Quote:

---

During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect–instituting profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today. In the face of great skepticism about the constitutionality of New Deal measures in some corners, a generation of Democratic-appointed judges, from Louis Brandeis to Byron White, argued for judicial restraint and deference to the right of Congress to experiment with economic and social policy.

Those voices have been all but forgotten in recent years among liberal activists. It would be a very good thing for all involved–the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself–if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.

---

Liberals & Lawsuits -- Supreme Court | National Review

Quote:

---

What about our criminal justice system, you might ask. It surely bears its share of ironies too. Consider this one. Without question, the discipline of writing the law down—of codifying it—advances the law’s interest in fair notice. But today we have about 5,000 federal criminal statutes on the books, most of them added in the last few decades, and the spigot keeps pouring, with literally hundreds of new statutory crimes inked every single year."
“Neither does that begin to count the thousands of additional regulatory crimes buried in the federal register. There are so many crimes cowled in the numbing fine print of those pages that scholars have given up counting and are now debating their number."
“When he led the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden worried that we have assumed a tendency to federalize, ‘Everything that walks, talks, and moves.’ Maybe we should say ‘hoots’ too, because it’s now a federal crime to misuse the likeness of Woodsy the Owl. (As were his immortal words: ‘Give a hoot, don’t pollute!’) Businessmen who import lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes can be brought up on charges. Mattress sellers who remove that little tag? Yes, they’re probably federal criminals too.

---

http://rightoncrime.com/2013/11/judg...iminalization/

Gorsuch, an extreme rightist, can be considered right after hearings for Garland, a centrist, have been held.

What you call extreme rightist I call a constitutional textualist . But go ahead . You would've painted any of Trump's selections as extreme .

But since you brought up ideology and called Merrick Garland a "centrist " I will quote the NY Slimes opinion .

Quote:

---

If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years. Measures of ideology by four political scientists show where the justices stand in relation to one another. Judge Garland’s score is based on the score of his appointing president, Bill Clinton. This methodology is considered to be a “reasonably good predictor of voting on the Supreme Court,” says Prof. Lee Epstein of Washington University.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tion.html?_r=0

The Slimes doesn't think Garland is a centrist .

The primary reason I support Gorsuch's nomination was found in the second link I provided.
He has been a critic of the modern nanny state ,advocating the elimination of the doctrine of "Chevron deferense," which has given unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats vast unconstitutional powers over just about every aspect of our lives.

To repeat, Gorsuch can be considered as soon as Garland's hearings are complete.

Hello tom:

For a never Trumper, you're certainly LOVING what he's doing. What's up with that?

excon

Quote:

---

Hello tom:

For a never Trumper, you're certainly LOVING what he's doing. What's up with that?

excon

---

I'll defend him when he is right ;and this nominee is a home run .

Quote:

---

To repeat, Gorsuch can be considered as soon as Garland's hearings are complete.

---

His nomination was DOA . His nomination was as dead on arrival as Ted Olson's selection to be AG (blocked by Harry Reid ) .Does that name Ted Olson sound familiar ? It should . He was the attorney who successfully created a Federal right to gay marriage . But your side was so biased that they blocked him strictly over perceived ideological differences.

IT is the Dems who changed the rules . So stuff it . Garland will have to wait for President Elizabeth Warren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Garland will have to wait for President Elizabeth Warren.

---

Hello again, tom:

Nahhh... She's gonna nominate Barrack Obama..

excon

I hope dems fight the good fight win or lose! We might not even be here if they (dems) had fought a better fight during the mid terms!

Quote:

---

I hope dems fight the good fight win or lose!

---

They are picking the wrong hill to fight on . This selection does not change the balance on the court . If anything ,it is more likely that he'll side with the ' living breathing ' crowd more often than Scalia ever did .

You should be girding your loins for the next SCOTUS selection . That is the one that will be a court changer . Imagine a Scalia type replacing Ginsburg .

The best way to gird our loins is to get in the practice of fighting by starting NOW! Repubs started on inauguration day in 2009, and the right wing has NEVER stopped fighting since I've been in the world.

Look at 'em now.

PS Some could say the right wing never stopped even after the civil war or when the repubs and dem switched names.

The Dems are still the plantation party . Their big plantation is in Washington.The chains are the programs that nurture permanent dependency . The plantations are the Democrat big city political machines. The Dems have spent $Trillions ,and the lot of the people in the cities are no better than they were in 1965 ...and in many ways they are worse off .

While the repubs suck all the money to the 1% who sock it away overseas and blame dems for the lack of money. Are we going to do this all day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

While the repubs suck all the money to the 1% who sock it away overseas and blame dems for the lack of money. Are we going to do this all day?

---

Would that "1%" be the likes of Bloomberg, Buffet, Steyer, and Zuckerburg?

Nah no need to rehash. I was just thinking about Judge Gorsuch & his wife, and about how they are about to be viciously slandered smeared and 'Borked' . Alito's hearings had his wife in tears .I expect no less this time . They no doubt will drag his mom in the mud too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Would that "1%" be the likes of Bloomberg, Buffet, Steyer, and Zuckerburg?

---

Just to name a few, YES, and maybe add Trump, and the Koch bros too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Nah no need to rehash. I was just thinking about Judge Gorsuch & his wife, and about how they are about to be viciously slandered smeared and 'Borked' . Alito's hearings had his wife in tears .I expect no less this time . They no doubt will drag his mom in the mud too.

---

I am sure they are very nice people, as are many who go through the confirmation process. Though it's a done deal since repubs hold ALL the cards. Let's hope it's a CIVIL thorough grilling since the outcome is already a foregone conclusion despite any theatrics.

Obviously I think dems should NOT rollover to Trump or the repubs at any quarter for any reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Just to name a few, YES, and maybe add Trump, and the Koch bros too.

---

You do realize that only ONE of those named are, as you call them, repubs, don't you?

I'd like to know....,if Gorsuch was such a right wing extremist, then why was he unanimously confirmed by the Senate as an appellate justice ?

Well if you insist on technicalities, a bit old, but you can research on your own. Doesn't matter to me what the party affiliations are, just where all the money get sucked to. What's disgusting if you think on it, you can't build roads, bridges, and schools, because they can't afford to pay .5% more in taxes. The Donald doesn't pay any taxes and he said it was legal. Romney didn't pay that much either but at least he showed his tax returns. You tell me what's wrong with that picture, bet Trump gets his wall, and you can bet Mexico, or rich guys won't pay a dime for it.

And who pays for the military, and the wars? Maybe Tom can help you with that one!
U.S. "1%" Is More Republican, but Not More Conservative | Gallup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'd like to know....,if Gorsuch was such a right wing extremist, then why was he unanimously confirmed by the Senate as an appellate justice ?

---

Doesn't matter he was Trumps pick, and repubs love him. That's all that matters and sorry Trump ain't as popular as he thinks he is or wants to be, and neither are the repubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Doesn't matter he was Trumps pick, and repubs love him. That's all that matters and sorry Trump ain't as popular as he thinks he is or wants to be, and neither are the repubs.

---

If Dump wants to be popular he needs to change his attitude, he may have been popular with the red necks but that will wien when they realise he isn't going to bring back millions of jobs, so he needs to sound like a president and not a Yahoo, he behaves like a petulant child

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This selection does not change the balance on the court .

You should be girding your loins for the next SCOTUS selection . That is the one that will be a court changer . Imagine a Scalia type replacing Ginsburg .

---

Hello tom:

Where is it written that the balance of the court should be preserved??? What's WRITTEN, is that a president can CHOOSE a replacement to the court when one become available during his watch.. McConnell CHEATED the Democrats out of THEIR seat, and the Democrats should do EVERYTHING they can to do the same thing to them..

They should do it with THIS vacancy.. They should do it when Ginsburg retires.... They should do it when Kennedy retires.. And, they should do it when Breyer retires...

What???

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

If Dump wants to be popular he needs to change his attitude, he may have been popular with the red necks but that will wien when they realise he isn't going to bring back millions of jobs, so he needs to sound like a president and not a Yahoo, he behaves like a petulant child

---

It's not just jobs Clete, gays, abortion, voting rights, social justice, and religious domination are huge issues the right wing wants to change back! In their minds, THAT is how America will be great AGAIN! That's the challenge we face... which way to go... backward... or FORWARD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

Where is it written that the balance of the court should be preserved??? What's WRITTEN, is that a president can CHOOSE a replacement to the court when one become available during his watch.. McConnell CHEATED the Democrats out of THEIR seat, and the Democrats should do EVERYTHING they can to do the same thing to them..

They should do it with THIS vacancy.. They should do it when Ginsburg retires.... They should do it when Kennedy retires.. And, they should do it when Breyer retires...

What???

excon

---

Not just cheated, but worse repubs were REWARDED for their deception, and LIES!

The Constitution also provides for the Senate 'advise and CONSENT ' . What ? You thought the President was a dictator who could get anyone he wanted confirmed ?

That did not happen with Bush where many of his judicial nominations were held up in committee ,or not considered at all . If you forgot that I didn't . Here's a couple names to refresh your memory ......Miguel Estrada....Priscilla Owen .... Janice Rogers Brown.

The Dems make it sound like blocking a judge until the end of a President's term is a new thing. Back in 1992 John Roberts had his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit blocked and eventually expire at the end of GHW Bush's term.

BTW has anyone heard of the "Biden Rule " ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo

I saw a report that Gorsuch ran a "fascists club" in high school. Great qualifications!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...m-Forever.html

let the smears begin. So it's the Daily Mail's contention that he ran a fascist club in Jesuit run Georgetown prep ..and that the Jesuits ,who pretty much invented the Catholic doctrine of 'liberation theology' permitted such a club to exist .....AND allow him to be the student body President ?

Here is what the Daily Mail would've found if they spent 5 minutes researching their claim. He was a conservative in an ultra-liberal school who excelled at debate and did not back down . He was routinely called a “a conservative fascist” by his peers there . So in the year book profile ,he tongue in cheek joked that he founded and led the “Fascism Forever Club”.

'Fascism forever' | Washington Examiner

Bush might of backed down from the so called Biden rule but Obama had no such obligation to and he didn't. Repubs could have given his nominee a hearing and voted him down. SCREW McConnell, and the rubber stamp repubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

let the smears begin. So it's the Daily Mail's contention that he ran a fascist club in Jesuit run Georgetown prep ..and that the Jesuits ,who pretty much invented the Catholic doctrine of 'liberation theology' permitted such a club to exist .....AND allow him to be the student body President ?

Here is what the Daily Mail would've found if they spent 5 minutes researching their claim. He was a conservative in an ultra-liberal school who excelled at debate and did not back down . He was routinely called a “a conservative fascist” by his peers there . So in the year book profile ,he tongue in cheek joked that he founded and led the “Fascism Forever Club”.

---

Georgetown Prep is hardly "ultra-liberal." Its classical curriculum is run by American Jesuits who tend to be more conservative than liberal. The South American Jesuits, some of whom live among the poorest of the poor, have developed liberation theology - a kind of Marxism without the atheism. In the face of autocratic and often murderous regimes, it provides hope to the oppressed.

The "fascism" business above is simply high school yearbook stuff, tongue in cheek.

I've never heard anyone describe Jesuits ;American or otherwise as being' more conservative than liberal '. I'm a pre-Vatican II type of Catholic so I guess it is a matter of perspective. Tim Kaine is a liberation theologist . Thank God he is not in the position Pence is in today .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Georgetown Prep is hardly "ultra-liberal." Its classical curriculum is run by American Jesuits who tend to be more conservative than liberal. The South American Jesuits, some of whom live among the poorest of the poor, have developed liberation theology - a kind of Marxism without the atheism. In the face of autocratic and often murderous regimes, it provides hope to the oppressed.

The "fascism" business above is simply high school yearbook stuff, tongue in cheek.

---

Athos have you EVER visited Georgetown University? It might not be Berkley bats hit lefty... but Georgetown is FAR from actually being Conservative and Being Christian based doesn't automatically make you conservative by association either as I am sure you are well aware.

That is practically in my back yard and I saw part of it twice a day for over 20 years...going to and from work every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I've never heard anyone describe Jesuits ;American or otherwise as being' more conservative than liberal '. I'm a pre-Vatican II type of Catholic so I guess it is a matter of perspective. Tim Kaine is a liberation theologist . Thank God he is not in the position Pence is in today .

---

I spent six years being educated by the Jesuits. The typical Jesuit priest on the ground tends to be conservative while the Scholastics (Jesuits in training pre-ordination), being in their twenties mostly, tend to be liberal. The University heads and other prominent Jesuits, including the present pope, tend to speak in liberal tones but in a Gospel-oriented way, not so much as what we would normally think of as politically liberal. In any case, it's safe to say almost ALL Jesuits approve of liberation theology.

Jesuits reflect their homeland and its culture. That's why Jesuits, an international society, can often be politically diverse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Athos have you EVER visited Georgetown University? It might not be Berkley bats hit lefty... but Georgetown is FAR from actually being Conservative and Being Christian based doesn't automatically make you conservative by association either as I am sure you are well aware.

That is practically in my back yard and I saw part of it twice a day for over 20 years...going to and from work every day.

---

I'm quite familiar with Georgetown having been accepted into their School of Foreign Service. In the event, I did not attend but did visit their campus in DC. See my reply above for your other points.

Quote:

---

1. I spent six years being educated by the Jesuits.

---

Yeah although I ultimately ended up in a Methodist College . I've been exposed to Jesuit and Maryknoll thinking most of my life.

Being exposed to the thinking and agreeing with it, too different things, eh, Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

I spent six years being educated by the Jesuits. The typical Jesuit priest on the ground tends to be conservative while the Scholastics (Jesuits in training pre-ordination), being in their twenties mostly, tend to be liberal. The University heads and other prominent Jesuits, including the present pope, tend to speak in liberal tones but in a Gospel-oriented way, not so much as what we would normally think of as politically liberal. In any case, it's safe to say almost ALL Jesuits approve of liberation theology.

Jesuits reflect their homeland and its culture. That's why Jesuits, an international society, can often be politically diverse.



I'm quite familiar with Georgetown having been accepted into their School of Foreign Service. In the event, I did not attend but did visit their campus in DC. See my reply above for your other points.

---

You were talking about Georgetown University... and I was talking about Georgetown university.. and it doesn't have a conservative reputation even in far left leaning Washington DC. GW might be to the left of it as far as a few others...but that doesn't make it conservative.

Now since I have a good idea of your age....its possible during your college years it might have been. which would have been before I was born..I only know what its like now, and the last 36 years since I was in college. Like most places that once offered education..liberal activists have pushed out most of the real educators and have been preaching propaganda more than teaching facts. and that started to become noticeable when I was in high school...

Now talking Jesuits themselves really is a very different thing. I'm not going to argue that point.

I've been in THIS area for the last 36 years...I have known a few people that did attend there including a cousins duaghter, I even dated one girl that was in the law program way back when for about 6 months. I've been there more than a few times too. just not as a student. I never applied....Being white and having no connections at the time....applying wasn't even an option. Obama got a free ride just because of his skin color...I got absolutely no help because of mine....and we are only a few months different in age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

I never applied....Being white and having no connections at the time....applying wasn't even an option. Obama got a free ride just because of his skin color...I got absolutely no help because of mine....and we are only a few months different in age.

---

Being white, applying wasn't an option? Are you serious? Anyone can apply. You just need the forms and know how to fill them out. If something so simple defeated you, you probably weren't college material to begin with.

Obama got a "free ride" because of his skin color? Obama paid for Columbia with family money, grants and student loans. Before Harvard, he worked for five years after graduating from Columbia. I don't see "free ride" anywhere in this scenario - except in your fevered anti-Obama brain.

You whine about yourself getting "absolutely no help because of mine." Neither did Obama. The point of your similarity in age to Obama eludes me.

Hello:

This fight ISN'T about Gorsuch.. He's a decent sort of guy.. It's about McConnell STEALING the seat.. The Democrats should NEVER, NEVER, EVER reward them for STEALING..

IF their theft was LEGAL because the Senate is NOT required to approve anybody, then when the Democrats DO it, it's gonna be LEGAL too..

Today, the court is 4 to 4.. Kennedy is 80. If and when he retires, the court will be 4 to 3 IN FAVOR of the liberals.. And, that's EXACTLY what the right wingers DESERVE.

excon

Quote:

---

BTW has anyone heard of the "Biden Rule " ?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvxGa0zhWo


How about the Schumer rule ?

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/0...t-picks-005146

Hello again, tom:

Rules??? We don't need no stinkin rules..

excon

The Dems are going to lose on this one badly . In the end there will be many of them that vote for confirmation because they know that this nomination is not worth the political capital to oppose it . They will level their usual predictable boiler plate charges about how he lovers corporations, hates women ,and has no empathy . Those charges are nonsense and will not stick.

Hello again, tom:

The only way they can lose is if McConnell invokes the nuclear option.. Then the Senate is broken forever..

excon

Don't you think the filibuster is an idea whose day is over? we don't live in a polite society anymore, this is obvious by every word uttered by the twitter-in-chief