Gorsuch On Marriage: Obergefell Is “Absolutely Settled Law” But Questions Remain About Its Scope [VIDEO]

The Washington Post reports:

The discussion of same-sex marriage was particularly pointed. When asked how his views on marriage have changed over the years, Gorsuch said he would not answer because it “would send a misleading signal to the American people.” Gorsuch was asked about same-sex marriage, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015, and called it “absolutely settled law.” But Gorsuch said he would not speak more on it because there are other legal actions still unfolding that are related to the impact of that ruling. “There’s ongoing litigation about its impact and its application right now,” Gorsuch said. Gorsuch said.

  • Boreal
  • Hmm… “Loving v. Virginia is absolutely settled law, but questions remain about its scope.”

    Yep, still vile as a legal justification.

    Seriously, if there’s a religious right to anti-LGBT discrimination even in the face of legal rulings and legislated law, should there not be exemptions under the same principle for all other kinds: Race, religion, gender, age, national origin?

    • Ninja0980

      They’ll gut those do if given the chance.

    • Jerry

      Being an originalist, I’m sure he’d allow black people to have 3/5 of their votes counted.

  • Bryan

    Damn you Al Franken… you’re making me believe again.

  • No More GOP.

    Shorter: “I’ll fuck over the faggots to the maximum degree I can manage.”

  • Carl

    “The discussion of same-sex marriage was particularly pointed. When asked how his views on marriage have changed over the years, Gorsuch said he would not answer because it ‘would send a misleading signal to the American people.’ ”

    No answer, no confirmation.

    • Homo Erectus

      Mislead us, please. Inquiring minds want to know.

      • tristram

        His views on gay marriage are utterly irrelevant. He has often said that based on his reading of the law – the Constitution as he thinks it was intended in 1791 – he makes decisions that do not comport with his personal feelings. He could say, “I’ve come to believe that gay marriage is wonderful for the gays and beneficial to society as a whole, and I’ve been to many gay marriages” and then blithely overrule or undercut Obergefell because it wasn’t mentioned by James Madison.

        • BobSF_94117

          The problem with his “originalist” views is that the Constitution was silent on homosexuality. That the ignorance and bias of the time were against homosexuality cannot infect what the Constitution says about equal treatment of citizens before the courts. We are not demonic. We are not insane. Whether we are “sinful” is irrelevant. We are no different before the law than any other citizens, regardless of what people two and a half centuries ago thought we were.

    • EdA

      Unless he has a husband or boyfriend on the side and his wife is actually a beard, what truthful answer that Gorsucks provides could be misleading?

      • Strepsi

        “I still hate all gay people and want God to them to burn in a fiery pit” might mislead Americans into thinking he’s a bigot.

        • olandp

          I don’t think that would be misleading…

    • CJAS

      The “misleading signal to the American people” his views on marriage would send is that he believes that the government should not protect individuals’ ability to make autonomous choices but instead promote “basic goods” which, according to this natural law theory, does not include any of what the court found in the last half century to be civil rights.

  • Chuck in NYC

    Well that’s exactly the way the GOP has dealt with Roe v. Wade. It’s “settled law,” but WOW can they challenge the scope of it so much that it becomes onerous.

    The two topics are, of course, vastly different, but the right wing approach to the laws surrounding them sounds virtually the same.

  • bkmn

    Gorsuch is willing to hitch his star to Trump – that should tell you everything you need to know about him.

    • Boreal

      Anyone with a shred of integrity would have declined the appt.

  • kanehau

    Questions about scope? What… should not apply to gay people?

    • Homo Erectus

      Only white christian gay people.

      • kanehau

        Those exist?

        • Homo Erectus

          Like I said…..

          • kanehau

            Oh. I get it now.

  • AtticusP
    • Lars Littlefield

      That’s the best meme of Haysoos I’ve seen. The best.

    • Ray Muñez

      He is definitely not speaking about the cake and florist lawsuits because those pre-date Obergefell and don’t involve any of the issues resolved in Obergefell. He might be talking about the TX lawsuit mentioned in a comment above and possibly some litigation over whether birth certificates of the children of gay parents must include the names of both gay parents.

  • JoeMyGod

    Gorsuch’s mention of ongoing litigation surely refers to the case before the Texas Supreme Court which could strike down government spousal benefits for married gays.

    • Ninja0980

      Which he will gladly uphold when it gets to SCOTUS and it will.

      • Andy

        << I have made 104,000 thousand dollars last year by doing an online job a­­n­­d I was able to do it by wo­rking part-time for 3+ hours /daily. I followed work model I was introduced by this web-site i found online and I am amazed that i was able to make such great money. It’s very user-friendly a­n­d I am just so blessed that i found this. This is what i did.. ➤➤➤➤www.cat.org.uk/snip/28557

      • Marissaekelly

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj198d:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        !mj198d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash198MediaBlueGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj198d:….,….

    • tristram

      Exactly – “Obergefell says gays can get married but it doesn’t say that states or anyone else has to treat homo marriages the same as they treat hetero marriages.”

      • safari

        “Closely held private corporation” will be rearing it’s head again.

        • The Professor

          EXACTLY.

      • billbear1961

        I was very much under the impression that that was EXACTLY what Obergefell said, that we are entitled to be part of the SAME institution with the SAME rights, that the whole POINT was to avoid SKIM-MILK marriage for us, and FULL marriage for heterosexuals.

        • Patsyrgonzalez

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj261d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !mj261d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash261TopMobileGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj261d:….,…….

      • I know you’re just sarcastically p objecting what Gorsuch might say, but these lawsuits baffle me because Obergefell was pretty clear that denying marriage to same sex couples was unconstitutional in part because it was denying same sex couples the same rights afforded to married couples:

        “States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable.”

        Stuff like that is repeated elsewhere, too. SCOTUS was pretty clear that it wasn’t just giving the right to a piece of paper, it was also guaranteeing all of the same legal rights and protections that paper afforded to opposite sex couples. It’s absurd for this Texas case to pretend otherwise.

        • another_steve

          I agree. Government at every level — federal, state, county and local — cannot discriminate in this area. To claim that Obergefell permits otherwise is on its face ridiculous.

          • Chris Baker

            I hope the lawyers bring up hypothetical situations such as a government only giving benefits to an employee’s spouse if that was the employee’s first spouse (not divorced and remarried.) Because if a government can pick and choose which marriages they view as being worthy of benefits….

        • stuckinthewoods

          And yet, the Obergefell decision was not unanimous. One more dissenting voice like Scalia’s and we wouldn’t now be worrying about whether marriage is “absolutely settled law”. It would have settled against us. SC decisions have been revisited.

        • The lawsuits are a desperate attempt to get Kennedy to say “when I said that, I didn’t really mean that.”

    • Lumpy Gaga

      [Cue Barry White Music]

      Oh, Baby…. I’ve had my eyes on you….
      — Goresuch to TX

    • j.martindale

      I would think it also is any of the array of “religious freedom” acts which challenge the extent to which those objecting to SSM can manifest their bigotry in opposing it.

    • Steverino

      Not just Obergefell, but Windsor. What happens if a GOP-majority Congress passes and Trump/Pence signs DOMA 2.0, and after being challenged in lower federal district and appellate courts, it gets upheld by a right-wing SCOTUS, thus overturning Windsor? Bye-bye spousal benefits from Social Security, Veterans Administration, Internal Revenue Service, etc.

    • The_Wretched

      Gorsuch also had a red flag comment that he couldn’t state his personal views on LGBT as it would bias how people viewed him.

  • Sam_Handwich

    Franken also went after him on one of his rulings involving a trucker who was fired after trying to get himself out of an impossible situation

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/844282458346541056

    • -M-

      Very good.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      #cold

    • olandp

      And he made sausage of Senator Franken?

      • Lumpy Gaga

        frozen sausage.

      • Joe in PA

        Consider the source.

  • another_steve

    The theofascists have given up on reversing Obergefell. They know that’s not going to happen. They’re running now with the “religious liberty” scam.

    Gorsuch knows that there will be cases before the Court testing the notion of whether someone in, say, a bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex married couple based on a claim of religious liberty.

    • caphillprof

      I hope religious liberty comes back to bite them on the ass.

    • Friday

      Honestly if they limited it to the pettiness of a few bakers, *and nothing else* that would be fine, but of course that’s just their excuse to emulate Jim Crow against us.

      • Ninja0980

        Today’s cake bakers will be tomorrow’s renters, then doctors etc.

        • Friday

          That is of course why they *use* a few fanatics in wedding services to try and manufacture grievances against LGBT rights, but if they got just the wedding cake pettiness to suck on it’d serve them right, then they could go back to whining about the bad reviews.

        • Oh, Parker

          Blacks in the south had to drive with extra gasoline in their cars because some stations refused to pump gas for them. Thank goodness we at least live in an age when you can pull up to a station, pump it yourself, pay with a card and go on your way. Housing, medical, etc., not so much.

      • Bluto

        Friday, I like your contributions to this here web thingy but I disagree here. Discrimination is flat out wrong using any measure, even if somehow it could be limited to just bakers. Few things in life are either black or white but this is one of them.

        • Friday

          It is, yes, and obviously it’s legally bad precedent, but it *would* point out just how petty and marginalized this hate really is, over time. 🙂

    • tristram

      There’s a thousand things they can do to eviscerate Obegefell without “reversing” it. And they’re gonna try every one of them. Look what they’ve already done to Roe v. Wade – and watch what happens when Gorsuch and Pryor join Thomas, Alito and Roberts on SCOTUS. For starters, check out the Texas case Joe refers to above.

      • another_steve

        I’ll be surprised if the court allows disparate state government treatment of same-sex vs. opposite-sex married couples. Very surprised.

        Much more likely imo will be the green light for those in the private marketplace to treat same-sex couples disparately based on the “sincerely-held religious beliefs” of the providers of goods and services.

        Even that will be tricky though. What rationale would/could the court then use to forbid, say, the refusal of service to a married interracial opposite-sex couple — based on a claim of religious liberty.

  • Lazycrockett

    Gorsuch hasn’t answered a damn thing today and his little Jimmy Stewart gosh shucks impression wears thin quite quickly.

    • Shit….that’s normally how I perform at job interviews.

  • Cuberly

    Here we go…..the christianist hyper-relevancy campaign. Should be pointed out that even Scalia found denial of services using religion as the excuse, problematic.

    I agree with some others on here, Gorsuch would be worse than Scalia.

    • Ninja0980

      And yet some folks on our side still think others could be worse.
      Nope, he is as bad as it gets.

      • canoebum

        He’s a snake. This whole “I can’t tell you my personal views because it might give people the wrong idea” is pure bullshit. He means us harm, real harm, to the greatest extent and as soon as possible.

      • Friday

        Actually there really *could* be worse than this, the real question is if that distinction’s gonna matter in practice. He’s obviously trying to be palatable and answer nothing about his real agenda, but we’ll see. No Democrat should vote to confirm anyway, just because of what the Republicans did blocking a legitimate appointment.

      • Cuberly

        It’s surprising how bad he is and how many regard him as a “moderate”. Even supposed “moderate” GOPers think he’s Scalia lite. He is sooooooo not Scalia lite.

    • AJ Drew

      But his hair is almost perfect, and I’d like to meet his tailor. /s

  • Natty Enquirer

    That’s code for “religious right to discriminate.”

    • CJAS

      It goes way beyond that. His view is that the court should not protect individuals’ ability to make autonomous choices but instead promote “basic goods” which, according to this natural law theory, does not include any of what the court found in the last half century to be civil rights.

  • canoebum

    Yeah, equal marriage is settled law, until the court decides which parts can be unequal. Which will go first? Survivor benefits, immigration benefits, portability between states, recognition of marriages made in foreign countries? Let’s spin the wheel and find out!

    • Lumpy Gaga

      “How do you keep things, you know, exciting in your marriage?”

      “Knowing it could be blown up any day, any hour now?”

  • AJ Drew

    Al Franken has been a surprise, and a thankful one. From SNL “but what about me, Al Franken,” to now making the too-plaintive-acting Gorsuch squirm. No matter what comes of it, thank you, Al.

    • BearEyes

      even though I don”t live in MN, I still drop a few shekels into his campaign fund

    • Frostbite

      Making him squirm is good theater, but unfortunately won’t stop him from being confirmed. 😞

  • Leo

    OT: Mike Lee’s going HAM on Paul Ryan on CNN right now. It’s delicious.

  • Lazycrockett
    • Leo

      GRU’s getting more brazen it seems.

    • Lars Littlefield

      Must of been those godless moose lambs.

      • BJORN RAGNVALDR

        Well, when you start mixing moose with lamb you’re asking for a heap of trouble, better to stick with moose and squirrel.

    • Leo

      WAIT HOLY SHIT WAIT:

      In addition to representing the family of the late Sergei Magnitsky, Gorokhov reportedly served as a witness for ex-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s separate case probing allegedly corrupt Russian businessmen and officials.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/21/magnitsky-family-lawyer-thrown-from-building.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

      • Lazycrockett

        Bingo

        • Leo

          and then this… :/

        • Bryan

          So that brings us up to…9 now, is it? they’re not even being coy about it. They’ve gone from hiding it, to not even trying to hide it, to just being goddamn blatant about it.

          • BobSF_94117

            The GOP will relent and agree to an independent investigation as soon as five more people are dead.

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      If I was one of those Russians with not-so-clean dealings with Trump/Putin and I was watching all this, I’d want to leave a nice booby trap of all the dirt in case anything happened to me.

    • safari

      Seem to be a lot of Russian deaths since the election related to Donald’s cabal associates.

    • Ninja0980

      Stuff like this is why my friend’s brother finally came back home after living and working in Russia.
      It’s simply become too dangerous for Americans or any one anti-Putin.

    • DaddyRay

      And this is what Trumpets cheer – very disturbing

  • Ninja0980

    In other words, religious freedom laws that make it so companies don’t have to acknowledge same sex couples, clerk offices that will be off limits to gay couples and many other things that will basically make same sex marriage licenses nothing more then a piece of paper.

  • Boreal
    • Marco

      Ah, I see you are one who feels better pointing fingers and casting blame. You’ll be served that same shit sandwich. What are you doing now to change the future?

      • Ninja0980

        Not trying to primary and attack my own party for one.

      • Carl

        “What are you doing now to change the future?”

        Ever notice how these guys always try to flip the conversation around on you? When they can’t form an argument, they deflect. They casually sit back and put everyone’s life of trial while they lick the cheeto stains from their fingers..

        • Boreal

          Marco is a troll and a poor one at that. Killfile blocks non account disqus trolls quite well.

        • Boreal

          He’s been licking cheeto’s ass.

      • PickyPecker
      • JT

        The first thing I’m going to do is tell you to fuck off.

      • Lumpy Gaga

        [Unbuckles pants]
        [Shits on floor]

        There. I’ve just changed the future.

      • Gene

        uhhh…if you were one of the FUCKING IDIOTS

        let me type that again….one of the FUCKING IDIOTS, who did NOT Vote for Clinton for WHATEVER reason…

        A L L of this shit storm is on you. you had TWO real choices…her, or him.

        now..if you ARE a clinton supporter and just were trolling boreal..cause…I dont know…you enjoy being an ass..fine. your an ass. understood

        but, if ANY of the below apply

        no “she did not excite me”
        no”its not my job to support someone my oh so holy conscience could not abide”
        I wanted to build a third party
        I was to pure to vote for someone who is just PERFECT
        no…FUCKING stupidity

        If you did not support her…Apologize, admit you were wrong…but, FUCK if you think you will blame the sane ones for pointing out your mistake and trying to make us feel guilty cause you were a narcissist (assuming…again…that you did not vote for her, and are one..which you seem to imply)

        have a nice day

        • Dazzer

          And thank you Gene!

          Round of drinks on me if ever we meet 🙂

          • Gene

            I look forward to that when I am next in the UK (and may it remain so).

            Lars..I hope I did not appear to mention age…there are fools in all age groups…but I will say this. Among older gays, I know FAR fewer than I do among the younger ones..

            I am in the middle…and have little patience with holier than thou “I just could not live with myself if I voted for her…she…talked to…bankers! she was not the FIRST on board for marriage equality! he does not support it, but…she was not first…and when Steinbitch is not kissing putins ass, she says all the right things!”

            just…. FUCK that.

          • Stein and also Susan Sarandon. Get the fuck out of town. They helped cause this madness and I for one will never forget.

          • stuckinthewoods

            For some reason people mention Stein but Johnson seldom is included. I know (knew) a couple who voted for him and are just as culpable.

          • That’s a fair point. Personally the few Johnson voters I know would never vote for a Democrat so I consider them a lost cause. They are even nuttier than the Stein crowd so I usually try not to engage.

        • Carl

          I can forgive the twenty-somethings who haven’t been through the cycle like we have with Bush/Reagan…. but the elder gays around here who should know better? Fuck those assholes. That stink is going to stick to them forever.

          • Lars Littlefield

            I keep hearing about “elder gays” who should known better. Quite honestly, I don’t know any elder gays who didn’t vote. And out of all those I do know who voted, none of them voted for Trump. As an “older gay”, myself, I find it amusing “younger gays” are so willing to throw us all under the bus without any real evidence that we “elder gays” are somehow guilty for the failures of the world. Such finger-pointing is pathetic as well as ignorant.

            Prove it with facts, boyze and girlz, or get out of the fucking sandbox.

          • Dk6

            Please. the younger gays were insufferable. they were screaming moaning and stomping their feet bc Bernie wasn’t the nominee, vowing not to vote for HRC. (living in Brooklyn I got a firsthand view) Where are these kids now? Stomping and screaming and moaning at anti-trump rallies. I don’t think they understand cause and effect too well. I am 44 and remember the Bush years all too well. the eldergays remember Reagan, his ignorance of AIDs, and even scummy nixon. there’s no way they didn’t vote

          • I know a lot of those here but in the last few weeks they all decided to vote for Clinton. Also, in Brooklyn? *shrug* If they were in Columbus or Pittsburgh that would have mattered.

          • Dk6

            I wouldn’t make assumptions. I knew three of the young’uns personally-2 were absentee voting from Florida & one from Wisconsin , and they just didn’t vote, so yeah, it mattered. Also-that whole swing state argument is bunk. Who’s to say that someone who’s disaffected with HRC in NY or in love with trump in Texas isn’t Facebook posting/Twitter etc. to friends/family in a swing state. Word spreads, quickly, this isn’t 1962 or even 2002

          • Fair enough. But I’ve had about enough of the circular firing squad bullshit we’ve had going on since November.

          • Dk6

            true, it’s hard to let go though-especially after seeing what dump & co. are trying to do to the country.

          • I understand that you’re angry. I’m angry too. But in-fighting is going to get us at least two more years of Republicans running EVERYTHING.

            At this point we have to work together to keep everything we won over the past 50 years from slipping away. Have people not woken up to that yet?

          • stuckinthewoods

            You raise a dilemna I face. The couple I just replied to you about vote in VA which went for Hillary. I can’t bring myself to excuse a vote for Johnson just because a slender margin of other VA voters mitigated the effect of their stupidity. Sure, “Columbus or Pittsburgh” had greater effect than their vote did here. Husband agrees with them that their vote for Johnson was not a vote for trump. I don’t. Even a multiple choice question only has one right answer.

          • Libertarians are loony tunes. They don’t live in the real world and are unwilling to hold rational discussions about any real-world practical topic. It’s not worth my time. If you want to continue to engage you are welcome to and maybe you will prove me wrong. He voted for a pothead over an experienced person to run the country. Oh and a pothead whose own running mate endorsed Clinton. Is such a person capable of rational thought?

          • stuckinthewoods

            No, you wouldn’t be proven wrong. I’ll avoid any political discussion because I find their views irredeemable.
            She is one of those people who claims to suffer from “low self esteem” and she feels comfy with me because I tend to be affirming. Now I’m having trouble not saying, “maybe you should just go with your gut instinct on that one.”

          • Carl

            I think if you read my comment again you will see I’m not trying to attack or generalize the elder community. We wouldn’t be here without you.

            But I did spend a lot of 2016 arguing with a couple of guys on this forum who were old enough to know better. I don’t want to drop names, but some sound like Pill Burdue… Surely a minority among their age group, but man, did they ever get under my skin. That’s all I’m referring to.

          • Goodboy

            Really. I’m with Lars. I don’t know any elder gays but I do know plenty of twenty somethings who didn’t bother to vote. I can’t point fingers because at that age I didn’t either.

            However, this election was historic in terms of reversing things and sitting it out was stupidity and apathy at it’s absolute finest.

          • Carl

            I wrote a reply to Lars that was eaten by the spam filter. All I’m saying is I can forgive inexperience. But people my age who still see no difference between parties are just not applying themselves. Yes, I hold people who have seen the consequences of elections to higher standards. Not seeing why that is controversial.

            I have no idea where this idea that I through all the elders under the bus came from. I thought I was pretty clear, given the context.

          • Hamoverfist

            I always found not voting bizarre. As a middle aged gay I’ve voted in every election since 1988 with the exception of one, Clinton/Dole and I was in California at the time. I think I can be excused for that one.

          • Dk6

            same here. every one but clinton/dole. was living in South beach at the time doing god knows what. I did volunteer for Kerry though. (sad face)

          • We can fault younger people for not enough of them voting but that’s an old problem. If only people under 30 had voted Clinton would have won 47 states.

            Also fewer gay people voted Republican this year than have since they’ve asked people in exit polls if they were gay. So it wasn’t us that did this, young, old or in between.

      • olandp

        First off, we didn’t order the shit sandwich.

      • GayOldLady

        Is that you Marco Rubio? And people like Boreal are the reason we have the civil rights victories we’ve won, the civil rights that you enjoy. We put our bodies on the streets marching and working for our rights for decades. WE KNOW the importance of casting a vote in every election and we know how important it is to cast a vote and not to WASTE our vote on stick people like Jill Stein who has nothing to offer but empty platitudes. Grow up!

      • greenmanTN

        And my question to you is what did you do to prevent this present disaster from happening?

    • Gene

      yeah…its small and petty of me…I ADMIT IT..
      but…

      Where HAS B P been lately…in this shit hurricane of rancidness?
      “but…they are the same” will ring hollow now…and the coward knows it.

      he will return when there is an election I suspect…

      I hope I am not alone in telling him to sit in a Las Vegas cactus
      when he does

      • Carl

        I’ve heard whispers from the void that he has been blocked.

      • Boreal

        He was posting on Mediate or the Hill a few weeks ago.

        • Carl

          He’s almost more of a spam machine than an actual person these days.

          • Boreal

            I have him blocked.

          • I’m surprised any regular reader doesn’t have him blocked!

          • Boreal

            Some still engage him for whatever reason.

          • Randy Ellicott

            I like to see what he says, just to get a view into he heart of darkness and all..

          • Ander

            As do I. What’s the point in engaging?

          • Boreal

            None at all.

      • Acronym Jim

        BP and Ish were recently observed twitting at each other about having been banned from JMG.

        • Al

          you mean “twatting” don’t you?

          • Dazzer

            In British slang, ‘twatting’ means something entirely different.

      • Nic Peterson

        BP has been enjoying his trump. He worked hard to make it happen.

    • I hope they choke on it. I really do. I’m tired of standing up for people who steamroll over me. Let them choke. Heimlich maneuver? What’s that?

  • Ninja0980

    https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/844183280622718978
    Fuck people like this miserable homocon and others who think praise anti-LGBT judges like Gorsuch and attack the Democratic ones who have made equality for them possible.

    • Boreal

      Homocons are pigs.

      • Ninja0980

        My cousin quit being friends with one from high school after he went to work for our one and done teabagger Congresswoman.

      • Stev84

        Why do you have to insult pigs?

    • Lumpy Gaga

      What about that practiced pain look he sports when Al says “makes me question your judgment”??

    • Acronym Jim

      So Gorsuch is a blood-sucking vampire? Got it.

    • DN

      Guy Benson: one of the best /ignores ever.

      And I say that just based on what the JMG community quotes from him.

  • Stev84

    He is a carbon copy of Fat Tony. He has a predetermined opinion about everything based on his hyperconservative ideology. Then he bends the law to support it and calls it “originalism”

  • JaniceInToronto

    Fucker is refusing to say what kind of rulings he’ll h make against LGBT people.

    • Ninja0980

      We know what kind of ones they’ll be, all anti-LGBT ones.

  • Ninja0980

    He says that he smokes and given his family’s history, the only “good” thing about him being on the bench is he likely won’t be there as long as Scalia was.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Cancer: It doesn’t always suck.

  • Friday

    So, Gorsuch, what part of “Equal Protection of the Law” and “Full Faith and Credit” did you sleep through in pre-law again?

  • Gigi

    He’s good friends with Ken Mehlman. BLECH!

    • Ninja0980

      Another homocon with $$$.

      • Tor

        Isn’t that the only kind?

  • JT

    Gorsuch On Marriage: Obergefell Is “Absolutely Settled Law” But Questions Remain About Its Scope

    Gorsuch: For same sex marriage, we need to scope out the “if anyone objects” part.

  • boobert

    You can bet that’s a warning sign !

  • worstcultever

    absolutely |ˌabsəˈlo͞otlē|
    adverb
    1 with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.

    Hey Biff Jesuspuke, Mr. Dictionary says you’re a lying sack of shit.

  • Circ09

    I don’t know why I am bothering reading or getting upset with his answers/non-answers. It’s theatre. He’s going to be on the Supreme Court. So I might as well just get on with it.

    • Bryan

      I’m kinda afraid of this, but that’s why Franken’s raking over the coals was so wonderful. Maybe it amounts to nothing, but maybe we’ve seen enough to delay/sink him. And more than a few people are starting to get dicey about confirmations when Dump is caught up in investigations.

  • Ninja0980

    The sad part is the lower courts will soon have judges like him on the bench.
    124 seats filled by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.
    And all because Democrats have NEVER fought for the courts the way Republicans have.
    That is what has ticked me off the most about them over the years.

    • Friday

      Hey, it’s not like I picked a couple years in Rio over law school or something, you know. I was kinda busy being destitute.

  • Never trust a self-avowed homophobe.

  • Skip Intro

    As always, tell them what they want to hear in order to get the job. Then fall in lockstep with every other neocon.

    • nocadrummer

      Like Clarence Thomas?

  • Sam_Handwich
    • Lumpy Gaga

      Consider yourself warned, Warren..

    • Bad Tom

      Way better excuse to hold off confirmation than it’s his last year in office.

      • Chucktech

        Not to mention the Republicans said they were perfectly willing to keep that SCOTUS seat open for four years if Hillary had won.

      • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

        It may actually be #45’s last year in office.

        • Bad Tom

          I think you may be correct.

  • Capritaur

    He lives in Boulder, one of the most liberal cities in the countries. Unfortunately, Boulder’s brand of liberalism consists sole of yoga, kale, exotic food, fetishization of Eastern Religions and the occult, conspicuous display of liberal virtues, and a recreational lifestyle, with none of the activism, which pretty much explains anomalies like its lack of diversity, a rabidly fanatic Catholic church (that some devout Catholics don’t even go to), a conservative city government, and Neil Gorsuch.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Pretty liberal… for a capitalist!

  • BearEyes

    scope
    code for religious based discrimination
    he’s a known fan of so-called “religious liberty” exemptions and had a hand in Hobby Lobby which sets a bad precedent.

  • geoffalnutt

    Same sex couples ARE “the American people”, you evil, evil monster.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    [Brandishing crucifix]

    “THIS is scope, bitch.”
    — Justice Gorsuch

  • -M-

    It’s scope is marriage law. Anything and everything that relates to legal marriage.

  • Taylor

    “Settled law”..with a big ole “but” attached to it.

  • olandp

    Another worm.

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    OT – Today on Life in Trumpland: The California African Trade Summit had zero Africans present. All the Africans that were going to attend were denied visas.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/African-trade-summit-in-California-welcomed-no-11017679.php

    • Lars Littlefield

      Eddie Murphy needs to make this into a screenplay.

    • Dazzer

      One would like to think people are going to stop and shout from the rooftops: “Enough is Enough” – but it’s never going to happen.

  • Cuberly

    OT: Thursday is looking ever more interesting. Especially since Trump’s threats most likely amt to diddly squat. Hard to play the strong-man with approval #s in the 30s.

    https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/844303333833748481

    • Lars Littlefield

      Fingers crossed, there won’t be.

      • Cuberly

        …but if that happens the plot thickens. What will they do next?

    • Sam_Handwich
      • grada3784

        Why is Sessions even involved? He’s the AG, after all.

        • Sam_Handwich

          rep pete sessions, chair of the House rules comm

          • grada3784

            Too many sessions for me to keep track of.

      • billbear1961

        I’m really proud of the CBO, pulling out all the stops to inform the American people of what we have a RIGHT to know!!

        I suspected they might move fast on this, as they did before.

        God DAMN the FILTHY Republican SCOUNDRELS as they scheme to deprive MILLIONS of their insurance, as quickly as possible, trying to hide the FULL implications in the SHADOWS; as the ruthless THUGS plot the slow-motion MURDER of THOUSANDS of the uninsured EVERY year!!

      • billbear1961
      • Cuberly

        Ha!

        I guess we’ll see which side was being appeased when it came to the revision. My guess is the conservative freedumb frackus. So even fewer people covered?

      • BobSF_94117

        What has Sessions got to do with the CBO?

    • billbear1961

      There is a PRICE to pay for TREASON, WHORE-in-chief.

      Where are your TAX RETURNS?!

  • Boreal

    Time to use the filibuster dems, before it get nuked anyway.

    • Dazzer

      Yep.

      One gains nothing from appeasing these people. declare flat-out war and then keep on pointing out the way they cheat.

    • AJ Drew

      In the immortal words of Outkast: “Don’t pull the thang out unless you plan to bang.”

  • billbear1961

    Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary by almost three MILLION votes, and therefore has NO MANDATE to appoint radical right-wing judges to SCOTUS.

    Any nominee who is not a MODERATE should be BLOCKED.

    If the filibuster is abolished, it is GONE for GOOD. So, McConnell better think TWICE before moving to eliminate it.

    As for losing it, there is no point in possessing a weapon if you are ALWAYS afraid of using it and NEVER DO!!

    FURTHERMORE, Trump’s very legitimacy is very MUCH under a CLOUD; until investigations into his possible collusion with the Russians AND violations of the Emoluments Clause are concluded, nothing as important as the appointment of a SCOTUS judge should move forward–unless the judge to be considered is MERRICK GARLAND, the last fully legitimate nominee put forward by a fully legitimate POTUS.

    Any TWO-FACED whining from the GOP about “unprecedented obstruction” should be met with vociferous and relentless REMINDERS of THEIR unprecedented ACT of SEDITION when they VIOLATED the Constitution of the United States by refusing to consider ANY nominee by President Obama to replace Scalia when the President still had TEN MONTHS to serve in his SECOND term of office.

  • “Gorsuch said he would not answer because it ‘would send a misleading signal to the American people.'”>>>>>> PANDER-MATIC TRANSLATE-O-TRON 3000 >>>> “Gorsuch said he would not answer because it ‘would mean telling everyone I think queers are creepy perverts and should all be locked up which would probably make me look bad.'”

    • BobSF_94117

      I suspect it’s the opposite. He’s likely pro-SSM personally but believes there’s no constitutional right to it.

  • KnownDonorDad

    How’s the “scope” of Loving v. Virginia?

  • Bad Tom

    All couples are equal. It’s settled law.
    But some couples are more equal than others.

  • coram nobis

    We may be saddled with this guy till 2060, even if Trump leaves next month. And he might: we now have a connection between his campaign and the Global Laundromat scandal.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/21/deutsche-bank-that-lent-300m-to-trump-linked-to-russian-money-laundering-scam

    Wonder if the Court, with Gorsuch on it, would have to rule on something having to do with the impeachment, as with Nixon?

    • AJ Drew

      Yikes. Not sure it will link back to DT, but the JP Morgan involvement is worthy of note.

      “The German bank that loaned $300m (£260m) to Donald Trump played a prominent role in a money laundering scandal run by Russian criminals with ties to the Kremlin, the Guardian can reveal.”

  • Boreal
    • Igby

      This should be on every billboard. So very true.

    • olandp

      And hateful to immigrants.

      The true sin of Sodom was being inhospitable.

    • Oh, Parker

      Collage of deplorables.

      • Tom Ato

        Electoral Collage of Deplorables

  • 2patricius2

    In other words. His personal views are that marriage equality is wrong, and if given the chance to turn marriage equality into skim milk marriage, or to overturn it, he would, But it is settled law until he votes otherwise. Snake.

  • Talisman

    And here I thought that most SCOTUS rulings impacted and applied to all 50 states.

  • Sam_Handwich

    o/t

    new info on the scumbag who sent Kurt Eichenwald a seizure inducing tweet, including how Dallas cops identified and found him. and they’ve also slapped him with a hate-crimes charge

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/03/21/man-faces-hate-crime-charge-dallas-county-tweet-gave-kurt-eichenwald-seizure

  • MusicBear88

    Mr. Gorsuch seems to have trouble answering just about ANY question, possibly after seeing how an actual answer that’s sloppy has hurt Mr. Sessions’ credibility. If I were to be asked to summarize, I’d say that he was one step short of being evasive, but provided very little actual content on which one can judge his merits, which could speak very loudly about what he’s trying to conceal.

  • BobSF_94117

    They should ask him: “If investigations reveal that the current administration reached power through interference by Russia and the president is either removed or resigns, will you resign, as well?”

  • olandp

    For me there is only one question, “Do you view The Constitution as a living document or do you believe in a strict literal interpretation?”

    • coram nobis

      The Framers didn’t think it was a rigid piece of marble.

      The warmest friends to and the best supporters of the Constitution, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but these were not to be avoided, and they are convinced if evils are likely to flow from them, that the remedy must come thereafter; because, in the present moment it is not to be obtained. And as there is a Constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge) can, as they will have the aid of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which shall be found necessary, as ourselves; for I do not conceive that we are more inspired–have more wisdom–or possess more virtue than those who will come after us. The power under the Constitution will always be with the people.
      — G. Washington, to Bushrod Washington, Nov. 9, 1787

      • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

        The problem with this particular letter is that it only mentions amendments as a remedy, not judicial adjudication. If there were a text from the framers that make it clear that the judiciary can contextualize the literal word, such a text would be most useful.

        • coram nobis

          Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 81, seems to argue that the judiciary could serve as a check on legislative overreach, it being independent and not, like in Britain, an arm of the legislature.

          http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa81.htm

          It’s a difficult argument to parse, but it suggests that a judiciary would be a measurer of the constitutionality of government action.

          • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

            As always, you provide a wealth of knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Latin Before Us.

  • Dk6

    congrats to every dipshit/dumbfuck who said Clinton was as bad as Trump-this is what we get now

    • Michael

      Odd I don’t remember hearing anyone ever saying that.

      • Dk6

        ok troll

      • Oh yes they did, by large numbers. Though I’m starting to wonder how many were Russian bots, after Rachel’s show tonight.

      • joe ho

        Have yourself checked for early Alzheimer’s. You’re showing the symptoms.

  • fuow

    We’re not even going to have ‘separate but equal’ status by the time this is over.
    Thanks, all you in the GLBT community who stayed home or voted green to ‘teach us a lesson’. Thanks, a lot.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup, same goes for our “allies” like my BOB cousin as well.

  • anne marie in philly

    IDK…he’s either lying through his teeth, or…nah, HE’S LYING!

  • Tom Ato

    It’s settled but it’s not….WTF?

  • TampaZeke

    Gays can get married but businesses and the government don’t have to recognize those marriages or give those dirty queers all of the benefits of marriage; just the penalties and responsibilities.

  • TampaDink

    With the long term goals of President Bannon, his puppet Hair Furor, the corporate mafia they’ve packed the administration with….at the whim of Supreme Leader Vlad, I’m sure that they’ll come up with a solution that is agreeable to all of them and final.

  • Tom Ato

    That’s a lovely dress you’re wearing, Mrs. Cleaver.

  • SnowFlake

    it is settled until it isn’t

  • Frostbite

    So next, slavery is settled law, but there are questions about its scope?

  • Tempus Fuggit

    Gorsuch said he would not answer because it “would send a misleading signal to the American people.”

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/75eb028bd6a1d1edf37d18e797ed90137dc37b5c083d6c853a28ef91d7bca915.jpg

  • Mark_in_MN

    I really despise this pretense of pending or potential litigation as a reason to avoid answering important and weighty questions that speak directly to the fitness of the individual to sit on the highest court of the nation.

  • fuzzybits

    Just answer the damn question or not!

  • DN

    I know it’s not the point of Joe’s post, here, but…

    FUCK. KEN. MEHLMAN.

    • Dazzer

      You must have missed the meeting of the Gay Agenda when we discussed that.

      We all agreed that no one would fuck Ken Mehlman ever again.

  • Guido Miller

    Let’s face it. Roe vs. Wade has been “settled law” for nearly 50 years but the courts have allowed it to be eroded and attacked to make it so it is not easily accessed. If this man joins SCOTUS you can expect that our rights to marry et cetera will be eroded in similar fashion.

  • Michael

    I am, as usual, just amazed at some of these comments in here. Trump’s pick for SCOTUS could have been a hell of a lot worse. In fact, it almost seems this guy isn’t that bad for what it could have been.

    What I’m really surprised about is how no one has mentioned just how extremely good looking this guy is.

    • Dazzer

      Ummm… ‘extremely good looking’.

      Oh well, there’s someone for everyone I guess.

      To me he looks like a heat-damaged G.I. Joe who’s been dipped in cheap, roofing aluminum paint.

      But I’m sure he’ll be delighted to know you find him attractive.

      Do you find Milo attractive as well?

    • BobSF_94117

      What makes you think that Trump didn’t pick the worst (from out point of view) candidate he could? And the youngest.

    • coram nobis

      He’s relatively young, and that means he’s apt to be on the Court till 2060. A worse judge might not have been so handsomely compelling to Congress.

      • Ninja0980

        He smokes and his family history (several have died young) makes that unlikely but the fact he’ll be on there at all is a travesty.

    • Bad Tom

      Trump picks everyone based on their luscious hair. What’s immediately beneath that hair is of no consequence.

  • Skeptical_Inquirer

    I didn’t watch the whole thing. But I do remember Ted Cruz just oozing flattery towards him and mentioning Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. I have a hard time believing he has ever read the book.

    • He may have read it, but I doubt he understood it.

  • Daveinmpls1

    President Drumpf should immediately remove his nominee for the US Supreme Court from consideration. The Republicans in 2016 insisted that a US president in his last year in office should not have his candidate considered by the Senate. Drumpf’s last few months in office are slowly winding down and he will be gone within the year. What was “fair” in 2016 should be “fair” in 2017.

  • Scope? There is no scope. It simply meant that same-sex couples are exactly equal to straight ones when they get married. That’s it. Trying to limit its “scope” changes that, and instantly makes it “separate but equal,” which is untenable.

    • That’s the point. He’s undercutting the validity of same-sex relationships while dodging a direct answer.

  • coram nobis

    Judge Gorsuch says he doesn’t think same-sex relationships are comparable to bestiality, unlike his mentor.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/21/neil-gorsuch-hearing-legal-mentor-gay-sex-bestiality

    Isn’t that reassuring?

    • Paula Key

      Judge Grouch.

  • ‘Til Tuesday

    While marriage equality is important, and Gorsuch falls short on it and should NOT be confirmed, the central issues are his terrible views on religion overriding laws and his anti-choice views. He was chosen for those two reasons.

    Trump made a deal with conservative Christians: they vote for him, and in exchange Trump puts someone sympathetic to their views on the Supreme Court. The deal was made and kept. I don’t care what he said about Roe v Wade being “settled law” – he’s gonna vote to overturn it if he gets the chance. Hide and watch.

  • Ninja0980

    Sent this post along with a nice fuck you to my Bernie or Bust cousin, along with the reminder that she is no longer welcome at my husband and I’s house.
    She helped get this man on the court with her third party vote, and thus ensured the LGBT community she claims to care about is fucked if something happens to Kennedy or the four liberals.

  • Daisy

    <<I was paid 104000 bucks previous year by doing an internet based work as well as I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r quite a few hours on a daily basis. I applied job opportunity I came across online and so I am delighted that I was manage to make such decent earnings. It’s really newbie-friendly and I am so grateful that I discovered out regarding it. Look out for what I do. ➤➤➤➤www.cat.org.uk/snip/28557

    • Paula Key

      You can hardly type a sentence in English and you were paid $104,000 bucks a year? It’s a scam and you only get paid if you ‘hook’ someone else.

  • Piet

    Mealy-mouthed legalisms covering his essential corporatist right-wing fascistic ideation. Just what we need. I’ve written to my Senators and my Representative. This hearing is even more infuriating than the others that have gone down since January 19 because the intent is so much more blatantly insulting.

    • Paula Key

      If there is marriage equality – then, shouldn’t there be also ” an impact and its application right now” on both heterosexual and homosexual marriages?

  • NowVoyager

    On this subject: below is a link to an interesting article by Sherly Gay Stolberg, Feb.11, 2017, about Gorsuch and LGBT issues in the February edition of the New York Times.

    Excerpt: ” In 2005, before Mr. Gorsuch became a judge, he wrote in an essay in National Review that liberals had become “addicted to the courtroom” to enact their social agenda “on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers in public schools.”

    ———————

    The New York Times article leaves one with the impression that Gorsuch judicial philosophy, even though he does have some gay friends and associates, is very questionable when it come to LGBT human rights. I still get the distinct impression that he has a political agenda which he draws upon masquerading (in the manner of Scalia) under an ersatz claim of the U.S. Constitution’s alleged “original intent” — which is, of course, pure metaphysical nonsense or, to use that deceased reprobate and “original intent” scammer Scalia’s own juvenile vernacular, just more “argle-bargle and apple sauce”.

    Gorsuch was carefully chosen to be a stealth right-wing candidate to fill the besmirched vacant seat of the vilest and most bigoted misanthrope to ever disgrace the US Supreme Court in modern times. This nomination should, at the very least, be placed on hold during the course of the FBI investigation into the Trump/Putin connection and those collaborations which conspired to undermine the integrity our American Electoral Process.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/politics/gorsuch-gay-rights.html?_r=0

    • Dahlia Lithwick did a revealing piece at Slate on Gorsuch. A part that I found particularly telling:

      “Our current religious-liberty jurisprudence, as laid out by the Supreme Court in its Hobby Lobby opinion, is extremely deferential toward religious believers. What believers assert about their faith must not be questioned or even assessed. Religious dissenters who seek to be exempted from neutral and generally applicable laws are given the benefit of the doubt, even when others are harmed. Sometimes those harms are not even taken into account.

      Gorsuch agrees with all of this and then some. His record reflects a
      pattern of systematically privileging the rights of religious believers
      over those of religious minorities and nonbelievers. It is, of course,
      vital and important to protect religious dissenters; the First Amendment
      could not be clearer. But the First Amendment is equally anxious about
      state establishment of religion, an anxiety Gorsuch is less inclined to
      share.”

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/03/neil_gorsuch_s_confirmation_hearings_must_focus_on_his_views_on_religious.html

      Gorsuch isn’t even a “stealth” candidate — he’s quite openly in the mold of Scalia, perhaps even more so. Lithwick notes his tendency to side with the powerful in every instance, and to hell with the people the law is supposed to protect.

      My own take on his statement that marriage equality is “settled law” is: “Yeah — until he finds a way to overturn it.”

  • Patsyrgonzalez

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj261d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !mj261d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash261TopMobileGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj261d:….,……..

  • The Professor

    Of course. Their intention is not to overturn it, but to gut it by claiming it offends their delicate “religious liberty.” Truth is, Gorsuch changes nothing, and in the long run he will surely be as bad as Scalia. The Supreme Court keeps refusing to hear (much less overturn) these lower court decisions. Guess we’ll see. They will still “let” us get married. We just can’t get any service in deep red states.

  • aar9n

    It’s like they are separate, but equal.

  • CJAS

    The “misleading signal to the American people” his views on marriage would send–and he wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject–is that the court (the government) should not protect individuals’ ability to make autonomous choices but instead promote “basic goods” which according to this natural law theory, does not include marriage equality (or abortion, or civil rights for blacks for that matter).

  • DuaneBidoux

    His answer should have been “the scope has been settled-it’s the same as every other marriage.”

    • Xuuths

      That would be true only if that was what he believed. He said what he believed, which is that he wants a chance to overturn it.

  • Robert Conner

    The Voting Rights Act is “absolutely settled law” but obviously questions remain about its scope.

    • Xuuths

      Um, no.

      • Robert Conner

        Sarcasm.

  • Sam D. Maloney

    By ‘scope’, he means his conservative allies are looking for ways to limit Obergefell, perhaps by reconsidering Piggie Park, which held that religious belief doesn’t license discrimination.