Came across this this evening. It does not look like the judge some here today characterized him as. I also, thought it noteworthy that before all the madness both Scalia and Bader-Ginsburg were voted in by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and they could not be more polar opposite.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 33542.html

Came across this this evening. It does not look like the judge some here today characterized him as. I also, thought it noteworthy that before all the madness both Scalia and Bader-Ginsburg were voted in by overwhelming bipartisan majorities and they could not be more polar opposite.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 33542.html

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

That article is pretty much a game changer. Indeed. Provoking

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

It's really not.

From the start, people who know what they're talking about have said Gorsuch is an exceptional jurist with sound reasoning and adherence to the law.

The crazies (which seem to be MANY of the opposition party) are the ones who have tried, and failed, to portray him as a right wing wacko.

I just think the support from his decade(s) old friend brings an interesting, unbiased angle. Really glad that was shared.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

I agree that the column was good but can an opinion piece from a decades old friend really be unbiased?

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

We really are in bad shape these days...

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

We really are in bad shape these days...

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

It's troubling that we can read an article that exposes a person's actual record, and then somehow claim it's author is biased for telling the actual truth.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

I do take issue with the word unbiased.

I don't think a decades old friend's column can be called unbiased.

No column can be.

That's all.

You snowflakes are pretty sensitive.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

An column like the one posted is an opinion piece. There's bound to be bias.

Especially from a friend.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

His column accurately states his judicial record.

Like I said, if telling the truth is bias, we are in some deep shit

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

I said earlier I agreed with the column.

I do not believe an opinion piece from a life long friend can be considered unbiased.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

His record is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

His record is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one. The Department of Labor says that TransAm violated federal law, in particular 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who “refuse[] to operate a vehicle” out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone’s admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help. The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not. And there’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid. Maybe the Department would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn’t there yet. And it isn’t our job to write one — or to allow the Department to write one in Congress’s place.

I smell a bit....

It's really not.

From the start, people who know what they're talking about have said Gorsuch is an exceptional jurist with sound reasoning and adherence to the law.

The crazies (which seem to be MANY of the opposition party) are the ones who have tried, and failed, to portray him as a right wing wacko.

His column accurately states his judicial record.

Like I said, if telling the truth is bias, we are in some deep shit