Gorsuch Frustrates Democrats at Confirmation Hearing

I think Franken is the Forest Gump of the Senate.

 

I suspect he is quite the character in the men's transgender room.

 

Gorsuch decided that a man should freeze to death as opposed to saving his own life from hypothermia and delivering his cargo late. That's a real brilliant conclusion for a judge to arrive at. Franken is correct n labeling this guy absurd and that's an understatement.

 

Hopefully, none of the democratic justices retire, that's the best we can hope for.

 

Franken is about as flimsy as they get. His lisping and weak examination of Gorsuch was a real lesson on the sad state of the prog party.

 

He accurately interpreted the law, he didn't rewrite the law, that's the job of a legislator, not a judge.

Leftists love to gripe about Judges on the right embracing originalism, but would they really prefer Judges on the right start re-writing law like Leftwing judges do?

Judge Gorsuch is an originalist and a textualist. In constitutional cases, the United States Supreme Court should consider itself bound by the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The meaning of the constitutional text is its public meaning—the ordinary or plain meaning the words had to the public at the time each provision of the Constitution was framed and ratified. For example, Article Four of the Constitution refers to “domestic violence” but in the Eighteenth Century that phrase did not refer to spousal abuse. It referred to riots and insurrections within a state. When we interpret Article Four, we should understand the words as they were used at the time the Constitution was written. What is called “linguistic drift” is not a valid method of constitutional amendment.

That's all.

Would you really prefer a conservative Justice who does not believe that she or is bound by the legal text? The alternative to originalism is a Justice who believes that she or he is free to override the text of the law or constitution in the name of her or his own beliefs about what the law or Constitution should be given the circumstances.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...6012079123117031073019027069082094067&EXT=pdf

 

He exhibited zero humanity just as the lizards that fired the trucker had. Are you ****ing serious in believing that the worker should have dropped dead for the cargo of meat? Well most of the judges disagree with you and reptile Gorsuch...and thank goodness for that!

 

Well, it's not Gorsuch's job to judge humanity. It was his job to see if the employer was within his rights to terminate employment and he judged that he was so. It's that simple. I don't see how a judge with the highest bar rating could be denied this position, other than Trump and Garland factors.

 

It's his moral responsibility, as a judge especially, to have and understand and practice humanity. You would die for a load of meat...okay I get that and you would expect someone that worked for you to die for the cargo they are carrying for you..okay, I get that too, but you having that priority disqualifies you from being part of humanity. Even an animal would show more mercy than that.

 

Animals lack the ability for conscious reasoning, which we humans do possess. We just don't use it often enough and sometimes we even criticize the other's reasoning. Like here. I'm a believer in the Gorsuch philosophy on judging. If this abomination called the SCOTUS(which like Jefferson I now believe should be entirely abolished) is going to exist at all, it needs to exist with neutral judges, not ones who change laws on a whim.

 

You are either bull-shi**ing for the sake of it or you are void of commons sense and empathy, but I'll leave you with this...

And that sums it up very succinctly.

 

Key word: "Possibly", not absolutely. Now, I do agree that workers should have basic human rights to protect them from unworkable living conditions. See: Child labor laws. But those again, were laws. If the Democratic Party wants to strengthen labor laws, they can always pen them as legislation. That's what Gorsuch would rather see.

And as far as my personal opinion that the SCOTUS is an abomination? Whether it's Citizens United, or Hobby Lobby or Oberefell. These decisions being put to a Court and to quote Scalia: To be decided by 9 unelected bureaucrats is absurd. There's such a thing called Arbitration:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitration

I believe the Courts should always arbitrate cases where possible. In criminal cases, that's usually not the case. But with all of these social issues, arbitration should have been possible. But the Court has the power of the gavel, which decides and doesn't really allow for arbitration.

So you see, I find the SCOTUS to be a separate ledger of power all of its own, often untouched by politics with the exception of these politically biased hearings. And the idea of politically-leaning judges has created the corruption of the Court itself.

 

No. I agree with what the trucker did, however, it was in the lawful rights for his employer to that terminated him, even if the Judges wouldn't have personally made that same decision. It's not up to the Judges to rewrite the statures, that is up to our majoritarian lawmaking processes, Silly.

He read, interpreted and applied the law correctly. I would have done the same thing the trucker did, however, the law allowed for the employer to fire him for disobeying their policy. It's not the Judges role to rewrite the laws they don't like, that is the job of the Legislature, Silly.

Are you sure you want Conservative Judges rewriting laws they don't agree with?

 

It was absurd and he was the only one in dissent. Here is what Franken said and anyone with even just an ounce of logic must agree...

And apparently there were judges that did not agree with Gorsuch's dissent. Are they better judges? IMO...yes.

Here is a link that provides a more in depth look at how Gorsuch arrived at his dissent and when all is said and done, I have no less disdain for this guy that I believe has something very integral missing in his DNA.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/03/neil_gorsuch_s_arrogant_frozen_trucker_opinion_shows_he_wants_to_be_like.html

 

Correct. Gorsuch applied the law as written and left rewriting the law to the legislators.

I'll ask you again, do you really want Conservative judges who will rewrite the law if applying the law as written, leads to a result the disagree with?

 

They did not rewrite the law, they considered it with common sense and the variables as opposed to a robotic interpretation. I have had many personal experiences with people that do not belong in the job or careers that they have chosen and they do these services a huge injustice as well as the people that rely upon them. A physician might be an excellent diagnostician but with a cold and detached bedside manner that will only serve to sink the moral and or hope of his/her patient. There must be a human factor when you are dealing with people's lives and of that there is no compromise. Gorsuch is not meant for the career that he has chosen and for that, people who do not deserve to, have and will pay the price or suffer in some way.

 

Gorsuch is a judge, these people use language quite carefully, one cannot legally determine whether someone in the country without a visa is in fact an immigrant without determining if they intend to remain. Thus, though "undocumented alien" may be politically incorrect it is legally more accurate than "undocumented immigrant".

 

So you do not believe judges should decide based on the law but decide based on what they FEEL at the time? In that case you don't need judges just a panel like 'The View'. You also wouldn't need law makers anymore.

 

Uh... No. They did. This idiot driver, ran out of gas (unforgiveable in the trucking industry) then abandoned his load (even more unforgiveable) and was terminated by his employer, which, they had every right under law, to do. Gorsuch applied the law correctly. There is a provision in the law that prevents truckers from being termed for refusing to operate an unsafe vehicle. The driver was not termed for refusing to drive, he was termed for unhooking the trailer and driving off.

Gorsuch applied the law correctly, the employer was not prohibited by this statute from terminating the driver.

That is the realm of the employer. It's not for a small group of unelected judges to run roughshod over the rights of the employer who correctly apply the law. They read the law, correctly applied it, years later a group of robed do-gooders decided they didn't like the outcome and undid the results and forced the Trucking comany to pay back pay to the date of the termination, when the law as written allowed them to take the course of action they took? Absurd!

Gorsuch WILL be seated on the court, with a fitting assist from good old Anthony!


Gorsuch is EXACTLY the kind of Judge we need to keep these robed idiots in line. Thank You Trump, YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!

 

I completely disagree. There has to be an assurance that contracts we enter into are bound by the code in force when we entered into them. Say for example that you write a will, and for reasons known mainly to you, you do not inherit all your heirs at the same rate, and for reasons that you are not expressly clear about in your will. You say, for example, "I love all my children equally, and I leave 3/4ths of all my worldly goods to Mabel and the remainder to Seth.

Under your theory, Judges could determine that was "unfair" and rewite your will to split your assets equally.

Gorsuch would refuse such a move, noting that obviously this was your decision, within your rights, and it is not his role to stick his nose in it and redo it. He is just a Judge. And we need a lot more of that. You have convinced me that he is is EXACTLY to voice we need on the Court to replace Anthony, and interestingly enough, he will be seated, due to the acts of yet another Anthony.

 

Nonsense. Gorsuch was fabulous in that decision and what a wonderful Justice he is proving to be.

Time To Prosecute Steven Donziger Over The Chevron Shakedown?

It's the end of the line for the Chevron Shakedown crew, their final appeal was turned away at the Supreme Court. It’s a long, sordid story which we’ve been watching for years. If you’ve been following even a smattering of this tale you know most of the major details and the players involved.

The fraudulently obtained judgement in Ecuador which sought to drain tens of billions of dollars from Chevron was a disgrace. And the architect at the center of all of it was Manhattan attorney Steven Donziger. So spectacular were the lengths he went to in an effort to pick Chevron’s pockets that he was successfully sued by Chevron under federal racketeering laws. The judge in the case read off a laundry list of descriptions of precisely how fraudulent the attempted lawsuit had been, invoking words like coercion, bribery, corruption and money laundering.

Now at least the United States portion of that unpleasantness is over the editors at National Review have proposed one additional step. Given the staggering mountain of evidence as to his wrongdoing in this case and the intentional nature of what he tried to perpetrate, the Justice Department can bring charges against Donziger and make him answer for his deeds.

Judge Kaplan all but called for filing charges against Donziger and his allies in this matter, and now we call for them explicitly: The case against Chevron was, as the courts have affirmed, the product of egregious fraud, not only among corrupt politicians and judges in Ecuador but also among lawyers and political operatives here in the United States, all of them part of a fundamentally corrupt enterprise to pervert the legal system into a ruthless ripoff with tens of billions of dollars at stake. Oil companies may not be very sympathetic defendants, but Chevron has been obliged to spend millions upon millions of dollars defending itself from these claims. And Chevron shareholders, who ultimately foot the bill for this include two of the largest public-pension systems in the United States, those belonging to California and New York, are major institutional investors in Chevron. That’s whom this extortion attempt ultimately was aimed at.

The evidence all suggests that Steven Donziger and his allies were involved in a criminal conspiracy to extort billions of dollars from Chevron and that they used corrupt means, ranging from evidence tampering to outright bribery, to do it. This can and should produce a criminal prosecution in the United States, and we call on the United States Department of Justice to undertake it.

Judges have already looked this situation over and determined that Donziger worked with an army of other people to falsify records, elicit false testimony and engage in a pattern of misbehavior suitable for consideration under federal racketeering statutes. That's a conspiracy to defraud a company of billions of dollars.

The Justice Department should open up an investigation and bring charges if they are warranted. Perhaps that will dissuade some other pickpocket artists from attempting similar acts in the future.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/28/time-prosecute-steven-donziger-chevron-shakedown/