You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Nominee Gorsuch calls DJT judge attacks 'demoralizing' - NEXT please.
2017-02-09
[Guardian] Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee to the supreme court, called the president’s tweet attacking the federal district court judge James Robart "disheartening and demoralizing", his spokesman has confirmed.

Gorsuch criticized Trump in a private meeting with Senator Richard Blumenthal on Wednesday.

Gorsuch’s spokesman, Ron Bonjean, confirmed to the Guardian that the supreme court nominee called Trump’s tweet attacking Robart "disheartening and demoralizing".

Trump right or wrong, we don't need this brand of loyalty. Send the bugger on down the road and bring up the next candidate.
Posted by:Besoeker

#26  Ignorance Seeking Cure. There. Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Nero White 3083   2017-02-09 21:29  

#25  Nero - make the same comment a couple more ways and maybe you'll convince me?

Nahhhh. I was just funning
Posted by: Frank G   2017-02-09 20:16  

#24  Nero White. you're playing right into the Dems hands. Try removing your emotions from this and think it through. Yes I said 'hopefully', because I don't know Gorsuch personally, but I do know he's an intelligent person and he can figure this out.

I have had something like this done to me, i said something in private and discovered later that the other person took my statement and twisted it out of shape. As a result, I can understand Gorsuch position and can only sympathize with Gorsuch. On the bright side, this will come back to haunt the Dems in later years. Justices tend to have long memories.
Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance   2017-02-09 20:13  

#23   "Hopefully" says no. 22. We don't need your "Hopefully" when it comes to a Justice that will be in the SCOTUS for the next 35 years pilgrim.
Posted by: Nero White 3083   2017-02-09 19:21  

#22  No, Nero White, this is what Blumenthal is trying to do, since they cannot delay/refuse to appoint Gorsuch, he's trying to force him to withdraw.

This is called "politics" and they'll do any dirty tricks to get their ways.

Best thing to do is ignore Blumenthal and let Gorsuch take his seat. Hopefully, Gorsuch learned from this and will be careful what he says from now on.
Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance   2017-02-09 19:09  

#21  Trump is calling out leftist judges who are ruling against the Constitution.

Gorsuch, withdraw. You are not qualified.
Posted by: Nero White 3083   2017-02-09 18:45  

#20  I'm with SteveS #17 on this. This was a private conversation and as far as anyone know,
Gorsuch just said that Trumps comment was disheartening and demoralizing. I don't see any criticism. I'll bet that Gorsuch will never speak 'off the record' again. Welcome to the world of polices Gorsuch!

Blumenthal is also a known liar, he made statements implying that he served in Vietnam when in fact he never did, his entire combat experience is apparently fighting with toddlers during a "toys for tots" drive.
Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance   2017-02-09 15:45  

#19  Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, expressed continued skepticism about Gorsuch’s remarks. “Given the president’s comments, that’s a very milquetoast response,” House said. “Anyone can be disheartened, but the judge has refused to condemn the comments privately or publicly.”

If Chucky's not cheering, it can't be all bad.
Posted by: Bobby   2017-02-09 15:40  

#18  Ginsberg got her hands slapped for criticizing Trump recently which was below SCOTUS decorum.

If Gorsuch is up for nomination and acting below such standards during that process he has just disqualified himself.
Posted by: Nero White 3083   2017-02-09 15:36  

#17  Maybe the needle is stuck, but my angular velocity sensor is reading SPIN. Yeah, Gorsuch likely said the words 'disheartening and demoralizing'. But I'd like to see the exact quote, not some unreliable hearsay version from someone who stands to gain from the misrepresentation.

I, too, find it disheartening and demoralizing that a federal judge would 'interpret' what seems to this non-lawyer to be a simple and clear statute. It may be my personal confirmation bias, but it seems Robart has done this for spiteful and petty purposes.

Pass the salt, please. Yeah, the big one.
Posted by: SteveS   2017-02-09 15:24  

#16  Small town gossip survival...

If the story begins,
So and so said so and so said...

Stop, grab the salt. Maybe even the pink salt.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2017-02-09 13:26  

#15  There is a fairly easy way for judges to avoid being criticized...namely apply the law in plain English the way it is written...
Posted by: Tom   2017-02-09 12:37  

#14  Bad judgement, judge. Robart deserved to be attacked. He was clearly way in the heck out of line. He should be impeached for making political decisions.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2017-02-09 11:29  

#13  Gee, DeVos and charter schools aren't in 'the news'. Maybe what somebody said someone else said is more newsworthy, or diversionary.
Posted by: Skidmark   2017-02-09 10:52  

#12  If that isn't the case, and he was stating unfiltered real-time emotion, then he's not the player I had hoped for.
Posted by Mullah Richard

Ditto! We already have enough activist bloviation coming from the odious Ginsberg.
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-02-09 10:06  

#11  That and his actual private meeting with Blumenthal, who he knew would divulge everything he said, complete with the liberal spin.

Jeez I hope I'm correct.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2017-02-09 10:04  

#10  I think what he said might be a prearranged ploy to dampen not a few of the Dems' belief in the rhetoric being spewed by the Kirsten Gillibrand crowd.

Insert the 'he's not that bad' meme into a few minds and voila.

You gets 60.

Folks at this level usually don't do/say anything without some deeper purpose.

If that isn't the case, and he was stating unfiltered real-time emotion, then he's not the player I had hoped for.
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2017-02-09 10:00  

#9  That would be 'stolen valor' Blumenthal, alleging a provocative comment from a private conversation.

Uh huh.
Posted by: Angusock Chuting6110   2017-02-09 09:40  

#8  There are numerous qualities sought for a SC justice - loyalty to the Executive ain't one of them.

How about loyalty to the Law and separation of powers? If he geeked on such a clear cut issue, what'll he do when issues are not clear cut?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-02-09 09:26  

#7  He is a good judge. He rules according to what the law says. No making shit up on the fly like the libtards.

I don't care if he is loyal or not to teh Donald as long as he does his fucking job.

He is also going to be grilled over Trump's tweets about judges during his conformation as well and not agreeing with them, but stating Trump is well within his rights to do so (Heck, even Lincoln scolded a supreme court judge during his inauguration speech)should keep the senators from going squishy and not voting for him.
Posted by: DarthVader   2017-02-09 09:25  

#6  There are numerous qualities sought for a SC justice - loyalty to the Executive ain't one of them. President Trump would be wise to blow off the comments and stick with his original nomination. Posted by DepotGuy

Very excellent point, under normal circumstances.
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-02-09 09:21  

#5  ...we don't need this brand of loyalty.

There are numerous qualities sought for a SC justice - loyalty to the Executive ain't one of them. President Trump would be wise to blow off the comments and stick with his original nomination.
Posted by: DepotGuy    2017-02-09 08:57  

#4  Gorsuch already said he's issued finding he disliked because they followed the law. He can separate the law from his personal views, unlike the Progs. Remember the source - Blumenthal.

Any body of government that sits for life and is 'de facto' above accountability is an aristocracy. That is fundamentally counter to a republic. An 'independent' judiciary is an aristocracy. Checks and balances means you get checked and called out every now and then. I don't care how you feel. Maybe you need to make an assessment that you should be running for office rather than sitting on the bench if you want to exercise some forms of power. That is the overall problem that needs to be addressed. Term limits for everyone.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2017-02-09 08:56  

#3  Wrong choice, Donald.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-02-09 02:17  

#2  Gorsuch criticized Trump in a private meeting with Senator Richard Blumenthal on Wednesday.

Was Gorsuch naive enough to think his remarks wouldn't be broadcast? Welcome to the big leagues, pal. Watch your head.
Posted by: PBMcL   2017-02-09 02:09  

#1  How about issuing a NO COMMENT based on the potential likelihood of having to render a future high court decision ?

Must he one day recuse himself from decision making due to previous comments about the administration? If so, what then will we have gained from his participation on the court ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-02-09 02:01  

00:00