Below is my latest column in USA Today on the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. I testified last week on the nomination before the Senate Judiciary hearing. I was particularly pleased that one of the other witnesses that day was a GW graduate: Karen Harned (Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center. Karen has quickly become a leader in Washington on legal and policy matters impacting businesses. Since the hearing (and publication of this column), the Democrats have indicated that they are preparing for a filibuster. (My colleague Dick Pierce has an interesting column opposing such a move).
As I stated at the hearing, I disagree with some of Judge Gorsuch’s opinions but I believe that he is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. I am particularly disturbed by some of the attacks on his writings on major issues of our time. While many lawyers in Washington pathologically avoid any statements or writings on controversial subjects in the hope for government appointments, Gorsuch actively participated in the national debate and contributed interesting perspectives on those questions. He refused to remain a pure pedestrian as others debated issues like euthanasia. He should not be penalized for doing so. One can disagree with his perspective but his analysis is uniformly probative and at times profound.
If there is one thing that should be clear from the confirmation hearings of Judge Neil Gorsuch, it is that he is no Antonin Scalia. And that is a good thing.
Many of us had great respect for Scalia, who was a judicial icon on the court. Yet we do not need a jurist who tries to be a knockoff or facsimile of Scalia. We need someone who is comfortable in his own intellectual skin. The priority should be not to replace a conservative with a conservative but an intellectual with an intellectual. Gorsuch is precisely that type of nominee.
I have long been critical of the preference shown nominees who lack any substantive writings or opinions on the major legal issues of our time. This has led to what I have referred to as the era of “blind date nominees,” candidates with essentially empty portfolios when it comes to any provocative or even interesting thoughts. Such individuals make for good nominees but not great justices.
Gorsuch is a refreshing departure from that trend. He has eagerly and substantively participated in the national debate over some of our most sensitive issues.
Every president and senator has expressed a commitment to placing the best and the brightest on the court, though few seem to agree on the qualitative measures for such nominees. Historically, the record is not encouraging. The actual members of the court have ranged from towering figures to virtual non-entities. To put it bluntly, we have had far more misses than hits among appointees to the court.
To be one of nine, a nominee should be an intellectual leader who has shown both a depth and scope of knowledge of the law and its history. Quite frankly, few nominees have been particularly distinguished on this basis. The low moment came with President Nixon’s nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell, who was criticized as the “dull graduate of the third best law school in the state of Georgia” and lacked any scholarly articles or significant decisions. Sen. Roman Hruska famously rose to his defense with the declaration that “even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?” The answer is, of course, no. The highest court is a place for those who have earned the honor of confirmation through a lifetime of demonstrated and exceptional intellectual achievement.
Gorsuch is the gold standard for a nominee. He is widely respected for his writings on legal theory and history, which include refreshingly provocative ideas on the structure of government, morality in the law and interpretive theory. This is, in other words, a full portfolio of work at the very highest level of analysis.
Confirmation hearings often take on an almost mystical character as members and experts hold forth on what type of justice a nominee will prove to be over the course of a long tenure on the court. It is an exercise that not only defies logic but also can border on the occult. If history is any judge, even the nominee cannot say for certain where his tenure on the court will take him.
These hearings always remind me of an often told, but perhaps apocryphal, story of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was traveling by train to Washington. When the conductor asked for his ticket, Holmes searched high and low for it until the conductor reassured him, “Don’t worry about your ticket, Mr. Holmes. We all know who you are. When you get to your destination, you can find it and just mail it to us.” Holmes responded, “My dear man, the problem is not my ticket. The problem is … where am I going?”
Most nominees are in a position not unlike that of Holmes. People of good faith can evolve on the court and even change dramatically in their new role. I do not expect such a transformation in Gorsuch, who has deep and well-established jurisprudential views. However, I expect he will go wherever his conscience takes him regardless of whether it proves a track to the left or the right. That might make the final terminus uncertain, but it will be an exciting trip to watch.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
If President Trump nominated Moses to to the Supreme Court
The Schumer band wagon would load up against him.
This is what America is confronted with.
What a shame.
The Democrats are scripted robots.
Regardless we will have a Supreme Court Gorsuch.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists” Hannah Arendt, The origins of Totalitarianism. 1951
Conservatives don’t like it when the facts interfere with their opinions.
Progtrash have no facts at their command to interfere with anyone’s opinions.
@Steve Groen, March 26, 2017 at 10:35 am
“He [Gorsuch]’s even worse than Scalia, and that’s a bad thing, but he’s the President’s nominee, and the Democrats can’t stop the nomination, so let’s seat him and get it over with. Senator Schumer needs to pipe down.”
What? I most strenuously disagree, Steve. And I equally strenuously agree with Rob Hager:
“Progressive and Independent voters who punished Democrats in 2016 for nominating a plutocrat like Clinton to lead them, especially, need to let it be known that a cloture vote for Gorsuch, or any other future Federalist Society nominee, will be a similar deal-breaker with the Senate Democrats.
“The impact of a Gorsuch appointment on further entrenching plutocratic corruption will be even greater than would have been electing Clinton for four years. Just as Clinton was have been a decisive factor in 2016. They need to find a way to give collective notice that they will vote in the primary and general election to defeat any Senator who fails to filibuster Gorsuch. This is too important a juncture in history to employ half measures. [Emphasis added]
“Senator King is one of those 25 up for reelection in 2018. On March 5, he faced a town hall crowd critical of his vacillation about their demand that he prevent Gorsuch from becoming the fifth horseman needed to resume the Roberts Court ride toward the plutocratic apocalypse.
“Their demand needs to be turned into a clear litmus test of how a known number of such voters will treat King at next year’s polls if he votes for cloture.
“Independents fled from Clinton, thinking Trump was a better bet to drain the Swamp, or at least no less likely to do so than was the Clinton political ring. As Ralph Nader pointed out, Trump also ‘hijacked the progressive agenda’ even beyond his fake promise to drain the Swamp.
“But now that Trump has revealed his true Swamp colors with uniformly plutocratic nominees and corporate giveaways, these voters who now know they were lied to by Trump should make the same demand about Gorsuch from the Republicans. They would need to influence only 2 or 3 Republican Senators from swing states to make the difference. Flipping any Republicans makes the Democrats’ betrayal more difficult.
“The right vote to rescue democracy from the Swamp is ‘no’ on cloture for the Gorsuch filibuster. Any Senator who has a different priority than rescuing democracy from the current corrupt plutocracy that they serve should be removed to make way for progress.” [Emphasis added]
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/swamping-the-supremes-department-no-cloture-for-judge-gorsuch-by-rob-hager/#more-183853
Ken, I understand your argument. I don’t like this anymore than you do, but if it’s not Gorsuch then Trump will nominate someone else likely even worse than Gorsuch, who is at least a competent radical in sheep’s clothing.
Is it your reasoning the Democrats can delay this Senate confirmation for two years and get enough relief at the mid-term elections to then delay it for another two years thereafter until Trump is hopefully out of office?
As Steve Bannon (Trump’s Rasputin?) has openly acknowledged, one of the three main goals of the Trump Administration is the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” That is why he nominated to head the EPA, for example, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has sued the Environmental Protection Agency more than a dozen times to block air, water and climate protections.
Now, US corporations already wield enormous economic and political power in all three branches of the federal government, very conspicuously including the US Supreme Court, and Trump’s nomination of Gorsuch seeks to restore the 5-4 corporate-friendly majority on the SC which included Scalia.
As Dr. David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World (2001), says:
“As individual corporations grow in size, global reach, and political power, we see a corresponding shift in the primary function of national governments—from serving the interests of their citizens to assuring the security of corporate property and profits. They apply police and military powers to this end, subsidize corporate operations, and facilitate corporate tax evasion. They let corporations off the hook with slap-on-the-wrist fines for criminal actions. Rarely, if ever, do they punish top executives.”
And as political scientist Bertram Gross points out in his book, Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America (1980), linked to in its entirety, below:
“… as I survey the entire panorama of contending forces, I can readily detect something more important: the outline of a powerful logic of events. This logic points toward tighter integration of every First World Establishment. In the United States, it points toward more concentrated, unscrupulous, repressive, and militaristic control by a Big Business-Big Government partnership that-to preserve the privileges of the ultra-rich, the corporate overseers, and the brass in the military and civilian order-squelches the rights and liberties of other people both at home and abroad. That is friendly fascism.” [Emphasis added] http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Specter_FriendlyFascism_FF.html
In his responses to Senators and in his writing and decisions, Judge Neil Gorsuch holds out, for all to see, the beguiling face of friendly fascism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGeDeg73ggY
Ken Rogers – there is a new book on Rasputin with new research that show that Rasputin was very misunderstood. He did not have the reach to the Tsar that people thought. Although, he did seem to have a way with women. 😉
The term Phillybuster arose back in the days before Washington DC existed. The offspring is Buster Cherry. Those Dems can Phillybuster all they want but the Gore guy will get approved. There are some things in the rear of his mind which will come out once he is on the bench. He believes in a parliamentary form of government. He wants the House of Representatives to nominate and appoint our President. He does not believe in the Electoral College or in Knox College. He believes that if you went to Harvard or Yale then you are this side of being beyond the Pale. He did not like Palin but that is a horse of a different color. He is in favor of transgender bathrooms and wants one in the Supreme Court. The women in his courthouse now have signs on the women’s room which says “No dongs allowed and that means you Gorsuch.” I learned all this from Cloud 9 from some emails sent up there by some person in Congress.
“Buster Cherry” That’d make a neat personalized seven-digit license plate: bstrchry. There was a guy who attended high school with me whose surname was Hyman. Everyone called him Buster, too.
[…] the Democrats have indicated that they are preparing for a filibuster.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.
Right. The Democrats grow a spine. Ha,ha,ha (…)… Hold your breath… 🙂
The tactical argument goes that a filibuster now would be advantageous since Republicans would then go for the nuclear option meaning that should Democrats re-take control before the next SC justice opening, they, the dems, would be safe from filibuster thanks to Republicans.
Of course it’s easy to forget that the sole purpose of the Democrat party is to make absolutely sure that no progressive legislation ever gets enacted and that includes any judicial opinion that might consider popular legislation constitutional (past, present or future), such as laws against torture, against the death penalty, for habeas corpus. So the one thing we can consider factual here is that Democrats will try as hard as appearances-only permit them, but won’t actually filibuster.
Having assiduously followed the hearings last week,it is clear the opposition to Judge Gorsuch’s appointment has been conjured up to rectify the shabby treatment of Judge Garland pre-election.I would remind his opponents that two wrongs do not make a right.
First, you don’t need to worry (if you are worried).
Second, however, it can be argued that the maxim about two wrongs doesn’t fit this situation. If the Democrats don’t put up a fight, they are in effect of precedent giving the Republican party exclusive power over nominations to the Supreme Court. When it’s their turn, Republicans can simply refuse to hold hearings; when it’s that of Republicans…, well, two wrongs don’t make a right. Again, and again = exclusivity.
It is at least arguable that both parties and not simply one should have the right to nominate and get hearings and place candidates on the Supreme Court. If this outlandish idea holds any water at all, then defending it by opposing a Republican nomination until Democrats have had their legitimate turn is not necessarily a wrong and thus not subject to your accounting of 1+1..
When it’s their turn…-> When it’s the Democrat’s turn, Republicans can simply refuse to hold hearings; when it’s that of Republicans…, well, two wrongs don’t make a right so Democrats should simply wait their turn again. Rince, Repeat.What are you talking about? When the Democrats hold the Senate, they have no compunction about bottling up nominees in committee (see Miguel Estrada) and voting them down on blatantly political criteria (Robert Bork).
“voting them down […],” Interesting choice of verb. Neither side is shy about being political in their choices, but it works best when there is an actual vote, up or down, as in, “voting them down. I rest my case.
I’m not in the least interested in defending Democrats, Republicans or their choices.
Judge Garland was not shabbily treated. The President, and by extension Judge Garland, were simply told there would be no hearings. The Senate is not legally obligated to pay any attention to the President at all in these matters and the Court, unlike a cabinet department with one chieftain, isn’t going to suffer much for being short-handed.
JT,
I agree that it is better to hear someone’s opinions. I also agree there are areas where people of good faith may have disagreements and those disagreements don’t disqualify a person from the SC. What disqualifies Gorsuch to serve on the SC is his directing the Bush administration to go ahead and commit torture, arguing that the executive has the right to overrule the Constitution in cases of terrorism. This puts him squarely at odds with our Constitution. This is not a matter of a good faith difference of opinion. It is a matter of disregarding the Constitution itself.
Even if one has no concern that one’s fellow human beings are being treated in a heinous, illegal and horrifying manner, one can refuse to confirm Gorsuch who advocates executive law. This “new (made up)” law is beyond the Constitution. It gives the executive a power s/he does not legally hold in our form of govt. Gorsuch’s opinion on torture and executive power to overrule the Constitution is one more example of codifying something deeply illegal and destructive to the fabric of our society. Meaning, yes the exeucitve has grabbed this power but they have done so illegally. Gorsuch will make that power grab, “legal”. There is no good faith argument for destroying the Constitution. It is simply wrong.
Ah, Jill, long on impassioned opinions, short on every other thing of value.
Jill – you really need to go back and look at the history of EOs. When I did, I was very surprised when they started.
Paul,
Gorsuch told Bush he could break the law and commit torture. He further said the executive had the power to over-ride the Constitution in the case of terrorism and create his/her own law. As a conservative you should not be for this extra-Constitutional “law-making”. I put a link to the info before but I will put it here again.
Here’s a good place to start because it has the torture memos (that have been allowed out so far) and the words of the lawyers who defended it:
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/node/14884
You might also see Ron Wyden for information and Gorsuch’s interchange with Feinstein. In that interchange Gorsuch “forgot” about what was in the 2005 memos and what he had written about them.
P.S. I do not like any of the people here but they do you give you Gorsuch’s own words to look at for yourself.
Jill – the job of the President is to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic. I do not have a problem with torture, depending on the method. There are legitimate differences of opinion on the use of torture. Gorsuch has a legitimate argument, however with the currently constituted SC he would not get enough votes to get his way. It would take at least 2 more justices IMHO.
When the president is sworn in, is that his oath of office? “I promise to defend the country from enemies, foreign and domestic.” I seem to recall something different, but hey, if his job description is what ever you want it to be when ever you want the President to be doing this or that, then it goes without saying you are right.
BB – you are correct. My bad. This is the President’s oath.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The oath I presented is the oath taken on enlistment into the Army. The President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and by extension protects us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Paul,
This is the problem. We are not supposed to be a military govt. with a military sovereign. We are civilians and the president, also a civilian, swears to uphold the Constitution.
Once the war on terror got started, citizens began looking at the president as the commander in chief of our nation. This isn’t accurate. Civilians aren’t’ soldiers. Further, presidents do lots of things which are the opposite of keeping us safe. This includes Trump who is refusing to stop mass surveillance, refusing to stop bombing nations we aren’t at war and pretty much abridging all of our rights. Gorsuch says the president is like a king in that he may do an end run around his oath of office and ignore the Constitution. That’s not going to keep anyone safe as it strips out our rights as enumerated in the Constitution.
Gorsuch has broken faith with our Constitution and he advises the president to do likewise. Danger comes in many forms. This one comes wearing a suit having had the best advantages in life carrying a string of excellent diplomas. He’s not crossing a border with a gun. He’s crossing a line with regards to the rule of law. Conservatives and liberals alike should not allow that line to be crossed.
Do you not know history? Do you actually believe that once made legal, that torture would only be used on “those people”? Somewhere down the line, you and yours would eventually be introduced to “enhanced interrogation.”
Ben Franklin said we had a Republic “if we could keep it.” It dies with a whimper, not a bang.
That’s for the guy with no problem with torture
Mark M:
“Ben Franklin said we had a Republic ‘if we could keep it.’ It dies with a whimper, not a bang.”
Very well stated. Kudos.
From today’s Rasmussen Report:
Voters See Gorsuch Opposition As Politics, Not Issue-Based
Voters remain confident that Judge Neil Gorsuch will be approved for the Supreme Court and think he deserves it more than President Obama’s nominees did at this stage of the process. Opposition to Gorsuch is seen as driven more by politics than concerns about his judicial thinking.
Grass roots progressive groups strongly oppose Judge Gorsuch. The Bernie wing of the democratic party is among that group.
The okupiers are peeved. Chuckles.
anon – since Bernie sold out to Hillary, his wing of the party sold out, as far as I am concerned. Grassroots is now astro-turf. Soros is involved.
The opposition is always driven by politics, because progtrash jurisprudence is reducible to ‘give me what I want’ (which elected officials won’t give me).
https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/845861655913398272
Many oppose Gorsuch because he favors corporate rights over individual rights. So, yes, that involves his judicial thinking.
anon – and many oppose him because he is not Garland. And that is political.
Says Paul. The psychic without portfolio.
Was it political for McConnell to refuse to hold hearings on Garland? I am ideologically opposed to Gorsuch but think he should be confirmed
anon – it was both political and traditional. The Senate thrives on tradition and arcane rules. It is also a political body.
You all sound like a bunch of windbags!
I’m wagering that in meatworld, they haven’t many redeeming features. I’ll get a nice dose of schaldenfreude when Mr. Gorsuch is confirmed and sworn in.
Spanish any other spelling mistakes? I can live with that. it’s five AM! The union retirement check is late but all my bills are paid and none of my accounts are in red ink. The larder is full and it’s balmy spring weather with great sailing and fishing.
Is everything perfect. Nope another smart phone bit the dust for no apparent reason I think I’ll get a new vanilla version Nokia digital that only acts as a telephone and message center. and flip a coin on the same brand or a new Samsung. hmmmm $30 and either $70 or $200. Any recommendations?
Michael Aarethun – if you want to hold out a little, I am hearing good things on the Tech blogs about the new Samsung S8.
It’s time for learning curve to bear some fruit on i’ts heavily laden branches . Nuke the left they are nothing more than left overs waiting for the pruning shears and burn pile anyway. Biden could have won? But didn’t and with this groping background that claim is spurious and doubtful at best. Hillary again. At her age and physical condition? Better off running Huma Abiden.
Rand for the RINO factin and the leaders of the Republicans now called moderates and conservatives for some reason really need to get an April 1st Suprise ready and pass both an acceptable to all Health Care Package suitable for the Senate to add the polishing and that includes an immediate EO beginning on phase II by HHS and the Senate going into a three pronged nuclear attack by confirming Gorsuch, Getting AHCA V. 2 or V. 3 done in April and at the same time the rest of them starting on the Budget. A nice addition would be a change in the Senate Rules in areas like conciliation as an excuse for delay and round filing the 60 vote cloture rule.
Add to that an immediate proposal of a Constitutinal Centrist Coalition openly inviting those Democrats already in the Independent Democrats faction by offering those who wish to bolt the Democrats political cover by retaining their Committee assignments and offering some support on their home districts benefiting from the infrastructure rebuild.
The point is the Constitutional Republican faction led by President Trump have all the power, the former Democrat now Fractured Socialists have zero power other than acting the part of the Tonto. Do you know what that means in Spansih. It means FOOLs.
With no 60 vote filibuster capability and no other threats or demands available the left would really have little to do but beg for some input crumbs but really…need not even show up for committee meetings and votes but just wait for the new mainstream media pundits and oh yes the left stream media pundits to turn on them en masse.
Of what other use are they?
What’s left of the left? Their are three parts. in reality. Socialist Labor Leaders will go with the money, Socialist Corporatists will go with the money, that leaves Socialist Statists and they are too busy defending their splinters from complete annihilation by the centrist moderates who are neither Republican nor Democrat but those who politics shunted aside and those who banded together in an all out counter revoution against the left culminating in the political death of the Clintons and the former Democrat now just splinter Socialist factions.
A plus for that side. Perez is a stand in for the liberal estabishment that won’t last but the idea of the Afro American/Latino American taking over the DNC and making something of it is the idea of the future that will bear fruit given a bit of time to put the pieces together. That’s something else the Constitutionalists can provide them. What do we end up with? Two types of political factions both based on the Constitution and both viable. Important because the Latino faction alone after the millennials will be the new voting power base and majority
As for the establishment? Those still searching for a way to reinstate a neo aristocratic form of feudalism. Most of them will go for supporting the modern versions it’s a question of how many the viable coalitions can attract for purposes of their money. Even establishmentarianism has it’s uses…
As for the regressive socialists? They will go where they are told to go and that is a matter of who they are trying to impress….. or something.
In the end … Constitutional Republic Centrists and the equally Constitutional new Latino led oppositon get a new playing field and it’s World Cup time.
Names like Clinton become a sort of new replacement for polacks, wops and all those other remnants of the past and PC becomes the unacceptable repository of four lettter words no matter how they are spelled.
And the rest of it either joins in or gets picked up by the cleaning staff and enters the dustbins of history.l
Gorsuch is an incredibly poor choice for scotus! and is almost guaranteed to do irreparable harm to the USA. His twisted notion that legal entities are persons when it is convenient for them (corporations are not persons) and that money equals speech are positions bought and paid for by big money. Geez! Even the corrupt wing of the current court thought he went overboard on students with disabilities.
Besides fascist big money, imagine the conservative KKK and nazi wings will also support this steaming pile of poop …….and of course, our current Russian mob stooge president. But no American who believes “We the People” should this ATM nominee of the rich. Because the majority of Americans will be paying for decades if gorsuch takes a seat on the court.
I hope the democrats and all Americans support the gorsuch filibuster. No president under FBI investigation (and traitor trump looks guilty as hell) should be able to nominate for any open seat on any open court.
And the National Enquirer, Trump’s press arm that is is managed by Dick Morris, claims that Trump caught Flynn. Will Flynn flip?
Doubt Flynn will flip. Imagine there will be future side payments “guaranteed” an enticement to keep his mouth shut. That dumb donald hired him already knowing that he represented Turkey and Russia ahead of the USA show how incompetent and unpatriotic trump is. Realistically, he has hired the worst people (the antithesis of his campaign promise) of which Flynn is only one of many. That said, as baby trump’s approval rating slips towards the low 30’s, one doesn’t know which rats may jump ship.
This administration is turning into a cheap imitation of a John Le Carre spy novel.
I need help understanding this whole “Trump colluded with Russia” issue. What are some of the reasons why Trump and his team would have “colluded with the Russians”? So far as I understand it, this investigation has been going on since at least last July. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that proves Trump “colluded” with the Russians. But there is a lot of evidence that shows Hillary and Bill Clinton colluding with the Russians, John and Tony Podesta colluding with the Russians, Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch unethically meeting on an airplane, etc. What am I missing here?
There isn’t even conclusive evidence that it was “the Russians” who hacked into the DNC or John Podesta emails. Those were established as “leaks” last I heard. Again, what am I missing here on the Trump colluded with the Russians story?
Sorry….DNC email release was from a “leak” while Podesta’s emails were obtained by a phishing email where he clicked on the link giving them his password. Russia is not confirmed in either of these, am I wrong?
“Admiral Rogers, thanks for confirming that, but am I correct, that the — when we say Russian hacking what we are referring to is the fact that the intelligence community believes that the Russians penetrated the networks of the DNC, of John Podesta, and other individuals, stole information and then disseminated that information. Is that a fair characterization of the — of the conclusions of the intelligence community?”
“ROGERS: Yes sir.” From the hearing
https://twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/843829663461982208
Comey refused to disclose it.
Yeah well, it’s Comey. I’m not buying it.
Looking forward to a little light reading this new book: The Chickenshit Club: The Justice Department and Its Failure to Prosecute White-Collar Criminals Hardcover – July 11, 2017
by Jesse Eisinger
“Exposing one of the most important scandals of our time, The Chickenshit Club provides a clear, detailed explanation as to how our Justice Department has come to avoid, bungle, and mismanage the fight to bring these alleged criminals to justice.”
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1501121367/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_ece2yb95AYQK9
https://twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/837788264086061064
Lol..You copy Sean Spicer’s tweets. He is neither believable, knowledgeable or reliable. He is in way over his head.
It’s a parody account. Spicier not Spicer.
He’s the “Baghdad Bob of the Potomac.”
Bob – it is odd that Obama only found out what was happening in his administration when he was watching TV,
Yes it is.
Thanks to his ‘friendlies’ in the media.
https://twitter.com/ObamaStrawman/status/846089700536299520
https://twitter.com/20committee/status/846002084872884225
https://twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/837786762382540801
https://twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/838098736635052033
Nunes’ little trip to to the white house is being compared to the Bill Clinton Loretta Lynch meeting.
Sure. One meeting was about revealing unlawful conduct and the other was completely unethical.
https://twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/844633321015595015
And I don’t believe talking about “Russia” here is off topic since this is now part of the talking points against the Gorsuch nomination.
“Gorsuch’s nomination is especially problematic given the recent confirmation by FBI Director James Comey that the FBI is investigating Russian interference into Trump’s election. A president who may have been elected thanks to involvement by a foreign power should not be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice, whose tenure could last for decades.” – from http://www.5calls.org
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/846155034593251329
https://twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/837307607937331200
Spicer is probably in not involved in the money laundering and is generally clueless. Boris is leaving the administration.There are certainly suspicions surrounding that Trump spokesperson.
https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status/845960896702754816
https://twitter.com/sean_spicier/status/838438241086947329
Above was in response to: Pelosi saying “I think the press were accomplices in the undermining of our election.”
Left one out, follow the money. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wellsprings-dark-money-crucial-to-trump-orbit/?period
@ Ken Rodgers, thank you. Professor, have you lost your morals? Gorsuch may have great paper credentials but his record speaks the truth. This is a man who overwhelming favors companies over people, employers over employees, anybody over women. He is a member of the Federalist Society a group that is almost treasonous in it’s effort to corrupt the Constitution, government and laws to their wrong way. Gorsuch is so immoral that he thinks a man should have frozen to death rather than disobey his employer. This is a man that would not answer questions at his hearing. There are no redeeming characters in him. He is wrong, wrong, wrong. He is the exact opposite of what America needs, yesterday, today and forever. Just the fact that he was nominated by the sociopath fascist president should be enough to disqualify him but his record speaks for itself, an enemy of the people. The Dem’s are cowards if they do not filibuster and anybody that supports him lacks ethic, morals, a conscience, and a heart.
Good Day Sgt Sabai…I know not whether you have ever red or attempted to read the Constitution, The Constitution has been and is Already corrupt (Not to mention the Government)….so one does not need anyone to corrupt it even further, we need one to Correct fie it (The Law of Our Land) as it was written by our founding Fathers… I see that you speak not of Our President of the United States of America to be what he is; but to be of a psychopathic nature…And of what records do you speak ? …..The Corrupt News that is Published and the Thoughts of the loyal sheep that follow the News. Or are you a Person of your Own Mind and Factual Knowledge ….Please Educate yourself before you ill speak of the Propagandize news/facts of anyone…I do hope that you are not in a judiciary position….”God help us”…”Sempi Fi”….”Wake Up America”
Could you mention to your engineers that your software should be upgraded a tad? Maybe to 1.0 vs. the current pre-pre-beta version? Let’s not even mention the most rudimentary Turing Test. That comment doesn’t even get to the level of, “Hello World.”
T U for your reply…You are a Scholar of what Doctrine ?
Mr. Turley speaks at Cato Institute retreats. Does that ring any bells?
@JT: “The Senate Should Confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch”
Consider this exchange between Senator Whitehead and Judge Gorsuch, regarding both the overwhelming evidence of the pro-corporate bias of the 5-4 Roberts Court and the $10 million dollars spent on Gorsuch’s nomination. Amusingly Instructive, too, is Gorsuch’s assertion that “There are no Democratic judges or Republican judges, there are only judges.” 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3qQGrKPNs&t=4s
And consider this essay, preferably in its entirety, by practicing attorney Rob Hager, which addresses the financing of Gorsuch’s nomination, what his financiers can expect for their investment, and who opposes a filibuster of it, as well as the detailed review of Gorsuch’s judicial record by the Alliance for Justice, which I cited in an earlier post:
“Predictably, the plutocratic wing of the Democratic party produces supporting propaganda for failure to filibuster. The Bezos Post published an article warning about the ‘danger of a politicized judiciary’ if the Democrats adopt the new standard, ignoring that the new standard represents an honest acknowledgment of the reality that the Supreme Court is not only already fully politicized but also weaponized for class war by its judicial supremacy ideology.”
And, “This faction of the Democrats prefers to be ruled by a permanent majority of plutocratic judicial supremacists. But to disguise that fact, at key historic junctures, they pull out of the air such idiotic ‘principles’ to justify conceding power to Republicans as this one. Here they claim it will be useful to keep their powder dry for some mythical future when they will fight for progressive values.
“Historic Importance
“There has never been, at any previous time in American history, a Supreme Court appointment that would be worse for the republic than Gorsuch would be right now. None in the past would have been more decisive in perpetuating plutocracy and drowning democracy in the systemic Swamp of corruption that now dominates U.S. politics.
“The Roberts 5 constituted a menace to American democracy for a decade, as the most plutocratic, corrupting, right-wing Court majority since Dred Scott. Their profound damage to the Constitution by 5-4 decisions in cases like Shelby County ‘s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and their line of pro-corruption decisions, was interrupted only by Justice Scalia’s death last year.
“None of the Roberts 5 had inadequate legal credentials, mostly from elite law schools, or otherwise defective resumes. Yet they have committed what Chief Justice John Marshall called ‘treason to the Constitution’ for political reasons. [Emphasis added]
“This modest little flame celebrating checks and balances against the descending political darkness [the 4-4 makeup of the Court] will be extinguished if Trump is allowed to fill the Scalia seat with yet another extreme and effective right-wing politician straight out of the plutocratic Swamp of Federalist Society ideologues.”
“Gorsuch is even worse than Scalia and probably even worse than Roberts, too, because smarter, a better writer, and personally more polished and likable in service of his right-wing politics. It would be difficult to find a worse nominee to break this Court’s current ideological impasse.” [Emphasis added]
https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/swamping-the-supremes-department-no-cloture-for-judge-gorsuch-by-rob-hager/#more-183853
Ken Rogers – I am afraid the Bezos crowd are going to be very disappointed.
I am afraid that 99% of the U.S. population are going to be very disappointed.
Bezos is a pro corporation guy.. Why would he oppose Gorsuch?
anon – Bezos is all lib 24/7. He is a globalist.
Bezos is a libertarian.
anon – Bezos can call himself a pink elephant, however he has supported both Obama and Hillary.
Mr. Turley writes, “If there is one thing that should be clear from the confirmation hearings of Judge Neil Gorsuch, it is that he is no Antonin Scalia. And that is a good thing.”
He’s unwilling to admit his mistakes, and that signifies a lack of humility. Scalia would avoid admission by looking for a creative way out. Judge Gorsuch may not even make that effort. I agree with the Alliance with Justice: He’s even worse than Scalia, and that’s a bad thing, but he’s the President’s nominee, and the Democrats can’t stop the nomination, so let’s seat him and get it over with. Senator Schumer needs to pipe down.
By the way, it’s apropos to mention that with Gorsuch we’re well on our way to returning to the Lochner era.
We’re nowhere near that. Were a federal court to declare the kit-and-kaboodle of post 1932 social legislation unconstitutional, it would be condign punishment for the lot of you, but it isn’t happening.
We need more judges like Gorsuch while Chucky Head Clown Schumer is a truly shameful ball of political slime.
Judge Gorsuch is probably the best on the clown president’s list.
Kamala Harris (represents CA in the Senate) wrote this: “Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the civil rights hero who argued Brown and inspired my career, once bluntly defined his judicial philosophy, saying, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” In simple terms, Justice Marshall appreciated that the ultimate goal of the law was justice. By stark contrast, Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives. I must do what’s right. I cannot support his nomination.”
So…..Senator Harris takes issue b/c Gorsuch “consistently valued legalisms”? Isn’t that called following the rule of law?
Or….Should judges be legal activists who do what they ‘feel’ is right and let the law catch up?
Or…..should they “value narrow legalisms” and interpret the law as written because facts don’t care about your feelings and lady Justice is blind?
I agree with you, but Judge Gorsuch doesn’t always know the law. Senator Kamala Harris sold her soul by remaining a Democrat.
Cases shouldn’t be decided based on who the parties are – like being for a person over a large corporation or institution, right? And Gorsuch’s job as an apellate judge is not to decide whether a lower court decision was correct or not, but rather to determine whether it was conducted fairly and the rule of law applied properly? So when Kamala Harris says she cannot support Judge Gorsuch because he has “consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives” isn’t that an example of taking a political stance rather than valuing a consistent application of the rule of law? It’s not a good argument for not supporting his nomination. And it is the same argument many Democrats are making.
Bob – I agree with you. Only liberals have feelings and should be allowed to administer the law how they feel, not according to stare decisis.
Bob: “So when Kamala Harris says she cannot support Judge Gorsuch because he has “consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives” isn’t that an example of taking a political stance rather than valuing a consistent application of the rule of law?”
The problem with Harris is that she’s arguing for exactly what we’ve seen in Gorsuch’s opinions: getting the desired political result, in her case by inaccurate rhetoric and in his by not following the law and applying it properly to real facts. “N]arrow legalisms” was an inappropriate turn of phrase.
The problem with Gorsuch is that he’s Mitt Romney in robes. The frozen-trucker case and the IDEA/IEP case from last week are crystal clear examples of this. I gather he’s been sheltered his entire life by his family, academics, and in his profession without gaining an accurate sense of the real world, and that’s putting aside the issue of his patrons. His opinions are the legal equivalent of the stereotypical family vacation to its favorite national park and storing the family dog in a travel kennel on the station wagon’s roof rack. He appears so business-oriented (the reasons for that are fodder for another discussion) that it’s reasonable to assume he desires a return to a time when regulation of business relations with employees, consumers, and the environment, and in international contractual relations is self-imposed if it exists at all.
in = no
Gorsuch is a good choice. There is in perfect choice in my opinion.
I agree with the choice. However, I think this should be held in abatement until Trump provides his Taxes and Clears up the Russian Investigation. I would like to know how much Trump received from the Ukraines Pro Russian campaign and from investors from Russian. I have seen connections between Trump and Russian Banks.
The British are fining England based banks for Money laundry of Russian money laundering.
websterisback – there is no legal reason for either of your criteria. They have nothing to do with a judicial nomination.
Well, political issues always involve more than one number. Sometimes you have 4 in a bed made for 1.
I agree with some of what you say, it would have been nice if Garland had even been considered. However, the GOP only has 52 votes.
Webster, you really think we should suspend the business of this country because there are political issues and questions? Given than philosophy, no government could every be in power and we would have anarchy.
As to Garland ……………. the Dems have been uber political in the processing of Supreme Court nominations. After they got the taste of blood going after Bork, everything went out the windos.