I think it will be cool if the Democrats do anything coordinated at all.
4 Likes
No one with a law degree would be foolish enough to answer that with a yes or no since it would be an inherently subjective assessment.
I see nothing wrong with pursuing this line of questioning, and I think it would be important to stress how poorly Garland was treated.
But really, Gorsuch’s answers will amount to “Of course Judge Garland is exceptionally well-qualified for the Supreme Court, and I believe he would be a valued member of the Court should he be nominated again. However, as a member of the judiciary, I do not choose whom the President nominates for this position.”
I mean, do people really think Gorsuch will either (1) savage Garland or (2) in a poof of logic, reject his own nomination on C-SPAN?
4 Likes
And with about three exceptions, there isn’t a federal judge who likely even believes that they are themselves the most qualified. The ones I’ve met (and the one I clerked for, who would have been on a short list had George HW Bush won a second term) will always happily point to this one or that one and say how great of a judge they are.
2 Likes
“It would be wrong of me to prejudge any criminal case which might come before me and, further, as a sitting judge on the 10th Circuit, any murder of a human or witch committed in the state of Kansas could indeed come before me whether or not I have the honor to be confirmed by the Senate and become a Justice of the Supreme Court”
1 Like
Posner, Posner, and Posner?
Maybe a side of Reinhardt and Easterbrook, I guess.
1 Like
I was thinking Posner, Boggs, and Kozinski. (I’m sure there a few on the left but I don’t know them as well)
I nearly named Boggs. I’ve met Kozinski socially a few times, and he’s at least gracious enough in person not to shit-talk other judges (unlike Posner devoting whole articles to it).
1 Like
Boggs once addressed some event at my law school and some 1L asked him some general sort of career-ish advice about advocacy and the FIRST thing the guy said was, “well, I won the state high school debate championship, so maybe I can’t give an objective insight to this, but…”
The guy, at the time, was 50+ years old and had been on the bench for almost ten years. And he checks his own high school debate prowess. What a turdbucket.
3 Likes
And, yes, Posner is dreadful.
I clicked assuming this was going to have something to do with his jurisprudence.
I’ve observed over the years several job situations where all someone did is accept a job- and everyone who thought there should be someone else in the position treats that person really badly. Instead of channeling their resentment towards the bosses who were the ones responsible, people attack the poor soul who didn’t do anything except apply for a job.
The people who were responsible for the SCOTUS vacancy shitshow are the ones who should be held responsible for their actions. Gorsuch had nothing to do with all that, AFAIK, so to me it seems unfair to target him for it. By all means, grill him on everything else, but giving him a hard time for the actions of senate republicans makes no sense. In fact, I guess my point would be that time spent on this line of questioning is a distraction and a waste of time that would be better spent actually grilling him.
Sorry, but that’s ridiculous.
I know it’s not fair, but let’s face reality: the Republicans get a SCOTUS pick that should have gone to Obama. “Facts on the ground” and all that. Unless someone has a working time machine and a sound strategy for changing that, I would argue it’s best to accept and move on to the next fight. Unless he starts handing out bizarre rulings, no one outside Cory’s bubble is going to consider Grorsuch’s rulings illegitimate because of this controversy.
A more constructive line of action would be to work on the foundation of the problem by coming up with some sort of structural constitutional reform, because people on all sides agree that this is a shitty way to do things.
3 Likes
The Democrats can ask any line of questions they want, the candidate can give any kind of answers he wants, and it won’t change the vote outcome at all.
This is dumb as a post. All the Judge has to do is give honest but bland answers, e.g.:
Judge Gorsuch, do you still agree that Merrick Garland is among the finest lawyers of his generation? (Yes)
In your opinion has Merrick Garland been an outstanding judge of the D.C. Circuit? (Yes)
In your view are you a better judge than Merrick Garland? (I’m sorry, but I will leave it to history to compare me with other judges.)
Do you have the same length of service as Judge Garland on the appellate court? (No)
Have you, like Judge Garland, served as the chief judge of the Circuit on which you sit? (No)
Is the D.C .Circuit, commonly referred to as the second most important court in the country? (Yes)
Do you know of any basis, Judge Gorsuch, as you evaluate your own performance as a judge by which you are more qualified than Merrick Garland to sit on the United States Supreme Court? (Again, I’ll leave a comparison of our qualifications to the historians).
At which point the Judge says “Any other questions?”
Turow says:
If Gorsuch is the sort of honest intellect that his supporters claim, he will be forced to concede Garland’s qualifications.
Say what? Yes, Garland is well qualified … so what?
If Turow thinks this will make the slightest difference he’s smoking Oregon weed. If the Democrats were smart they would approve Goresuch without a problem and save their ammunition for the next Supreme Justice fight. But I did say “If the Democrats are smart” … consider how much good their rabid opposition to the President’s Cabinet nominations have done. Did they stop a single one? No. Did they look like unhinged crybullies? Absolutely.
The Democrats desperately need something to be FOR. Instead they are wasting all of their ammunition and goodwill on being AGAINST things. Even that wouldn’t be so bad if they succeeded at blocking even one thing … but to date that tactic has been uniformly unsuccessful.
Regards to all,
w.
I’m going to go on a tangent:
The leftish-left supporters are currently having a Tea Party type movement, for next year’s midterms, what are the chances that the Dems will have old established Dems in office elected vs. “The Young Guns” type characters take office ?
As for the above questions, they are simply too childish & won’t really do anything in the long run
“Where do you see yourself in five years?”
2 Likes
I believe the new rule is 3 years.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
