SCOTUS: And the winner is... Neil Gorsuch


anatess2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

My son has been telling me for months that Gorsuch was not the slam-dunk SC nomination I have made him out to be. Someone's feeling a bit shamefaced today.

Did you feel the same way about Scalia after the flag burning case? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Did you feel the same way about Scalia after the flag burning case? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

On the contrary, I agreed with Scalia on that case, as I assume every other thoughtful conservative did and does. Amazing that the despicable Blackmun, Proponent #1 for legislating from the bench, also concurred. Though in his case, it was probably because he approved of flag burning and so therefore thought it should remain legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Vort said:

On the contrary, I agreed with Scalia on that case, as I assume every other thoughtful conservative did and does. Amazing that the despicable Blackmun, Proponent #1 for legislating from the bench, also concurred. Though in his case, it was probably because he approved of flag burning and so therefore thought it should remain legal.

Fascinating. How we feel about supreme court justices reminds me of how we feel about our favorite football team. We love them, until they lose. Than we never liked them and were always suspicious of them. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Fascinating. How we feel about supreme court justices reminds me of how we feel about our favorite football team. We love them, until they lose. Than we never liked them and were always suspicious of them. 

I've always loved UGA, always will probably, even if they lose all their games.

On the otherhand, with the Universities in Florida I am completely fairweather.  If it's not against Georgia and they are winning, I'm a fan...especially if it's against those who are not SEC.  ON the otherhand, when they lose...they deserve it.

:monkey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Vort said:

On the contrary, I agreed with Scalia on that case, as I assume every other thoughtful conservative did and does. Amazing that the despicable Blackmun, Proponent #1 for legislating from the bench, also concurred. Though in his case, it was probably because he approved of flag burning and so therefore thought it should remain legal.

Spot on on "thoughtful conservatives".  This made me go hmmm a while back because I thought this was something I shared with conservatives - I'm against flag burning... it is illegal in the Philippines and I like that it is.  I had this idea that conservatives hold flags as unassailable even when it's the Democratic Party Confederate Flag.  I was surprised that the conservatives I know are vocal against disrespecting the US flag but will fight for your right to desecrate the thing!  I thought it was a fascinating position...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Fascinating. How we feel about supreme court justices reminds me of how we feel about our favorite football team. We love them, until they lose. Than we never liked them and were always suspicious of them. 

MG, I detect a distinct "heads I win, tails you lose" aspect to many of your posts. In this latest example, in reply to my voiced dismay at Gorsuch's decision—which, as the minority opinion explicitly pointed out, basically constituted legislating from the bench—you hold up Scalia's flag-burning opinion under the assumption that of course I will disagree with Scalia's decision in that case, too. Your point seems obviously to be that I reflexively disparage any anti-conservative opinion, regardless of its author. But when I shoot that example down by pointing out that I agreed with Scalia and the principles behind his stance against anti-flag-desecration laws, despite my own distaste for flag-burning, you instead spin it as, "Yeah, sure, we always love SC justices as long as they do in accordance with how we personally feel."

Ascribing your own beliefs or tactics to the "electoral mob" may provide insights into how the masses operate. But generalizing such beliefs or tactics onto any other individual actor (such as myself) is not justified as a general rule. I've pointed out numerous instances in the past where you have wrongly applied such judgment to something I wrote. Whatever your personal experiences and however you may operate, it is indeed possible for a person to hold principled opinions and engage in principled objections to things such as SC decisions. That is possible even with people who are not afraid to voice personal distaste for this or that attitude (or even SC justice). E.g. the fact that I may voice distaste for Sonia Sotomayor does not therefore mean that my judgments on her opinions are tainted or otherwise invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

MG, I detect a distinct "heads I win, tails you lose" aspect to many of your posts. In this latest example, in reply to my voiced dismay at Gorsuch's decision—which, as the minority opinion explicitly pointed out, basically constituted legislating from the bench—you hold up Scalia's flag-burning opinion under the assumption that of course I will disagree with Scalia's decision in that case, too. Your point seems obviously to be that I reflexively disparage any anti-conservative opinion, regardless of its author. But when I shoot that example down by pointing out that I agreed with Scalia and the principles behind his stance against anti-flag-desecration laws, despite my own distaste for flag-burning, you instead spin it as, "Yeah, sure, we always love SC justices as long as they do in accordance with how we personally feel."

Ascribing your own beliefs or tactics to the "electoral mob" may provide insights into how the masses operate. But generalizing such beliefs or tactics onto any other individual actor (such as myself) is not justified as a general rule. I've pointed out numerous instances in the past where you have wrongly applied such judgment to something I wrote. Whatever your personal experiences and however you may operate, it is indeed possible for a person to hold principled opinions and engage in principled objections to things such as SC decisions. That is possible even with people who are not afraid to voice personal distaste for this or that attitude (or even SC justice). E.g. the fact that I may voice distaste for Sonia Sotomayor does not therefore mean that my judgments on her opinions are tainted or otherwise invalid.

The tone of his posts has changed lately.  I wonder if everything is okay out there at the compound...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share