[Livestream] President Trump's SCOTUS Nominee Announcement @8pm EST - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51758127]What I've found so far is that he is likely pro-life, is decidedly anti-euthanasia/suicide rights, very big on states rights, is very deeply invested into religious freedom ("Gorsuch’s opinions favoring the owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores and the nonprofit religious group Little Sisters of the Poor took the same sort of broad reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the Supreme Court’s conservative majority" [url="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/neil-gorsuch-naturally-equipped-for-his-spot-on-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist/2017/01/28/91b00a46-e49b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.43eccd0d7ca2"][x][/url]). I'm not happy about it, obviously, but time will tell in how he uses his power. He seems like a less bold and brash Scalia.[/QUOTE] I didn't expect a conservative President to nominate someone that didn't meet those qualities. So he's pretty much on par with what I was expecting. I'm just glad it's not worse.

Look! I think Hardiman may have been preferable, but Gorsuch 1.) is young, and his opinion can change, and 2.) He isnt William fucking pryor.

[QUOTE=OvB;51758139]I didn't expect a conservative President to nominate someone that didn't meet those qualities. So he's pretty much on par with what I was expecting. I'm just glad it's not worse.[/QUOTE] To be fair Trump isn't really the run of the mill conservative. I expected worse as well, but I'm still not optimistic about this guy.

Sounds like it could have been a lot worse.

[QUOTE=Medevila;51758172]You have it exactly backwards on all fronts, trust me. Anti-euthanasia of any form, pro death penalty. He's a conservative originalist.[/QUOTE] The argument against euthanasia is that he thinks any instance of intentional killing is bad. Why do you think that leads him to support the death penalty?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51758174]Can you get much worse? I'm not sure how much lower the bar falls.[/QUOTE] Trump could've picked someone who was militant anti-gay, anti-vaxx, anti-climate change.

[QUOTE=OvB;51758184]Trump could've picked someone who was militant anti-gay, anti-vaxx, anti-climate change.[/QUOTE] Thankfully he relegated those people to the rest of his administration.

generic conservative man #568 by trump's standards, he didnt nominate rodtrigo duterte so he did fine

Quote from Gorsuch on abortion in the notes to his book on euthansia [quote]Nor do I seek here to engage the abortion debate. Abortion would be ruled out by the inviolability-of-life principle I intend to set forth if, but only if, a fetus is considered a human life. The Supreme Court in Roe, however, unequivocally held that a fetus is not a “person” for purposes of constitutional law[/quote]

He could have picked someone not experienced and not fit for the job like the rest of his choices,

I'm actually completely okay with this, beyond the fact that GOP stole the pick from Dems due to petty partisan politics. Beyond that, I'd say he seems mostly fine, especially given the creature-of-the-week picks that Trump could have alternatively considered.

[QUOTE=OvB;51758109]Man he's young as hell for a Supreme court Judge.[/QUOTE] So he'll be there a long long time

[QUOTE=Judas;51758206]generic conservative man #568 by trump's standards, he didnt nominate rodtrigo duterte so he did fine[/QUOTE] The bar is so low.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51758225]The bar is so low.[/QUOTE] True, but even then, this guy still seems alright. I'll happily take it.

I will say the dude was head of Colorado appeals court, so we could very well could get legal weed soon. I won't hold my breath, and there are better issues at hand, but we could have a lot worse. [editline]31st January 2017[/editline] So yeah, we got off too easy on this one.

This man is truly a worthy successor to Scalia's legacy. I didn't think anyone like him still existed. It's good to see he's so young too, if he gets confirmed we'd have a great Constitutional originalist for many years. I encourage you all to read some of Gorsuch's material and listen to some of his lectures, particularly [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=yu8K8DTujSA"]this one.[/URL] [QUOTE]Perhaps the great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators. To remind us that legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future. But that judges should do none of these things in a democratic society. That judges should instead strive (if humanly and so imperfectly) to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Chonch;51758818]This man is truly a worthy successor to Scalia's legacy. I didn't think anyone like him still existed. It's good to see he's so young too, if he gets confirmed we'd have a great Constitutional originalist for many years. I encourage you all to read some of Gorsuch's material and listen to some of his lectures, particularly [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=yu8K8DTujSA"]this one.[/URL][/QUOTE] I don't believe that legislators should "appeal to their own moral convictions" at all, as they are elected representatives and not arbiters. But maybe I'm alone in that.

If he hired someone in that was completely fucking whacko what are the chances they could be removed from the position? When i say whacko I mean "we should enforce conversion therapy" tier whacko. Could they be booted off the job?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51758818]This man is truly a worthy successor to Scalia's legacy. I didn't think anyone like him still existed. It's good to see he's so young too, if he gets confirmed we'd have a great Constitutional originalist for many years. I encourage you all to read some of Gorsuch's material and listen to some of his lectures, particularly [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=yu8K8DTujSA"]this one.[/URL][/QUOTE] but scalia was more than willing to overturn hundred year old precedants just to tow the party line...