Trump's SCOTUS

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

I know what I like, and I like what I know!
:goteam:

[TheReal_ND]

Hell of a year.

[Fife]

OK, lets consider the political landscape for the confirmation hearings/vote.

Here are some Senators up for state-wide elections in about 20 months.

Does anyone see any tension between their desire to be re-elected and fealty to Chuckles the Crocodile?

Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)

Joe Manchin has already said that Chuckles can suck it. It's going to take 8 Ds to keep the Turtle from sending in the B-29s. Either way, it's going to happen.

I observe that Gorsuch is going to play very very well in his hearings in states won by Trump (see the list above). If I were a GOPer, I think I might be hoping for the list above to follow Chuckles' lead straight down the crapper.

Some tough decisions are incoming, quickly. Interesting times, eh?

[Fife]

Here's some more discussion of Gorsuch's record, if anyone is interested. http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/31/trump ... o-the-supr

Here's a good writing sample, and an example of his 4th Amendment thinking -- go down to his dissent: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 69&scilh=0

Whether in arguing that the state enjoys an irrevocable license to enter or in suggesting that No Trespassing signs are categorically insufficient to bar its agents, the government appears to be moved by the same worry: that if clearly posted No Trespassing signs can revoke the right of officers to enter a home's curtilage their job of ferreting out crime will become marginally more difficult. But obedience to the Fourth Amendment always bears that cost and surely brings with it other benefits. Neither, of course, is it our job to weigh those costs and benefits but to apply the Amendment according to its terms and in light of its historical meaning. Besides, it is hardly the case that following the Fourth Amendment's teachings would leave the government as bereft of lawful alternatives as it seems to suppose. The Amendment and the common law from which it was constructed leave ample room for law enforcement to do its job. A warrant will always do. So will emergency circumstances. After-the-fact consent may suffice if freely given. And, of course, there's no need for consent when officers search only open fields rather than curtilage. Neither is there need for consent when officers enter curtilage for a non-investigative purpose. Our duty of fidelity to the law requires us to respect all these law enforcement tools. But it also requires us to respect the ancient rights of the people when law enforcement exceeds their limits. In this case the two arguments the government offers to justify its conduct can claim no basis in our constitutional tradition. Not one member of this panel endorses them. And, respectfully, I just do not see the case for struggling so mightily to save the government's cause with arguments of our own devise — especially when what arguments we are able to muster suffer so many problems of their own and the benefits of exposing them to at least a modest encounter with the adversarial process seem so obvious.

[Speaker to Animals]

Bill Nelson is one of the last blue dogs. He used to be my senator and is also from the Space Coast. I have my doubts that he will go along with this stuff.

[apeman]

Here's some more discussion of Gorsuch's record, if anyone is interested. http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/31/trump ... o-the-supr

Here's a good writing sample, and an example of his 4th Amendment thinking -- go down to his dissent: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... 69&scilh=0

Whether in arguing that the state enjoys an irrevocable license to enter or in suggesting that No Trespassing signs are categorically insufficient to bar its agents, the government appears to be moved by the same worry: that if clearly posted No Trespassing signs can revoke the right of officers to enter a home's curtilage their job of ferreting out crime will become marginally more difficult. But obedience to the Fourth Amendment always bears that cost and surely brings with it other benefits. Neither, of course, is it our job to weigh those costs and benefits but to apply the Amendment according to its terms and in light of its historical meaning. Besides, it is hardly the case that following the Fourth Amendment's teachings would leave the government as bereft of lawful alternatives as it seems to suppose. The Amendment and the common law from which it was constructed leave ample room for law enforcement to do its job. A warrant will always do. So will emergency circumstances. After-the-fact consent may suffice if freely given. And, of course, there's no need for consent when officers search only open fields rather than curtilage. Neither is there need for consent when officers enter curtilage for a non-investigative purpose. Our duty of fidelity to the law requires us to respect all these law enforcement tools. But it also requires us to respect the ancient rights of the people when law enforcement exceeds their limits. In this case the two arguments the government offers to justify its conduct can claim no basis in our constitutional tradition. Not one member of this panel endorses them. And, respectfully, I just do not see the case for struggling so mightily to save the government's cause with arguments of our own devise — especially when what arguments we are able to muster suffer so many problems of their own and the benefits of exposing them to at least a modest encounter with the adversarial process seem so obvious.

:GoTeam:

Also worth noting that G's writing style is extremely clear -- the reader is not left guessing why he thinks what he does. This is a major gripe of mine, too many judges harm the law by not giving clear instructions to practitioners and the people.

In dissent, G appear to attack the majority by exploring their holding until he reveal absurdities. Kinda like Scalia.

[TheReal_ND]

Who's Chuckles?

[Speaker to Animals]

Who's Chuckles?

The man with crocodile tears.

[Fife]

Pretty sure that's wacist.

[Speaker to Animals]