Trump picks Colo. appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

Trump talked about rescinding Gorsuch’s nomination

For nearly eight months, President Trump has boasted that appointing Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court ranks high among his signature achievements.

But earlier this year, Trump talked about rescinding Gorsuch’s nomination, venting angrily to advisers after his Supreme Court pick was critical of the president’s escalating attacks on the federal judiciary in private meetings with legislators.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3c7ecfb4638_story.html?utm_term=.3f1e32d988b9

 

What I found more interesting was that Gorsuch was critical of Trump privately. I guess that may be the more effective way but its a shame he didn't make a public statement... if only to express support of a judiciary that should be protected by inappropriate political attacks...

 

hyp·o·crite
ˈhipəˌkrit/
noun

1. a person who indulges in hypocrisy.
   synonyms: pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, pietist, sanctimonious person, plaster saint; More
   

Grassley: Unlikely that Trump, McConnell would want to follow 'Biden Rule'
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...p-and-mcconnell-unlikely-to-follow-biden-rule

 

Whether they follow the rule or not won't really matter because we'd be talking about 2 years from now....and Republicans would LOVE to have a SCOTUS vacancy to motivate their base to get out and vote. Hell, they'd love a SCOTUS vacancy RIGHT NOW because it would do the same.

 

I still have no idea how Republicans managed to get away with this complete horsesh*t and not cause a bloody riot in the Capital.

Of course Democrats will continue being the idiots who let them get away with it and assume their opposition will act in good faith.

 

Got away with what?

 

Like how The Hill quotes the 'Biden Rule' without explanation, even insinuating that this was a practice observed in the past. And, as we recently saw, it is up to Senate to 'observe' it, not Trump. I'm sure Trump would nominate someone and the Congress should do hearings on it, just like they should have with Garland.

 

On the "unexpected alliance of Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch":

"One such unexpected line may be developing in the high court now: a civil libertarian alliance between Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first nominee, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2009.

"Gorsuch has yet to reach the two-year mark in his tenure, so the data here is limited, but these justices have already partnered repeatedly in defense of robust due process rights and skepticism of law enforcement overreach.

"Just last week, for example, Gorsuch issued a dissent with Sotomayor as the lone concurrence objecting to the court's refusal to hear a case concerning the right to a jury decision in determining restitution payments. This does not sound like a sexy issue, granted, but as Gorsuch notes, the 'effects of restitution orders … can be profound. Failure or inability to pay restitution can result in suspension of the right to vote, continued court supervision, or even re-incarceration.' Where the rest of the court accepted lower court arguments for a limited reading of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments' guarantee of jury trial, Gorsuch and Sotomayor push for a more robust interpretation, urging that restitution be determined not by a single official of the state but by a panel of ordinary citizens.

"The pair also teamed up to dissent to the court's rejection of another due process case in November, that time swinging for strict standards in the state's presentation of forensic evidence on Sixth Amendment grounds. If the Constitution secures defendants the right to confront their accusers, Gorsuch wrote, that right should extend to questioning the specific forensic analysts whose lab results are used to secure a conviction."​

https://theweek.com/articles/816202/unexpected-alliance-sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch