Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

librechik

(30,674 posts)
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:39 AM Mar 2017

as a CO native I have to say, Gorsuch seems to be a straight shooter.

He shows the brilliance of a broad liberal education. He is a bit slow on drawing lines between dots, and I think it's a mistake to claim he can be totally above politics. Judges listen to people, and people are nothing if not politics. But it is a judicial attitude, and I appreciate that. He seems to be utterly respectful of the law, which in itself is a hopeful sign. Some on the Roberts court could care less.

If it weren't for the FACT of the astounding crime of withholding Merrick Garland's hearing, in itself obviously a travesty of civil rights, I could live with this. ANY FUCKING VERTEBRATE would be better than Scalia.

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
as a CO native I have to say, Gorsuch seems to be a straight shooter. (Original Post) librechik Mar 2017 OP
He's a phoney flamingdem Mar 2017 #1
Gorsuch seems to be a smoother version of Scalia. guillaumeb Mar 2017 #2
And possibly further right dhol82 Mar 2017 #6
Did he learn his ethics at his mother's knee? guillaumeb Mar 2017 #9
Yup, there is that. dhol82 Mar 2017 #10
It's the "corporate shill" part that disqualifies him, in my mind. Anti-consumer is not good. SharonAnn Mar 2017 #14
He's a slime BannonsLiver Mar 2017 #3
Oh heavens no, he will do everything Scalia did, but with a smile. Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #4
And will go beyond Scalia's conservatism. JudyM Mar 2017 #61
I'm thinking, it could be a lot worse Motley13 Mar 2017 #5
straight shooter or slick as goose shit? spanone Mar 2017 #7
He's too slick. Too cutsie.. Qualified or not, no President under Federal investigation Ninga Mar 2017 #8
Operative word is "seems." WinkyDink Mar 2017 #11
They all make nice and act reasonable during the confirmation process. brush Mar 2017 #12
+Infinity - nt KingCharlemagne Mar 2017 #50
Can you convince him to publicly endorse Merick Garland for the job he's currently nominated for? Jonny Appleseed Mar 2017 #13
He did, sort of--but then said the hearing issue was political and wouldn't comment librechik Mar 2017 #18
I'd say it's a legal issue when a party conspires to directly obstruct articles of the constitution Jonny Appleseed Mar 2017 #21
I agree--whom do we appeal to? librechik Mar 2017 #22
The fact that he stands as a nominee for a vacancy that occurred Tanuki Mar 2017 #41
He'll probably be confirmed, The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #15
I don't trust him. And we need to avenge Obama's stolen SCOTUS seat. MoonRiver Mar 2017 #16
See here: emulatorloo Mar 2017 #17
His rulings indicate he would be at least as conservative as Scalia, and likely more so. BzaDem Mar 2017 #19
He is to the right of Scalia! How is that ok? He's just better at selling himself. JudyM Mar 2017 #63
my bottom line is--if Gorsuch were really interested in law, he should have recused the nomination librechik Mar 2017 #20
+ a brazillion! All those Republicans on the Trump Train are just opportunists. nt tblue37 Mar 2017 #24
Yes - this FakeNoose Mar 2017 #28
+1 uponit7771 Mar 2017 #67
The only good thing I can say about him is that he writes well. As someone who teaches tblue37 Mar 2017 #23
I just tuned in to watch a few minutes of Sen Durbin questioning Gorsuch SticksnStones Mar 2017 #25
he's a smooth-talking extremist - he's not honest at all, he's a total creep Fast Walker 52 Mar 2017 #26
Here we go. Iggo Mar 2017 #27
Gorsuch is a conservative corporatist, but is unfortunately qualified Freethinker65 Mar 2017 #29
Actually in the last 40 years only repugs have been stopped yeoman6987 Mar 2017 #38
True, but was referring to all nominees, not just Supreme Court. Freethinker65 Mar 2017 #44
Sorry. I miss understood yeoman6987 Mar 2017 #58
This message was self-deleted by its author Kingofalldems Mar 2017 #47
Because Republicans nominate extremists. sharedvalues Mar 2017 #55
I trust nothing MFM008 Mar 2017 #30
I don't trust him. BainsBane Mar 2017 #31
It's not as if we have much choice in the matter. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #32
+1 n/t librechik Mar 2017 #36
He makes Trump look normal for picking him. If we can not vote him down it might be best to move on. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #40
Sadly, that is pretty much the bottom line... gilbert sullivan Mar 2017 #56
Reality is a cruel master. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #57
He was willing to take a nomination.... Thomas Hurt Mar 2017 #33
It doesn't matter what we think. He's going to be confirmed. Vinca Mar 2017 #34
I think the next is Thomas. yeoman6987 Mar 2017 #39
I can't get past the frozen trucker ruling. redwitch Mar 2017 #35
er yeah--bit of a stickler isn't he? heheh n/t librechik Mar 2017 #48
He shoots women's rights. milestogo Mar 2017 #37
If trump picked him.. mrsv Mar 2017 #42
Trump did not pick him Skittles Mar 2017 #51
BS BS BS BS--this is a man who said that women "manipulate maternity leave" niyad Mar 2017 #43
thanks for the info. And of course he is. librechik Mar 2017 #49
No and Fuck No. He's just another misogynistic tool of the KGOP. nt JTFrog Mar 2017 #45
and more:Neil Gorsuch: Corporations Have Rights. Women? Not So Much. niyad Mar 2017 #46
thank you for this post DonCoquixote Mar 2017 #59
this deserves its own OP. niyad Mar 2017 #64
Absolutely not. Gorsuch will strengthen inequality sharedvalues Mar 2017 #52
A trip down memory lane...try that there "waterboarding" - see how affective it is.. asiliveandbreathe Mar 2017 #53
oh, yikes. Thx for the links everybody! n/t! librechik Mar 2017 #54
He's been the opposite. Panich52 Mar 2017 #60
Fuck him. denbot Mar 2017 #62
his only goal is to dodge all questions lame54 Mar 2017 #65
GORSUCH IS PRO VOTER SUPPRESSION !!! WTF Kind of OP is this?!!?!?! uponit7771 Mar 2017 #66
changed my mind n/t librechik Mar 2017 #69
Dafuq? Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #68
changed my mind n/t librechik Mar 2017 #70
No way! He is to the right od Scalia! fun n serious Mar 2017 #71
yes, I truly get that now n/t librechik Mar 2017 #72

dhol82

(9,353 posts)
10. Yup, there is that.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:51 AM
Mar 2017

I don't trust him.
Also wanted to puke when he started to look like he was going to cry while responding to a question about his compassion.
The man will be fair and balanced only as long as it agrees with his right wing principles.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,112 posts)
4. Oh heavens no, he will do everything Scalia did, but with a smile.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:42 AM
Mar 2017

No, this appointment signals the end to the last 100 years.

Everything accomplished, gone.

spanone

(135,844 posts)
7. straight shooter or slick as goose shit?
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:43 AM
Mar 2017

i'll go with the goose.

he's going to be on the court for decades.

and trump nominated this guy so he's suspect as hell.

Ninga

(8,275 posts)
8. He's too slick. Too cutsie.. Qualified or not, no President under Federal investigation
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:43 AM
Mar 2017

should be affronted any rights. Including nominating a life time judge.

brush

(53,784 posts)
12. They all make nice and act reasonable during the confirmation process.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:54 AM
Mar 2017

Last edited Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Roberts did the same thing.

The Dems should filibuster no matter if the repugs threaten the nuke option, or even do it (I don't think they will though because they know they won't be in power for forever).

Remember, this is a stolen nomination. F_uck them.

 

Jonny Appleseed

(960 posts)
13. Can you convince him to publicly endorse Merick Garland for the job he's currently nominated for?
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:56 AM
Mar 2017

No?

Then he's amoral partisan scum.

librechik

(30,674 posts)
18. He did, sort of--but then said the hearing issue was political and wouldn't comment
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:29 PM
Mar 2017

During Leahy's questions

like I said, I think it's a mistake for him to simply ignore politics. But it is a "judicial" stance.

librechik

(30,674 posts)
22. I agree--whom do we appeal to?
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:43 PM
Mar 2017

I don't think anyone knows what to do about it. Except of coure the PuKKKes want to just ignore it and continue sipping their juleps on the plantation veranda.

Tanuki

(14,918 posts)
41. The fact that he stands as a nominee for a vacancy that occurred
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:58 PM
Mar 2017

during Obama's administration is itself a "political issue" in an of itself, and a disgraceful one at that. It is profoundly dishonorable of him to be not only a party to this offense against the order of law, but a direct beneficiary of unconscionable corruption for the rest of his life. I will not cut him an inch of slack. He is actively colluding with an overthrow of our system of government. The only name in legitimate consideration is Merrick Garland. Placing anyone else on the court will taint every decision in the next 30 years in which Gorsuch casts a deciding vote. This is intolerable.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,731 posts)
15. He'll probably be confirmed,
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:59 AM
Mar 2017

and if he isn't they'll just come up with another right-winger. The sad thing is that the two runners-up for this appointment were even worse.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
16. I don't trust him. And we need to avenge Obama's stolen SCOTUS seat.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 11:59 AM
Mar 2017

I know he'll probably be pushed through by McTurtle, but at least we will have stood up for our principles. Plus, once we take back the Senate and presidency, WE will be completely justified in using the nuclear option for OUR SCOTUS nominees.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
19. His rulings indicate he would be at least as conservative as Scalia, and likely more so.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:34 PM
Mar 2017

On deference to administrative agencies, Scalia was actually slightly better than Gorsuch. The latter has called into question whether or not courts should defer to agencies at all, whereas the former has often deferred to agencies (and supported such deference when it was called into question).

Scalia is likely more socially conservative than Gorsuch, but I don't think that would affect the vote of any case. On cases involving abortion/gay rights/etc, Gorsuch is clearly in the Republican "mainstream" that opposes judicial intervention.

librechik

(30,674 posts)
20. my bottom line is--if Gorsuch were really interested in law, he should have recused the nomination
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:34 PM
Mar 2017

until after the hypothetical Merrick Garland hearing. It's the little things you let slip by that turn a civilization bad.

FakeNoose

(32,641 posts)
28. Yes - this
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:18 PM
Mar 2017

I totally agree.

If Gorsuch is tone-deaf to the politics of his nomination, then he'll be tone-deaf to everything on the Supreme Court too. What is there in his judicial record got him noticed by Trump anyway?

Does Trump even know this guy? I don't think so.
We can't rush into this when there's an impeachment on the horizon.



tblue37

(65,394 posts)
23. The only good thing I can say about him is that he writes well. As someone who teaches
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:49 PM
Mar 2017

writing and therefore must deal with a lot of seriously bad writing, I do like to read something written well.

SticksnStones

(2,108 posts)
25. I just tuned in to watch a few minutes of Sen Durbin questioning Gorsuch
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:04 PM
Mar 2017

Gorsuch comes across as phony, awful full of himself and a bit of a tool.

Reminded me of Scalia with a better haircut.

Trump is going down. If the republicans want to resurrect their brand they should pull Gorsuch's nomination and put up Garland. It would go along way to offer penance for what the leader of their party has done. They could crow all across media about genuinely bringing Americans together. That would be an act of true leadership.

And as a bonus, they can still fund-raise like mad on the fact that Roe v Wade remains the law of the land.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
26. he's a smooth-talking extremist - he's not honest at all, he's a total creep
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:10 PM
Mar 2017
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/20/ari_berman_supreme_court_pick_neil

Ari Berman Reveals Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading GOP Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts


https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/20/college_classmate_neil_gorsuch_attacked_anti

College Classmate: Neil Gorsuch Attacked Anti-Apartheid & Civil Rights Protesters & Defended Contras

Freethinker65

(10,023 posts)
29. Gorsuch is a conservative corporatist, but is unfortunately qualified
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:18 PM
Mar 2017

Unlike Republicans, the Democrats tend to vote to confirm qualified nominees regardless of the nominee's ideology. That was admirable when it was expected all nominees would respect the constitution and realize they will be working on behalf of all American citizens. Unfortunately now, in the age of loyalty oaths to Trump/Bannon, all bets are off.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
38. Actually in the last 40 years only repugs have been stopped
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:50 PM
Mar 2017

Harriet Myers and a few of reagans like bork. No democratic nominee has been stopped except gerrick. Heck RBG got 99 votes. That's unheard of today regardless of party.

Freethinker65

(10,023 posts)
44. True, but was referring to all nominees, not just Supreme Court.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:04 PM
Mar 2017

Was Ms. Myers voted on? I thought her nomination got pulled. Yes, Bork was "borked".

Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #38)

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
55. Because Republicans nominate extremists.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:55 PM
Mar 2017

Garland is a former prosecutor and hardly super liberal.

There are no equivalents of Bork and Miers on the left because Democratic administrations have appointed skilled patriotic lawyers, and Republicans like Nixon and Bush appoint lawyers who put party and personal loyalty over country.

Bork followed Nixon's orders after two other more patriotic GOP lawyers had demurred. Miers had few qualifications other than loyalty to Bush.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
40. He makes Trump look normal for picking him. If we can not vote him down it might be best to move on.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:52 PM
Mar 2017

I rather talk about Russia and Chump Care. Those are winners for us.

Thomas Hurt

(13,903 posts)
33. He was willing to take a nomination....
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:48 PM
Mar 2017

after the GOP Senate arguably violated their oaths and absconded with it.

Being the originalist and conservative christian.......you would think he would have a problem with that.

But I guess power and money makes those absolutist conservative christians more flexible.

Vinca

(50,276 posts)
34. It doesn't matter what we think. He's going to be confirmed.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 01:48 PM
Mar 2017

It's hard to imagine he could be as bad as Scalia, but time will tell. I'm more worried about the next opening.

mrsv

(209 posts)
42. If trump picked him..
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:01 PM
Mar 2017

He can't be good...the devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for ...don't be fooled by Gorsuch!

niyad

(113,329 posts)
43. BS BS BS BS--this is a man who said that women "manipulate maternity leave"
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:03 PM
Mar 2017

What Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS Pick, Means for American Women

Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court, is a consistently conservative judge who’d enter the court at a critical moment for reproductive rights. Though Gorsuch, a federal judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has never ruled on an abortion rights case, his record shows him to be hostile to women’s health care and willing to give broad leeway to institutions that want to discriminate against women.

Women will be affected by every decision that comes out of the next iteration of the Supreme Court, of course, whether the cases deal with voting rights, labor issues, immigrant rights, civil liberties, criminal justice, or any other area of law. Because women make less money than men, shoulder the bulk of home and family responsibilities, and have less access to traditional spheres of power, they are in fact particularly dependent on legal protections, and they will likely be disproportionately impacted by any harm that comes from the court’s decisions.


Nowhere is that clearer than in the field of public health. Anti-abortion advocates believe Trump and his pick will lead their fight to overturn Roe v. Wade, a strong, if imperfect, safeguard of abortion rights. A recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights found that 22 states would be likely to roll back abortion rights immediately if Roe were overturned. Some of these states already have anti-abortion laws on the books that predate Roe (that means they’re currently unenforceable but would become effective if Roe fell) or laws passed specifically to go into effect in the event that Roe gets axed.

. . . .

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/01/31/what_neil_gorsuch_trump_s_scotus_pick_means_for_american_women.html

niyad

(113,329 posts)
46. and more:Neil Gorsuch: Corporations Have Rights. Women? Not So Much.
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:07 PM
Mar 2017

Neil Gorsuch: Corporations Have Rights. Women? Not So Much.


?cb=c29eeb745bbd1cb090828d7a8a62f64e&w=640&h=
Rally against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, in front of the United States Supreme Court. Washington DC January 31, 2017.

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, a Constitutional “originalist,” has taken an expansive view of corporate rights as a federal judge on the Tenth Circuit. Women have not fared as well in his court, where Gorsuch has demonstrated a commitment to curtailing workplace protections for female employees, not to mention aggressive opposition to reproductive freedom. The contrast between Gorsuch’s record of coddling corporations and his rebuff to women’s basic rights, shows a big-business bias that crushes actual human beings and humane, progressive values.

As a Tenth Circuit judge, Gorsuch joined the majority in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, which argued that corporations are persons and have a right to exercise their religious beliefs under the Religions Freedom Restoration Act. Based on this doctrine, Hobby Lobby won the freedom, upheld by the Supreme Court, to withhold birth control coverage from its female employees.Thanks to that case, soulless corporations can assert spiritual rights that trump the health care needs of women.

And that’s not all. Gorsuch has a long record of protecting big companies from consumers, workers, and employees whose claims of fraud and discrimination threaten to make a dent in profits. A fact sheet put together by People for the American Way outlines Gorsuch’s pro-corporate, anti-human-rights record.

In a working paper for the Washington Legal Foundation, Gorsuch staked out the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from consumer financial protection advocate Elizabeth Warren, lamenting securities class-action fraud claims that “prompt corporate defendants to pay dearly to settle,” and recommended making securities fraud class actions more difficult to pursue. In an article titled “Liberals’N’Lawsuits” for National Review, Gorsuch argued that “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

. . . . .

http://progressive.org/dispatches/gorsuch/

DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
59. thank you for this post
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 03:48 PM
Mar 2017

Last edited Wed Mar 22, 2017, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

to the author of the original OP, what I'm going to say is going to sound harsh, but I don't mean it that way. Normalizing Neil is deadly. Yes he is very much not a clown like Trump, that is exactly what makes him deadly. The Heritage foundation picked him, and they knew that they want someone who, even if Trump crashed the clown car in the Washington Monument,, would be slick enough to last and not be challenged. They picked this young, smart, charming fellow who just happens to believe that corporations should be only do whatever the hell they want to their employees and that agencies should not be able to do anything to protect people. Let's not forget, the whole reason of the Chevron ruling, which he opposes, was that when you deal for federal agency, the people who actually are the experts should be deferred to. In other words a judge should not be able to override an astronomer at NASA, a surgeon at the CDC, and other scenarios were frankly you do not want the equivalent of a plumber doing your brain surgery. If Neil gets in, he is going to do his best to make sure that federal agencies have to defer to judges, namely because the judges will be conservative, which means that the billionaires will have already told them what to say or at least made it very clear.

I mean, look at this quote:
In an article titled “Liberals’N’Lawsuits” for National Review, Gorsuch argued that “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”


Let's be attention to the language: he says that liberals have become an "addicted to the courtroom", which coincidentally is the one area where Corporations were and churches can be held accountable. It's no accident he uses the language of addicts, which she of course can easily interpret as criminals, to describe the one area were Corporation can actually lose. He also uses the term "social agenda", as if trying to go ahead and take tax dollars and pay everyone from private Christian schools to private prison companies is not some sort of social agenda. This is a person who does not believe that people who have been failed by their elected leaders, and yes failed at the ballot box, should have any defense. This is not someone we want on the Supreme Court, and yes Trump could've picked a fire breather, but the fact this guy is wrapped in some sort of slick package again makes them more dangerous because we do not pay attention to the actual words he says. Those words will outlive him, they will outlive us, and thereby probably shorten the lives of our children and grandchildren!

No normalizing Neil,.! He needs to be opposed, because even if the short-term fight is not one, thanks to be bought and paid for Congress, an honest critique of them will pave the way to where we can and start to help undo the agenda that the GOP is set in motion.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
52. Absolutely not. Gorsuch will strengthen inequality
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:27 PM
Mar 2017

Gorsuch will further strengthen the money corporations can spend on elections.

Gorsuch is going to vote to destroy the working and middle class.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
53. A trip down memory lane...try that there "waterboarding" - see how affective it is..
Tue Mar 21, 2017, 02:44 PM
Mar 2017

as Gorsuch decided to have a signing letter to convince everyone - meh, not so bad..McCain was too demanding we shouldn't do this torture, at the time...he was about to have a law anti-torture bill - I believe 2005...

Gorsuch found the torture system "extraordinarily impressive" and "something that the nation can be proud of," he should fit reicht in -

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
68. Dafuq?
Wed Mar 22, 2017, 12:40 PM
Mar 2017

Just because he doesn't look like a constipated Danny Devito wearing a black robe doesn't make Gorsuch a tolerable alternative to Scalia. He is an originalist, sphincter-dwelling douche siphon. He will not be better than Scalia because he's a carbon copy of Scalia.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»as a CO native I have to ...