Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

Ya know, the only reason I considered voting for Donald Trump for President was he promised to appoint a traditional judge to the Supreme Court.

I have problems with the Trumphole, but at least he did fulfill his promise to appoint a judge who respects the Constitution.

Trump picks Colo. appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

President Trump selected Colorado federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday, opting in the most important decision of his young presidency for a highly credentialed favorite of the conservative legal establishment to fill the opening created last year by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

WASHINGTON POST

Nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is by far a most important decision by any President as they have life tenure.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13186
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by LarsMac »

This guy seems to be a level-headed sort. Of the three top runners, he would be my choice.

Here in Boulder County the talk is all on his connection to 'Whizzer'
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by gmc »

By traditional do you mean one that will impose his religious beliefs on issues like family planing and marriage?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by spot »

He's widely regarded as "a proponent of originalism and textualism in interpreting the U.S. Constitution".

It seems to me there are two ways of doing this Supreme Court judging thing. Either you know beforehand what result you want to achieve and then find arguments to justify your choice of verdict, or you put your best legal argument for and against into your judicial scales and then discover the result and adopt it. I see no evidence that this chap, unlike the dead bastard he's replacing, makes his mind up beforehand.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Clodhopper »

He sounds like a strict legal type which is fair enough. Shrug. Proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

spot;1506142 wrote: He's widely regarded as "a proponent of originalism and textualism in interpreting the U.S. Constitution".

It seems to me there are two ways of doing this Supreme Court judging thing. Either you know beforehand what result you want to achieve and then find arguments to justify your choice of verdict, or you put your best legal argument for and against into your judicial scales and then discover the result and adopt it. I see no evidence that this chap, unlike the dead bastard he's replacing, makes his mind up beforehand.Emphasis mine.

in his 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Gorsuch wrote that he opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide and that "all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."That's a loaded statement.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by spot »

Statements are either axioms - something which has to be accepted as a given fact and cannot be demonstrated - or it's a derived truth and dependent on axioms. Every system of logic is based on previously agreed axiomatic definitions of fact. He's laying out his axioms. He has to before he can derive anything. The point of laying out your definitions is that if anyone then disagrees with an axiom, they know in advance they'll have no basis for accepting the derivations. You can then either walk away or negotiate what's axiomatic and start deriving from that new standpoint.

I could, for example, ask for the axioms to be changed to:

1. all citizens are intrinsically valuable

2. the intentional killing of citizens is always wrong

3. human life exists when that life can probably be self-sustained for at least four weeks.

I could then make derived law:

a) abortion of citizens after 20 weeks is a crime

b) killing terminally ill citizens within the last month of respite is not a crime

c) non-citizens can be legally killed

so deciding what's an axiomatic truth in a legal system is essential. That's what Gorsuch is doing in the passage you quoted. I presume he has abstracted those axioms from Constitutional law and can demonstrate that they're an accurate precis.

My example axioms, for instance, would allow gun-owning citizens to eliminate the alleged problem of undocumented residents and tourists very quickly at no cost to the government, I ended the death penalty and allowed involuntary euthanasia of terminally ill patients, which brings up the other area: ethical axioms.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13186
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by LarsMac »

gmc;1506141 wrote: By traditional do you mean one that will impose his religious beliefs on issues like family planing and marriage?


I do hope that he is beyond such antics. But we will have to wait and see.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

gmc;1506141 wrote: By traditional do you mean one that will impose his religious beliefs on issues like family planing and marriage?


My bad for not being more clear as it has nothing to do with what you just posted.

“originalist” or "textualist" would be more clear in that the Constitution is a contract where its words and intent matter.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

LarsMac;1506137 wrote: This guy seems to be a level-headed sort. Of the three top runners, he would be my choice.

Here in Boulder County the talk is all on his connection to 'Whizzer'


For him, is that a good thing?
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13186
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by LarsMac »

tude dog;1506165 wrote: For him, is that a good thing?


Yup



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by gmc »

tude dog;1506164 wrote: My bad for not being more clear as it has nothing to do with what you just posted.

“originalist” or "textualist" would be more clear in that the Constitution is a contract where its words and intent matter.


It's the interpretation about intent that leaves scope for dispute is it not? Especially when it comes to the seperation of church and state freedom of religion desn't mean you get to shove yours down other people's throats the intent was to prevent oppression by the religious on other religions and the non religious and prevent a despot claiming divine right from taking over. You also now seem to have a president that does not seem to think fundamental aspects of your constitution like an independent judiciary matter and that they should do as they are told by him.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

gmc;1506183 wrote: It's the interpretation about intent that leaves scope for dispute is it not?


Lawyers make their living arguing law.

gmc;1506183 wrote: Especially when it comes to the seperation of church and state freedom of religion desn't mean you get to shove yours down other people's throats the intent was to prevent oppression by the religious on other religions and the non religious and prevent a despot claiming divine right from taking over.


Gotta love the simplicity.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

gmc;1506183 wrote: You also now seem to have a president that does not seem to think fundamental aspects of your constitution like an independent judiciary matter and that they should do as they are told by him.


If you say so.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Would you do your old pal, me, a favor, tude? Would you mind changing your avatar? This current one really creeps me out, & I pay attention to what you write, so it's a big (UGH) distraction for me. No harm in asking, right? Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1506185 wrote: Would you do your old pal, me, a favor, tude? Would you mind changing your avatar? This current one really creeps me out, & I pay attention to what you write, so it's a big (UGH) distraction for me. No harm in asking, right? Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.


I've held on to that pic for many a year just cause it is disturbing.

Just for you dear, I'll change it.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by AnneBoleyn »

tude dog;1506186 wrote: I've held on to that pic for many a year just cause it is disturbing.

Just for you dear, I'll change it.


Many thanks. Another reason why I call you my pal.....'cause you are. More to life than political differences, such as personal respect & friendship. :-6
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by gmc »

]Lawyers make their living arguing law.






Well yes without laws and lawyers you have blood feuds and the strongest taking what they want

Gotta love the simplicity.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof




If you prevenbt women getting access to family planning because it is against your your religious beliefs then you are imposing your religion on to others. If you don't want your wife to use contreceptives or go to ante natal clinics that is your right stopping others getting access becasue your priest tells you to is morally wrong. Or do you not agree?

If you say so.


I'm going by what he is doing. He just an attorney general because she stood up to him replacing her with someone who preumably will do what he is told. Do yiou think that is good sign?
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

gmc;1506211 wrote: Well yes without laws and lawyers you have blood feuds and the strongest taking what they want


Well said.



gmc;1506211 wrote: If you prevenbt women getting access to family planning because it is against your your religious beliefs then you are imposing your religion on to others.


No problem there. In this country nobody is allowed to prevent women from accessing family planning. Just try it and see what happens.

gmc;1506211 wrote: If you don't want your wife to use contreceptives or go to ante natal clinics that is your right


Doesn't matter what I want. This is something to be decided between husband and wife. Long story short, the wife is free to do what she wants.

gmc;1506211 wrote: stopping others getting access becasue your priest tells you to is morally wrong. Or do you not agree?


Far as I know nowhere in the US can anyone be prevented from the above services you mention.

gmc;1506211 wrote: I'm going by what he is doing. He just an attorney general because she stood up to him replacing her with someone who preumably will do what he is told. Do yiou think that is good sign?


Sorry, that is not all that clear to me what you are saying.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by gmc »

posted by tude dog

Far as I know nowhere in the US can anyone be prevented from the above services you mention.


What abolut all the attempts to shut down planned parenthood where else do women go for contraceptives in the states?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... d-abortion



And major party leaders, including House speaker John Boehner and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, talked openly about forcing a government shutdown in order to strip Planned Parenthood of its minuscule budget. (The group uses the funds to provide not abortions, but STI screenings, sex education, and contraception.)

“Mike Pence wasn’t the first person to come up with the idea of trying to punish women’s health clinics by withholding their funding, but he was among the most vicious about it,” said Donna Crane, vice-president of policy at NARAL Pro-Choice America, which advocates for abortion rights.


He's now your vice president.

Sorry, that is not all that clear to me what you are saying.


Trump fires acting AG Sally Yates after she declines to defend travel ban - CNNPolitics.com

Thew attorney general is not supposed to just do what they are told by a president the judiciary is there to curb the power of the executive to do what it likes.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

gmc;1506223 wrote: posted by tude dog



What abolut all the attempts to shut down planned parenthood where else do women go for contraceptives in the states?


Here is the problem. We went from the Supreme Court to issues such a Planned Parenthood.

The Supreme Court cannot shut down Planned Parenthood. You are confusing a political question as to many taxpayers object to paying for the killing of unborn babies by Planned Parenthood. That is a political question.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... d-abortion



He's now your vice president.


Yup, shore is.



Trump fires acting AG Sally Yates after she declines to defend travel ban - CNNPolitics.com

What does that have to do with the Supreme Court?

gmc;1506223 wrote: Thew attorney general is not supposed to just do what they are told by a president the judiciary is there to curb the power of the executive to do what it likes.


I don't know where you came up with that.

She refused to do her job and got canned.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by gmc »

posted by tude dog

Here is the problem. We went from the Supreme Court to issues such a Planned Parenthood.

The Supreme Court cannot shut down Planned Parenthood. You are confusing a political question as to many taxpayers object to paying for the killing of unborn babies by Planned Parenthood. That is a political question.




My understanding is planned parenthood also deal with family planning, providing the contraceptive pill,health advice and the like allowing women to avoid getting pregnant in the first place prevents unplanned pregnancies and abortions to stop access to family planning. The religious objection to the contraceptive pill is based on te beleif that life begins at conception and preventing it using the pill is equivalent to abortion at least and interferes with god's will that's certainly the catholic churches position and some of the fundamentalist protestant chirches. It's a belief that does a great deal of harm as religious oganisations are making the decision not just for their followers but for everybody. They also view the sole purpose sex is to procreate and outside of marriage is a mortal sin. We have the same debates over here usually it's the bible thumping protestants doing the shouting.

Abortion is a last resort often caused by ignorance or being unable to access contraceptives if you want to cut tenage pregnancy teach sex education in schools. That's someone imposing their religious belief on others taking away the rights of women to choose when they become pregnant. Dress it up any way you like that's all it is religious oppression.

posted by tude dog

I don't know where you came up with that.

She refused to do her job and got canned.


Her job was to advise the president if he is doing something illegal or unconstitutional not act as mouth piece for a politician you're right she did her job and got canned for standing up to him.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

spot;1506151 wrote: Statements are either axioms - something which has to be accepted as a given fact and cannot be demonstrated - or it's a derived truth and dependent on axioms. Every system of logic is based on previously agreed axiomatic definitions of fact. He's laying out his axioms. He has to before he can derive anything. The point of laying out your definitions is that if anyone then disagrees with an axiom, they know in advance they'll have no basis for accepting the derivations. You can then either walk away or negotiate what's axiomatic and start deriving from that new standpoint.

I could, for example, ask for the axioms to be changed to:

1. all citizens are intrinsically valuable

2. the intentional killing of citizens is always wrong

3. human life exists when that life can probably be self-sustained for at least four weeks.

I could then make derived law:

a) abortion of citizens after 20 weeks is a crime

b) killing terminally ill citizens within the last month of respite is not a crime

c) non-citizens can be legally killed

so deciding what's an axiomatic truth in a legal system is essential. That's what Gorsuch is doing in the passage you quoted. I presume he has abstracted those axioms from Constitutional law and can demonstrate that they're an accurate precis.

My example axioms, for instance, would allow gun-owning citizens to eliminate the alleged problem of undocumented residents and tourists very quickly at no cost to the government, I ended the death penalty and allowed involuntary euthanasia of terminally ill patients, which brings up the other area: ethical axioms."all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."The axiom emphasized above looks to me to be a potential problem for gun-rights and should raise some eyebrows.

Taken literally, the right to bear arms is nothing more than a hollow promise in the mind of Gorsuch, meaning, you have the right to them, but you better not kill anyone with the gun unless you're a member of law enforcement or the military. This could, of course, fly in the face of the originalism and textualism raised earlier.

Trump probably doesn't know any of this unless someone's read public information on Gorsuch to him since he himself doesn't read. I wonder if someone could create a pie chart that might reflect any of this information for The Donald to decipher.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

gmc;1506241 wrote: posted by tude dog



My understanding is planned parenthood also deal with family planning,


So what?

gmc;1506241 wrote: providing the contraceptive pill,health advice and the like allowing women to avoid getting pregnant in the first place prevents unplanned pregnancies and abortions to stop access to family planning. The religious objection to the contraceptive pill is based on te beleif that life begins at conception and preventing it using the pill is equivalent to abortion at least and interferes with god's will that's certainly the catholic churches position and some of the fundamentalist protestant chirches. It's a belief that does a great deal of harm as religious oganisations are making the decision not just for their followers but for everybody. They also view the sole purpose sex is to procreate and outside of marriage is a mortal sin. We have the same debates over here usually it's the bible thumping protestants doing the shouting.

Abortion is a last resort often caused by ignorance or being unable to access contraceptives if you want to cut tenage pregnancy teach sex education in schools. That's someone imposing their religious belief on others taking away the rights of women to choose when they become pregnant. Dress it up any way you like that's all it is religious oppression.


I doubt anytime soon such a question will come before Neil Gorsuch, one of nine justices.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by gmc »

popsted by tude dog

So what?


it's being targeted for religious reasons by republicans.

I doubt anytime soon such a question will come before Neil Gorsuch, one of nine justices.


No looks like it will be dome by the back door.

Could Trump overturn Supreme Court abortion case Roe v. Wade? How? - Business Insider

While Trump once supported abortion, he has since reversed his position, saying in his first interview after winning the election that he wants to appoint "pro-life" judges with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. His highly conservative nominee to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat, Neil Gorsuch, is expected to try to carry out this mission.




The gradual erosion of Roe v. Wade is a much more likely scenario for diminishing abortion access, according to Cohen, because Chief Justice John Roberts often plays the "long game." Roberts hasn't explicitly come out against Roe or abortion (as is tradition with justices), but he has said he respects the precedence of Roe yet supported abortion restrictions in Supreme Court cases while on the bench.


It's awkward commenting on american politics. We have the same issues but it seems more genmerally accepted that the religious should keep out of politics they don't but the more extreme get laughed at. I se trump is also talking about allowing religious organisations to sponsor candidates - like america need sectarian warfare on it's treets.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

gmc;1506305 wrote: popsted by tude dog



it's being targeted for religious reasons by republicans.


That is a political matter. I don't see where it is a Constitutional matter.



gmc;1506305 wrote: No looks like it will be dome by the back door.


Planned Parenthood has no right to expect taxpayer money. Congress gives, Congress takes.

Could Trump overturn Supreme Court abortion case Roe v. Wade? How? - Business Insider

Without going to that link no president can overturn a Supreme Court decision. Only the Court could, but that is rare and I suspect after over 40 years the decision is unlikely to ever happen.

gmc;1506305 wrote: It's awkward commenting on american politics. We have the same issues but it seems more genmerally accepted that the religious should keep out of politics they don't but the more extreme get laughed at. I se trump is also talking about allowing religious organisations to sponsor candidates - like america need sectarian warfare on it's treets.


All people have the right, religious and none religious to be involved in the public square.

What the Trumphole is talking about is Trump vows to ‘destroy’ law banning political activity by tax-exempt churches

The T-boner doesn't realize such a law would allow ALL tax-exempt organizations to engage in political activity.

When I give to a tax-exempt organization it isn't for a political cause.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

I find this not just interesting, but a positive for Gorsuch.

Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch says Trump’s attacks on judiciary are ‘demoralizing’

President Trump’s escalating attacks on the federal judiciary drew denunciation Wednesday from his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, who told a senator that the criticism was “disheartening” and “demoralizing” to independent federal courts.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said Gorsuch made the comments during their private meeting Wednesday, and the account was confirmed by Ron Bonjean, a member of the group guiding the judge through his confirmation process.

Trump on Wednesday morning declared that an appeals court’s hearing Tuesday night regarding his controversial immigration executive order was “disgraceful,” and that judges were more concerned about politics than following the law.

The remarks followed earlier tweets from Trump disparaging “the so-called judge” who issued a nationwide stop to his plan and saying the ruling “put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system.”

Blumenthal said Gorsuch, whom Trump nominated to the Supreme Court just over a week ago, agreed with him that the president’s language was out of line.


The contretemps added another layer to the roiling nature of Trump’s young presidency. Some historians wondered whether Supreme Court nominees had ever separated themselves in such a way from the president who nominated them; others tried to recall whether a president had ever given a nominee reason to do so.


WASHINGTON POST
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Wandrin »

It will be interesting to see how that sits with Trump's oversized ego.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

Wandrin;1506516 wrote: It will be interesting to see how that sits with Trump's oversized ego.Trump: "You're fired - Next!"
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

Wandrin;1506516 wrote: It will be interesting to see how that sits with Trump's oversized ego.


Undo the nomination, really?

That is his nominee and Trump can now go pound salt.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by gmc »

posted by tude dog

Planned Parenthood has no right to expect taxpayer money. Congress gives, Congress takes.




That's one area we would disagree on imo a function of government is to provide for the common good i.e. healthcare and education. hwealth and education is fundamental to the success of a capitalist economy you need a healthy and well educated workforce for it to work. Just have a look at the educational standards of the most successful state economies. Ante natal care and free access to birth control is a right not a privilege and it's not something the rleigious should be able to prevent.
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Snooz »

I would imagine Mr Gorsuch is having second thoughts on accepting the nomination or he really doesn't know Trump's toddler temperament very well after speaking so candidly. His face after Trump's triple "yank and pull" handshake speaks volumes.

(No idea how to insert videos, sorry)

User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13186
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by LarsMac »

Well, Trump gets his first lesson in how things work, I think.

Not sure that he can rescind his nomination. There is not, to my knowledge any precedent for such a thing.

And once the appointment is approved by Congress the guy is in for life, unless he commits a crime worthy of impeachment.

He does not belong to Trump, or owe Trump, or the Republican Party, the Congress, or anyone else.

Trump set the process in motion, and now he is stuck with it.

That is how it works.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by spot »

I'm quite sure he can't, it's now out of the hands of the White House. There's no reason to doubt Neil Gorsuch's integrity, he's not entering the Court with a taint of personal bias.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

spot;1506548 wrote: I'm quite sure he can't, it's now out of the hands of the White House. There's no reason to doubt Neil Gorsuch's integrity, he's not entering the Court with a taint of personal bias.


I cannot see any reason Trump cannot withdraw Gorsuch or any other candidate as his nominee for a cabinet post.

Anyway, that just isn't happening.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4800
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Snooz »

Trump did the yank and pull on the Japanese PM, it didn't go over well.

President Trump Bestows Deeply Uncomfortable Handshake on Japanese Prime Minister
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40331
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by spot »

tude dog;1506549 wrote: I cannot see any reason Trump cannot withdraw Gorsuch or any other candidate as his nominee for a cabinet post.

Anyway, that just isn't happening.


Every nomination to the Supreme Court which subsequently failed for any reason is listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccess ... ted_States

Some nominees asked the President to withdraw their nomination. Some were withdrawn after opposition from Congress. Some declined the appointment after being accepted. I can't see even one instance where a President withdrew his nomination because he changed his mind, there's invariably been cause. Being insulted by his own nominee doesn't qualify.

When I wrote "it's now out of the hands of the White House" it was on the basis that such a withdrawal as others here were proposing has never yet happened in the United States of America, brief though its unsavory history has been. I concede that, as you say, your President seems to have the theoretical right to do it in a temper tantrum were he that unstable. The nearest to such an event was Harriet Miers who embarrassed Dubya by displaying her ignorance of law to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a potential stumbling block Dubya had not considered when making his inept nomination.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13186
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by LarsMac »

Snooz;1506577 wrote: Trump did the yank and pull on the Japanese PM, it didn't go over well.

President Trump Bestows Deeply Uncomfortable Handshake on Japanese Prime Minister


According to my Japanese co-worker, Asians, for the most part, do not like handshake, and do not respect the classic American firm grip style handshake. That they offer their hand at all is a grudging acceptance of the custom for the sake of diplomacy. That thing that Trump did was akin to grabbing the guys nuts. Obscene, disgusting and insulting.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13186
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by LarsMac »

spot;1506583 wrote: Every nomination to the Supreme Court which subsequently failed for any reason is listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccess ... ted_States

Some nominees asked the President to withdraw their nomination. Some were withdrawn after opposition from Congress. Some declined the appointment after being accepted. I can't see even one instance where a President withdrew his nomination because he changed his mind, there's invariably been cause. Being insulted by his own nominee doesn't qualify.

When I wrote "it's now out of the hands of the White House" it was on the basis that such a withdrawal as others here were proposing has never yet happened in the United States of America, brief though its unsavory history has been. I concede that, as you say, your President seems to have the theoretical right to do it in a temper tantrum were he that unstable. The nearest to such an event was Harriet Miers who embarrassed Dubya by displaying her ignorance of law to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a potential stumbling block Dubya had not considered when making his inept nomination.


So, he could, should he so desire, withdraw the nomination. Not sure that he will, since that would be akin to an admission that he was wrong.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

LarsMac;1506586 wrote: So, he could, should he so desire, withdraw the nomination. Not sure that he will, since that would be akin to an admission that he was wrong.


If he did, that would be the stupidest thing he's done since taking office and for his sake he realizes that.

The Supreme Court was the only reason I seriously considered voting for him and I am sure there were many conservatives who did vote for him based on that promise.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Wandrin »

LarsMac;1506584 wrote: According to my Japanese co-worker, Asians, for the most part, do not like handshake, and do not respect the classic American firm grip style handshake. That they offer their hand at all is a grudging acceptance of the custom for the sake of diplomacy. That thing that Trump did was akin to grabbing the guys nuts. Obscene, disgusting and insulting.


Plus, Trump has the habit, when shaking hands, of yanking the other person's hand toward him as some sort of power play. Does Donald Trump Know How To Shake Hands? An Investigation | The Huffington Post
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

Wandrin;1506598 wrote: Plus, Trump has the habit, when shaking hands, of yanking the other person's hand toward him as some sort of power play. Does Donald Trump Know How To Shake Hands? An Investigation | The Huffington Post


Here's how to do it correctly.

image hosting over 2mb

That way one gets a good idea of which shoe shine brushes are best to use.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

Ah, the bow.



“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13186
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by LarsMac »

My Grandfather always said that it never hurts to show a little respect to other people.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

I don't know how I feel about the hybrid bow/handshake combo. This has always appeared awkward to me, like a shortcut in cultural formalities. I personally prefer the bow over the handshake aesthetically, but the handshake is definitely easier, quicker and less formal, which is to my liking as well. The handshake also allows for a better joint photo op.

eta: the handshake also gives the appearance of more mutual equality, and is more manly. I shake hands with females often in my business and have been doing so for my entire life and it always is a bit uncomfortable because I feel like the female is forced to be manly, though I don't know of a more informal yet mutually agreeable alternative. Hugging is out! The bow?

Life can be so complicated!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Bryn Mawr »

tude dog;1506606 wrote: Here's how to do it correctly.

image hosting over 2mb

That way one gets a good idea of which shoe shine brushes are best to use.


Shades on 1960's Alabama don't you think?
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6485
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by FourPart »

The handshake was originally intended to indicate that the particpants were not armed (ie. their sword hand).
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

FourPart;1506613 wrote: The handshake was originally intended to indicate that the particpants were not armed (ie. their sword hand).


I never knew that.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

Bryn Mawr;1506612 wrote: Shades on 1960's Alabama don't you think?


There comes a point when one considers what's deliberate or not. That a white man with barely a grade-school education would infer that a black man who is well educated in constitutional law among other subjects is a shoeshine boy is just so ironic and immature that it defies both reason and maturity.

This coming from a person who wished Obama would succeed?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by tude dog »

Bryn Mawr;1506612 wrote: Shades on 1960's Alabama don't you think?


No. Just trying to figure out why his exaggerated bow.

In the 8th grade, all boys took wood shop and one project was to make a shoe shine box.

White black or brown we made those boxes. I never used mine to polish other people's shoes, kept it for myself. BTW, don't know that anyone else use them to make money.

image hosting gif

Barack made a habit of bowing.

image hosting 20mb

adult image hosting
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court nominee

Post by Ahso! »

Oh yea, my bad. I forgot that the first thing that would come to mind for anyone when seeing our black president bowing would be that shoe polish box we all made in shop class. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm glad to know there's no weaseling going on.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple

Return to “Current Events”