6 ms·
Gorsuch's dissent is the first opinion of his that I've read, and I'm extremely unimpressed. It reads more like a newspaper editorial than an opinion of the Sup
by jimrandomh 8y ago
Gorsuch's dissent is the first opinion of his that I've read, and I'm extremely unimpressed. It reads more like a newspaper editorial than an opinion of the Supreme Court; it's overtly political; and it doesn't mention the facts of the case at all, even as background. This does not bode well.
- metalliqaz 8y agoHis primary job qualification was his politics. He is there specifically to subvert the will of every American who voted for President Obama.
- garmaine 8y agoWas that really necessary?
- sameyolo 8y agoI think it's a valid point of discussion given the circumstances surrounding his nomination and subsequent appointment.
- billbrown 8y agoJustice Gorsuch's qualification was not primarily his politics. He was eminently qualified for the Court, so I disagree that it's a valid point of discussion. (That he came from a Federalist Society background and was generally regarded as a conservative was certainly a factor, but that's how presidents pick justices.)
- sameyolo 8y agoI am not critiquing his ability to perform the job but the process of his selection.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into political flamewar.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- antognini 8y agoI thought it was pretty typical for a dissent or concurring opinion to omit background facts since it's expected that they will be covered in the opinion of the court. IANAL though.
- billbrown 8y agoReads like a newspaper editorial? Maybe the first paragraph but he quickly goes into the relevant case law and Constitutional support. I've read enough Supreme Court opinions to see that his is a very different style but I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. It is remarkably clear, gets to the core constitutional issue, and sticks to principles. (In a footnote, he even chides the concurring opinion for its utilitarianism.) I'm quite impressed.
- nokcha 8y ago>it doesn't mention the facts of the case at all, even as background Well, the case was a facial challenge to the inter partes review system, not an as-applied challenge, so the particular facts of the case wouldn't be relevant to the decision, no?
- briandear 8y agoIf might appear to me that you are down on Gorsuch because he’s a Trump appointee rather than an actual critique based on years of opinion reading. Because, if that weren’t the care, you’d be lamenting the deficient and uninspired writing of Sotomayor. Here’s an interesting analysis of her famously bad writing by none other than Mother Jones: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/sonia-sotomayors-prose-problem/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/06/sonia-sotomayor... If we are being intellectually honest here, you are critiquing Gorsuch because you preferred that Mrs. Clinton appointed that seat instead. You aren’t actually complaining about the actual quality of the legal argument — otherwise, Sotomayor opinions would have had you worried about it not boding well, but instead, it’s a Gorsuch opinion having you worried about the caliber of legal argument? It’s fine to be of a different view when it comes to constitutional law, but let’s not be juvenile in our analysis.
- oconnor663 8y ago> let’s not be juvenile in our analysis If you're writing like this because it's fun for you, then...ok. But if you're writing this because you want people to listen to you and think about what you're saying, you're gonna have a bad time.
- icebraining 8y agoSotomayor didn't even write an opinion here, why would anyone comment on her writing? I have zero opinions on the judge, but your post is pure BS.
- briandear 8y agoThe parent was making an ideologically based argument but masking it as an actual critique of legal opinion writing, so I am pointing out that if the parent actually cares abou quality legal opinion, he should lament Sotomayor’s work. But he doesn’t because his critique isn’t valid— it’s due entirely to a knee-jerk reaction to Trump.
- icebraining 8y ago
- perpetualpatzer 8y agoWhich portion of his dissent did you find to be "overtly political?" Given that he thought the property rights concerns should govern and the...forcefulness...of his questions at oral arguments, I thought it was a pretty measured opinion. I wouldn't have expected lines like: > "Today’s decision may not represent a rout but it at least signals a retreat from Article III’s guarantees."
- oh_sigh 8y agoI'm impressed that you have only read one opinion andakready know enough of the structure and content generally that you can critique it.