Is Neil Gorsuch Anti-Duck?

Neil_Gorsuch_February_2017Rubber_duckies_So_many_ducksJudge Neil Gorsuch is scheduled to complete the long and grueling questioning of his confirmation hearing today. Indeed, he may finish a bit early.  Like past nominees, Gorsuch declined to discuss cases and said little about his positions on possible cases dealing with subjects like abortion.  Nominees are trained to hit grounders in these hearing and avoid pitches in the corners or trying to put anything over the wall.  He stayed with that strategy and the Democrats have made little progress in undermining his stellar record.  I have two columns out today at USA Today and The Hill newspaper discussing different aspects of the nomination.  I am scheduled to testify at the hearing on Thursday when they call expert witnesses.  There remains one disturbing question, however, that needs to be addressed:  is Judge Gorsuch anti-duck?

  Thus far, the only disappointing moment came when Judge Gorsuch failed to answer what may have been the most important question asked during the hearings, a question posed by the high school son of Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake whether Gorsuch would rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or one horse-sized duck during his confirmation hearing.

Judge Gorsuch failed or declined to give an answer, leaving Senators with the difficult decision of what to do in light of the failure to give his position on the key question.  This is not a question barred by the “Ginsburg Rule” since no horse or duck or duck-sized horse is in a pending case before the Judge.  It has raised the question of what Gorsuch is hiding and whether he is biased in favor of horses as a Colorado judge and well-known Broncos fan.  Duck organizations have raised the alarm over his possibly being “in the saddle” for big horse interests.  Whether we have a nominee who is pro-horse is perhaps left chilling then the question of whether he is so anti-duck that he was speechless when confronted by Flake.  Gorsuch’s well-known love for fishing adds to the concern.  Ducks can interfere with fishermen and Gorsuch’s ducking the duck question could raise an issue of a lack of judicial impartiality.

For the ADA (the American Duck Association), the concern is heightened by the fact that he is replacing a man who would often hunt ducks and eat them.  They are therefore crying fowl at the notion that Judge Gorsuch could not or would not answer this penetrating question.

The answer by the way is clear:  you fight the 100 duck-sized horses.  Now before I hear the neighing from horse apologists.  The weight of a horse can reach 2,200 pounds and the height can be as much as six feet.  In comparison the weight of a duck is three pounds and less than a foot in height.  Of course the weight of a duck has been a long-standing debate, including in quasi-judicial proceedings:

Putting that debate aside, facing a 2,200 pound, six-foot duck is a daunting prospect.  Extrapolating the increased dimensions on height, the beak of the duck alone would present a menacing weapon of three foot bone covered by a hardened layer of epidermis known as the rhamphotheca.  No rational (or unbiased) person would face such a menacing mallard over a bunch of 8-inch horses.  A two-ton duck could deliver a death-dealing blow in a single attack (putting aside the possibility of retaining the ability of flight at its immense size).  The only existential threat of being trampled to death by tiny horses would be to the most passive victim.

That returns us to the troubling question of what the nominee is hiding and whether ducks can expect a fair shake from a Justice Gorsuch.

175 thoughts on “Is Neil Gorsuch Anti-Duck?”

  1. The Alliance for Justice* has examined and written about in detail the background and judicial record of Neil Gorsuch, an excerpt from which states (the whole review is available at the link below):

    “Part III provides an overview of Judge Gorsuch’s record and explains key findings.The overall conclusion of this section is that Judge Gorsuch has, throughout his life, been driven by an ultraconservative ideology. This ideology is marked by four themes: (1) hostility toward social and legal progress over the last century; (2) willingness to downplay abuses of constitutional rights by government actors; (3) aggrandizement of corporations over individuals; and (4) skepticism of the federal government’s role in protecting the health and
    safety of the American people and a desire to weaken important legal protections. His record demonstrates that Judge Gorsuch is driven by this ideology; he is not an unbiased judge, who decides cases on the facts and law, as opposed to his own personal views.

    After a thorough review of his record, the primary conclusion is that, on the merits, Judge Gorsuch is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
    http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/The-Gorsuch-Record.pdf

    * “Alliance for Justice is a national association of over 100 organizations dedicated to advancing justice and democracy. For over 30 years we have been leaders in the fight for a more equitable society on behalf of a broad constituency of environmental, consumer, civil and women’s rights, children’s, senior citizens’ and other groups. Alliance for Justice believes that all Americans have the right to secure justice in the courts and to have their voices heard when government makes decisions that affect their lives.”

    1. Would an judge who follows the law advocate for businesses to inquire of female employment applicants’ intention to become pregnant while employed? Of course not. Every judge knows there’s a fundamental right to procreative privacy.

  2. @Paul Schulte, March 24, 2017 at 6:41 am
    “Ken Rogers – are you questioning my auth – thor – a – thay? 😉”

    Only when your reach extheeds your graspth, Paul, only when your reach extheeds your graspth. 🙂

  3. In the excerpt below, one sees Judge Gorsuch being dryly schooled by the majority regarding the illogicality of his dissent, considering only the relevant law, and leaving aside the life-threatening circumstances in which the trucker found himself:

    “The dissent [by Gorsuch] takes issue with our application of Chevron to the question before us, deeming it an ‘uninvited foray into step two of Chevronland.’ Dissenting Op. at 2.

    “We received our invitation from TransAm in its opening brief. Appellant Br. at 13 n.5. TransAm, the appellant in this matter, relied on Chevron to argue the ARB’s construction of the STAA should be rejected. The dissent further criticizes us for moving to the second prong of the Chevron analysis after concluding the term ‘operate’ is not defined in the statute.

    “The dissent believes Congress’s intent can be easily determined by simply choosing a favorite dictionary definition of the word and applying that to quickly conclude the statute is not ambiguous at all. However, in addition to not defining the term ‘operate,’ Congress also did not unambiguously express its intent with regard to the definition of the term.

    “See United States v. Seminole Nation of Okla., 321 F.3d 939, 944 (10th Cir. 2002). Thus, the only way to resolve the matter we have been asked by TransAm to review is to move to Chevron’s second step.

    “Even if we disregard TransAm’s request that we analyze this case using the Chevron paradigm and employ the analysis used by the dissent, we would still reach the same conclusion. We, too, have found a dictionary definition of the word ‘operate’ and discovered it means to ‘control the functioning of.’
    Operate Oxford Dictionaries Pro, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/operate (last
    visited July 8, 2016).

    “This definition clearly encompasses activities other than driving. For that reason, the dissent’s conclusion that a truck driver is
    ‘operating’ his truck when he refuses to drive it but not when he refuses to remain in control of it while awaiting its repair, is curious.

    “The only logical explanation is that the dissent has concluded Congress used the word ‘operate’ in the statute when it really meant ‘drive.’ We are more comfortable limiting our review to the language Congress actually used. As the dissenting judge stated during oral argument, ‘Our job isn’t to legislate and add new words that aren’t present in the statute.’ ”
    http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9504.pdf

    1. As disturbing as the frozen-trucker case is, the drubbing Judge Gorsuch’s 10th Cir. opinion took this past week in the Supreme Court’s 8-0 opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District is equally as bad. This case was about a Free Appropriate Public Education of an autistic boy under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

      Previous SCOTUS precedent, i.e., Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley, held that IDEA requires the individualized educational program be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” For children fully-integrated into the classroom setting (Endrew had been diagnosed with autism at age two and had an IEP from preschool through 4th grade), this means an IEP “reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.” There was no test othewise laid down to meet that standard, however.

      Endrew’s parents removed him from public school for fifth grade and placed him at Firefly Autism House, a private school after deciding the school district’s IEP was not adequate (they thought Endrew’s “academic and functional progress had stalled”), They sued the Douglas County School District for reimbursement of Endrew’s tuition at Firefly for its failure to comply with IDEA in fashioning Endrew’s IEP.

      At his confirmation hearing, I remember Gorsuch stating he was “following precedent” with his finding that the IDEA standard (announced in Rowley) had been met by the school district with what his 10th Cir. opinion states was an “educational benefit [that is] merely . . . more than de minimis.” His opinion further states the benefit conferred by the school district had been “reasonably calculated to enable [Endrew] to make some progress.” His ruling denied reimbursement.

      SCOTUS then held that under the IDEA the school must offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress that is appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances on a case-by-case basis, not merely more than de minimis progress.

      It might be hard for some to blame Gorsuch for the standard he came up with. (Even the trial judge incorrectly surmised the standard was an IEP that simply opens the door to the classroom.) However, Gorsuch did not follow precedent as he stated: Rowley made it crystal clear that the standard is much more than merely above de minimis. [S]ome progress is not always appropriate progress for a child fully-integrated into the classroom when the level of instruction is not “reasonably calculated to permit advancement through the general curriculum.” My sense is that Gorsuch paid less than appropriate attention to Rowley, the precedent he said he followed. That’s no one’s fault but his own, and it appears that Gorsuch refused to admit his mistake at his confirmation hearing.

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

      1. Steve Groen – having worked many years with IEPs, both official and unofficial, schools, districts and teachers are erratic at either following or enforcing them. I have seen students who should have been on a IEP, not get one until well into high school and then only when they transferred to the right high school.

        For teachers, they require extra work and extra attention to that particular student in a particular way. Every time the child changes teachers, the new teacher has to have a IEP meeting, where all the requirements are gone over. Any teacher may have 5 or more IEP students in their classroom that have to be accommodated. Some teachers hate their IEP students and make life hard. Some are neutral. Some are supportive.

        Judges really don’t understand these things because they didn’t have IEPs. Gorsuch’s view was the same as many school administors I have seen in education, however I am happy with the SC decision.

        1. Paul: You may very well be right, but it’s beside the issue. I don’t know that Judge Gorsuch had to understand the IEP. He had to determine whether the trial court correctly found the IEP was “reasonably calculated to permit [Endrew’s] advancement through the general curriculum,” i.e., “reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.” The trial court clearly didn’t follow the standard in Rowley.

          I too am glad the Supreme Court vacated Gorsuch’s opinion, but what’s seriously troubling is that he failed to acknowledge at his confirmation hearing that he either didn’t understandRowley or misinterpreted it. He certainly didn’t follow it; yet, in his smooth, pious delivery, he said he had.

          When Alito and Thomas decided against him in Rowley – there wasn’t even a concurring opinion, which the Court must have known would be influential at his confirmation hearing – he had to have known he did something very wrong, yet he wasn’t forthright enough to admit it.

  4. @Steve Groen, March 23, 2017 at 9:44 pm
    “Gorsuch opposed divestment from South Africa. Total right-wing radical at Columbia:”

    Thanks very much for posting the video of Gorsuch’s classmate at Columbia__highly informative.

    The link below is to another” Democracy Now” clip regarding the truck driver in whose case Gorsuch was the only one of seven judges during a 7-year legal process to find for the trucking company that ordered the trucker to stay with his disabled rig, with no functioning heater, in sub-zero weather, and fired him when he drove the cab by itself to a filling station to avoid freezing to death, returning to the locked trailer shortly thereafter. In short, Gorsuch torturously reasoned (I’ll provide his dissent separately), contrary to the relevant law, that the trucking company was legally justified in valuing its cargo over the threatened life of its employee.

  5. @mespo7272, March 23, 2017 at 9:33 pm
    “Appeals to authority are perfectly valid when the authority is an authority in the field cited. Why not simply ask Paul the source of his assertion? If he knows something you don’t know and from an authoritative source, that’s not inherently weak in itself.”

    I thought it was obvious that I was implicitly asking Paul for evidence supporting his assertions, as he apparently recognized by responding as he did at 10:08 pm, albeit humorously lamely.

    In my response to his accusations regarding Warren, I said that appeals to recognized outside authority by themselves are inherently weakly persuasive, as is clearly evidenced by the fact that two or more (qualified) authorities in the same field often disagree.

    For a recent personal example, I told my physician that another graduate of the same medical school had strongly recommended in one of his books not taking a drug that my doctor was insistent that I take. I pointed out that his identically credentialed colleague had cited numerous studies in support of his recommendation, to which he replied huffily, “I’m not going to do that.” Needless to say (I hope), I went with the recommendation of the authority who produced the evidence to support it.

    With regard to the subject at hand, I just finished reading the majority and dissenting opinions inTransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, and here we witness disagreement between legal authorities. I’ll post some excerpts from those two authoritative opinions which I find persuasive, but obviously not on the basis of any appeal to their respective authority, which is essentially equal, but rather on the basis of evidence and logic.

  6. @Paul Schulte, March 23, 2017 at 8:02 pm
    “Ken Rogers – couple of things. Fauxahauntas did not read all that stuff she said she read, she had her staff read the Cliff Notes version. She also did not write the statement. Some staffer prepared and she signed off on it. She is still as fake as when she claimed Native American heritage to get a job.”

    Paul Schulte — how is it that you never seem to feel any need to provide any evidence to support your (often dubious) claims?

    Appeals to authority are inherently weakly persuasive by themselves, but when the authority is frequently or always oneself, it starts to become amusing. 🙂

    1. Appeals to authority are perfectly valid when the authority is an authority in the field cited. Why not simply ask Paul the source of his assertion? If he knows something you don’t know and from an authoritative source, that’s not inherently weak in itself.

    2. Ken Rogers – Senators have staffers do all their work. You can call you Senator tomorrow and ask, if you like.

  7. Just curious, is there anyone on this blog who believes Diane Feinstein or Al Franken will vote for this guy(Gorsuch)?

    1. Independent Bob – latest I heard was that the Democrats are going to filibuster.

    2. Democrats already set it up. If Schumer goes ahead with a filibuster now, the Republicans will go nuclear. Just like Harry Reid said the Dems would have done anyway under a president Hillary Clinton. So blame it on the Democrats for doing away with the filibuster if it happens.
      —————————–
      “Envisioning Hillary Clinton in the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate, Reid warned that if a Senate Republican minority block her Supreme Court nominee, he is confident the party won’t hesitate to change the filibuster rules again.

      Such a move would be an extension of what Reid did in 2013 when he was still majority leader, eliminating filibusters (with a simple majority vote) on the President’s nominees. There was only one exception: the Supreme Court. As it stands now, Democrats still need 60 votes to move forward with a Supreme Court nominee.

      Reid said, however, that could change.

      “I really do believe that I have set the Senate so when I leave, we’re going to be able to get judges done with a majority. It takes only a simple majority anymore. And, it’s clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I’ve told ’em how and I’ve done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It’ll have to be done again,” Reid told TPM in a wide-ranging interview about his time in the Senate and his legacy.

      “They mess with the Supreme Court, it’ll be changed just like that in my opinion,” Reid said, snapping his fingers together. “So I’ve set that up. I feel very comfortable with that.”

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harry-reid-if-gop-blocks-scotus-in-2017-dems-should-go-nuclear-again

  8. Senator Elizabeth Warren issued the following statement last month, citing her reasons for opposing Gorsuch’s nomination. If anyone commenting here has evidence that Gorsuch isn’t a fervent corporatist, I’ll appreciate the opportunity to see it.

    “President Trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test.

    “Instead, he carried out his public promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activist groups that were financed by big business interests.

    “Judge Gorsuch has been on this list for four months. His public record, which I have reviewed in detail, paints a clear picture.
    “Before even joining the bench, he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women’s access to basic health care.

    “For years, powerful interests have executed a full-scale assault on the integrity of our federal judiciary, trying to turn the Supreme Court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and the powerful. They spent millions to keep this seat open, and Judge Gorsuch is their reward.

    “Every day, our new President finds more ways to demonstrate his hostility for our independent judiciary, our civil society, and the rule of law. Now more than ever, America needs Supreme Court justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans – civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and all other protections guaranteed by our laws. We don’t need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence.

    “Based on the long and well-established record of Judge Gorsuch, I will oppose his nomination.”
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/31/read-elizabeth-warren-statement-neil-gorsuch/J3Eqv9PXR9BRLzWDKZ3otK/story.html

    1. Ken Rogers – couple of things. Fauxahauntas did not read all that stuff she said she read, she had her staff read the Cliff Notes version. She also did not write the statement. Some staffer prepared and she signed off on it. She is still as fake as when she claimed Native American heritage to get a job.

  9. @desperatelyseekingsusan, March 23, 2017 at 4:50 pm
    “Martial law is incorporated into the Articles of War and administered by courts-martial, the functions of order maintenance are assumed by soldiers. Sorry your failed religion professor does not understand that, but it really is not my problem or that of any working politician.”

    Then what is your problem? 🙂

    In addition to the quotation marks, you seem to have overlooked or don’t know the meaning of the word “essentially” in the essay by the “failed religion professor” who has a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, who writes in complete sentences, and who attaches his real name to what he writes.

    Moreover, it’s apparently unfortunate that the US Supreme Co didn’t enjoy your nor “any working politician’s” acumen, back in 1946:

    “Martial Law
    “The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Martial law is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos. According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaning (Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 [1946]). [Emphasis added]

    “However, most declarations of martial law have some common features. Generally, the institution of martial law contemplates some use of military force. To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended (this writ allows persons who are unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding).”
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Martial+law

  10. @desperatelyseekingsusan, March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    ” ‘The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.’

    “The term ‘martial law’ does not mean what you fancy it means.”

    As that is Dr. Garrison’s assertion above (indicated by the little quotation marks), what do you fancy that I fancy “martial law” means?

    1. Martial law is incorporated into the Articles of War and administered by courts-martial, the functions of order maintenance are assumed by soldiers. Sorry your failed religion professor does not understand that, but it really is not my problem or that of any working politician.

  11. @Paul Schulte, March 22, 2017 at 4:50 pm
    “Horuss – the downfall of our nation started when Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for doing exactly nothing. The next 8 years have been all down hill with the most transparent administration ever!!!”

    The downfall of the US, in terms of its federal government’s progressive abrogation of its citizens’ liberties, began long before Obama was elected, and I suspect that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize primarily because he was elected President of the United States and because he wasn’t George W. Bush.

    America’s decline arguably began most conspicuously when the Federal Reserve System was created and pushed into law by an international banking cartel in 1913, giving that cartel effective control of the nation’s economy and thereby its polity. As the international banker Amschel Rothschild is widely reported to have said, “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

    World Wars I and II then played a great role in furthering the nation’s decline; as the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, observed, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” He also observed, most presciently, as we are learning, that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

    The downward spiral of the Republic was accelerated by Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA and his signing into law The National Security Act in 1947, thereby creating a nascent Shadow Government or Deep State whose unaccountable agencies and beneficiaries would burgeon into the “Military-Industrial Complex” about which Eisenhower warned in his farewell address.

    The false-flag attack of 9/11 put the pedal to the metal with the Patriot Act, the illegal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the never-ending, liberty destroying, blood-and-treasure-draining “War on Terror.”

    “Hope and Change” Obama, after being elected, revealed himself to be GW Bush on steroids, administering the most aggressive and least transparent US National Security State to date, including signing into law the infamous National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which was followed by his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16, 2012.

    See Jim Garrison’s detailed description of the ramifications of Obama’s totalitarian executive order, which “ …does to the does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular__completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight of any action by the Government deemed in the interest of ‘national security.’ Like the NDAA, the new executive order puts the government completely above the law, which in a democracy is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garrison/martial-law-under-another_b_1370819.html

    1. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.”

      The term ‘martial law’ does not mean what you fancy it means.

      1. By his last years on the Court, Marshall was a triumph of the taxidermist’s art.

        Hugo Black dissented in Griswold v. Connecticut. There were decided limits to the degree to which he was willing to use the judicial ukase to impose social policies. Mr. inJustices Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens argued filed a dissenting opinion in 1977 arguing that a woman had a constitutional right to a Medicaid– funded abortion.

  12. @Elena Carlena, March 22, 2017 at 5:45 pm
    “This is a very odd post. I hope you will address the frozen trucker, however, when you testify. If Gorsuch anticipated a Supreme Court nomination, he never should have recommended that the trucker either freeze or drive his truck in a way that would have endangered lives.

    “Down with corporate tools!!”

    Here’s a link to a video of Gorsuch’s answers to Senartor Franken’s questions and observations:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/franken-calls-gorsuch-dissent-in-trucker-case-absurd-215303655.html

    In view of that exchange, I can understand your suggesting that Gorsuch is a corporate tool, and like you, I’d be much more interested in Professor Turley’s reaction to that exchange than to the frivolous one he chose to write about.

  13. I’m still waiting for some kind person to tell me how to paste an image in the comments.

  14. This is a very odd post. I hope you will address the frozen trucker, however, when you testify. If Gorsuch anticipated a Supreme Court nomination, he never should have recommended that the trucker either freeze or drive his truck in a way that would have endangered lives.

    Down with corporate tools!!

  15. Gorsuch is a right wing political hack. Period. Just like Scalia was and just like Alito and Roberts are. He has no business on the US Supreme Court. We know Republicans don’t give a damn about the integrity of our government. They are so openly corrupt and politically motivated they make no bones about it. Sadly, however, the Democrats, a party that used to have both backbone and integrity has neither at this point in time and so this man whose entire career has been a result of his mother being a very well connected Republican hack is going to be elevated to the court of last resort where he and his buddies will continue to try and reverse every bit of social and economic progress made since about 1860. The result will, of course, ultimately be the downfall of the greatest republic the world has ever known but with it also the complete destruction of the Republican Party and none too soon. Minorities, when given control of government, err when pretending to have majority support and ignoring the will of the people and the spirit of the times. Allowing right wing minorities to rule the US for much of its history has only produced cataclysmic changes and intense political strife as the majority ALWAYS ultimately prevails. This is a sad, sad time for the US and perhaps our downfall as a great nation as right wing extremism does what parasites always do: feeds off the host until it causes disease and ultimately the death of itself and the host.

    1. Horuss – the downfall of our nation started when Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for doing exactly nothing. The next 8 years have been all down hill with the most transparent administration ever!!!

        1. Bob – what has Chelsea done, besides survive living with her parents, that deserves any achievement award?

          1. She has actual accomplishments (several graduate degrees), but she’s too fickle to build a career. She’s been employed at McKinsey-type consulting, academic administration, broadcasting, and has now been incorporated into her parents’ grift (which she found excessively corrupt, per media reports). Her mother and father made to her a gift of a hideously expensive wedding celebration and piece of real estate (something that people with new money do more commonly than people with old money). What’s she’s needed is disinterested guidance, and that she’s not had.

            1. dds – I know the supposed plan was for Chelsea to take over the Clinton Foundation when Hillary became Prez. Then with the email scandal hit, the Foundation started to swirl into the toilet.

              1. I was a plumber in a prior life and can tell you that some things won’t flush. And a good plumber would not clean out a Hillary outhouse.

                  1. And so the Liberal Democrat Progressives give them Lifetime Achievement Awards because they just never go away? Like the turd that just won’t flush?

                1. Jack Ruby – having lived in the outhouse era, you fill the hole in and dig a new pit and put the outhouse over it. 🙂

                  1. I agree with that tactic. Some backyards do not have enough space.
                    When I went off to practice law on my own- solo practice– my father had an admonition for me:
                    “I was a plumber my whole life and never cleaned outhouses. You should not do divorces.”
                    I listened.

          2. Totally. I can’t believe they gave Chelsea her own West Wing office and security clearance. Or is that Ivanka? And what did she do to deserve that again? Oh, yes. She sells shoes.

                1. Dave137 – what have you done? She was responsible for 275 of her father’s companies. You think you have that kind of business acumen?

            1. Valerie Jarret had a West Wing office, a security clearance, and a 24/7 Secret Service detail. I’m not sure any generic White House aide has ever had a 24/7 security detail before. (Henry Kissinger drove himself to work when he was National Security Adviser).

              1. I didn’t realize VJ was Obama’s daughter who inherited the position. Incredible news.

                1. Ivanka works in the family business. She did not inherit her business acumen.

                2. Dave137 – she seems to be related somehow, she moved into the new house (compound).

            2. It’s a family business, Dave. His principal subordinates in recent years have included his three older children and his son-in-law. This isn’t that difficult.

                1. It’s a privately held limited corporation. He specifically groomed and trained his children to work in that company. The basis for your objection is what?

  16. We all know why he was nominated, and it’s not because he is fair or unbiased, but quite the opposite. Just because he can put on a good performance does not mean he is qualified to judge cases of the most utmost importance. The case of the truck driver is right on point, as is his obvious bias against trial lawyers. The sight of his face gives me dyspepsia, as does the holy spirit pendant prominently hanging out of his wife’s clothing. Hypocrites both of them.

    1. ExACTLY Natacha.

      The confirmation process is an insult. Informed people know that the only kind of SCJ nominee that will ever be nominated, much less confirmed, is one who will protect and advance the interests of the 1% and large corporations. And the 1% do not believe much in individual rights – only privileges. JT won’t speak against such a nominee.

      104+
      +
      +
      +

  17. If the first two duckies are ever the same…
    You quack at both and say their names..
    Like Mac, Jack ,,, friggin fo O yak
    And Mary, Mary, is so hairy…
    Thats the only rule that is contrary…

Comments are closed.