The Official Trump U.S Supreme Court Justice Nomination Thread


EagleSmack
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

You're so confused, aren't you? It's hard when you have to think, isn't it? Post a meme that says "triggered" and you can pretend you aren't a loser a while longer.

Salty? Upset? Things didn't turn out the way you thought they would sweetie?
 
EagleSmack
#32
Sweet!

Don't show... that will teach them!

Schumer And Leadership Team Refuse To Meet With Gorsuch | The Daily Caller (external - login to view)
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
+1
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Salty? Upset? Things didn't turn out the way you thought they would sweetie?

Nothing changes with this idiot. Same reply every time.
 
EagleSmack
#34
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who has said last week he is not a “filibuster kind of guy,” told reporters Wednesday, “I just want to look at some of his judicial findings and rulings.”

Now why would a Democrat Senator from West Virginia want to play ball with the GOP on this? Oh right... he's up for election during the next midterms and his job is already in jeopardy as it is.



Quote: Originally Posted by LudlowView Post

Nothing changes with this idiot. Same reply every time.

Man LittleHo... I have such an effect on you don't I? LOLz

I am in your head 24/7!

Seriously... is that a side effect from your depression meds?
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
+1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who has said last week he is not a “filibuster kind of guy,” told reporters Wednesday, “I just want to look at some of his judicial findings and rulings.”

Now why would a Democrat Senator from West Virginia want to play ball with the GOP on this? Oh right... he's up for election during the next midterms and his job is already in jeopardy as it is.






Man LittleHo... I have such an effect on you don't I? LOLz

I am in your head 24/7!

Seriously... is that a side effect from your depression meds?

Christ. How many times have we heard those replies? Not much capacity for new material I guess.
 
Locutus
#36
stay classy dems. Lol

Schumer, Leadership Team Refuse To Meet Gorsuch... (external - login to view)
 
davesmom
#37
Blocking Trump's nominees is about as close to treason as the Democrats could get. It should be important to get the positions permanently filled as quickly as possible to ensure that the country's business flows. It is not in the best interests of the country to leave important positions in the hands of 'temporaries'. But then the country's best interests aren't what the Democrats appear to be concerned with. They simply want revenge.
 
Locutus
+2
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmomView Post

Blocking Trump's nominees is about as close to treason as the Democrats could get.


I don't know about that but it's sure pretty close to grade 5. Lol
 
Mowich
Conservative
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

I believe that they only release certain information to the media WRT committee votes - apart from the yea or nay. Mind you, for his appointment, they are going to need at least one Democrat to show.

I'd understood that going nuclear meant they wouldn't need a Dem, Murph.

Quote: Originally Posted by davesmomView Post

The Democ-rats are holding up the vote for Sessions just because they can. What's the sense in that? Chances are they'll do the same with Gorsuch. Just because they can.
Somebody should remind them that 'revenge is a dish better served cold'.

Uh, huh..........just returning the favor for when Obama was in office facing Republican opposition. *** for Tat.
 
EagleSmack
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmomView Post

Blocking Trump's nominees is about as close to treason as the Democrats could get. It should be important to get the positions permanently filled as quickly as possible to ensure that the country's business flows. It is not in the best interests of the country to leave important positions in the hands of 'temporaries'. But then the country's best interests aren't what the Democrats appear to be concerned with. They simply want revenge.

They'll whine for a bit... but they can't stop the inevitable. Trump's pick will be the next Supreme Court Justice.
 
tay
+1
#41
I was listening to a podcast with lawyer who cites how pro corporate/anti worker Gorsuch is and one of the cases mentioned is the Frozen Trucker case............


Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion in one case. Trans Am Trucking v. Administrative Review Board, US Dept of Labor

The case demonstrates that Gorsuch thinks it’s fine if truck drivers freeze to death, as long as they don’t abandon their employer’s cargo. He is more concerned about property than he is about people. This is Gorsuch’s dissent in that case, where the Dept. of Labor ruled for the trucker:

In their view, an employee should be protected not just when he “refuses to operate a vehicle” but also when he “refuses to operate a vehicle in the particular manner the employer directs and instead operates it in a manner he thinks safe.” Yet those words just aren’t there; the law before us protects only employees who refuse to operate vehicles, period. Imagine a boss telling an employee he may either “operate” an office computer as directed or “refuse to operate” that computer. What serious employee would take that as license to use an office computer not for work but to compose the great American novel? Good luck.

Republicans are trying to present Gorsuch as a great legal mind. Yet in this dissent we have a person who does not understand the difference between trying to escape hypothermia in a truck where the heater isn’t working, and using a workplace computer for personal activity.

The right analogy would involve a computer throwing sparks and an employer telling the worker to stay put help was coming. That would be an appropriate analogy to a trucker who had good reason to believe he might freeze to death in a truck without a working heater, when the temperature was -14 outside.

This is an attempt to come up with stories to justify placing property over people, cargo over citizens. It’s the reasoning of someone who will take every opportunity to put the interests of owners over the interests of employees.

What was Gorsuch’s reasoning here? Well, he’s an “originalist”, and that’s where he went:

But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who “refuse[] to operate a vehicle” out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone’s admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help. The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not. And there’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid.

Keep in mind, if the trucker had stayed put, he would have frozen to death since the heater wasn’t working. He’d lost feeling in his legs and torso, and his cousin told him (over the phone) that he was slurring his speech, all signs of hypothermia. So the option to “refuse to operate the vehicle” wasn’t safe. The truck driver had no way to get to a warm place aside from “operating” the truck.

By Gorsuch’s logic, if Trans Am had told the driver to turn off the heater and he had turned it on, he could also have been fired for choosing to “operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not”.

Gorsuch likes finding ways to rule against the little guy. That predilection is why Trump nominated him, and that’s why Republicans are working so hard to get him confirmed.

He’s done this a number of times. Placing the religious beliefs of employers over the health-care needs of their workers (Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius). Placing the interests of school districts seeking to offer minimal (inexpensive) services over the rights of disabled students to an education (external - login to view).

Over the past 10 years with the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch has written at least 15 precedential labor and employment rulings. Twelve of those rulings involved federal race, sex, age, disability and political discrimination and retaliation claims.

Gorsuch’s opinions found in favor of employers, mostly on the merits but at least once on jurisdictional grounds, in eight of the 12 cases. He has written in favor of employees in two retaliation cases, one political bias case brought by a Republican-affiliated state employee and one pregnancy discrimination case. — Bloomberg (external - login to view)
 
EagleSmack
+1
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

I was listening to a podcast with lawyer who cites how pro corporate/anti worker Gorsuch is and one of the cases mentioned is the Frozen Trucker case............

Great post Tay. I read through the court documents as well that you linked to.

It looks like Gorsuch followed the law as written and did not legislate from the bench. He'll make a great Justice of the Supreme Court.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Great post Tay. I read through the court documents as well that you linked to.

It looks like Gorsuch followed the law as written and did not legislate from the bench. He'll make a great Justice of the Supreme Court.

Yep. There's things I disagree with him on, but he seems to at least understand the difference between the role of a judge and the role of a legislator. I think he'll be a good one. And I'm pretty sure he'll throw a few curveballs nobody saw coming.

I'm reminded that Eisenhower was asked, after he was out of office, if he'd made any mistakes while President. He responded, "Yes, two. And they're both on the Supreme Court."

Earl Warren and William Brennan.
 
EagleSmack
#44
He did say that as a judge you should not feel good about every decision you make.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

He did say that as a judge you should not feel good about every decision you make.

And THAT is so key! Judges are to interpret the law as written, not as they would like it to be.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

And THAT is so key! Judges are to interpret the law as written, not as they would like it to be.

I have always wondered how come all supreme court decisions are not 9-0. If everybody interprets the law correctly, there should be clear cut decisions one way or the other.
 
EagleSmack
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

I have always wondered how come all supreme court decisions are not 9-0. If everybody interprets the law correctly, there should be clear cut decisions one way or the other.

There is a large part of the US Justice system that likes to legislate from the bench.
 
EagleSmack
#48
In big win for Trump, Senate approves his conservative court pick


In big win for Trump, Senate approves his conservative court pick | Reuters (external - login to view)

WINNING!

 

Similar Threads

3
Harper names new Supreme Court justice
by Locutus | Nov 27th, 2014
15
Supreme Court Nomination Process
by FiveParadox | Feb 20th, 2006
no new posts