Trying hard to find his work, or cases he's decided, but having issues, but what I'm seeing is the lSM playing "Hands Off", which leads me to believe there's something the see in him they like.
Here's a little bit, but it's nowhere near enough.

[Gorsuch] believes even. . .broadly worded enforcement statutes have objective meanings that can be understood from their texts; that it is the job of the courts to say what those laws mean and to tell agencies when they do not have the best reading; and that if the agency disagrees, the only proper recourse is for Congress to change the law or the Supreme Court to correct the error.

Scalia, on the other hand, wanted to limit courts to the role of reviewing agency implementations of these kinds of statutes for clear error in order to prevent "ossification," recognizing that the understanding of these kinds of laws might need to change from time to time to accommodate changing priorities among presidents and changing conditions on the ground.
Citron suggests that the difference between the two jurists on this point is not as sharp as one might think. In practice, Scalia was much more willing than most to say that a particular agency position was beyond the statutory bounds, even when the words at issue in the statute were ambiguous. And as a textualist, Scalia was less willing than most to find statutory language ambiguous.

It has been argued that Gorsuch is not pro-life, but Ed Whelan at NRO's Bench Memos has dispatched that claim.

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2017/01/24/a-look-at-judge-neil-gorsuch/

He clerked for Justice Kennedy and his mom was the first female administrator for the EPA. Think that is why they are hopeful.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 24, 2017, 06:04:52 PM
He clerked for Justice Kennedy and his mom was the first female administrator for the EPA. Think that is why they are hopeful.

They know him better than we do apparently.
I knew there had to be a good reason why they aren't coming apart at the seams over him.

I had a thought yesterday about the SC appointment when I saw Trump was meeting with congressional leaders. First, we have discard all history on getting SC nominees confirmed by the senate. Trump is a deal maker and is always looking for a deal. Schumer wants a gig infrastructure bill, so does Trump. I can see Trump telling Schumer if you confirm my nominee I will OK democrats getting to sign on and get some credit for the infrastructure bill. If you do not help, your bill does not see the light of day and the GOP will pass a bill on their own.

I would appreciate others' thoughts on this approach.

Quote from: supsalemgr on January 25, 2017, 04:34:44 AM
I had a thought yesterday about the SC appointment when I saw Trump was meeting with congressional leaders. First, we have discard all history on getting SC nominees confirmed by the senate. Trump is a deal maker and is always looking for a deal. Schumer wants a gig infrastructure bill, so does Trump. I can see Trump telling Schumer if you confirm my nominee I will OK democrats getting to sign on and get some credit for the infrastructure bill. If you do not help, your bill does not see the light of day and the GOP will pass a bill on their own.

I would appreciate others' thoughts on this approach.

I saw the same thing based on the crap the media was releasing, but my thought was they were trying to force a deal on behalf of Chuckie.
Trump is solidly in the driver seat at the moment and doesn't need the left for anything, but I also fear Trump could easily jump in bed with them to get his way. Waiting for his leftist shoe to drop.

Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2017, 05:39:52 AM
I saw the same thing based on the crap the media was releasing, but my thought was they were trying to force a deal on behalf of Chuckie.
Trump is solidly in the driver seat at the moment and doesn't need the left for anything, but I also fear Trump could easily jump in bed with them to get his way. Waiting for his leftist shoe to drop.

Which takes us right back to watch what he does, not what he says. So far his actions have been fairly strong.

Quote from: mrclose on January 25, 2017, 01:25:58 PM
Of the three that everyone seems to be talking about, I have a brief opinion of each.

Pryor's decision to join the majority in (Glenn v. Brumby), a 2011 opinion that protected transgender people from workplace discrimination drops him down a peg in my opinion.

Gorsuch would be a great choice.
Scalia-esque in his legal theory and voting record and also in his writing style.

He held that the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employee insurance plans cover contraceptives without a co-pay violated the rights of those employers that object to some or all contraceptives on religious grounds.

In the famous Hobby Lobby case, he sided with the conservative Christian family that owns the company and sued the federal government over the mandate.
I like him!

Hardiman defended the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania court house's Ten Commandments plaque in 2000 as an attorney.
(Two atheists sued the county to get it pulled down!)

In a court case (Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle (2010) .. Brian Kelly claimed his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated by a police officer who arrested him for filming during a traffic stop.
(He, Hardiman ruled as a Judge that there was no right to film police officers.)
A strike against in my opinion.

Notice a theme with all these picks? Social issues!
I can't help but think they're trying to route us on who is chosen. IMO, not one of these people have a place on the highest court in the land. They want us to swallow Gorsuch, and I'm not buying it for one second!
I want a Constitutional Conservative, not a mushy moderate hung up on social issues, I want someone demanding we follow the constitution.

A little updated history on Gorsuch. Not good at all!

Neil Gorsuch US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Age 49   Not pro-life, he has written about abortion using only the terminology of pro-aborts without any reference to the "unborn child." In the case of Pino v. U.S., 507 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2007), Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specially found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade.

Gorsuch is also a big supporter granting special rights to men who say they have a female gender identity. He sided with civil rights for "gender identity" in 2009 by adhering to a Ninth Circuit opinion by the liberal Judge Reinhardt, which held the federal law called "Title VII" protects discrimination against gender identity. Kastl v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 325 Fed. Appx. 492 (9th Cir. 2009) (Gorsuch, J., joining the court opinion). At the time virtually every other circuit rejected this liberal view.
More recently Judge Gorsuch expressed his support for referring to biological men as women. Although religion is not a test for public office, Gorsuch belongs to the Episcopalian church that has publicly declared its "unequivocal opposition" to pro-life laws and Gorsuch has said nothing publicly pro-life.

Gorsuch also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather than overturning it. "Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes," Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second Amendment rights of a man before his court. United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

"stare decisis" = Precedent.
In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts

Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2017, 03:46:58 PM
A little updated history on Gorsuch. Not good at all!

Neil Gorsuch US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Age 49   Not pro-life, he has written about abortion using only the terminology of pro-aborts without any reference to the "unborn child." In the case of Pino v. U.S., 507 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2007), Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specially found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade.

Gorsuch is also a big supporter granting special rights to men who say they have a female gender identity. He sided with civil rights for "gender identity" in 2009 by adhering to a Ninth Circuit opinion by the liberal Judge Reinhardt, which held the federal law called "Title VII" protects discrimination against gender identity. Kastl v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 325 Fed. Appx. 492 (9th Cir. 2009) (Gorsuch, J., joining the court opinion). At the time virtually every other circuit rejected this liberal view.
More recently Judge Gorsuch expressed his support for referring to biological men as women. Although religion is not a test for public office, Gorsuch belongs to the Episcopalian church that has publicly declared its "unequivocal opposition" to pro-life laws and Gorsuch has said nothing publicly pro-life.

Gorsuch also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather than overturning it. "Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes," Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second Amendment rights of a man before his court. United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

"stare decisis" = Precedent.
In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding
Aw crap, my bad, here's the link..

http://www.pseagles.com/Nominees_Supreme_Court

Quote from: mrclose on January 25, 2017, 08:11:38 PM
Not buying it.

Since the subject is so involved, I have chosen to post specific links instead of writing a forum encyclopedia!

All of my links are from the National Review except for the first one below and the last link ... which comes from the site that you posted your information from!

For those that don't know, The National Review was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. and is a favorite punching bag of the Radical left.

They (National Review) had/have no love for Trump as shown in the snippet below.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/national-review/426543/



To the subject at hand ...

(The author of the NR pages of which I am citing is Ed Whelan,  President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Former law clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.)


Andy Schlafly Smears of Trump Supreme Court Candidate Neil Gorsuch


Smear number One: Schlafly asserts Gorsuch "probably would NOT be pro-life on the Supreme Court."

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/442581/schlafly-attack-gorsuch



Smear number Two: Schlafly now says that Gorsuch "supports special rights for transgenders."

(scroll about halfway down the page to the 'Transgender' rebuke)
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/444195/andy-schlafly-smears-neil-gorsuch



Smear number Three: Gorsuch also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare decisis

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1011.pdf

Did you even comprehend what the author was arguing? Didn't think so, and neither did he which is why several times he admitted "it was too complicated".

This opening line is pure bull shit!!! No judge would ever hear a case going in with his hands bound with a case slanted in favor of the plaintiff.
He is however, subject to the law, but never precedent!!!

QuoteGorsuch's duty in the case was to adhere to Ninth Circuit precedent. The objected-to proposition strikes me as an accurate statement of the Schwenk precedent, an opinion by Stephen Reinhardt that was joined by the senior judge on the Kastl panel. If Schlafly believes otherwise, he should try to make an actual argument. (It's too complicated to go into here, but the proposition that Title VII protects everyone against being discriminated against for "not behav[ing] in accordance with an employer's expectations for men or women" is not quite the same as the proposition that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of gender identity.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/444195/andy-schlafly-smears-neil-gorsuch

My issue with Gorsuch isn't that he's Conservative, my issue is that he's not Conservative enough and that the people are being railroaded into accepting a mediocre judge because they placed to lousy judges in the list with him.
See what happened here?
Run two judges that sided with libs in the past as contrast to Gorsuch and people easily fall into the trap of believing they have but one choice.

Where have we seen this bull shit used before? Let's see, Bush, Dole, McCain, Mitten? Stop me anytime...
Point is, neither the leftist media or the right is exposing Gorsuch's liberal faults, simply for one reason, they, "the RINO and Marxists like him.
If you read further in opinions of Gorsuch, you'll find a little note where the author claims "He's Well Connected".
Take it for what it is, but on any level that should be a red flag.

It's obvious to anyone willing to look at this with a critical view, that both the RNC and leftist media want this guy, and that alone should be reason enough to ask for more and better choices!

Thanks Trump, so who else is on your list, these three don't pass Conservative muster! (Think Roberts)

Quote from: mrclose on January 26, 2017, 01:27:39 PM
Solar, I admit to not understanding or knowing every detail of any of these potential Judges.

I understand your concerns and I found an excellent article that lays out those exact concerns!
A pretty good look into your concerns about Gorsuch too!

I think that you (and others) will enjoy the piece.

It's written by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review.

Let me know what you think.

Something I learned .....

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/what-conservatives-want-in-a-supreme-court-justice#sthash.s1Xs7ggM.dpuf

Excellent article, Horowitz nails it.
"There were some conservatives who warned at the time that Roberts was a blank slate and that he could very well be a "centrist."
His point about "Mike Lee, R-Utah (A, 100%) or Thomas Lee (Sen. Lee's brother)" being an ideal candidate, yet being shoved down our throats is another unproven candidate, one that could easily slant the court hard left in the end.

One other point so many are missing, is there are no law requirements to being a SCOTUS nominee, you or I could sit on the court, so this leaves the door wide open for Constitutional originalists, yet here we are, choosing the least liberal of three candidates.

Erickson talked a little about the SCOTUS candidates at the beginning of his show...

https://soundcloud.com/ewerickson/the-erick-erickson-show-01-26-17

Quote from: taxed on January 26, 2017, 07:01:27 PM
Erickson talked a little about the SCOTUS candidates at the beginning of his show...

https://soundcloud.com/ewerickson/the-erick-erickson-show-01-26-17

I think the link MrClose posted nails it.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/what-conservatives-want-in-a-supreme-court-justice#sthash.s1Xs7ggM.dpuf

Quote from: Solar on January 26, 2017, 07:11:03 AM

My issue with Gorsuch isn't that he's Conservative, my issue is that he's not Conservative enough and that the people are being railroaded into accepting a mediocre judge because they placed to lousy judges in the list with him.
See what happened here?
Run two judges that sided with libs in the past as contrast to Gorsuch and people easily fall into the trap of believing they have but one choice.

Where have we seen this bull shit used before? Let's see, Bush, Dole, McCain, Mitten? Stop me anytime...
Point is, neither the leftist media or the right is exposing Gorsuch's liberal faults, simply for one reason, they, "the RINO and Marxists like him.
If you read further in opinions of Gorsuch, you'll find a little note where the author claims "He's Well Connected".
Take it for what it is, but on any level that should be a red flag.

It's obvious to anyone willing to look at this with a critical view, that both the RNC and leftist media want this guy, and that alone should be reason enough to ask for more and better choices!

Thanks Trump, so who else is on your list, these three don't pass Conservative muster! (Think Roberts)

This video explains exactly what I was talking about regarding manipulation, as does advertisers and manipulating the viewer.
Jump to 5:51 where they talk about advertising a laptop. This is known as "Decoying".
This is exactly what the GOP is doing here by promoting a squishy SCOTUS pick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npXFztJBVzA

President Trump is supposed to announce his pick tonight on Twitter at 8pm.  All the talk is that it's going to be Thomas Hardimann, another David Souter.

Don't f--- this up Trump!