IGX

I really like this girl Dahlia Litchwick, who writes on judicial stuff for Slate.

Neil Gorsuch's Disturbing Views On Religious Freedom

What that means going into this week’s hearings is that religious liberty works only one way. All of this tremendous deference to the religious sensitivities of the objectors is balanced against, well, no solicitude at all for the interests on the opposing side.
This has nothing to do with being anti-religion. It is simply not a defense of religious liberty to accept, without question, a religious adherent’s beliefs as if they are judicially determined facts, especially if those beliefs contradict empirical fact and even more so when they create tangible suffering for others.

Her argument, that women with jobs that provide health insurance are being denied the ability to get birth control when employers don't pay the out of pocket cost, is not supported by any evidence.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ption.html
She's arguing for a middle class entitlement, nothing more.

Eugene Volokh argues that Gorsuch's thinking is both in line with legislative intent and judicial precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... a1d5459126

Turdacious wrote:Eugene Volokh argues that Gorsuch's thinking is both in line with legislative intent and judicial precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... e-confused

Nice overview, thanks for linking.

Turdacious wrote:She's arguing for a middle class entitlement, nothing more.

Bullshit.

JimZipCode wrote:

Turdacious wrote:She's arguing for a middle class entitlement, nothing more.

Bullshit.

How so?

Turdacious wrote:How so?

What, you didn't find my argument persuasive?

JimZipCode wrote:

Turdacious wrote:How so?

What, you didn't find my argument persuasive?

It was close, but ultimately no.

I listened to a few hours of his hearing this morning. As a liberal, i think he will make a good justice.

On another tangent entirely everyone always touts Scalia as someone who did not like to legislate from the Bench. However I find that to be ridiculous. His very biased ideas seem to heavily influence his interpretation of the Constitution.

Of course if Gorsuch is true to his word and his record, he seems to be an equal-opportunity law defender. I find that somewhat refreshing.

i wanted to find something wrong with the guy but having listened to quite a bit I can't see much I didn't think was all right. Oh sure he's a little too much religion for me in some past decisions but that's kind of a party platform issue.................

JimZipCode wrote:

Turdacious wrote:How so?

What, you didn't find my argument persuasive?

The contraception mandate in the ACA has little to do with public health and everything to do with pandering to female voters. The price elasticity of demand for birth control is tiny for all but the poorest women (those on Medicaid).

syaigh wrote:everyone always touts Scalia as someone who did not like to legislate from the Bench. However I find that to be ridiculous.

Oh yeah, totally ridiculous. His so-called "judicial conservatism" is a complete myth. One that he worked hard to spread.

Not saying he wasn't brilliant.

isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.

dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.

Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.

Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...

aren't you conflating two different things: what corporations have always done and what they are?

sure they've been buying pols forever. but that doesn't mean they were persons in the original conception.

citizens sanctified the corruption of democracy (isn't that hifalutin'), when perhaps we had a chance to make it more responsive to "we, the people."

as original conceived, you're saying "we" meant exxon, microsoft, goldman sachs, et al?

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.

Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...

aren't you conflating two different things: what corporations have always done and what they are?

sure they've been buying pols forever. but that doesn't mean they were persons in the original conception.

citizens sanctified the corruption of democracy (isn't that hifalutin'), when perhaps we had a chance to make it more responsive to "we, the people."

as original conceived, you're saying "we" meant exxon, microsoft, goldman sachs, et al?

In his hearing, he said this is a thing that needs to be challenge by the legislature. However what I would have liked to hear someone ask him, and maybe they did, is what does he think about all the gerrymandering going on. Because with that the legislature is never going to act on things that are against their self-interest. In my state of North Carolina, the legislature is pretty much just trying to strip the Democratic governor of all his power and not really do anything useful to the state. And we had a really big problem with gerrymandering here. Hopefully that will be over soon because challenges to it have been upheld in one of the federal courts.

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:isn't gorsuch one of those originalists who believes the constitution says that corporations are people.

it was there from the beginning. seriously. we're not making this up.

originalism is convenient for those who object to progressives, but it's the equivalent of legal play doh.

Because corporations didn't buy and sell politicians before Citizens United...

aren't you conflating two different things: what corporations have always done and what they are?

sure they've been buying pols forever. but that doesn't mean they were persons in the original conception.

citizens sanctified the corruption of democracy (isn't that hifalutin'), when perhaps we had a chance to make it more responsive to "we, the people."

as original conceived, you're saying "we" meant exxon, microsoft, goldman sachs, et al?

What is the original conception? The East India Company?

Maybe I just look at this from a different perspective- I accept that big money will influence politics, I just want to know where it's coming from and where it's going. I've never seen an effective answer to that.

Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

Citizens United haters.

Political Parties.
Bowling leagues.
Clubs.
Unions.
Small Businesses.
Churches.
Neighborhood associations.
ACLU, NRA, etc.
Charities.
Indian Tribes.

Which of the above organizations are not "people," along with corporations?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:This could be fairly indicative of why despite every best effort in the last 20 years, that HRC is gonna be your president.

Pretty sure your crystal ball is broken.

If free speech belongs only to an actual individual person , buying political speech on a grand scale would be the sole purview of Michael Bloomberg and the like. Not an improvement. You don't like the Koch brothers? Imagine if their only competition on tv was 10 rich individuals instead of every collective checking account out there.

johno wrote:Citizens United haters.
Political Parties.
Bowling leagues.
Clubs.
Unions.
Small Businesses.
Churches.
Neighborhood associations.
ACLU, NRA, etc.
Charities.
Indian Tribes.
Which of the above organizations are not "people," along with corporations?

Yeah. That was the first argument I ever heard that made me understand that there was another side to Citizens United. "Corporations" are things that people organize themselves into, to further goals.

I mean, maybe there's an argument that election rules should be different for for-profit corporations, as opposed to other entities. Maybe. But I wouldn't argue that, say, ATT has no right to be heard on the topic of network infrastructure. Or that oil companies have no right to be heard on energy policy.

Citizens U is still a bad decision, because of the specific state policy it was striking down – a creative effort to deal with the question, that would seem to fit squarely into the states' wheelhouse as "laboratories of democracy". But the issues are knottier than Democrats generally acknowledge.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.

JimZipCode wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.

They should do a back room deal...Gorsuch for Trump's tax returns.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Little birdy tells me we're not gonna have to worry about Gorsuch. The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

You haven't been right on any prediction yet.

nafod wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.

They should do a back room deal...Gorsuch for Trump's tax returns.

How bout Obama's college transcripts for Trumps tax returns?

Herv100 wrote:

nafod wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:The Dems are united behind the opposition and McConnell doesn't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

Does not follow from that, that Gorsuch is necessarily dead in the water. Repubs could still invoke the oft-threatened nuclear option, make Supreme Court justices immune to filibuster, the way the Senate did for ordinary Federal judgeships.

They should do a back room deal...Gorsuch for Trump's tax returns.

How bout Obama's college transcripts for Trumps tax returns?

Last checked, Trump is the current President and Obama's done, but sure, Obama's transcripts instead of a Gorsuch confirmation.