Prediction: Gorsuch

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 41346
Actually reading Gorsuch's opinions is reassuring. This is from a dissent in a case where the majority found no problem with a police officer arresting and sending a kid to juvi for burping in gym class:

GORSUCH, J., DISSENTING
If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what's a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal's office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that's too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal's office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that's so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.

Feb 1, 2017 9:11 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 29926
NimChimpskyActually reading Gorsuch's opinions is reassuring. This is from a dissent in a case where the majority found no problem with a police officer arresting and sending a kid to juvi for burping in gym class:


GORSUCH, J., DISSENTING
If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what's a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal's office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that's too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal's office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that's so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.


I read about this and found it somewhat heartening. Common sense, finally. Then, I did some digging around and couldn't get the answers I sought from the next inevitable handful of questions that arose in me: did the child at least have a white-sounding name? Or, did he pass for white in appearance? Or, like, was he white? Was he white and from an affluent family?

Because if not, why the fuck did Trump appoint this guy?
Feb 1, 2017 11:44 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10865
I'm convinced Gorsuch is the very best nominee we can expect from the Trump administration, so I'll be pretty pissed if the Democrats somehow block his nomination.
Feb 5, 2017 7:10 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 26131
Denver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.
Feb 5, 2017 9:02 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 20342
BigFlaxDenver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.

The best case scenario for Trump would've been him tapping a crony that turned out to be everything you hoped for in a justice. The next best-case scenario is this.
Feb 5, 2017 9:04 PM
0 0
Moderator
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 55511
BigFlaxDenver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.

Let's hope Gorsuch wants to get back at Trump for trying to yank his arm off.

Feb 5, 2017 11:52 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10865
RT-Lawyers, how dumb is the headline "Supreme Court Rejects Education Minimum Backed by Gorsuch"?

If it's clearly relevant precedent, isn't he bound to rule accordingly, regardless of how he feels about the decision itself? Does citing precedents imply support for those rulings?

*edit I originally wrote "set by a higher court". That wasn't the case*
Mar 22, 2017 8:44 PM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 41346
PaquitoRT-Lawyers, how dumb is the headline "Supreme Court Rejects Education Minimum Backed by Gorsuch"?

If it's clearly relevant precedent, isn't he bound to rule accordingly, regardless of how he feels about the decision itself? Does citing precedents imply support for those rulings?

*edit I originally wrote "set by a higher court". That wasn't the case*

I have familiarity with this case, as I had to study it pretty thoroughly and I have a friend who helped prepare an amicus brief on behalf of the student. The 10th Circuit ruling wasn't great, actually. The SCOTUS precedent, such as it was, was very fuzzy, and did not offer a clear standard by which lower courts should clearly rule in a case like this. Nonetheless, the 10th Circuit's characterization of the precedent was not great, and it's pretty telling that it got reversed unanimously. I like Gorsuch a lot, and think he's gotten very unfairly criticized for some of his decisions (see: his dissent in the "frozen trucker" case), but this wasn't a shining moment for the 10th Circuit.
Mar 22, 2017 10:16 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10865
NimChimpsky
PaquitoRT-Lawyers, how dumb is the headline "Supreme Court Rejects Education Minimum Backed by Gorsuch"?

If it's clearly relevant precedent, isn't he bound to rule accordingly, regardless of how he feels about the decision itself? Does citing precedents imply support for those rulings?

*edit I originally wrote "set by a higher court". That wasn't the case*

I have familiarity with this case, as I had to study it pretty thoroughly and I have a friend who helped prepare an amicus brief on behalf of the student. The 10th Circuit ruling wasn't great, actually. The SCOTUS precedent, such as it was, was very fuzzy, and did not offer a clear standard by which lower courts should clearly rule in a case like this. Nonetheless, the 10th Circuit's characterization of the precedent was not great, and it's pretty telling that it got reversed unanimously. I like Gorsuch a lot, and think he's gotten very unfairly criticized for some of his decisions (see: his dissent in the "frozen trucker" case), but this wasn't a shining moment for the 10th Circuit.

The 10th circuit's ruling happened in 1996, right? If it's relevant precedent when he was deciding that case in 2008, what were his other options if he thought the 1996 decision was wrongly decided?
Mar 23, 2017 12:11 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 41346
Paquito
NimChimpsky
PaquitoRT-Lawyers, how dumb is the headline "Supreme Court Rejects Education Minimum Backed by Gorsuch"?

If it's clearly relevant precedent, isn't he bound to rule accordingly, regardless of how he feels about the decision itself? Does citing precedents imply support for those rulings?

*edit I originally wrote "set by a higher court". That wasn't the case*

I have familiarity with this case, as I had to study it pretty thoroughly and I have a friend who helped prepare an amicus brief on behalf of the student. The 10th Circuit ruling wasn't great, actually. The SCOTUS precedent, such as it was, was very fuzzy, and did not offer a clear standard by which lower courts should clearly rule in a case like this. Nonetheless, the 10th Circuit's characterization of the precedent was not great, and it's pretty telling that it got reversed unanimously. I like Gorsuch a lot, and think he's gotten very unfairly criticized for some of his decisions (see: his dissent in the "frozen trucker" case), but this wasn't a shining moment for the 10th Circuit.

The 10th circuit's ruling happened in 1996, right? If it's relevant precedent when he was deciding that case in 2008, what were his other options if he thought the 1996 decision was wrongly decided?

What? No, the 10th Circuit decided Endrew in 2015. SCOTUS just reversed the 10th Circuit 8-0. The relevant precedent I was talking about was SCOTUS decision on another IDEA case, Rowley, from 1982.

Edit: The 10th Circuit case you're referring to (and the article is directly about) is Luke P. from 2008, which applied the same standard and basically created the 10th Circuit precedent the 10th Circuit applied in Endrew--and it wasn't a good reading of Rowley. SCOTUS just didn't deal with it until now.
Mar 23, 2017 12:18 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 41346
Sorry, that was more confusing than it needed to be. Simplified:

SCOTUS decided a case, Rowley, in 1982.

In 1996, the 10th Circuit read the decision in a particular way, creating a standard not justified by the ruling or the IDEA statute.

In 2008, Neil Gorsuch applied that standard to another IDEA case.

In 2015, the 10th Circuit applied that standard to yet another IDEA case.

Today, SCOTUS knocked down that standard and reversed the 10th Circuit 8-0.

The question: to what degree is Gorsuch at all responsible or a bad judge? Neither he, nor his panel in 2008, created the "de minimis" standard applied by the same court in 1996. But nor was he bound by it. One circuit court's precedents are not binding on that same court (or any other circuit court). The 10th Circuit is free to overturn its own precedents just as SCOTUS is free to overturn its own precedents. The only precident by which he was bound is SCOTUS precedent. Of course, overturning your own court's precedent is still not done willy-nilly, so merely adhering to it shouldn't inherently position him for criticism.
Mar 23, 2017 12:26 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10865
NimChimpskySorry, that was more confusing than it needed to be. Simplified:

SCOTUS decided a case, Rowley, in 1982.

In 1996, the 10th Circuit read the decision in a particular way, creating a standard not justified by the ruling or the IDEA statute.

In 2008, Neil Gorsuch applied that standard to another IDEA case.

In 2015, the 10th Circuit applied that standard to yet another IDEA case.

Today, SCOTUS knocked down that standard and reversed the 10th Circuit 8-0.

The question: to what degree is Gorsuch at all responsible or a bad judge? Neither he, nor his panel in 2008, created the "de minimis" standard applied by the same court in 1996. But nor was he bound by it. One circuit court's precedents are not binding on that same court (or any other circuit court). ?The 10th Circuit is free to overturn its own precedents just as SCOTUS is free to overturn its own precedents. The only precident by which he was bound is SCOTUS precedent. Of course, overturning your own court's precedent is still not done willy-nilly, so merely adhering to it shouldn't inherently position him for criticism.

Thanks. So to answer my own question, the NYT headline isn't misleading like I thought it was; he had the option to argue the precedent should be overturned, and his decision not to looks bad in light of the Supreme Court's 8-0 decision that did so.
Mar 23, 2017 12:32 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10865
Carpenter v. United States will be a good test to see if Gorsuch is as strong a defender of 4th amendment protections as Scalia was.
Aug 10, 2017 9:41 PM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 41346
PaquitoCarpenter v. United States will be a good test to see if Gorsuch is as strong a defender of 4th amendment protections as Scalia was.


It's not at all clear how Scalia would vote here, honestly. It's a very idiosyncratic issue.
Aug 10, 2017 10:10 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10865
NimChimpsky
PaquitoCarpenter v. United States will be a good test to see if Gorsuch is as strong a defender of 4th amendment protections as Scalia was.


It's not at all clear how Scalia would vote here, honestly. It's a very idiosyncratic issue.

I thought it was likely he would have considered it a violation, since penned the opinion in the 9-0 ruling that found warrantless GPS tracking unconstitutional, But I was just reminded that what he took issue with was the police attaching a tracking device on to someone's physical property (their car). Alito's concurring opinion in that case was what I had thought Scalia's position was.
Aug 14, 2017 3:37 AM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 20342
Esoteric Allusion
BigFlaxDenver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.

The best case scenario for Trump would've been him tapping a crony that turned out to be everything you hoped for in a justice. The next best-case scenario is this.

It's early on still, but I'm starting to think I was gravely wrong about this rosy assessment.
Oct 4, 2017 1:13 PM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6974
Esoteric Allusion
Esoteric Allusion
BigFlaxDenver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.

The best case scenario for Trump would've been him tapping a crony that turned out to be everything you hoped for in a justice. The next best-case scenario is this.

It's early on still, but I'm starting to think I was gravely wrong about this rosy assessment.

Yeah. It was nice to see something about RBG verbally bitch slapping him though.
Oct 4, 2017 1:21 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 20342
Paris the Goat
Esoteric Allusion
Esoteric Allusion
BigFlaxDenver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.

The best case scenario for Trump would've been him tapping a crony that turned out to be everything you hoped for in a justice. The next best-case scenario is this.

It's early on still, but I'm starting to think I was gravely wrong about this rosy assessment.

Yeah. It was nice to see something about RBG verbally bitch slapping him though.

There's nothing I hate more than the toxic combination of arrogance and ignorance, and I think that described Gorsuch, a sitting US Supreme Court Justice, in that exchange.

That's what inspired me to bump this thread, but my comment is the accumulation of "eeeehhh" information. Cocky Clarence Thomas was probably was not the best we could hope for.
Oct 4, 2017 1:36 PM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 41346
Paris the Goat
Esoteric Allusion
Esoteric Allusion
BigFlaxDenver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.

The best case scenario for Trump would've been him tapping a crony that turned out to be everything you hoped for in a justice. The next best-case scenario is this.

It's early on still, but I'm starting to think I was gravely wrong about this rosy assessment.

Yeah. It was nice to see something about RBG verbally bitch slapping him though.


I?ve seen people claim this happened, and I don?t get it. Gorsuch asked for how what the petitioner was asking was based in the Constitution. Ginsburg then said, ?Well, what about Baker or Reynolds?? Those are two precedents that just prove his point. There is no originalist or textualist argument for them. They were decided on very different grounds. People think she ?got him? only if they have no idea what those cases were or how they were decided or why Gorsuch believes what he believes.
Oct 4, 2017 1:40 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 20342
NimChimpsky
Paris the Goat
Esoteric Allusion
Esoteric Allusion
BigFlaxDenver Post has a piece summarizing his opinion in ten cases that illustrate how he thinks as a jurist. It is, indeed, not as scary as you might expect, even if I don't agree with all of them. Let's just hope he's a true believer on executive overreach - it can be hard to tell how serious someone is on that front when most (or at least the most prominent) of their rulings on that score deal with executives from the other side of the aisle.

The best case scenario for Trump would've been him tapping a crony that turned out to be everything you hoped for in a justice. The next best-case scenario is this.

It's early on still, but I'm starting to think I was gravely wrong about this rosy assessment.

Yeah. It was nice to see something about RBG verbally bitch slapping him though.


Ive seen people claim this happened, and I don?t get it. Gorsuch asked for how what the petitioner was asking was based in the Constitution. Ginsburg then said, ?We?ll, what about Baker or Reynolds?? Those are two precedents that just prove his point. There is no originalist or textualist argument for them. They were decided on very different grounds. People think she ?got him? only if they have no idea what those cases were or how they were decided or why Gorsuch believes what he believes.

I think the idea is she "got him" because his reasoning logically follows him into positions that many people long-ago decided are not tenable. It's not a refutation of his brand of juridprudence theory. It's a pseudo reductio ad absurdum argument. If Gorsuch would've (would?) dissented against Baker vs. Carr, that's just supposed to be an illustration of radicalism.
Oct 4, 2017 1:44 PM
0 0