to the statute’s purpose.” That’s what Gorsuch relied on in his ruling.
“But the plain meaning rule has an exception,” Franken continued. “When using the plain meaning rule would create an absurd result, courts should depart from the plain meaning. . . . It is absurd to say this company is within its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That’s absurd.”
“I had a career in identifying absurdity,” the former “Saturday Night Live” writer and performer added — and the room briefly burst out in laughter — “and I know it when I see it . . . and it makes me question your judgment.”
Trying to be the anti-Obama?
Bringing people together? So old-fashioned...
~~tsk~~ ~~tsk~~
I get it. Franken expects a snap judgment from Gorsuch with no explanation of whether or not the nominee had any knowledge of the case beyond what Franken had explained.
Ya know, Stalin admirer, on a re-reading of this Franken comes off as a total asshole bully. He doesn't even let Gorsuch finish his response.
I get it. Franken expects a snap judgment from Gorsuch with no explanation of whether or not the nominee had any knowledge of the case beyond what Franken had explained.
Yep, I'd base my vote for a Supreme Court nominee on that. I want someone on the court who is ruled by impulse rather than contemplation of the law and Constitution.
It was, indeed, a "narrowly limited" decision with respect to the "personhood" of for-profit "closely held" corporations. But the specific legislation just happened to be the Religious Freedom Reform Act of 1993, so I think you both have some legitimate points.
Here is the case syllabus. I think it will help you both. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-354/