We Must Ignite This Couch Message Boards


 
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Pitt Hater
Joined:
6/26/2010 9:15 am
Posts: 2206
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

What a great day!

Thank you President Trump.

Joedaddyski

Posted on: 4/10 12:36 pm
_________________
montani semper liberi
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Pitt Hater
Joined:
9/20/2009 2:56 pm
From austin, tx
Posts: 1546
what a disgraceful day. The Republicans last year didn't even give Garland, a far better candidate, a hearing. Gorsuch is a mere baby, not even 50 (I'm late 60s). More importantly, Gorsuch has the jurisprudence of a caveman. If left to him, administrative agencies would be unconstitutional and the entire federal regulatory scheme of the past 70 years would collapse. He's not a conservative, he's a reactionary. He's also an original-intenter -- a preposterous legal theory that Jill Lepore in a wonderful article on the theory compared to Dumbo's magic feather -- it's the pretext rabid-right wing judges use to overturn well settled precedent and rule according to their political beliefs. It's worth pointing out that this allegedly history-based jurisprudence was developed in the late 19th century, that Gorsuch is only the 3d proponent to get onto the court, and that the founders believed in an opposite kind of jurisprudence -- that the constitutional should be interpreted broadly to give the nation a chance to develop.

I'm a retired patent lawyer. Patents were established under the constitution. Under original intent, only patent applications dealing with fields of technology that the founders were familiar would be granted.
Flogging was very likely a legal punishment back then. If so, under original intent, it would be legal now.

Posted on: 4/10 11:51 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Pitt Hater
Joined:
5/30/2007 5:14 pm
From Columbus, OH (via Belpre, OH)
Posts: 1393
See "The Federalist Society"

Posted on: 4/11 11:13 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 1445
There is nothing wrong with original internet within reasonable means. There has to be some form of original intent preserved, or what would be the point in having a constitution to begin with? I get the point that you are making, but your examples are taking things to the extreme.

Posted on: 4/11 2:52 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Grant Ave. Warrior
Joined:
9/5/2011 9:55 am
Posts: 1117
It seems that much of the regulatory agencies during the past 70 years are unconstitutional and given to us by FDR and the radical left. I remember something that states if something is not covered under the first nine amendments, those powers go to the states. Oh, that would be the tenth amendment. However, the leftists and progressives have been taking power from the states and building an out-of-control federal government since Teddy Roosevelt (a rino), Wilson and FDR. Now the republicans want in on the game so it's just a fight to see who runs and massive federal government.

Precedent seems like a way to skirt the constitution with asinine rulings (the 9th circus, yes circus, court of appeals is a great example of this).

Thanks to precedents, black americans should not be counted as citizens, the japanese should still be in internment camps, the schools should be segregated, we have forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state, the Kelo decision.....

Posted on: 4/11 3:19 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Party Machine
Joined:
9/2/2007 12:20 am
From Chucktown
Posts: 661
Quote:

EERY wrote:
There is nothing wrong with original internet within reasonable means. There has to be some form of original intent preserved, or what would be the point in having a constitution to begin with? I get the point that you are making, but your examples are taking things to the extreme.


Everything is absurd when taken to the extreme.

The devil is in the details. I have no trouble with those that try to determine what the intent was behind a constitutional provision. The main problem with what Gorsuch and his ilk do is that they aren't really doing this. It is used mostly as a smokescreen to push a conservative agenda by dressing up their political preferences as some sort of holy writ handed down by the lawgivers.

It is the legal version of when people dress up their opinions in terms of something being "real."

"Limit poker isn't real poker because you can't price out drawing hands" vs "I don't like limit poker because you can't price out drawing hands"

or

"Patent lawyers aren't real lawyers because they don't have to do jury trials"

or

"Speed chess isn't real chess because you don't have time to look deeply into a position"

or

"Wheeling isn't a real West Virginia city because it doesn't have a Tudor's Biscuit world"

and on and on... this is basically what is going on in a legal sense.

Posted on: 4/13 7:27 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Party Machine
Joined:
9/2/2007 12:20 am
From Chucktown
Posts: 661
Quote:

92WVUGrad wrote:


Precedent seems like a way to skirt the constitution with asinine rulings (the 9th circus, yes circus, court of appeals is a great example of this).



Respect for precedent is what makes our system of government stable. Sure, there are unfortunate precedents, but no system is perfect, and precedents can be overturned when they are later determined to be bad.

Toss out the idea that precedents are to be strongly respected and justice truly becomes the whim of the judge. It is the lifeblood of the legal system, and without it people would not be able to predict with any reasonable certainty the legality of their conduct. So much of what we think of as the law is really just our being reasonably certain that courts will consistently interpret statutes/constitutional provisions.

For example, a police officer would not be certain whether he needs a warrant or whether a warrant exception applies, or for that matter whether there is an exception to a warrant requirement as it would totally depend on the present opinion of whatever judge gets the case.




Posted on: 4/13 7:45 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 4766
Open in new window

Posted on: 4/13 8:55 pm
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.

~Abraham Lincoln
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 1445
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
There is nothing wrong with original internet within reasonable means. There has to be some form of original intent preserved, or what would be the point in having a constitution to begin with? I get the point that you are making, but your examples are taking things to the extreme.


Everything is absurd when taken to the extreme.

The devil is in the details. I have no trouble with those that try to determine what the intent was behind a constitutional provision. The main problem with what Gorsuch and his ilk do is that they aren't really doing this. It is used mostly as a smokescreen to push a conservative agenda by dressing up their political preferences as some sort of holy writ handed down by the lawgivers.

It is the legal version of when people dress up their opinions in terms of something being "real."

"Limit poker isn't real poker because you can't price out drawing hands" vs "I don't like limit poker because you can't price out drawing hands"

or

"Patent lawyers aren't real lawyers because they don't have to do jury trials"

or

"Speed chess isn't real chess because you don't have time to look deeply into a position"

or

"Wheeling isn't a real West Virginia city because it doesn't have a Tudor's Biscuit world"

and on and on... this is basically what is going on in a legal sense.


or

"The Constitution is no longer the Constitution because a number of judges decided to set new precedents according to their political whims.

Posted on: 4/21 2:54 am
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Pitt Hater
Joined:
6/26/2010 9:15 am
Posts: 2206
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
There is nothing wrong with original internet within reasonable means. There has to be some form of original intent preserved, or what would be the point in having a constitution to begin with? I get the point that you are making, but your examples are taking things to the extreme.


Everything is absurd when taken to the extreme.

The devil is in the details. I have no trouble with those that try to determine what the intent was behind a constitutional provision. The main problem with what Gorsuch and his ilk do is that they aren't really doing this. It is used mostly as a smokescreen to push a conservative agenda by dressing up their political preferences as some sort of holy writ handed down by the lawgivers.

It is the legal version of when people dress up their opinions in terms of something being "real."

"Limit poker isn't real poker because you can't price out drawing hands" vs "I don't like limit poker because you can't price out drawing hands"

or

"Patent lawyers aren't real lawyers because they don't have to do jury trials"

or

"Speed chess isn't real chess because you don't have time to look deeply into a position"

or

"Wheeling isn't a real West Virginia city because it doesn't have a Tudor's Biscuit world"

and on and on... this is basically what is going on in a legal sense.


or

"The Constitution is no longer the Constitution because a number of judges decided to set new precedents according to their political whims.

With no cute meme ^ he is right you know.

Posted on: 4/21 7:11 am
_________________
montani semper liberi
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 4766
Open in new window

Posted on: 4/21 9:11 am
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.

~Abraham Lincoln
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Pitt Hater
Joined:
7/21/2008 9:57 pm
From North Central, WV
Posts: 1445
This last meme could be considered to be dead on, or missed the point entirely. It just depends on the point from where you are viewing it.


Conclusion: I hate when good sarcasm gets wasted.

Posted on: 4/22 11:43 pm
_________________
LET'S GO---------------------------------MOUNTAINEERS---------------
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
12/9/2009 10:45 am
From durham, nc
Posts: 4766
Lol...I'll never tell!

I have no issues with Gorsuch. Elections have consequences.

Gonna start a few new threads about some recent political happenings. New arguments!

Posted on: 4/23 2:42 pm
_________________
Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.

~Abraham Lincoln
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch
Party Machine
Joined:
9/2/2007 12:20 am
From Chucktown
Posts: 661
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
There is nothing wrong with original internet within reasonable means. There has to be some form of original intent preserved, or what would be the point in having a constitution to begin with? I get the point that you are making, but your examples are taking things to the extreme.


Everything is absurd when taken to the extreme.

The devil is in the details. I have no trouble with those that try to determine what the intent was behind a constitutional provision. The main problem with what Gorsuch and his ilk do is that they aren't really doing this. It is used mostly as a smokescreen to push a conservative agenda by dressing up their political preferences as some sort of holy writ handed down by the lawgivers.

It is the legal version of when people dress up their opinions in terms of something being "real."

"Limit poker isn't real poker because you can't price out drawing hands" vs "I don't like limit poker because you can't price out drawing hands"

or

"Patent lawyers aren't real lawyers because they don't have to do jury trials"

or

"Speed chess isn't real chess because you don't have time to look deeply into a position"

or

"Wheeling isn't a real West Virginia city because it doesn't have a Tudor's Biscuit world"

and on and on... this is basically what is going on in a legal sense.


or

"The Constitution is no longer the Constitution because a number of judges decided to set new precedents according to their political whims.


Yes, that is another example of foolishness. People that decide that something that they don't agree with is a political whim and that they do agree with is the legitimate interpretation.

Constitutional decisions are always going to have political subtext. Some are more blatantly political than others, but those that make that determination based on whether they share the political leanings of the decision are guilty of the very conduct they find objectionable. They are viewing jurisprudence through the lens of their own political prejudice.


Posted on: Ystrday 10:36 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 







Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved