Gorsuch 100 Feinstein/Dems 0

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Mar 21, 2017.

  1. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    In today's hearing Difi snippily tried to pump up the Democrat position that Gorsuch is only for the "big guy" and never the " little guy". She said she was just looking for something that would indicate Gorsuch would give the little guy a fair shot because She DiFi could find nothing to indicate that
    She got pawned.
    In this Hotair link th vid is worth watching as Gorsuch politely shoots her down with many examples of ruling FOR the little guy.:bow:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/...ttle-guy-rulings-you-seem-to-have-overlooked/
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    She can barely look him in the eye because she must know she is so full of ****. What a loathsome POS she is.
     
  3. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    This hearing is a route. Gorsuch is clearly a highly qualified judge with a solid history and extremely high character and morals.

    It just looks pathetic as they try to suck his blood and he splats each agitator like a mosquito stuck on his arm.

    A filibuster of this guy would be a very bad move on the Libs part.
     
  4. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    She either looks incredibly dishonest or incredibly lazy. The fact that he names all of those cases and she acts as if they somehow were hidden away in a vault where her staff couldn't have located them.

    Typical case of running with the talking points to see if you can score some points off it. If they're true, great. If they get refuted, then we didn't waste hours doing homework only to find a bunch of cases that didn't support our storyline.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    Even the word "many'' is an understatement. He blew her away with so many that she wanted to move on to another question.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    Totally owned Feinstein.
     
  7. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Scalia brought a pipe with him to the Senate
    How great is that?
    Was confirmed anyway
    Zero dissents
    His confirmation predated the Dems going batshet crazy on Bork
    Thankfully

     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Here is part of the back and forth with Ted Cruz today
    Both clerked at the SCOTUS
    These two guys are operating on another level from the rest of the room

     
    • Like Like x 5
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
  10. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    That is just outstanding.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It was a different time. Tobacco companies still gave most of their money to Democrats back then.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Ok JF
    NOW you have to post the clip of that exchange. It was awesome.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Certainly from a political and rhetorical standpoint, Gorsuch curb-stomped Feinstein. She was utterly unprepared to question him on that point. I don't know Gorsuch's background well enough to know if he's a corporate hack or not, and frankly, there's no easy way to tell. It's not really about how many cases you can cite in which you ruled with the "little guy" or how many cases your critics can cite in which you ruled with the "big guy." If the numbers are really extreme, it will raise my eyebrows, but I wouldn't judge somebody based solely on that. It's way too superficial.

    To really know if a judge is a corporate hack, I look at how he applies the law in the cases in which he rules, which means I'd have to actually read the opinions, which I don't have time to do with Gorsuch. For example, when he rules against the "little guy," is it because he's not willing to bend the words in the governing law or construe them in a way in which they've never been construed to make the "little guy" win? Well, that's not "anti-little guy." That's just staying true to the law. However, is he ruling against the little guy by disregarding evidence favorable to the little guy to reverse his jury verdict? If so, then he's "anti-little guy."

    Consistency is also big. Is he a stickler for the rules of procedure and evidence when dealing with a "little guy" but lax on the rules when dealing with a "big guy?" If so, that's "anti-little guy." Does he construe laws that benefit the "little guy" very narrowly but construe laws that benefit the "big guy" very broadly? Obviously, that's "anti-little guy."

    From what I can tell, Gorsuch seems like a reasonably fair judge who tries to do the right thing, and he did a superb job in this hearing. To the extent Democrats tried to portray him as unfair, they definitely didn't convince me or give me cause for concern. If Trump had nominated Don Willett from the Texas Supreme Court, I'd have the knowledge and experience to judge him as a corporate hack, because I'm familiar with his opinions. Fortunately, Trump didn't go there.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    This (written by Obama disciple) says so much about the modern political media. Basically it makes fun of Gorsuch and suggests he's a phony because he was folksy and self-deprecating. He thinks he's a phony because Gorsuch would "cause mischief" on abortion, gun control, etc.

    It's a bizzaro world. Believing in following the text of the Constitution (which is how Roe would get overturned) isn't causing mischief. Making stuff up that isn't in the Constitution or suggesting that it has an evolving meaning is causing mischief and dangerous.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Actually, Dana, yes. People do talk like that. Outside of progressive circles, outside of cynical journalist echo chambers, people actually can enjoy family life, be content with their jobs, and be positive people. We've come to this point in our culture, and it infiltrates everything we do in society. "TV tells me everyone's miserable, and anyone who isn't is a liar or delusional or finds happiness in the wrong things."

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Progressives want everyone to be miserable like they are, and if you're not, that means there's something wrong with you.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  19. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    It is when your called out for that when it's not true. Perception seems to be more important than reality these days with such dishonest by the media and politicians. But your right that there shouldn't be a count on who won more or less. It's about what the law says and following it. If big corporations has won more, then I trust Gorsuch ruled with what the law said and the corporations were in the right. You don't rule for the little guy against what the law said because you feel sorry for someone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You're right, of course, but there are two problems. First, a lot of Republicans think Democratic judges have a monopoly on bending or ignoring the law to reach a desired result or to help a party to whom they are sympathetic. They don't - not by long shot. Republican judges frequently do it especially in states (like Texas) where the judges are elected officials (meaning they raise money and are beholden to donors), but it's simply a different result they seek.

    I wish more Republican voters would wake up to this reality, but most of them don't care, because the "follow the law" mindset is a ruse for most of them. They don't really care if it's bent to reach the result they like.

    Second, I can't necessarily say that I trust Gorsuch ruled with what the law said, because in a confirmation hearing, Don Willett would have said the same stuff. He would talk about originalism and how important it is that the Constitution be applied with a constant an unchanging meaning. That's all good stuff, but that kind of rhetoric has become a talking point for Republican judges. They all talk like that whether they mean it or not. However, since I haven't studied Gorsuch's history enough, I presume that he means what he says.

    Of course, when I hear Democrats attack originalism and promote the idea of evolving definitions/living documents, etc., it turns my stomach. Most people don't know this, but there are actual rules of construction that courts are supposed to follow in interpreting laws, whether we're talking about statutes, constitutions, regulations, etc. None of them support interpreting the law as the Left advocates, and it's easy to see why not. What if we applied the "living document" crap to other laws? It would be complete chaos and lawlessness. The written law would basically be irrelevant.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This will play into the hands of the Rs
    Tactical misstep compounded by a larger strategic blunder

     
  22. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Prodigal, you are correct. Progressives have that view point because their cause has been influenced by the Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School.

    The purpose of trying to get everyone to feel miserable is so that their appeals for revolution will be listened to and we can all welcome our Communist overlords. I mean why all this talk of #resistance and blood in the streets over an election not turning out the way you want?
     
  23. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Did he just say that? ... :facepalm:
     
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Not a smart move. They will change the rules, and they should. And this isn't the nomination to fight with a filibuster, because it simply preserves the current balance. However, what are they going to do if Ginsburg dies with a Republican in the White House? If the filibuster was still around, they might be able to negotiate getting an Anthony Kennedy on the bench, but if it's gone, she's going to be replaced by a Scalia. If they have the majority, then why wouldn't they?
     
  25. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    After 8 years of Obama, many Reps are aware judge shopping occurs on both sides.

    Texas provided several examples while suing Obama Admin 48 times. 7 wins, 12 losses, 9 withdrawn, 20 pending. 31 of those cost Texas roughly $5.9 mil to pursue.

    Here is a detailed look at the history of Texas vs. Obama Admin

    Obama's penchant for ignoring and sliding around law was pretty astounding.

    - Skirting the 'treaty' designation and rules with the Iran Deal
    - Allowing American families to pay foreign kidnapping ransom (kidnapping Americans becomes profitable veture)
    - Deportation relief for 5 mil illegals

    And the list goes on and on. Just those three above make a good case he was purposely defying the will of the American people and batting for the other team.
     
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Or, removed for senility. She apparently lapses into babbling now.

    They were able to let Thurgood Marshall go on like this for years. Nobody on the good side had the guts to do anything about him. However, Ruth Baby does not have the same natural shield around her.
     
  27. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    If the Reps go nuclear, Ginsburg must hold on for the full DT first term.

    The majority party Reps refused to hold hearings on Garland citing the unofficial 'lame duck' rule of the final year of a prez.

    While it's possible Trump could get re-elected (unlike Obama) and not a fully 'lame duck' situation, Dems would still try to use that argument to denounce 4th year hearings.

    However, with Dems in the minority they won't have the same power to delay or refuse hearings like the Reps did with Garland.

    And after forcing Reps to go nuclear in 2017, they won't be able to hold a filibuster stopping a confirmation vote on the next appointee either.

    As always, Libs are like children who seek instant gratification in the moment and can't see two feet behind or in front of their face.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Other than just using my post as a segue to bash Obama, was there a point to this? It doesn't really have anything to do with my post. It has nothing to do with judge shopping.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    The point is whatever I damn well decided to make.

    There was definitely judge shopping used by Texas to challenge Obama (agreeing with your point it happens on both sides).

    As I was researching that to find examples I came across an article of interest detailing Texas' legal challenges against Obama.

    Tangents happen all the time on several posts here. Do you expect to end the practice by sharing Deez royal stamp of disapproval? Dude chill out.
     
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Since a post doesn't have to have anything to do with the post it's replying to, I'd like to use your post to discuss bidets and their pros and cons. Personally, I'm not a fan. They take up a lot of space, create another thing to clean, and don't eliminate the need for toilet paper. What say you?
     

Share This Page