That thread title is from Neil Gorsuch's first dissent. What a powerhouse and what a pick for SCOTUS. It's like he is channeling Scalia. Clear writing unencumbered by jargon and legalese. I couldn't be happier with this pick for SCOTUS.



https://www.conservativereview...in-gorsuch-dissented


SCOTUS agreed to do Congress' job. Again. Gorsuch dissented

Less than two weeks after writing his first majority opinion for the highest court in the land, President Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, Neil Gorsuch, penned his first dissent.

The case was Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, which dealt with the process of appealing a federal census worker’s employment dispute.

The only other justice joining Gorsuch’s opinion was originalist powerhouse Clarence Thomas. The rest of the justices sided with the petitioner in the 7-2 decision, which reversed the finding of the D.C. Circuit court.

This particular case was not just a platform for Gorsuch’s first dissent; he heard oral arguments for it during his first day on the job and asked some of his first questions as a justice during the hearing.

The crux of Gorsuch’s dissent is this: The plaintiff is asking us to do Congress’ job, so no dice.

“Anthony Perry asks us to tweak a congressional statute—just a little—so that it might (he says) work a bit more efficiently,” it reads. “No doubt his invitation is well meaning. But it’s one we should decline all the same.”

“Not only is the business of enacting statutory fixes one that belongs to Congress and not this Court, but taking up Mr. Perry’s invitation also seems sure to spell trouble,” it continues, citing issues arising from previous judicial tinkering with the law. “Respectfully, I would decline Mr. Perry’s invitation and would instead just follow the words of the statute as written.”



We got some insight into Gorsuch’s thinking on the issue during those questions, as we reported back in April.

Gorsuch’s process of finding the original meaning of the law, as written – one of the more comical non-scandals surrounding his confirmation hearing – has indeed followed him onto his first day on the job, as evidenced by a one-line question he asked from the bench: “Wouldn’t it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?”

Also decided Friday were an immigration case and one dealing with property rights.


Link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...6pdf/16-399_5436.pdf

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BamaJeepster,

Separation of the three branches as designed by a constitution, what a concept. Three thumbs up Honorable Judge Gorsuch, this is the fresh air of freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by Alpine79830:
Separation of the three branches as designed by a constitution, what a concept. Three thumbs up Honorable Judge Gorsuch, this is the fresh air of freedom.

What I like is that it pretty much tells you how he would have ruled on Roberts' re-writing of Obamacare so it could pass constitutional muster. If he is at all consistent there is no way he would have gone along with that BS.

I liked this a lot, as you can see below.
All the better that he alone sided with Justice Thomas.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Alpine79830:
Separation of the three branches as designed by a constitution, what a concept. Three thumbs up Honorable Judge Gorsuch, this is the fresh air of freedom.

What I like is that it pretty much tells you how he would have ruled on Roberts' re-writing of Obamacare so it could pass constitutional muster. If he is at all consistent there is no way he would have gone along with that BS.

"If a 30-day suspension followed by termination becomes nonappealable to the MSPB when the Board credits a release signed by the employee, one may ask why a determination that the employee complained of such adverse actions (suspension and termination) too late, after a Board-set deadline, does not similarly render the complaint nonappealable."

I thinks the Honorable Judge used common sense.

Said it before and I'll say it again, the smartest and most appropriate way to vote on the court is always to determine how Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan are voting, and vote the opposite direction. With that approach you'd be right about 95% of the time.

That said, Judge Gorsuch exemplified himself as a terrific choice for the court with this dissent.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Said it before and I'll say it again, the smartest and most appropriate way to vote on the court is always to determine how Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan are voting, and vote the opposite direction. With that approach you'd be right about 95% of the time.

That said, Judge Gorsuch exemplified himself as a terrific choice for the court with this dissent.

The Honorable Judge Gorsuch, just took a huge bite out of the fucking "swamp" retaining wall.... no one?

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
I liked this a lot, as you can see below.
All the better that he alone sided with Justice Thomas.

I love that line. I also love this one:

quote:

If a statute needs repair, there's a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It's called legislation.

I think he would have been right with Justice Scalia in his dissent the Obamacare (Sebelius) case:

quote:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subjectto a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching.

Gorsuch joined Thomas in dissent in the Court's refusal to hear Peruta:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...s/062617zor_8759.pdf

Another excellent sign that Gorsuch is the real deal.

quote:

IS NEIL GORSUCH THE NEXT JUSTICE THOMAS?
The Associated Press gives us good news about Justice Neil Gorsuch’s tenure on the Supreme Court so far, but can’t resist smearing Justice Clarence Thomas along the way. First the good news:

To see where Justice Neil Gorsuch might fit on the Supreme Court, watch the company he keeps.

Gorsuch has already paired up four times with Justice Clarence Thomas — the court’s most conservative member — in separate opinions that dissent from or take issue with the court’s majority rulings.

While the sample size is small, the results show Gorsuch’s commitment to follow the strict text of the law and a willingness to join Thomas in pushing the envelope further than the court’s other conservatives.
***
The early trend of Gorsuch and Thomas acting together has pleased those who hoped Gorsuch would continue Scalia’s legacy and be another intellectual beacon for conservatives.

That’s great. Let’s hope the trend continues. Now the smear:

Thomas, appointed to the court in 1991, takes pride in his many dissents — often alone — insisting that the justices follow the original meaning of the Constitution even when that means overturning established case law. His absolutist stance has earned praise from conservative supporters. But critics point out that he rarely writes major opinions for the court because his views rarely align with the majority.

The AP’s claim–presented as a statement of fact–that Justice Thomas’s “views rarely align with the majority” is ridiculous. Most Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously, so that assertion would be false as to any justice. In the 2016 term, Thomas voted with the majority in 51 out of 64 cases.

Link with more good stuff

quote:

If a statute needs repair, there's a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. It's called legislation.

All that rebuke needs is to add "You stupid sumsabitches."