Dr.Sack Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 49 year old Columbia, Harvard & Oxford educated. Lots of interesting case decisions my favorite being his opinion for the 2015 case of "Energy and Environmental Legal Institute v. Joshua Epel". A few contradictions: for the death penalty, but against assisted suicide. Also never understood the strict interpretation of the constitution, as social issues on the 1790s are different. As far as a central bank and specific industries they did not exist at the time our founding father wrote it. A few pros: he is for states rights over federal power, which will do me well in many states with legalized cannabis. Overall he is not going to be someone who shakes things up and overturns Roe v Wade which is the fundamental line in the sand for most liberals. His appointment should be swift and I expect the only push back will be from the corporatist Democrats like Boxer, & Booker. When comparing and contrasting Garland vs Gorsuch there is not much of a difference. Edited February 1, 2017 by Dr.Sack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Garland is irrelevant. The Dems had a chance for a year to protest that travesty. They didn't and now they have this. He's qualified (pre vetting process) and the president gets to pick. Assuming there's no huge skeleton in the closet, he fills the Scalia seat. He is different from Scalia on administrative powers. He's a much bigger advocate for the legislature to govern than Scalia was. The next choices are the big ones. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy. All hung on too long. Edited February 1, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 "If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what's a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal's office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that's too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal's office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that's so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) 49 year old Columbia, Harvard & Oxford educated. Lots of interesting case decisions my favorite being his opinion for the 2015 case of "Energy and Environmental Legal Institute v. Joshua Epel". A few contradictions: for the death penalty, but against assisted suicide. Also never understood the strict interpretation of the constitution, as social issues on the 1790s are different. As far as a central bank and specific industries they did not exist at the time our founding father wrote it. A few pros: he is for states rights over federal power, which will do me well in many states with legalized cannabis. Overall he is not going to be someone who shakes things up and overturns Roe v Wade which is the fundamental line in the sand for most liberals. His appointment should be swift and I expect the only push back will be from the corporatist Democrats like Boxer, & Booker. When comparing and contrasting Garland vs Gorsuch there is not much of a difference. Is this still something that's a talking point? It would never happen. Edited February 1, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 "If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what's a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal's office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that's too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal's office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that's so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded." Interesting. Common sense like that would go a long way towards explaining why Schumer wants him to be considered an ideological zealot. Don't know much about him, but the little I've read has been very encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Interesting. Common sense like that would go a long way towards explaining why Schumer wants him to be considered an ideological zealot. Don't know much about him, but the little I've read has been very encouraging. Local TV showed the SCOTUS pick protest outside Trump Tower last night. At least the news team had the courtesy to tell the viewers that the protest started BEFORE the pick was announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Local TV showed the SCOTUS pick protest outside Trump Tower last night. At least the news team had the courtesy to tell the viewers that the protest started BEFORE the pick was announced. Exactly. This is beyond ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Interesting. Common sense like that would go a long way towards explaining why Schumer wants him to be considered an ideological zealot. Don't know much about him, but the little I've read has been very encouraging. He's fine. I like a mix of approaches on the SC and his originalist thinking is one philosophy of legal interpretation. Different from Scalia but same vein. Is this still something that's a talking point? It would never happen. Based on what? Of course it could happen. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy could all get replaced by Trump. You probably only need one to overturn it and certainly 3 will do it. Edited February 1, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Based on what? Of course it could happen. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy could all get replaced by Trump. You probably only need one to overturn it and certainly 3 will do it. I just don't see it. They will let it lie, even if they got the numbers. Edited February 1, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Ginsberg, good lord she might be too senile to decide to retire and just healthy enough to outlast Trump's next couple years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Ginsberg, good lord she might be too senile to decide to retire and just healthy enough to outlast Trump's next couple years. she's not clueless. She's just asleep. She should have retired 2 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Not one of the current justices will retire while Trump is in office. The only way they get replaced is if they pass away. Ideology will win out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Exactly. This is beyond ridiculous. Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse is becoming one of my favorite politicians simply because of his sense of humor. His tweet from last night: Went to the Supreme Court to talk to the protesters. But it turns out to be a Mad-Lib protest. #Fill-In-The-Blank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts