Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 02, 2017

Elizabeth Warren: A few days before the Supreme Court returned from its summer break, Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court's newest member, attended a luncheon at the Trump International Hotel, where he was to give the keynote address. The location of the speech attracted the attention of dozens of protesters and a number of ethics watchdogs, who noted the apparent conflict of interest posed by Justice Gorsuch -- a Trump nominee -- keynoting an event at a hotel whose revenue goes in part to President Trump. That arrangement was bad enough on its own. But there was another potential conflict of interest created by Justice Gorsuch's speaking engagement -- and it highlights the ongoing ethical issues that threaten the credibility of our nation's highest court.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The same morning that Justice Gorsuch gave his speech, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear Janus v. AFSCME. This is a case that will determine whether public sector unions -- which represent teachers, nurses, firefighters and police in states and cities across the country -- can collect fees from all employees in the workplaces they represent.

Justice Gorsuch is widely expected to deliver the court's deciding vote to strip unions of this ability. A decision along these lines would seriously undercut workers' freedom to have a real voice to speak out and fight for higher wages, better benefits and improved working conditions.

Here's the rub. Justice Gorsuch's speech at the Trump hotel was hosted by the Fund for American Studies. And who funds the Fund of American Studies? The Charles Koch Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.

The Charles Koch Foundation is dedicated to promoting limited government, free markets and weaker unions; and the Bradley Foundation has worked for decades to, in their own words, "reduce the size and power of public sector unions."

In fact, the Bradley Foundation helped pay the litigation expenses for Janus -- the case in which Justice Gorsuch is likely to be the deciding vote.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"This isn't the first time the Supreme Court has strayed over the ethical line. Take a look, for example, at ABC v. Aereo. The court concluded that Aereo, a small television streaming service, had violated the copyright of broadcasters by capturing signals from television stations and retransmitting programming from those stations to the company's subscribers.

Time Warner -- one of the broadcasters who stood to lose if the court allowed the practice -- filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the court should side with the broadcaster.

At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts owned as much as $500,000 in Time Warner stock. Despite this blatant conflict of interest, Roberts would not recuse himself from the case. Instead, he joined the majority in effectively killing the small streaming service."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What next, Mustang not commenting on the thread topic?

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 12:57 PM | Reply

mooky likes being taken to the cleaners and getting on all fours for people of authority

#4 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-02 01:07 PM | Reply

#3 The topic was ethics. Liz Warren was "paid" $429,000 to teach a single class at Harvard and then got on a soapbox about the high cost of education. She is ill-suited to preach ethics to anyone.

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-02 01:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Liz Warren was "paid" $429,000 to teach a single class at Harvard and then got on a soapbox about the high cost of education.

Harvard should take that money back, but then that would make them Indian-givers.

#6 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-11-02 01:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

The topic is ethics in the Supreme Court. Your attacks on the messenger notwithstanding, you've posted nada on topic.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-02 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Senator Warren is really stretching here. There is nothing unethical about Gorsuch giving that keynote speech.

And to think that she calls herself and honest injun.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 01:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

there is nothing unethical about Gorsuch giving that keynote speech.
#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Everything gorsuch does in official capacity as a SCOTUS Justice is unethical, as he sits on the court illegitimately.

#9 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 04:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Everything gorsuch does in official capacity as a SCOTUS Justice is unethical, as he sits on the court illegitimately.

#9 | Posted by IndianaJones

And was selected by the most unethical President in U.S. history.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-02 05:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... [Gorsuch] sits on the court illegitimately.

No he doesn't.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-02 05:47 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

What's an "illegitimate child," Et_Al?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 05:50 PM | Reply

#11 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Care to elaborate how his appointment in defiance of the constitution for over a year is legitimate?

#13 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-02 07:34 PM | Reply

Ask him what it means that the President "shall have" the advice and consent of the Senate.

He didn't answer last time I asked, and I'm trying to go 2 for 2 on this question.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 07:47 PM | Reply

Care to elaborate how his appointment in defiance of the constitution for over a year is legitimate?

Sure, just as soon as you articulate how his nomination and confirmation is "in defiance of the constitution for over a year" and thus illegitimate.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-02 07:56 PM | Reply

#3 The topic was ethics. Liz Warren was "paid" $429,000 to teach a single class at Harvard and then got on a soapbox about the high cost of education. She is ill-suited to preach ethics to anyone.

#5 | Posted by MUSTANG

That's right. Because anyone fighting the banks has to be POOR in order to be credible right?

If you're a banker, you can make millions a year screwing people and repubs are fine with it. But if you want to FIGHT the bankers, you'd better live like a monk, ride a bike to work, and do all your work pro bono.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 09:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Liz Warren was "paid" $429,000 to teach a single class at Harvard"

Why are right-wingers always so jealous when a liberal is successful?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's the equivalent of do-as-I-say not-as-I-do Republicans preaching family values.

She casts aspersions on rich people she disfavors for how they got wealthy and then takes an exorbitant fee to teach one class.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 09:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Did she say "don't get paid to teach?" in your world, JeffJ?

You might take a moment to realize Republicans are bad on family issues not because they are hypocrites, but because their actual policies, the ones they don't live by, are harmful. Can you try that on for size?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-02 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#s 12 @ 13

See VP Cheney's advice for Sen. Leahy's self sufficiency.

#20 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 02:24 AM | Reply

All that just to dodge #14?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 02:27 AM | Reply

Pardon me, #'s 12 & 14.

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 02:49 AM | Reply

2 for 2!

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 02:51 AM | Reply

Senator Warren is really stretching here. There is nothing unethical about Gorsuch giving that keynote speech.
And to think that she calls herself and honest injun.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

As usual, way off the mark.

The issue is him getting PAID to give that speech and then sitting on a case where the beneficiaries are the people who were paying him.

#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 09:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3 The topic was ethics. Liz Warren was "paid" $429,000 to teach a single class at Harvard and then got on a soapbox about the high cost of education. She is ill-suited to preach ethics to anyone.

#5 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

You obviously have no clue what ethics are.

The good Justice was paid to give a speech and then is sitting on a case where the people who pay him are benefiting greatly by his vote.

And it wasn't a single class. It was a single COURSE. Most law professors teach 1-4 courses depending on what other work they are doing. It's likely she was doing more than just teaching.

Liz Warren was a hypocrite maybe. But there wasn't a conflict of interest there.

Moreover, Harvard has so much money that students who get accepted there from poorer families don't have to worry about tuition.

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 09:55 AM | Reply

Ask him what it means that the President "shall have" the advice and consent of the Senate.

The senate didn't confirm someone?

#26 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-03 11:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The issue is him getting PAID to give that speech and then sitting on a case where the beneficiaries are the people who were paying him. - #24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 09:46 AM

The people that paid him are not a part of the case. Nor are the people that own the companies that paid him. They will not be directly benefitted by the results any more than the rest of America.
Every person in America may benefit from the result of that case. Can the Justices not associate with any person in the US for fear of conflict of interest over this case?

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-03 11:14 AM | Reply

Supreme Court Justices should give speeches for free.

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-03 11:23 AM | Reply

#15 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Jesus, some of you are truly helpless. lmgtfy.com

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

They had no obligation to confirm Garland, but by refusing to consider him for over a year, the Senate defied the Constitution. McConnell stonewalled the legislative branch, blocked the operation of the executive branch, and crippled the judicial branch for over a year.

#29 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-03 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

She casts aspersions on rich people she disfavors for how they got wealthy and then takes an exorbitant fee to teach one class.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ

The only wealth acquisition she has expressed opposition to is wealth acquired by dishonest or unethical means.

The whole "liberals hate the rich" slogan is a LIE.

Liberals hate PLUTOCRACY and ARISTOCRACY. Liberals hate the wealthy using their wealth to capture the government and rig the economy in their favor.

If you had any sense, you would too.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-03 01:28 PM | Reply

The good Justice was paid to give a speech ...

Sure about that?

CHANG: Right. Is Gorsuch getting paid for this speech at the Trump Hotel?

NORTHAM: No. The group holding the event said he wasn't paid and that really one of Gorsuch's criteria for accepting the invitation to speak was that the event not be used to solicit donations. www.npr.org

then is sitting on a case where the people who pay him are benefiting greatly by his vote.

You know that Gorsuch knows who funds Fund for American Studies how? Their donors are not listed on their web page, or at least I didn't find it.

#31 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 01:43 PM | Reply

Sycophant continually farts out stupidity and never returns to eat crow.
#totaldummy
#loser

#32 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-03 01:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Gorsuch is a mental midget and opportunist who enjoys a lifetime appointment of corrupt opportunity thanks to McConnell. There is no consistency in "originalist" thinking with respect to the constitution, other than class warfare in favor of big money and against the poor. Anyone who thinks the constitution was inspired by God so that women and blacks could not vote is a class warrior. Like so many lobbyists in DC, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch loyalties are to big money, not the constitution.

#33 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-03 01:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Jesus, some of you are truly helpless.

Mindlessly repeating Article II Section 2 Clause 2 gets you nowhere. It describes the President's power not the manner of the Senate's exercise of its power, "Advice and Consent."

For that you go to Article I Section 5 Clause 2, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings ..." There ain't no Senate rule that describes the exercise of that power. Doing nothing is a constitutionally legitimate exercise of that power. Don't make it right but it's a legitimate exercise of the power.

Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed. His sitting on the Court is legitimate. No amount of teeth gnashing changes that.

#34 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed. His sitting on the Court is legitimate. No amount of teeth gnashing changes that.

#34 | Posted by et_al

Horsecrap and you know it.
Garland was nominated and the republicans DEFIED the constitution to block him because of some IMAGINARY rule they just invented about supreme court seat cant be filled in the last year of a presidency if the president is a democrat.

Gorsuch is a successful STOLEN seat, appointed by a con man who colluded with putin.

Your party is disgusting and the only people who support it are hateful racists, greedy fatcats, and gullible chumps. Which kind are you?

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-03 02:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Gorsuch is a mental midget and opportunist who enjoys a lifetime appointment of corrupt opportunity thanks to McConnell.

Gorsuch's life tenure is not dependent on McConnell. When appointed to the SC he held a Circuit Court of Appeals position with life tenure. He was confirmed to that position by unanimous voice vote. He was, and is, rated "well qualified" by the ABA, its top rating.

Your political opinion of him is irrelevant to his legal qualifications.

#36 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 02:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Ot describes the President's power not the manner of the Senate's exercise of its power, "Advice and Consent."

So then what does it mean that the President "Shall have" the power to appoint, and why does it mean something different than what it means when it comes to "Shall issue" gun laws?

Is "shall have" legally meaningless verbiage in this context, a bit like the "militia" part of the Second Amendment?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 02:28 PM | Reply

Your political opinion of him is irrelevant to his legal qualifications.

#36 | Posted by et_al

And his legal qualifications are irrelevant because he got his job via fraud.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-03 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

... the republicans DEFIED the constitution ...

You can scream it until you turn blue and pass out. What you cannot do is point to the specific language of the constitution that was "defied." The reason you can't is because it doesn't exist.

... some IMAGINARY rule ...

Screaming "imaginary" does not make Article I Section 5 Clause 2 imaginary. Petulant children notwithstanding.

... STOLEN seat ...

Stolen from whom? To be stolen it must be possessed by someone. Who possessed the vacant seat?

Your party ...

Petulant child resorts to straw men.

... via fraud ...

Fraud is a legal term that you, no doubt, have no clue about.

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 02:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Shall Have."

Is today the day I go 3 for 3?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 02:59 PM | Reply

Fraud is a legal term that you, no doubt, have no clue about.

#39 | Posted by et_al

It's also a vocabulary word that most 8th graders could define as a SCAM, a dishonorable trick, legal or not.

Tell me - if republicans can say a president cant make supreme court appointments in their last year, why not their last 2 years? Why not 3? Why not 8?

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-03 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They can Speak.
The reason they can is the Constitution doesn't say they can't.
Malfeasance is not addressed in the Constitution.
Nor is acting in good faith.
It's what the Founders wanted.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 03:02 PM | Reply

Tell me - if republicans can ...

You presume I support what was done by the Senate (another straw man). I don't. I also don't argue logical fallacies like reductio ad absurdum.

#43 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 03:17 PM | Reply

You presume I support what was done by the Senate (another straw man). I don't. I also don't argue logical fallacies like reductio ad absurdum.

#43 | Posted by et_al

Oh why would I presume that? Just because you're here defending it?

So I ask again - if they can refuse to allow the president to nominate an SC judge in the last year of the presidency, why not the last 2 or 8 years?

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-03 03:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You presume I support what was done by the Senate"

Who cares? Nobody.
What's your answer.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I also don't argue logical fallacies like reductio ad absurdum."

Luckily for you, increasing a time span from 1 year to 8 is not a case of reductio ad absurdum.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It describes the President's power not the manner of the Senate's exercise of its power, "Advice and Consent."
#34 | POSTED BY ET_AL

You morons always resort to regressive argument in this debate. "Advice and Consent" already have meanings; in fact they are verbs so they say precisely the action the Senate must take in the nomination process. You can't just ignore them because Webster's entire dictionary isn't in the preamble to the Constitution. Next you'll be asking me to define "define".

#47 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-03 04:13 PM | Reply

You morons always resort to regressive argument in this debate...

#47 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

You're just pissed off that you don't have an effective rejoinder.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-03 04:15 PM | Reply

For the record, what the GOP did was wrong. Garland should have gone through the process.

Just because they had the power to do what they did doesn't mean they should.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-03 04:16 PM | Reply

#44

Defending what the constitution actually says on the subject is quite different from supporting the actions of the Senate. I've said on numerous occasions, including the first thread posted on Garland, that he should get a hearing and vote. I know that's difficult for you to comprehend but that's on you not me.

And I'll tell you again, I don't argue logical fallacies.

#50 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 04:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#48 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Funny Jeff. I don't need anything because there is no argument. That that text is in the Constitution is an easily verified fact. Pretending not to know what Advice and Consent means is not a valid reason to ignore parts of the Constitution.

They had no power to do what they did. Nominating justices is a power of the executive and the Constitution lays out the action the Senate must take for checks and balances. McConnell should be indicted for his role in essentially holding all 3 branches hostage.

#51 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-03 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#50 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Regressive argument isn't a logical fallacy; it just shows you to be moronic.

#52 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-03 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Apparently the Founders somehow never considered a majority of the senate acting in bad faith...very 18th century of them.

#53 | Posted by Grumpy_too at 2017-11-03 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Defending what the constitution actually says on the subject is quite different from supporting the actions of the Senate."

No it's not.

In fact, defending the language in the Constitution is basically all a lawyer could do to defend it.

Maybe you should try arguing the other side?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 04:43 PM | Reply

I'm pretty sure they never considered somebody would pretend to be an Indian and make 500k for teaching a class either.

#55 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-03 04:53 PM | Reply

#55 You'd think TJ might have seen that coming when he created UVA.

But I can accept he thought the Indian genocide would have been a little more thorough.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 05:02 PM | Reply

#47

It pops back in with no argument except circling back to the beginning. When you come up with something new I'll address it.

Here, let me help you a little bit. Article I describes the legislature's power. Article II describes the president's power. Article III describes the judiciary's power.

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 05:13 PM | Reply

The issue is him getting PAID to give that speech and then sitting on a case where the beneficiaries are the people who were paying him. - #24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 09:46 AM
The people that paid him are not a part of the case. Nor are the people that own the companies that paid him. They will not be directly benefitted by the results any more than the rest of America.
Every person in America may benefit from the result of that case. Can the Justices not associate with any person in the US for fear of conflict of interest over this case?
#27 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

No, they BENEFIT from the case. That's a conflict.

#58 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 05:29 PM | Reply

Sycophant continually farts out stupidity and never returns to eat crow.
#totaldummy
#loser

#32 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Never had to eat crow. Most of the conservative posters on here, like you, are barely literate.

#59 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 05:31 PM | Reply

I'm pretty sure they never considered somebody would pretend to be an Indian and make 500k for teaching a class either.

#55 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Thankfully no one did. You should try Google for a change rather than Fox & Friends. There are a lot of sites debunking this garbage.

#60 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 05:33 PM | Reply

Apparently the Founders somehow never considered a majority of the senate acting in bad faith...

True.

#61 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 05:37 PM | Reply

If anyone is aware of a form of government that can survive the malfeasance of the governors, I'm all ears.

The Founders couldn't think of one cuz there ain't one. Sad!

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 05:39 PM | Reply

That's a conflict.
#58 | Posted by Sycophant

Your premise assumes Gorsuch was paid for the speech. He was not.

#63 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 05:39 PM | Reply

In related news, Boeing has yet to design an aircraft that won't crash when the pilot steers it into a mountain.

And gun sniffers can't dream up a gun that can't be used for crimes neither.

What a bunch of friggin idiots!

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 05:41 PM | Reply

"Article II describes the president's power."

Power he "Shall have."

But you keep finding reasons for him not to have it.

What's up with that, dawg?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's a conflict.
#58 | Posted by Sycophant
Your premise assumes Gorsuch was paid for the speech. He was not.
#63 | POSTED BY ET_AL

No, if he was paid, this conversation would have started and ended at that point. It might have indeed been illegal.

Thankfully Gorsuch is smarter than that. BUT by attending, giving the speech, having dinner, being part of the event, and of course notoriety that goes with it for an organization that is funding a case he is hearing shortly, that's a conflict.

If this had happened after the case, I don't think there would be much of an issue.

#66 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 05:47 PM | Reply

The Gorsuch appointment is just one more example of what Bill Maher complains about incessantly, namely Democrats bringing knives to a gunfight. Republicans are ruthless animals who pretend to care about fetuses for political gain. Some are even so stupid they actually believe in God. But the simplest way to explain them is selfish.

#67 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-03 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here, let me help you a little bit. Article I describes the legislature's power. Article II describes the president's power. Article III describes the judiciary's power.
#57 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Good. There is some amount of rationality inside your head after all. Now tell me why the Senate has the power to override Article 2; as you insist?

#68 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-03 05:50 PM | Reply

Defending what the constitution actually says on the subject is quite different from supporting the actions of the Senate. I've said on numerous occasions, including the first thread posted on Garland, that he should get a hearing and vote. I know that's difficult for you to comprehend but that's on you not me.

And I'll tell you again, I don't argue logical fallacies.

#50 | Posted by et_al

Then the constitution is clearly flawed on the topic, because the founders never imagined a party like the modern republican party.

They thought they were clear on how SC judges would be appointed. The didn't realize they needed to specify that congress can't just indefinitely refuse to do their job.

Unless you think the founders built a system where the supreme court could eventually be whittled down to ZERO judges.

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-03 06:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

66
You too stupid to read your 24?

You said he got paid, in all caps even.

Chow on that crow, stupid.

#70 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-03 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Syco,
What were you saying about literacy?
#totalloser
#-------------------

#71 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-03 06:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I find it shocking that Warren would be paid $429 or $350 thousand to teach one class, but details are lacking. The average salary for a Harvard Professor is $198,000.

None of which changes the fact that Senator Warren consistently fights for what is right for the country and its working class. Warren brings a unique style of lowkey solid thinking.

#72 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-03 06:54 PM | Reply

No, if he was paid ...
#66 | Posted by Sycophant

It's not "if," it's that you unequivocally said, not once but twice, he was paid.

Absent payment for the speech and using the Code of Conduct for United States Judges as a guideline, I'm having a problem finding the specific conflict you've raised.

BTW, this one is still hanging out there for you, "You know that Gorsuch knows who funds Fund for American Studies how? Their donors are not listed on their web page, or at least I didn't find it." www.drudge.com

#73 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-03 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#72 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING

She taught a course, not a class. She made 1.5 - 2.0X the average as one of the top 5 highest-profile members of the US Senate? That isn't surprising.

#74 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-03 07:02 PM | Reply

Chairborne, since you know so much, how much is $500,000 in Wampum?

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-03 07:07 PM | Reply

Chair, Et Al-

Confronting Syco with his prior inconsistent statements isn't fair, it's like showing a puppy it's tail and then letting it spin in circles until it falls down. Amusing, but cruel to the helpless creature.

#76 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-03 07:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dang, I went to the local watering hole with the wife and a few friends and the flaming heads disappeared. Wad up wit dat?

For the POS troll. See "condition subsequent."

#77 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 12:39 AM | Reply

They had no power to do what they did...

#51 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Yes they did.

The problem is they shouldn't have exercised said power.

Consider this: Trump is re-elected in '20 - Dems capture a majority in the senate and a few months after the election, a SCOTUS justice decides to retire.

Depending on the '22 mid-terms Dems could hold the spot vacant for roughly 4 years. And they would have justification for doing so.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 12:44 AM | Reply

The problem is they shouldn't have exercised said power.

Probably not. To your point, the Judicial Branch is now subservient to political parties.

From this point forward, the Executive branch and the Senate must belong to the same party before a SCOTUS position can be approved.

Can the Supreme Court be wiped out through attrition?

#79 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-04 12:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... the Judicial Branch is now subservient to political parties.

How so?

Can the Supreme Court be wiped out through attrition?

Ignoring the logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, no.

#80 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 01:14 AM | Reply

"Ignoring the logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, no."

Ted Cruz suggested if HRC was elected, ZERO Supreme Court nominees would be approved, during both terms. Political retribution could possibly extend that obstinance, especially if the Senate and WH were repeatedly controlled by separate parties.

Where in the Constitution is that disallowed? Specifically.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 01:23 AM | Reply

Danforth,

It's not disallowed.

We may be seriously looking at a situation where the only way to replace a departing Supreme Justice is if the Senate and POTUS are the same party.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:28 AM | Reply

"It's not disallowed. "

So, the answer to "Can the Supreme Court be wiped out through attrition?" is YES.

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 01:32 AM | Reply

So, the answer to "Can the Supreme Court be wiped out through attrition?" is YES.

#83 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If politics in this country wasn't a pendulum - yes.

In the real world - no.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:35 AM | Reply

"In the real world - no."

That's easy to say.

What do you think would happen with a Dem Senate in 2019, and a dead SC Justice in 2020?

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 01:36 AM | Reply

And they would have justification for doing so.

I disagree. At some point it becomes a constitutional crises. Where is that point? I don't know. Congress is granted the power to determine how many seats on the SC. Is it one, is it three, is it ...

Whatever the number, the constitution provides the SC exists. Period.

For years, at least from the beginning of the nineteenth century or so, norms said how the Senate handles SC appointments. That was blown up by partisans with Garland's nomination. That should never happen again or to begin with. But it can according to the express words of the constitution. Flaming heads notwithstanding.

#86 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 01:41 AM | Reply

What do you think would happen with a Dem Senate in 2019, and a dead SC Justice in 2020?

#85 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The GOP escalated this decades-long war to the point of no-return IMO.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:48 AM | Reply

The best possible outcome for this is a weakened, but not dead, court.

That can only happen when originalism is the dominant judicial philosophy.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:50 AM | Reply

Crap, the trip to the watering hole is evident.

Eratta, insert twentieth.

The point remains. The SC cannot be eliminated. That the president and the nominee got f****d in this round justifies nothing for the future, imo. Don't do it again. It's wrong.

#89 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 01:54 AM | Reply

"But it can according to the express words of the constitution"

"Shall have" says it can't.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 01:56 AM | Reply

The point remains. The SC cannot be eliminated. That the president and the nominee got f****d in this round justifies nothing for the future, imo. Don't do it again. It's wrong.

#89 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Speaking to Danforth's point, what prevents it from being done again?

The judicial-nominee war has been brutal over the past 3 decades and has almost always been escalated by Democrats. Given their history and the audacity of what the GOP did to Garland, I think it's entirely possible they would hold a vacated seat open for multiple years.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:59 AM | Reply

www.vox.com

The doctrine of originalism, whereby judges purport to identify and then rely on the original meaning of the United States Constitution to resolve constitutional cases, is more ingrained in our national consciousness today than at any other time in our history. Six years ago, one of our most liberal justices, Elena Kagan, stated during her confirmation hearing that "we are all originalists." Prominent professors are proudly proclaiming in our most elite law reviews that "Originalism is our Law."

President Donald Trump promised to nominate an originalist justice to the Supreme Court, and then followed through on that promise with Judge Neil Gorsuch, who self-identifies as an originalist. At his confirmation hearing, the term "originalism" will no doubt be uttered by every GOP senator trying to win points with his constituency and establish the nominee's bona fides as the heir apparent to the late Justice Scalia.

This genuflection toward the original meaning of the Constitution is, however, at best misleading and at worst a sham. What the words of the document meant to the people living at the time is just one of many different factors judges use to decide constitutional cases. So-called original meaning almost never drives the results in litigated cases but instead is used by judges to justify results they reached on other grounds. As Judge Richard Posner has written, "there has never been a time when the courts of the United States behaved consistently in accordance with the ideal" described by originalists.

#92 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-04 02:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

... what prevents it from being done again?

Nothing except the electorate's stupidity.

Welcome to America.

#93 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 02:10 AM | Reply

#92

Okay, so WTF does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Nothing.

#94 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 02:16 AM | Reply

Et Al,

Given the escalation of political warfare tactics over the past 3+ decades, I think Danforth's rhetorical question is valid.

Amazingly, this may be the whole system of checks and balances playing itself out.

SCOTUS has become increasingly powerful to a point where what has transgressed over the past few decades is the natural culmination of the Legislative branch passive-aggressively re-asserting powers that it has ceded.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 02:16 AM | Reply

Shall... something.

It's on the tip of my tongue, Et_Al could you lend me a hand?

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 02:30 AM | Reply

"Shall have" says it can't.

#90 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You get et al, hasnt answered you because you have no point, you poor puling imbecile? You keep saying "shall have" yet leaving out the next words "by and with the consent of the Senate". "With advice and consent of the Senate" is not a directive to consent, they do not have to consent. No vote equals non-consent.

#97 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-04 02:53 AM | Reply

I think Danforth's rhetorical question is valid.

I'm unsure of Danforth's question. I'm guessing I addressed his problem at #86. I'm sure he'll straighten me out, as he should.

Your last sentence I need some help with. Break it up in pieces.

#98 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 02:57 AM | Reply

Speaking to Danforth's point, what prevents it from being done again?

Maybe I missed something.

Nothing prevents the Senate being stupid again, nothing.

#99 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-04 03:19 AM | Reply

"You get et al, hasnt answered you because you have no point."

Here is the point:

"Shall have" is a legal term of art with a well understood meaning.

It compels action.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 03:19 AM | Reply

Tell it to Bork, going by your standard all nominees must be confirmed "shall have" and all...

#101 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-04 03:29 AM | Reply

"Shall have" is a legal term of art with a well understood meaning."

Indeed, in this case it means by and with the consent of the Senate the President's nominee shall be seated (see Gorsuch), not that the Senate shall confirm or take action on the President's nominee (see Garland).

#102 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-04 03:34 AM | Reply

Tell it to Bork, going by your standard all nominees must be confirmed "shall have" and all...

Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-04 03:29 AM | Reply

Bork went through the process but was voted down. Garland wasn't even allowed to go through the process.

OOPSIE DAISY Them pesky FACTS again.

#103 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-04 03:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I was just using Snoofy's point. He keep saying "shall have". Take it up with Snoofy.

#104 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-04 03:44 AM | Reply

Bork went through the process but was voted down. Garland wasn't even allowed to go through the process.
#103 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

He went through the process. You might not have liked how the process was played out this time, but he did go through the process. Non-consent is non-consent...

#105 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-04 03:50 AM | Reply

+1 Bork reference.

I rented Glory specifically because Bork did.

BRB making a smurf account
username: 'Brillo'

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-04 03:55 AM | Reply

The senate leaders were afraid some Rs would revert to actually serving the people rather than blind loyalty to party politics.

Long ago SC justices did not vote strictly by party lines, they decided on the merits of the case like all judges are supposed to do.

But right wingers have been pushing the narrative that the SC have been SJWs ever since Brown v. Board of Education.

#107 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2017-11-04 03:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

He went through the process. You might not have liked how the process was played out this time, but he did go through the process. Non-consent is non-consent...

Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2017-11-04 03:50 AM | Reply

No actually he didn't. People need to stop lying about that.

#108 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-04 04:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bork was voted down 42 to 58. No vote was ever held on Garland because McConnell knew he would be voted in. McConnell made this decision himself, not the Senate. So to suggest it was the Senate failing to provide consent, as the constitution permits, is BS.

Democrats will always permit a vote on SCOTUS appointments. Republicans are vicious street fighters, prepared to kill the innocent to get their way. This is just another example of how Democrats bring a knife to a gunfight. At best you might say they are trying to do the right thing, at worst they're just a bunch of -------, afraid to fight.

#109 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-04 06:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Whatever the number, the constitution provides the SC exists. Period."

And as my math teachers kept reminding the class, zero is a number.

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 10:25 AM | Reply

"Maybe I missed something."

Well, regarding the elimination of the SC to purposeful attrition, you posted--

"Ignoring the logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, no."

Then you posted--

"Nothing prevents the Senate being stupid again, nothing."

Which is it?

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-04 10:28 AM | Reply

Ignoring the logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum, no.

#80 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Yet you're fine using such a fallacy when tricking yourself into thinking "advice and consent" have no meaning.

#112 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-04 11:44 AM | Reply

#97 | POSTED BY TXLIBERTARIAN

They don't have to consent moron but they explicitly have to give advice. Stonewalling is not advice. Advice requires advisal which is an actual action. Not acting is not giving advice.

#113 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-04 11:51 AM | Reply

Republicans refusal to even grant Obama's nominee a hearing is probably legal but it also creates a precendent which is going to come back and bite them in the ass. What goes around comes around. But the Republicans will scream bloody murder when it does.

#114 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-04 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Republicans refusal to even grant Obama's nominee a hearing is probably legal but it also creates a precendent which is going to come back and bite them in the ass. What goes around comes around. But the Republicans will scream bloody murder when it does.

#114 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2017-11-04 11:55 AM

Yep, and I said so at the time. NW

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-04 01:33 PM | Reply

danni,

You are assuming Democrats will act as viciously as Republicans, when there is no history supporting such a conclusion.

#116 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-04 03:34 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort