Article

2017-02-09 Home Front: Politix

Nominee Gorsuch calls DJT judge attacks 'demoralizing' - NEXT please.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-02-09 01:54|| || Front Page|| [11126 views ] Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 02:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 02:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Wrong choice, Donald.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2017-02-09 02:17|| 2017-02-09 02:17|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 08:56|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 08:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 09:21|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 09:25|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 09:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 09:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 10:00|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 10:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 10:06|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 10:52|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 11:29|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 12:37|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 13:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 15:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 15:36|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 15:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 15:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 18:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 19:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 19:21|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 20:13|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2017-02-09 20:16|| Front Page Top

#26 Ignorance Seeking Cure. There. Fixed that for you.

Posted by Nero White 3083 2017-02-09 21:29|| 2017-02-09 21:29|| Front Page Top

23:18 Zenobia Floger6220
21:39 DarthVader
21:29 Nero White 3083
21:14 Frank G
21:09 trailing wife
20:16 Frank G
20:13 Seeking cure for ignorance
19:35 AlanC
19:29 AlanC
19:21 Nero White 3083
19:09 Seeking cure for ignorance
18:45 Nero White 3083
18:34 Procopius2k
18:33 Shipman
18:01 swksvolFF
17:09 Besoeker
17:02 AlmostAnonymous5839
17:00 AlmostAnonymous5839
16:55 Blackbeard Glutle8675
16:49 49 pan
16:47 Besoeker
16:37 anon1
16:34 anon1
16:29 swksvolFF