Goruch is a slam dunk, but so was Garland. I fully expect the democrats to bork Goruch, and I'm not sure I blame them given the politics the republicans played with Garland. This is gonna be ugly.
Goruch is a slam dunk, but so was Garland. I fully expect the democrats to bork Goruch, and I'm not sure I blame them given the politics the republicans played with Garland. This is gonna be ugly.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
AP is reporting Republicans changed the rules today and passed the Treasury and Health secretaries out of committeeOriginally Posted by mUUser
Democrats had boycotted the hearing as they wanted more time to ask questions. The rules required at least one democrat in the room but republicans changed that rule and passed the nominees.
Our country is being run by entitled asshats.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And we keep re-electing them, so what does that make us?
asshat.jpg
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I recognize how naive this position is, but I am very bothered by the notion that Supreme Court justices always have their minds made up on key cases & issues that have yet to materialize.
Conservative Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, after all, and the Warren Court was responsible for some of the most sweeping progressive court decisions in American history.
Gorsuch appears on paper to be qualified. So the guy is a some kind of strict constructionist. That isn't exactly the most damning criticism I can think of in a judge.
If the "liberals" (whatever that means anymore, and I probably fall more in this camp than the other) are so worried about what Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch would mean, I suggest they make better & stronger arguments, work to pass better & stronger laws, etc.
There is a system in place. It usually moves really slowly, but the overall arc of justice in the history of the US has been undeniably progressive in nature.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
I wish the people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Bannon who have made the word 'liberal' into a four-letter word would spend some time in a decidedly illiberal, totalitarian nation.
It worked, didn't it? You're all "progressives" now.
(I kid, I kid.)
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I was at a question-and-answer session once for my university up in the SLC area, and a heckler-parent complained that we should teach "conservative arts" instead of "liberal arts."
I told this parent that maybe he needed to go back to college to learn what the term "liberal arts" meant. I laughed as I said it, but my eyes weren't laughing. He didn't even pretend to laugh. I"m guessing his kid didn't go to my school. Win-win!
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
Gorsuch will make it through, and he will be decent enough. I have issues with his support for Hobby Lobby, his apparent disdain for regulations including good ones (his mother was the head of EPA and tried to destroy it entirely), and his ruling that a cop who tased a teenaged kid in the head (against protocol, and resulted in the kid's death) was not excessive force. I hope the senators grill him deeply on the Citizen's United case and its impact on money in politics.
Gorsuch is a highly respectable judge with an impeccable resume. He will likely get elected without much of a fuss.
And for the record, what happened to Garland was significantly worse than what happened to Bork. Robert Bork made it out of committee, went through debate on the Senate floor, and the final vote was 42-58. Six Republicans voted against him. Bork's actions in the Nixon administration doomed him (especially since he was the person who carried out Nixon's illegal order and fired the independent investigator in the Saturday Night Massacre - according to his memoirs, Nixon promised him a SCOTUS nomination in exchange).
McConnell never even allowed the Judiciary committee to vote on Garland, and thus never even moved the conversation to the full Senate.
So I've read several articles now and am curious on a couple of things.
1) What protocol are you citing? Is it merely the failure to warn someone they're going to be tased (that's the only protocol I've seen mentioned anywhere)
2) What are you contending was excessive?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Diehard Ute; 02-01-2017 at 02:36 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote