Marrick Garland is not a neutral judge. He is a left leaning judge. The same amount of lean to the left that Gorsuch is to the right. All of us bystanders are just watching political football. Democrats don't care whether Gorsuch becomes a judge because of his views on anything, they are just playing politics because of what the GOP did with Garland. That's it. They are creating a spectacle and you rubes are all falling for it.

Listening to anyone sit here and say that Gorsuch somehow is not qualified to be a SCOTUS is just ridiculous (Garland was also qualified to be SCOTUS). Who cares if you don't agree with his decisions that you had no idea about until it was explained to you by your favorite political analyst over the last couple months. The guy is replacing the most right-wing judge ever. No matter who filled the seat the court would become more moderate and progressive.

What everyone should be talking about is how the processes put in place to run Congress are being torpedoed by both parties just because no one can be reasonable about anything anymore. But all you idiots are doing is pointing fingers just like those assholes. Then you complain about how they operate when they operate just like you.

Marrick Garland is not a neutral judge. He is a left leaning judge. The same amount of lean to the left that Gorsuch is to the right. All of us bystanders are just watching political football. Democrats don't care whether Gorsuch becomes a judge because of his views on anything, they are just playing politics because of what the GOP did with Garland. That's it. They are creating a spectacle and you rubes are all falling for it.

Listening to anyone sit here and say that Gorsuch somehow is not qualified to be a SCOTUS is just ridiculous (Garland was also qualified to be SCOTUS). Who cares if you don't agree with his decisions that you had no idea about until it was explained to you by your favorite political analyst over the last couple months. The guy is replacing the most right-wing judge ever. No matter who filled the seat the court would become more moderate and progressive.

What everyone should be talking about is how the processes put in place to run Congress are being torpedoed by both parties just because no one can be reasonable about anything anymore. But all you idiots are doing is pointing fingers just like those assholes. Then you complain about how they operate when they operate just like you.

So you're cool with 4 years or greater of an empty seat or two on this highest court?
Neat.

3) As for your stuff about his political leanings and decisions, keep in mind around half the country agree with his right leaning verdicts. It's just a different philosophy. Whether you like it or not, many of us believe in restricting the power of the executive branch whether that be the EPA or DOL or SEC, etc. The Federal Government has extended its powers well beyond what is authorized in the U.S. Constitution. Frankly, the right leaning judges are on the wrong side of a lot of the due process and search and seizure stuff, so my comment applies to both left and right depending on the issue. Ginsburg is not some bitch to me just because she happens to believe that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Try to understand where the other side is coming from and respect that difference. That is the entire problem with our politics-we just bad mouth real differences in political leanings and turn it into name calling.

You are muddying the waters. I do not think that half the country agrees with what Gorsuch did in that truck driver case, and that is emblematic of who Gorsuch is as a person, which matters; rather, I would think that 99% of Americans are or would be against how Gorsuch ruled.

This is not about political leanings, Democrat or Republican. It's about whether Gorsuch is even capable of being a fellow human being, who clearly should have applied the exception clause or exception case-law to the truck-driver's life-or-death situation.

2) The nominee should not be described as a POS. Much like Obama's nominee, these are highly qualified and well regarded judges. Don't let the poisonous Washington politics skew your view of the nominee. It's not his fault that the Republicans played the ultimate game with Obama's nominee.

Sorry, have to disagree. Any judge that sides with a company over the firing of an employee that was trying to keep himself from freezing to death is a heartless douchebag that doesn't even deserve the consideration to be appointed to SCOTUS. There was an exception clause in the law that accounted for extreme events like this one, and still Gorsuch sided with the company over the firing. It just shows who his allegiance is to, and it's not to justice.

Of course, but this case was egregious. That's why it has come to the forefront of the debate about Gorsuch's appointment, because everyone can relate to it.

And note that the six other appellate judges in the case did not agree with Gorsuch. Who do you think was right?

No, not at all. I'm just sickened by what some pseudo intellectual legal "elites" introduced into the courts in part starting here at Northwestern, U of Chicago and other places (i.e. the Federalist Society) to turn out their own version of activist judges to offset court that MANY believed were too friendly to the colored, or women, or queers or "them".

Gorsuch (as raised by his sociopathic political mother) embodies that.

Keep in mind that I really had no love for Garland's positions on the bench, but welcomed him wholeheartedly as a likely centrist with a probable open mind on Supreme Court. These Republican nominees far too often now don't. Kennedy may be the last of that breed that did, imo.

He was wrong. I have no doubt he was wrong.

I'm sure if they nominated anyone else there would be a case that they were wrong on according to most people.

I just read about it too and you aren't really correct that he was defending corporations. He seems to be a guy who puts a lot of faith into how laws are actually written and that is why he did it. I'd say in this case he made the wrong interpretation but judges do that sometimes which is why we have multiple judges and appeals.

I'm just going to leave this here for everyone bitching about who started it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opini ... -bork.html

I do find it interesting that the Democrats, who were mad that the Republicans wouldn't confirm Obama's guy in his last year have basically went and done the exact same thing(besides the last year thing probably).

The Democrats just do a terrible job as coming off as anything more than Republicans with a different marketing strategy.

I wonder if they would have done better if they had simply said "We didn't like what they did with Obama's nominee but we will attempt to work with Republicans going forward and will not fight this one". Instead, it's basically just setting up another "Party of No" situation.

It seems more and more obvious that both sides think they can solidify their jobs by playing the "Us vs. Them" game.