SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch

13»

Comments

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 7,734

    dems are spineless, and they are over a barrel on this one.

    they may filibuster, but then the GOP senate will change the rules and get this man affirmed.

    it is probably best for the dems to sit back and take this one. they should have fought harder when it was obama's chance, but they went along with waiting, like a proper adult would have.

    the dems problem is they treat the gop like they are normal human beings. they aren't. they don't fight fair. they are intransigent. if they don't like the rules, they will change them. the dems bring a knife to a gunfight, while the GOP rolls in in sherman tanks. you would think the dems would have learned this fact 25 years ago, but they didn't, and they won't. their base has gone to the left of their leaders. when that happens, the party is over.

    If it matters, I like this post allot
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • PJfanwillneverleave1PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,481
    edited February 2
    ^^^
    Who in the hell brings a knife to a gunfight?
    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
  • vaggar99vaggar99 San Diego USAPosts: 2,118
    only when president* is President can he do things that a real President does
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 7,734
    This is bad news for anyone opposing gorsuch, after weeks of trying to find something smear worthy, like anything rapey, racisty, or russiay they could only come up with something from freshman high school.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/amp/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,442
    JC29856 said:

    This is bad news for anyone opposing gorsuch, after weeks of trying to find something smear worthy, like anything rapey, racisty, or russiay they could only come up with something from freshman high school.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/amp/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html

    It's no bombshell, but it is a troubling indicator of what type of values he is hiding and will support on the bench.

    So you don't think past actions and behaviors are indicative of present or future ones? Then why are we currently banning 7 countries from entering our country based on potential behavior due to their past? Pretty sure people would have also cared if Trump had founded white supremacists forever or Obama founded radical Muslims forever. Everything matters when you will have that much impact on an entire country.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 7,734
    edited February 2
    tbergs said:

    JC29856 said:

    This is bad news for anyone opposing gorsuch, after weeks of trying to find something smear worthy, like anything rapey, racisty, or russiay they could only come up with something from freshman high school.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/amp/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html

    It's no bombshell, but it is a troubling indicator of what type of values he is hiding and will support on the bench.

    So you don't think past actions and behaviors are indicative of present or future ones? Then why are we currently banning 7 countries from entering our country based on potential behavior due to their past? Pretty sure people would have also cared if Trump had founded white supremacists forever or Obama founded radical Muslims forever. Everything matters when you will have that much impact on an entire country.
    Wooo, woooo, you sleep at a holiday inn last night?? Slow down.

    I'm saying that if it takes some thing from high school (which some are saying the facism thing was a joke against such a liberal school), a high school year book, to try and smear some one, its a pretty obvious (or so I thought) and desperate attempt, especially considering pretty much everything a judge writes and says is recorded.
    I agree past actions can be a predictor of the future but what else in the 35 years since high school has gorsuch done to be labeled a facist? Actions and behaviors are plural.
    Jury is still out, we'll see what else is found, I imagine it would be very difficult hiding your facisty ways being an attorney and judge your entire life, most if not all of it is in black and white.

    On to another point, if Trump is a bigly dummy like every one thinks then he must have some slick folks advising him, not only was gorsuch selected to the circuit court unanimously, some by sitting Dems, he has very little legal history with respect abortion rights. Im sure the abortion issue will dominate the news during the hearings and he will have to answer abortion questions asked 11 different ways, but it be difficult to pin down any thing about abortion rights from his past actions and behaviors.
    Post edited by JC29856 on
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 7,734
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 4,863

    dems are spineless, and they are over a barrel on this one.

    they may filibuster, but then the GOP senate will change the rules and get this man affirmed.

    it is probably best for the dems to sit back and take this one. they should have fought harder when it was obama's chance, but they went along with waiting, like a proper adult would have.

    the dems problem is they treat the gop like they are normal human beings. they aren't. they don't fight fair. they are intransigent. if they don't like the rules, they will change them. the dems bring a knife to a gunfight, while the GOP rolls in in sherman tanks. you would think the dems would have learned this fact 25 years ago, but they didn't, and they won't. their base has gone to the left of their leaders. when that happens, the party is over.

    Harry Reid spent the last 8 years changing rules. This kind of complaint always comes from the party out of power.
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 7,734
    Fascism is barking up the wrong tree, disability rights maybe something worth looking into.

    https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-has-troubling-history-when-ruling-disability
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,442
    If only it were as simple as suggested in this op-ed. Concessions by both sides are needed for the process to get back on track. Doubtful it happens though.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-greene-supreme-court-grand-bargain-20170207-story.html
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,695
    Gorsuch did not have a great first day
    http://www.npr.org/2017/04/17/524393113/justice-gorsuch-jumps-right-into-questioning-in-supreme-court-debut

    Gorsuch repeatedly suggested it would be "a lot simpler" or "a lot easier if we just follow the text of the statute." But as the lawyers on both sides and other justices pointed out, the statute has multiple provisions that are interdependent, and nothing about them is simple or easy.

    "This is unbelievably complicated," lamented Alito. "The one thing about this case that seems perfectly clear to me is that nobody who's not a lawyer — and no ordinary lawyer — could read these statutes and figure out what they are supposed to do."

    "Who wrote this statute?" he asked plaintively. "Somebody who takes pleasure out of pulling the wings off flies?"

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to agree.

    "If we go down your route, and I'm writing the opinion — which I hope I'm not," Sotomayor said while glancing in the direction of Chief Justice Roberts, who generally assigns the opinions.

    At this point, Gorsuch again suggested the simple solution is to just read the words in the statute, but Gorsuch had a relatively novel idea of what a statute means when it says to apply one provision "subject to" another provision of the law.

    Justice Elena Kagan noted that the court has had a contrary interpretation for decades. To adopt a new interpretation, she said, would be "a kind of revolution ... to the extent you can have a revolution in this kind of case."

    ...ouch...
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,183
    CM189191 said:

    Gorsuch did not have a great first day
    http://www.npr.org/2017/04/17/524393113/justice-gorsuch-jumps-right-into-questioning-in-supreme-court-debut

    Gorsuch repeatedly suggested it would be "a lot simpler" or "a lot easier if we just follow the text of the statute." But as the lawyers on both sides and other justices pointed out, the statute has multiple provisions that are interdependent, and nothing about them is simple or easy.

    "This is unbelievably complicated," lamented Alito. "The one thing about this case that seems perfectly clear to me is that nobody who's not a lawyer — and no ordinary lawyer — could read these statutes and figure out what they are supposed to do."

    "Who wrote this statute?" he asked plaintively. "Somebody who takes pleasure out of pulling the wings off flies?"

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to agree.

    "If we go down your route, and I'm writing the opinion — which I hope I'm not," Sotomayor said while glancing in the direction of Chief Justice Roberts, who generally assigns the opinions.

    At this point, Gorsuch again suggested the simple solution is to just read the words in the statute, but Gorsuch had a relatively novel idea of what a statute means when it says to apply one provision "subject to" another provision of the law.

    Justice Elena Kagan noted that the court has had a contrary interpretation for decades. To adopt a new interpretation, she said, would be "a kind of revolution ... to the extent you can have a revolution in this kind of case."

    ...ouch...

    Just overturning the apple cart in the finest Trumpian tradition.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,520
    He's the annoying guy at the office. They're thinking 'Christ, I have to work with this dick for 20 years'.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 5,844
    CM189191 said:

    Gorsuch did not have a great first day
    http://www.npr.org/2017/04/17/524393113/justice-gorsuch-jumps-right-into-questioning-in-supreme-court-debut

    Gorsuch repeatedly suggested it would be "a lot simpler" or "a lot easier if we just follow the text of the statute." But as the lawyers on both sides and other justices pointed out, the statute has multiple provisions that are interdependent, and nothing about them is simple or easy.

    "This is unbelievably complicated," lamented Alito. "The one thing about this case that seems perfectly clear to me is that nobody who's not a lawyer — and no ordinary lawyer — could read these statutes and figure out what they are supposed to do."

    "Who wrote this statute?" he asked plaintively. "Somebody who takes pleasure out of pulling the wings off flies?"

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to agree.

    "If we go down your route, and I'm writing the opinion — which I hope I'm not," Sotomayor said while glancing in the direction of Chief Justice Roberts, who generally assigns the opinions.

    At this point, Gorsuch again suggested the simple solution is to just read the words in the statute, but Gorsuch had a relatively novel idea of what a statute means when it says to apply one provision "subject to" another provision of the law.

    Justice Elena Kagan noted that the court has had a contrary interpretation for decades. To adopt a new interpretation, she said, would be "a kind of revolution ... to the extent you can have a revolution in this kind of case."

    ...ouch...

    Who knew that the law could be so complicated?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,615
    could this be the most unqualified bag of dicks of an administration in history?
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,183

    could this be the most unqualified bag of dicks of an administration in history?

    That's putting it mildly.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,442
    Apparently the aww shucks approach won't be much of an asset on the bench with the big shots. The hazing of a rookie justice must be pretty intense. Those 80 year olds aren't going to take any shit from this twerp. It'd be like your 22 year old freshly college graduated ass going in to a cabinet meeting on your first day at your new job and trying to impress the senior admin. STFU Donny!
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,183

    could this be the most unqualified bag of dicks of an administration in history?

    Or brilliant brilliance of Trump's master strategic brilliance of political stratagem?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 5,446
    I don't personally have an issue with Gorsuch. I think Trump could have put up a much worse candidate. So I'm still a little surprised that the Dems forced the issue and pushed that turtle McConnell to go nuclear over a fairly moderate pick. This opens the door to a much worse choice next time around. Of course, I think Merrick Garland should be sitting in Gorsuch's seat right now, but I think that they were miles apart. I thought Garland was a pretty moderate pick for Obama, and I think Gorsuch is about as moderate a pick as we'll get from Trump. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure why people are making fun of Gorsuch's antipathy for vagueness and obscurity in laws. Congress has the ability to create the most idiotic and unrecognizable laws (just look at the fucking tax laws) known to man, so I'll give Gorsuch a pass for wanting to create more clarity.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 8,805
    jeffbr said:

    I don't personally have an issue with Gorsuch. I think Trump could have put up a much worse candidate. So I'm still a little surprised that the Dems forced the issue and pushed that turtle McConnell to go nuclear over a fairly moderate pick. This opens the door to a much worse choice next time around. Of course, I think Merrick Garland should be sitting in Gorsuch's seat right now, but I think that they were miles apart. I thought Garland was a pretty moderate pick for Obama, and I think Gorsuch is about as moderate a pick as we'll get from Trump. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure why people are making fun of Gorsuch's antipathy for vagueness and obscurity in laws. Congress has the ability to create the most idiotic and unrecognizable laws (just look at the fucking tax laws) known to man, so I'll give Gorsuch a pass for wanting to create more clarity.

    Yeah but wanting clarity through simplification and thinking it's as easy as just saying so are light years apart.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 5,446
    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    I don't personally have an issue with Gorsuch. I think Trump could have put up a much worse candidate. So I'm still a little surprised that the Dems forced the issue and pushed that turtle McConnell to go nuclear over a fairly moderate pick. This opens the door to a much worse choice next time around. Of course, I think Merrick Garland should be sitting in Gorsuch's seat right now, but I think that they were miles apart. I thought Garland was a pretty moderate pick for Obama, and I think Gorsuch is about as moderate a pick as we'll get from Trump. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure why people are making fun of Gorsuch's antipathy for vagueness and obscurity in laws. Congress has the ability to create the most idiotic and unrecognizable laws (just look at the fucking tax laws) known to man, so I'll give Gorsuch a pass for wanting to create more clarity.

    Yeah but wanting clarity through simplification and thinking it's as easy as just saying so are light years apart.
    Sure. I won't argue that. I just think it is good that someone is making a case for accountability in laws. Too many lawyers and judges get wrapped up in their own legalese and forget what the law should be about. Add legislators into the mix and it is even more obfuscated. Gorsuch isn't a perfect nominee, and wouldn't necessarily have been my choice, but I can't find a perfect justice on the bench currently anyway, so no matter who sits in that seat I'll have some issue with them. My point is that it could have been much worse, and if Trump gets to nominate another justice, it will be much worse.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,183
    He'll reward Kelly Ann for her loyalty.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,695
    jeffbr said:

    I don't personally have an issue with Gorsuch. I think Trump could have put up a much worse candidate. So I'm still a little surprised that the Dems forced the issue and pushed that turtle McConnell to go nuclear over a fairly moderate pick. This opens the door to a much worse choice next time around. Of course, I think Merrick Garland should be sitting in Gorsuch's seat right now, but I think that they were miles apart. I thought Garland was a pretty moderate pick for Obama, and I think Gorsuch is about as moderate a pick as we'll get from Trump. Anyway, I'm not entirely sure why people are making fun of Gorsuch's antipathy for vagueness and obscurity in laws. Congress has the ability to create the most idiotic and unrecognizable laws (just look at the fucking tax laws) known to man, so I'll give Gorsuch a pass for wanting to create more clarity.

    I take issue with any man of the law would accept this nomination without insisting Garland's appointment first be given the appropriate consideration.

    This will forever be a stain on Gorsuch's career. Every opinion he writes should be marked with a Barry Bonds asterisk.
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,520
    Interesting case they heard today involving separation of church and state. Him using the word "discrimination" in the context of the case where a church might be denied state funds to use for their playground makes me uneasy.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,695
    Elections have consequences
    Gorsuch* kills black man
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,442
    CM189191 said:

    Elections have consequences
    Gorsuch* kills black man

    I had not heard about this case. Ugh, this is why I loathe our legal system and the death penalty. I'm at a loss for words on why they wouldn't just allow the DNA testing. If you're going to kill someone, make it 100% accurate or at least eliminate the possible doubts. Can the ACLU still pursue the DNA test even though he has been executed?

    Justice Neil "The Sandman" Gorsuch ladies and gentlemen!
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,615
    CM189191 said:

    Elections have consequences
    Gorsuch* kills black man

    PIECE. OF. EXCREMENT.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,442
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,442
    Good old Neil wanted to let that money just roll in for political contributions.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-court-20170522-story.html
    It's a hopeless situation...
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.