The real issue with the Yates story is that he was imprisoned for 30 days over a few fish, even though the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bails, fines and cruel and unusual punishments. Gorsuch would have us dismantle the laws that attempt to protect the valid interests of society (a sustainable fish population) from the harmful actions of a few (overfishing, even if inadvertent). Instead, he should be addressing the judicial overreach that results in our country having the largest prison population in the world and the highest incarceration rate of any OECD country. Our country has too many people in prisons for having committed misdemeanors, or non-violent felonies.
If Gorsuch really believes in "precedent and limiting government power," he should start giving speeches about the excessive and cruel punishment now facing women and their health care practitioners in many states for taking actions deemed medically necessary to protect the life of a pregnant woman.
I don’t align with him politically, but Gorsuch actually does have a record on protecting 4th and 8th amendment rights from overreach in exactly the manner you’re describing. I wish Sharon had covered that piece more in her newsletter, but I understand these are fairly short pieces.
It amazes me that some think that the EPA should be more states issue vs fed. If for example MN decided to allow lower standard for pollution for water does that affect other states down river? If you believe differently please let me know why. Truly curious and maybe I am missing something.
Living in a state colloquially called “the tailpipe of the nation” due to the flow of air from the jet stream, I promise that we do not want to rely on only the goodwill of our neighbor states to keep our air breathable (especially since folks living upwind and upstream are not, by definition, the ones living with the full ramifications of their actions). The EPA made a measurable difference in Maine's air quality, in addition to reducing the amount of acid rain we would suffer when all of those particles would precipitate in our rain and snow.
Thanks for doing this. Helps a bit to understand where the judges are coming from in their decisions. This refusal by congress to vote in a new justice (Garland) towards the end of that presidents term has happened before right? This seems unfair, yet I can understand the opposing party’s doing this if the next president elect comes from a different party. It just seems to tie up things and doesn’t allow for diversity in thinkg for Supreme Court
So when Biden got in I was glad he elected Garland as his attorney general as I felt it was unfair for his appt to the Supreme Court to have been denied
I really enjoy these Supreme Court justice profiles! It’s fascinating to read about the pivotal experiences and formative years that helped shape them into the justices they are today. Whether you like a justice or not, gaining insight into their personal backgrounds—beyond just a list of schools and previous positions—adds context and a richer understanding of their perspectives. I also found this paragraph super interesting:
There is an area where Gorsuch tends to differ from some of his conservative judicial colleagues: protecting Native American rights. Gorsuch is the only justice on the Court who is from the Western part of the United States, and he views protection of tribal status as an originalist viewpoint, because treaties between tribes and the federal government have existed since the inception of the United States.
Great to have more background on the SC justices again! This provides wonderful context to what I recall happening in the past as well as current events. Understanding history is a lifelong pursuit, and I appreciate how you make it more accessible for me to learn about our own country’s fascinating and influential contributors to it.
Thank you. This helps a lot in understanding his role on the Court. Not caring what anyone else thinks and knowing you are always right is a lonely--and often destructive--path in a society as large, diverse, and complex as ours. Believing the federal government is too large is a helpful thing. It is. It got that way by, among other things, too much legislation--and Gorsuch does a masterful job in making that case. Taking a meat-ax to it to improve the situation is not a particularly intelligent strategy. It isn't a debate to be won; it's a tangled mess to straighten out. That takes a different kind of intelligence than the debate stage induces.
"Believes in precedent and limiting government power" except when it comes to the Roe V Wade decision and women's bodies. Sounds like he believes government should have power over women's bodies.
I really enjoy these biographies. Based on Gorsuch's views regarding states' rights, can we assume he will stand with his liberal colleagues, and reject a *national* ban on abortion when it is likely to come before the court?
I really appreciate these dives into the people who are shaping our country. I also like the dives available to the Governerds. I will continue to subscribe as I love learning.
The real issue with the Yates story is that he was imprisoned for 30 days over a few fish, even though the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bails, fines and cruel and unusual punishments. Gorsuch would have us dismantle the laws that attempt to protect the valid interests of society (a sustainable fish population) from the harmful actions of a few (overfishing, even if inadvertent). Instead, he should be addressing the judicial overreach that results in our country having the largest prison population in the world and the highest incarceration rate of any OECD country. Our country has too many people in prisons for having committed misdemeanors, or non-violent felonies.
If Gorsuch really believes in "precedent and limiting government power," he should start giving speeches about the excessive and cruel punishment now facing women and their health care practitioners in many states for taking actions deemed medically necessary to protect the life of a pregnant woman.
I don’t align with him politically, but Gorsuch actually does have a record on protecting 4th and 8th amendment rights from overreach in exactly the manner you’re describing. I wish Sharon had covered that piece more in her newsletter, but I understand these are fairly short pieces.
I’m assuming that was a typo and Scalia died in 2016?
I find these dives into the justices very interesting indeed; I’ve always wondered how people become what they become and these have been eye opening.
So they wouldn’t replace Scalia in 2016 because it was an election year but it was ok to replace Ginsburg in 2020, also an election year. Got it. 😑
Yes, McConnell is the King of Hypocrisy.
If I recall correctly, people were already voting when they were in the midst of Barrett's confirmation.
It amazes me that some think that the EPA should be more states issue vs fed. If for example MN decided to allow lower standard for pollution for water does that affect other states down river? If you believe differently please let me know why. Truly curious and maybe I am missing something.
Living in a state colloquially called “the tailpipe of the nation” due to the flow of air from the jet stream, I promise that we do not want to rely on only the goodwill of our neighbor states to keep our air breathable (especially since folks living upwind and upstream are not, by definition, the ones living with the full ramifications of their actions). The EPA made a measurable difference in Maine's air quality, in addition to reducing the amount of acid rain we would suffer when all of those particles would precipitate in our rain and snow.
Thanks for doing this. Helps a bit to understand where the judges are coming from in their decisions. This refusal by congress to vote in a new justice (Garland) towards the end of that presidents term has happened before right? This seems unfair, yet I can understand the opposing party’s doing this if the next president elect comes from a different party. It just seems to tie up things and doesn’t allow for diversity in thinkg for Supreme Court
So when Biden got in I was glad he elected Garland as his attorney general as I felt it was unfair for his appt to the Supreme Court to have been denied
I really enjoy these Supreme Court justice profiles! It’s fascinating to read about the pivotal experiences and formative years that helped shape them into the justices they are today. Whether you like a justice or not, gaining insight into their personal backgrounds—beyond just a list of schools and previous positions—adds context and a richer understanding of their perspectives. I also found this paragraph super interesting:
There is an area where Gorsuch tends to differ from some of his conservative judicial colleagues: protecting Native American rights. Gorsuch is the only justice on the Court who is from the Western part of the United States, and he views protection of tribal status as an originalist viewpoint, because treaties between tribes and the federal government have existed since the inception of the United States.
Great to have more background on the SC justices again! This provides wonderful context to what I recall happening in the past as well as current events. Understanding history is a lifelong pursuit, and I appreciate how you make it more accessible for me to learn about our own country’s fascinating and influential contributors to it.
Thank you. This helps a lot in understanding his role on the Court. Not caring what anyone else thinks and knowing you are always right is a lonely--and often destructive--path in a society as large, diverse, and complex as ours. Believing the federal government is too large is a helpful thing. It is. It got that way by, among other things, too much legislation--and Gorsuch does a masterful job in making that case. Taking a meat-ax to it to improve the situation is not a particularly intelligent strategy. It isn't a debate to be won; it's a tangled mess to straighten out. That takes a different kind of intelligence than the debate stage induces.
"Believes in precedent and limiting government power" except when it comes to the Roe V Wade decision and women's bodies. Sounds like he believes government should have power over women's bodies.
I really enjoy these biographies. Based on Gorsuch's views regarding states' rights, can we assume he will stand with his liberal colleagues, and reject a *national* ban on abortion when it is likely to come before the court?
We can assume nothing.
Thanks for sharing this background of the judges. Love hearing more about them.
I really appreciate these dives into the people who are shaping our country. I also like the dives available to the Governerds. I will continue to subscribe as I love learning.