Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Gorsuch Team: Comments about attacks on judiciary were not specific to Trump Immigration EO

Gorsuch Team: Comments about attacks on judiciary were not specific to Trump Immigration EO

Just as I expected, “he could not comment on any specific cases”

The buzz overnight is that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch criticized President Trump for attacking the Judge who granted the TRO against the Immigration Executive Order, and also the 9th Circuit.

Both Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal and Republican Ben Sasse said the terms “disheartening” and “demoralizing” were used.

That a nominee (or a Supreme Court Justice) would comment on a case that may come before him in the future struck me as both surprising and unwise.

Trump tweeted that Blumenthal was misrepresenting the nature of Gorsuch’s comments:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829660612452036608

Blumenthal portrayed the comments as specific to Trump and the 9th Circuit, while Sasse applied a more general preservation of judicial independence:

My first instinct was that Gorsuch must have been referring to attacks on the judiciary in general, not on Trump’s comments about the pending 9th Circuit case.

Gorsuch’s team, led by Senator Kelly Ayotte, just confirmed what I suspected. The comments were taken out of context to the extent portrayed as a specific criticism of Trump’s comments on the Immigration EO.

Here is the statement:

Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear in all of his discussions with senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on any specific cases and that judicial ethics prevent him from commenting on political matters. He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, and while he made clear that he was not referring to any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

A question I’ve always voiced was not just WOULD T-rump appoint a real conservative, but would he support him.

Still an open question…

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318565-could-court-pick-gorsuch-be-a-crypto-liberal-conservatives

    casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 10:53 am

    I think that opinion was written more to draw attention for book sales than to make a salient point.

    There is nothing liberal about an opinion to NOT rewrite law and stating that following good jurisprudence sometimes (often?) leads to undesirable rulings from a personal or ideological perspective. Sounds very Scalia-like and not at all like what you’d expect from Ginsberg, or Sotamayor, or……..

    maxmillion in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 10:55 am

    Only to someone who has quadrupled down on being a ‘tard.

    PrincetonAl in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 11:02 am

    C’mon Rags

    This is standard Progressive split the enemy stuff. If the Progs thought he was an actual closet liberal they would hide it not write an article about it.

    See Blumenthal ‘s comments for an example

      Ragspierre in reply to PrincetonAl. | February 9, 2017 at 11:21 am

      The question is more about whether Donelle T-wamp, thin-skinned pre-pubescent mean girl, will support Gorsuch now that Gorsuch has appeared to cross him.

      Which, BTW, Donelle denies ever happened.

        CloseTheFed in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 6:04 pm

        To Rags:
        There was video on Fox about 2 hours ago, where POTUS was meeting with Senators discussing support for Gorsuch. Asking for their support, and also noting that Dem friends of his said they thought he was a stellar nominee but would not vote for him because of Politics. POTUS made the observation that allowing politics to get in the way of the vote was dishonest.

        Yes, he’s supporting his nominee.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 11:56 am

    So long as Trump supports him until he’s on the bench, I don’t care whether he continues to support him. Reading the article you linked, though, I came across this line:

    Judge Gorsuch’s opinion in this case was published six months ago. He does not sound very conservative in this dissent.

    which merely goes to show that Joel D. Joseph of The Hill has no idea what he’s writing about. The excerpt he presents from Gorsuch’s dissent is the very essence of judicial conservatism. Gorsuch explicitly wrote that since his colleagues believed the law to be a ass, they had no choice but to rule as they did, and had he agreed with their reading he would have joined them; the only reason he dissented was not because he disapproved of the law or because he sympathised with the victim, but only and solely because he happened to read the law differently, and concluded that in this case it just so happened not to be a ass. That is precisely the sort of judge we need.

Yup, top left of page 1 of today’s San Diego Union-Tribune, “Gorusch Dismayed by Trump’s Remarks — Supreme Court nominee calls president’s attack on federal judges ‘disheartening”, by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, who “writes for” the New York Times.

She did not even bother to quote Trump’s allegedly offending tweets in full. That, of course, is an immediate red flag that they have deliberately left out something important.

I had passed the article by completely, because I have learned that the New York Times does not report the news, it only sells opinion columns that conform to its pre-arranged narrative.

I consider the headline to be a dog whistle from the NYT that Gorusch is acceptable to the Democratic Party at the national level, regardless of how they vote. The “Resist We Trump” crowd will see the headline and be comforted that this pick is ok.

he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing

If this is accurate, then it’s a load of nothing. He probably finds bad weather disheartening and demoralizing, too. Not exactly a major deal.

casualobserver | February 9, 2017 at 10:56 am

The new news. An opposition politician makes a political comment and it becomes a fact. No research needed. No request from the quoted source needed. Just run with it.

Fake news indeed. But the “media” in this case will simply hide behind the source, Blumenthal, while evading the obvious relinquishing of past journalistic standards (no longer).

    Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | February 9, 2017 at 11:23 am

    Yours is the Fake News.

    Gorsuch said what is reported he said. His own people have confirmed it.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 1:02 pm

      Who are “his own people”, and what have they confirmed? As Prof J points out, Senator Ayotte specifically denied it. So I don’t get your meaning.

      Extra points to Trump for reminding people of Blumenthal’s record.

It seems unprofessional to me for a United States Senator to disclose a private conversation to score political points. Put this is the modern democrat party.

These a-holes have to make public anything that might cause dissension in the Trump administration. Blumenthal-a con man-and Sasse–a hardcore NeverTrumper–had to make hay out of some vaguely neutral commentary on Trump’s tweets.

I have mentioned that all one has to do is sit back and watch the public face of the Progressive movement destroy itself. This is just another example.

The left is in a total panic. They have no idea that their world has changed and that a plurality of the people, if not the majority, are fed up with their antics which have negatively impacted the image of America worldwide and which is rapidly turning the USA into another 2nd or 3rd world country.

Oh FOR F89KS SAKE! You mean this is yet ANOTHER example of fake news?

F98k me but the media every day are proving they are nothing more than intellectual pigmies when it comes to telling the truth in regards to PDT! Awe f89k it…telling the truth FULL STOP!

Mailman

Blumenthal….a proven LIER!

This is my shocked face.

Actually…is it true that Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam???

    Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | February 9, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Yes. It is. It is also true he did serve in the USMC.

    And that doesn’t have spit to do with the fact that Gorsuch said what he did (and he was right), though it MIGHT be said to bear on Blumenthal’s interpretation of what Gorsuch said.

      mailman in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 12:20 pm

      Hahahahahaha…whats the fact he served with the USMC got to do with the price of fish? The guy LIED about serving in Vietnam…no doubt to further his own career in politics or something…hahahahhahahahaa….oh dear, you liberals are just too much fun HAHAHAHAHAH 🙂

      Spin little pygmy, SPIN!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

        Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | February 9, 2017 at 3:28 pm

        It has nothing to do with the price of fish, T-rump sucking moron.

        It did have something to do with telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.

        I know you hate that.

        Blumenthal, for all his faults (and they are many) served in uniform. Which is more than you or many other cowards here have done.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 1:07 pm

      Nobody takes issue with what Gorsuch actually said. The issue is only what Blumenthal falsely attributed to him.

    snopercod in reply to mailman. | February 9, 2017 at 11:41 am

    “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

    There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.

    The NY Times

      Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | February 9, 2017 at 11:52 am

      Blumenthal received several draft deferments during the Vietnam War before enlisting.[10] He served in United States Marine Corps Reserve units in Washington, D.C. and Connecticut from 1970 to 1976.[11][12] He attained the rank of sergeant and received an honorable discharge at the end of his enlistment.[13]

      As I said…

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | February 9, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    Yes. So did Tom Harkin.

“Judge Gorsuch has made it very clear in all of his discussions with senators, including Senator Blumenthal, that he could not comment on any specific cases and that judicial ethics prevent him from commenting on political matters. He has also emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, and while he made clear that he was not referring to any specific case, he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing.”

It could not be more clear. Gorsuch said what he said.

    This is what he said as reported by his assistant.

    But, the phrase quoted; “…he said that he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence disheartening and demoralizing…”; can be taken two ways. While it might mean that someone criticizing a judge’s integrity is itself disheartening, it could also mean that the judge’s actions generating criticism is what disheartens him. No one should be upset by justified criticism of their actions. However, among professionals it should be disheartening to see a fellow professional taking an action which would open him up to justified criticism.

    Robart not only issues a TRO when he had NO legal justification to do so, he made it applicable to the entire United States, not just his district, thereby backhanding several other federal judges who had issued opposing rulings to his. Such an action would certainly dishearten and demoralize me, if I were a sitting federal judge.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    That he said what he said is a truism. Everyone says what they say. But he didn’t say what Blumenthal said he said.

Several Democrats breaking with party on Gorsuch vote, White House says

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/8/wh-dem-senators-breaking-party-scotus-filibuster/

    Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | February 9, 2017 at 11:38 am

    Which is another deflection from the point.

    Gorsuch is very well thought-of. He appears to be a good, solid conservative.

I guess I am out to lunch but for the life of me I cannot figure out why judges are off limits to criticism. We go after the SCOTUS judges and decisions all of the time but when a lower court judge renders a stupid opinion, we or the prez are not supposed to comment? Now the crap Trump said about the judge being a Mexican was just plain stupid but criticizing an opinion is a valid effort. Also, taking anything from the lips of “GI Joe” Blumenthal is silly. The man is a serial liar about his prowess in combat in Vietnam. Is there anything lower than that?

    Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | February 9, 2017 at 11:45 am

    “I cannot figure out why judges are off limits to criticism”

    It’s good you can’t figure that out. It’s a damned lie.

    Nobody is immune from criticism in our republic. There are a few of us, who by virtue of who we are and/or the office we hold, may not express certain kinds of criticism regarding certain people.

    Ask Prof. Jacobson if lawyers are free to say bad things about judges. We are not. We have to be careful about what we say.

    It is also one thing to say, “I think the judge made a poor ruling, and here’s why”, and quite another to say, “This so-called judge”.

    See?

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2017 at 1:20 pm

      “This so-called judge” was wrong, because Robard is undoubtedly a judge. I would have written “this sorry excuse for a judge”.

      ” There are a few of us, who by virtue of who we are and/or the office we hold, may not are afraid to express certain kinds of criticism regarding certain people.”

      Certainly one would not express opinion when involved in a case before the court. Any other time it is just plain fear.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 9, 2017 at 3:25 pm

        You’re both a coward and a moron WRT legal ethics.

        At least…

          Sorry, but no one confuses me with a coward. You have no idea what you are talking about.

          Alan Dershowitz, for one, has expressed in very unflattering terms “criticism regarding certain people.”

          While I am not a lawyer, I have a reasonable understanding of legal ethics. I also understand why a lawyer is afraid to speak out, which is precisely what I said.

          You should lay off calling everyone a moron. We read what you write.

    1. I wish Trump didn’t tweet those criticisms.
    2. What is missing is Trump’s criticism of other judges in this that ruled in part against him. Given the nature of Robard’s decision it is not surprising.
    3. It’s nothing compared to the criticism of Robards we’ve seen here.
    4. While I generally agree with Gorsuch there are times when I think criticism is warranted, such as with ex-judge Radar.
    5. One thing that Gorsuch comments do: he does not have to recuse himself when hearing this case. Any argument that he does is also an argument that Ruth Bussey has to recuse herself. I don’t see that happening. ( They will try though. )
    6. As I said before H1B’s played a large part in the RTO.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-the-challenge-to-trumps-order-its-a-lot-about-money/article/2614169

So the TL;DR is:

Blumy lied
Gorsuch said what all judges say, that is the judiciary is supposed to be independent and honest, so *unfounded* criticism of such is harmful to their ability to do their job.

And in other news, since the Dems don’t have a fart in the wind’s chance of blocking him, they’re busy making flimsy excuses right and left. Particularly those Senate Dems who are facing a re-election attempt in a Trump-positive state.

Nope. Not buying it.
#DumpGorsuch now.
#DTS and #FTT apply to the Judiciary.
Specific and direct criticism is the first step.
Then implement
1. Election of all judges
2. Term limits (1 term) for all judges
3. Implement legal apparatus for recall of judges

Gorsuch is #SouterJunior

Just a thought, so SCOTUS judges shouldn’t call courts “renegade jurisdictions”?
http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/patently-unfair/

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | February 9, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    Lessee…

    Who WOULD find it totally in their province to make such a determination…???

    Hmmmm????

      I’m not saying he’s wrong. Especially since his eight compatriots probably agree.

      It does set a standard for criticizing judges though.

      Sadly today I heard that Rader is lobbying Trump to let him “make patents great again” by appointing him head of the PO. < shudder >
      Something that I think only he and Gene Quinn think is a good idea.

Here’s a theory based on nothing other than my own entertainment. Gorsuch says something that can be interpreted as critical to Trump. Trump waves it off, but already people are starting to jump about the “ditch Gorsuch” wagon. Over the next few days, tensions mount, and it starts to look like Trump might actually consider replacing Gorsuch. The Democrats, knowing Gorsuch is their best possible outcome, panic and start trying to get Gorsuch consented by loosening the restraints from Schumer on the party-line vote.

Of course, that would require a level of subtlety that I haven’t seen yet from Trump, but then again, subtlety seldom looks like what it is, which is the point.

Gorsuch was set up by blumenthal and showed his true colors.

He is weak and Trump should pull him.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend