• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged SCotUS nominee - Neil Gorsuch

Dumb All Over said:
Good choice.
Click to expand...
Why?

Because it's another bone to the base?

I predict it will energize Progressives. If Trump wasn't so ignorant, he would have noticed that the pro-life, anti-gay crowd is dwindling every year. He didn't win the majority, his ratings are low, (they'll go lower now), yet he still thinks he's Dear Leader. But he's not and the majority in this country are not going to sit still.
 
Euthanasia
In his book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Gorsuch argued for "retaining the laws banning assisted suicide and euthanasia … based on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong".
Click to expand...
Hmm, I disagree with that, on three principles.
Principle 1: the sovereign citizen
Principle 2: mercy
Principle 3: taking your own life doesn't fit the "always wrong" -- always is one of those problem words -- even when it is usually tragic from one degree or another.
Case in point: Hunter S Thompson's suicide. sad, but understandable and the exercise of a free choice.

In this appointment, I don't see Trump "governing from the middle" ... but we'll see.

C_Felix: Thanks for the link.

SG: he hasn't been around long enough to be Dear Leader. He's still "new kid on the block" in this job.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why?

Because it's another bone to the base?

I predict it will energize Progressives. If Trump wasn't so ignorant, he would have noticed that the pro-life, anti-gay crowd is dwindling every year. He didn't win the majority, his ratings are low, (they'll go lower now), yet he still thinks he's Dear Leader. But he's not and the majority in this country are not going to sit still.
Click to expand...
Therefore, because it will energize Progressives, are you not extremely satisfied with Trump's choice and do you not support his nominee?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Hmm, I disagree with that, on three principles.
Principle 1: the sovereign citizen
Principle 2: mercy
Principle 3: taking your own life doesn't fit the "always wrong" -- always is one of those problem words -- even when it is usually tragic from one degree or another.
Case in point: Hunter S Thompson's suicide. sad, but understandable and the exercise of a free choice.

In this appointment, I don't see Trump "governing from the middle" ... but we'll see.

C_Felix: Thanks for the link.

SG: he hasn't been around long enough to be Dear Leader. He's still "new kid on the block" in this job.
Click to expand...

While he argued for retaining the laws, is there any indication that he would reimpose them from the bench if the laws were to be removed by the legislature?

Looking at the Wikipedia piece, I'm pretty ok with him, although I thought the Hobby Lobby decision was not a good one. It wasn't an awful one, either. The Pleasant Grove City case, though, could be a warning sign for me. I will have to read that opinion. The two sentence summary on the page doesn't really tell me enough.

I like the idea of "originalists" and am against "judicial activism", but sometimes there are judicial activists from the right, and those are just as bad as the ones from the left. (Worse, it my opinion, because they not only impose law from the bench, but impose bad law.)
 
Just took a peek at the Wikipedia for Summum v. Pleasant Grove City. There's something odd about it. It seems, at first glance, to be supportive of religious displays by cities, and yet it was a unanimous opinion. I can't see Ginsburg and Bryar going all out for public religious displays, unless there was more to the case than meets the Wikipedia page. I guess I'll have to actually read it.
 
Dumb All Over said:
Therefore, because it will energize Progressives, are you not extremely satisfied with Trump's choice and do you not support his nominee?
Click to expand...

No, I don't enjoy being pissed as hell. I would have preferred a more neutral nomination while we all await Trump's impeachment.
 
Meadmaker said:
While he argued for retaining the laws, is there any indication that he would reimpose them from the bench if the laws were to be removed by the legislature?
Click to expand...
Good question, don't know.

I like the idea of "originalists" and am against "judicial activism", but sometimes there are judicial activists from the right, and those are just as bad as the ones from the left.
Click to expand...
As the rest of the justices seem to be in decent health, I don't think there'll be another appointment (absent serious medical emergency) for at least a year. We'll see how this goes.
 
His life in Boulder, Colorado suggests maybe he's somewhat "green."

There no real comparison, IMO, to right-to-life stances and assisted-suicide stances. I think he's on solid ground re his resistant to assisted suicide. You can guess his position on Roe v. Wade but once jurists are on the Supreme Court they become more independent. So, not sure what to expect.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, I don't enjoy being pissed as hell. I would have preferred a more neutral nomination while we all await Trump's impeachment.
Click to expand...

... and his being replaced by Pence?

Isn't it time to accept that we have Trump?
 
Meadmaker said:
....

I like the idea of "originalists" and am against "judicial activism", but sometimes there are judicial activists from the right, and those are just as bad as the ones from the left. (Worse, it my opinion, because they not only impose law from the bench, but impose bad law.)
Click to expand...
Judicial activism is nothing except what's in the eye of the beholder. Scalia rationalized his decisions that weren't consistent just like all the other mere mortals.
 
Apparently Gorsuch is an impeccable choice, from the conservative perspective. He certainly seems reasonable enough that he'll get 100% support from Senate Republicans, and probably a few Democrats, at a minimum.

I predict that Schumer will not let the Senate filibuster die on this hill. He'll eventually cave, and the Democrats will continue to eat their own because of it. It will still be the right decision, though. Schumer has to keep the filibuster alive to be able to stop a more extreme nominee in the future (and one that would be replacing a Ginsburg or a Breyer).
 
casebro said:
... and his being replaced by Pence?

Isn't it time to accept that we have Trump?
Click to expand...

I've answered this before, not that I think anyone need have noticed or remembered.

Trump is dangerously mentally ill. Both Trump and Pence are unacceptable philosophically. That's -2 for Trump and -1 for Pence.

If you throw in the almost certain corruption that is Trump, that makes him a -3.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Good question, don't know.

As the rest of the justices seem to be in decent health, I don't think there'll be another appointment (absent serious medical emergency) for at least a year. We'll see how this goes.
Click to expand...

Nothing keeping some old Republicans from retiring while they are sure of being replaced by more republicans. Add the possibility of an old Dem getting dead, and we'll have the Young Republicans running the place-all three divisions!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I predict it will energize Progressives. If Trump wasn't so ignorant, he would have noticed that the pro-life, anti-gay crowd is dwindling every year.
Click to expand...

I predict it will energize social conservatives and of the rest of Trump's base far more. The conservative base is far more concerned about the supreme court then they are about whether the government functions. This ensures that no matter how much of a ship show Trump's administration is, his followers will vote in huge numbers both in 2018 (when they will increase their majority in the senate) and 2020 (when Trump will win a second term). The pro-life, anti-gay crowd might be dwindling every year, but they are reliable both in turns of turnout, and voting preference.
 
Dumb All Over said:
In other words, you would have preferred someone with a greatly diminished ability to energize the Progressives.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with your false dichotomy in this case. SCOTUS positions are decades long so that's another serious issue that isn't neutralized because Progressives are energized.
 
Last edited:
Wayward son said:
I predict it will energize social conservatives and of the rest of Trump's base far more. The conservative base is far more concerned about the supreme court then they are about whether the government functions. This ensures that no matter how much of a ship show Trump's administration is, his followers will vote in huge numbers both in 2018 (when they will increase their majority in the senate) and 2020 (when Trump will win a second term). The pro-life, anti-gay crowd might be dwindling every year, but they are reliable both in turns of turnout, and voting preference.
Click to expand...
Energized or not, you (and Trump) forget they are the minority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom