Yep, We're at That Point. Gorsuch Gets the Reddit Horse/Duck Question Senators are getting a little punchy as Neil Gorsuch's hearing stretches into the evening. Republican Sen. Jeff Flake jokingly passed on a notoriously odd query from his teenage son that will be familiar to fans of the web site Reddit — but it clearly flummoxed the nominee. Here's the whole exchange: Share this -







While He Appears Before Senate, SCOTUS Overturns Nominee's Ruling All eight sitting Supreme Court Justices ruled against a Gorsuch decision in a decision handed down during the third day of the federal judge's confirmation hearing on Wednesday. The Court overruled Gorsuch's court on a decision he penned, that a public school didn’t have to pay for an autistic child’s private school tuition that had improved his education more than the public school option. In the unanimous opining, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “when all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to “sitting idly . . . awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’” Pressed on it during his hearing by Sen. Dick Durbin, Gorsuch said he was bound by circuit court precedent in the ruling. While it is true a judge should pay deference to previous court decisions under the legal doctrine of stare decisis, a judge is not bound to follow previous decisions of his court under all circumstances. Faced with a new case and a new set of facts, a judge may choose to depart from precedent. Gorsuch pushed back when pressed again on it Wednesday afternoon: on this case, he said he was joined by Democrat-appointed judges and he argued the Supreme Court took the case in order to settle it for good, as circuit courts have disagreed on it for years. Share this -







'No' Votes on SCOTUS on the Senate floor, 1975-now In his questioning of Neil Gorsuch this morning, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham again lamented increasing partisanship when it comes to the final votes on Supreme Court nominees. Graham observed that famously conservative justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed unanimously in 1986, while noted liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg received only three dissenting votes in 1993. Here are the 'no' votes on SCOTUS votes on the Senate floor dating back to 1975. Share this -







So, How Much Money Do Supreme Court Justices Make, Anyway? Neil Gorsuch is entering his third day of a public job interview, hoping to secure one of the most elite and sought-after titles in American history. But here’s a question: how much does the job of Supreme Court justice actually pay? As of this year, an associate justice of the high court pulls down a respectable $251,800. (The Chief Justice gets an extra bump, making an annual $262,300). That sounds like a nice check, but it’s also dramatically less than a top lawyer in the lucrative market of Washington D.C. could expect to make in private practice. A survey back in 2012 found that the average compensation for a partner at a Washington D.C. law firm was nearly $800,000. But you shouldn’t exactly start sending care packages to members of the bench, either. The Center for Public Integrity analyzed the financial disclosures of the sitting justices last year and found that at least six had a net worth of at least $1 million. The wealthiest one on the list: Stephen Breyer, who is worth at least $6.1 million and as much as $16 million, thanks in part to a chunk of publishing company stock and properties in New Hampshire and the Caribbean. Most of the justices also reported earning tens of thousands of dollars from speaking and teaching gigs as well as book deals. They’re also well-traveled: all also took at least one major trip sponsored by another organization. While a seat on the court might win the justices a good living and a storied place in history, though, it doesn’t exactly make its members famous — by popular standards, anyway. In fact, a new C-SPAN poll found that 57 percent of U.S. voters can’t name a single sitting Supreme Court justice. Share this -







Gorsuch: Criticizing a Federal Judge Is ‘Disheartening, Demoralizing’ Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee said it was “disheartening” and “demoralizing” for anyone — including Trump — to criticize the integrity of the judiciary. “When anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralizing, because I know the truth,” Gorsuch said when pressed by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal on Trump’s criticism of a federal judge who ruled against a travel ban he ordered as president and, Gonzalo Curiel, who rejected a motion to dismiss a fraud case against the now-defunct Trump University when he was a presidential candidate. The remark is Gorsuch’s harshest public rebuke of the president who nominated him to date, and come nine hours into confirmation hearings in which many senators sought to determine just how independent the judge would be from the president. It’s also the same sentiment (and word choice) Blumenthal told reporters that Gorsuch shared with him in a private conversation last month, in which Gorsuch was responding to Trump's tweets attacking the federal judge who ruled against his first executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority nations. At the time, Blumenthal earned his own Twitter attack from Trump, who suggested Blumenthal was lying about the conversation, but Gorsuch's phrasing during Tuesday's hearing indicates that he was indeed accurately representing the conversation. Pressed to go further by the Connecticut Democratic senator, Gorsuch declined. “Senator, I’ve gone as far as I can go, ethically,” he said. “Respectfully, I believe I’ve gone as far as I can go.” Gorsuch Calls Any Critique of Federal Judge ‘Disheartening’ and ‘Demoralizing’ March 22, 2017 01:47 Share this -





