MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

Here’s what you need to know about SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch.

The Federalist SocietyThe Federalist SocietyPresident Donald Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is 49 years old and currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. He is a highly respected legal conservative whose credentials include a law degree from Harvard and a Supreme Court clerkship under Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

Gorsuch is perhaps best known for his sharp critique of the legal doctrine known as Chevron deference. Named after the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Chevron deference says that when the federal courts are confronted with an "ambiguous" statute, the default position is for federal judges to defer to the statutory interpretation favored by the executive branch agency charged with enforcing that statute. "Federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do," said Justice John Paul Stevens in his Chevron majority opinion. "While agencies are not directly accountable to the people, the Chief Executive is, and it is entirely appropriate for this political branch of the Government to make such policy choices." In other words, Chevron instructs the courts to tip the scales in favor of the executive branch in such cases.

But what about the judiciary's independent duty to act as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive," as James Madison once described the role of the courts? Doesn't Chevron deference amount to a judicial surrender in this core area of responsibility? Judge Gorsuch certainly thinks so. In his 2016 concurrence in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch blasted Chevron deference as a "judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty." According to Gorsuch, "under any conception of our separation of powers, I would have thought powerful and centralized authorities like today's administrative agencies would have warranted less deference from other branches, not more."

Gorsuch has also rejected pro-government deference in the Fourth Amendment context. For instance, in his 2016 dissent in United States v. Carloss, Gorsuch strongly objected to the majority's view that police officers had the "implied consent" to enter private property for a warrantless "knock and talk" on a homeowner's front porch even though the homeowner had placed multiple "No Trespassing" signs around the property and even on the front door. Under the government's flawed theory of the Fourth Amendment, Gorsuch complained, "a homeowner may post as many No Trespassing signs as she wishes. She might add a wall or a medieval-style moat, too. Maybe razor wire and battlements and mantraps besides. Even that isn't enough to revoke the state's right to enter." As Gorsuch dryly observed, "this line of reasoning seems to me difficult to reconcile with the Constitution of the founders' design."

Gorsuch demonstrated admirable and reassuring judgment in these cases. Not only did he cast a principled vote against overreaching law enforcement, he cast a principled vote against the overreaching executive branch. It's not difficult to imagine Gorsuch imposing the same severe judicial scrutiny against the misdeeds of the Trump administration.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, Gorsuch's judicial record is quiet. But in his 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, he did seemingly point in an anti-abortion direction, rejecting the case for legalizing assisted suicide on the grounds that "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and the taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." Gorsuch also rejected the "libertarian case for assisted suicide" because, he argued, "faithful adherence to libertarian theory" would also justify the legalization of "mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illegal drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)."

In that same book, Gorsuch also questioned whether the Supreme Court had any business protecting unenumerated constitutional rights—such as the right to privacy—under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which says that no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Citing the work of conservative legal scholar Robert Bork, Gorsuch argued that the Due Process Clause is stretched "beyond recognition" when it is held to be "the repository of other substantive rights not expressly enumerated in the text of the Constitution or its amendments."

Unfortunately, Gorsuch's book did not address the meaning of another, closely related constitutional provision: the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of what Gorsuch may think about substantive due process, the historical evidence clearly shows that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally understood to protect certain unenumerated rights. For example, according to Republican Congressman John Bingham of Ohio, the author of Section One of the 14th Amendment, among the "rights, privileges, and immunities" that the amendment secured against state infringement was "the right to work in an honest calling and contribute by your toil in some sort to the support of yourself, to the support of your fellowmen, and to be secure in the enjoyment of the fruits of your toil." In other words, interpreted according to its original meaning, the 14th Amendment does protect certain unenumerated rights, such as the right to economic liberty.

Given Judge Gorsuch's stated aversion to the judicial safeguarding of unenumerated rights via the Due Process Clause, it is essential to learn what he thinks about the judicial safeguarding of unenumerated rights via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. As Justice Clarence Thomas has rightfully observed, "the mere fact that the [Privileges or Immunities] Clause does not expressly list the rights it protects does not render it incapable of principled judicial application." The Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Gorsuch whether or not he agrees with Justice Thomas on this crucial matter of original meaning and constitutional law.

Now that President Trump has picked his nominee, the next move rests in the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will Senate Democrats seek to block Gorsuch's nomination, just as Senate Republicans recently blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland? Will the Republicans employ the so-called nuclear option and effectively end the filibuster for all Supreme Court nominees, just as the Democrats did in 2013 when they ended the filibuster for lower-court picks? Will the Gorsuch hearings be transformed into a referendum on the Trump administration itself?

One thing is certain: The battle over the future of the Supreme Court has just begun.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Hell FUCKING yeah! This guy is as good as it gets for libertarians.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Prepare for the inevitable.

    A filibuster is coming.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It was coming regardless

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Yep. Petulant children.

  • Aerozppln||

    Still fantastic.

    Think Trump actually listened to Judge Nap?

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    That's right. This was Judge Nap's choice, wasn't it?

  • Aerozppln||

    I didn't hear anything like that, I just assumed it after reading this breakdown.

  • ||

    Well, from some of my other reading, apparently, Gorsuch served alongside Troomp's sister, and her opinion of his rationale jurisprudence is rather high, and Troomp has demonstrated his willingness to defer to familial advice.

    I'm OK with this, as SCOTUS was my Single Issue for the election, bar none. Consider this my success in IFH's little survey of, "success," and, "FAILure," for Troomp.

    However, sloop et all, do keep in mind that Judge Nap also testified to the umimpeachable credentials of Loretta Lynch, and she turned out to be not so good.

    I look forward to the confirmation hearings.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    It's Hardiman that served alongside Trump's sister in Pennsylvania, not Gorsuch. He is unrelated or connected to anybody in the Trump family.

  • ||

    It's Hardiman that served alongside Trump's sister in Pennsylvania

    Ah! It is so! Sorry, I misread the blurb that Bing vomited forth. Apologies! You are correct, TZP!

    Still, I'll take Gorsuch by a country mile, so far. He ain't JRB, but Troomp certainly could have done worse.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Gorsuch, in some ways, is better than JRB for the Scalia replacement when you consider that he's only 49 and will therefore be able to serve on the conservative half for many decades. JRB, IMO, would be a great choice to replace one of the potentially retiring liberal justices, such as Breyer or Ginsburg. We will see if she's ever considered for a spot, I really hope so.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    JRB would be a great pick on her own merits, but the whailing and gnashing of teeth by those who would call her an Uncle Tom (Aunt Jemima?) would be enormous.

  • Dan S.||

    Gorsuch certainly sounds a lot better than Hardiman would have been. Maybe even better than Garland.

  • Karl Hungus||

  • ||

    Please, Tino, tell me less.-)

  • GILMORE™||

    A filibuster is coming.

    it will be purely for show. there are nearly a dozen Dems up for re-election in red-states.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So? It's not like the Republicans are going to go easy on Joe Manchin if he votes for cloture. He'd be demoralizing his base for nothing in return.

  • GILMORE™||

    are you holding out for a *more* libertarian SC pick?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    No, I just don't buy the idea that Dem senators in states that went to Trump are going to start voting with the Republicans.

  • GILMORE™||

    whatever. they go to the mat over this one, the GOP goes nuclear option, pushes it through anyway, and they lose the one tool they could use to defend the court from a later major ideological imbalance, plus get slaughtered even worse in their upcoming elections for sheer incompetence.

    if they concede 5-4, they can at least have a leg to stand to defend the court from going 6-3. but don't take my word for it, read the DNC new source yourself =

    Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats are weighing whether to avoid an all-out war to block President Donald Trump's upcoming Supreme Court pick, instead considering delaying that battle for a future nomination that could shift the ideological balance of the court, sources say. ...a number of Democrats are trying to persuade liberal firebrands to essentially let Republicans confirm Trump's pick after a vigorous confirmation process -- since Trump is likely to name a conservative to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Gillespie on twitter: if Gorsuch is talking deference to legislators, he's no friend to freedom.

    That didn't take long to go after a strict originalist.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Unless he is as 'libertarian' as Gary Johnson or Bernie Sanders, don't expect Reason to be on board. Other than one or two of them anyway.

  • rudehost||

    As libertarian as Bernie Sanders? That is a bit like saying "as anorexic as John Goodman"

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Yes.

  • Anomalous||

    Have you seen Goodman lately? He lost a ton of weight.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Gillespie is only slightly more "libertarian" than Bernie Sanders.

  • ThomasD||

    " if Gorsuch is talking deference to legislators, he's no friend to freedom."

    Which is really fucking ironic coming from a guy who equates permission with freedom.

  • Juice||

    Hmm. Never heard of him, but looking at some of his positions gives me pause for concern. He's ruled against assisted suicide, which would not be a libertarian position. Looks like he's for the death penalty, so that's not usually a libertarian position. But you may be right. He may be the best we can hope for if the rest of his positions line up.

    I can't find a succinct rundown though, only long dispositions about his history so I'm having trouble determining whether I should like him or not, but from the few bits I've seen it warrants a solid meh.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Is he "for the death penalty" or does he recognize that the death penalty is constitutional?

  • Ted S.||

    One can reasonably argue that the death penalty falls afoul of the "cruel and unusual punishments" portion of the 8A. (The amendment can be read to require both cruelty and unusualness to make something unconstitutional, or either.)

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    It was neither cruel or unusual when the 8th was written. Upholding it as a matter of principle even if he personally opposed it would be a good thing to see here.

  • Viking1865||

    >One can reasonably argue that the death penalty falls afoul of the "cruel and unusual punishments" portion of the 8A.

    It would be extremely hard to argue that, considering the text of the 5th Amendment.

    The death penalty is not unconstitutional.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    This. When the Fifth Amendment expressly provides that no person may "be deprived of life...without due process of law," it's pretty fucking ridiculous to turn around and say that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment's injunction against cruel and unusual punishments.

    The best arguments against the death penalty are that (a) it fails spectacularly as a general deterrent and (b) the state has demonstrated itself catastrophically incompetent, both morally and procedurally, to administer it.

  • plusafdotcom||

    >without due process...

    Hmmmm... that might be an interesting thing to argue in favor of abortion...
    All you need is a 'due process' to follow...

    ... just noodlin' here...

  • ||

    This will make no difference.

  • buddhastalin||

    Why is he as good as it gets for libertarians? There are a few pretty libertarian state supreme court justices out there that could have been nominated.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Because he's pretty damn originalist. And we all know Trump could have easily nominated a serious SoCon.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    He doesn't sound very libertarian.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Though I suppose this is the best we could have hoped for.

  • sasob||

    No, he doesn't. But that's because there isn't much that is libertarian about originalism. This guy is no friend of individuals' rights and liberties. If he was, he probably would not have gotten as far as he has.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    Yup, BOR isn't libertarian. Ignoring the constitution and letting judges rewrite the constitution is libertarian.

  • sasob||

    The Bill of Rights was not included in the original constitution, and even after it was added not all founding fathers were in favor of including it for various reasons. Also, it did not go far enough in explicitly adding the principles set forth by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence ( there's your true libertarian document.)

    If you are laboring under the notion that the founders were all libertarians, you might want to peruse something called the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the wonderful Federalists under the second president, John Adams', administration..

    As for letting judges or anyone else rewrite the constitution - that is neither libertarian nor un- libertarian. Rather it is either constitutional or un-constitutional.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    He's libertarian in the actual sense, not the bullshit proggy sense you are.

  • ThomasD||

    He doesn't sound very libertarian.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  • ||

    So my prediction of law and order Republican wasn't accurate? Well, I guess that's at least some good news.

  • ||

    Willet was the best on his short list by far from a libertarian perspective. He was the only one who believes in substantive due process and has hinted at returning to the Lochner era as far as I can tell. That said Gorsuch was certainly one of the best of the rest.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Gorsuch also rejected the "libertarian case for assisted suicide" because, he argued, "faithful adherence to libertarian theory" would also justify the legalization of "mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illegal drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)."

    Yeah? What's the problem.

  • sasob||

    The "problem" is that, per long-accepted agreement of all those who count - that is to say, anyone but yourself - your ass belongs either to everyone else ( or their representatives) or to one or another deity. Or to both.

    No, it isn't very libertarian - but neither were the founding fathers, originalists, or the judge.

    Also, fork Robert Bork.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The problem is that life is an inalienable right. You cannot give up your life to someone else, just aas you cannot enslave youtrself in a legally binding fashion.

  • Jickerson||

    The problem is that life is an inalienable right.

    As is controlling your own body and deciding what others can do to your body.

    You cannot give up your life to someone else, just aas you cannot enslave youtrself in a legally binding fashion.

    Why not? Because big daddy government says so?

  • ace_m82||

    So you sing a contract enslaving yourself to someone.

    Then you decide, "heck with it, I'm leaving."

    What is the proper punishment for this contract violation? Presumably, you signed the contract for money, so the money would be forfeit, but other than that, can you indeed totally enslave yourself (1700s style)?

    *This is not rhetorical, I'm not sure what the answer is.

  • kbolino||

    Liberty is also an inalienable right and yet we recognize the obligation of contracts. It is true that you cannot sell yourself into slavery, but it took an explicit amendment to the Constitution to make it so.

  • ThomasD||

    The DoI is an Eighteenth century liberal document. It may allow for libertarian principles and practices, but it could never credibly be argued to be a libertarian document since the document predates even the first use of the term, much less it's formalization.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You said that in public?

  • esteve7||

    I love it, not only the best we libertarians could hope for, I love that Trump said "approved unanimously! Does that happen anymore?" ---- Shot across the bow

    Seriously Reason, could you imagine what this would look like with a Hillary president. At least now we have our 1st and 2nd amendments for a little while longer. You are kidding yourself if you think there's no difference between Trump and Hillary

  • SIV||

    Matt Welch thinks Trump is worse.

  • Aerozppln||

    It is better to have loved and lost then to never have been invited to cocktail parties at all.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Trump is a random number generator. Sometimes he won't do the worst possible thing as his choice of Gorsuch proves. That doesn't mean that his next move won't be even more insane than his "not a ban" ban on immigrants from Muslim majority countries whose refugees have never committed a terrorist act that resulted in a dead American.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Hillary, on the other hand, could always be counted on to do the worst possible thing.

  • WTF||

    Although "refugees" from those countries have caused plenty of dead Europeans. So why repeat the mistakes of France and Germany?

  • John Galt II||

    Matt Welch thinks Trump is worse.

    That's not true. And debating which is worse, between two absolute losers, is for the shrinking minority of goobers in America.

  • Suellington||

    Yup, while he is no libertarian, this guy will make a good justice. It is indeed the best libertarians could hope for and miles better than anyone the Hilldog would've nominated.

  • ThomasD||

    In an alternate universe there is a Reason article explaining why Hilary's pick is the best that libertarians could have hoped for from her.

  • ||

    "Seriously Reason, could you imagine what this would look like with a Hillary president"

    I can. It would be the fugliest most angry bull dyke that you've ever imagined in your worst nightmare.

  • Just Say'n||

    Kagan is already on the court

  • Just Say'n||

    That was mean. I actually think Kagan is brighter than many of her peers, even if I disagree

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    IIRC, Scalia was taking her shooting/hunting before he died; I think he was trying to change her mind on the 2A. She reportedly enjoyed it. Hard to tell if it took though, since the SC hasn't taken any 2A cases since she was appointed.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Yeah. She enjoyed it so much she probably tipped off the assassin who murdered him.

  • Viking1865||

    She was IMO the final death knell of the Court as anything other than a superlegislature. Sitting someone who's last job was being the house lawyer for the President, who then did not recuse herself when considering a law she helped to write, well that just proves to everyone the Court is nothing more than a very small House of Lords at this point.

  • ThomasD||

    Obama promised us transparency, and transparency you received.

  • kbolino||

    Elana Kagan is a piker next to Earl Warren. She can't herald an event that happened before she was even born.

  • ||

    The one I'm talking about would probably eat Kagan and stew her bones for porridge in a big cauldron.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    ROFLMAO!! It's hilarious because it's true. She would have made Janet Reno look like Kate Upton.

  • King's Ransom||

    She would have found the most liberty hating protectionist in the land without a doubt and sold her to the masses as their SJW savior.

    *shudders - thanks supreme being if there is one and its not busy destroying another universe because its bored*

  • flye||

    Excellent pick.

    *thinks about who President Hillary would have nominated*
    *shudders*

  • flye||

    Although was still hoping for the surprise twist of John Cena.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Shoulda nominated Curiel.

  • Aerozppln||

    Elizabeth Warren should give a surprising "yay" vote, rip off her blouse, and reveal an nWo t-shirt

  • ||

    Which one, the nWo A-Team, B-Team, or WolfPac? Don't forget, at one time, everyone and their dog was in the nWo.

    And you lose points for the Mae Young teats debacle...

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    ugh, Trumpkins

  • ||

    Professional Wrestling enjoyment was/is my one low down, dirty, TRAKTOR PULLZZ!, shameful, guilty pleasure. Sue me.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    I don't judge. I'm actual former trailer trash. Once trailer trash, always trailer trash.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I was trailer trash for a while, but got kicked out.

  • commodious rebrands||

    Professional wrestling? Isn't it a rap group?

  • CZmacure||

    It's why you voted for the only candidate to have featured in storylines on the WWE... admit it.

  • ||

    I voted "NOTA" for President. Absentee.

  • Aerozppln||

    B-Team.

    Only black transexual herbivores are allowed in the A-Team narrative.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    Even better, an nWo Wolfpack tshirt.

  • Leo||

    Never say "Elizabeth Warren should rip off her blouse" ever again.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Showing weakness just enrages them. Back away slowly, and don't click anything.

    Like... ever.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Unless you add "with a woodchipper".

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Why not? She might have lovely aureoles.

  • ||

    Brown, from her indian heritage?

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    +1 Titty pink with brown nipple trimming.

  • 68W58||

    Gorsuch is going to make mincemeat of the Dem senators at his confirmation hearing. If the Pubbies can find enough spine to push him through this is a home run.

  • Slammer||

    Trump was on time.

  • 68W58||

    I know right! Whoever heard of such a thing?

  • ||

    Not Soave, that's for sure.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    ZING!

  • Slammer||

    Trump has plenty of links of his own

  • C. Anacreon||

    Several of them missing, at least in his genealogy

  • Johnniest Doe||

    Libertarians would bring back duels? There's a GJ/Weld campaign joke in there.

  • sloopyinTEXAS||

    I hope duels are brought back. Then that stupid fucker that's been trolling me can come down to Houston so I can give him what for.

  • The Grinch||

    The trolls have no honor so if it comes to that make sure you don't turn your back on 'em.

  • Suellington||

    I have long been a staunch proponent of bringing back duels. They could involve firearms or less lethal means depending on the grievance.

  • John Titor||

    Swords, first blood, European general code duello rules.

  • Animal||

    Flamethrowers at ten paces. Anything else is for pussies.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Cheese graters.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm your huckleberry

  • King's Ransom||

    Only if pistols remain the approved weapon of choice, I cant sword fight for shit.

  • John Titor||

    Um, yeah? That's legitimately one of the reasons I'm a libertarian. Dueling to me is like cock fighting to SIV.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    You rape the loser?

  • The Fusionist||

    "Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal group, said Judge Gorsuch's stance on federal regulation was "extremely problematic" and "even more radical than Scalia.""

    Yes, please.

  • The Fusionist||

    ""Not requiring courts to defer to agency expertise when an act of Congress is ambiguous," she said, "will make it much harder for federal agencies to effectively address a wide variety of critical matters, including labor rights, consumer and financial protections, and environmental law.""

    Let's start playing the world's smallest violin...

  • jack sprat||

    I have a couple right here, yessir.

  • Rhywun||

    agency expertise

    *plotz*

  • Juice||

    That's what federal agencies do. They "address issues."

  • buddhastalin||

    Yes, Nan, that's the point.

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for JusticeGovernment Slavery , a liberal group of craven cowards...

    Just had to fix that.

    What a fucking disgrace. Actually lining up to be told what to do by someone the voted for.

  • American sociaIist||

    YEE-HAWW! You go Hobby Lobby. If you like your abortions, you probably won't be able to keep them.

  • kbolino||

    If your abortion doesn't keep, you're doing it wrong.

  • King's Ransom||

    It makes for a string of awkward Bday celebrations...just ask AMSOC

  • JeremyR||

    Why do lefties not seem to understand that this pick is replacing Scalia?

    Abortion won't be affected

  • Homple||

    For the Left, Constitution = Abortion, and that's it.

  • ThomasD||

    The people in charge understand that reality, but the also know abortion is one of their most effective rallying cries.

  • buddhastalin||

    You can keep them if you pay for them your damn self.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    YUUUP!

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    If you like your abortions, you probably won't be able to keep them.

    What if I liked your abortion, hmm?

  • ThomasD||

    Damned arrow of time.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    So, predictions on how the SJWs are going to freak out about this?

    I'll start us off:

    Straight white male. Not enough diversity.

  • The Fusionist||

    Everything Trump-related causes such a major freakout, this will be no different, especially since this time they're being threatened in most of the principles they hold dear...

  • BigT||

    "principles they hold dear"

    Haha! Funny man!

  • flye||

    HE'LL TAKE AWAY (our right to have nuns pay for) OUR CONTRACEPTIVES! (when they are our employer and we opt of employer-provided health insurance)

  • AlmightyJB||

    Wave your coat hanger in the air like you don't care

  • Rhywun||

    LOL

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    It won't be abortion, because no one cares about that issue.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    That one I figured was far too obvious. You know he'll get asked about it, and if he tells them he has no intention on overturning Roe v. Wade, they're going to screech about something else.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    They will screech about it no matter what. It is the only issue that matters.

  • Rhywun||

    That + birth control, presumably "free" birth control.

  • Paloma||

    Oh, and taxes on tampons! Don't forget!

  • Zero Sum Game||

    They've called every other Trump nominee a liar about something.

  • Arcxjo||

    How's this for diversity and a Court that "looks like America"?: he'd be the first Protestant on the Court since Sandra Day O'Connor.

  • The Fusionist||

    I'll forgive him so long as he sticks with the Constitution.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    ^ This. Don't care about the nominee's religion, race, sex, class, etc. Simple question: will he/she adhere to the Constitution?

  • titmus||

    He's a he/she? Damn, that'll really confuse the progs.

  • ||

    Is Catholic Lite really Protestant enough?

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    John Paul Stevens is Protestant and retired from the Court in 2010. O'Connor retired in 2006.

  • Just Say'n||

    New Chant

    "Justice Goersch is a joke,
    we want judges who are 'woke'"

  • The Fusionist||

    "LOVE TRUMPS HATE!"

    (smashes window)

  • ant1sthenes||

    Love Trump's hate! (smashes Trump supporter's face)

  • cavalier973||

    LOVE TRUMPS HATE!

    *sets Chicago-style pie on fire*

  • Doug Heffernan||

    Damn, there go my plans for starting a dueling business! Are private duels still okay?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    What's the first rule of fight club?

  • The Fusionist||

    Don't let Laertes dip his sword in poison?

  • ||

    This euphemism should be in iambic pentametre.

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    ^I kinda want that quote on a shirt, GM

  • Vaelyn||

    Could you design a smartphone app that allows you to duel other people with the app, keeping track of "hits" digitally? You could have 18th-century "flintlock pistol" mode and 19th-century "gunslinger" modes...

  • The Fusionist||

    Didn't Star Trek do an episode about this?

  • WTF||

    Yes, but it came to a screeching halt when Kirk threatened to blow up their shit for real.

  • King's Ransom||

    Photon Torpedo Diplomacy....a lost art

  • Not a True MJG||

    Good luck, and fuck off, slaver.

  • ||

    "Gorsuch yourself." Yep. This guy will do.

  • Not a True MJG||

    You've just won yourself a basket of Oscars.

  • JayU||

    Does he also get the vibrators that go along with them?

  • Animal||

    I thought an Oscar was a vibrator.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    But can he get a travel visa to collect it?

  • Bra Ket||

    "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and the taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."

    I guess as opposed to the taking of human life by govt agents?

  • Juice||

    Yeah, what a weird little modifier there.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    Yep, that is a big NO to the privatization of the execution industry, even in otherwise private prisons.

  • American sociaIist||

    ? Like your doctor?

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    What about self-defense?

  • Not a True MJG||

    Leaving himself an out for the death penalty.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Well, you know, Top. Men.

  • chemjeff||

    Yup. Or death by cop.

  • King's Ransom||

    Cops are public persons so that's ok, same for VA doctors

  • LibertarianJRT||

    Private persons killing is bad. Public persons killing is... Why do I assume he would say something like "necessarily indeterminate without further individual evidentiary support."

  • buddhastalin||

    Government needs an out for war casualties and the death penalty.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Kudos to President Trump for nominating the first Klingon to the Supreme Court. Because it should't be held against the House of Gorsuch that their patriarch once opposed James T. Kirk

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • The Fusionist||

    This is the best Klingon war song ever.

  • Lowen||

    Are you thinking about the words you write? Just curious, because they not only make no sense but they push a envelope that I'm not sure you could open.

  • The Fusionist||

    What is best in life? To defeat the progs, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their sexually-ambiguous partners.

  • cavalier973||

  • Libertarian||

    You mean Argentina? Isn't that where H*tler went after the war?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Shut up, Alice. No one likes you

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    I'm sorry mama, I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry, but tonight, I'm cleaning out my closet.

  • ||

    Scalia's Ghost.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

  • Libertarian||

    If you meant the whole party, why did you post a video of just James Carville?

  • Animal||

  • qjkxbmwvz||

    "...faithful adherence to libertarian theory" would also justify the legalization of "mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illegal drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)."

    I see no problem with this. Fucking prog.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    How much for your spleen?

  • qjkxbmwvz||

    I'm not currently selling, but my price stands at one orphan, with proof of virginity.

  • ||

    It's impossible to determine virginity in a male, and for the factory original females, one does run the risk of encountering an incomplete or even non-existent hymen.

    The only surefire proof is to birth them yourself and never let them out of your sight.

    And sell your kidney, assuming you have more than one; though you can live without a spleen, it's not as easy and convenient as you might think.

    Always opt for the redundant organs when possible.

  • qjkxbmwvz||

    How am I supposed to birth my own orphans? They would just be little bastards in that case.

  • ||

    How am I supposed to birth my own orphans? They would just be little bastards in that case.

    Which is paramount, orphan or guaranteed virgins?

    As always, David Cronenberg solves all conundrums: google, "The Brood."

    Otherwise, within The Peacock Family, your future lies...

  • ||

    Wait a minute. Everyone hasn't figured out how to grow orphans in the hydroponic orphan pods yet?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Yeah. Where's the down side?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Chevron is contrary to the plain language of the judicial review provision of the APA (blanking on what section that is at the moment) and should be abolished.

    Gorsuch's stance on the Fourth Amendment sounds encouraging, but I'm not holding my breath on the return of the trespass doctrine.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    5 USC 706

  • Juice||

    Gorsuch also rejected the "libertarian case for assisted suicide" because, he argued, "faithful adherence to libertarian theory" would also justify the legalization of "mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illegal drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)."

    And?

  • qjkxbmwvz||

    It's a problem if they can't tax it.

  • King's Ransom||

    Taxing duels would be easy, as would be drugs, whores and organ auctions--mass suicides would be tough but they are such a public service that we could just let it slide. There would be a necessary screening however to ensure no hot chicks drank the koolaid.

  • ReformRealist||

    Muh conservative moral values...

  • Lurk Diggler||

    I'm just surprised he actually figured out that's the libertarian position by consequence. Usually they just say libertarians did the calculus wrong and the BAP requires welfare or something.

  • JayU||

    Sounds pretty good to me.

    A Supreme Court Justice who believes in the Constitution and the separation of powers.

    It's a sad turn of events that this is the bar. Where is James Cameron when you need him?

  • Juice||

    He also doesn't seem to believe in self-ownership and that's a problem.

  • Paloma||

    Not only that, he seems to think that non self ownership is somehow self evident.

  • The Fusionist||

  • one true athena||

    Good for her. Hopefully she gave him good advice for handling hostile media and crazy progs.

  • ||

    Is Reason headed for civil war over Trump? I gotta say, I'm starting to really dig the collective trauma Trump is giving the entire establishment and progressive left. That in my book is a GOOD thing.

    I understand Reason's hesitancy but this hyper-rational Spock like covering of Trump is failing to miss the bigger picture of what this guy can potentially accomplish - and some of it good for libertarians; or at the very least a slow down of the progressive agenda.

    Also, when are they planning to assign someone to the story surrounding Ken's mother? Reason does nothing but cover police abuse and their silence on this is not only perplexing but starting to piss me off.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    If there's a civil war in Reason about Trump, it's the writers vs. the commentariat. To me, despite some hiccups and disagreements with him, he's done a lot of things just in the first week and have made several cabinet appointments that at the very least should intrigue libertarians.

  • DenverJ||

    Thought it was sloopy in Texas? Or is name ITRW Ken? Not being snarky, really don't know.

  • ||

    SloopyInTEXAS and Banjos (nee, "Banjos Kick Ass!") are the real life Ken and Kara Spicer (no relation to Sean Spicer, current WH Press Sec).

    Yes, Sloopy's mother has taken a back seat to NON-STOP TROOMP COVERAGE!

  • The Grinch||

    They should, a I've seen them raise hell over cases that were much more ambiguous.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    this hyper-rational Spock like covering of Trump

    See, if it were hyper-rational, I don't think the commentariat would have any issue. The problem is that they sink into the prog virtue signalling and histrionics, and end up blurring together the good, the bad, and the terrible that Trump is doing.

    If Reason had written an article on Trump's immigration EO saying that there are some really concerning parts (handling green cards), some iffy parts (the refugee ban), and some potentially good parts (90 days only, limited to a certain list of hotbed nations, etc.), I think people would take it more seriously. Instead we get 25 articles about how Trump is literally Hitler, or at least 10x worse than Obama.

    Hyper-rational is the way to go on Trump until he builds enough of a catalog of actions for us to base some assumptions on.

  • ||

    Good point. I used Nick's '0 people have been killed by refugees' angle to sell their arguments and took it as being hyper-rational. Yes, technically and statistically we get it but there's room for nuance on this issue.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    How many Europeans were?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Hyperrationalizing, maybe. Given that there were definitely attacks that were intended to produce numerous fatalities, it comes across as either missing the point or being manipulative. There are some writers that are pretty good at being fair-minded and honest (Scott leaps to mind), but plenty are just as bad as anyone else in politics. I feel like they'd be better off getting a pro and anti libertarian on more divisive issues, and force them to argue until they can coauthor a consensus article.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    I think they need somebody who can recognize and address open issues in libertarianism, including abortion and open borders.

    When you shift your rhetoric (as a Reason writer) from "everybody reading this agrees on open borders" to "I'd better explain why open borders are libertarian before I call Trump literally Hitler," you get better articles and better discussion in the comments.

  • ThomasD||

    Hyperrationalizing at best.

    More like pure sophistry.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    Unless you were arguing with borderline retards I don't think sophistry about narrow classifications of Muslim immigrants is going to convince anyone importing Islamic immigrants from hotbeds of terror like Europe is a good idea. Nor is it rational.

  • GSL in E||

    This. Crediting Trump when he does something good + criticizing him when he does something bad = credibility

  • ||

    I don't think the writers hate Trump for the wrong reasons. They just seem to go about how horrible it is as if there was a better alternative that idiot Americans didn't pick. And its the second part that gets tiresome. The only better alternative is a more limited state, but that isn't what the vast majority of the articles are pushing. Either advocate the law shouldn't exist or go write for a statist magazine . If you give the Presidency power, it will eventually be used to make policy you disagree with. Which is fine, but I'm tired to death of being fed policy articles wrapped in high moral dudgeon. We get it. Most of the columnists on H&R disagree with the policy. Advocate something libertarian like having Congress pass legislation to remove the arbitrary power on immigration or trade or whatever.

  • ThomasD||

    They may not hate Trump for the wrong reasons, but after eight years of projecting good will onto most every Obama action the difference stands in high relief.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    Sure he can reduce regulations, privatize schools, pit in a justice that will defend the BOR, and gut the EPA, but what about Syrian immigrants? We need more than 50,000 Syrian immigrants.

  • SIV||

    Well that is a much better nomination than we could have expected from GayJay/Weld.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    SIV Loves Counterfactuals

  • Just Say'n||

    Considering that Gary thought Souter was a good judge and someone he would nominate, sadly this is FAR better than who the supposedly Libertarian presidential nominee would have selected.

  • Pro Libertate||

    At least Gorsuch's video records are safe.

  • The Fusionist||

  • Lee Genes||

    They should grab his leg!

  • Rhywun||

    OK, I'm sold.

  • The Grinch||

    Aww, that's cute...they think they're still relevant.

  • one true athena||

    Sorry Gorsuch, the position of "Literally Hitler" is already taken, so we'll have to drop you to second place.

  • ||

    Anyone to the left of the radical right is anyone right of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Castro. That's what they actually mean.

  • Lee Genes||

    It will do. You don't quite own yourself in his view, but at least he believes in some limitations on government.

  • SIV||

    I think you cucks owe me an apology.

  • Lee Genes||

    I'm sorry you're a twat

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    No I will not make out with you

  • qjkxbmwvz||

    Why do you want a cooperative, productive government? I prefer my grids locked.

  • DenverJ||

    Although "Lewandowski" is a good Polish name, and thus acceptable to me, and the senators from Illinois.

  • Juice||

    pronounced correctly as Levandovsky

  • DenverJ||

    Yeah. Lol. It's weird. I know how my name should be pronounced, but nobody in my family has pronounced it that way for who knows how long. Papa didn't. Maybe his dad, my great grandpa i never met, did.
    Ah well. Maybe i should start pronouncing it old country way, that'd be neat.

  • BigT||

    "Woe is me! I weep for my nation!"

    Wait, let me get another 55-gal drum to collect those salty pig tears!

  • The Fusionist||

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Another great thing about all of these demonstrations is the constant wasting of productive time, which on the whole means less capital, which in turn means less resources, which leads to demoralisation. Plus the constant shrieking and outrage and protests means greater physical exhaustion and lack of acuity. Blowing their wad this early and this often is a good thing, as well as a euphemism.

  • DenverJ||

    +1

  • ||

    If their objective is to eventually become background noise, they're going to achieve that.

  • ThomasD||

    They are refining tactics, identifying supporters, and maintaining organizational infrastructure. Which are essential to the continued survival of any top down organization.

    The alternative would be to cede control to the grass roots.

  • Juice||

    They had a placeholder for the name until it was announced.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    He wouldn't have been *my* first choice, but amongst the reasonably likely alternatives, he was the "best". I'll take it.

  • ||

    Agreed.

  • The Fusionist||

  • Pro Libertate||

    They could nominate Bernie Sanders, and we would hear the same thing.

  • ||

    We're all ideologues now.

  • chemjeff||

    "Under the government's flawed theory of the Fourth Amendment, Gorsuch complained, "a homeowner may post as many No Trespassing signs as she wishes. She might add a wall or a medieval-style moat, too. Maybe razor wire and battlements and mantraps besides. Even that isn't enough to revoke the state's right to enter.""

    So, go long on mantrap futures?

  • DenverJ||

    Ok. Well. Seems pretty non controversial to me. I doubt the anti-Chevron thing will grab any traction, too complicated for a bumper sticker. I expect the Dems to claim he is anti abortion, and wants to return womyn to patriarchal slavery.
    In 10...9...8...

  • The Fusionist||

    "too complicated for a bumper sticker."

    GORSUCH: ENEMY OF WORKER SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

    See, that wasn't hard.

  • DenverJ||

    Damnit Eddy. I was hoping this guy was too vanilla for even the Dems to go stupid on.
    *Sighs, takes thoughtful sip*
    I mean, could the progs just take a small brake, just for a minute, and say, well, he's not too bad, OK?
    Give us one day of peace?

  • See Double You||

    They'll claim he's against scientists and other experts, the toppest of TOP. MEN.

  • ||

    I am interested in how they are going to spin his dissent on that. Toady of Big Oil?

  • chemjeff||

    Well I do have to hand it to Trump in this case.

    I was certain he would nominate some personal associate. Maybe some judge buddy from New York or something. Because Dems would object to whomever he nominated, and Reps would have to swallow whomever he nominated. But it looks like he at least nominated someone who is at least in the same ballpark as Scalia when it comes to ideology.

  • BigT||

    Justice Ivanka?

  • Chip on a Shoulder||

    Funny, they can see Jesus clear as fucking day, but they can't seem to find those due process protections in the Constitution.

  • DenverJ||

    Well, to be fair, Jesus has a really bright halo, and awesome abs; he's kinda hard to miss.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

  • The Fusionist||

    At the website of—euphemism alert!—People for the American Way, Elliot Mincberg attacks Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch as "dangerous" and "far-right."

    "Is Mincberg really sure that he'd prefer that the Trump administration, rather than the courts, determine the meaning of ambiguous laws on environmental protection and job safety? In any event, determining whether Chevron deference is valid requires engaging Gorsuch's separation-of-powers arguments against it."

  • jack sprat||

    "Judge Gorsuch is a far-right extremist who would manipulate his politically loaded version of 'originalist' methodology to overturn basic and well-established Supreme Court precedents and principles of American law"

    This has to be satire.

  • ||

    The left would prefer this person:

    Just give me a black robe now!

  • widget||

    She might add a wall or a medieval-style moat, too. Maybe razor wire and battlements and mantraps besides.

    Mantraps? That's a new word to me. Let me try to use it a sentence. The crocodiles in my moat are not hungry enough to provide a mantrap today.

  • DenverJ||

    You're feeding them too much. The trick to a good moat is to feed the Crocs just enough to keep them alive.

  • Mike Schmidt||

    No, more like this:

    I was in need of a hulking specimen of a man to "employ" as an "indentured servant." After all, that conservatory isn't going to build itself. So I set up a mantrap outside the local Home Depot. Unfortunately, a little scamp of 10 or 11 is all I got. Oh well, my monocles need polishing, too.

  • ||

    He wants to reign in the Commerce Clause too. I think we have a winner!

    "National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru argued that while Gorsuch follows the mold of Scalia in many important ways, the new justice would likely deviate from his predecessor as well. "He may be more willing than Scalia was to rein in administrative agencies," Ponnuru suggested.

    Gorsuch's record points to such a tendency, because "he has called into question Supreme Court precedents that command judicial deference to the legal interpretations of those agencies. He has been skeptical, as well, of agencies that purport to apply regulations retroactively."

    This mistrust of regulatory agencies and the red tape they produce seems confirmed by Gorsuch's skepticism of the "dormant commerce clause." This longstanding legal doctrine states that the Constitution's infamous "commerce clause," granting Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, implies limits on states' power even when Congress has not spelled out those limits. Disagreeing with this broad interpretation of the commerce clause puts Gorsuch squarely in line with conservatives who wish to curtail the size and scope of the bureaucracy."

  • TheZenomeProject||

    This right here is why I'm really excited about the Gorsuch pick. The commerce clause is by far the most abused clause for activist judges, and ideally should be amended IMO.

  • DenverJ||

    No, don't amend your opinion, you're right.

  • buddhastalin||

    Does the last paragraphs seem weird? He's skeptical of the dormant Commerce Clause, which limits state power. How is this skepticism in line with curtailing the size and scope of the bureaucracy?

  • ||

    He's a strict originalist who believes strongly that "if the power isn't enumerated it's not a power" as Scalia (mostly) did too.

    The problem with the Commerce clause going back to Wickard v Filburn was that the clause was used for powers that were not enumerated. He's definitely not defending a "broad use" of the CC.

    He would replace Scalia in terms of originalism and perhaps even further personal liberty by striking down CC powers.

  • Trshmnstr, stuck in this can||

    buddhastalin's point still stands. dormant commerce clause is an inferred limitation on the scope of the commerce clause. In the context of the quote, Gorsuch's skepticism of the dormant commerce clause wouldn't make much sense.

  • ||

    Justice Taney 1847

    "If it was intended to forbid the States from making any regulations of commerce, it is difficult to account for the omission to prohibit it, when that prohibition has been so carefully and distinctly inserted in relation to other powers....[T]he legislation of Congress and the States has conformed to this construction from the foundation of the government....The decisions of this court will also, in my opinion, when carefully examined, be found to sanction the construction I am maintaining."

    Scalia and Thomas also call it "Judicial fraud". Gorsuch seems to also view it as power not enumerated.

  • ransom147||

    *states' powers
    i.e., state vs. federal powers, I assume.

  • Jerryskids||

    Would it kill you to put a spoiler alert on these things? I taped the program so I could watch it tomorrow - I was looking forward to the swimsuit competition and I heard one of the contestants was going to be juggling flaming chainsaws for the talent portion of the show.

    For all my life, GOP SCOTUS noms have been cross your fingers and hope for the best, how is this one any better than any other coin-flip candidate that may or may not be a huge disappointment? Sure, he could be the next John Roberts, but then again he could be the next Earl Warren.

  • The Fusionist||

    Dude, you're killing my buzz.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    taped? You mean like on VHS or Betamax?

  • DenverJ||

    I'm still betting on BetaMax to become the industry standard.

  • jack sprat||

    It's not???

  • DenverJ||

    Not yet, but wait until after Christmas; it's going to explode.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    With an almost inaudible "Allahu ackbar!" because you didn't get it with Visa?

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Gorsuch isn't the perfect choice as far as extensive paper trail is concerned, especially if you're a pro-lifer, but he seems to have much more of a consistent and solid track record in favor of constitutionalist ideas than Roberts did. Also, his views about the commerce clause are especially good IMO.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    A lot of people on these boards still believe that Trump is more of a Democrat than he is a conservative. Seeing his cabinet picks and this SCOTUS nominee, I can comfortably say that if he isn't a "real" conservative, he is at least non-ideological enough to listen to his voting base and give them the kinds of justices and policies that they want. I think that's a good thing.

  • The Fusionist||

    That's what it looks like...but Jerryskids aka Captain Bringdown is trying to ruin my enjoyment of the moment.

  • JeremyR||

    I think he's probably a Bill Clinton Democrat, which would make him a far right extremist today.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    A blue-dog Democrat 20 years ago (like, say, a Ben Nelson) is basically a Republican now because of the way the left has purged out so many of the non-progressive types out. If Trump was a Democrat back then, he probably would've been one of those blue-dog House Reps that got slammed as a kulak/wrecker for voting against ACA.

  • DenverJ||

    No. Trump is Trump. He won as a Republican, so the Republicans are the ones helping him. They are the ones giving him suggestions and lists of names. If he had won as a Democrat, his advisors would be feeding him totally different leads, which he would then follow.
    I think he has genuine opinions on some things, like immigration, but for the rest, he's lost. So, like anybody would, he's listening to the people on his team to advise him on the other stuff.

  • The Fusionist||

    He had to promise good Supreme Court nominees to keep the conservatives on board.

    If he sells out the conservatives, they may not burn garbage cans in the street, but they'll find constructive ways to oppose him.

  • MWG||

    Pretty much this.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    If anything, I basically think that Trump's ideology is whatever that pleases his voting blocs. I therefore don't believe that it'll be likely that he'll sell out any conservative except the RINO-establishment types that his base hates to begin with.

  • DenverJ||

    Which is kinda what i said, i think.

  • The Fusionist||

    I don't think he's a conservative, but he knows that with some good Supreme Court appointments he can get a lot of goodwill in the conservative ranks.

    I suppose that if a significant group of progs indicate that there are things he could do to win their support, he'd do those things, too, but so far the progs seem to indicate that the best way for him to win their support is to hand the Presidency over to Hillary.

    So as between people who can be induced to support him, and people who are so far unappeasable, it would be Trump's interest to go with the conservatives.

  • The Fusionist||

    I mean, look at all the proggy goodwill he's earned by supporting paid maternal leave ("sexist!"), banning discrimination against chicks with dicks ("as an LGBT person, I'm frightened of Trump!"), declaring he wants to vet immigrants to exclude those who are hostile to women and gays ("this pussy bites back!"), etc. So far there's no appeasing them.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Trump's had far more success with trolling them instead, so I'm guessing that it will be his MO for the next four years. Again, though, that could change if the left stops reacting hysterically to any non-prog idea.

  • ThomasD||

    Agreed. And I think he also recognizes that conservative jurists represent the lesser threat to his own plans. Which largely revolve around reducing the size and scope of the regulatory state.

  • MWG||

    Meh. You appearantly haven't heard his views on trade.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    LOL, I have, and I don't agree with them for obvious reasons. On the flip side, however, he's the first president in a while that says that he want to cut spending and is even paying lip service to cutting down the regulatory state (see executive order). On balance, he seems to be a pure centrist on the economic front.

  • MWG||

    I think he's a mixed bag when it comes to economics. On the one hand he talks a lot about cutting regs and taxes, OTOH, I can tell you after having lived in Brazil for almost a decade in total, he's going to have to kill a lot of regs and lower a helluva lot of taxes to offset the damage he'll do if he's serious about protectionism in the way of tariffs. As passionate I as am about immigration, nothing will be worse then Trump getting his way on trade.

  • Viking1865||

    I mean, if (and it is a huge, huge, huge if), he really does take an axe to the regulatory state, really does hack the tax code down, hack the corporate tax rate down, that's a hell of a punchbowl to float the turd of a tariff in.

    If he slashes income taxes, corporate taxes, the number of federal employees, then we're basically trending toward a Coolidge style taxation regimen, and ideally spiraling down to a Coolidge sized federal government. I'll take that, tariffs and all, over the current situation.

    My greatest fear is that he gets rolled by the establishment, and they claim "Oh yeah we can't pass all these tax bills at once, so we will pass the tariff first and then the tax cuts. Promise."

  • Viking1865||

    I mean, if (and it is a huge, huge, huge if), he really does take an axe to the regulatory state, really does hack the tax code down, hack the corporate tax rate down, that's a hell of a punchbowl to float the turd of a tariff in.

    If he slashes income taxes, corporate taxes, the number of federal employees, then we're basically trending toward a Coolidge style taxation regimen, and ideally spiraling down to a Coolidge sized federal government. I'll take that, tariffs and all, over the current situation.

    My greatest fear is that he gets rolled by the establishment, and they claim "Oh yeah we can't pass all these tax bills at once, so we will pass the tariff first and then the tax cuts. Promise."

  • ThomasD||

    I suspect Trump is actively looking for the opportunity to veto some sort of GOPe overreach. If only to win points with his voting base, thus asserting his whip hand.

  • ||

    No post yet about sloopy's mom being brutalized by the pigs?

  • The Fusionist||

    Yeah, it's about time they blew the lid off that one.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No, it was more important for Robby to post his daily college is for fags article.

    Blogs have only a certain amount of space for text, you know.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Okay, what's this about?

  • Rhywun||

    Sloop's mom is a nurse and tried to help a player with breathing problems at a basketball game and got attacked by cops.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ye gods. Is she okay?

  • The Fusionist||

    Last I heard she was held in prison overnight and released. They're, how shall I put this, somewhat critical of the police in this situation.

  • ||

    Read 'em and weep, Pro'L Dib.

  • ||

  • DenverJ||

    Sloopys mom, IIRC was body slammed by a cop while aguing with the ref during a highschool basketball game because he wouldn't pause the game while she administered aid to a player having an asthma attack

  • ThomasD||

    Ref needs to lose his job as well. Asthma attacks can be fatal. Kids die every year from them.

    Mom was fighting for someone's life and Zebra boy just wanted to finish on time.

  • greasonable||

  • Rich||

    Or John McAfee.

  • ||

    Penn Jilette. Seriously, can you imagine him during a case? What the fuck!? Are you fucking crazy!

  • Rich||

    Chevron deference says that when the federal courts are confronted with an "ambiguous" statute, the default position is for federal judges to defer to the statutory interpretation favored by the executive branch agency charged with enforcing that statute.

    Too bad Gorsuch's position isn't simply to throw out an "ambiguous" statute.

    On a more amusing note: Spellcheck corrects "Gorsuch" to "Grouch".

  • buddhastalin||

    In contract law, a judge might interpret an ambiguous term against the drafter. Maybe that rule of interpretation should be applied to regulations.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Given Judge Gorsuch's stated aversion to the judicial safeguarding of unenumerated rights via the Due Process Clause"
    I'd settle for my enumerated rights at this point.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Given Judge Gorsuch's stated aversion to the judicial safeguarding of unenumerated rights via the Due Process Clause"
    I'd settle for my enumerated rights at this point.

  • chemjeff||

    How about enumerated hamsters?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I counted 2.

  • GroundTruth||

    What about the Ninth Amendment with respect to unenummerated rights?

  • The Fusionist||

    Real rights, recognized at the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were adopted? Fine.

    Made-up rights based on the latest legal fashions? Not so much.

  • widget||

    How about the California succession? This isn't exactly a wet dream. The proposition will certainly garner enough signatures to make it on a popular vote initiative in 2018 and it will win. What happens next doesn't seem to be well thought out though. Like Trump being elected POTUS the Cathedral will be gobsmacked.

  • Rich||

    it will win. What happens next doesn't seem to be well thought out

    "Hilarity ensues."

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Call me when I get past my delight at finally seeing consequences occur to people who though themselves immune. I shan't have anything sensible to say until then.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    t

    Ted.

  • The Fusionist||

    California may have been a bit premature when they banned the Confederate flag.

  • Rothbard'sbitch||

    *secession.

    It would be so delicious and ironic if it did succeed. The United States would head in the right direction again without commiefornia. The Democrat Party would be doomed, the progressive ideology can have its failed experiment in California like communism and the Soviet Union. The irony would be everyone expected Texas if any state to be the one to secede and many progs had wet dreams of carpet bombing rednecks in Texas if secession did pass. I cringed every time I heard progs claiming that every square inch of Texas belongs to the American 'people' and not to Texans.
    I'm getting hard just thinking about a future union without California dragging the rest of the country down.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    In order for secession to succeed, the progressives need to find some way to be blindly angry and unhinged for two years. That's a very long time for blind anger; I just don't see Cali progs having that much energy to stay that mad, especially if the economy improves in the way that I think it will in the next couple of years.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    I don't think Cali will have much of a boom, because I fully expect them to enact crippling regulations on a state level for every federal regulation that gets repealed/reformed.

    Cutting off their nose to spite their face.

  • ||

    You think? They would be known as North Venezuela in short order. Hilarity would then ensue when they begged their former country for a bailout, got refused and then scramble to build a wall to keep their revenue generators from escaping across all their borders.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    Yup. The idea would be amusing if not so grim and so many lives wrecked.

    If they do secede, would we accept California refugees? And would they then just want to turn our fair states into California, like they are doing with Austin and in parts of Colorado?

    Some people are slooow learners.

  • ||

    "like they are doing with Austin and in parts of Colorado?"

    They're doing the same thing in Charlotte. People fleeing the hellholes they've created so they can screw up someone that's still nice with the same prog policies that trashed the place they're fleeing. If leftists were going to learn, they've had more than 100 years to do it. But they never learn.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Cali transplants doing the same thing to Charlotte that NY/NJ/MA transplants did to Cary? That's pretty sad.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    I just don't see Cali progs having that much energy to stay that mad, especially if the economy improves in the way that I think it will in the next couple of years.

    1) I'm honestly shocked that they're still protesting shit (frequently outside my apartment) more than two months after the election. I honestly believe, and maybe I'm crazy, that these protests are organized and paid-for. Soros isn't going to run out of dough in the next two years. Never underestimate the amount of social signaling these people can exude.

    2) The actual health of the economy has exactly *zero* impact on progs. As a matter of fact, there are many, many progs (e.g. watermelons) that actually think a strong economy is a bad thing.

  • DaveT1000||

    "many progs had wet dreams of carpet bombing rednecks in Texas if secession did pass"

    Which never made much sense, because most of the military (and a huge percent of private firearm owners) are either Texans or like-minded people from other states. Who do they think would win if Texas got into a shooting war with the Bay Area and New York?

  • ThomasD||

    The most laughable part of Calexit would be the discovery of just how much of the State did not want to leave, but would gladly wave goodby to those that did.

  • Lord_at_War||

    Rb-

    Given the election results, It would be fun to have a Queen Cankles the First- with Princess Hubbell of the Ozarks as her hereditary successor...

  • straffinrun||

    Mother fucker. Now I have to read up on some dude and find out about his judicial record. I'm not even finished with immigration law, yet. Looks I'm going to have to lean even more heavily on the commentariat than usual. Summations on my desk by noon.

  • Ken Shultz||

    One of the legitimate reasons why I think a libertarian might have voted for Trump was on the issue of Supreme Court appointments specifically in regards to gun rights.

    I expected Hillary to appoint Supreme Court justices specifically because they were hostile to our Second Amendment rights.

    The NRA is wildly enthusiastic about Gorsuch.

    "[Gorsuch] wrote in an opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly."

    On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will be activating our members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Gorsuch. He will protect our right to keep and bear arms and is an outstanding choice to fill Justice Scalia's seat."

    http://tinyurl.com/h7wv9f8

    It's hard for me to think about Trump and not think about what would have happened if Hillary had won.

    You know how the minimum acceptable rate of return is important to the IRR function? Trump can do really badly and still exceed Hillary's MARR. And he keeps doing good things, too! If we get an improvement on ObamaCare and a repeal of Dodd-Frank--and a pro-gun rights guy on the Supreme Court, too--we're gonna be so much better off with Trump than we would have been otherwise.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    Yeah, the thought of HRC's SC nominees (who knows how many in 4-8 years?) was enough to push many voters over the edge in swing states.

  • Viking1865||

    I don't know that your typical swing voters really look at that.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    I think you are correct there.

    What I really meant is that some people (based on conversations I had and on radio callers I heard) who aren't usually swing voters but live in swing states, and who were reluctant to vote for Trump or usually vote Libertarian went ahead and pulled the lever for Trump when they considered that their state could actually help prevent Herself from coronation.

    Heck, even true blue Minnesota was closer than anyone expected! I was shocked to see Hilary commercials on TV a bunch in the final 3-4 weeks. I thought "Wow. Someone on Her team is actually worried."

    So I got drunk and ticked off Trump on my absentee ballot. There, I said it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think gun rights and the Supreme Court were a big deal to a lot of people. It was one of the few issues I heard people talk about--apart from pussy grabbing, Clinton Foundation, etc.

  • Rothbard'sbitch||

    Imagine if Ginsburg retired or another prog justice it would be amazing if there was a conservative super majority on the Supreme Court.

  • AlmightyJB||

    If she died the progs would prop her dead body in one of the SC chairs and refuse to let anyone else in.

  • buddhastalin||

    Progs will go to the mat when Justice Ruff retires. Hopefully they'll have used up any residual political capital that might have fighting Gorsuch so that they'll look like tired obstructionists when that old hag steps down.

  • TheZenomeProject||

    Whenever Ginsburg keels over, that would be the ideal time to nominate JRB. What, the progs don't want the 1ST BLACK WOMAN SCOTUS judge? It would finally be the time for libertarians and conservatives to yell "Racist! Misogynistic!!"

  • Dallas H.||

    While I wish JRB were younger, this is 100% the right move to do in such a case.

    That said, the left will trash her just like they did Thomas and any non-dem woman. If it weren't for double standards they'd have no standards at all.

  • ||

    I think Ginsburg might retire. Democrats were harassing her to resign so Obama could pick her replacement even before the 2012 election and basically told them to go fuck themselves. Here is an example from 2011. From what I've heard reported the whole thing has really pissed her off.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    "[Gorsuch] wrote in an opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly at fucking all."

    This dude does seem to have a mild habit of throwing words into sentences that are unnecessary and hedgy.

  • SIV||

    I made this perfectly clear to you cosmos, BEFORE THE ELECTION

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Gay

  • Ken Shultz||

    And us cosmos made it clear to you, too--so there!

  • ThomasD||

    I expected Hillary to appoint SCOTUS justices specifically because they were hostile to pretty much any sort of individual liberty.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It's not difficult to imagine Gorsuch imposing the same severe judicial scrutiny against the misdeeds of the Trump administration.

    And earlier:

    Trump's pick for the FCC is certainly the type of person who will refuse to play along with the president. If he stays true to his word, Ajit Pai will protect the Internet from censorship—by refusing to treat it as a public utility the government has a right to control.

    Trump's obviously a power crazy mad man, so it's a good thing we have Trump appointing people who will keep Trump in check.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't let Trump's actions fool you!

    Maybe he's just trying to trick you into thinking he's not a power crazy mad man by behaving rationally.

    How could you tell?

    The trick is you have to believe he's a power crazy mad man first, and then you'll know he's a power crazy mad man--and then you can't be deceived by his rational behavior.

  • GILMORE™||

    they seem to be stuck in this narrative rut where

    "Trump is UNQUESTIONABLY HITLER, whose ideas about governance are ANATHEMA (*word of the week) TO EVERYTHING WE BELIEVE....

    ....who luckily, by some strange accident of fate, seems to keep picking people with close-enough-to-libertarian-views you might actually even be forgiven for *liking* them

    Its always, "This person may just be able to STOP ALL TRUMP's HORRIBLE PLANS!!"
    (see = mattis on torture, tillerson on trade, etc)

    As though he picked these people for some mysterious reasons which couldn't possible include 'agreeing with their policy ideas'.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    As though he picked these people for some mysterious reasons which couldn't possible include 'agreeing with their policy ideas'.

    This is a really interesting point. Picking people to run agencies that implement policies against one's stated preference may reveal one's preference. It's a good way of backing off of, e.g. torture, which would inevitably turn into a PR nightmare, without actually backing off of it rhetorically.

  • BigT||

    It's also a classic Mgt technique - someone complains about the mail service, put them in charge of it.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Wow. I went to Huffpo for about 5 seconds. Good reminder of why I don't even bother anymore. It would be different if there were rational arguments from which to see an alternative viewpoint. They're just off their rocker.

  • GILMORE™||

    TRENDING

    Why Trump Won't Serve His Full First Term
    The Inevitability Of Impeachment
    Trump Nominees Say False Things. Republicans Say Meh.
    This Close-Up Video Of Pore Strip Removing Blackheads Is Disgustingly Mesmerizing

    i see what you mean

  • John||

    Didn't they also have the "How to tell if your cat is racist" article a while back or was that Salon?

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    The Inevitability Of Impeachment When Would-be Impeachers Don't Control Congress. Pathetic.

  • Ted S.||

    One of the podcasts in my RSS feeder this morning had an interview with Robert Kuttner (apparently a noted right-wing whack-job or something) titled "US republicans [sic] increasingly turn against their new President".

  • Rhywun||

    went to Huffpo

    Speaking of which... I haven't seen Derpetologist in while.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Gorsuch at National Review, in 2005:

    American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.

    Heh...

  • AlmightyJB||

    'We need to start killing people'

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....ng-people/

  • The Fusionist||

    Don't forget that Love Trumps Hate!

  • JeremyR||

    Is that really new though? BLM crowds regularly chant "Fuck White People"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    My God, HM...It's full of stars tits!

    Seriously, how do you...? Where...? DAYUM!!

  • Viking1865||

    I mean there's a bit of a difference between fucking and killing.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    They're totally not going off the deep end, nope.

  • SIV||

    Enoug of this constant political talk, I'm gonna spin the hits !

  • SIV||

  • GILMORE™||

    that was better.

  • GILMORE™||

    that was horrible.

    i needed to recite the alphabet to clear that out of my brain

  • SIV||

    Shiny Shiny was quite the ear worm back when Pops Gillespie was doing bong hits to 10-15 year old Lou Reed records in his dorm room

  • GILMORE™||

    The chick was hot at least.

    when it comes to 80s new-wave boy-girl combos, i'll take the one with Terry Bozzio, thanks

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

  • John||

    Chevon does not get the attention it deserves as one of the worst Court decisions in history. It basically says that the executive can interpret the law anyway they want so long as a judge concludes that somebody somewhere could find it "reasonable". Gorsuch is a very good pick. If Gillespie really did call him "no friend of liberty", he really has jumped the shark. I guess the Kochs just don't care anymore or they would have fired him long ago.

    In other news my wife has been watching the new PBS Brit Historical Drama Victoria. Damn is Jenna Coleman, the Dr. Who girl who plays the young Victoria,adorable. She is basically what Emma Watson would like to think she is. She is just smoking. A woman that good looking playing Queen Victoria is about like having Katherine Winick play Eleanor Roosevelt. Victoria was not a handsome woman. But otherwise it is a good show as Brit dramas go.

  • SIV||

  • John||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsOmizjm0Xw

    I will take this version.

  • John||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YqaTDDCDM

    Or better yet this. You have to have at least a half a bottle of bourbon before it can be fully appreciated, however.

  • Rhywun||

    I have no idea who Johnny Thunders is & this doesn't have that sleazy ambience I've come to expect from Soft Cell.

  • John||

    I really have never heard anything they ever did beyond Tainted Love, which is a classic. I love it that a drag queen can sing Where Did Our Love Go better than Dianna Ross.

  • Rhywun||

    ? He's not a drag queen.

  • John||

    No he is not. But he sounds so famine in that song, I always imagined he was until I saw him. And he is a hell of a singer. Sings at least the first verse of that song better than Ross ever did.

  • Rhywun||

    Not all femme gays are drag queens. Geez I can't even.

  • John||

    True. Some of them don't have the legs for it.

  • Ted S.||

    This is John we're talking about. Why do you expect intelligence.

    And I think it was Karen Carpenter who sounded famine.

  • Rhywun||

  • SIV||

    Synth Pop circa 1959

    Raymond Scott, natch

  • John||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0jUvufQgQo

    The first English act to have a number one hit in America was not the Beatles. It was Mr. Acker Bilk with a song called Stranger on the Shore in May of 1962. The third was the Tornados and this really groundbreaking song Telestar. It was the first Synth Pop song ever.

  • Rhywun||

    Awesome. I'm a huge fan of the "Farsifa" sound.

  • SIV||

    Rockin' the Clavioline in 1954

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    So... this is the end of the world, right? That's what I hear Dems saying.

  • Rhywun||

    As we know it.

  • straffinrun||

    And I feel fine.

  • ||

    It's time I had some time alone....

  • Ted S.||

    With a tube sock?

  • Password: pode$ta||

    AddictionMyth|1.31.17 @ 10:43PM|#

    Argle bargle, argle bargle. Who can even make heads or tails of this nonsense. I'm going to bed.

    1) Congrats on the most coherent thing you've ever said.

    2) Make good on your promise.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    According to this tweet, TV's Andy Levy co-founded a satirical newspaper at Columbia with the SCOTUS nominee.

    Sounds like a (relative) home run. Prob announced too late for tonight's Red Eye, so maybe a comment about it tomorrow during Half-Time Report.

  • Sevo||

    We have worn-out lefty who thinks black-colored guns are scary and a camera whore who rode into politics on Willie Brown's alarm clock whining:

    "Trump update: Feinstein, Harris unleash tweet storms against Gorsuch"
    [...]
    " What Feinstein said:
    •"The #SupremeCourt must be a fair arbiter of the law — not simply another political body making decisions based on ideology or partisanship."

    What Harris said:
    •"The next justice will have a profound impact on money in politics, voting rights, immigrant and women's rights, and more."
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art.....898786.php

    From a source dedicated to TDS, and proving it on a daily basis.

  • SIV||

  • ||

    Haven't heard that one in a looong time. Bringing back phrenology.

  • GSL in E||

    In my experience, Republican-appointed justices are never as conservative as people expect, and Democrat-appointed justices are often more conservative than people expect. The important thing is that potential justices be serious and qualified. Which Gorsuch seems to be

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, fuck Roberts!

  • Lord_at_War||

    and Democrat-appointed justices are often more conservative than people expect.

    Lolwut!

    I'm old enough to have seen Stevens, Souter, Sandra Day-O'Conner, Kennedy, and Roberts-- speak to me of this unicorn, the "more conservative than expected" Dem appointee...

  • Africanis||

    Time to protest, I heard this guy watched a movie with the KKK in it.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Gorsuch is evidently highly qualified: be had perfect Republican helmet hair.

  • Glide||

    Thanks for the good explanation of his pros and cons Damon. I wasn't familiar with his career. Sounds like a better pick than I was expecting, though of course he's not actually going into the court with liberty as his first priority.

  • tlapp||

    In the last election is was Trump or Hilary. Gary Johnson a decent guy that picked a non Libertarian running mate and seemed to lose interest the last couple months of the campaign.

    In the choice of 2 evils the SC nominations were the only reason to favor Trump. This is a good pick, the others under consideration also good. Hopefully he gets others and that legacy will far outweigh the rest of his time in office.

  • ||

    hi

  • Michael Hihn||

    Unenumerated rights are explicitly defended by the 9th Amendment, which forbids ANY level of government from denying or disparaging them. Once upon a time, it was called "the libertarian amendment." Until Ron Paul denied the amendment's existence to placate the bigotry of extreme socons with States Rights masquerading as Federalism.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Simple enough, but the goobers go ape-shit.

  • ace_m82||

    Until Ron Paul denied the amendment's existence to placate the bigotry of extreme socons with States Rights masquerading as Federalism.

    When?

    (I think you mean the "right" to end another's life, but I will reserve any arguments until you respond.)

  • John Galt II||

    When?

    Every time he lies that the 10th Amendment allows states to do whatever they want. The most blatant of many may have been his facsist claim that "rogue judges" overturned DOMA. That's a shameful; to Governor Faubus using his state militia to block 9 black kids from registering at Little Rock's Central High in 1957, causing President Eisenhower to send federal troops to defend those 9 kids. Faubus justified his action as defending the voters of Arkansas from an abusive and overreaching federal government -- exactly the same shameful lie spouted hundreds of times by Ron Paul.

    It's an excuse first used by southern racists to defend Jim Crow laws. The crazy notion that the Supreme Court has no power to defend constitutional rights, to "justify" their blatant abuse of those rights. Ron Paul does the same thing. Falsely calls it federalism.

    I think you mean the "right" to end another's life,

    There is no such right. and nobody says otherwise.

    I presume you mean your wacky anti-abortion ranting which is demolished by the simple definition of "unalienable." All unalienable rights are precisely equal .. and I have no time for more of your lengthy and nasty screeching based on your severe denial of inalienable rights. My God, how can you deny the 9th Amendment AND the definition of unalienable? Do you also argue that the Declaration of Independence is some mad conspiracy financed by George Soros?.

  • ace_m82||

    The most blatant of many may have been his facsist claim that "rogue judges" overturned DOMA.

    To be fair, judges did so, though those judges were right, and Paul is wrong. That being said, States and the Fed have different powers (10th amendment). Also, a correct reading of the 9th amendment would make government impossible.

    Governor Faubus using his state militia.... exactly the same shameful lie spouted hundreds of times by Ron Paul.

    No, it isn't. Yes, both may call it correct under the 10th, but they are not the same thing.

    The crazy notion that the Supreme Court has no power to defend constitutional rights

    Again, to be fair, Marbury v. Madison was extra-Constitutional in the extreme.

    There is no such right. and nobody says otherwise.

    Yes, you do, when you talk of "balancing" rights.

    I presume you mean your wacky anti-abortion ranting which is demolished by the simple definition of "unalienable." All unalienable rights are precisely equal

    That doesn't follow, but it doesn't matter. Your whole concept of "rights'" is incorrect in that you fail to see that there is only one right, the right to do everything except aggress (initiate force). Therefore, rights can't come into conflict as there is always one aggressor (initiator).

    You will never understand this as doing so would require you to change your mind, and that's simply impossible.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Behold the proud fascist

    Also, a correct reading of the 9th amendment would make government impossible.

    Says government would be impossible if it had to respect fundamental human rights! SAYS IT IN PUBLIC (omg)

    The crazy notion that the Supreme Court has no power to defend constituional rights

    Again, to be fair, Marbury v. Madison was extra-Constitutional in the extreme

    Defends what he just said Ron Paul NEVER does!!! Defends Ron's crazy-as-fuck notion that we have NO DEFENSE against the abuse of our rights by the legislatures, state or federal. The fascism never ends/

    I think you mean the "right" to end another's life,

    There is no such right. and nobody says otherwise.

    Yes, you do, when you talk of "balancing" rights.

    I've never said that. Shame on you.

    I presume you mean your wacky anti-abortion ranting which is demolished by the simple definition of "unalienable." All unalienable rights are precisely equal in that they cannot be denied for any reason at all ….

    That doesn't follow, but it doesn't matter.

    REFUSES to check a dictionary definition, which he says "doesn't matter." And actually gets even worse next!

    See Part 2

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2

    Your whole concept of "rights'" is incorrect in that you fail to see that there is only one right, the right to do everything except aggress (initiate force).

    Denies the ENTIRE concept ot FUNDAMENTAL human rights. Says Jefferson and the Founders were full of shit. Also denies 2300 years of Natural Law tracing from Aristotle.
    Says all rights are equal while denying that all FUNDAMENTAL rights are equal. Thus, my right to buy a car is equal to his right to Life . And neither is unalienable!!

    All because he refuses an easily found dictionary definition. (sigh)

    (my tone and boldface in defense of aggression by a serial stalker)

  • ace_m82||

    Says government would be impossible if it had to respect fundamental human rights! SAYS IT IN PUBLIC (omg)

    True. If the 9th protects fundamental human rights (the one right), that includes the ability to take non-initiation violence into our own hands as well as the right to protect ourselves from theft, both of which would make government impossible.

    I've never said that. Shame on you.

    I didn't say you did. I was summarizing your (potential) point. You then proved it.

    REFUSES to check a dictionary definition

    Show me a dictionary definition that says that "unalienable" means "equal". Good luck with that. To be fair, the first 5 definitions I looked up didn't mention that word in the definition.

    Denies the ENTIRE concept ot FUNDAMENTAL human rights.

    Says the man who wants to "balance" them. No, rights (the right) don't conflict, ever. You have the right to do everything other than initiate force. The other way of looking at that would be to say that you have the right to not have force initiated upon you. You deny both ways of looking at it because you can't change your mind.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Says government would be impossible if it had to respect fundamental human rights! SAYS IT IN PUBLIC (omg)

    True. If the 9th protects fundamental human rights (the one right)

    Life, Count 'em ... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are-THREE- and there's MORE ("among which are")

    Thank you for playing. Please select a parting gift
    on your way out the door,

  • ace_m82||

    Life, Count 'em ... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are-THREE- and there's MORE ("among which are")

    No, there is only one. Yes, that means Jefferson was wrong (shocking, I know). The right to do all but not initiate force against another leads to what the Founders called "rights", including those 3. But, as we can see from your inability to comprehend what I'm saying, this often leads to the ridiculous conclusions that rights can come into conflict and that the courts should "balance" them.

    You cannot see that as doing so would require you to change your mind, and that is meta-physically impossible.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (yawn) behold the psycho liar.

    Show me a dictionary definition that says that "unalienable" means "equal".

    Putting it in quotes is the psycho part.

    Dumbiing ........... down ...........for ......... retards

    1) Unalienable means the rights cannot be taken away. Ever.
    2) That makes them equal.
    3) But you, with insufferable arrogance claim that one or more CAN be taken away. (See #1, chump)

    Still stalking me?

  • ace_m82||

    Putting it in quotes is the psycho part.

    So you can't show any definition that shows that. Thanks

    1) Unalienable means the rights cannot be taken away. Ever.
    2) That makes them equal.

    Non Sequitur. That means "It does not follow".

    But you, with insufferable arrogance claim that one or more CAN be taken away.

    No, I don't. I'm telling you rights (the one right) can't come into conflict. Don't aggress and you're good. Telling you that you cannot murder isn't taking away anyone's rights.

    You cannot see that as doing so would require you to change your mind, and that is meta-physically impossible.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So... off the record, has this conservative judge said much about Teddy Rosenfeld's "race suicide" eugenics? How about the question of whether an adult female American citizen is a full-time individual and worthy of individual rights?
    In a country in which six of the eight largest political parties make mystical demands that women be forced at coathanger-point to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the question is not out of place.
    Yesterday, 228,000 new carbon footprints were added to the world's population, and over a million and a half last week. After an election in which we barely escaped control by another suicide cult of Luddites who want to ban electrical power, the question acquires a certain pressing urgency it behooves us not to blank out.

  • ace_m82||

    In a country in which six of the eight largest political parties make mystical demands that women be forced at coathanger-point to carry unwanted pregnancies to term...

    If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon to the point of death.

    Yesterday, 228,000 new carbon footprints were added to the world's population, and over a million and a half last week.

    Malthus? I keep running into you. I hate to break it to you, but you were wrong. Very wrong.

  • John Galt II||

    If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon

    The woman has the same rights.
    Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

    As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

    He also REFUSES to accept the ridiculously clear language of the 9th Amendment.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Don't get suckered like I did. Save your breath. He also REFUSES to list what those rights are -- seriously! -- keeps changing the subject and lobbing personal insults. He denies EVERYTHING relevant to the issue.
    Never feed trolls.

  • Lord_at_War||

    "Hey Mikey- want to go for a boat ride?"

    (1000 miles off shore) "Oops, I forgot to fill the freezer. I'm sure you'll be happy when I kick your ass overboard so I can maintain my bodily integrity".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small minds discuss people.
    And childish minds are ... childish

  • ace_m82||

    That's not a response. That's Alinsky-style ridicule.

    What, can't you answer the charge, Hihn?

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's not a response.

    Nothing to respond.to

    That's Alinsky-style ridicule.

    Tribal goober claims only Saul Alinsky does ridicule! Which is WHY I ridicule him here. (again)

    What, can't you answer the charge, Hihn?

    My stalker now goes TOTALLY off the rails. Says the following childish rant is "charge" to be answered!!!

    "Hey Mikey- want to go for a boat ride?"
    (1000 miles off shore) "Oops, I forgot to fill the freezer. I'm sure you'll be happy when I kick your ass overboard so I can maintain my bodily integrity".

    They travel in packs, like wild dogs.
    (flush)

    (My tone and boldface in defense from .... whatever the fuck THIS aggression is by a serial stalker)

  • ace_m82||

    Nothing to respond.to

    Apparently you've never heard of a "thought experiment".

    My stalker now goes TOTALLY off the rails. Says the following childish rant is "charge" to be answered!!!

    I gave you too much credit and thought you knew a certain manner of arguing that didn't include snickering and screaming. I'm sorry.

  • Lord_at_War||

    Ain't it great!

    I made a comment referencing ideas like "voluntarily chosen obligations"- and you called me "childish"...

    I think we both know who has the "childishly small mind"...

  • Michael Hihn||

    Lord_at_War
    I made a comment referencing ideas like "voluntarily chosen obligations"- and you called me "childish"...

    Crazy bullshitter. Here;s your childish comment,

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....nt_6729402

    "Hey Mikey- want to go for a boat ride?"
    (1000 miles off shore) "Oops, I forgot to fill the freezer. I'm sure you'll be happy when I kick your ass overboard so I can maintain my bodily integrity".

    (my tone and boldface in defense of what began as childish aggression ... the escalated into psychopathic liar.)

    Ooops. Plus "voluntary chosen obligations" appears .... wait for it .... NOWHERE ON THE ENTIRE PAGE! ... by anyone!!. (do a page search) THAT is a psychopath.

  • ace_m82||

    Plus "voluntary chosen obligations" appears .... wait for it .... NOWHERE ON THE ENTIRE PAGE!

    Yes, but if you'd actually read before replying, you'd see he said "concepts like 'voluntary chosen obligations'", not that he spelled it out for you (which everyone knows wouldn't have worked anyhow). The point being, if you chose to let someone on your boat, you've made an obligation to at the very least keep them alive (to the best of your ability) until you can safely drop them off. He was applying this to abortion because he's smart (and has a better example in this case than I ever did).

    You cannot see that as doing so would require you to change your mind, and that is meta-physically impossible.

    (BTW, Lord_at_War, I'm stealing that example for future arguments against opponents who can see reason.)

  • Lord_at_War||

    Thanx ace!

  • Michael Hihn||

    If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon

    The woman has the same rights.
    Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

    As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

    He also REFUSES to accept the ridiculously clear language of the 9th Amendment.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Don't get suckered like I did. Save your breath. He also REFUSES to list what those rights are -- seriously! -- keeps changing the subject and lobbing personal insults. He denies EVERYTHING relevant to the issue.
    Never feed trolls.

  • ace_m82||

    I guess I don't need to point out that you said precisely the same thing using 2 of your 3 handles, now do I?

    There is only one right, the right to do everything except initiate force. If force is being used, then someone initiated it, and that party is in the wrong. Therefore, there is no time at which "rights" (the one right) can come into conflict.

    Therefore, the only questions that need to be answered to determine whether or not someone has wronged another in the way (NAP)are:

    #1, Was force initiated?

    #2, Does the party that had force initiated upon them have "rights" (the one right)?

    If force wasn't initiated, then there is no need to go further. If the party upon whom force was initiated didn't have "rights", then NAP wasn't violated. This is true of cases such as hunting or otherwise killing animals.

    Now, you say that the little one has rights, and those rights should be "balanced" with the mother (a misnomer). Well, rights can't be "balanced" with each other (with itself) anymore than rights can be "balanced" against such doctrines as "compelling governmental interest".

    You admit the little one has "rights" (the right). Therefore, you may not initiate force upon it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Can we SMELL his bullshit? At 1000 yards?

    The woman has the same rights.

    You admit the little one has "rights" (the right). Therefore, you may not initiate force upon it.

    Pathetic liar. I said they both have rights.
    (smirk)

  • ace_m82||

    Pathetic liar. I said they both have rights.

    I never said you didn't, you have very poor reading comprehension. You said you want to "balance" them, and by that you mean kill the little even you claim has "rights". If your rights don't prevent you from being killed for doing nothing other than existing, they aren't worth much, now are they?

    But for those of us who recognize that you have the right to do everything other than initiate force (the other way of looking at that would be to say that you have the right to not have force initiated upon you), we actually respect rights to the point that we refuse to stab other people in the brain for simply existing.

    David Nolan had many sound reasons to reject NAP as the ONLY core principle. It allows all sorts of abuses by government.

    No, it actually precludes the existence of government because government definitionally claims the sovereign "right" to respond to violence and then also to initiate it by theft (taxation).

    Forbid marriage equality.... I believe this is the third time I've asked you to justify that. You can't.

    I didn't. Marriage is none of government's business.

    You would defend a new law.... Pickpockets.... Deny voting rights....

    You don't comprehend what an An-Cap is, now do you? That means no government. Also, theft is initiation of force over property.

  • Michael Hihn||

    cowardly goober STILL evades and runs from the issue

    For how much longer will you continue the rank cowardice of denying what unalienable means, endlessly repeating the same memorized, brain-dead slogans that any savvy 15 year old can see through?.
    It takes no force to REFUSE marriage equality.
    No force to REFUSE equal and unalienable rights.
    Took no force to REFUSE women the right to vote, did it.
    You would defend a new law to deny property rights to ... anyone ... for any reason.
    Pickpockets? No force.
    Steal all my furniture. No force.
    Deny voting rights to blue-eyed blondes over 5' 11" tall. No force.


    Theft is initiation of force over property.

    Keep humiliating yourself (laughing)

    You don't comprehend what an An-Cap is, now do you?

    (laughing harder, pees pants)

    That means no government

    LAME.
    1) You're debating current law in today's America.
    2) You get totally crushed, so you change the subject ... just a different massive fuckup,

    NOTHING I CALLED YOU OUT ON WOULD DISAPPEAR WITH NO GOVERNMENT.
    SO WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT ... NAP --- AND YOU ---***FAIL*** bigly

    Even crazier ... YOU say that ME driving off in your car is an act of FORCE???? (OMG)

    (my tone and boldface in defense of serial aggresion. Can ANYTHING be wackier than constant aggression ... initiated by a NAPster?)

  • ace_m82||

    (laughing harder, pees pants)

    No surprise there.

    You're debating current law in today's America.

    No, I'm telling you that what is status quo is wrong and that you're wrong for thinking it's right. I'm actually trying to prove it instead of repeating the concept "you want to steal rights away from women" over and over again.

    You get totally crushed, so you change the subject

    Where rights (the one right) come(s) from and what they (it) cover is, or should be, the key question in all political arguments. If you do it any other way, you're doing it wrong.

    NOTHING I CALLED YOU OUT ON WOULD DISAPPEAR WITH NO GOVERNMENT.

    Excepting that those who murder wouldn't be protected by men with guns anymore.

    SO WITH OR WITHOUT GOVERNMENT ... NAP --- AND YOU ---***FAIL*** bigly

    Hihn knows a better way than NAP. Good to know. Now what way would that be, Hihn?

    YOU say that ME driving off in your car is an act of FORCE?

    Yes. Force was definitely applied to my possession. Any Physicist would tell you so.

  • ace_m82||

    Can ANYTHING be wackier than constant aggression ... initiated by a NAPster?

    I can see why you think NAP doesn't work, because to you it doesn't encompass initiations of force, but of someone who won't give up telling you that you're (quite obviously) wrong. I know it must really be annoying to come up against someone who won't bow out at your childish antics and seemingly endless replies (like it seems everyone else does), but too bad, Hihn, I'm just more stubborn than you are.

    Right will win against error, sooner or later. Chalk this one up for logical consistency.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Now, you say that the little one has rights, and those rights should be "balanced" with the mother (a misnomer).

    You really are a shameful bullshitter.

    David Nolan had many sound reasons to reject NAP as the ONLY core principle. It allows all sorts of abuses by government. So your memorized slogans are kinda useless, Libertarian goobers -- most notably Ron Paul -- use NAP to to enable all sorts of rank bigotry.

    Forbid marriage equality, then smirk, "I didn't initiate force." So YOU defend the bigotry involved. I believe this is the third time I've asked you to justify that. You can't. You lose. And how shameful, your contempt for equal, unalienable and/or God given rights.

    For how much longer will you continue the rank cowardice of denying what unalienable means, endlessly repeating the same memorized, brain-dead slogans that any savvy 15 year old can see through?. It takes no force to REFUSE marriage equality. No force to REFUSE equal and unalienable rights. Took no force to REFUSE women the right to vote, did it.

    You would defend a new law to deny property rights to ... anyone ... for any reason. What a guy!
    Pickpockets? No force.
    Steal all my furniture. No force.
    Deny voting rights to blue-eyed blondes over 5' 11" tall. No force.
    What IS your problem ... that you would stalk me for so many months?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Malthus? I keep running into you. I hate to break it to you, but you were wrong. Very wrong

    Ummm., actual population growth has nothing to do with Malthusian extremes and consequences. See it here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

  • ace_m82||

    I am well aware of how populations grow. My reference to it is only because the only reason I could see someone would talk about it (as if it were a bad thing) in the context he did was because he was a Neo-Malthusian.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I am well aware of how populations grow

    (lol) So why the MASSIVE fuckup in your next sentence?

    It is only because the only reason I could see someone would talk about it (as if it were a bad thing) in the context he did was because he was a Neo-Malthusian.

    So you're even dumber than I assumed? I shall; never again overestimate your intelligence. Here's what he said, Sluggo:

    Yesterday, 228,000 new carbon footprints were added to the world's population, and over a million and a half last week.

    Pay attention. I'll go slowly.
    1) That's normal population growth.
    2) It has NOTHING Malthusian, so you're ignorant of THAT too.
    3) And if you think he meant population growth as a negative -- looks like new bullshit to defend your original bullshit.
    4) He was ridiculing pro-life extremists, of which you are one, so you fired back in rage .. and fucked up as always (with a totally ignorant comment about Malthus).

  • ace_m82||

    So you're even dumber than I assumed?

    The [Hihn] doth protest too much, methinks.

    That's normal population growth.

    Until stages 4 and 5, yes.

    It has NOTHING Malthusian

    Worrying about it is.

    And if you think he meant population growth as a negative -- looks like new bullshit to defend your original bullshit.

    Why else would he reference it? Was he just talking to pass the time?

    He was ridiculing pro-life extremists...

    And doing it poorly.

    with a totally ignorant comment about Malthus

    Did you even read your link? Do you ever learn about a subject matter before commenting on it?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and the taking of human life by private persons is always wrong."

    If one truly believes life is fudamentally and inherently valuable, then you would be concerned by the taking of life by non-private persons too.

    That sounds like deferment to authority. Life is valuable, until goverment decides otherwise. Also sounds like you and I, as private people, do not have a right to self defense since it's "always wrong" to take a human life.

  • Longtail||

    The problem is that a year ago Republicans said that Obama somehow lacked the 'will of the people' needed to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The people then voted for Hillary Clinton and the Republicans seem to be saying they meant the will of the Electoral College. Merrick Garland would seem to be the candidate who reflects the will of the people.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Careful, the goobers think Trump won in a landslide.

    Elementary literacy finds that voters who voted AGAINST him are over 10 million more than voted FOR him. A YUGE rejection. Even Republicans gave him less than 40% of their votes in the primaries.

    He's a Dead Man Walking. He'll be impeached by his own party, when they realoze he will cost them control of Congress in 2018.

  • wootendw||

    Gorsuch opposes assisted suicide laws and that is okay because assisted suicide goes on all the time without the need for laws. Doctors are quite willing to pull the plug on elderly patients - even starve them with the patient's and relatives' consent.

    What I would like to know is what the judge thinks about cryonic preservation for those suffering terminal illnesses, if they so choose. Recently, scientists were able to revive a mouse whose 'brain' was frozen - or at least prove it could be done. Cryonic preservation could be done more easily with the aid of doctors before the patient dies.

  • MatthewlovesAyn||

    Judge Gorsuch says, ""faithful adherence to libertarian theory" would also justify the legalization of "mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illegal drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)."
    This one's always bothered me. I can give my organs away and be and admirable altruist, but I couldn't sell one of my kidneys to put my son through school, or buy a life saving procedure for him. As my handle may suggest, I believe this is a sickening contradiction. Apparently, I am never going to convince anyone or the left or right, that this is MY body.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online