Trump Milks Media Time to Announce Supreme Court Justice

Trump picks 10th Circuit Justice Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court.

In 5 minutes, Donald Trump will name his nominee to the Supreme Court.

In typical over-the top carnival style, he has asked two of his contenders fly to DC to appear with him, when only one will get the nod. [More...]

I won't give the networks ratings for watching this. I'll report after I've read it online.

It's reportedly either Neil M. Gorsuch (10th Cir. sitting in Colorado) and Thomas M. Hardiman, whom I've never heard of but was recommended by Trump's sister.

I'd rather watch a rerun of All in the Family.

He's better off picking Gorsuch who won't have a problem getting confirmed. He's also got similar philosophies as the deceased Justice Scalia.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Sen. Comm. Pushes Sessions Thru to Full Vote >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    At Least Gorsuch Brings Diversity (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:31:38 PM EST
    He and his wife belong to an Episcopalian Church in Boulder.

    Episcopalian Church (none / 0) (#14)
    by linea on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:42:28 PM EST
    supports gay marriage. is that correct?

    There is a deep split among Episcopalians (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 09:27:09 PM EST
    on that issue.
        Believe it or not, on a bench of nine Justices, Gorsuch would be the only Protestant. In a country that's over 50% Protestant.

    He was raised Catholic (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    -- which would make two-thirds of the Court raised Catholic, the other five still practicing Catholics.

    And I can attest that converting cannot erase it all.


    Justice Thomas was raised Protestant (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 11:09:37 PM EST
    attended Catholic schools thru college, and converted to Catholicism as an adult, I believe. That path is much more likely to be associated with rigid, overly-credal thinking than the Gorsuch path of raised Catholic, attended a Catholic (Jesuit) prep school, then off to Ivy League institutions of higher learning and converted to the less doctrinaire Episcopal Church. Was the conversion marriage related? I.e., is his wife Episcopalian, perhaps?  (Pence, for example, was raised Catholic and converted to Evangelical Protestantism, another scary path.)

    Well, we now know that Gorsuch (none / 0) (#54)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:01:15 AM EST
    so benefitted from his Jesuit education that, in response to the good faddahs' focus on social justice, he founded a high schol club called Fascism Forever.

    Now, I am not a lawyer, but I think that this also is not normal?


    I would certainly like to know more (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    about that.

    So would I, so I can hope (none / 0) (#64)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 02:18:25 PM EST
    that Dems will ask about it in his hearings.

    I'm seeing Franken slated to ask about this one.


    Well..There's an old Jesuit expression (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:26:18 AM EST
    "give me a young Fascist until he's seven.."

    His senior photo at Columbia (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    was accompanied by the "joke quote" from Kissinger: "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer".

    Explain please (none / 0) (#58)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    and link sources, if you can. This is fascinating.

    One story... (none / 0) (#60)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    So between the ages of 14 and 17 (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    he was already a budding contrarian conservative, with a self-mocking, adolescent sense of humor about it. That would be my interpretation.

    If he had 'mockingly' self-identified (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    as say, a neoconfederate or white supremacist like Dylann Roof, instead of just your run-of-the-mill, garden variety fascist, would your interpretation of his youthful motivation still be the same?

    I can't wait to hear him explain (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 03:24:38 PM EST
    how he feels about that behavior now. Quite surprised the Jesuit Fathers didn't say No, you can't have a "fascist" club in our high school, even if you think you're using the term ironically.

    From where I sit (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 04:03:55 PM EST
    the family history, the "fascist club" (whatever it was), the Constitution-skirting Kissinger quote add up to a noxious brew with an odor that doesn't pass the smell test.

    Turns out it's true (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    Of course, it is. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    I did not know that there was doubt, with so many sources posting the yearbook page, the classmates' recollections, etc.

    And in this administration, you really do not have to make this sh!t up.


    Gorsuch (b. Aug 29, 1967) (none / 0) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 03:52:11 PM EST
    was 21, at the time of the 1988 year book.

    1985 senior-year yearbook is source (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    for Daily Mail, which broke the story.  

    The Daily Mail (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    way to go corporate-fascist-club-owned American press.

    On top of all the important issues before anyone else as usual.


    Gorsuch graduated (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    from Columbia (BA) in 1988.  Some sources report that the yearbook with the Kissinger quote was 1988.

    Gorsuch (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 04:23:25 PM EST
    was on his way.  After graduating Harvard Law in 1991, he clerked (1991-1992) with David Sentelle, a judge on the DC Circuit.  Sentelle was a protege of fellow North Carolinian, the infamous winger, Senator Jesse Helms.

    Sentelle was at the White House when Trump announced Gorsuch's nomination, as Judge Gorsuch "of the U.S. Supreme Court to be of the Supreme Court."  And, Gorsuch recognized Sentelle while at the podium.  

    Sentelle became better known later when his judicial panel overturned Iran-Contra convictions of Ollie North and John Poindexter.

     And, later, in 1997, when his 'judgment' was questioned for having a lunch with Helms and Lauch Faircloth, the other NC right wing senator, while the appeals court he headed was considering the future of the Whitewater Special Counsel.

     Faircloth and Helms were leaders of the move to oust Whitewater Special Prosecutor, Robert Fiske, who was viewed by the right wing as being insufficiently vigorous (or unfair) in the investigation of the Clintons. Shortly after the lunch, Fiske was out; Ken Starr was in.  When questioned, Sentelle could not remember if the matter of Fiske came up.

    Gorsuch seems to have been building his way from fascist teenager stuff, to acknowledgement of Kissinger's "wit",  and found a good fit in his first legal experiences.


    I have not gone to look it up again, but (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 05:27:11 PM EST
    I am fairly sure I remember that Sentelle's decision overturning the Oliver North's conviction was joined by his fellow D.C.Circuit judge (at the time) Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And the decision was 100% correct (as urged in an amicus brief from the ACLU), since the Senate Committee compelled him to testify despite having a valid Fifth Amendment privilege, and the DoJ was unable to meet its burden to show that his compelled congressional testimony wasn't then used against him to build the criminal case. Everything else you wrote about Sentelle is correct, however.

    I think what I actually said (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 06:06:35 PM EST
    about Sentelle (became better known) owing to the Iran-Contra cases was correct, as well.

    However, there is some discussion as to whether the decisions were 100 per cent correct. In the case of Ollie North, the DC Appellate panel's decision was split, 2 to 1, the Republican appointed judges, Sentelle and Silberman, with the Democratic appointed judge, P. Wald dissenting.

    In the case of John Poindexter, the panel also split, 2 to 1, Sentelle and Republican appointed (and a failed Supreme Court nominee) Douglas Ginsburg. Judge Abner Mikva, a Democratic appointee, dissented.

    The ruling rationales were the same for both, North and Poindexter--the grants of immunity and going forward with prosecution.


    What I was remembering was that RBG (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 07:37:12 PM EST
    dissented at the rehearing stage of the appeal (go to page 101 of the linked document), but on a different point, suggesting that she agreed with Sentelle on the Fifth Amendment issue. I like Judge Wald a lot (including personally, having met and spent some time with her), but no one else joined her dissenting opinion, out of 10 judges who particiapted.

    Facism Forever (none / 0) (#87)
    by KD on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:04:02 PM EST
    Snopes says this was a joke in the yearbook about his conservatism. There was no such club.

    You forgot to add (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:13:47 PM EST
    that, even if so, the nominee for the Supreme Court did list it in his yearbook.

    That he thought that fascism is funny still is worth exploring in hearings for the high court, yes?  


    My instinct, having myself once been (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 12:01:10 PM EST
    a high school kid with a supercilious sense of humor, is that what he was thinking was, "I am one of a handful of hardcore conservative-thinking kids in a sea of liberal-to-leftist students and teachers, who refer to my opinions, whether seriously or with tongue-in-cheek, as 'fascist.' I find this hurtful, and will deflect it by pretending to embrace the term and using it sarcastically to describe myself." Much like the antiracist Drexel Univ. professor who recently got into much trouble for a tweet, which he thought was sarcastic humor directed at the alt-right, saying "All I want for Christmas is white genocide."

    Peter G (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    Your instincts are correct.

    Per American Magazine which is far from a right leaning publication:

    He wrote that he founded and led the "Fascism Forever Club," though those with knowledge of the school back in the 1980s say there was no such club. The mention of it in the yearbook was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to poke fun at liberal peers who teased him about his fierce conservatism.

    It was "a total joke," said Steve Ochs, a history teacher at Georgetown Prep who was the student government advisor during Mr. Gorsuch's junior and senior years at the Bethesda, Md., school.

    "There was no club at a Jesuit school about young fascists," he told America. "The students would create fictitious clubs; they would have fictitious activities. They were all inside jokes on their senior pages."

    A lot of conservatives excited about (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 05:29:59 PM EST
    applying for membership are going to be disappointed.

    Luckily, there's still the old standbys Opus Dei and the American Legion.


    A lot of liberals (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 08:41:32 PM EST
    Are going to be disappointed once again

    In falling for Fake News

    The media wants to get anything out here derogatory to The Donald,

    They are making themselves look foolish, and eventually irrelevant, if not so already


    An attempt to attack a nominee (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 09:33:14 PM EST
    for the Supreme Court on the basis of his high school yearbook profile is absolutely foolish and dumb. But it doesn't follow from that, that Gorsuch would make a good addition to the Court.  He wouldn't. Nor does it follow that the liberalism that defines a solid majority of actual American opinion on public issues is in any way "irrelevant" (whatever that is supposed to mean). It isn't.

    No one said that (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 09:37:50 PM EST
    Nor does it follow that the liberalism that defines a solid majority of actual American opinion on public issues is in any way "irrelevant"

    What was said is that the media has made themselves irrelevant.
    Their inability to research a story accurately, thus having to walk back every one of their outstanding scoops on The Donald, has made them a laughing stock


    Not a laughing stock (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 10:01:00 PM EST
    to their shareholders.

    The Donald is a gold mine. Every time he drags the GOP's legacy out of the muck and into the sewer, ratings go up.

    Ratings = profits.

    It's your magical, mythical, meritocratic free market at work, Trevor.

    What will The Donald do next? Tune in next week.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#106)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 05:13:41 AM EST
    They have all become bird cage material,

    With Large Bold Headlines,

    Which must be retracted a day or 2 later.


    We all need well-developed (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    mental filters these days.

    Otherwise, we end up spouting half-baked information about Offices of Legal Compliance and Bowling Green massacres.


    Well (none / 0) (#113)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    Mostly all about The Donald

    Something about him being (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    President of the United States..

    Who can figure these fickle media people?

    They should focus on the important issues.


    The topic of your comment was (none / 0) (#105)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 10:13:38 PM EST
    "A lot of liberals." Several assertions followed. Excuse me for thinking that "they," in the last and apparently concluding assertion, actually referred to the group that was the stated topic of your comment.

    Fake News? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 06:49:29 AM EST
    is that your newest favorite word to describe any fact that you find uncomfortable? I will agree that the fascist statement is trivial but it certainly is not fake.

    Yes it is (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 07:46:53 AM EST
    Most emphatically FAKE NEWS

    The never was a "Fascist Club"

    A little investigating and reporting would have determined that, but it was far more fun to run with the fascist club lead. And that original story got tweeted and retweeted by members of our esteemed media, just so happy about this latest bit of "news"

    Until the fact came out it was a sarcastic response of a high school kid in response to the liberal persuasion of his peers and teachers.


    You (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 08:52:33 AM EST
    mistake wild internet speculation as news. Sure some tabloids ran with it and some of that wild speculation was momentarily glommed on to by some people on the left who should have known better but everybody came to their senses within a matter of hours.

    It was (none / 0) (#114)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    Tweeted and re tweeted by our Guardians of the Truth,
    It snowballed from there as a number of reporters soon shared the story without apparently picking up on the idea that the yearbook bio was a tongue-in-cheek joke.

    "If u started a Fascism Forever club, I don't begrudge you wealth or happiness or even a judgeship. But I don't think you should be on SCOTUS," said HuffPost Highline contributor Jason Fagone. "Put another way: Surely there must be many qualified SCOTUS candidates who never started a Fascism Forever club, not once, even as a joke."

     Tesla CEO: 'Wrong' move to quit Trump advisory council in response to travel ban
    Also from the Washington Examiner
    Tesla CEO: 'Wrong' move to quit Trump advisory council in response to travel ban
    By Daniel Chaitin * 02/04/17 1:01 PM
    Jeet Heer, senior editor at Chris Hughes's New Repbublic, added elsewhere, "Gorsuch's 'Fascism Forever Club' should remind us that alt-right 'ironic' Nazism is nothing new."

    "Today in 'things you can't make up': Trump's SCOTUS pick Neil Gorsuch founded club called 'Fascism Forever,'" said Decode's Miranda Green.

    New York Daily News contributor Adam Schrader said, "President @realDonaldTrump nominated a man that started a club called #FascismForeverClub. Bad PR move, @potus."

    The report got entire write-ups in several newsrooms, including U.S. News and World Report, the Root, Heat Street, Boing Boing, the Union-Tribune and Vice.

    laughing Stocks, our truth tellers


    Do (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    you really think twitter is news? Unfortunately the idiot' tweets from Trump are news, because he is the President and that's his chosen method of communication, but a handful of tweets from some obscure reporters amounts to nothing but background noise.

    Yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    When a news reporter tweets, yes, they are confirming the story. It is news.

    unfortunately, it is mostly fake news,

    Based upon what they wish really happened.

    They have no reputation left to save


    There's a cultural immune system reaction (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    occurring already in response to the virulent presence of Little Boots and his minions.

    If you think it's "unfair! so unfair!" now, just give it a few more months.


    You mean (none / 0) (#121)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    That they will make up even more tales?

    That is hard to believe.

    Nah, anyone can see that coming.

    Complete implosion of the media


    Whatever it takes (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 05, 2017 at 06:55:25 PM EST
    that open, gangrenous sore needs to be cauterized.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 07:14:23 AM EST
    yeah that is what the right wing echo chamber is saying. I'm sure the wingnut welfare media enterprise will justify all this in our new post truth America. However judging by the people on the streets and the Republicans running to hide I'm not sure it's gonna work.

    They're attempting to preempt (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    and minimize the train wreck on the horizon by spreading the word "don't believe Anything you hear, folks!"

    If the information doesn't come from Fox, the right blogosphere, talk radio, and Rasmussen polls, it's just THEM again, trying to undermine and thwart The Donald at every turn.


    You didn't seem to mind (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    all the Laughing Stock, Truth Telling media coverage about Hillary's emails.

    The irony (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    is since Trump's embrace of fascism for the country people take that kind of thing seriously whereas years ago it would have been laughed off immediately.

    But hey, you love wild speculation and have promoted junk here quite a bit from very dubious sources. So really you don't have a whole lot of room to complain about this nonsense.


    No. Let's see if we can 'splain it (none / 0) (#125)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 03:38:08 PM EST
    for ya.

    This was not fake news.  Fake news is entirely made up by the writer of the story, with made-up sources.

    Instead, this was about a fake club -- entirely made up by the source, in his yearbook.  The media did not fake it.  The media reported what the source wrote, as the media are to do.  The source faked it.

    And that source -- that liar? fibber? fantabulist? -- now is nominated for the highest court in the land, to weigh evidence, including testimony, to determine whether it is reliable . . . when he was not. He made up stuff. Indeed, he made up stuff that he thought was funny, but fascism is not.

    So that is not fake news.  That is worrisome news, if you think that the judicial system matters.  If not, as this blog is for those who think that the judicial system matters, you can delete your account, yes?


    No (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 07:51:35 PM EST
    it's fake news. A reputable news organization would not report a potential Supreme Court judge started a Fascist club in high school without corroborating.
    They would just report it because it fit their preferred narrative.
    But a legitimate news source would question that, how the hell did a judge rise to that level while it was common knowledge that he started a Fascist club.
    Which eventually came out, but not until after the preferred narrative was blasted across the internet and various news sources.

    That is how FAKE NEWS operates.
    Your welcome


    So how about when (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 06, 2017 at 08:07:14 PM EST
    the President of the United States himself talks about imaginary voter fraud, terrorist attacks "we don't know about", and Obama being foreign born?

    Not Fake News? Not out-and-out dastardly lies?

    Entirely understandable and forgivable because hollowing out "Big Government" brings with it a remission of sin?

    All o.k because, well, he's The Donald?

    I hope you guys have a Plan B.


    Don't be so panicked-sounding (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 08:54:34 PM EST
    so early in The Donald's tenure, Trevor.

    The media is mainly about entertainment value and ratings, not some great liberal conspiracy against free markets and the American way.

    The Donald and his mouth and his wild flailing about are the train wreck no one, especially the media, can take their eyes off of. When it bleeds, it leads.

    You guys made your bed, now sleep in it.


    Like I said (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 09:05:33 PM EST
    The media is mainly about entertainment value

    They have made themselves irrelevant

    Half their stories have to be walked back when the facts actually come out


    All except the right wing media (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 09:18:51 PM EST
    which sets an unprecedented standard for professional excellence and adherence to  journalistic ethics.

    with just a dash of sleazy Nixonian dirty-tricksterism, to spice things up.


    Wow! From "all" to "half" (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 06:38:34 AM EST
    What was said is that the media has made themselves irrelevant.
    Their inability to research a story accurately, thus having to walk back every one of their outstanding scoops on The Donald, has made them a laughing stock

    Half their stories have to be walked back when the facts actually come out

    ... in just two posts.  At this rate, in another 1/2 dozen posts you might be in the neighborhood of reality.


    The excellent Jesuit magazine (none / 0) (#101)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 09:25:50 PM EST
    is "America" not "American".

    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#118)
    by BTAL on Sat Feb 04, 2017 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    it was typo.  Yes, America Magazine vs American.



    And of course the Catholics on the Court (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 11:20:22 PM EST
    include Justice Sotomayor, who represents a rather different strain of American Catholicism than Justice Alito, for example.

    Sotomayor definitely from different (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 02:46:09 PM EST
    tradition, yes; a good point.  A Catholic raised in that tradition could not, I think, have decided as Gorsuch did, repeatedly, on education for autistic children.

    As for Jesuit schools, with which I am very familiar, it also can have different strains.  Jesuit higher ed  can be quite open-minded.  But Jesuit K12 can be the opposite, like faith-based boot camps.


    Neil Gorsuch (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    seems to have adopted the Catholic theology of his doctoral thesis advisor, John Finnis, Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy, at University College, Oxford. Gorsach was a speaker at a conference at Notre Dame University Law School, in 2011, related to a collection of essays by Professor Finnis.

     Finnia, once an atheist became a fervent Catholic. Finnis worked closely with Germain Grisez on projects related to Catholic teaching and has been on several Pontifical Commissions.

     Finnis' most well known work is probably "Natural Law and Natural Rights;"  he wrote in support of "Humanae Vitae", the encyclical of Paul VI affirming opposition to birth control.

      Finnis has also taken on Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit for his opinion (Baskin v Bogan) invalidating Indiana and Wisconsin's definition of marriage--state laws that limit marriage to man/woman are patently unconstitutional.

    Finnis also holds that abortion is an attempt to harm or kill a potential human being and this is morally wrong, because every human being has the right to live and should be considered a person from conception.

    In Gorsuch's book (2006),"Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia", is based on his doctoral thesis.  Gorsuch is opposed to assisted suicide laws, the foundation to which is "the inviolability of life," and " the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."  War and capital punishment apparently are outside of the scope of this reasoning.

    John Finnis, too,  is opposed to assisted suicide and, again, took exception to a Judge Posner position which  in favor of lawful assisted suicide. Finnis is a  Thomist, which, in my view, inadequately informs progressive legal scholarship.

     For example, homosexuality, according to Finnis, is not against natural law, but it does not have the emotional value of heterosexual marriage since procreation is not involved (cf. CA Prop 8 arguments), and, hence, homosexuality is an assault on heterosexual marriage.

    It is hoped that Judge Gorsuch is not a mirror image, but has grown beyond his advisor, an aspiration of most good professors for their students.


    I am not really concerned with what (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    Gorsuch may consider "morally wrong," unless he thinks that his personal moral beliefs are a basis for making rulings on matters of constitutional law. Plenty of judges believe, for example, that the death penalty is morally wrong, yet is not unconstitutional. Other judges can believe that a pregnant woman is morally wrong to choose abortion in most (or even all) instances, and yet believe that the State deprives that woman of liberty without due process of law if it denies her the right to make that choice for herself.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:55:47 PM EST
    The concern is not with Gorsuch's personal moral beliefs, but, rather, how they may form and inform his rulings.  My comment is geared as a response to those Catholic influences that may impact his opinions--influences, although an Episcopalian, by an important Catholic mentor.

     Professor Finnis has demonstrated in his writings that his religious understandings drive his legal ones. Gorsuch's views on assisted suicide laws appear to be driven in a similar manner.

     How that may carry over to judicial rulings, such as religious/moral values on, say, abortion, is something to be determined.

      We know Trump has stated that his SC appointees will be pro-life and pro-gun; and Trump has also claimed that he has read Gorsuch's opinions, although a more solid bet would that the unsubtle Trump asked Gorsuch flat out.


    But Finnis is a British legal philosopher (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 07:51:38 PM EST
    He is not a U.S. Constitutional scholar or even a U.S. lawyer.

    My Catholic high school was / is Lasallian. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 04:43:39 PM EST
    The De La Salle Brothers, aka the Christian Brothers, are a teaching order founded in 1680 by Saint Jean-Baptiste de La Salle, who is the patron saint of teachers. While they tend to focus on K-12 in this country, both St. Mary's College in Moraga, CA and La Salle University in Philadelphia are well-regarded Lasallian institutions of higher learning.

    For the most part, I find Lasallians to be open-minded and socially progressive. I remember my 9th grade biology teacher, who was a Lasallian brother,  specifically telling us that science and religion are not mutually exclusive and incompatible subjects. That's something you'll never here from our hardcore Christian fundamentalists.



    Donald, I don't know how many (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 10:05:44 AM EST
    teachers, science or otherwise, who are "hardcore Christian fundamentalists" you actually know.

    I doubt you know any. Certainly neither you or I can speak for them as a group. But I do know quite a few people that you would want to claim as hard core fundamentalists.

    And claiming they see science and religion as mutually exclusive is flat out wrong.

    In fact, they recognize that religion is based on faith.

    Science is based on facts that are provable using the scientific method.

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

    As Popper said:

    In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. Karl Popper



    Not necessarily. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 03:54:09 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "I doubt you know any. Certainly neither you or I can speak for them as a group. But I do know quite a few people that you would want to claim as hard core fundamentalists. And claiming they see science and religion as mutually exclusive is flat out wrong. In fact, they recognize that religion is based on faith. In fact, they recognize that religion is based on faith."

    Sometimes, one's choice and use of religion is rooted in nothing more shallow than one's own personal ambition and greed. See Bakker, The Rev. Jim and McPherson, Sister Aimee Semple. Speaking in Matthew 6:5, Jesus Christ himself admonishes those who would otherwise make an ostentatious display of their piety:

    "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."

    My own late grandmother, who was a very staunch Roman Catholic, once told me that those who would wear their religion on their sleeves tend to do so because there's no room for true faith in their hearts. Speaking for myself only, I believe that true faith is introspective and marked by humility, whereas blind faith is projective and driven by personal hubris.

    True faith leads one to strive to be a better person tomorrow than one is today through good works. Blind faith makes no such demands upon its often-fervent believers, having instead endowed them with a false personal sense of moral superiority over others outside their rather exclusive religious circle.

    With true faith, you see yourself as not worthy to receive the Lord. With blind faith, you tend to view others as inherently unworthy of you, by virtue of your own ostentatious profession of belief.

    President Abraham Lincoln was once purportedly asked by a minister if he felt that God was on his side. "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side," he replied. "My greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

    Now, to return to more contemporary and earthly matters, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, President Trump declared to his audience, "I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment."

    Named for then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who in 1954 introduced, championed and pushed it through Congress, the Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code which prohibits all tax-exempt 50(c)3 not-for-profit organizations -- which includes churches and other houses of worship, as well as charities -- from "directly or indirectly" participating in any political candidate's campaign as an organization.

    Were such a repeal to be realized, churches would then be allowed to direct funds from their budgets to the support of political campaigns and candidates, while citizens would still receive a tax deduction for contributing to those churches, which would of course retain their 501(c)3 not-for-profit status.

    However, because 501(c)3-class not-for-profits like churches aren't required to make the same public disclosures as 527-class political action committees, campaign funding could in theory become much less transparent were monies to be funneled / laundered through churches and other not-for-profit organizations. Further, those who would seek to donate to their favored political campaigns through such indirect means would receive a tax deduction for their efforts.

    I would also note that public support for the Johnson Amendment's repeal is at best very questionable. Per a 2015 poll conducted by Lifeway, a Christian-oriented polling firm, 79% of American Christians believe that clergy should NOT publicly endorse candidates from the pulpit during worship services.

    While members of evangelical churches were more likely than those of other denominations to believe that pastors should be able to do so (by a 25-16% margin), support for clergy endorsements was decidedly low all across the board, regardless of whether or not the responder identified as Democrat, Republican or independent.

    Therefore, my question to you and others is this: Do you believe that Donald Trump and others like-minded are moved by their faith and conscience to seek the repeal of the Johnson Amendment -- or are they motivated by other, more immediate and temporal concerns?

    As the late suffragist and humanitarian Susan B. Anthony once observed, "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice how it always coincides with their own desires."



    Sometimes indeed (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    Sometimes, one's choice.... use of religion is rooted in nothing more shallow than one's own personal ambition and greed.

    Speaking for myself only, I believe that true faith is introspective and marked by humility, whereas blind faith is projective and driven by personal hubris.

    There is no such thing as "blind faith." You can't say "I believe, but..." You either do or you don't. And having faith and belief has nothing to do with judging others. In fact, it leads you directly to Matthew 7:1 - 2.

    ""Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

    The church I attend does not want 501(c)3 repealed and the preacher preaches from the Bible, not from any political document.

    But to answer your question, all the ones I know think Trump is motivated by a desire to turn the country in a direction that keeps what we have while improving the economy.

    That means they condemn the attempt, as we saw at UC Berkeley last night, to shut down free speech.

    But you did not address my point. You do not know these people. The best you can do is quote what you read, hear and see. The fear of the Left that the "evangelicals" will somehow turn the country into a "Christian theocracy" flies in the face of "render unto Caesar."


    History teaches us that there's (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 10:48:57 PM EST
    such a thing as blind obedience, so why couldn't there be such a thing as blind faith?

    The appearence of "faith" can be induced in a number of ways other than direct spiritual experience, such as the subtle or not-so-subtle threat of the withdrawal of family or community support, the manipulation of the psychologically vulnerable with threats of damnation etc etc


    You say no one can speak (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 10:18:01 AM EST
    for them as a group, and then you proceed to speak for them as a group..

    "Claiming They see religion and science as mutually exclusive is flat out wrong".

    "In fact, They recognize that religion is based on faith".


    The BBC interviewed a bunch (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    of Trump supporters in Tennessee the other day and the consensus opinion seemed to be that God wanted Trump to be President.

    My question is, if "God's judgement" is the driving force behind everything that happens, why does he keep beating around the bush?

    Instead of "using" ambiguous vessels like Donald Trump to work his will, why doesn't he just sweep away all the bad people in one fell swoop, if micromanaging is really his schtick, as so many conservative Christians seem to believe..


    As I said (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    But I do know quite a few people that you would want to claim as hard core fundamentalists

    No shock there (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    did they let you hold the rattlesnakes?

    Neil Gorsuch is the son of ... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    ... the late Anne Gorsuch Burford, President Reagan's first EPA Director, who decimated the agency by cutting its funding by 22%, hired staff from the same polluting industries the EPA was supposed to be regulating, and was ultimately compelled resign her post in disgrace in 1983 over her mismanagement of a $1.6 billion hazardous waste fund, aka "Superfund."

    Ms. Gorsuch Burford is further noteworthy as the first agency director in U.S. history to ever be cited for contempt of Congress, due to her refusal to cooperate at any point with the congressional investigation into the EPA Superfund. Specifically, it turned out that she was attempted to repeal the Lead Phasedown program, which was the program that reduced lead content in gasoline.

    What a sterling role model Anne Gorsuch Burford was as a public official for her then-teenaged Neil, eh? Like mother, like son, as far as I'm concerned.

    Just say "No" to Neil Gorsuch. We don't need a justice who channels Antonin Scalia, an unbridled partisan who caused this contry a lot of grief and damage before he kicked off last year. Besides, in addition to the dubious qualities offered by the nominee himself, the primary issue here is the corrupted and illegitimate process which got him the nomination in the first place. (See "Garland, Maerrick.")

    We've managed quite well with an eight-member SCOTUS for a year now. We'll likely do fine with one for another two years. At the very least, Republicans will be forced to resort to the so-called "nuclear option" and get rid of the filibuster in its entirety, and Sen. McConnell will reveal himself for the power-hungry little beeyitch he's always been.


    What is your basis, Donald, for asserting (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:17:44 PM EST
    "like mother, like son" in this instance? He might be very unlike his mother in many ways, and even now believe, as a grown man, that some of what his mother did in the EPA was very wrong, and yet (I hope) have learned from being raised by such a mother that women can be powerful, intelligent and independent human beings. Have you read anything reliable that leads you to say what you said?

    Neil Gorsuch is every bit his mother's son. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 07:28:42 PM EST
    And his mother Anne Burford was a right-wing crackpot on a mission from God, who did considerable damage to the agency she was tasked with leading during the Reagan administration.

    I'm not willing to give these people any more benefits of doubt, Peter. Apples tend to not fall far from the tree. And there's nothing in Judge Gorsuch's professional record to distinguish him as being somehow different from dear ol' Mom, a right-wing corporatist and ideologue who enjoyed a dubious reputation for her unyielding anti-regulatory bent.

    Judge Gorsuch is not a mainstream pick. He's likely to the right of Antonin Scalia, which I thought was not possible. His opinion in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius wholly undermines the intent of public accommodations laws, and would allow corporations to discriminate against others based on the majority shareholder's religious beliefs.

    Writing for the majority in the 10th Circuit on Guiterrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016), Gorsuch's opinion reflects someone who would hamstring the ability of government regulatory agencies to do their jobs:

    "There's an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth."
    - Judge Neil Gorsuch, Guiterrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016)

    Yep, just like dear ol' Mom attempted to do 35 years ago at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of bad corporate actors. Let's take a flashback to 1982, shall we?

    After hiring as an EPA consultant the same attorney who simultaneously represented Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (the nation's largest hazardous waste disposal company), Anne Gorsuch Burford ordered a 10-day suspension of a moratorium which prohibited the disposal of highly toxic chemicals in landfills, which allowed that firm to dump dozens of drums of highly toxic waste at otherwise unsuitable Colorado repositories, an act which clearly threatened the integrity of the region's underground aquifers.

    Later on, Ms. Burford had a permit expedited which would have allowed the same Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc. to incinerate dioxin and highly toxic PCBs on open-air vessels in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Maryland coast. When news media exposed the plan, the ensuing public uproar caused EPA to back down and scuttle the plan.

    I stand by what I said, Peter - like mother, like son. I'm of the same mind as Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Judge Gorsuch is an illegitimate nominee. While I don't think he's as big a civil liberties horror as Alito, the president who appointed him is.

    I won't impugn Judge Gorsuch's professional credentials. But that said, we're not in a courtroom, and I'm under no obligation to respect either the nominee or the chinchilla-haired tanning booth addict who nominated him for SCOTUS. This is a political fight, and not a legal one.



    A Supreme Court nomination is both (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 08:17:47 PM EST
    a political fight and a legal fight. I happen to be more interested in the legal part, because I am better informed on that part. Which is not to say I don't have strong political views as well.

    I just avert my eyes (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 09:16:08 PM EST
    I started doing that awhile ago on environmental matters.  

    Just makes life easier.


    He's presently serving on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and from what I can see in his opinions, he's a thoughtful and articulate jurist. As I said, I can't dispute his professional credentials, and that's not favorable ground to fight this battle.

    However, from a political standpoint, he's not qualified. At the very least, his opinion in Gutierrez shows that he's clearly sympatico with his late mother's extremist views on government as an oppressive creature, rather than as a force for good.

    He's likely been chosen because of his right-wing philosophy and temperament. Given the opportunity, he'll legislate from the bench just like Chief Justice Roberts.

    That makes this a political fight.


    I'm not talking about his objective qualifications (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 10:31:50 PM EST
    when I say "legal." I am talking about his legal philosophy and in particular what theory of constitutional interpretation he adheres to. And whether there is any sign that he has allowed his personal views to corrupt the integrity of his legal decisionmaking. I have not yet investigated these points. Just saying, those are the kinds of questions I'm interested in. For example, I want to see a jurist who believes the Constitution protects against state interference a woman's right to make her own health care decisions and reproductive choices, including with regard to abortion. I don't care if that same jurist, in his religious life, may believe that abortion is morally repugnant, so long as it doesn't affect his legal judgment when interpreting the Constitution.

    How does one separate the rational legal mind from (none / 0) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    the "this is who am at my core" mind as evidenced by one's writings, associations, etc.?

    How can something one finds morally repugnant not affect one's thinking? Sounds great in theory, but isn't this why we have these fights over judicial appointments?

    I mean, if all we need to ask about is are you a strict constitutionalist vs a jurist who believes in a living constitution, these things would be easy, no?


    You are certainly free to do so, Peter. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    I would only caution you and other attorneys to not overthink these questions and thus get lost in the weeds here -- although honestly, I don't see you as someone who's vulnerable on that count, but as a member of the bar who's both conscientious and rational.

    In that regard, I would further urge all of us to remember what subsequently happened on the High Court with regards to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Shelby County v. Holder) and 100+ years of campaign finance law (Citizens United v. FEC), when Democrats were similarly urged to give Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito the benefit of the doubt after they deliberately sidestepped questions regarding their own conservative penchant for legislating from the bench.

    Do we want someone with the judicial temperament of Neil Gorsuch -- a man who's been described by his own friends and colleagues as being to the right of the late Antonin Scalia -- to sit in ultimate judgment on the U.S. Supreme Court for the next three decades?

    For me, that's the bottom line here. Aloha.


    Of course we don't want that. But (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    we are going to have that. So I am for opposing him on honest and fair grounds, and not for making illogical, shallow and twisted arguments against him. Not for one second have I suggested, while disputing some of what others have written, that I "want" him on the Court. I want the justices that HRC would have appointed. I didn't even want Merrick Garland; like Jeralyn, he was too conservative and pro-prosecution for me. But right now, and at least for the next two years (if not four) we can't have what we "want."

    Yes, we can't always have what we want. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 11:26:47 PM EST
    But we ought to remember that you and I are only two generations removed from a time in our country's history when an entrenched socio-corporate oligarchy called most of the shots, and corruption, favoritism and cronyism / nepotism were the general rules of the day in public affairs, rather than the exceptions.

    Even the judicial system was not immune to such pressure and temptation. When I did research for the 2005 PBS documentary "The Massie Affair," I was both stunned and appalled at the lengths to which otherwise influential and respectable people in the then-U.S. Territory of Hawaii would go in their efforts to manipulate due legal process in order to secure a desired outcome.

    In one instance, a Honolulu grand jury was stacked with "respectable citizens" - aka, white men -- to inhibit and possibly preclude the indictments of Grace Bell Fortescue, a prominent Washington socialite and an heiress to the Bell Telephone Co. fortune, and her dutiful son-in-law Lt. Thomas Massie, USN, for felony murder in what became the second of the two criminal trials constituting the now-notorious Massie Affair.

    Mrs. Fortescue and Lt. Massie had admittedly shot to death a young Hawaiian man named Joseph Kahahawai, who had been falsely accused by Thalia Massie - Mrs. Fortescue's 20-year-old daughter and Lt. Massie's wife -- of having taken part in her alleged gang-rape. He had been kidnapped by them as he emerged from his weekly reporting to his probation officer.

    Further, Mrs. Fortescue and Lt. Massie were literally caught en flagrante by Honolulu police officers after a long car chase, whereupon officers found Kahahawai's body wrapped tightly in a bed sheet in the back seat of Mrs. Massie's car, in what was a rather clumsy attempt to dispose of the body at the Halona Point Blowhole on Oahu's southeastern shore. (Check out Grace Fortescue's arrest report and accompanying mug shot. Priceless.)

    It was clearly an open-and-shut case, yet despite the overwhelming evidence of their complicity in a savage crime, the grand jurors twice voted to not indict either of them for the young man's death. In arriving at that ludicrous decision, they ostensibly relied on Mrs. Fortescue's absurd contention that she and her son-in-law were merely trying to aid the local police by seizing Kahahawai and getting him to confess his guilt in her daughter's alleged gang-rape. Never mind the six-mile police chase and the wrapped body in the back seat.

    It was then that the presiding judge, the Honorable Albert Christy, who had suspected that the process had been rigged as such through possible bribery and most certainly coercion of grand jury members, refused to accept the grand jury's reports. Instead, he angrily marched down the hall and confronted the grand jurors personally, intimidating enough of them into issuing some very reluctant indictments for second-degree murder and kidnapping by a vote of 12-8.

    In another earlier instance during that same shameful scandal, the Honorable Alva Steadman, the presiding judge who conducted the first criminal trial involving Kahahawai and the four other defendants who'd all been accused by Mrs. Massie of gang-rape, later admitted to a New York Times reporter that he had done everything in his power to assist prosecutors in securing the defendants' convictions, despite his own strong suspicions that they were really innocent and that Mrs. Massie had likely perjured herself in his courtroom.

    He did so, he said, "even though I never felt quite right about it," because Mrs. Massie was an otherwise "respectable white woman" and the wife of a naval officer (not to mention the daughter of that aforementioned Bell Telephone heiress), while the defendants were Native Hawaiian and Asian-American from the poor side of town, and thus entirely disposable in his eyes.

    Judge Steadman saw his duty as defending the interests of the white oligarchy and the U.S. Navy, rather than seeing that justice was actually served. And that meant placating Adm. Yates Sterling, Jr., the perpetually outraged and bullying commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and the 14th U.S. Naval District, who was hellbent on securing a conviction in the case and avenging white womanhood. Adm. Sterling went so far as to threaten territorial officials with the imposition of martial law, if prosecutors were unable to convict the defendants.

    As part of my research, I had to read the entire original transcript of that first trial -- territorial officials had somehow managed to "disappear" the transcripts of the second trial, and at the time I was engaged for this project only select unofficial snippets of those transcipts were then available -- and geez, talk about having one's thumb on the scales!

    I can assure both you and Jeralyn that as veteran defense attorneys, you would have likely stood up screaming and torn your hair out in the middle of the courtroom floor, were you to be compelled to endure the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct that defense counsels William Heen and Bill Pittman had experienced in November and December of 1931. As it was, I find it amazing that they were able to hang the jury at 7-5 in favor of an acquittal.

    And this didn't happen way back in the 19th century. The Massie Affair took place at a time when my grandparents were young adults, and my aunts and uncles were children. (My mother was born in 1934.) It was an era when the powers-that-be in this country still generally had their way, while those less fortunate had little or no opportunity to seek legal redress for any wrongs which might be visited upon them by those same powers-that-be.

    So, to the extent possible that we can prevent our United States Supreme Court from becoming a de facto rubber stamp for a regressive right-wing agenda that would turn the clock back to just such a time, we should strive to do so with every moral fiber of our beings. Certainly, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to make that effort, and to further undertake this task seriously.

    As a college student at Columbia, Neil Gorsuch defended the Iran-Contra scandal, slurred those who protested South African Apartheid government, scorned black like the NAACP, and attacked progressive activists. In his adult life, his family pedigree gained him entry into some rather exclusive circles in Colorado, and he secured the support of the reactionary Coors family while he rose through the state's conservative ranks.

    As a federal appeals judge, Gorsuch has sided time and again with corporate interests, is on record in support of capital punishment, is fully supportive of limits on tort liability and voting rights, and is very strongly suspected of harboring a desire to further restrict a woman's right to freedom of reproductive choice.

    Is this really the sort of man we want to take up space on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for the next 30 years? I don't think so, and I have no intention of consigning myself to that inevitability if I can do something about it. I don't need to do any more research. What I've seen about both him and the disturbing history of white privilege is bad enough. I find it imperative that we do whatever we can to see that his nomination is effectively bottled up in the U.S. Senate.

    P.S.: And whatever happened to Grace Bell Fortescue and Lt. Thomas Massie, that aforementioned Bell Telephone Co. heiress and her son-in-law who were indicted for murder in the lynching of 20-year-old Joseph Kahahawai?

    On April 29, 1932, despite a strident defense offered by the great Clarence Darrow in what proved to be his final courtroom appearance in a storied 50-year career, they and the two Navy enlisted men who participated in their homicidal scheme were all found guilty of manslaughter. Each defendant was sentenced to the mandatory 10 years' hard labor in the territorial prison, and remanded to the custody of the U.S. Navy pending their transfer to territorial officials.

    And following a phone call five days later from President Herbert Hoover, Hawaii Gov. Lawrence Judd - a presidential appointee, as were all territorial governors back then -- dutifully commuted the sentences of all four defendants to one hour each, which they then served together on May 4, 1932 in the governor's office at Iolani Palace in downtown Honolulu.

    According to Mrs. Fortesue, they all had tea and a most delightful conversation with Gov. Judd, Honolulu Sheriff Gordon Ross, Mr. Darrow and members of the defense team, and reporters from U.S. mainland publications who were in town to cover the trial. It had been, according to some at the time, the trial of the century. That is, until the next one came along.

    Those were the days, huh? I rest my case. Aloha.


    Donald, you have really outdone yourself (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    this time, with a comment so long that no one, and I sincerely mean, no one could conceivably be expected to read it. Surely, whatever point you were trying to make, in the context of a response to a comment on a blog that is not yours, could have been made in 150 words or less.

    Where goest thou America (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    in thy shiny black car in the night?

    While Dean and Old Bull Lee dug on bebop pouring out of the car radio and philosophically explored the mysteries of the cosmos, Carolyn and I snuggled in the back seat..

    Donald could use a roll of Kerouac's teletype paper sometimes, but I have to say his subject matter is always interesting and informative.


    i was going (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by linea on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 07:23:19 PM EST
    to say something but donald would have retorted, "for heaven's sake linea, i cant write to your attention span!"

    it really is brutally long.
    an actual essay.


    I looked at it this AM (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 03, 2017 at 08:43:08 PM EST
    Before work, and said, Nope, not today.

    Watched none of it (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 10:36:00 PM EST
    Monty Hall, that's what he tried to get me to watch. This is not governance.

    Well, you missed (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    Trump's new hair-do...a new shade of orangy-brownish. Beautiful.


    Wait 'til they "frack" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    ...his favorite stream.

    One of his relatives (none / 0) (#37)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    Dave Gorsuch was on the ski team at the same time I was.  He and his wife went on to open ski shops in several Colorado ski resorts, including Aspen.  Dave's son is trying to develop a way too large ski lodge at the base of Aspen Mountain.  The plans show the lodge looming onto Norway slope, one of my favorite ski runs.

    More on Gorsuch (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    In 1987, Gorsuch wrote a column defending then-President Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal. The administration secretly sold arms to Iran, which had been sanctioned with an arms embargo, and used the money to fund Nicaraguan militants, whose aid had been cut off by Congress. Gorsuch weighed in on the power of the president ― an issue he may have to examine if he is confirmed to the high court. He conceded that the affair was a mess, but argued Reagan was acting within his authority.

    Huffpo Link (warning - autoplay video that can be stopped)

    I voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980, when I was 19 years old. Should that fact be similarly held against me today?

    The question for us to consider here is the path Neil Gorsuch has followed since that time. I argued earlier in this thread that given his own more recent writings and rulings from the bench as a member of the 10th U.S. Court of Appeals, Gorsuch is merely an updated version of his own late mother's well-known and unyielding Über-Conservativism.

    As for myself, I renounced my membership in the GOP at the time of Iran-Contra, a monumentally insane scheme that sought to pursue administration objectives in defiance of longstanding democratic processes and time-honored constitutional principles, which for me proved to be the last straw. I became a Democrat.



    A judge (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    who believes presidents can do whatever they want. Lovely.

    The only thing that would (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:01:10 PM EST
    be a surprise would be if he didn't nominate a wingnut. Apparently Hardiman is less of a wingnut than Gorsuch. Frankly I really do not care who he nominates.

    ga6thdem (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    all your other comments in this thread about Gorsuch have been deleted as potentially libelous and baseless attacks.

    Take a break and return when you can follow the comment rules. No name-calling, no personal attacks and no calling anyone potentially libelous names.

    The man is a conservative. That's hardly surprising. And Trump's pick could have been much, much worse -- as in William Pryor.

    Spare us the hyperbolic venom.


    Trump (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 07:29:39 PM EST
    Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

    from what i understand (none / 0) (#6)
    by linea on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    "a far-right conservative... similar to Scalia" isnt the same as alt-right. i read the article you provided.

    who cares, not opposing him rewards bad behavior (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:09:53 PM EST
    There is no point in waiting, they either go nuclear this time or the next. At least this time, it can be tied to the GOP's bad behavior over Garland.

    Holding our fire isn't going to make the play nice when the Notorious RBG retires. Its just going to tell them they can nominate Ha Satan if they want.


    Agreed. Why prize (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    the filibuster rule if it can not be used in fear that it will be discarded?  Even in the case of a nominee who, apparently, looks to Scalia (and Sentelle) for judicial modeling and, at age 49, could serve on the Court for over three decades. A wiser president would have picked a more moderate candidate.  Indeed, given the circumstances, the re-nomination of Merrick Garland would have gone a long way toward showing respect for all Americans.

    i dont understand (none / 0) (#9)
    by linea on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:18:27 PM EST
    is there an acceptable candidate on trumps short list that the dems should hold out for?

    President-elect Donald Trump has given a firm commitment to Republicans that he will stick to a list of 21 potential conservative nominees released during the campaign.

    NO, (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    they should attempt to filibuster any nominee that Trump puts forward. Do we want Putin deciding who our supreme court picks are? Let that be on the GOP's head that they embrace the Putin white nationalist agenda.

    can they do that? (none / 0) (#13)
    by linea on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:37:38 PM EST
    reject every one of the 21 candidates and keep scotus one justice short for the next four years? ive never heard of that.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    they can as long as McConnell does not nuke the filibuster. Republicans have already said numerous times that we don't need nine people on the court and that if Hillary had won she was not going to get to pick a supreme court nominee. Two words for any Republican whining about this: Merrick Garland.

    linea: "can they do that? [...] ive never heard of that."

    ... not even bothering to schedule a hearing on a SCOTUS nominee at all, until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell showed us last February how it's done.


    The only problem with that (none / 0) (#16)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    Is for the Dem Senators up for re election in states that The Donald won.

    Citizens in those states just might want a Supreme Court Justice confirmed.

    You would be putting their re election chances in jeopardy.


    This is (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 05:29:14 AM EST
    about our country and not elections. I know you would like for us to be Good Germans but get over it. How many people are going to vote on the supreme court in 18 months? Secondly you don't need all those senators anyway. Even Heidi Heitkamp is voting against DeVos because 95% of the people that called her office said vote against her. So don't be too sure that people in those states support Trump anymore.

    They just might want one confirmed (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 11:49:13 AM EST
    Or, they just might like being engaged and having the issues involving the court discussed with them like they were adults capable of critical thought.

    Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun and David Souter (none / 0) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 09:49:54 PM EST
    were nominated by Republican presidents and turned out to be much more liberal than was expected.  Funny that I can't think of the opposite happening to nominees of Democratic presidents.

    Funny that you can't think (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 09:52:05 PM EST
    . . . indeed.

    Ever heard of Byron White (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 11:17:31 PM EST
    (appointed by Kennedy, became more conservative; he hired Gorsuch as a clerk) or Felix Frankfurter (pro-labor, civil libertarian Harvard professor, appointed by F.D.R., became quite conservative as a Justice almost immediately)? They come to mind right away. From your list of Republican nominees who drifted in the liberal direction, you overlooked Brennan (Eisenhower appointee) and Stevens (Ford appointee).

    And, if Trump didn't get his attention fix (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 10:43:18 PM EST
    Tonight, he's going to send a minion out to beat us tomorrow. I'm not showing up for any of those either.

    Comments with false facts (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    used to attack Gorsuch have been deleted.

    And (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 09:03:57 AM EST
    the media rewards him with rave reviews.
    Prime-time Justice: Trump puts on a flawless show
    Washington (CNN) -- For once, the ultimate showman gave Republicans exactly what they bargained for.

    President Donald Trump, turning the ornate East Room of the White House into the centerpiece of a well-orchestrated television production, made good on his promise and handed his party a solid conservative nominee for the Supreme Court.

    I want to throw up.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 09:25:13 AM EST
    when the standards are rock bottom this is what happens. Conservatives seem to thrive on low standards.

    Senate Dems... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2017 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    and classically American Senate Repubs need to channel Woody Guthrie and his machine...bigly.