President Trump nominates originalist Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

[Rexx Taylor]

Gorsuch now. Kennedy and Ginsburg are likely retirements.

7-2 Court. If Thomas happens to retire as well, a same-same pick.

A court for a generation. Enough time to repair a lot of damage.

if Joe Biden grills him, he will bring up the good old days when he was a child watching President Teddy Rosevelt on TV in the 20's.

How would biden do that?

you didnt see Biden bring up watching television in 1929? {i think thats what he said}

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

In his first few days in office, Donald The Dictator has demonstrated a clear disregard for gay rights, for the Constitution & for American values. NOT MY PRESIDENT!

Gays lack American values and morals in the first place.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Gorsuch is a hunter and fisherman. That's a great quality to have, like his fishing buddy Antonin Scalia.

 

[basquebromance]

Neil Gorsuch: "This addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary."

WRONG

 

[Snouter]

Fake Tears Chuck Schumer hates outdoorsman and all law abiding American taxpayers.

 

[basquebromance]

JUST IN: Pres. Trump encourages Sen. Majority Leader McConnell to "go nuclear" if Senate becomes gridlocked on US Supreme Court nominee.

 

[Silhouette]

JUST IN: Pres. Trump encourages Sen. Majority Leader McConnell to "go nuclear" if Senate becomes gridlocked on US Supreme Court nominee.

I think the correct term is "Go Reid". And be careful. If you don't refer to the new phrase properly you can be fined in New York up to what, $200,000?

 

[Nosmo King]

A "Constitutional Originalist". Interpret the constitution the way the Founding Fathers interpreted it.

Okay. The constitution was written in 1789. The Founding Fathers saw Black folks as 3/8 a person. The Founding Fathers could not conceive of Oregon or wrist watches or cotton candy. And it's their divine interpretation of the constitution that will decide if cops can attach a GPS unit to your car. If private citizens have a right to carry weapons of war on city streets. If a corporation can toss as much money to a political campaign as possible. If companies can genetically modify seeds and sell them exclusively.

Let us recognize that the constitution is an elastic document providing enough room for a 21st century society not just a few states clinging to the east coast without paved roads, electrically powered cities and hospitals that don't bleed their patients in order to get rid of the evil humors.

 

[Slade3200]

A "Constitutional Originalist". Interpret the constitution the way the Founding Fathers interpreted it.

Okay. The constitution was written in 1789. The Founding Fathers saw Black folks as 3/8 a person. The Founding Fathers could not conceive of Oregon or wrist watches or cotton candy. And it's their divine interpretation of the constitution that will decide if cops can attach a GPS unit to your car. If private citizens have a right to carry weapons of war on city streets. If a corporation can toss as much money to a political campaign as possible. If companies can genetically modify seeds and sell them exclusively.

Let us recognize that the constitution is an elastic document providing enough room for a 21st century society not just a few states clinging to the east coast without paved roads, electrically powered cities and hospitals that don't bleed their patients in order to get rid of the evil humors.

I believe the argument for "originalists" / "constitutionalists" isn't that they want to lock in the same laws and definitions that were written in 1789, but they are more focused on the process that is taken to create, define, evolve and enforce our laws. Take the 3/8 Black folks, example you mentioned, or women's rights etc. These groups were treated very different in 1789 but through the process of law makers creating laws and amending the constitution, the original laws evolved. This was achieved by the hands of the "People" not by a group of judges.

I believe that is the same process that "originalists" want to undertake. Instead of the supreme court being able to make law, they are there to enforce the laws that are made by the congress (peoples representatives). It is a fair argument, which is watered down by a humiliatingly stagnant and incompetent group of representatives that are now in charge of our law making. Congress can't seem to get anything done so I think more and more people are looking to other means of law making to get stuff done. For example, Executive orders... It's all a mess.

 

[Little-Acorn]

[ Instead of the supreme court being able to make law, they are there to enforce the laws that are made by the congress (peoples representatives).

Correct. Including the part that says the Fed govt has NO powers except those assigned to it by the Constitution. And that more powers can be given simply by amending the Const. If the people don't amend it to give Congress the power to, say, regulate our light bulbs or toilets, that means that the people don't want the Fed to regulate those things.

Democrats didn't take that hint, as well as many others. Which is part of the reason they were kicked out of every majority in government last November.

 

[Slade3200]

[ Instead of the supreme court being able to make law, they are there to enforce the laws that are made by the congress (peoples representatives).

Correct. Including the part that says the Fed govt has NO powers except those assigned to it by the Constitution. And that more powers can be given simply by amending the Const. If the people don't amend it to give Congress the power to, say, regulate our light bulbs or toilets, that means that the people don't want the Fed to regulate those things.

Democrats didn't take that hint, as well as many others. Which is part of the reason they were kicked out of every majority in government last November.

I get your point but I also see middleground. Some policies whether it be environmental, regulatory, temporary stimulus, disaster relief etc. If it's deemed helpful for the general welfare of our people then I'd support certain efforts and legal without thinking we need to add specifics about lightbulbs to the constitution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

[ Instead of the supreme court being able to make law, they are there to enforce the laws that are made by the congress (peoples representatives).

Correct. Including the part that says the Fed govt has NO powers except those assigned to it by the Constitution. And that more powers can be given simply by amending the Const. If the people don't amend it to give Congress the power to, say, regulate our light bulbs or toilets, that means that the people don't want the Fed to regulate those things.

Democrats didn't take that hint, as well as many others. Which is part of the reason they were kicked out of every majority in government last November.

I get your point but I also see middleground. Some policies whether it be environmental, regulatory, temporary stimulus, disaster relief etc. If it's deemed helpful for the general welfare of our people then I'd support certain efforts and legal without thinking we need to add specifics about lightbulbs to the constitution.

"General welfare" had a specific meaning when the Constitution was written, and it wasn't "Anything that might help anybody anywhere".

It meant "Programs that will help all Americans equally", differentiated from "Local welfare", which was "programs that will help specific groups". What we now call Special Interests.

The Constitution says Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, to provide for Defense and to provide for the General Welfare, and a few other things. Rather than "providing for everything that might help anyone", it was actually a restriction: Congress could only provide for programs that would help ALL Americans. NO special Interests. Those were left to the states and local govts.

Gorsuch is someone who will rule on laws that way. That is one of his good points.

 

[Slade3200]

[ Instead of the supreme court being able to make law, they are there to enforce the laws that are made by the congress (peoples representatives).

Correct. Including the part that says the Fed govt has NO powers except those assigned to it by the Constitution. And that more powers can be given simply by amending the Const. If the people don't amend it to give Congress the power to, say, regulate our light bulbs or toilets, that means that the people don't want the Fed to regulate those things.

Democrats didn't take that hint, as well as many others. Which is part of the reason they were kicked out of every majority in government last November.

I get your point but I also see middleground. Some policies whether it be environmental, regulatory, temporary stimulus, disaster relief etc. If it's deemed helpful for the general welfare of our people then I'd support certain efforts and legal without thinking we need to add specifics about lightbulbs to the constitution.

"General welfare" had a specific meaning when the Constitution was written, and it wasn't "Anything that might help anybody anywhere".

It meant "Programs that will help all Americans equally", differentiated from "Local welfare", which was "programs that will help specific groups". What we now call Special Interests.

The Constitution says Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, to provide for Defense and to provide for the General Welfare, and a few other things. Rather than "providing for everything that might help anyone", it was actually a restriction: Congress could only provide for programs that would help ALL Americans. NO special Interests. Those were left to the states and local govts.

Gorsuch is someone who will rule on laws that way. That is one of his good points.

That's your interpretation which you're enetitled to but it is debateable and the source of difference between cons and libs. One can make a case that a program the supports a specific class, whether they be a minority or suppressed group, helps make a better society for everybody.

 

[basquebromance]

Would Hitler nominate a Supreme Court justice who wrote a book against euthanasia?