• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gorsuch's Triumphs

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,364
If we're going to carefully scrutinise Kavanaugh's record since joining SCOTUS, maybe it's time to do the same with Neil Gorsuch.

From my distance, he appears to be the perfect Justice. I've noticed his name alongside RBG a couple of times, including an important dissent, so there's no questions of partisanship, and it looks like he's made decisions based on evidence and the Constitution rather than any political position.

I was very surprised to see such an alleged capital C conservative voting for FUCT in their copyright case, and I see he also sided with the liberal wing on Native American rights.

Am I missing something important, or is my assessment of Gorsuch as an excellent judge entirely correct?
 
The Atheist said:
If we're going to carefully scrutinise Kavanaugh's record since joining SCOTUS, maybe it's time to do the same with Neil Gorsuch.

From my distance, he appears to be the perfect Justice. I've noticed his name alongside RBG a couple of times, including an important dissent, so there's no questions of partisanship, and it looks like he's made decisions based on evidence and the Constitution rather than any political position.
...
Am I missing something important, or is my assessment of Gorsuch as an excellent judge entirely correct?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that Gorsuch has only been sitting on the supreme court for a couple of years, and while supreme court rulings are generally important, none have been over the issue of abortion.

And while he has voted with Ginsberg on some cases, he has also voted in opposition to her in several cases:

- On multiple capital punishment cases
- On a First amendment (religious) case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucklew_v._Precythe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_v._Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Legion_v._American_Humanist_Association

And even when Gorsuch voted with the more liberal judges, his decision wasn't necessarily based on ideology. (For example, one case where he voted with Ginsburg, his opinion was based on the ambiguity in the law.)

At this point, while a person can't dismiss the possibility that maybe Gorsuch will be a fair and non-ideological judge, its far too early to make that decision, and the evidence is suggesting that he will probably be more 'right wing' than 'impartial/swing vote/etc.'
 
A little more about Gorsuch's voting record:

From: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/neil-gorsuch-is-paying-off-for-trump-so-far/
(An article from mid-2017)...

Trump’s travel ban, while unanimously allowing the ban to take partial effect...Gorsuch wanted the court to go even further in allowing all of the travel ban to go into effect.
...
In each of the 15 cases he’s weighed in on so far, Gorsuch has sided with the court’s single most conservative member, Justice Clarence Thomas.

So, I think its safe to conclude that Gorsuch is a right-wing douche bag.

Maybe he may change over time... but I wouldn't count on it. And one or 2 rulings where he happens to side with Liberals for whatever reasons isn't really significant compared to the other rulings where he's been far-right.
 
"Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, he is an advocate of natural law jurisprudence."

Throw out the old Constitution and apply fictional natural law.
 
Segnosaur said:
And while he has voted with Ginsberg on some cases, he has also voted in opposition to her in several cases:

- On multiple capital punishment cases
- On a First amendment (religious) case
Click to expand...

Those are pretty predictable - anyone even slightly conservative is going to like the death penalty, and I always thought the cross case was bordering on vexatious - it's been there a century and crosses are highly associated with war deaths, even in very secular countries.

Segnosaur said:
In each of the 15 cases he’s weighed in on so far, Gorsuch has sided with the court’s single most conservative member, Justice Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...

That, I didn't know. Interesting.

The thread can be a record of his voting and position.

It could be that Kavanaugh has already displayed all the hallmarks of a shocking Justoce that Gorsuch doesn't look too bad.
 
The Atheist said:
If we're going to carefully scrutinise Kavanaugh's record since joining SCOTUS, maybe it's time to do the same with Neil Gorsuch.

From my distance, he appears to be the perfect Justice. I've noticed his name alongside RBG a couple of times, including an important dissent, so there's no questions of partisanship, and it looks like he's made decisions based on evidence and the Constitution rather than any political position.

I was very surprised to see such an alleged capital C conservative voting for FUCT in their copyright case, and I see he also sided with the liberal wing on Native American rights.

Am I missing something important, or is my assessment of Gorsuch as an excellent judge entirely correct?
Click to expand...
He joined with the court in denying Brendan Dassey justice with no comment.

Here is a good summary

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d3beccdd7a3_story.html?utm_term=.83a2953632ce

Who you understand is the American Teina Pora without the money grubbing aspect that Teina Pora employed for his descent into hell.

You should read the withering dissenting judgements by 3 women at Wisconsin Court of Appeals level prior to Gorsuch assenting to the travesty.
From the link:

"The three dissenting judges called the decision “a profound miscarriage of justice.”"

Gorsuch becomes jointly complicit, as does family pet RBG.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
He joined with the court in denying Brendan Dassey justice with no comment.
Click to expand...

Thereby following a long-established precedent, which is no doubt why RBG joined the consensus. US laws don't work like ours, and you should probably understand that before going off half-cocked.

Samson said:
Here is a good summary
Click to expand...

Lot of maybes in there.

If you want to point the finger at anyone, start with his mother and uncle. His mother allowed the interrogation, and the uncle could easily have said Brendan had no involvement.

Samson said:
"The three dissenting judges called the decision “a profound miscarriage of justice.”"
Click to expand...

While the majority opinion said:

"The interrogation took place in a comfortable setting, without any physical coercion or intimidation, without even raised voices, and over a relatively brief time. Dassey provided many of the most damning details himself in response to open-ended questions."

Yet, you know for sure it's wrong.

Has there ever been a murder conviction you agree with?

Gorsuch becomes jointly complicit, as does family pet RBG.[/QUOTE]
 
There are long threads on Brendan Dassey, and not a single contributor believes he is guilty. Steven Avery is another matter.

I will post the dissenting judgement to the correct thread, and that judgement should have alerted the supreme court that it is a matter of public interest. If there is a difference, our supreme court does not issue judgements without comment.
A judgement without comment is the total abrogation of responsibility, and exercised frequently at the USA supreme court. I would totally discount the idea that RBG is satisfied in the finality in Brendan Dassey as a factual matter, but I know this also to be true of our chief justice in Lundy.
They should all be in purgatory for their behaviour, including Gorsuch.
I see no point in discussing cases of obvious guilt, which comprise 99% of murder convictions, except to connect the dots and move on.
 
Last edited:
Too soon to tell. However, there is a long tradition of SCt. justices not being the people their nominating presidents wanted them to be.
 
Samson said:
If there is a difference, our supreme court does not issue judgements without comment.
A judgement without comment is the total abrogation of responsibility, and exercised frequently at the USA supreme court. I would totally discount the idea that RBG is satisfied in the finality in Brendan Dassey as a factual matter, but I know this also to be true of our chief justice in Lundy.
Click to expand...

Jesus, I almost feel the need to resort to the rolling eyes emoji - I just knew Lundy would come up.

You're missing the point - SCOTUS was only interested in whether the procedure was fair & reasonable; they don't even consider guilt or innocence. They correctly decided the mother's and the defendant's consent was enough. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Please do start a thread on the guy, though - I promise to completely ignore it.

Loss Leader said:
Too soon to tell. However, there is a long tradition of SCt. justices not being the people their nominating presidents wanted them to be.
Click to expand...

Yep, true. I hope Gorsuch turns out to be one of those, but at least we know for sure he's capable of not taking the partisan line.
 
The Atheist said:
Jesus, I almost feel the need to resort to the rolling eyes emoji - I just knew Lundy would come up.

You're missing the point - SCOTUS was only interested in whether the procedure was fair & reasonable; they don't even consider guilt or innocence. They correctly decided the mother's and the defendant's consent was enough. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Please do start a thread on the guy, though - I promise to completely ignore it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your brief essay on the function of Gorsuch and co.
You are right in a restricted sense, but a supreme court is supreme because it can do as it wishes, including correcting miscarriages of justice.
Well done for proclaiming the matter to be a triumph for any of them.
 
The Atheist said:
In each of the 15 cases he’s weighed in on so far, Gorsuch has sided with the court’s single most conservative member, Justice Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...
That, I didn't know. Interesting.
...
It could be that Kavanaugh has already displayed all the hallmarks of a shocking Justoce that Gorsuch doesn't look too bad.
Click to expand...
That's certainly possible.

Or maybe Gorsuch saw the type of reputation that Kavanaugh has given the court and has decided to back away from being another right-wing rubber stamp.

Or maybe Gorsuch has seen the type of flack Trump and the Republicans are getting, and wants to appear a little more moderate for the next few years (until after the next election at least) before returning to his hard-right positions.

Or maybe its just a case of 'random noise'... picking out a few cases that don't really mean much of significance in order to paint him as a moderate and ignoring all the cases that DO show him taking a far-right stance.

But of all the possibilities, I'd probably go with your "Kavanaugh just makes him look better than he really is" theory.
 
applecorped said:
LOL, he voted along with some of the liberal justices so he must be okay.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

What makes him look ok so far is not going along with the Republican agenda.

As noted, it's early days, and I want to keep a record of where he's going and what he's voted on.

The Great Zaganza said:
Gorsuch just help deliver unlimited Gerrymandering to Republicans.

In other words: whether or not the US is a democracy is of no concern to this Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I was reading that this morning, and I tend to agree with the majority - it's a political issue not for the court to decide.

It works both ways, you know - and even if the Dems weren't on board with it, they will be now.

Segnosaur said:
And in another case, Gorsuch sided with other conservative judges (Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas) regarding the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census.
Click to expand...

That one's a bit more damning, and the dissent seems to be pretty lightweight.
 
The Atheist said:
Gorsuch just help deliver unlimited Gerrymandering to Republicans.

In other words: whether or not the US is a democracy is of no concern to this Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I was reading that this morning, and I tend to agree with the majority - it's a political issue not for the court to decide.
Click to expand...
If its not for the courts to decide, then who will make the decision when a particular state is gerrymandered to the point where its unfair?

If you say "politicians should decide", how exactly will that work if one party has gerrymandered districts to the point where it is firmly entrenched in power?

It works both ways, you know - and even if the Dems weren't on board with it, they will be now.
Click to expand...
Actually it is true that the democrats have engaged in gerrymandering as well. I think the problem is the degree and effect that the republicans have taken the concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom