SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[The Other Castro]

In addition to those previous reports about Gorsuch, WashPost sources say Trump's top candidates are "William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit in Denver, Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia and Raymond Kethledge of the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/trump-close-to-naming-nominee-for-supreme-court/2017/01/24/d47c75a0-e278-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_scotus815p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bcd08fccd82a

Anything big to know about Hardiman or Kethledge?

Kethledge is unlikely to be picked, but Hardiman is also now emerging as a potential top pick with Gorsuch. He's known for a ruling that jail strip searches of all those arrested is not unconstitutional. He's also big on gun rights. Fun fact about him is he did not attend an Ivy League school.

Order of likelihood is probably about: Gorsuch>>Hardiman>>>Pryor>>>Kethledge.

SCOTUSblog has some good profiles on Gorsuch and Hardiman.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

[KingSweden]

So after reading about Gorsuch I came across the "dormant commerce clause." How on earth is this a thing? Other states can sue a state claiming that a state law harms them? WTF??!?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Unless I understand this wrong...

[Person Man]

So after reading about Gorsuch I came across the "dormant commerce clause." How on earth is this a thing? Other states can sue a state claiming that a state law harms them? WTF??!?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Unless I understand this wrong...

This means Arizona can't limit the size of its fright trains.

[KingSweden]

So after reading about Gorsuch I came across the "dormant commerce clause." How on earth is this a thing? Other states can sue a state claiming that a state law harms them? WTF??!?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Unless I understand this wrong...

This means Arizona can't limit the size of its fright trains.

The Commerce Clause makes perfect sense (and at this point is bedrock American jurisprudence). But a "dormant commerce clause" seems to bluntly fly in the face of the 10th Amendment

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

Ginsberg will die before Nov. 2020. She might make it to Jan. 2020 though, which would make the appointment fall under the last year rule, which dems need to enforce.

[Pandaguineapig]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

Ginsberg will die before Nov. 2020. She might make it to Jan. 2020 though, which would make the appointment fall under the last year rule, which dems need to enforce.

It's gonna be all but impossible for democrats to take back the Senate in 2018. They would need a majority to block Trumps nominations

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

Ginsberg will die before Nov. 2020. She might make it to Jan. 2020 though, which would make the appointment fall under the last year rule, which dems need to enforce.

I thought you supported all actions that could overturn Roe v. Wade?  Didn't you agree with me that "the ends justify the means" is justified for ending abortion?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

Ginsberg will die before Nov. 2020. She might make it to Jan. 2020 though, which would make the appointment fall under the last year rule, which dems need to enforce.

I thought you supported all actions that could overturn Roe v. Wade?  Didn't you agree with me that "the ends justify the means" is justified for ending abortion?

I generally agree with that philosophy, but I also agree that it's only fair to bind Trump to the same rules Obama was bound to here - which was no SCOTUS justices in a presidential election year. While I am strongly pro-life, I am not single-issue by any means - Garland was, holistically, a sound choice, and should have been confirmed.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

Ginsberg will die before Nov. 2020. She might make it to Jan. 2020 though, which would make the appointment fall under the last year rule, which dems need to enforce.

Do you know something we don't know?

[MarkD]

What exactly does it mean when folks say that this or that judge is "pro-life"?
Does that mean that said judges interpret the word "person" in the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause as referring to fetuses?
Do judges who we call "pro-life" interpret the Constitution to mean that abortion must be banned, or else pre-born fetuses are being denied due process and equal protection of the laws?
George F. Will once said that any judge who would interpret the Constitution that way is just as arrogant and activist as the Supreme Court Justices who handed down Roe v. Wade in the first place.

No one should be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court because they are "pro-life," or because they are conservative, liberal, or moderate. Nor should they be appointed because they are "pro-choice," or because they are in favor of affirmative action, opposed to it, or because of how they feel about gun control, or campaign finance laws. They should not be appointed because of their ideology, but because they are objective. Back on March 3rd of last year, I read an article that said President Obama was including Judge Sri Srinivasan on the list of possible nominees for Scalia's vacant seat, and the article said Judge Srinivasan "has a deep respect for the need for strict objectivity and impartiality." I was very strongly hoping that Obama would nominate him.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What exactly does it mean when folks say that this or that judge is "pro-life"?
Does that mean that said judges interpret the word "person" in the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause as referring to fetuses?
Do judges who we call "pro-life" interpret the Constitution to mean that abortion must be banned, or else pre-born fetuses are being denied due process and equal protection of the laws?
George F. Will once said that any judge who would interpret the Constitution that way is just as arrogant and activist as the Supreme Court Justices who handed down Roe v. Wade in the first place.

No one should be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court because they are "pro-life," or because they are conservative, liberal, or moderate. Nor should they be appointed because they are "pro-choice," or because they are in favor of affirmative action, opposed to it, or because of how they feel about gun control, or campaign finance laws. They should not be appointed because of their ideology, but because they are objective. Back on March 3rd of last year, I read an article that said President Obama was including Judge Sri Srinivasan on the list of possible nominees for Scalia's vacant seat, and the article said Judge Srinivasan "has a deep respect for the need for strict objectivity and impartiality." I was very strongly hoping that Obama would nominate him.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would not automatically institute a federal ban on abortion. Instead it would return the issue to its rightful place to be decided - the legislative branch.

[MarkD]

What exactly does it mean when folks say that this or that judge is "pro-life"?
Does that mean that said judges interpret the word "person" in the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause as referring to fetuses?
Do judges who we call "pro-life" interpret the Constitution to mean that abortion must be banned, or else pre-born fetuses are being denied due process and equal protection of the laws?
George F. Will once said that any judge who would interpret the Constitution that way is just as arrogant and activist as the Supreme Court Justices who handed down Roe v. Wade in the first place.

No one should be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court because they are "pro-life," or because they are conservative, liberal, or moderate. Nor should they be appointed because they are "pro-choice," or because they are in favor of affirmative action, opposed to it, or because of how they feel about gun control, or campaign finance laws. They should not be appointed because of their ideology, but because they are objective. Back on March 3rd of last year, I read an article that said President Obama was including Judge Sri Srinivasan on the list of possible nominees for Scalia's vacant seat, and the article said Judge Srinivasan "has a deep respect for the need for strict objectivity and impartiality." I was very strongly hoping that Obama would nominate him.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would not automatically institute a federal ban on abortion. Instead it would return the issue to its rightful place to be decided - the legislative branch.

Completely correct. Anyone who is "pro-choice" could be someone who would overturn Roe on the grounds that abortion is not at all a constitutionally-protected "right." All it takes is a commitment to objectivity -- objectively understanding what the Constitution has to say about the subject of abortion. The Constitution neither protects the "right" of a pregnant woman to get an abortion nor does it protect the "right" of a fetus to live.

So I don't understand why Trump himself and so many of the posters here have been saying that Trump will, or should, appoint someone who is "pro-life."

[Klartext89]

Reading this thread, I'm a bit worried about Gorsuch... Hopefully it isn't another lost opportunity by a GOP President to get fooled by a Liberal or Moderate like GHWB and Reagan...

[DavidB.]

Hope he picks a 35-year old arch-conservative. No need to nominate some softie or some old.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hope he picks a 35-year old arch-conservative. No need to nominate some softie or some old.

How about John Paul Stevens?

[daveosupremo]

I keep reading here that Gorsuch isn't conservative, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of that. Can someone provide a link or an explanation?

[Thomas Jackson]

I keep reading here that Gorsuch isn't conservative, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of that. Can someone provide a link or an explanation?

Read his book:

https://www.amazon.com/Future-Assisted-Suicide-Euthanasia-Forum/dp/0691140979

They are delusional. He's as conservative as they come.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Not gonna make much difference with a Scalia vacancy. Watch Senate elections in 2018 and presidential race in 2020 for Kennedy and Ginnsberg replacement

Ginsberg will die before Nov. 2020. She might make it to Jan. 2020 though, which would make the appointment fall under the last year rule, which dems need to enforce.

How can you foretell her lifedates with such certainty?

[daveosupremo]

I keep reading here that Gorsuch isn't conservative, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of that. Can someone provide a link or an explanation?

Read his book:

https://www.amazon.com/Future-Assisted-Suicide-Euthanasia-Forum/dp/0691140979

They are delusional. He's as conservative as they come.

That's pretty much the conclusion I've come to as well. Conservatism and textualism have a lot of overlap, but they're not the same thing. I want my legislators to be conservative, and my jurists to be textualist originalists. Pryor and Hardiman seem to be more ideologically rigid conservatives in line with Alito, while Gorsuch is more like Thomas and Scalia.

If anyone else has insight on this, I'd love to hear it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Gorsuch is right-wing nutjob and I'm not sure what would make anyone think otherwise.  If anything he'd shift the court to the right.

[The Other Castro]

Forgot to update this before, but Trump tweeted the announcement will be on Thursday (though there's a pretty good chance the name will leak before then).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Gorsuch is right-wing nutjob and I'm not sure what would make anyone think otherwise.  If anything he'd shift the court to the right.

Are you implying that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Forgot to update this before, but Trump tweeted the announcement will be on Thursday (though there's a pretty good chance the name will leak before then).

As in tomorrow or next Thursday?

[Dereich]

Gorsuch is right-wing nutjob and I'm not sure what would make anyone think otherwise.  If anything he'd shift the court to the right.

Are you implying that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia?

Are you implying that's impossible or even difficult? Sure, Scalia was right wing on many things, but he consistently advocated a view touting the legislature's supremacy over the courts in the making of policy. While I don't know Gorsuch's views, there are plenty of right wing jurists who want the Court to take a much more activist role in advancing conservative policies than Scalia did. The Supreme Court emphatically does not operate on the exact same left-right axis that other branches do. A judge whose personal views are less right wing could have a view of the constitution that leads them to even more radical decisions.