• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.

Faddy

Banned
From his wiki page

In writing his opinion for Hugo Rosario Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Loretta E. Lynch, Gorsuch postulated that the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which gives federal agencies (and not the courts) the authority to interpret ambiguous laws and regulations, should be reconsidered.[23] In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote that the practice of administrative deference established by the Chevron case is "more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design."[24] The impact of an overturn of the Chevron case would be to shift power from federal agencies to the courts.[23]

A judge who wants federal agencies in favor of courts seems like someone who is needed on the SCOTUS right now.

Nothing on abortion which probably means pro-life but doesn't really care.
 
So for someone familiar with the guy, if you absolutely had to pick is he better or worse than Scalia?


Edit- whereby "better" means not as conservative as Scalia was.
 

GK86

Homeland Security Fail
“I only hope that both Democrats and Republicans can come together for once for the good of the country”

Lol fuck off, Trump.
 
So...is Gorsuch bad? I have no idea about him.

Quick look at wiki says he's a proponent of gay rights, which strikes me as good, at least.

Though it also says he may be pro-life (no surprise there).

edit: Ah, involved in the Hobby Lobby case, that answers some questions.

He is Scalia, take that for what it is.

So for someone familiar with the guy, if you absolutely had to pick is he better or worse than Scalia?

Worse, cause he is gonna be there for another 30 years. He is Scalia's protege, they are effectively the same in regards to judicial philosophy.
 
So filibuster until the end times? I still wish Obama had appointed Garland when they were out of session. I know it's against his character but he would have bought us some time.
I dunno... I feel like the Dems are wasting their time if they go all in on Gorsuch. If they want to pick a fight and make a stand, you do it with whoever Trump nominates to replace a liberal justice that'll swing the Court more than this does.
 

Cagey

Banned
He's an originalist that doesn't want to use the court to legislate.
Understand that among legal academia that Scalia's originalism is a running joke because in practice it means "whatever the framers intended unless its devastating to.my case, in which case what I say goes."
 
So for someone familiar with the guy, if you absolutely had to pick is he better or worse than Scalia?


Edit- whereby "better" means not as conservative as Scalia was.

He's more like Thomas than Scalia. Scalia was too political for my tastes at times.


Understand that among legal academia that Scalia's originalism is a running joke because in practice it means "whatever the framers intended unless its devastating to.my case, in which case what I say goes."

See above.
 

Aurongel

Member
So for someone familiar with the guy, if you absolutely had to pick is he better or worse than Scalia?


Edit- whereby "better" means not as conservative as Scalia was.
According to most analysis' of his ideological stances, he falls pretty firmly in Scalia's spot in the SCOTUS.

Like Scalia, he will be the second most conservative judge on the court.
 

-Plasma Reus-

Service guarantees member status
I dunno... I feel like the Dems are wasting their time if they go all in on Gorsuch. If they want to pick a fight and make a stand, you do it with whoever Trump nominates to replace a liberal justice that'll swing the Court more than this does.
Filibuster him now.
Then filibuster again when they try to replace a liberal justice.
This is the only power dems really have.
 

draetenth

Member
Sadly, this was probably the best we could hope for. At least it's more of the same atm, hopefully the liberals and Kennedy can last 4 - 8 years (which I unfortunately doubt...).
 
This guy is Scalia 2.0



Could be worse. Could be a ton better.

My issue with Scalia was never that he was super conservative, it was that he was super conservative and also dog whistle racist every chance he could get. As long as this guy isn't like that I'll live with it.
 

The Llama

Member
So for someone familiar with the guy, if you absolutely had to pick is he better or worse than Scalia?


Edit- whereby "better" means not as conservative as Scalia was.
If you put a gun to my head and made me pick I'd take him over Scalia. I can see him voting basically identically to Roberts.
 

Cagey

Banned
He's more like Thomas than Scalia. Scalia was too political for my tastes at times.




See above.
Great, so you favor a radically strict legal interpretation of the Constitution that's believed by a laughably small percentage of the profession. At least it's a consistent doctrine.
 

chadskin

Member
It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.

The German supreme court has a term limit of 12 years and judges have to retire once they reach the age of 68.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
He is an episcopalian who sides with religion.
He is against legal euthanasia, as all life has intrinsic worth. Better read his book on it I guess.
He is ok with defunding planned parenthood where religious beliefs are mixed in.

If you want to build a white Christian theocracy as Bannon does he would be an ally? Especially with a constitution that is not going to be allowed any adaptation for modern times.
 
Dude is among the worst of the worst, and he's young.

Fuck Obama for not pushing Garland through when he had the chance in early January.

He, along with everyone else, made the grave mistake of thinking Clinton had this in the bag so he didn't feel he needed to really push anything.
 
There was no recess. Senate republicans held emergency sessions for 10 minutes every day to deny him the opportunity.
Even if there had been a recess, the senate can end a recess appointment as long as it's working with the house and president. It's as simple as the Congress calling itself into recess, waiting a few days, and then having the president call it back into session. All recess appointments then expire and lose their positions.

Obama had no possibility to get Garland on the court for longer than a week or two and then Garland would have lost his important position on the court of appeals.
 

SURGEdude

Member
There was no recess. Senate republicans held emergency sessions for 10 minutes every day to deny him the opportunity.

I was under the impression you don't actually need a 24 hour period after sessions to do a recess appointment. But it sounds like I might be wrong. In which case sorry Obama for telling you to fuck off.
 

guek

Banned
My dog looks more presidential than Trump.
image.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom