[RaccoonFace]

Seems like Trump made the right pick.

Quote:


Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch a reactionary who dresses up his cruel views in folksy charms. Above, Gorsuch in the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

On Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed himself to be everything that liberals had most feared: pro-gun, pro–travel ban, anti-gay, anti–church/state separation. He is certainly more conservative than Justice Samuel Alito and possibly to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas. He is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project. And he will likely serve on the court for at least three more decades.

Although Gorsuch has barely been on the bench for two months, he has already had an opportunity to weigh in on some of the most pressing constitutional issues of our time. In each case, he has chosen the most conservative position. On Monday, Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined his dissent.) That, alone, is startling: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that the Constitution compels states to grant same-sex couples “the constellation” of “rights, benefits, and responsibilities” that “the states have linked to marriage,” including “birth and death certificates.” Obergefell, then, already settled this issue. Gorsuch’s dissent suggests he may not accept Obergefell as settled law and may instead seek to undermine or reverse it.

Gorsuch also joined Thomas in dissenting from the court’s refusal to review a challenge to California’s concealed carry laws. California grants concealed carry permits for “good cause”—namely, a “particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense.” Gun advocates challenged this rule, alleging a violation of the Second Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California regime, and on Monday, the court declined to reconsider its decision. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented vociferously, essentially declaring that the Second Amendment grants individuals a right to carry loaded firearms in public. Not even the archconservative Alito joined their bizarre opinion. It appears Gorsuch is eager to strike down almost any law that limits the right “to keep and bear arms” in any way. If adopted by the court, Gorsuch’s theory would effectively bar state and local governments from passing almost any kind of gun safety legislation.

Monday also revealed Gorsuch’s deep hostility to the separation of church and state. He joined Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the court in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, holding that a state may not constitutionally refuse to subsidize houses of worship. The court, joined by Gorsuch, held that, when a state declines to fund a church’s improvement project, it somehow violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her vehement and impressive dissent, Roberts’ opinion held “for the first time” that “the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church.” Roberts’ decision is especially noteworthy for its complete rejection of originalism: As Sotomayor painstakingly proved, the United States has a rich history of laws preventing the government from “directing taxpayer funds to houses of worship.” Never before has the court found that these laws somehow interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Gorsuch joined Roberts’ opinion, although he parted ways with the chief justice when it came to a critical footnote that limited its holding. Trinity Lutheran involved playground resurfacing: The church wanted a state grant for a special rubber substance it wished to pour onto its play area. In a footnote, Roberts wrote that “this case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.” (Emphasis mine.) Gorsuch, as well as Thomas, rejected this footnote; both justices wrote separately to declare that they’d go further, holding that any disparate treatment of religious organizations likely runs afoul of the Constitution. That seemingly benign statement implies that both justices would force states to funnel more taxpayer money to churches and religious groups. To their minds, the government discriminates against religion when it refuses to subsidize it.

Then, finally, there’s the travel ban ruling. In a compromise decision, the justices allowed Trump’s executive order to take effect but exempted “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The order gives the Trump administration most of what it wants, while ensuring that individuals with significant ties to the U.S. will not be turned away at the border. Yet Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito, opposed this compromise: He would’ve let the travel ban take effect in its entirety, as he believes it to be lawful. So much for the fantasy of Gorsuch standing up to Trump.

When Trump first nominated Gorsuch, I was relieved he hadn’t picked an outright lunatic, and I felt cautiously optimistic that Gorsuch might be less of a hard-line conservative than liberals believed. I was wrong. Gorsuch is the worst kind of justice. He is a reactionary who dresses up his cruel, antediluvian views in folksy charm; who professes restraint while espousing extreme, sweeping views; who has no sympathy for vulnerable minorities but believes Christians are being oppressed. And he will guide the course of the law for the next 30 years or more. He is a catastrophe for proponents of civil rights and equal justice. And his influence over the court only stands to grow.

This country is in terrible trouble.

http://archive.is/e5EYj

[RaccoonFace]

Some quotes from his recent dissents/opinions:

Quote:

PERRY v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

Anthony Perry asks us to tweak a congressional statute—just a little—so that it might (he says) work a bit more efficiently...Mr. Perry’s is an invitation I would run from fast. If a statute needs repair, there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation.

Quote:

TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., PETITIONER v. CAROL S. COMER, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

First, the Court leaves open the possibility a useful distinction might be drawn between laws that discriminate on the basis of religious status and religious use. See ante, at 12. Respectfully, I harbor doubts about the stability of such a line. Does a religious man say grace before dinner? Or does a man begin his meal in a religious manner? Is it a religious group that built the playground? Or
did a group build the playground so it might be used to advance a religious mission? The distinction blurs in much the same way the line between acts and omissions can blur when stared at too long, leaving us to ask (for example) whether the man who drowns by awaiting the incoming tide does so by act (coming upon the sea) or omission (allowing the sea to come upon him).

Quote:

MARISA N. PAVAN, ET AL. v. NATHANIEL SMITH

Given all this, it seems far from clear what here warrants the strong medicine of summary reversal. Indeed, it is not even clear what the Court expects to happen on remand that hasn’t happened already. The Court does not offer any remedial suggestion, and none leaps to mind. Perhaps the state supreme court could memorialize the State’s concession on §9–10–201, even though that law wasn’t fairly challenged and such a chore is hardly the usual reward for seeking faithfully to apply, not evade, this Court’s mandates.

Relevant commentary for this forum from another forum:

Quote:

What I like about those responses is that Gorsuch is applying abstract thought to the case. The jury is out on whether Sotomayor or Ginsburg (I.e. Women) have ever thought abstractly about a case or are they judging with some gumbo of ARE VALUES and Case law (what we want to happen, what has happened)

Gorsuch seems to ignore the 'what we want to happen' and 'what has happened' in favor of 'what could happen or will happen' which I would argue is the professional way to do it. Anybody can paralegal that s**t and use other people's justification as your own; it takes an abstract and enlightened thinker to apply morals and dareisay logic.

Quote:

good point that women often seem to avoid deciding anything on principle, and instead envision the outcome they want and justify it accordingly

sometimes you need a little of both

[Hypno]

He replaces Scalia who was also very conservative. However, Scalia rubber stamped every government search and seizure such that there is hardly any 4th Amendment remaining.

[YossariansRight]

Melt, snowflakes, melt...

[eskimobobseal]

Faggots don't like him, lefty SJWs don't like him.

That's his seal of approval for me.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

[911]

One down, 2 to go.

[Menace]

I really like his style of legal writing. Scalia had an amazing way with words, and while Gorsuch doesn't write the same way, it's similarly evocative and accessible.

[redpillage]

(06-27-2017 11:28 AM)eskimobobseal Wrote:  

Faggots don't like him, lefty SJWs don't like him.

That's his seal of approval for me.

Yeah, that's my yard stick these days as well. Does the Left despise him or her? Must be doing something right.

[Hypno]

For those playing at home, Anthony Kennedy may soon retire, giving Trump another appointment. Kennedy was a Reagan appointee but ended up being very moderate and became the swing vote for the libs in a lot of cases, especially pro-Life cases.

In addition, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 84 and Breyer is 78. Breyer is 78.

Here is a good way to measure these guys - the gay marriage decision. The Court’s opinion—authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic who has long been seen as the possible swing vote on gay marriage, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, and with four separate dissents authored and joined by combinations of Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—lists four major reasons for its decision.

So if Kennedy retires, Trump will get a second. And if Ginsburg has to retire due to decling health, that is a third. and Breyer would be a fourth.

However, all of this is probably optimistic speculation. The Court ended its session yesterday I think and neither Kennedy nor Ginsburg announced their retirements. Ginsburd is a true believer and they'll probably have to cart her dead body out of there if there is a Republican in the White House. Kennedy and Breyer less so and due to their age MIGHT retire during Trump's first term. More info here:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...tire-also/

We need to be thankful that Ginsburg and Breyer were selfish and didn't retire during Obama's term, because he might have appointed young libs to replace them with whom we'd be stuck for a long time. As it is, Kagan and Sotomayer are 57 and 63 respectively, and both could serve for another 20-30 years.

[stugatz]

Liberal tears give me the hugest boner.

(I also can't wait for Kennedy to retire. Every time I read one of his rulings, I wonder how Robert Bork would have ruled on it.)

[heavy]

Uplifting post of the year

[Samseau]

If Trump can fill up the Supreme Court with Gorsuch conservatives then America won't just have a fighting chance... we'll have a god damn mandate from heaven to make one of the best damn countries on the planet. A true conservatopia. Gorsuch writes like he's a living incarnation of Thomas Jefferson.

Trump will easily be one of the most influential presidents in America's history at this rate, just because of the Justices alone. The left is getting bulldozed every single day and there is no relent.

The only thing that could fuck us over are the cucks in Congress, as long as we get them to bend the knee and vote with the party line, then we're all set because we've got a Supreme Court to enforce our orders.

No civil war necessary! There's nothing the libs and Jews can do except pray everyday for Trump to get assassinated.

Given the above, all we need to make sure the Republican party becomes more "pro-family" (not dumb shit like "men's rights") and end divorce rape, end jail time for fathers who cannot meet child support payments, and give more rights to the accused to end the hysteria of false accusations. A more pro-family centered policy can put an end to declining marriage rates, as well fight back the tide of degeneracy that's been sweeping America since the 1960's.

This is the best news all year - with the Courts on our side, the sky's the limit...

[C-Note]

Unless the economy goes south, Trump will be re-elected. It's unlikely that Kennedy and Ginsburg will last another 7 years. By the time the Trump presidency ends, there will be five staunch conservatives on the court, vs two super liberals, one moderate liberal, and one moderate conservative.

[Foolsgo1d]

I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies present but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

[Samseau]

(06-27-2017 04:28 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies present but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

Yeah please like the liberals were defenders of individual rights...

[Libertas]

[Hypno]

(06-27-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 04:28 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies present but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

Yeah please like the liberals were defenders of individual rights...

Thurgood Marshall always wrote excellent dissents in Fourth Amendment cases.

[Leonard D Neubache]

We'll see what happens when the rubber hits the road.

Anyone game to saw off the end of a shotgun and then go up against the ATF? That's the acid test right there. Is this Supreme court going to be used to restore America by restoring the rights of her people or is it just going to be used to create a more palatable tyranny?

The first thing I'd be doing is looking to reassert the 10th amendment as actually having any fucking relevancy whatsoever.

If a right wing America still holds that the Commerce clause is the "Federal government can do whatever it fucking likes" clause then you're only putting tyranny on hold and dooming your children to suffer it rather than yourselves.

[Paracelsus]

Quote:

Here is a good way to measure these guys - the gay marriage decision. The Court’s opinion—authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic who has long been seen as the possible swing vote on gay marriage, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, and with four separate dissents authored and joined by combinations of Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—lists four major reasons for its decision.

In this sphere, as anywhere, you cannot get away from psyops and psychological techniques of persuasion. In his book Pre-suasion, Cialdini puts forward a chilling and interesting theory for why Kennedy suddenly turned his back on his Catholic upbringing and started legally countenancing buttfucking in marriage: simply put, he was persuaded to that point of view by the PR effort which picked up the three or four words he had always emphasised in his decisions -- individual liberty in particular -- and kept associating the gay rights movement with those phrases in the PR campaign. Everywhere Kennedy went, he was constantly seeing phrases he had used in the past associated with gay marriage.

It's darkly hilarious that this is precisely the sort of influence that juries are sequestered to guard against, the very reason they are told not to read newspapers or internet about the case - for fear of this form of influence. Judges, of course, think themselves immune to this form of influence. But we all have an inbuilt prejudice to want to be consistent with our previous public stands, and this is all but carved in stone in legal theory given the power of precedent in court decisions. Kennedy was mindfucked into seeing the gay rights issue through the prism of individual liberty, and he was vulnerable to it because he'd decided other cases through that prism in the past as well.

[RaccoonFace]

Quote:

Democrats Despair over Neil Gorsuch: ‘We’ve Got Another Scalia’

Democrats are depressed after the first Supreme Court decisions featuring newly-installed Justice Neil Gorsuch were released this week confirmed that he is every bit as conservative as Republicans had hoped at his nomination.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico: “We’ve got another Scalia.” She was referring to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a hero to conservatives and a leading light of the originalist school of jurisprudence, who passed away last year and whose seat Gorsuch has just filled.

Politico elaborates:

Quote:

Feinstein told POLITICO she’d looked at Gorsuch’s early rulings and saw no sign of moderation from conservative orthodoxy. “Right down the line. Everything — everything,” she said. “I’m surprised that it’s so comprehensive.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — a former Supreme Court clerk — said Gorsuch’s early record on the court is in tension with the humble and evenhanded approach he touted during his confirmation hearings in March.

“In a way, I’m surprised that he hasn’t demonstrated more independence. I am surprised because in his demeanor and his tone he really made a huge effort to show his openness — which some of us thought might be more an act than it was a real persona,” Blumenthal said, before adding: “So far, I have to say, I’m disappointed.”

…

“On the travel ban, I think he’s fulfilling the worst expectations so far of his opponents and probably the best hopes of his supporters,” Blumenthal said.

Politico adds that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called Gorsuch “the tool of the creepy billionaire coalition.”

Meanwhile, according to Politico, Republicans were exultant, with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) calling Gorsuch “awesome,” and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) declaring Gorsuch was “exactly what we hoped for and expected.”

In general, the pattern is otherwise: judges with conservative track records frequently become more liberal after being nominated, thanks to pressure from the media, the liberal legal fraternity, and their colleagues on the bench.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ew-scalia/

[Captainstabbin]

(06-27-2017 11:02 AM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  

Some quotes from his recent dissents/opinions:

Quote:

PERRY v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

Anthony Perry asks us to tweak a congressional statute—just a little—so that it might (he says) work a bit more efficiently...Mr. Perry’s is an invitation I would run from fast. If a statute needs repair, there’s a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It’s called legislation.

This is the biglyest thing for me. He's not an activist judge, he believes in the rule of law. That's half the battle - overturning the insane rulings of these liberal activist judges.

Think of all the insanity that could be avoided if liberal judges weren't able to essentially rewrite legislation to suit their agenda. From Obamacare to gay marriage, we could have avoided a lot of nonsense.

[Hypno]

(06-27-2017 03:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Gorsuch writes like he's a living incarnation of Thomas Jefferson.

Very well said, and also accurate.

(06-27-2017 03:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Trump will easily be one of the most influential presidents in America's history at this rate, just because of the Justices alone.

There is only a single justice so far. Yes, if he can appoint 2 or 3 more, especially when you consider that the ones who would leave would be libs like Kennedy, Bader Ginsburg, and Breyer, then this can be transformational. But it remains to be seen when they'll retire. Bader Ginsburg is rumored to be unhealthy so even without a second term there is a good chance. Kennedy has been rumored to be close, so with a second term he is likely replaced by Trump. And Breyer being 78 might be able to hold on for one term, but probably not two.

To put this in context, here is the WaPo calling Bader Ginsburg selfish for not retiring sooner - bonus liberal butt-hurt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...cca3758fd8

[Mikan]

(06-27-2017 11:19 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

He replaces Scalia who was also very conservative. However, Scalia rubber stamped every government search and seizure such that there is hardly any 4th Amendment remaining.

Its not just the 4th amendment though. Scalia claimed to be a litteralist-originalist but would occasionally compromise that philosophy for a desired conservative political outcome.

Gorsuch is almost autistic in his literalism. He will make decisions that go against political conservatives because he believes "the law doesn't say that". Despite the claims of many justices past and present, we've never really had a true literalist on the bench like him. He is an advocate of the Nondelegation doctrine which is laregely unpopular with both the right and the left and has written against broad aplication of quailified immunity (the immunity that law enforcement and other govenment employees enjoy from legal and tort actions against them while perfoming their duties).

I don't think he will be the monster that liberals fear or the savior conservatives are hoping for. I think he will wind up pissing off both sides more than once. That seems fair.

[Foolsgo1d]

(06-27-2017 05:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 04:28 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

I'll be careful about celebrating these types of law men. They look good for now because of the enemies present but these guys have no qualms in allowing the power of the state to rule over its citizens with overwhelming power.

Yeah please like the liberals were defenders of individual rights...

And strict conservatives are good for men and sexual freedoms how? They're more likely to reside in religious conservatism which was the whole starting point for current liberal madness.

Neither side, conservatives or liberals are the answer to what the human race needs. It requires something akin to a federation, something to strive for and all this conservatives v liberalism achieves is cycles and pendulum swings from one extreme to the next which result in disorder, chaos, millions of victims and the destruction of nations and ideals.

This judge represents an archaic system.