Did Gorsuch equivocate about Trump's judiciary attacks?

05779024

 

“‘He’s very proud of the selection he’s made,’ Spicer said, who noted Gorsuch was not commenting on ‘any specific matter.’

‘So to take what he (Gorsuch) said about a generalization and apply it to a specific is exactly what he was intending not to do,’ Spicer said.”   [foxnews.com]

 

 

Against federal judges Trump rushed to inveigh.

When his ban of the Muslims  in court had its day.

I’m disheartened, said Gorsuch;

It’s enough to abhor; such

As I do , of course, in a general way.

Filed under: hypocrisy, language, logic

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I had several quick takeaways from briefly scanning the Daily Herald (AP and Washington Post pieces).

    1. Despite another Twitter storm,there are numerous witnesses who essentially verified the account of Gorsuch's remarks. While some didn't say he directly referred to the Washington federal judge, it was certainly clear who was attacking the judges.

    2. When the first article came out,I saw that the distinguished graduates from the Sessions College of Law at Trump U spammed the Facebook comments. However, absolutely no comments to the more detailed explanations of the legal reasoning in 2 later articles.

    c. It is clear that anything @real puts on Twitter is a lie, and only an inordinate number of psychotics believe it. I don't think even Goebbels got to that fast of a start, and, at this point, there isn't any need for an "AP FACT CHECK."

    iv. Bannon's boys are backing down. An argument was made that WH Counsel said the ban doesn't apply to green cards, to which the response was he isn't the president. The judges also went all John Marshall on the contention that the dictator was not subject to judicial review, phrased in legalistic terms of "Congress has delegated exclusive discretion."

    5. Turns out this was only a request for a stay from the 9th Circuit, and not an appeal on the merits of the temporary restraining order. Thus the courts did not get to the merits of whether this was religious discrimination, and set a briefing schedule on the merits. As several of the articles point out, no way the Supreme Court grants a stay pending appeal.

    6. Will Rosie show up on SNL this week? I say yes.

  • In reply to jack:

    I kinda hope so. I'll be watching.

Leave a comment