eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"We want judges that interpret the law, not make law. We want judges that follow the constitution. We also want judges that have integrity and a strong moral compass. It is on that final point that I find Gorsuch lacking.- ACP45

Do you think that is possible from a Democrat's nomination???
Do you think the democrats will follow the Constitution as intended, ACP?
Who is a better nominee?

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

No come on, this guy is the lawyers lawyer, who believes the law is sacrosanct. The law is the ULTIMATE authority, well, second to judges perception and interpretation of the law. The law is there to perpetuate the law, and concepts such as human compassion, common sense, or the fact that these laws are created by humans to SERVE humans - are archaic and may be dismissed.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

npp, he truly is a Constitutional lawyer, check his previous rulings, fair and IMPARTIAL something so needing restoration in the Supreme Court!!

I watched his vetting and read where a number of Dems like him.. Then weasel Schumer comes out with we're going to filibuster.. Ha, time to draw these stand offs in and start nailing seats .. More important things to do and it's just stalling tactics!!

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Do you know there are over 4K in laws that date back to the 1800 never used or considered now.. You are rght, they need to do a review of and purge these laws not used, or which conflict with newer laws ....

Hell major half don't even know what laws are in place nor do any of them enforce them.. We don't need more we just need enforcement..

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Yep, that law is not the arbiter of human existence. Human intellect is that ultimate authority on right and wrong, and the law is a tool and ONLY a tool. Judges that do not consider the laws intent and PURPOSE - are also - tools, total tools.

Ricko Loc: Florida

ACP45-your statement about Gorsuch lacking compassion is exactly why he needs to be on the court. Its not about
personal feelings but about the law. You need to be able to separate the two otherwise you will find yourself legislating from the bench as we have seen happen in the SCOTUS. Judge Gorsuch has stated many times that as an appellate judge,once he dons the robe, his personal feelings are shelved. That is how he remains impartial and is therefore able to apply the law. He is probably the best qualified individual we have ever had as a potential
appointee and so says the ABA. America First !!!

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Do you support this soulless bastard, Peter?
The Left does; as he is a chief funder.
Who thinks Soros has compassion for humanity?
who here believes that this should be what guides America?
“This system to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” - Insider, Professor Carroll Quigley – ‘Tragedy and Hope’,( p. 324)
10 Things liberals ignore About "Giorgi" George Soros
https://youtu.be/tfBHYxEojZk
SOROS ROTHSCHILD RACE WAR PROPAGANDA EXPOSED
https://youtu.be/lhqqz3QFQKE
George Soros: Evil Puppet Master Exposed
https://youtu.be/1eRFTHD2CTg

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Your second paragraph is a bundle of contradictions. Constitutional, legal & moral decisions are not always one and the same. How else do you explain Roe vs. Wade that was and is an affront to the understanding of 5,000 years of morality and was illegal in 48 states at the time? If Harry Blackmun had once ounce of morality, he would never have written that decision and the others who'd agreed would never have concurred. And for that matter, there is no constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of any law, federal, state or local.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Yes, suction tools, sucking up to the supposed party that put them in and drills that then drill em place until perceived as the real authority..

Jig saws in the end for "the jigs up now" too..

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

The obvious about what you say, howrever, is the law must be followed.. Moral persuasion has no place in law.. Fortunate or unfortunately..

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

-------
You mean like our Japanese citizens during WW11 that were rounded up in internment camps for doing what exactly?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"Judges that do not consider the laws intent and PURPOSE - are also - tools, total tools." - lpnmajor

Exactly why Gorsuch is the best SCOTUS nominee in decades.
He actually believes in maintaining a Constitutional Republic.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

------------
Lady Justice is portrayed blindfolded on many—though not all—statues because tradition dictates it. According to the Supreme Court publication on Figures of Justice, justice was not blindfolded since the time of the Romans. For the Romans, Justitia was one of the four virtues, the others being Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance. These were personal virtues, not virtues of the state. In a personal context, a blindfold would be meaningless, since a person cannot make a fair judgement without seeing clearly into the situation.

Sometime in the 16th Century, so reads the Figures of Justice document, artists began portraying Justice with a blindfold as a conscious criticism of the justice being dispensed at that time, as if to say, justice can’t see what’s really happening.

More recently, the blindfold has come to imply that justice does not favor a party based on some characteristic like race, wealth, class, or gender. This is only an ideal, however, while the sword of punishment that Justice carries is very real. The other object carried by Justice is the scales, which a blindfolded Justice can evidently not make use of.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-statue-of-Lady-Justice-blindfolded

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

All very true, our government a perfect example of running amok of the laws and do not make use of or live by themselves!

They have turned our judicial process into a mockup and spit on the very laws they are to abide by but do not...

Elitism is their goal, laws be damned..

I would uphold the law if for no other reason but to protect myself.
Thomas More

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

-------------------------
Eagleye - we are talking about the nominee that Trump is recommending, not Obama. There are some Democrats that follow the Constitution, just like there are some Republicans that do not (McCain perhaps). Tulsi Gabbard is one Democrat that is principled, and will follow the constitution from what I know about her.

As to whom is a better nominee. I don't know. I heard it reported somewhere that Gorsuch was not on the first list that Trump put forward. In any event, there were 9 or so other judges that were on Trump's list.

Many of you on OPP believe that Gorsuch will be a good supreme court justice because he will strictly adhere to the letter of the law. But no one has satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised by Dr. Steve Piezcznick and the issue of human torture. What do you do if you have an immoral law? After 9-11, you have the Patriot Act and the NDAA, which have eroded our personal freedoms granted under the constitution. Just because congress passes a law, does that make it moral and does it obligate a judge to follow an unjust law?

Isn't that the same reasoning that the German judges used during WW2 to allow German Jews, gypsies, and dissidents to be sent to the gas chambers?

If you want to blankly follow a law, moral or immoral, why not simply program a computer to render a legal decision? What's the point of having a human judge render a decision if you leave out conscience and morality?