Wait a minute.
Commenting on what the president says about judges is getting âinvolved in politics?â
By that standard, accepting the presidentâs nomination to the Supreme Court is getting involved in politics too.
W.T.F? If youâre going to be consistent, walk away now!
attacks on the âintegrity or honesty or independenceâ of the judiciary are âdishearteningâ no matter who they come from.
Get used to it, snowflake. Politics, law enforcement, lawyers and pretty much everyone are being questioned and âattackedâ about their integrity. If you think judges are somehow exempt, youâre living in a dream world.
I think that judges and judiciary should not be above the law. They have to be held accountable for their actions.
GAH!!!
The discussion of same-sex marriage was particularly pointed. When asked how his views on marriage have changed over the years, Gorsuch said he would not answer because it âwould send a misleading signal to the American people.â Gorsuch was asked about same-sex marriage, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015, and called it âabsolutely settled law.â But Gorsuch said he would not speak more on it because there are other legal actions still unfolding that are related to the impact of that ruling. âThereâs ongoing litigation about its impact and its application right now,â Gorsuch said. Gorsuch said.
So yeah, I hate to say it, but heâs been giving mostly the right answers and giving them well. Heâs obviously very intelligent and well spoken. A modicum of evasiveness was to be expected and weâd have seen it with Garland too, particularly when you start getting into questions about pending issues making their way through the system and which are likley to find their way to SCOTUS. Sure, Iâm as tempted to find fault and knit-pick as everyone else, or read into it that heâs a devious manipulator, etc. etc., because I consider the sourceâŚand where this guyâs nomination came from is, well, might as well be the pits of hellâŚbut here we areâŚheâs done a good job of defending himself and thatâs unfortunate.
I know thatâs a seriously frustrating answerâŚI feel it tooâŚbut weâre talking about a position where the buck will stop for those pending cases. Iâm averse to calling it the right answer, but heâs also not really all that wrong either.
Agreed, but when I read weasel-speak like âits applicationâ I think âwhittle it down until itâs almost meaningless and then overturn it once that bleeding-heart Kennedy is goneâ.
Pretty much. There should be no give and take or back and forth. Judges should be stoic, stalwart punching bags when necessary and should never involve themselves in the kind of partisan, political tomfoolery Trump has made his hallmark.
Checks and balances: Thereâs always riotsâŚ
Ah yes, the old âall lives matterâ dodge again.
Way to say nothing, Gorsuch.
I hope the upper chamber will have a fainting couch available for tomorrowâs hearings because Iâd hate to see Gorsuch hit his head should he get the vapors if someone says something demoralizing or disheartening in the coming daysâŚ
His nomination was only made possible by political tomfoolery. If he didnât want to be involved in that he was perfectly free to refuse that he didnât shows what his integrity is worth⌠nothing.
In terms of ethics and character, Gorsuch demonstrates a lack in the second area. There is no reason at all that he canât condemn Trumpâs attacks on judges, for those are indefensible.
Gorsuch has no problems with being nominated by a President who was elected with the help of Putin. What more do you need to know about him?
Why are Dems attending hearings? Just say you wonât vote for him and you wonât give them the 60 needed votes.
The thing is, since the Bork nomination, these hearings have basically become exercises in whether youâre bright enough to give âthe right answers.â Roberts gave all the right answers which Senator Obama, at least, didnât buy for a minute.
Iâll grant you that determining whether a candidate has sufficient intelligence to give the right answers believably is a worthwhile exercise in itself. Certainly Miers and Gonzales might well have flunked it.
âWhen anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity, the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening,â Gorsuch said.
Thatâs pretty weasely. Criticism is to be expected from some people, such as pundits, citizens or non-govât orgs on the losing side of a ruling, etc. Insults and personal attacks are NOT expected from members of the other branches of govt because they are attempts to undermine the judiciary.
If he canât stand up to a president who is actively trying to undermine the judiciary, how can we expect him to stand up to that president about anything?
As Trump trashes the judiciary again and again. Will you withdraw your demoralized nomination? YeaaaahhhâŚthought not.
Gosh Gorsuch is repulsive. More dead shark eyes, Team Trump has the market cornered.
Of course itâs âdemoralizingâ and âdishearteningâ, Neil. Thatâs a plus in the Trumpsterâs book - they want their judges to lack morals and hearts.
Why did you think they nominated you?