Gorsuch answers to "The Meaning of Life"


PracticalMac

macrumors 68030
Jan 22, 2009
2,745
3,710
Houston, TX
Conversation is gold mine about the inner working of SCOTUS.

Bring on Monty Python and Benny Hill!!! (in addition to DA)

EDIT 3/22/17: A friend of mine presented this little detail (whole new respect to DA).
True Meaning of 42.jpg
 
Last edited:

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
827
15,203
I caught a few moments of his hearing, I'm not exactly sure how anyone can not confirm him.
I wouldn't confirm him. First because he has been evasive and outright has refused to answer questions about gay rights. As a gay person that would never fly with me. I don't buy things sight unseen. I don't go for mystery boxes. I need to know where someone stands.

Secondly, because at times I feel he has just said what someone wanted to hear on other issues. I dunno...he just trips my BS meter and I've been on this earth long enough that my BS meter is almost never wrong. I get vibes off people and have come to realize that I have very good instincts which have served me well over the years.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,603
24,501
Texas
I wouldn't confirm him. First because he has been evasive and outright has refused to answer questions about gay rights. As a gay person that would never fly with me. I don't buy things sight unseen. I don't go for mystery boxes. I need to know where someone stands.
Nah, you can't say that. They kept asking his personal opinion, and he said thousand of times that his personal opinion was superfluous. I think he did a good job.
As for the BS meter... it's a senate hearing, what do you expect ? ;)
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
If I was a senator, I would refuse to confirm anyone not named Merrick Garland. GOP stole the nomination from a president that still had close to 25% of his term left by refusing to even hold hearings for a year. It was total BS.

I would dare the GOP to pull the so-called nuclear option, and in doing so give the DNC free reign to pass anything and everything with only 50 votes the next time they are in power.
 

Mac'nCheese

Suspended
Feb 9, 2010
3,732
4,967
Yeah, Senator Cruz really hit him with tough questions. I know that first one was a joke but his entire line of questioning was all softballs. Pretty much the same with all the Repubs.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,123
I wouldn't confirm him. First because he has been evasive and outright has refused to answer questions about gay rights. As a gay person that would never fly with me. I don't buy things sight unseen. I don't go for mystery boxes. I need to know where someone stands.

Secondly, because at times I feel he has just said what someone wanted to hear on other issues. I dunno...he just trips my BS meter and I've been on this earth long enough that my BS meter is almost never wrong. I get vibes off people and have come to realize that I have very good instincts which have served me well over the years.
Based on some of the personal accounts given by those who know him he seems pretty supportive of gay rights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/politics/gorsuch-gay-rights.html

On a side note, the democrats might want to pass on having Stuart Smalley question a federal judge on law. Just don't let him talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,603
24,501
Texas
Great. Then if that knowledge is out there, why not talking about it in a hearing?
He can't answer that type of questions directly. If you heard Kagan's and Sotomayor's hearings they did the same. The reason is that he has to avoid politicizing the subject at any cost, which is something very difficult to do in Congress. I am surprised on the direct way he answered about Roe v Wade!
 

Strider64

macrumors 6502a
Dec 1, 2015
715
2,366
Suburb of Detroit
They put too much stock in nomination of Supreme Court justice, for a lot of times they go against party policies. Take John Roberts for example, for Obamacare basically passed because of his interpretation of the law and he was appointed by the conservatives. As for it being total B.S. that they delayed the nomination until after the election that is hogwash. It was Joe Biden that set the precedent for that. Democrats seem to find a way to keep being their own worst enemy. Last there is a reason it's Legislative, Executive and Judicial and NOT Legislative, Executive, and Executive. ;)
 

Mac'nCheese

Suspended
Feb 9, 2010
3,732
4,967

webbuzz

macrumors 68000
Jul 24, 2010
1,522
5,635
Yeah, Senator Cruz really hit him with tough questions. I know that first one was a joke but his entire line of questioning was all softballs. Pretty much the same with all the Repubs.
He should have discussed and joked about Perry Mason like Al Franken did with Sotomayor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,323
29,856
Catskill Mountains
He can't answer that type of questions directly. If you heard Kagan's and Sotomayor's hearings they did the same. The reason is that he has to avoid politicizing the subject at any cost, which is something very difficult to do in Congress. I am surprised on the direct way he answered about Roe v Wade!
Right, he doesn't want to end up having to recuse himself later because of something he opined about on the fly during his confirmation hearing. Roe v Wade, I dunno. The far right is going to push on clinic closures and so forth until one of these days a Democratic Congress is going to legislate the issue for the common good and make Roe v Wade a significant footnote in history. They could have left it alone but no... that's not the way of a GOP that prefers to get in a circle and commit political suicide on behalf of its assorted fringes.

Meanwhile about all the country could hope for with Gorsuch is that he would at least occasionally turn out to be like a John Roberts on Roberts' most generous days so far of thinking what the ideals of the United States of America were after we had managed to boot a king out of the colonies and form a union. In some ways Gorsuch might make a very good justice. He's no hack. On the other hand.... wow. It's far too much to hope that Gorsuch would prove a David Souter in terms of any ideological surprises. This guy is about as far from David Souter as, oh I dunno, say Mack the Knife (and all his parodies)...
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,603
24,501
Texas
Right, he doesn't want to end up having to recuse himself later because of something he opined about on the fly during his confirmation hearing. Roe v Wade, I dunno. The far right is going to push on clinic closures and so forth until one of these days a Democratic Congress is going to legislate the issue for the common good and make Roe v Wade a significant footnote in history. They could have left it alone but no... that's not the way of a GOP that prefers to get in a circle and commit political suicide on behalf of its assorted fringes.

Meanwhile about all the country could hope for with Gorsuch is that he would at least occasionally turn out to be like a John Roberts on Roberts' most generous days so far of thinking what the ideals of the United States of America were after we had managed to boot a king out of the colonies and form a union. In some ways Gorsuch might make a very good justice. He's no hack. On the other hand.... wow. It's far too much to hope that Gorsuch would prove a David Souter in terms of any ideological surprises. This guy is about as far from David Souter as, oh I dunno, say Mack the Knife (and all his parodies)...
I honestly think that Gorsuch is a true moderate
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,323
29,856
Catskill Mountains
I honestly think that Gorsuch is a true moderate
You are not the first person I've heard say that. It would not surprise me, although I have found some of his rulings --like the truck driver one-- to be without the deep underpinnings of common sense that I believe a judge, even an originalist, must bring to the law. Gorsuch's decision on that case seemed without enough sense of the law's frailty in the face of human greed. Whoever wrote that law did not envision that level of greed, I suspect. We have become far more greedy over the years, and far more pressured by shareholders to stay that way. Forget the driver's life, the main thing is that box full of flat screen TVs or whatever was in the trailer.

Sometimes interpretation of the law can be "originalist" and yet comprehend the changing of the times. Gorsuch has said as much during this hearing, yet not with respect to that case. Maybe even he would recommend certain changes in that law. Of course that is not his bailiwick, although justices will often remark in their opinions that Congress has remedies to situations the Court cannot find room to repair when a law turns up faulty. I would not be surprised if that law gets re-legislated some time.

Anyway, even though Gorsuch said yeah it was the kind of case you take home at night, he came up a little short there on what I expect of a judge for the Supreme Court. I don't know that case but in my best hopes for humanity I hope there was a fiery dissent from someone who penned a reference to greed of the company or the insurers versus life of a truck driver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayMysterio

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 3, 2010
3,603
24,501
Texas
LizKat, there is no way that a judge of that caliber doesn't rule controversially in some cases. Certainly the truck driver story is not the best, but I also have no clue of the legal framework that brought him to the decision. It's easy for us to judge one or two rulings, kinda like people still think that McDonald's should've not been sued by the lady for the hot coffee.
Even Sotomayor was called a racist judge. I think that he's a great choice- as I am sure that Obama's choice was - and the hearings confirmed my views.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,323
29,856
Catskill Mountains
LizKat, there is no way that a judge of that caliber doesn't rule controversially in some cases. Certainly the truck driver story is not the best, but I also have no clue of the legal framework that brought him to the decision. It's easy for us to judge one or two rulings, kinda like people still think that McDonald's should've not been sued by the lady for the hot coffee.
Even Sotomayor was called a racist judge. I think that he's a great choice- as I am sure that Obama's choice was - and the hearings confirmed my views.
I'm not gonna fight you on that post. I may even have gone on record in PRSI as saying Gorsuch certainly seemed qualified --more than at least one justice I'll leave unnamed here-- and if not found otherwise then he should be confirmed. I'm sick of both sides of the aisle trying to suss out ideological favorites from the judiciary, frankly. It's an insult to the court system and to the justices. I'm not unhappy when a justice thought to be left or right seems to go the other way on a case now in the Supreme Court. Even if the decision seems off the mark to me. I've had some differences with Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts, but they've all surprised me sometimes too. I won't like everything Gorsuch opines if he's confirmed. That's life. I'm still pissed off that Garland wasn't given a hearing. I think that was disgraceful. I'm not at all sure, however, that the Democrats should have that in mind when they vote on Gorsuch. The next one down the pike could be worse. Far worse if you think about it.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
827
15,203
He can't answer that type of questions directly. If you heard Kagan's and Sotomayor's hearings they did the same. The reason is that he has to avoid politicizing the subject at any cost, which is something very difficult to do in Congress. I am surprised on the direct way he answered about Roe v Wade!
If they can't answer questions then why even bother having hearings? Why even ask questions? Seems like a rather pointless exercise.

As for it being total B.S. that they delayed the nomination until after the election that is hogwash. It was Joe Biden that set the precedent for that.
Joe Biden might have proposed it, but only one party has decided apparently that a President only has a three year term when it comes to Supreme Court picks. Or is it even that long? Is it two years? One year? What is the exact time frame? It needs to be set so that Trump and all future presidents are held to the same standard.