Merged SCotUS nominee - Neil Gorsuch

[BobTheCoward]

Well, that's certainly not me. Aside from giving $200 to Jim Thune in his Senate race against Tom Daschle, I have never given money to the Republican Party, a Republican candidate, or a Republican leaning PAC. And I've never lifted a finger otherwise except writing things few people read on the internet.

Interesting that you interpreted committed as money. I think the is as simple as how much do you write supports Republican policies over others.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, he certainly upset tens of millions of people, if not hundreds of millions. Including about 80% of the people I know.

Which makes sense since most people do not like him and did not vote for him.

 

[sunmaster14]

Interesting that you interpreted committed as money. I think the is as simple as how much do you write supports Republican policies over others.

But I write believe what I believe write. It has nothing to do with party. The reason I don't write so much about Republican policies I disagree with is because there's not much point to do so here. There are already dozens of other people doing it at any given time. Why pile on? It's uninteresting, and it discourages conservative/Republican voices on the forum.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why pile on? It's uninteresting, and it discourages conservative/Republican voices on the forum.

That sounds like a very partisan position. I will pile on people that generally agree with me to make clear we are not actually on the same side.

 

[sunmaster14]

That sounds like a very partisan position. I will pile on people that generally agree with me to make clear we are not actually on the same side.

I wouldn't really call it partisan, but I am on the same side of certain people even though I may disagree with them on major issues. People who adhere to certain conservative principles, and because of that experience the same kind of **** that I do (sanctimonious liberals attacking my character rather than engaging in good faith debate), will tend to earn my sympathy and loyalty. It's an affinity and alliance borne of shared experience. I'm not going to defend a position that I don't believe in, but I feel no obligation to attack it either.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

You highlighted the wrong part.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I wouldn't really call it partisan, but I am on the same side of certain people even though I may disagree with them on major issues. People who adhere to certain conservative principles, and because of that experience the same kind of **** that I do (sanctimonious liberals attacking my character rather than engaging in good faith debate), will tend to earn my sympathy and loyalty. It's an affinity and alliance borne of shared experience. I'm not going to defend a position that I don't believe in, but I feel no obligation to attack it either.

I would call it partisan and continue to do so.

Hello sun mcpartisanface.

I'm demonstrating my obligation to attack positions held by people with a shared affinity for.

 

[Ambrosia]

In my sincere opinion (and I have no doubt other libertarians and conservatives feel the same way), liberal justices do not respect the rule of law,

that's a staggering statement.

Justices, by definition, respect the rule of law. You political persuasion and religious ideology might colour your perception of the law, but to outright not respect the law when you are already a long serving judge?!!

That's just bonkers.

It's as though in the US you can put the words 'liberal' or 'socialist' in front of anything and instinctively half of the population are instantly repulsed by it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

that's a staggering statement.

Justices, by definition, respect the rule of law.

But not in practice. The current crop does not.

 

[Meadmaker]

My definition of partisan is different. I've always thought of it as putting party interests over national interests, at least in the short-term. I suppose one could argue that being a partisan is putting long-term national interests over short-term national interests (which would make me a partisan in that respect), but many partisans see their party as a vehicle for personal career advancement and so wanting what's good for the party might be more aligned with their own personal interests rather than with what they think the national interests are.

I think a better definition is putting party interests ahead of your own ideas.

In other words, "I don't like this bill, but I'm going to stick with my party and vote for it."

In some sense, it's the same definition, assuming at least some level of good faith on the part of legislators. If I like the bill, it is presumably because I think it's in the national interest.

That applies to legislators, but what about to citizens yapping on the internet? I think there are some people who mindlessly spout the arguments advanced by their favorite party, and always take the side of that party, regardless of principle.

 

[Wayward son]

Environmental. Plus just living in Boulder (if it's within city limits) encourages a few other liberal values.

I don't think living in a place is a strong indicator of environmental values. A previous Boulder native tried to dismantle the EPA (under Reagan), roll back the lead phase-out in gasoline, etc. Her name was Anne Gorsuch, the mother of this nominee.

 

[Wayward son]

While there may have been procedural ways to deny him the choice, I'm still surprised the Democrats did not raise holy hell about it and make it a cause célèbre*. Obama et al did seem to meekly slink off and allowed the Republicans to have their way without much of a fight. Surprised me, is all.

I agree. I chalk it up to the Dems thinking that they would come across as trying to make government work against an opposition that was trying to stop government from working. They thought that would work in their favour.

I think that the main reason Garland was nominated was because he was a moderate who Republicans had previously praised and who, due to age, would not have a long tenure on the SC. And this would further show that they were trying to do whatever they could to do to bring the Republicans on board, but the Republicans were simply unreasonable.

Worst case scenario, they thought, was Garland is not approved, Republicans look terrible, Clinton and a Dem Senate majority nominate a far-left justice who is young enough to have an impact on the SC for a long time.

They didn't realize that the conservative/Republican population is just as bad as the conservatives/Republicans in government. Pointing out that the Republicans in government were acting like extremists made republican voters feel proud, not ashamed.

 

[Belz...]

Not partisan at all.

You said that he was blocked because he was a liberal. If that's not partisan, nothing is.

If you can find a partisan that doesn't think their views are best for the country, please let me know.

You read it the wrong way around.

 

[logger]

So it was entirely a partisan move, then. It had nothing to do with the good of the country or the rule of law or anything principled like that.

The good of the country is my conservative principles, not your liberal principles. So yes purely partisan move and it was brilliant and bold.

 

[Belz...]

Not according to the Supreme Court.

Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the entire first part of the second amendment to the United States constitution is irrelevant. Let that sink in.

 

[Belz...]

The good of the country is my conservative principles, not your liberal principles.

That is a tremendously stupid and self-centered thing to say. "What I think is best" is the exact opposite of objective, rational thought.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the entire first part of the second amendment to the United States constitution is irrelevant. Let that sink in.

According to any sensible reading it is irrelevant.

 

[logger]

But why did they block Garland? What did he do that was so objectionable? Even the GOP leadership was not objecting to Garland per se, but to the questionable assumption that a President should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his last year in office (and towards the end of the 2016 election, when it looked like Clinton would win, they were whispering that President Clinton should not be allowed to nominate one either...).

They blocked because he was liberal. The left lost a great opportunity to change the court. They failed because Obama wouldn't fight for it.

It again was a brilliant bold move by McConnell. Now the left is screwed, Trump will get more appointments.

 

[Minoosh]

I don't think living in a place is a strong indicator of environmental values. A previous Boulder native tried to dismantle the EPA (under Reagan), roll back the lead phase-out in gasoline, etc. Her name was Anne Gorsuch, the mother of this nominee.

Yes, I picked up on that detail.

IMO federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are probably less predictable than one might think, based on who appointed them. I believe some have admitted that their written opinions are judicial cover for their own (sometimes) emotion-laden decisions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That is a tremendously stupid and self-centered thing to say. "What I think is best" is the exact opposite of objective, rational thought.

It isn't objective. It certainly is rational.