And here is an exceedingly fair review of his judicial career and holdings to date.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
It's Neil Gorsuch
- Thread starter CowboyJD
- Start date
Congratulations!
You can now say you argued a case before a Supreme Court Justice.
You can now say you argued a case before a Supreme Court Justice.
It's a good choice in my book.
Just read an opinion today where Justice Gorsuch questioned and excepted every pro-policy holder point and embraced every pro-insurance company point. He even managed to avoid applying the old rule that ambiguities are construed against the insurer.
He's pro-big business and anti-consumer. This is EXACTLY what drain the swamp and maga means to me -- foxes over the hen house. He's so pro-big business that it's not even funny.
He's pro-big business and anti-consumer. This is EXACTLY what drain the swamp and maga means to me -- foxes over the hen house. He's so pro-big business that it's not even funny.
Because you are a conservative guy in my opinion. Not far right but right of center. I get why someone who is a stand up person with three daughters doesn't like trump but can you imagine the liberal nut Hillary would have nominated? The Supreme Court balance was what drove Christians and right of center folks to hold their nose and color in trump.
I'm a true conservative and a textualist in my jurisprudence.
I do, however, like my SCOTUS justices to be firey, highly opinionated, and acerbic with their written opinions. My favorite justices of the modern era (from a personality viewpoint...not necessarily a jurisprudential perspective) have been:
-Scalia
-The Notorious RBG
-Thurgood Marshall.
I've always gotten a huge kick out of knowing that Scalia and Ginsburg were fast friends for a long time despite being near polar opposites jurisprudentially.
Ginsberg and Scalia are an example for all of us. I wish I had that in me.
Textualist in my jurisprudence? I don't speak all that Ching Chong Chang
Textualist in my jurisprudence? I don't speak all that Ching Chong Chang
Do your research.
Words have meaning.....no need to argue what legislators "meant to say" if the words are clear and explicit.
I've heard arguments that fall outside of that parameter and it makes their opinions no different than the old men at the domino parlor. Textual jurisprudence. I'll add this to my lexicon.
I like the word "jurisprudence"...in all its various forms.
I might be using it too much.
I like words, in general.
And beer.
That's why I'm a talkative drunk.
Last edited:
It's 80% of why I voted for him.
Unanimously passed by Senate in 2006. Graduate of Columbia, Harvard and Oxford. Nutjob, I'm sure.
Last edited:
Judge Napalitano declared him the most qualified judge in the country.
Right behind Garland I am sure ;-) Seriously the shit these guys go through...
My dad cucked out and might not have voted for trump, he won't tell me, but he is a conservative. Tonight I told him he was welcome because I voted for the person who would build the Supreme Court he would support.
Turd just grinned and said it was a great choice.
Tell that to John Roberts.
I have to confess I dig it because it's just a perpetual F you to someone.
Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch
By NEAL K. KATYAL
JANUARY 31, 2017
I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration. Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
The nomination comes at a fraught moment. The new administration’s executive actions on immigration have led to chaos everywhere from the nation’s airports to the Department of Justice. They have raised justified concern about whether the new administration will follow the law. More than ever, public confidence in our system of government depends on the impartiality and independence of the courts.
There is a very difficult question about whether there should be a vote on President Trump’s nominee at all, given the Republican Senate’s history-breaking record of obstruction on Judge Merrick B. Garland — perhaps the most qualified nominee ever for the high court. But if the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, should be at the top of the list.
I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.
Considerable doubts about the direction of the Supreme Court have emerged among Democrats in recent weeks, particularly given some of the names that have been floated by the administration for possible nomination. With environmental protection, reproductive rights, privacy, executive power and the rights of criminal defendants (including the death penalty) on the court’s docket, the stakes are tremendous. I, for one, wish it were a Democrat choosing the next justice. But since that is not to be, one basic criterion should be paramount: Is the nominee someone who will stand up for the rule of law and say no to a president or Congress that strays beyond the Constitution and laws?
I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he would follow in the tradition of Justice Elena Kagan, who voted against President Obama when she felt a part of the Affordable Care Act went too far. In particular, he has written opinions vigorously defending the paramount duty of the courts to say what the law is, without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal statutes, including our immigration laws.
In a pair of immigration cases, De Niz Robles v. Lynch and Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Judge Gorsuch ruled against attempts by the government to retroactively interpret the law to disfavor immigrants. In a separate opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, he criticized the legal doctrine that federal courts must often defer to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal law, warning that such deference threatens the separation of powers designed by the framers. When judges defer to the executive about the law’s meaning, he wrote, they “are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law.” In strong terms, Judge Gorsuch called that a “problem for the judiciary” and “a problem for the people whose liberties may now be impaired” by “an avowedly politicized administrative agent seeking to pursue whatever policy whim may rule the day.” That reflects a deep conviction about the role of the judiciary in preserving the rule of law.
That conviction will serve the court and the country well. Last week, The Denver Post encouraged the president to nominate Judge Gorsuch in part because “a justice who does his best to interpret the Constitution or statute and apply the law of the land without prejudice could go far to restore faith in the highest court of the land.”
I couldn’t agree more. Right about now, the public could use some reassurance that no matter how chaotic our politics become, the members of the Supreme Court will uphold the oath they must take: to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” I am confident Neil Gorsuch will live up to that promise.
Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, is a law professor at Georgetown and a partner at Hogan Lovells.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
By NEAL K. KATYAL
JANUARY 31, 2017
I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration. Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
The nomination comes at a fraught moment. The new administration’s executive actions on immigration have led to chaos everywhere from the nation’s airports to the Department of Justice. They have raised justified concern about whether the new administration will follow the law. More than ever, public confidence in our system of government depends on the impartiality and independence of the courts.
There is a very difficult question about whether there should be a vote on President Trump’s nominee at all, given the Republican Senate’s history-breaking record of obstruction on Judge Merrick B. Garland — perhaps the most qualified nominee ever for the high court. But if the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, should be at the top of the list.
I believe this, even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum. I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.
Considerable doubts about the direction of the Supreme Court have emerged among Democrats in recent weeks, particularly given some of the names that have been floated by the administration for possible nomination. With environmental protection, reproductive rights, privacy, executive power and the rights of criminal defendants (including the death penalty) on the court’s docket, the stakes are tremendous. I, for one, wish it were a Democrat choosing the next justice. But since that is not to be, one basic criterion should be paramount: Is the nominee someone who will stand up for the rule of law and say no to a president or Congress that strays beyond the Constitution and laws?
I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he would follow in the tradition of Justice Elena Kagan, who voted against President Obama when she felt a part of the Affordable Care Act went too far. In particular, he has written opinions vigorously defending the paramount duty of the courts to say what the law is, without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal statutes, including our immigration laws.
In a pair of immigration cases, De Niz Robles v. Lynch and Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Judge Gorsuch ruled against attempts by the government to retroactively interpret the law to disfavor immigrants. In a separate opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela, he criticized the legal doctrine that federal courts must often defer to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal law, warning that such deference threatens the separation of powers designed by the framers. When judges defer to the executive about the law’s meaning, he wrote, they “are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law.” In strong terms, Judge Gorsuch called that a “problem for the judiciary” and “a problem for the people whose liberties may now be impaired” by “an avowedly politicized administrative agent seeking to pursue whatever policy whim may rule the day.” That reflects a deep conviction about the role of the judiciary in preserving the rule of law.
That conviction will serve the court and the country well. Last week, The Denver Post encouraged the president to nominate Judge Gorsuch in part because “a justice who does his best to interpret the Constitution or statute and apply the law of the land without prejudice could go far to restore faith in the highest court of the land.”
I couldn’t agree more. Right about now, the public could use some reassurance that no matter how chaotic our politics become, the members of the Supreme Court will uphold the oath they must take: to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” I am confident Neil Gorsuch will live up to that promise.
Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, is a law professor at Georgetown and a partner at Hogan Lovells.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Said by a Democrat. Unfortunately, elections have consequences, as does the changing of Senate rules for solely partisan purposes. Republicans blocked Garland and can approve Gorsuch with or without Senate Democrat approval, all because Harry Reid was an egotistical moron. Thanks Harry!
Good choice though. Dems would be stupid to attempt to delay or derail...
Nice, just saw his yearbook profile, he was the founder of his Prep school's Fascism Forever club............... should fit right in
Last edited:
I'm more concerned that he was a "Lousy Spanish Student." Clearly he hates people who speak Spanish.
I am outraged.Nice, just saw his yearbook profile, he was the founder of his Prep school's Fascism Forever club............... should fit right in
Similar threads
