Gorsuch's Background

[g5000]

Trump must have used a Trite, Tired Phrase Generator when announcing his pick for the Supreme Court.

"...brilliant legal mind..." "tremendous..."

Nevertheless, whoever advised Trump knew what he was doing. I doubt Trump has ever read a legal opinion in his life. Not even any of the decisions in all the thousands of lawsuits against him. He probably nods off very quickly when reading legalese.

So let's take a look at what Gorsuch is really all about.

Some sources:

Trump's Supreme Court Nominee: Neil Gorsuch

In the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poorcases, which challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate on religious-liberty grounds and were eventually heard by the Supreme Court, Gorsuch sided strongly with the plaintiffs.

“The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong—on an issue that has little to do with contraception and a great deal to do with religious liberty,” he wrote in a dissent in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. “ When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”

I am in total agreement with Gorsuch in that case.

Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch is also a critic of Chevron deference, a legal principle under which judges generally defer to administrative agencies when interpreting federal statutes.

In that case, I am with Scalia and opposed to Gorsuch.

For those unfamiliar with Chevron v NRDC, I will try to summarize.

The EPA was established by President Nixon in 1970. Believe it or not, protecting the environment used to be a bipartisan thing. The EPA created the Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress in 1972.

During the Carter years, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because there were some states which had not met the air quality standards established by the EPA.

From the court case: "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'non-attainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution."

Congress writes the legislation, the Executive fleshes out the regulations.

Under Carter, the EPA defined "source" as any device in a plant with caused pollution. And those sources had to meet EPA guidelines in order to get a permit to operate.

Reagan's EPA changed the regulation. They said a new device in a plant could be permitted as long as the plant as a whole did not increase its pollution output.

The hippies at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) didn't like that and sued. They won on the lower court level.

But Chevron took it all the way to the US Supreme Court, and they decided this:

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

What a great piece of deliberation that is.

This has become known as "Chevron deference". Scalia believed in it. Gorsuch does not, and that is worriesome.

More to come.

 

[g5000]

Here's a liberal spin on Gorsuch: Who is Neil Gorsuch?

"...while Gorsuch has never ruled directly on the viability of Roe v. Wade, he wrote a 2009 book, entitled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, that is heavy with the kind of political rhetoric opponents of abortion deploy in the battle over reproductive choice. “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable,” Gorsuch wrote in his book, adding that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

As Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Scalia who writes frequently on the courts puts it, “Gee, might that principle have any application to abortion?”

 

[g5000]

You all remember the uproar over the videos of Planned Parenthood employees talking about selling baby parts for cash.

In response to those videos, the governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, cut off funds to Planned Parenthood Assocation of Utah (PPAU).

PPAU then sued in court. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Planned Parenthood of Utah v. Herbert that the governor violated PP's constitutional rights.

Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the Tenth Circuit, vigorously dissented from the majority opinion. You can read his dissent here: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/15-4189/15-4189-2016-10-28.pdf?ts=1477674406

Page 16.

 

[g5000]

From Gorsuch's dissent in PPAU v. Herbert.

If the Governor discontinued funding because of the group’s affiliation with those accused of illegally selling fetal tissue — as he said he did — the parties agreed that no constitutional violation had taken place. But if the Governor discontinued funding for a different and secret reason — in retaliation for the group’s advocacy of lawful abortions — both sides accepted that a constitutional violation had occurred.

So it is that the question of preliminary relief on PPAU’s unconstitutional conditions claim hinged on a question of fact: what was the Governor’s intention in suspending funding? On the preliminary evidentiary record before it, the district court found that the Governor’s stated intention appeared to be his true intention and that PPAU hadn’t shown it was likely to prove otherwise at trial. Accordingly, it denied the motion for preliminary relief. But when the case reached this court, a panel disagreed and ordered the Governor to fund PPAU. In doing so, I respectfully submit, the panel acted inconsistently with this court’s previously uniform practice when it comes to questions concerning our standard of review and the burden of proof, questions of considerable legal significance.

 

[yiostheoy]

Trump must have used a Trite, Tired Phrase Generator when announcing his pick for the Supreme Court.

"...brilliant legal mind..." "tremendous..."

Nevertheless, whoever advised Trump knew what he was doing. I doubt Trump has ever read a legal opinion in his life. Not even any of the decisions in all the thousands of lawsuits against him. He probably nods off very quickly when reading legalese.

So let's take a look at what Gorsuch is really all about.

Some sources:

Trump's Supreme Court Nominee: Neil Gorsuch

In the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poorcases, which challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate on religious-liberty grounds and were eventually heard by the Supreme Court, Gorsuch sided strongly with the plaintiffs.

“The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong—on an issue that has little to do with contraception and a great deal to do with religious liberty,” he wrote in a dissent in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. “ When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”

I am in total agreement with Gorsuch in that case.

Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch is also a critic of Chevron deference, a legal principle under which judges generally defer to administrative agencies when interpreting federal statutes.

In that case, I am with Scalia and opposed to Gorsuch.

For those unfamiliar with Chevron v NRDC, I will try to summarize.

The EPA was established by President Nixon in 1970. Believe it or not, protecting the environment used to be a bipartisan thing. The EPA created the Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress in 1972.

During the Carter years, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because there were some states which had not met the air quality standards established by the EPA.

From the court case: "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'non-attainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution."

Congress writes the legislation, the Executive fleshes out the regulations.

Under Carter, the EPA defined "source" as any device in a plant with caused pollution. And those sources had to meet EPA guidelines in order to get a permit to operate.

Reagan's EPA changed the regulation. They said a new device in a plant could be permitted as long as the plant as a whole did not increase its pollution output.

The hippies at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) didn't like that and sued. They won on the lower court level.

But Chevron took it all the way to the US Supreme Court, and they decided this:

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

What a great piece of deliberation that is.

This has become known as "Chevron deference". Scalia believed in it. Gorsuch does not, and that is worriesome.

More to come.

When/If the legislative statute empowers the/an administrative agency to interpret the law, THEN they have significant power to do so. Usually they then need to go through a public hearing process and acquiesce to the majority opinions of the public submissions.

The US Treasury Dept is a classic example under the Federal tax law.

So I disagree with Gorsuch on both issues.

However having been coached by Justice Kennedy I suspect he will become a swing voter like Roberts and Kennedy, ergo I think he will make a great SCOTUS justice.

Trump made an excellent choice for this nomination.

And when Ginsberg finally croaks, hopefully Trump will do the same next time as well.

So after Ginsberg croaks, then there should end up being 4 swing voters (Kennedy, Roberts, Gorsuch, and the 2nd Trump appointment), 2 extreme strict constructionists (Thomas and Alito -- bless their idealistic hearts) and 3 activist traitors (Breyer from Communist California), Sotomayor (from Communist NYC), and Kagan (also from Communist NYC).

Ginsberg who will someday soon croak is also from Communist NYC.

We need a constitutional amendment that no one may serve on the US Supreme Court who is from NYC.

 

[Doc1]

g5000
You just like to see yourself type g, nobody here thinks you are as smart as you do

 

[yiostheoy]

From Gorsuch's dissent in PPAU v. Herbert.

If the Governor discontinued funding because of the group’s affiliation with those accused of illegally selling fetal tissue — as he said he did — the parties agreed that no constitutional violation had taken place. But if the Governor discontinued funding for a different and secret reason — in retaliation for the group’s advocacy of lawful abortions — both sides accepted that a constitutional violation had occurred.

So it is that the question of preliminary relief on PPAU’s unconstitutional conditions claim hinged on a question of fact: what was the Governor’s intention in suspending funding? On the preliminary evidentiary record before it, the district court found that the Governor’s stated intention appeared to be his true intention and that PPAU hadn’t shown it was likely to prove otherwise at trial. Accordingly, it denied the motion for preliminary relief. But when the case reached this court, a panel disagreed and ordered the Governor to fund PPAU. In doing so, I respectfully submit, the panel acted inconsistently with this court’s previously uniform practice when it comes to questions concerning our standard of review and the burden of proof, questions of considerable legal significance.

The first amendment should pretty much void all religious claims before the SCOTUS.

Religion is for church, temple or mosque.

Law is for the workplace or hospital.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump must have used a Trite, Tired Phrase Generator when announcing his pick for the Supreme Court.

"...brilliant legal mind..." "tremendous..."

Nevertheless, whoever advised Trump knew what he was doing. I doubt Trump has ever read a legal opinion in his life. Not even any of the decisions in all the thousands of lawsuits against him. He probably nods off very quickly when reading legalese.

So let's take a look at what Gorsuch is really all about.

Some sources:

Trump's Supreme Court Nominee: Neil Gorsuch

In the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poorcases, which challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate on religious-liberty grounds and were eventually heard by the Supreme Court, Gorsuch sided strongly with the plaintiffs.

“The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong—on an issue that has little to do with contraception and a great deal to do with religious liberty,” he wrote in a dissent in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. “ When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”

I am in total agreement with Gorsuch in that case.

Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch is also a critic of Chevron deference, a legal principle under which judges generally defer to administrative agencies when interpreting federal statutes.

In that case, I am with Scalia and opposed to Gorsuch.

For those unfamiliar with Chevron v NRDC, I will try to summarize.

The EPA was established by President Nixon in 1970. Believe it or not, protecting the environment used to be a bipartisan thing. The EPA created the Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress in 1972.

During the Carter years, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because there were some states which had not met the air quality standards established by the EPA.

From the court case: "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'non-attainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution."

Congress writes the legislation, the Executive fleshes out the regulations.

Under Carter, the EPA defined "source" as any device in a plant with caused pollution. And those sources had to meet EPA guidelines in order to get a permit to operate.

Reagan's EPA changed the regulation. They said a new device in a plant could be permitted as long as the plant as a whole did not increase its pollution output.

The hippies at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) didn't like that and sued. They won on the lower court level.

But Chevron took it all the way to the US Supreme Court, and they decided this:

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

What a great piece of deliberation that is.

This has become known as "Chevron deference". Scalia believed in it. Gorsuch does not, and that is worriesome.

More to come.

This is great stuff, lucid and insightful. g5000 at his best

Now if you could get your other personalities under control...

 

[yiostheoy]

You all remember the uproar over the videos of Planned Parenthood employees talking about selling baby parts for cash.

In response to those videos, the governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, cut off funds to Planned Parenthood Assocation of Utah (PPAU).

PPAU then sued in court. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Planned Parenthood of Utah v. Herbert that the governor violated PP's constitutional rights.

Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the Tenth Circuit, vigorously dissented from the majority opinion. You can read his dissent here: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/15-4189/15-4189-2016-10-28.pdf?ts=1477674406

Page 16.

Herbert is a political animal who will do anything that is popular so as to get himself re-elect.

He just succeeded by a landslide.

The morman vote is so very gullible and brainwashed.

 

[yiostheoy]

Here's a liberal spin on Gorsuch: Who is Neil Gorsuch?

"...while Gorsuch has never ruled directly on the viability of Roe v. Wade, he wrote a 2009 book, entitled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, that is heavy with the kind of political rhetoric opponents of abortion deploy in the battle over reproductive choice. “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable,” Gorsuch wrote in his book, adding that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

As Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Scalia who writes frequently on the courts puts it, “Gee, might that principle have any application to abortion?”

Too bad there is so much verbosity on Roe.

It is currently law.

It is bad law.

If either political party wants to overturn it they will need a Federal Constitutional amendment.

Q.E.D.

 

[yiostheoy]

Trump must have used a Trite, Tired Phrase Generator when announcing his pick for the Supreme Court.

"...brilliant legal mind..." "tremendous..."

Nevertheless, whoever advised Trump knew what he was doing. I doubt Trump has ever read a legal opinion in his life. Not even any of the decisions in all the thousands of lawsuits against him. He probably nods off very quickly when reading legalese.

So let's take a look at what Gorsuch is really all about.

Some sources:

Trump's Supreme Court Nominee: Neil Gorsuch

In the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poorcases, which challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate on religious-liberty grounds and were eventually heard by the Supreme Court, Gorsuch sided strongly with the plaintiffs.

“The opinion of the panel majority is clearly and gravely wrong—on an issue that has little to do with contraception and a great deal to do with religious liberty,” he wrote in a dissent in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. “ When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”

I am in total agreement with Gorsuch in that case.

Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch is also a critic of Chevron deference, a legal principle under which judges generally defer to administrative agencies when interpreting federal statutes.

In that case, I am with Scalia and opposed to Gorsuch.

For those unfamiliar with Chevron v NRDC, I will try to summarize.

The EPA was established by President Nixon in 1970. Believe it or not, protecting the environment used to be a bipartisan thing. The EPA created the Clean Air Act, which was passed by Congress in 1972.

During the Carter years, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 because there were some states which had not met the air quality standards established by the EPA.

From the court case: "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'non-attainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution."

Congress writes the legislation, the Executive fleshes out the regulations.

Under Carter, the EPA defined "source" as any device in a plant with caused pollution. And those sources had to meet EPA guidelines in order to get a permit to operate.

Reagan's EPA changed the regulation. They said a new device in a plant could be permitted as long as the plant as a whole did not increase its pollution output.

The hippies at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) didn't like that and sued. They won on the lower court level.

But Chevron took it all the way to the US Supreme Court, and they decided this:

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

What a great piece of deliberation that is.

This has become known as "Chevron deference". Scalia believed in it. Gorsuch does not, and that is worriesome.

More to come.

Precisely why I think Gorsuch will become a swing voter just like Kennedy and Roberts -- and unlike Scalia.

 

[percysunshine]

Here's a liberal spin on Gorsuch: Who is Neil Gorsuch?

"...while Gorsuch has never ruled directly on the viability of Roe v. Wade, he wrote a 2009 book, entitled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, that is heavy with the kind of political rhetoric opponents of abortion deploy in the battle over reproductive choice. “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable,” Gorsuch wrote in his book, adding that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

As Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Scalia who writes frequently on the courts puts it, “Gee, might that principle have any application to abortion?”

ThinkProgress is a radical left wing publication. The Atlantic is a run of the mill left wing publication.

 

[yiostheoy]

g5000
You just like to see yourself type g, nobody here thinks you are as smart as you do

STFU.

At least g5000 is researching Gorsuch and conveying his findings.

All that you Doc1 are doing is b!tching and moaning.

 

[yiostheoy]

Here's a liberal spin on Gorsuch: Who is Neil Gorsuch?

"...while Gorsuch has never ruled directly on the viability of Roe v. Wade, he wrote a 2009 book, entitled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, that is heavy with the kind of political rhetoric opponents of abortion deploy in the battle over reproductive choice. “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable,” Gorsuch wrote in his book, adding that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

As Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Scalia who writes frequently on the courts puts it, “Gee, might that principle have any application to abortion?”

ThinkProgress is a radical left wing publication. The Atlantic is a run of the mill left wing publication.

All that these far left fokkers really worry about is Roe.

 

[percysunshine]

Here's a liberal spin on Gorsuch: Who is Neil Gorsuch?

"...while Gorsuch has never ruled directly on the viability of Roe v. Wade, he wrote a 2009 book, entitled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, that is heavy with the kind of political rhetoric opponents of abortion deploy in the battle over reproductive choice. “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable,” Gorsuch wrote in his book, adding that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

As Ed Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Scalia who writes frequently on the courts puts it, “Gee, might that principle have any application to abortion?”

ThinkProgress is a radical left wing publication. The Atlantic is a run of the mill left wing publication.

All that these far left fokkers really worry about is Roe.

.
Tunnel vision. It worked well for them in November.

(ok, I passed on the caviar joke)

 

[Contumacious]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad awful news.


.

 

[percysunshine]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad awful news.


.

.
Well, that should make it a unanimous Democrat confirmation right there.

 

[Contumacious]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad awful news.


.

.
Well, that should make it a unanimous Democrat confirmation right there.

For the wrong fucking reason

I'd like to know who told DJT that he was the ideal "conservative"

 

[Doc1]

g5000
You just like to see yourself type g, nobody here thinks you are as smart as you do

STFU.

At least g5000 is researching Gorsuch and conveying his findings.

All that you Doc1 are doing is b!tching and moaning.

My, my, my, what a tough guy. I'll do as I please and you'll live with it.

 

[percysunshine]

Gorsuch's Background From a Concealed Carry and 4th Amendment Standpoint is AWFUL

According to Gorsuch the police may presume that a concealed carrier




1- is armed and dangerous
2- is engaged in clandestine actions
3- waived his 4th Amendment rights

Gorsuch is bad bad awful news.


.

.
Well, that should make it a unanimous Democrat confirmation right there.

For the wrong fucking reason

I'd like to know who told DJT that he was the ideal "conservative"

.
Did you miss the part where the Democrats were opposing the confirmation?