Gorsuch Nomination Hearings

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • historian

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    3,301
    63
    SD by residency, Hoosier by heart
    So far only two Dems have brought up the one issue that could be a winner for them, the Chevron Doctrine.

    Instead most spend their time yelling about BIG EVIL CORPORATIONS!!!!! I'll be shocked that if, by the end of these hearings, no one asks Gorsuch, "When did you quit beating your wife?"
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    Soooo, it's okay if he beats his wife with a rolled up copy of the Constitution???? :): (Purple Implied)

    Well, according to the North Carolina Supreme Court, there is no right to beat one's wife, but the court held, [the state] "will not interfere with family government in trifling cases."

    At least that was good law in NC in 1868! (State v. Rhodes, (N.C. 1868)).

    So I guess it was ok to use a rolled up copy of the Constitution, at least in NC?
    :):
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113

    historian

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    3,301
    63
    SD by residency, Hoosier by heart
    Out of curiosity, why would that will be a winner for them?

    And, while it has a dramatic influence on our lives, I don't think most people will really care. T'will be difficult, methinks, to turn this into a rallying cry.

    More on this:
    The roots and limits of Gorsuch?s views on Chevron deference - SCOTUSblog

    It is one of the more important rules. Without Chevron courts can make up their own rules (AT&T v. Portland, Brand X v. FCC, and NCTA v. Brand X and FCC) or each decision by an agency (FCC, EPA, etc) would become a litigation nightmare with Congress having to pass detailed legislation. The few senators who brought it up, brought up the EPA in particular (which would be a good rally for the left).
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    It is one of the more important rules. Without Chevron courts can make up their own rules (AT&T v. Portland, Brand X v. FCC, and NCTA v. Brand X and FCC) or each decision by an agency (FCC, EPA, etc) would become a litigation nightmare with Congress having to pass detailed legislation. The few senators who brought it up, brought up the EPA in particular (which would be a good rally for the left).
    Interesting take.

    My $.02.

    First, without Chevron, our government would look a lot more like it was designed in the Constitution. To make laws/rules, Congress has to act. The judicially-approved 4th branch - the Administrative Branch - is a bastard hybrid of executive and legislative. The Chevron defense basically protects that bastardization.

    Second, it'll be REALLY hard to turn that into a hook to turn people against Gorsuch.
     

    SEIndSAM

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    47   0   0
    May 14, 2011
    110,809
    113
    Ripley County
    Interesting take.

    My $.02.

    First, without Chevron, our government would look a lot more like it was designed in the Constitution. To make laws/rules, Congress has to act. The judicially-approved 4th branch - the Administrative Branch - is a bastard hybrid of executive and legislative. The Chevron defense basically protects that bastardization.

    Second, it'll be REALLY hard to turn that into a hook to turn people against Gorsuch.

    Agreed, that is something that 90% of people either don't understand or doesn't care about.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    Dems like Feinstein: Very Troubling.

    Once again, they don't see their own hypocrisy. The stuff the founders wrote down and all the states (and their citizens) had a chance to ratify = flexible. Stuff as few as 5 justices vote on = carved in stone and unchangable.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    Once again, they don't see their own hypocrisy. The stuff the founders wrote down and all the states (and their citizens) had a chance to ratify = flexible. Stuff as few as 5 justices vote on = carved in stone and unchangable.
    That's why they favor justices (of their liking) to do their bidding. It's a much easier way of getting around an "outdated piece of paper"
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    That's why they favor justices (of their liking) to do their bidding. It's a much easier way of getting around an "outdated piece of paper"

    Yep. It's much easier to amend the Constitution with 5 votes than it is trying to 10s of millions of voters to support you.
     

    historian

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    3,301
    63
    SD by residency, Hoosier by heart
    Interesting take.

    My $.02.

    First, without Chevron, our government would look a lot more like it was designed in the Constitution. To make laws/rules, Congress has to act. The judicially-approved 4th branch - the Administrative Branch - is a bastard hybrid of executive and legislative. The Chevron defense basically protects that bastardization.

    Second, it'll be REALLY hard to turn that into a hook to turn people against Gorsuch.

    Not claiming Chevron/bureaucracy is a good thing, per se, but it really is the only hook on Gorsuch. I can't imagine a large, legit agency (FCC) being able to function without Chevron to make decisions.
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    23,011
    77
    Porter County
    Someone should explain Constitutional amendments to Ms. Feinstein.
    She already knows that is when a liberal court says that what she wants is right.

    Just as legislating from the bench is when a court finds the opposite of what she wants.
     
    Top Bottom