MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 18th 2018 - 08:33 UTC

Attacks on judiciary “demoralizing” says Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court

Thursday, February 9th 2017 - 11:54 UTC
Full article 47 comments

Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has said he found the president’s attacks on the judiciary “disheartening” and “demoralizing,” according to a Democratic senator. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut disclosed the comments from Judge Neil Gorsuch after meeting with the nominee on Wednesday, as the candidate for the high court vacancy paid a series of courtesy visits to senators. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Little J

    President Trump's reaction to not getting his own way from the Judiciary, reads like the reaction of a 3 year old child who throws a tantrum for not getting what he or she wants.

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Bisley

    Trump was absolutely right in what he said -- much of the US court system runs on politics instead of law.

    It must be remembered that what Gorsuch said (if this is what he said) was to a radical leftist senator that he was trying to persuade to support his appointment to the court -- not necessarily what he believes, and certainly not intended to be repeated.

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • DemonTree

    Thank you for that rather revealing comment, Bisley.

    So Bisley, who is very right-wing, not only believes that a 'radical leftist senator' (in his own imagination) will be reasonable and fair minded enough to consider voting for a candidate nominated by the opposition, but also thinks a conservative judge nominated by Trump has so little integrity that he would tell a bald-faced lie to get himself elected. And Bisley appears to approve of this.

    As for the US court system, it is designed to be political. Judges are appointed by the president or the legislature; in some states they are even elected in partisan elections. They are supposed to be a check on the powers of the President and Congress, which is exactly why Trump is attacking them. He's used to giving orders as a CEO, and now he wants and expects the powers of an elected dictator. So in order to centralise power on himself, he is trying to turn the American people against the very system that protects them.

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    “ a bald-faced lie ”
    Interesting Americanism...Brits use “bare-faced lie”

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Well, he is an American...

    But really it's just another sign that American media is taking over everywhere, including in my brain. :( One of my colleagues at work even says 'zee' for Z and 'cant' for can't, so annoying.

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Briton

    Or two faced liar.

    Either way, who is right and who is in the wrong.

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Voice

    DemonTree...

    I got my own back, the Yankee wife now says Ta! for thanks...
    Apparently they don't use it...
    Another Viking hand-me-down..from Tak meaning thanks..

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Think

    Tak for anerkendelsen... :-)

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    Haha. My parents used to say that, but they don't anymore. Been living in the south too long.

    Has she picked up anything else? Americans I know online seem to love British swear words, for some reason.

    Feb 09th, 2017 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    DemonTree
    It's hilarious to hear her use Bloody...doesn't sound right and often in the wrong place...like “How do you bloody do this?”...instead of “ How the Bloody hell do you do this”
    Says Twot instead of Twat...
    Got the hang of buggered...
    Still mixes up pissed with taking the piss...
    It's surprising how little Americans swear....

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ElaineB

    Good to see the judges refusing to reinstate Trump's illegal travel ban. Someone needs to explain to Trump that the constitution is there to stop any President becoming a dictator.

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Hepatia

    Of course the attacks are demoralizing. That's why Trump makes them!

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Voice
    Yeah I'm always surprised how straight-laced they can be. And they usually get it hilariously wrong when they try to use British slang. There's definitely a one way flow of information going on; the rest of the world knows a lot more about the US than vice-versa, although we probably 'know' a lot of things that are only true in Hollywood.

    @ElaineB
    It's pretty clear by now that he doesn't care about the constitution. Either he's too self-absorbed to understand the damage he's doing, or he knows it perfectly well and is deliberately following the model provided by leaders like Orbán and Erdoğan.

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ElaineB

    @DT

    So do you think he is deliberately trying to sabotage his own Presidency? The U.S. citizens are welded to their constitution and he leaves himself open to being completely stalled by the law. Maybe he is. He used to be a Democrat after all.

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @EB
    No. I think he is likely one of those people who really believes everything has a simple solution, and if politicians don't do these obvious things, it must be because they are corrupt and only looking after their own interests. It doesn't occur to him that those obvious solutions have less obvious flaws, and he doesn't care to learn more either. As for the law, he intends to fight it and win in order to get his own way.

    How welded are Americans to their constitution really? I'd say a large number voted for change last year and didn't care if it was good or bad. If Trump can turn people against the judges, and the press, and any other opposition he encounters, and convince people that he is the only one who has their best interests at heart, will they really care if he is ignoring a few 'minor' parts of the constitution?

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • ElaineB

    @ DT

    I don't believe he has turned the majority of people against judges or the press. I actually think the opposite. People that voted for him are unhappy with his behaviour as President and he most certainly does not have the support in government you would expect at this early stage and with Republican majorities. Trump is running his term in office in the way he ran his campaign and it just does not work. He should be enjoying a honeymoon period of support but that simply is not happening.

    If Trump overrides the constitution - and I believe that will never happen - the U.S. will break up. It really is the only thing that holds the union together. Americans are inculcated to believe in the constitution like a religion. If there was any chance of changing it in any way they would have taken their guns away a long time ago. That makes sense since they are so adept at shooting each other and letting their kids play with them.

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • chronic

    FYI:

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Briton

    Trump could well turn out to be one of the best US Presidents yet,

    but time will tell, and good luck to the Americans..

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • chronic

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2477

    Feb 10th, 2017 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Terence Hill

    chronic
    Other than your personal opinion, do you have anything to substantiate your claim of (Ninth Circuit) “being the most overturned”.
    “The subject of Supreme Court reversal rates arises, two common perceptions usually come to mind. First, the Ninth Circuit is the “rogue circuit.” Second, the Supreme Court only takes cases that it intends to reverse. An empirical study of Supreme Court dispositions of cases from the courts of appeals during the last 10 Terms1 reveals that neither of these common perceptions is true.”
    Thanks for your confirmation of your own BS.

    Feb 11th, 2017 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @EB
    I think that most of the people who voted for him are perfectly happy. They wanted a Muslim ban, they wanted a wall, they wanted a president who acts like a 'tough guy' rather than cooperating to get things done. The majority of Americans may be appalled, but the US political system gives the minority who support Trump disproportionate power.

    You are right that a lot of Americans seem to almost worship their constitution; that is what makes it so powerful. I guess I am not really worried that Trump will be able to change it or override it in a really obvious way, but that he will find ways around it, and appoint enough yes-men that he can get what he wants without opposition.

    @Briton
    The things he has done already have pretty much made that impossible. But I will join you in wishing good luck to the Americans.

    Feb 11th, 2017 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • chronic

    Poor half wit libtards.

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

    Table 2

    140 reversals and vacations.

    lol.

    Feb 12th, 2017 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Briton

    DemonTree
    thanks,

    also
    Americans seem to almost worship their constitution

    you mean those who demand the right to bare arms,
    this right is guarded tightly, yet some think its outdated now,

    Feb 12th, 2017 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • chronic

    Teri, thanks for verifying your ignorance.

    Feb 12th, 2017 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • DemonTree

    Poor half-wit Chronic; doesn't understand percentages.

    The 9th Circuit Court also has the most cases AFFIRMED by the Supreme Court.

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

    Table 2

    35 cases affirmed, more than any other court.

    It has both the most cases overturned and the most affirmed, because it is much bigger than any of the others. Anyone of normal intelligence should be able to understand this.

    @Briton
    Not just those people, but they are a good example. It's true that it's rather outdated in intention, but I think they could actually do a lot to make their country safer without removing this right.

    Feb 12th, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • chronic

    Poor Monkey.

    I never mentioned percentages.

    Here you go again Monkey, trying to change the matter in discussion.

    140.

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • DemonTree

    No, you didn't. Because percentages would be the correct way to compare the different courts, and you were deliberately trying to mislead by quoting the raw figures.

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Voice

    Briton
    Sleeves are the answer....;-)))

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Troy Tempest

    DT,

    “Chronic” has a history of proclaiming he has superior, first-hand knowledge of the USA, whilst posting slanted or unsubstantiated comments designed to be offensive.

    He is simply a trolling poseur who likes to offend and insult others for his own amusement and self-aggrandisement.

    Some of us believe he may be yet another incarnation of “Voice”.

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • chronic

    Dishonest libtard shit.

    You can't win an argument so you change the premise.

    This is straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.

    lol.

    Monkey, no one designated you as arbiter of what is “correct”.

    The numbers speak for themselves.

    Viewers can read them for their selves and make their own determinations.

    Your spin is irrelevant and rhetorically dishonest but so is all such libtard blather.

    You're busted, you're “intellectually” and otherwise dishonest and you can't suspend your partisan bias for even a moment of truth.

    Fool.

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Kanye

    “Chronic”

    “You're busted, you're “intellectually” and otherwise dishonest and you can't suspend your partisan bias for even a moment of truth”

    You're projecting, again.

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • chronic

    Conway, are you Monkey's puppet or are you actually just another Monkey login?

    lol.

    Unlike the libtards I actually put the facts in the record.

    Remain ignorant or learn - it's your choice.

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    @Chronic
    “Viewers can read them for their selves and make their own determinations.”

    Yes, they can, and unlike you, most of them are capable of understanding that a court that handles vastly more cases will naturally have more cases overturned.

    According to your 'logic' the 9th Circuit court is actually the most reliable, since it had the most cases affirmed by the Supreme Court. It's right there in the table, the numbers speak for themselves.

    This is why any meaningful comparison between courts must look at the percentage of cases overturned and not the raw numbers.

    Oh, and Kanye is right; your post really is a remarkable example of projection. How do you get through your days with your subconscious screaming at you like that?

    Feb 13th, 2017 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • chronic

    http://scdb.wustl.edu/data.php

    1946-2015

    Appeals taken by the scotus from federal circuit courts.

    The highest PERCENTAGE of cases overturned from any circuit - 72.64%.

    lol.

    They're number ONE in the hearts of the batshit crazy libtards and in % of appeals overturned - THE NINTH CIRCUS !!!

    Next.

    Feb 14th, 2017 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    So you claim but produce no evidence.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Kanye

    TH

    He is just an offensive troll pretending to be an American.

    Best ignored.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • chronic

    lol.

    http://scdb.wustl.edu/data.php

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    chronic
    You are the one who is making the claim, therefore you bear the burden of to prove your assertion. Directing others to a site is not meeting your obligation, since there is no obligation on anyone to disprove your declaration. So your failure is de facto ‘silence’, and that means you have acquiesced to an apposing view. In layman’s terms you have confirmed that your proposition is totally false. Therefore, under rules of logic you are a proven liar.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • chronic

    Can't do the coding, huh Terri?

    lol.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Terence Hill

    chronic
    No! there’s no onus on me. So you remain a verified liar, one who “talks the talk, but can’t walk the walk”

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • chronic

    Poor Terri, ignorant and lazy.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    chronic
    No! Both knowledgable and astute. Ignorance and laziness is accurately attributable to you as you don’t meet your burden of proof.
    “He who asserts must prove. .. In the end, the duty to support an assertion is on the writer, not the reader (like the burden of proof is on the accuser in court, rather than the accused).
    http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
    “Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.”
    http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • chronic

    lol.

    And staying with bicoastal theme of idiocy :

    #2. at 70.44%, the D.C. Circuit!

    http://scdb.wustl.edu/data.php

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @chronic
    Firstly, congratulations on finally understanding that it is the percentage of cases overturned that matters for comparisons. Now we may actually be able to get somewhere.

    But is your original link not good enough now? I guess not, since it clearly says that the Federal Circuit has the highest reversal rate and the 9th Circuit is second.

    So, you had to go all the way back to 1946 to get the result you wanted? There cannot possibly be a single judge from back then still serving, so why would decisions from so long ago have any relevance? Perhaps you can show that it WAS the most overturned, but you'll need to limit yourself to the last 10 or maybe 20 years to say anything about the current situation.

    Besides that, I hate to agree with Terence, but your link just goes to a site where one can download the data. There is no mention of the percentage you give on that site. Either find a link that actually shows what you claim, or analyse the data yourself and show us your working.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • chronic

    And they try yet again to move goal posts!

    lol.

    Surely you can't be as inept as Teri.

    Crush the numbers as you may (I'll be happy to confirm them).

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    Chronic, I was talking above about the numbers and data in the link YOU provided. Now, because your own link did not support your claim, you have decided to drag in cases from up to 70 years ago - THAT is moving the goal posts.

    If you have calculated the percentages for each decade then I would be interested to see how they change over time, but only the recent ones are really relevant as I said before.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Kanye

    Demon Tree very astutely points out the flaws in Chronic's thinking and the omissions in his links.

    Terry is quite right, Chronic makes a claim that is not supported by the link he provides.

    It's Chronic who is “chronically lazy” and desperately moving the goalposts.

    Next, he'll blame Obama for the “Bowling Green Massacre” and Hillary for the Muslim Ban.

    Mindless trumpeter.

    Feb 15th, 2017 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!