Simpleton Gorsuch Finds His 'Easier' Solution Has Few Takers On 1st Day

[HAB911]

With a nasty and partisan confirmation battle behind him, Justice Neil Gorsuch took his seat on the nation's highest court on Monday and quickly proved himself to be an active, persistent questioner.

As the court buzzer sounded, Gorsuch emerged from behind the red velvet curtains with his eight colleagues and took his seat at the far right of the bench, no pun intended. (That's where the most junior justice sits, regardless of his or her politics.)

snip

Gorsuch repeatedly suggested it would be "a lot simpler" or "a lot easier if we just follow the text of the statute." But as the lawyers on both sides and other justices pointed out, the statute has multiple provisions that are interdependent, and nothing about them is simple or easy.

"This is unbelievably complicated," lamented Alito. "The one thing about this case that seems perfectly clear to me is that nobody who's not a lawyer — and no ordinary lawyer — could read these statutes and figure out what they are supposed to do."

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/17/524393113/justice-gorsuch-jumps-right-into-questioning-in-supreme-court-debut?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

[Squinch]

1. Just like Twitler(R): "Who knew how hard this was going to be?"

[greymattermom]

2. If he keeps up with the follow the text thing

he will vote in unexpected ways. Follow the text isn't necessarily always conservative.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. The famed textualist Scalia

in reality only followed the "plain meaning of the text" when it supported the conclusion he wanted in the first place. I have no doubt Gorsuch will be the same kind of intellectual fraud as Scalia.

[former9thward]

7. Just curious.

When Scalia wrote his many decisions which favored criminal defendants was he committing "intellectual fraud"?

[DefenseLawyer]

16. In many instances, yes.

There are certainly some Scalia opinions that came to a result I agreed with, although the idea that Scalia was a "champion" of the rights of criminal defendants is specious, at best. This is the man, after all, that said that actual innocence should not be a bar to the death penalty. But certainly, Crawford, Apprendi, and some of his 4th Amendment opinions, among others, were things I agreed with. However, my point is not about his conclusions. My point is that despite his bombast about "original intent" and sticking to the "text", when you actually read his opinions you see that he would routinely abandon both and go with emotion to get where he wanted to be in a particular case. Since you are a Scalia fan, you should spend a few days reading cases and you will see that he had no consistent guiding principles at all.

[former9thward]

23. "Since you are a Scalia fan"

Your user name implies you are a defense attorney. If you are does that mean you are a "fan" of your clients? A lawyer is supposed to be able to look at cases and analyze them based on law not whether they are a "fan" of them. There are some SC decisions, such as Kelo, where I have been appalled at what the liberals wrote. In my view all nine of the Justices go where they want to go.

[Orrex]

8. I agree 100%

And isn't it funny how often Scalia-types decide that the "orignal intent" favors the modern Conservative corporatist agenda?

[hlthe2b]

3. i heard this piece yesterday and was pleased to see him put in his place immediately...

I'm no lawyer, but it seems his "literalist" philosophy is just a lazy Republican brand legal excuse to avoid thinking and trying to sort through any complexity. When even Allito says so, Gorsuch is in for a touch transition.

[former9thward]

6. He was not "put in his place"

The OP completely took quotes out of context. And no, Alito did not say anything against Gorsuch. If you want an accurate account this is the transcript from the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/16-399_3f14.pdf

[hlthe2b]

9. I didn't say or even infer that Alito said anything against Gosuch. The counter argument

that the law was complex and a mere simplistic reading would not suffice was conveyed, however and that would seem a rather embarrassing display of Gorsuch's naivete' imo.

It seems you may be a Gorsuch fan.... I give him some benefit of the doubt, given he's there now, but despite his hailing from Colorado, I won't go beyond that. Some of his opinions are disgusting. Others more reasonable, so we shall see.

[former9thward]

10. It seems you are unwilling to read the transcript.

His so-called quote from the OP was completely out of context. If I had a transcript of everything you say in a day, or anything I say in a day, it is easy to make someone look like an idiot by isolating quotes.

I am not a "fan" of Gorsuch or anyone on the SC. But it is a simple fact that intellectually he was completely qualified for the court and most liberal legal observers said that. He was opposed because of what happened to Garland. If Garland had been put on the court, or at least given a hearing and vote, and there was another vacancy in a Republican administration Gorsuch would have sailed through. That doesn't mean Democratic Senators like his decisions but they would have know Gorsuch was the best they were going to get from a Republican president.

I have noticed on this board many people have cartoon stereotypes of SC Justices. Reality is far different.

[hlthe2b]

11. and you are unwilling/unable to correctly read what posters have actually posted.

Nowhere did I say he was "unquaified". One can be naive' about the highest court in the Nation, despite being imminently qualified.

Your disdain for fellow DUers and progressives is telling, but DO NOT ascribe others' words, thoughts, opinions to me. That is either lazy or dishonest--take your pick.

[Raine1967]

17. The OP is not misleading and the transcript bears the article out.

I just wanted you to know I agree.


I am pretty sure a conversation is happening about this.

Check this article out and it might make you smile! http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-cases-but-also-cafeteria-duty-await-gorsuch-at-high-court-2017-4

[onenote]

20. Actually, the transcript does not bear out the article

See post #15.

[hlthe2b]

21. thanks!

[former9thward]

24. The transcript does not agree with the OP.

Which is why I posted it. The Alito comment was directed to the government's attorney not to Gorsuch.

[LanternWaste]

12. It's important to pretend that any disagreement is predicated on stereotype and lack of reality...

It's important to pretend that any disagreement is predicated on stereotype and lack of reality... lets our bias sound more objective if not looked at beyond its veneer.

[Raven]

5. You would think that

on his first day on the bench he'd keep his mouth shut and listen.

[onenote]

14. I wouldn't think that at all. Nor would anyone with knowledge of the Court.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24595825.html

[HAB911]

13. Supreme Court Scheduled to Hear Important Freedom of Religion Dispute

OH BOY

A plan to make a playground safer for preschoolers is at the center of one of the most important legal battles in decades over the separation of church and state, to be heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But an 11th hour change in policy by the state at the heart of the dispute could blunt the impact of the case.

At stake are bans in well over half the nation that prohibit spending tax dollars to support churches.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-scheduled-hear-important-freedom-religion-dispute-n746746

[onenote]

15. weird reporting

A couple of things: the quoted comment from Alito was made before Gorsuch made the comment attributed to him, even though the article makes it sound like it was a response. And Gorsuch while Gorsuch said "it would be a lot easier if just follow the text of the statute" he didn't do so "repeatedly (and never said the other line attributed to him in quotes "a lot simpler".

I think the reporter wanted there to be a story, but I don't think there really is one. One should keep in mind that what a Justice asks in oral argument doesn't always (and indeed quite frequently does not) reflect where he or she comes out in a case.

[Johonny]

18. impeach him in 2018.

[onenote]

19. And then what?

Even if by some miracle the House flips from R to D and a majority of the House voted to impeach him (for what exactly?) -- also extremely unlikely, the likelihood of there being a 2/3 majority in the Senate to "convict" is infinitesimally small.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Nice start, bud. Waytago, Justice *.