The US Supreme Court Thread

I am aware of the reason people choose to incorporate and the protections that status provides. What you are asking the owners of those corporations to do is spend some of their money to do things they are not morally comfortable doing because someone else thinks they should.

 

I agree with you.

I just think the employee that chooses to work there is the one that should make the tradeoff instead of forcing the entire company to conform to the wishes of a few.

 

I mean they don't die. Or at least, it's not inevitable that they die. They're like the Highlander, I guess.

 

Quality!

 

But it is not just "a few" who wish to mandate this. Granted, it may not be a majority of the US that wants this particular element of their insurance coverage to be included in what is offered by employers in general and Hobby Lobby in particular, but it is a substantial section of the public that does, and if they are able to get that enacted by a popularly elected government, then who is to say that that particular group, having engaged in a political process to see that change made, should not have primacy in making what is now, and perhaps always was, a political decision more than a religious one.

 

@stanger Read this piece and tell me Gorusch isn't changing operate to mean drive and thus is legislating from the bench.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rucker_opinion_shows_he_wants_to_be_like.html

 

Because it would be government overreach.

Look, if HL was banning paying for all forms of contraception I would be with you, but my understanding is that HL wanted to not pay for the so-called "morning after" pill which was essentially an abortion pill.

 

I read his dissent on this and I don't agree with it either.

That's one decision, and one that I expected earlier in this conversation due to it being on all the left side talking point websites.

Did you read the one I linked to earlier? I am perfectly fine not agreeing with every decision but I do agree with the majority of what I have seen from Gorsuch.

 

I joined the debate late. what page is it on?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/gorsuch-profile/

I have seen the frozen trucker opinion posted so often it seems to be the biggest issue people have with Gorsuch, and the HL opinion.

If you are looking for a SCJ you agree with 100% of the time it isn't going to happen. People oppose based on who is doing the nominating which is just lazy in my opinion. The nomination of Gorsuch is the only thing Trump has done that I am OK with.

 

Those decisions (at least to me) show him to be more concerned for the welfare of corporations than people. I don't want people like that on the Supreme Court. It's a moot point now, but...

 

That's actually due to the way laws are written, in favor of corporations, as opposed to the way Gorsuch rules. In the link I posted, he addresses that by saying sometimes the laws are written that way and his job is to enforce laws the way they are written by the people's representatives.

That is the kind of person I want on the court. If you don't like the laws, work to change them. Don't expect the SC to do it because that's not their job.

 

Fantastic pun.

Gorsuch is really a young man, Courtwise. I've never held any sort of belief that America is a great place to call home --it's always been one of the least bad places, which is different-- but I admit that I never expected the generations of civil rights work to be reversed so quickly. One Supreme now, and at least one more in the near future, likely.

 

The Trucker was an agreegious one but it does concern me. The article seems to say that there moments when his beliefs or POV will be stronger than what the right wants him to do.

Essentially the biggest problem with Gorsuch is that he is a stolen seat. It taints an objective view of him. If it had been done normally and a liberal was appointed for Scalia and Gorsuch was replacing another Conservative, most wouldn't argue.

It is kinda like Ohio State getting the 4 seed over PSU then stinking it up!

 

Yep. The Dems would have approved Gorsuch if the Republicans had played ball with the Democrats a year ago. Nobody would have argued. Obama had his time to make appointments, now it's Trump's time, and there was no smoking gun with Gorsuch.

 

Yup. Partisan politics.

Try not harboring child molesters.

 

I doubt no one would have argued. Agree with the rest.

 

Yeah true. I will rephrase. The Democrats would have pushed Gorsuch, gone on the record about how he has worrisome pro-corporation tendencies, made some speeches against him, and then not blocked the nomination. The Dems from purple states would have voted for Gorsuch, and the ones from the blue states would have abstained or voted against, and he would have gone through. Then the Dems from the blue states could go home and say they fought the good fight, and those from the purple could go home and say that they are reasonable people who can work both sides of the aisle. The usual process with a Supreme Court nominee.

 

If you buy stock in a corporation you can vote to kick out the board and executives. If the company is public.

 

Judges don't just enforce laws as they are written. Government laws are struck down on a regular basis.

I have no personal dislike of Gorsuch. I'm sure he'll treat his new career with the respect it deserves.

But I'm also not under the illusion that he'll be a down the middle vote. I expect him to be the 2nd most conservative judge after Clarence Thomas. This is a guy that was groomed and picked by The Federalist Society. We can use academic terms like "originalist" or whatever, but if you're looking at it from the left it's clear as day that he was nominated to advance a conservative agenda.

 

The GOP was willing to blow up the nomination process and the filibuster rule to keep a 5-4 conservative balance and hope the Dems win in 2018 and stab them in the face with these two precedents.
The problem is all the older judges are on the left, maybe Thomas retires in 8 years but that is about it.

 

The reason a law would be struck down by the SC is because they go against the constitution as they are written. Now, each judge has their own interpretation of how certain laws fit/don't fit, and I do agree Gorsuch will be more right than left in his interpretation, I don't think he will be overly outspoken or controversial.

Which is what we should all look for in a SCJ.