Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Future of the U.S Supreme Court

2016 Election U.S. Supreme Court Labor Unions Corporate Personhood Voting Rights Act

  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#41
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,516 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

1. Short of health problems, though, I doubt that either Kennedy or Thomas will retire under a Democratic President's watch.

 

2. Yes, but having either 3 or 4 Justices leave the bench absent health problems during a Democratic President's watch is probably very unlikely.

 

3. The key word here is "if," though. Indeed, due to the principle of stare decisis as well as due to changing public opinion on this in a more liberal direction, I am certainly extremely hesitant that the U.S. Supreme Court will ever again hear any cases which pertain to sodomy, gay sex, and same-sex marriage.

Also, in regards to Anthony Kennedy, it is worth noting that he only got nominated by President Ronald Reagan after two of Reagan's more conservative nominees (Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg) had their nominations fail. Indeed, Reagan probably only nominated Kennedy because the 1988 elections were approaching and Reagan needed to quickly get someone who is at least moderately conservative on the U.S. Supreme Court before his term ended.

 

1. I actually wonder if Kennedy really cares to be honest. He's not totally conservative or liberal. He's also made his impact on the court at this point. It's also known that Thomas doesn't like the job. It is extremely rare for him to ask questions during oral arguments and he stated himself that it bothers him when other justices ask a lot of questions. The loss of Scalia caused him to ask one question back in February, his death has definitely impacted him. 

 

2. I didn't say they would all leave, I just said potentially if all the cards fell into place. It'll probably be two at most in a realistic scenario. RBG if Clinton gets in, maybe Breyer. Kennedy and Thomas if Trump gets in. 

 

3. I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember, we're dealing with an unprecedented candidate here. Trump would have authority over SCOTUS appointees and federal justices. If the GOP maintains and expands their majorities, they wouldn't hesitate to vote for them. He's so erratic too which makes me worried circuit courts would become easily split over hearing cases again and going back to what would be a pretty damn conservative court under the Donald's watch. I know it's a big if but I'd rather not take that leap of faith and see it happen knowing it's still a possibility. 


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#42
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

There is not a lot that in the linked article (see below) that was not already covered in other links provided in this thread.  It is a slightly different perspective and a good rehash of the issues at stake.

 

 

A New Era for the Supreme Court

 

http://prospect.org/...a-supreme-court

 

 

It is a relatively long article, so I will not try to extract anything from it.  It does contain this interesting graph.

 

 

 

caplan_chart.png?itok=eX5s45vC

 

Source: Calculated by Lee Epstein from the U.S. Supreme Court Database


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#43
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

The Threat of a Right-Wing Supreme Court

 

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/38082-the-threat-of-a-right-wing-supreme-court-analyzing-trump-s-prospective-justices

 

Extract:

 

Trump has vowed to nominate justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia. The late justice favored unlimited corporate election spending. He opposed reproductive rights, universal health care, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, voting rights, immigrants' rights, labor rights, LGBT rights and environmental protection. Scalia wrote the decision that concluded, for the first time, that the Second Amendment grants each individual (rather than "a well-regulated militia") the right to bear arms.

 

…After consulting with the right-wing Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, Trump released lists of names from which he intends to select his judicial nominees. Their writings and judicial decisions demonstrate open hostility toward reproductive rights, affordable health care, consumer protections, criminal defendants, voting rights, workplace safety and LGBTQ rights.

 

…If Clinton is elected, she would restore a liberal majority to the Court for the first time since 1969. "For the first time in decades, there is now a realistic chance that the Supreme Court will become an engine of progressive change rather than an obstacle to it," Jeffrey Toobin wrote in the New Yorker.

 

Many white evangelicals…will still vote for Trump, notwithstanding the almost daily groping allegations emerging against him. If progressives refuse to vote for Clinton and Trump wins, the negative fallout will affect the lives of people in this country for decades.

 

…"Collectively, these individuals reflect a radical-right ideology that threatens fundamental rights and legal protections, and that favors the powerful and privileged over everyday Americans, especially those from historically marginalized communities," according to the Alliance for Justice. "The list has very little diversity, with only three women, no people of color, and no one who has worked as a public defender or civil rights attorney."

2016_1021scotus.jpg

Donald Trump arrives for a campaign event at the regional airport in Grand Junction, Colorado, on October 18, 2016.

 (Photo: Damon Winter / The New York Times)


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#44
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 


1. Short of health problems, though, I doubt that either Kennedy or Thomas will retire under a Democratic President's watch.

 

2. Yes, but having either 3 or 4 Justices leave the bench absent health problems during a Democratic President's watch is probably very unlikely.

 

3. The key word here is "if," though. Indeed, due to the principle of stare decisis as well as due to changing public opinion on this in a more liberal direction, I am certainly extremely hesitant that the U.S. Supreme Court will ever again hear any cases which pertain to sodomy, gay sex, and same-sex marriage.

Also, in regards to Anthony Kennedy, it is worth noting that he only got nominated by President Ronald Reagan after two of Reagan's more conservative nominees (Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg) had their nominations fail. Indeed, Reagan probably only nominated Kennedy because the 1988 elections were approaching and Reagan needed to quickly get someone who is at least moderately conservative on the U.S. Supreme Court before his term ended.

 

1. I actually wonder if Kennedy really cares to be honest. He's not totally conservative or liberal. He's also made his impact on the court at this point. It's also known that Thomas doesn't like the job. It is extremely rare for him to ask questions during oral arguments and he stated himself that it bothers him when other justices ask a lot of questions. The loss of Scalia caused him to ask one question back in February, his death has definitely impacted him. 

 

2. I didn't say they would all leave, I just said potentially if all the cards fell into place. It'll probably be two at most in a realistic scenario. RBG if Clinton gets in, maybe Breyer. Kennedy and Thomas if Trump gets in. 

 

3. I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember, we're dealing with an unprecedented candidate here. Trump would have authority over SCOTUS appointees and federal justices. If the GOP maintains and expands their majorities, they wouldn't hesitate to vote for them. He's so erratic too which makes me worried circuit courts would become easily split over hearing cases again and going back to what would be a pretty damn conservative court under the Donald's watch. I know it's a big if but I'd rather not take that leap of faith and see it happen knowing it's still a possibility. 

1. Well, Kennedy might have cared enough about a Republican successor for him to vote for Bush in 2000 in Bush v. Gore.

As for Thomas, I would think that he is capable of at least remaining in office until another Republican President enters office. After all, Thomas's views appear to be very conservative.

2. OK; fair enough, I suppose.

 

3. Look--I will say this--it is certainly possible that, in the right circumstances, Obergefell and/or Lawrence will get overturned if Trump wins in 2016 (which I consider to be extremely unlikely at this point in time, for the record).

However, I also think that this would require either Clarence Thomas's vote combined with the vote of four Trump U.S. Supreme Court appointees or the votes of five Trump U.S. Supreme Court appointees (in the event that Clarence Thomas will retire under Trump's watch). After all, I doubt that either John Roberts or Samuel Alito would be willing to reverse either of these two U.S. Supreme Court precedents given the current trends in the U.S. in regards to both gay sex and gay marriage.



#45
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Also, for the record, it is certainly interesting that I personally appear to be neither completely fond of liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justices nor of conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices. :(



#46
MikeMoss

MikeMoss

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • LocationMichigan, USA

Hi

 

Now the Republicans are suggesting that they may not approve any justices appointed by Hillary for the next 4 years if she wins.

We could end up with a court with only 6 justices.

 

Let's hope that the Senate majority swings in the election which is now only a few days away. (AT LAST!!!)

 

I'm still sure that Hillary is going to win, but I can't believe how they keep going after her for having a private server, while ignoring the fact that Trump is probably one of the most despicable humans who ever lived.

 

Every time I hear one of them say they won't vote for Hillary because she's a crook, I want to scream...

 

What the hell do you think that Donald Trump is?

 

Mike



#47
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

The Future of Civil Rights Is Up to the Supreme Court

 

http://www.truth-out...e-supreme-court

 

Introduction:

 

When 95-year-old Rosanell Eaton first registered to vote in the Jim Crow South, she was forced to pass a written literacy test and recite the preamble of the Constitution from memory. Seven decades after becoming one of the first African American voters in her county, Eaton once again found herself facing obstacles undermining her access to the franchise.

 

Because of North Carolina's harsh new voting restrictions, Eaton had to make 11 trips to various state agencies -- traveling a total of over 200 miles -- to get the identification she needed to vote.

 

So Eaton challenged the state's voter ID laws in a case that made its way to the nation's highest court. After an appeals court struck down the restrictions, the Supreme Court -- in a 4-4 tie vote this August -- declined for now to reinstate them, pending an eventual appeal.

 

Eaton's harrowing story demonstrates the powerful role of each Supreme Court justice. Had there been one more conservative justice sitting on the court, North Carolina voters like Eaton would be facing the controversial, discriminatory barriers she challenged this November.

 

As with so many decisions in our country's history, the protection of Americans' fundamental rights came down to a single seat on the Supreme Court. It was only by one vote, after all, that the court decided the damaging Shelby County case in 2013, which gutted the Voting Rights Act -- a landmark achievement of the 1960s civil rights movement -- and allowed North Carolina to establish these discriminatory voting restrictions in the first place.

 

The article goes on to describe other threats to civil rights that a Trump court would likely pose.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#48
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

A Coup Against the Supreme Court

 

http://www.nytimes.c...ef=opinion&_r=0

 

 

Introduction:

 

People don’t usually remember it this way, but on Dec. 13, 2000, Vice President Al Gore gave one of the most important speeches in American history. Mr. Gore had contested the initial results of the Florida vote count and prevailed in the Florida state courts, but the Supreme Court had voted, 5-to-4, the day before to end the recount and effectively hand the presidency to George W. Bush.

 

“Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken,” Mr. Gore said. “Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it.” The frenzied battle over a few hundred votes had spawned intense anger across the country — but it had been resolved “as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.”

 

Mr. Gore’s concession that night still stands as the most powerful reaffirmation in modern times of the Supreme Court’s unique and fragile role in the American system of government. Millions of people were furious at the justices’ decision in Bush v. Gore — many believed it was the result not of legal reasoning but of rank partisanship — and yet virtually everyone followed Mr. Gore’s selfless lead, accepted the court as the final arbiter of the dispute, and moved on. There were no riots in the streets, no attempted coups, no “Second Amendment solutions.” There was, instead, a peaceful transfer of power: the hallmark of a civil society operating under the rule of law.

 

 

Sixteen years later, the Supreme Court sits crippled, unable to resolve the most pressing legal questions facing the country. Two events — the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February and the unprecedented refusal of Senate Republicans to even consider President Obama’s pick to fill the vacant seat — have converged to throw the court’s future as a functioning institution into doubt.

 

 

This scenario would have seemed unimaginable a year ago. But Tuesday’s vote — for president and for control of the Senate — will determine whether the court remains short-handed for months or, as Republicans are now threatening if they hold the Senate, for years.

 

07mon1-master768.jpg

 

Niv Bavarsky


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#49
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

The Future of Civil Rights Is Up to the Supreme Court

 

http://www.truth-out...e-supreme-court

 

Introduction:

 

When 95-year-old Rosanell Eaton first registered to vote in the Jim Crow South, she was forced to pass a written literacy test and recite the preamble of the Constitution from memory. Seven decades after becoming one of the first African American voters in her county, Eaton once again found herself facing obstacles undermining her access to the franchise.

 

Because of North Carolina's harsh new voting restrictions, Eaton had to make 11 trips to various state agencies -- traveling a total of over 200 miles -- to get the identification she needed to vote.

 

So Eaton challenged the state's voter ID laws in a case that made its way to the nation's highest court. After an appeals court struck down the restrictions, the Supreme Court -- in a 4-4 tie vote this August -- declined for now to reinstate them, pending an eventual appeal.

 

Eaton's harrowing story demonstrates the powerful role of each Supreme Court justice. Had there been one more conservative justice sitting on the court, North Carolina voters like Eaton would be facing the controversial, discriminatory barriers she challenged this November.

 

As with so many decisions in our country's history, the protection of Americans' fundamental rights came down to a single seat on the Supreme Court. It was only by one vote, after all, that the court decided the damaging Shelby County case in 2013, which gutted the Voting Rights Act -- a landmark achievement of the 1960s civil rights movement -- and allowed North Carolina to establish these discriminatory voting restrictions in the first place.

 

The article goes on to describe other threats to civil rights that a Trump court would likely pose.

That Black woman is a hero! :D



#50
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

^^^^She is indeed.

 

 

The long wait is over.  A nominee likely to have the support of the Republican party has emerged:  Judge Neil Gorsuch, 49 is Trump’s pick to replace the deceased Anthony Scalia.  Hopefully, this thread has provided the reader with some good background information to evaluate this pick. It is likely to be the most important and consequential nominations of the new administration. On first blush, he appears to have all of the professional qualifications needed to be considered a viable pick. A refreshing difference from say Betsy Devos (Education) or Ben Carson (HUD).  So opposition is likely to focus on what is for the most part a highly conservative judicial philosophy.

Consider

 

·        He is skeptical of the landmark 1984 Supreme Court ruling involving the Chevron oil company which held that courts should defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal laws.

·        Gorsuch is a strong supporter of religious freedom rights

·        Gorsuch also wrote a 2000 law journal article and a 2006 book arguing strongly against assisted-suicide laws

·        He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia);

·        He believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia);

·        He is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia);

·        He is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia);

·        He is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia)," 

 

Probably no clause in the Constitution is hated by conservatives more than the interstate commerce clause.  Presumably, that is the clause media outlets are referring to as the “commerce clause.”

 

An interesting bit of family history which either makes him extremely dangerous or potentially more liberal: his mother Anne Burfod Gorsuch, ran the Environmental Protection Agency at the beginning of the Reagan Administration.

 

Watch this thread for further news on this nomination and the confirmation process Gorsuch will navigate.

 

ap_77226199201_custom-23e55b4aeed5bb4653

 

Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals makes a point while delivering prepared remarks before a group of attorneys last Friday at a luncheon in a legal firm in lower downtown Denver.

David Zalubowski/AP

 

Sources:

 

http://www.npr.org/2...e-supreme-court

 

http://www.msn.com/e...ID=ansmsnnews11

 

http://www.politico....al-views-234437

 

 

 

 

 

A probably inappropriate personal note:

 

*Tries very hard to choke down an "I told you so."*


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#51
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

Trump's Choice of Gorsuch Endangers Civil, Human and Environmental Rights

 

http://www.truth-out...onmental-rights

 

Extract:

 

In pledging to vote against Gorsuch, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., issued this statement:

 

"Before even joining the bench, [Gorsuch] advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women's access to basic health care.

 

For years, powerful interests have executed a full-scale assault on the integrity of our federal judiciary, trying to turn the Supreme Court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and the powerful. They spent millions to keep this seat open, and Judge Gorsuch is their reward.

 

Every day, our new President finds more ways to demonstrate his hostility for our independent judiciary, our civil society, and the rule of law. Now more than ever, America needs Supreme Court justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans -- civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, and all other protections guaranteed by our laws. We don't need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence."

 

"It is imperative that a new justice be prepared to defend the rights of all Americans, not just the wealthy and large corporations," Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vermont, noted.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#52
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,900 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

So am I correct in assuming that the Justice was chosen young in order to make sure that he had more of a lasting impact i.e. lives longer than an older nominee? Did that play a part in the selection process or was it simply based on merit? 


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#53
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

^^^^ Hard to read Trump's mind, but the Justice's relative youth may have been a factor.

 

Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Calls President’s Attacks on Judiciary ‘Demoralizing’

 

 

http://www.msn.com/e...ID=ansmsnnews11

 

Introduction

 

 

President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court has called the president's recent criticism of the judiciary "disheartening" and "demoralizing," a spokesman for the nomination confirmation team told NBC News on Wednesday.

 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, said Wednesday that he spoke with U.S. Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch and that Gorsuch "certainly expressed to me that he is disheartened by the demoralizing and abhorrent comments made by President Trump about the judiciary."

 

A spokesman for the team shepherding Gorsuch's nomination in the Senate confirmed Blumenthal's version of the conversation to NBC News and said Gorsuch did use the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing."

 

On Twitter and in a speech Wednesday, Trump criticized judges and attorneys involved in a legal fight over his immigration travel executive order, which suspended entry to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim nations and temporarily halted the entry by refugees.

 

Trump called the federal judge in Seattle who blocked the order last week a "so-called judge." U.S. District Judge James Robart was appointed by President George W. Bush.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#54
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

Jury Secrecy Doesn’t Apply if Bias Taints Deliberations, Justices Rule

 

https://www.nytimes....ss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

Extract:

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that courts must make an exception to the usual rule that jury deliberations are secret when evidence emerges that those discussions were marred by racial or ethnic bias.

 

“Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the 5-to-3 decision.

 

The case arose from statements made during jury deliberations in a 2010 sexual assault trial. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” a juror said of the defendant, according to sworn statements from other jurors submitted by defense lawyers after the trial was over.

 

The juror, identified in court papers as H.C., was a former law enforcement officer. After the trial was over, two other jurors submitted sworn statements describing what he had said during deliberations.

 

…Those statements, Justice Kennedy wrote, warranted an investigation by the trial judge into deliberations that are ordinarily secret. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion.

07jury-master768.jpg

 

Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez was convicted of three misdemeanors in a case in which a juror was said to have declared in the deliberations, “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.” 

Credit Morgan Rachel Levy for The New York Times


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#55
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

U.S. Senators Clash at Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing

 

http://www.bbc.com/n...canada-39328503

 

Introduction:

 

Senators have clashed at the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch over why the post was not filled under President Obama.

 

The seat was vacated with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia 13 months ago.

 

Democrats railed at a "historic dereliction of duty" in not granting a hearing for Mr Obama's choice.

 

Republicans said that would have left Justice Scalia's legacy "in grave danger" and handed the democratic process to "five unelected lawyers".

 

Neil Gorsuch largely took a back seat early on at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. He will be the last on Monday to deliver his address, and will face questions on Tuesday and Wednesday.

_95243146_038588128-1.jpg

 

Committee leaders Chuck Grassley ® and Dianne Feinstein with Neil Gorsuch


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#56
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

Blocking Gorsuch Matters Now More Than Ever

 

https://ourfuture.or...locking-gorsuch

 

Introduction:

 

Trump and the Republicans are doing so many things so fast to hurt ordinary Americans, it’s hard for the resistance movement to keep up.

 

But nothing is more consequential than Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, which was fast-tracked to the president’s desk by the Koch Brothers-backed Federalist Society.

 

Gorsuch’s nomination is the latest assault in The Federalist’s successful 30-year campaign to stack the judiciary with right-wing judges and shape the law to favor corporations over workers.

 

While Senators come and go, the 49-year-old Gorsuch could serve on the Court for thirty or forty years, deeply distorting the law.

 

Grassroots efforts have just struck a resounding blow to Trump’s devastating agenda, by forcing House Republicans to withdraw their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That compounds the success of demonstrations and lawsuits which have thus far blocked Trump’s Muslim ban.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#57
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Confirmation: Democrats Delay First Vote

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...lay-first-vote/

 

Introduction:

 

The first vote to advance the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has been delayed for a week by Senate Democrats.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee announced Monday that it’s holding over the votes until next Monday for Gorsuch to be an associate justice of the high court, Rod Rosenstein to be deputy attorney general and Rachel Brand to serve as associate attorney general.

 

Senate rules allow any member to hold over the nominee for consideration for one week. Once the committee votes on the Gorsuch nomination, it will then go to the full Senate for consideration. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky said he expects the full Senate to vote on his nomination before lawmakers leave for their two-week recess on Friday, April 7.

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, however, announced last Thursday that he was urging Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination.

 

“After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” he said on the Senate floor. “His nomination will have a cloture vote. He will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation. My vote will be no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.”


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#58
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

America Can’t Afford Another Gorsuch in Government

 

https://ourfuture.or...h-in-government

 

 

Extract:

 

As EPA administrator, Anne Gorsuch tried to ignore some of the worst toxic waste disasters in American history including Woburn, Massachusetts, the site of water contamination that caused a childhood leukemia cluster that became the subject of the book and movie A Civil Action. The Stringfellow Acid Pits were a site created by Gorsuch’s former employer, Aerojet-General Corp., which turned out to be even more toxic than Love Canal. Times Beach was contaminated with dioxin, the most toxic chemical known to man. Fortunately for victims, Congress forced Gorsuch to act….

 

For Neil Gorsuch to condone her behavior, saying she did nothing wrong, reveals a real flaw in his character. Would Justice Gorsuch advocate the same in a Supreme Court decision? If someone orders another person to do harm, will Justice Gorsuch somehow justify it because they were just following orders? Would Justice Gorsuch believe that someone’s loyalty to a President places his or her actions above the law?

 

I was devastated when I first arrived in Washington, 36 years ago, to work with communities faced with toxic pollution that couldn’t use this new Superfund program. My family and neighborhood’s suffering was the impetus for the program. Superfund had so much potential. I planned on using every piece of the program to assist communities to obtain clean water, air and land. Neil Gorsuch’s mother crippled the program, so much so that it has never fully recovered.

 

It’s clear to me that most children by 15 years of age know right from wrong. Neil Gorsuch watched as his mother allowed the poisoning of innocent American families, and allowed corporate polluters to escape responsibility. Then he condoned, and justified, her actions.

 

These are not attitudes that we want, or can accept, in a Supreme Court Justice.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#59
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

Gorsuch on Labor: A Soulless Man Cannot Serve Justice

 

 

https://ourfuture.or...t-serve-justice

 

 

 

Judge Neil Gorsuch wouldn’t answer… say whether, on orders from an employer, he’d have driven a tractor trailer with locked brakes, endangering the lives of other motorists, or instead allowed himself to freeze to death in sub-zero cold in an unheated truck cab while awaiting a mechanic.

 

Gorsuch dithered and demurred. He talked around the query. Finally, he said, “I don’t know.”

 

The vaunted jurist nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court couldn’t answer a basic question about a case on which he’d issued an infamous dissenting opinion. The fact that he had never considered the key question and the fact that Gorsuch, born and bred a one-percenter, decided this case and others for moneyed interests without a thought for the people injured as a result, disqualifies him for a seat on the nation’s highest court.

 

Sen. Al Franken was among the lawmakers who asked Gorsuch about the case of Alphonse Maddin during the senate confirmation hearing last week.

 

Maddin, 48, of Detroit, was driving a truck loaded with meat on Interstate 88 across rural Illinois on a night in January 2009 when the temperature was a life-threatening minus 27 degrees. Maddin pulled over to figure out how to get to a corporate-approved gas station. When he tried to pull back onto the road, the brakes on the 50-foot trailer had frozen, though not those on the cab.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#60
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,287 posts

This is a huge loss not just for the Democrats, but for the American people.

 

 

Gorsich Confirmed

 

http://www.msn.com/e...ID=ansmsnnews11

 

Introduction:

 

WASHINGTON - The Republican-led Senate on Friday gave Donald Trump the biggest triumph of his young presidency, confirming his Supreme Court nominee over stout Democratic opposition and restoring a conservative majority on the highest U.S. judicial body.

 

The Senate, which last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama's nominee to the court, voted 54-45 to approve Republican Trump's pick, Colorado-based federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch, to the lifetime job.

 

Three Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for Gorsuch. Gorsuch's confirmation ends the longest Supreme Court vacancy since 1862 during the American Civil War, with the court down a justice for almost 14 months since long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13, 2016.

 

"He's going to make an incredible addition to the court," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. McConnell said Gorsuch, who also worked in the Justice Department under Republican former President George W. Bush and is the son of the first woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has "sterling credentials, an excellent record and an ideal judicial temperament."

 

Illustrating the importance of the moment, Vice President Mike Pence served as the Senate's presiding officer during the vote. Republicans, possessing a 52-48 Senate majority, on Thursday overcame a ferocious Democratic effort to block a confirmation vote by resorting to a rule change known as the "nuclear option."


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users