Reply With Quote
Junior Varsity Cheerleader weighing in.
WE didn't steal anything. Just following the rules that one of the Democrats created.
Junior Varsity Cheerleader weighing in.
The Democrats not only allowed hearings to proceed in Reagan's lame duck year, they confirmed his nomination. The GOP stole that appointment.
lol washingtontimes.com fake news
every justice sounds exactly the same... it's a bunch of canned phrases
- i just apply the law to the facts
- i only apply the law, i dont make law, i respect the separation of powers
- i treat every party in every case equally
- i never in my dreams thought i'd be sitting here today
- i never bring political beliefs into my decision making on the bench
but yeah at least he's composed and not totally unhinged, though i dont really remember the last time we've had a justice nominee that was
he's certainly qualified, though
Last edited by spurraider21; 03-22-2017 at 02:26 AM.
it's a situation that never even arose, as there were no vacancies during bush's last year
kinda. he made the nomination in november '87, was confirmed in february '88. election was that following november
Regardless, Biden didn't consider future harm to his party with that decision. But I actually agree with his decision on that.
Yeah. When Donald is in the last year of his presidency and RBG croaks, I'm sure you'll be the first in line saying "calm down everyone. We have to be consistent. let's wait for the next president to nominate her replacement."
His HUGE LIE was that judges are neither Dem or Repug.
qualified? yes, to be another VRWC/BigCorp/oligarchy stooge, screwing the 99% in every vote.
Yep they are either crooked or not. And his face is a face of a fair judge. Al Frankton is a face of crooked.
extreme rightwing sociopath Gorsuch screwed by ... extreme rightwing sociopath John Roberts!
Gorsuch Hearing Turns To New SCOTUS Decision Undercutting His Reasoning
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gors...+%28TPMNews%29
Al Franken’s grilling of Gorsuch exposes the heartless cruelty behind conservative legal philosophy
Comic turned senator rips apart Gorsuch's infamous "frozen trucker" opinion. If only other Democrats would follow
In a few short minutes of questioning Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.,
exposed the utter absurdity of an elaborate legal fiction that conservatives have spent decades constructing.
That fiction is meant to place them unreachably beyond any possible question, no matter how ludicrous, cruel or unjust their rulings might be.
Franken’s questioning concerned the notorious “frozen trucker” case, TransAm Trucking v. Dept. of Labor.
A black-robed judge in the warm comfort of his chambers decides that a trucker should have meekly accepted freezing to death (alone in his truck, in midwinter, in the middle of the night), and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. That is conservative jurisprudence in a nuts . It’s reason enough to not merely reject Neil Gorsuch but also spurn any judge who would justify himself and his rulings with similar rhetoric — like John Roberts before him — of simply, heartlessly interpreting the law the only way he could, by “calling balls and strikes.”
Throughout the proceedings, Gorsuch was the only judge at any level who thought Maddin should have risked death or been fired. That’s what Franken honed in on, dramatizing Maddin’s plight, going through it step by step. After Maddin made a stop at about 11 p.m. on the night in question, he noticed his brakes had frozen. He called for repairs. Franken took it from there.
The dispatcher says wait, hang on there. OK, couple hours goes by, the heater is not working in his cab, it’s 14 below zero, . . . 14 below zero. He calls in and says, ‘My feet, I can’t feel my feet. I can’t feel my feet, my torso, I’m beginning not to be able to feel my torso,’ and they say, ‘Hang on, hang on, wait for us.’ OK, now he actually falls asleep, and at 1:18 a.m., his cousin I think calls . . . and wakes him up, and his cousin says that he is slurring his speech. . . . Now, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota says that is hypothermia, and if you fall asleep in 14-below-zero weather you can freeze to death. You can die.He calls them back, he calls them back and his supervisor says, ‘Wait. You gotta wait.’
So he has a couple choices here, wait or take the trailer out, with frozen brakes, onto the interstate.
Doing that, Franken observed, would have put others’ lives at risk as well as Maddin’s own, since without reliable brakes he could only drive 10 to 15 miles per hour. “So what’s that like on an interstate?” Franken asked Gorsuch. “Someone’s going 75 miles an hour, they come over a hill, and slam into that trailer.”
Then there was Maddin’s hypothermia to consider.
“He’s a little woozy. . . . I don’t think you’d want to be on the road with him, would you, Judge?” Franken asked.
Gorsuch stuttered but did not reply.
“You would? Or not?” Franken pressed. “It’s really easy: Yes or no, would you like to be on the road with him?”
After a bit more back and forth, Gorsuch finally admitted the obvious: “I don’t think I would.”
Franken then wound up his recounting of the case. “He gets fired. And the rest of the judges all go, ‘That’s ridiculous; you can’t fire a guy for doing that.’ There were two safety issues here, . . . the possibility of freezing to death or driving with that rig in a very dangerous way.”
Then Franken asked Gorsuch another simple question: “Which would you have chosen? Which would you have done?
Gorsuch replied, in his best law-school patronizing manner, “Oh, Senator, I don’t know what I would’ve done if I were in his shoes, and I don’t blame him at all for a moment for doing what he did do. I empathize with him entirely.” Which clearly is no answer.
So Franken pressed him again: “OK, we [have] been talking about this case [and] you haven’t decided what you would have done?
Haven’t thought for a second what you would have done in his case?”
“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.”
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/al-f...al-philosophy/
OUCH.
I'm sure the Kock Bros/VRWC will spend many $Ms trying defeat Franken.
===================
Here's great destruction of "textualism", and "strict constructionism".
Gorsuch said he would have helped the frozen driver if the law text, had been written that way.
But he was forced BY THE TEXT (and no CONtext) to dissent that the trucker should freeze to death and/or get on the highway with his big rig's frozen brakes.
Why Scalia's "strict constructionist” label is about politics, not the Cons ution
http://www.vox.com/conversations/201...onstructionism
To repeat, Gorsuch's first day BIG LIE was that judges are not Dem or Repug, just apolitical judges.
That's why Repugs refused for nearly a year to even talk to a Dem knitter's nominee.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-22-2017 at 04:37 PM.
Elections have consequences. Maybe Democrats will do better lead by Pelosi/Schumer than they did under Pelosi/Reid leadership.
that has nothing to do with his point
SnakeBoy has become such a Trumper after he hated him until November 9th. It's obvious the animosity was only because he thought Dear Leader couldn't beat Clinton.
is, or will be a lot worse. Dems don't have the spines to out-crazy the Repugs.
America will be screwed by 5-4 or 6-3 VRWC votes for decades.
Chucky S announces filibuster of Such judicial Gore.
Will Repugs nuke the filibuster?
Gorsuch wrote The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, a book that describes how to defeat medical aid-in-dying laws.
Gorsuch refused to recant his earlier vocal criticism of medical aid in dying. Not only that, but the judge mentioned some of the same arguments our opponents have been using for years.
One of the "consequences" of a Presidential Election used to be that a justice nominated for SCOTUS by the winner received a congressional hearing.
That was before the VRWC/BigCorp/1% oligarchy stole, owned, operated America for themselves.
was pretty cool to see Dean (well, recently retired) Deanell Tacha of Pepperdine Law testify in today's hearing.
Neil Gorsuch will be awesome! Great pick!
Why Is Dark Money Spending so Much on Neil Gorsuch?
One of the most remarkable moments during Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's confirmation hearings came when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, questioned Gorsuch about the role of money in politics.
Noting that “dark money” groups had spent around $7 million to defeat Merrick Garland, President Obama’s ill-fated nominee, and have now spent $10 million to support Gorsuch, Whitehouse asked what ideological bent had endeared him to this group of secret donors.
After all, Gorsuch insisted that as a justice he would remain independent from outside pressure.
“I’m trying to figure out what they see in you that makes that $17 million delta worth their spending,”
Whitehouse said. “Do you have any answer to that?”
“You’d have to ask them,” Gorsuch replied, tersely.
“I can’t, because I don’t know who they are,” Whitehouse shot back. “It’s just a front group.”
The moment underscored how wealthy, anonymous donors can sway an election.
It also underscored the significance of this Supreme Court pick.
With the Court’s current ideological deadlock at 4-4, the question that hovered over the exchange was whether this influx of dark money would influence Gorsuch, or
would he, in fact, be capable of complete independence?
http://progressive.org/dispatches/zephyr-teachout-on-gorsuch/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions