tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,661
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 2, 2017 16:26:30 GMT -5
From the first link, I found one "Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Obama administration wrote in an editorial for the New York Times entitled “Why Liberals should back Neil Gorsuch” that Trump’s nominee was an “extraordinary judge and man”. The second link required a subscription The third libk had no quotes, but the whole article simply bashed Democrats So, your "fair bit of praise from leftists" consists of one opinion More from the first link... "Some prominent Senate Democrats immediately denounced Gorsuch as “unacceptable” and “extreme”." "Ideological strands running through Gorsuch’s appeals court rulings would seem likely to endear him to congressional Republicans and Trump’s conservative base. He has shown himself to be solicitous to claims of religious exemptions from the law, to gun rights claims and to the prosecution of death penalty cases." Not encouraging... That's as far as I got too.... |
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626 
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 2, 2017 17:25:28 GMT -5
The scotusblog.com was running articles on all the proposed nominees the last few weeks. I didn't read them but the blog is pretty good about linking. And the had a LOT of links on Gorsuch the last couple of days.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448 
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 2, 2017 22:09:37 GMT -5
From the first link, I found one "Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Obama administration wrote in an editorial for the New York Times entitled “Why Liberals should back Neil Gorsuch” that Trump’s nominee was an “extraordinary judge and man”. The second link required a subscription The third libk had no quotes, but the whole article simply bashed Democrats So, your "fair bit of praise from leftists" consists of one opinion More from the first link... "Some prominent Senate Democrats immediately denounced Gorsuch as “unacceptable” and “extreme”." "Ideological strands running through Gorsuch’s appeals court rulings would seem likely to endear him to congressional Republicans and Trump’s conservative base. He has shown himself to be solicitous to claims of religious exemptions from the law, to gun rights claims and to the prosecution of death penalty cases." Not encouraging... He's conservative, yeah. He's nowhere near as far right as some of the others Pres. Trump could have picked. He comes from a liberal law background. His uber-liberal students like him. His liberal colleagues praise him. He was confirmed by Democrats without a fuss under Pres. Bush. He's a stickler for the constitution, has gone to the wall to defend the "little guy" more than once, believes strongly in limiting executive power. I'm sorry Hobby Lobby won't pay for your morning after pills, really I am, but maybe you should get past that and acknowledge the not-unsubstantial good in the man, which is the whole point of the third article "bashing Democrats". |
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 2, 2017 22:54:58 GMT -5
From the first link, I found one "Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Obama administration wrote in an editorial for the New York Times entitled “Why Liberals should back Neil Gorsuch” that Trump’s nominee was an “extraordinary judge and man”. The second link required a subscription The third libk had no quotes, but the whole article simply bashed Democrats So, your "fair bit of praise from leftists" consists of one opinion More from the first link... "Some prominent Senate Democrats immediately denounced Gorsuch as “unacceptable” and “extreme”." "Ideological strands running through Gorsuch’s appeals court rulings would seem likely to endear him to congressional Republicans and Trump’s conservative base. He has shown himself to be solicitous to claims of religious exemptions from the law, to gun rights claims and to the prosecution of death penalty cases." Not encouraging... He's conservative, yeah. He's nowhere near as far right as some of the others Pres. Trump could have picked. He comes from a liberal law background. His uber-liberal students like him. His liberal colleagues praise him. He was confirmed by Democrats without a fuss under Pres. Bush. He's a stickler for the constitution, has gone to the wall to defend the "little guy" more than once, believes strongly in limiting executive power. I'm sorry Hobby Lobby won't pay for your morning after pills, really I am, but maybe you should get past that and acknowledge the not-unsubstantial good in the man, which is the whole point of the third article "bashing Democrats". You left out the part about him being appointed to fill a seat that was stolen by months and months of unprecented obstruction. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 3, 2017 19:13:10 GMT -5
He's conservative, yeah. He's nowhere near as far right as some of the others Pres. Trump could have picked. He comes from a liberal law background. His uber-liberal students like him. His liberal colleagues praise him. He was confirmed by Democrats without a fuss under Pres. Bush. He's a stickler for the constitution, has gone to the wall to defend the "little guy" more than once, believes strongly in limiting executive power. I'm sorry Hobby Lobby won't pay for your morning after pills, really I am, but maybe you should get past that and acknowledge the not-unsubstantial good in the man, which is the whole point of the third article "bashing Democrats". You left out the part about him being appointed to fill a seat that was stolen by months and months of unprecented obstruction. All three articles talk about it at length. And we're talking about two separate issues. Neither Pres. Trump nor Mr. Gorsuch had any influence over the Senate stalling. |
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 3, 2017 19:43:29 GMT -5
You left out the part about him being appointed to fill a seat that was stolen by months and months of unprecented obstruction. All three articles talk about it at length. And we're talking about two separate issues. Neither Pres. Trump nor Mr. Gorsuch had any influence over the Senate stalling. No, it's one issue. The president, tainted by the interferrence if a foreign gov't, appointed a stolen seat to a right winger. If he had an ounce if integrity, he'd have appointed Garland. But, he demonstrated that he doesn't. So, every decision by the SCOTUS will be marked with an * |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 3, 2017 20:14:09 GMT -5
All three articles talk about it at length. And we're talking about two separate issues. Neither Pres. Trump nor Mr. Gorsuch had any influence over the Senate stalling. No, it's one issue. The president, tainted by the interferrence if a foreign gov't, appointed a stolen seat to a right winger. If he had an ounce if integrity, he'd have appointed Garland. But, he demonstrated that he doesn't. So, every decision by the SCOTUS will be marked with an * Is Mr. Gorsuch a competent judge and a staunch defender of the US Constitution, yes or no? If 'yes', no asterisk. If 'no', I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support your opinion. If you want to be royally ticked off at the Senate Republicans, you have every right to be. They should have either confirmed or outright rejected Mr. Garland in short order. I don't approve of Pres. Trump's exploiting their gambit, but it's what I would expect from a pragmatist. Nominating Garland would have been swift political suicide. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 3, 2017 20:44:00 GMT -5
No, it's one issue. The president, tainted by the interferrence if a foreign gov't, appointed a stolen seat to a right winger. If he had an ounce if integrity, he'd have appointed Garland. But, he demonstrated that he doesn't. So, every decision by the SCOTUS will be marked with an * Is Mr. Gorsuch a competent judge and a staunch defender of the US Constitution, yes or no? If 'yes', no asterisk. If 'no', I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support your opinion. If you want to be royally ticked off at the Senate Republicans, you have every right to be. They should have either confirmed or outright rejected Mr. Garland in short order. I don't approve of Pres. Trump's exploiting their gambit, but it's what I would expect from a pragmatist. Nominating Garland would have been swift political suicide. The more I think about it, the more I warm up to the idea of political suicide.  |
|
