• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Supreme Court Nominee - Neil M. Gorsuch |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.

GK86

Homeland Security Fail
Edit - Neil M. Gorsuch is nominated for SC.





Time: 8pm Eastern.

Where to watch? All major networks will be broadcasting.

Where to stream? FB stream.

The Judges (from NYT):

Thomas M. Hardiman


myh9NXC.jpg


Judge Hardiman, a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Georgetown University Law Center, has built a reputation as a conservative over more than a decade on federal courts and earlier in private practice.

He was first appointed to the Federal District Court in Pittsburgh in 2003 by President George W. Bush and then elevated four years later to the Third Circuit. In that position, he has served alongside Mr. Trump's sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who is said to have recommended him for the Supreme Court.

Judge Hardiman, 51, has earned a reputation as a defender of gun rights, with several of his most notable opinions coming in Second Amendment cases.

He has also frequently taken the side of law enforcement. In one case, in 2010, Judge Hardiman's majority opinion allowed New Jersey officials to strip-search people arrested for any offense before admitting them to a jail, regardless of whether the authorities had reason to suspect the possession of contraband.

And in a case last May, Judge Hardiman signed on to a decision that ruled asylum seekers were not entitled to file habeas corpus petitions to prevent or postpone their removal from the country while challenging their deportation orders.

Neil M. Gorsuch

9M9whX0.jpg


Judge Gorsuch's credentials are the most traditional of the finalists: degrees from Columbia, Harvard Law School and Oxford, as well as a clerkship on the Supreme Court.

His mother, Anne M. Gorsuch, served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan. And after his clerkship, Judge Gorsuch spent a decade in private practice at a Washington law firm and two years at the Justice Department.

Mr. Bush appointed Judge Gorsuch, 49, to the 10th Circuit in 2006. There, he has earned a reputation as an originalist, trying to interpret the Constitution in accord with the understanding of those who drafted and adopted it. That approach generally leads to conservative decisions, but Judge Gorsuch has written little on several issues of interest to the right, including gay rights and gun control.

He does, however, have a strong record of favoring religious freedom over other values, built largely on two prominent cases in which he sided with employers who objected for religious reasons to providing some forms of contraception coverage. Both cases, which involved Hobby Lobby Stores and the Little Sisters of the Poor, were eventually considered by the Supreme Court.
 

RDreamer

Member
It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.
 

Syncytia

Member
It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.

AND they have the nerve to complain that Democrats are obstructing with cabinet appointees.
 

JP_

Banned
It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.

Yep.
 
It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.
You should be thanking them, no doubt the kenyan Muslim would've appointed osama bin laden to the SC!
 

Zophar

Member
Both are terrible but Gorsuch seems a little less terrible if he's to be Scalia 2.0. Seems like there's a lot of grey area there.
 
It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.

Wait till RBG is replaced under this administration, that is gonna make you rage like you wouldn't believe.

Emails.
 

Ludovico

Member
Undecided on whether I want to watch now (contributing to view count) or just catch the highlights.
I hate that I'm basically following this shitshow nonstop now, but better that than completely tuning out, right?
 

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
It's very disturbing how this is being treated and announced.

IT'S NOT A FUCKING GAME SHOW











where's my Brawndo

EDIT: jfc, you know he's going to pick BOTH
 
Of those 2, I'd favor Gorsuch based on the descriptions. He at least has good credentials and doesn't seem like a total nut job or incredibly evil. That means he probably won't be the nominee, but you never know.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Don't watch this shit. Read about it later

Besides, we already know it's Neil Gorsuch.
 

necrosis

Member
It makes me throw up in my mouth a little to think of the fact the republicans literally stole this nomination and because our fucking country voted this dumb motherfucker instead of Hillary we're going to be living with his decision for possibly 4 fucking DECADES. Fuck it makes me angry.

yep
 

kevin1025

Banned
Rick Santorum on CNN is trying to act like he has a secret source, Tapper says who it is and he looks crestfallen like he thought he had something they didn't, haha.
 

Syncytia

Member
Amazing

Chris Cillizza ‏@TheFix 3m3 minutes ago
More
Please let there be smoke machines. Please let there be smoke machines. Please let there be smoke machines.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Of those 2, I'd favor Gorsuch based on the descriptions. He at least has good credentials and doesn't seem like a total nut job or incredibly evil. That means he probably won't be the nominee, but you never know.

Wiki said:
Gorsuch favours a strict reading of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.[27] In a 2003 case, Gorsuch denied requests of death-row inmates seeking to escape executions.

In his book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Gorsuch argued for "retaining the laws banning assisted suicide and euthanasia … based on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong"

I hope someone asks Gorsuch during hearings:

"In a 2005 speech at Case Western Reserve University, you said that judges should strive "to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best."

Given that the U.S. Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and the very concept of natural rights, that can not be removed by human laws, why do you seem to favor the ability of the government to deprive individuals of life, while opposing the ability of private individuals to do the same? If the taking of life by private persons is always wrong, then why is it okay for the government to take life, from your perspective of Originalism? Is it not hypocritical of the founders to hold certain rights to be inalienable, such as life, yet to grant the state explicit permission to carry out capital punishment, and for you to also hold that euthanasia is always wrong but capital punishment is just? Why should the state be granted rights over others that they do not have unto themselves? Rights that are inalienable? Rights that your decree should also hold to be inalienable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom