UPDATED: Gorsuch Defends Work In Bush DOJ On Amendment Slashing Detainee Rights

[DonViejo]

Last edited Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Talking Points Memo


By ESME CRIBB Published MARCH 21, 2017, 11:09 AM EDT

Judge Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday said that he was "proud of" his work coordinating the legislative effort to pass an amendment pushed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would have slashed the legal rights of detainees at the U.S. detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"I'm proud of it because we managed to come up with a bipartisan bill that I think passed this body with over 80 or maybe 90 votes, I don't remember," Gorsuch told Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) during his confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court.

As a senior official in the Justice Department during President George. W. Bush's administration, Gorsuch worked with Graham in 2005 to draft the amendment to the Detainee Treatment Act cutting Guantánamo detainees off from access to federal courts.

He said on Tuesday that the bill "affirmed this country's commitment to prevent cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and ... provided a regime that was agreed by the Congress and the president on how Guantánamo detainees should have their claims processed." Pressed by Feinstein on the part of the amendment that would have barred detainees from petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge their imprisonment, Gorsuch said that he was just "a lawyer for a client" and the bill "was eventually litigated as all these things are."

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gorsuch-defends-work-bush-department-of-justice

---

UPDATE

Gorsuch Sidesteps Questions On Whether He Would Uphold Travel Ban

ByESME CRIBBPublishedMARCH 21, 2017, 11:54 AM EDT
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday declined to comment on whether he would uphold President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban. He said that the "government must meet strict scrutiny" before implementing any regulation based on religious belief.

"Does the First Amendment allow the use of a religious litmus test for entry into the United States?" Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Gorsuch during his Senate confirmation hearing.

"That's an issue that's currently being litigated actively," Gorsuch replied.

When pressed to answer the question generally, as opposed to in connection with the case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, he cited the clause of the First Amendment that protects the free exercise of religion.

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/neil-gorsuch-dodges-questions-on-whether-he-would-uphold-travel-ban

[cstanleytech]

1. I can sum my response up best by just

[haele]

2. So, he's an Activist Judge, not a judge that is concerned about the Constitution or Justice.

He's a Religious Partisan.
That's a discussion the Christianist Reicht does not want to have - what are the Constitutional view on Religion?

"Free Exercise of Religion" is not the same as the first part of the 1rst Amendment which is "Congress shall make no law proscribing the Free Exercise of Religion".

And the "Founders" the Christianist Reicht so love to pretend they own were very clear that there's a barrier between Religious practice and Legal practice for a reason - Religious Persecution of the minority and State Sanctioned Religion, which was the primary reason a significant majority of the Colonies were founded.

Legal precedence has always held that The practice of Religion must still follow laws proscribing and protecting Equal Rights and Equal Access under the Law. Christians cannot discriminate on the basis of their religious tenets in the public sphere, just as Congress or Public Law cannot discriminate against Christian worship in the private sphere.

A Citizen has the right to voice opinions and believe howsoever s/he wishes, but there is no "right to be listened to" nor a right to assault people with beliefs simply because someone feels their belief are more righteous than someone else's beliefs.

The Constitution is clear. The Law of the Land is to be balanced and equal for everyone, from the President on down. Your church, your money, your education or your situation in general is not supposed to give you more rights under the Constitution and the Public Law (Federal or State) than anyone else.

The image is of Justice standing with scales raised attempting to find balance, while her sword to protect herself and her charges is at rest, not raised. Justice does not enforce, justice defends.
Rights are granted and defended through real evidence that can be proven and weighed. They're not supposed to be "wished" away based on opinions, suppositions, or feelings.
The Tyranny of either the Majority - or a loud Minority why Justice carries a sword.

What does Mr. Gorsuch believe the Law and Justice is supposed to protect? What is the Law and Justice supposed to enforce?

Haele

[Fast Walker 52]

3. he's one sneaky scary creep

I so hope the Dems have their shit together and block him