3 ms·

He got a pretty good smearing done on his character by the media during his confirmation hearings. That, plus the fact that his name will always be associated

He got a pretty good smearing done on his character by the media during his confirmation hearings. That, plus the fact that his name will always be associated with Trump, is probably enough for most people. The irony there is that there's probably no person on the court more predisposed to ruling against Trump than Gorsuch is. Of course, everyone will likely feel justified in hating him when the Trump v Hawaii decision is released, unless it's 8-1 or something in favor of Trump.

RankingMember 8y ago
I'm curious- what makes him predisposed to ruling against Trump?
- bmelton 8y ago
  The TLDR answer is that he doesn't believe that the constitution gives the federal government as much authority as they exercise. I'm mobile, so I'll try to make this brief, but in _Sessions_, for example, he expressed concerns on how vague or poorly written laws afford the government too much power. In _Gutierrez_, he (unusually) wrote the majority opinion, and then also a concurring opinion that I assume he couldn't get other justices to sign on to, which effectively bashed Chevron deference. _Chevron_ was a case largely believed to have set the stage for much of what people see as abuses of federal authority holding (basically) that an ambiguously crafted statute that does not expressly give a government agency over an authority over an area, but which could maybe sort of be interpreted that way, then you should find in favor of the government, because they're the experts. Gorsuch believes that giving the government powers that Congress did not expressly intend is an abdication of judicial duty, and that we shouldn't interpret ambiguity as a blank check. He thinks that if Congress intends to give <agency x> authority over a specific domain, then they should say that explicitly. TLDR, the deference that Chevron establishes as precedent in government cases most largely benefits agencies operating under the executive branch. Trump runs the executive branch, so that cuts in his favor. Gorsuch believes (more than the other justices) that they do not deserve that deference, and that laws should be interpreted to mean what they say.
rrcaptain 8y ago
I mean, he's also sitting on a stolen seat. Not letting Obama nominate anyone was pretty BS. Obviously it wasn't his idea, but he's benefited from it nonetheless.
- furgooswft13 8y ago
  Frankly, I totally understand the reasoning of not wanting a lame-duck president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice months before a presidential election. The people appointed to that position is a huge consideration in many people's vote. Ones less justice on the court for a handful of months is not a big deal. Let the people decide, or something (and inb4 Trump lost the popular vote). And it was a gamble, as most of the Republican leadership in congress fully expected Trump to lose, in which case Hillary might have nominated someone considered even more liberal than Merrick Garland. If that had happened, and that person confirmed, would they be sitting on a stolen seat too?
  - rrcaptain 8y ago
    No, the GOP was planning to block Hillary's nominees as well. And people did decide... In 2012 when they voted for Obama by like 51%. Lame duck presidents have gotten SCOTUS seats before. Reagan nominated and had a confirmation in his final year by a supermajority.
    - furgooswft13 8y ago
      Of course they were, just as the Democrats attempted to block Gorsuch. Difference is there would be no reasonable excuse to not even letting it come to a vote at that point. Regan's last nomination was an interesting one. With his first nomination for the seat coming nearly a year and a half before the next election. Then going through another potential nominee, with Kennedy not being confirmed until early 1988. Regardless, all I'm saying is I understand the reasoning for not wanting to let Obama appoint a SCOTUS justice in his last months. They could have gone the other way and let it come to a vote. Republicans would certainly have had the numbers to block it (and the yays needed 60 then). And then Obama would have appointed someone else, and so on until the election was decided and the next president in office. Though I have no doubt the Republican leadership would have acted differently if a seat was open during the last days of a Republican administration. Either way, Gorush's seat is no more stolen than a Hillary appointee would be.

RankingMember 8y ago

I'm curious- what makes him predisposed to ruling against Trump?

bmelton 8y ago
The TLDR answer is that he doesn't believe that the constitution gives the federal government as much authority as they exercise. I'm mobile, so I'll try to make this brief, but in _Sessions_, for example, he expressed concerns on how vague or poorly written laws afford the government too much power. In _Gutierrez_, he (unusually) wrote the majority opinion, and then also a concurring opinion that I assume he couldn't get other justices to sign on to, which effectively bashed Chevron deference. _Chevron_ was a case largely believed to have set the stage for much of what people see as abuses of federal authority holding (basically) that an ambiguously crafted statute that does not expressly give a government agency over an authority over an area, but which could maybe sort of be interpreted that way, then you should find in favor of the government, because they're the experts. Gorsuch believes that giving the government powers that Congress did not expressly intend is an abdication of judicial duty, and that we shouldn't interpret ambiguity as a blank check. He thinks that if Congress intends to give <agency x> authority over a specific domain, then they should say that explicitly. TLDR, the deference that Chevron establishes as precedent in government cases most largely benefits agencies operating under the executive branch. Trump runs the executive branch, so that cuts in his favor. Gorsuch believes (more than the other justices) that they do not deserve that deference, and that laws should be interpreted to mean what they say.

rrcaptain 8y ago

I mean, he's also sitting on a stolen seat. Not letting Obama nominate anyone was pretty BS. Obviously it wasn't his idea, but he's benefited from it nonetheless.

furgooswft13 8y ago
Frankly, I totally understand the reasoning of not wanting a lame-duck president to nominate a Supreme Court Justice months before a presidential election. The people appointed to that position is a huge consideration in many people's vote. Ones less justice on the court for a handful of months is not a big deal. Let the people decide, or something (and inb4 Trump lost the popular vote). And it was a gamble, as most of the Republican leadership in congress fully expected Trump to lose, in which case Hillary might have nominated someone considered even more liberal than Merrick Garland. If that had happened, and that person confirmed, would they be sitting on a stolen seat too?
- rrcaptain 8y ago
  No, the GOP was planning to block Hillary's nominees as well. And people did decide... In 2012 when they voted for Obama by like 51%. Lame duck presidents have gotten SCOTUS seats before. Reagan nominated and had a confirmation in his final year by a supermajority.
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    Of course they were, just as the Democrats attempted to block Gorsuch. Difference is there would be no reasonable excuse to not even letting it come to a vote at that point. Regan's last nomination was an interesting one. With his first nomination for the seat coming nearly a year and a half before the next election. Then going through another potential nominee, with Kennedy not being confirmed until early 1988. Regardless, all I'm saying is I understand the reasoning for not wanting to let Obama appoint a SCOTUS justice in his last months. They could have gone the other way and let it come to a vote. Republicans would certainly have had the numbers to block it (and the yays needed 60 then). And then Obama would have appointed someone else, and so on until the election was decided and the next president in office. Though I have no doubt the Republican leadership would have acted differently if a seat was open during the last days of a Republican administration. Either way, Gorush's seat is no more stolen than a Hillary appointee would be.