Gorsuch confirmation hearings

[KingOrfeo]

"Consideration."

Not a word one associates with Republicans nowadays.

 

[imsly1]

Liberalism is a Serious Mental Disease, and these Democrat Senators are Exhibiting major Symptoms

 

[KingOrfeo]

Liberalism is a Serious Mental Disease, and these Democrat Senators are Exhibiting major Symptoms

 

[Ramone45]

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

 

[Rightguide]

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

It was a pitiful display of political partisan politics. Every Democrat wasted time asking him political questions they knew he can't or won't answer but trying to trick him into doing so anyway. They aren't interested in a real judge, they want a legislator who will advance liberal agenda items from the bench that can't be achieved politically.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

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.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

I doubt a more qualified nominee has presented himself before this committee since Scalia.

There is no doubt about his superior qualifications, but in the Democrat mind adhering to laws of the land that do not result in political outcomes they support is a negative mark against any candidate.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

In what way is he the most qualified since Scalia?

 

[Rightguide]

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.

 

[JohnnySavage]

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.

That's not what the case held at all.

 

[Rightguide]

In what way is the the most qualified since Scalia?

Just my opinion as a conservative, but he did receive a 100% rating from the left-leaning ABA. As an originalist Gorsuch ranks with Scalia in my opinion. Of course, we can only know the truth about the limits of his originalism after he assumes the bench.

 

[Rightguide]

That's not what the case held at all.

Tell me how it differs from what I suggested.

 

[JohnnySavage]

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.

 

[Rightguide]

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?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

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/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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/

Trying to be the anti-Obama?

Bringing people together? So old-fashioned...

~~tsk~~ ~~tsk~~

​

 

[KingOrfeo]

Franken eviscerates Gorsuch over the "frozen trucker" case.

“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.”

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Trying to be the anti-Obama?

Bringing people together? So old-fashioned...

~~tsk~~ ~~tsk~~

​

Okay. FUCK YOU!!!

How's that?

 

[OldJourno]

Franken eviscerates Gorsuch over the "frozen trucker" case.

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.

 

[OldJourno]

Franken eviscerates Gorsuch over the "frozen trucker" case.

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.

 

[KingOrfeo]

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.

Of course he had knowledge of the case, he wrote a dissenting opinion.

 

[KingOrfeo]

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.

That doesn't matter. What matters is that he's right and it calls Gorsuch's judgment into question.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

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.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf

APPEAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (except OSHA)
(ARB No. 13-031)
Brad K. Thoenen (Kendra D. Hanson with him on the briefs), Seigfreid Bingham,
PC, Kansas City, Missouri, for Petitioner.
Scott Glabman, Senior Appellate Attorney (M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor;
Ann Rosenthal, Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health; Heather
R. Phillips, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, with him on the brief), U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Robert D. Fetter, Miller Cohen, P.L.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Intervenor.

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

 

[james_1957]

Franken eviscerates Gorsuch over the "frozen trucker" case.

Eviscerates?

I'm looking forward to 2020.

 

[Rightguide]

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/

Wiki and the NYTs thought so as well. This from the syllabus:

but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. Pp. 16–19.