# Gorsuch confirmation hearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653 "2017-03-20T22:05:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/261 "2017-03-23T20:39:08Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > OK. So he _is_ a genuine extremist. Filibuster the crap out of him. He’s an extremist, according to you, based solely on his state’s senators? That’s how you guys judge judicial leanings, do you? > [@](#): > > • If a judge is appointed from a state where the president and at least one home-state senator are of the same party, the judge is assigned the ideology of the home-state senator. > • If both senators are from the president’s party, the judge is assigned the average ideology of the two senators. > • If neither home-state senator is from the president’s party, the judge receives the ideological score of the appointing president. I would love to hear your stringent defense of this methodology. Please. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/262 "2017-03-23T20:41:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He’s an extremist, according to you, based solely on his state’s senators? > > That’s how you guys judge judicial leanings, do you? > > I would love to hear your stringent defense of this methodology. Please. And that only speaks to the ‘more conservative than Scalia’ measurement. The other 87% figure has problems of its own. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/263 "2017-03-23T20:41:30Z")
This is the worst of the SDMB. Lame, ridiculous leftist crap arguments that stand unchallenged by leftists. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/264 "2017-03-23T21:15:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is the worst of the SDMB. > > Lame, ridiculous leftist crap arguments that stand unchallenged by leftists. What are you talking about? All the lame, crap arguments have been challenged by leftists here. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/265 "2017-03-23T21:26:32Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > What are you talking about? All the lame, crap arguments have been challenged by leftists here. Which leftist challenged the lame, crap argument that free speech doesn’t apply to digital communications? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/266 "2017-03-23T21:39:47Z")
FWIW, I don’t think anyone actually argued in favor of that point. IIRC it was put forward as an illustration of how everyone supports expanding interpretations of laws to some degree. I don’t put much stock in that particular argument, but I don’t think the argument was anything more than that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/267 "2017-03-23T21:55:17Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > What are you talking about? All the lame, crap arguments have been challenged by leftists here. Who challenged the 87%? Who challenged “more conservative than Scalia?” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/268 "2017-03-23T22:16:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who challenged the 87%? Who challenged “more conservative than Scalia?” I didn’t, but I don’t have any significant knowledge on how conservative or extreme he is. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/269 "2017-03-23T22:29:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > FWIW, I don’t think anyone actually argued in favor of that point. We can only go by what people write. Here’s the exact quote: “Then the first amendment does not apply to digital communications.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/270 "2017-03-23T22:36:41Z")
“Then” is the key word in that quote. He was saying if you don’t buy into the notion that judges can creatively interpret the laws, then the first amendment does not apply to digital communication. That’s not the same thing as actually taking such a stance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/271 "2017-03-23T22:55:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I didn’t, but I don’t have any significant knowledge on how conservative or extreme he is. Yes, but you can read his link, which discloses the basis for the claim. You can reason for yourself how defensible that claim is in light of the methodology used to make it. You could even have argued against the methodology while remaining agnostic as to the underlying fact: (“I don’t claim to know how conservative or extreme he is, but I’m thinking that assigning him the identical rating that anyone else nominated from his state would get, simply based on the senators from that state, is not that defensible.”) But it’s the SDMB, it was a liberal claim, and . . . somehow, challenging it just wasn’t in the cards. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/272 "2017-03-23T22:59:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are we reading the same dissent? That’s what he said. And there were only three judges on the panel. So only two judges disagreed. And I’m sure they did because they thought judges should have a role beyond the cold application of law. Sorry, I meant at the confirmation hearing, and the entire appeals process. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/273 "2017-03-23T22:59:39Z")
I don’t know about that, Bricker. I yield my conservative credentials to no one, but I didn’t go beyond quibbling a bit with the 87% claim (in post #250). Reason is not that I refrain from challenging liberal jive but simply that I didn’t bother looking through the basis for the 87% claim. I assume this is true of a lot of other people as well. Not that your underlying claim is not valid. Just that I don’t know how much it applies in this instance, where you needed to do some research before realizing that a claim was very shaky. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/274 "2017-03-23T22:59:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but you can read his link, which discloses the basis for the claim. You can reason for yourself how defensible that claim is in light of the methodology used to make it. You could even have argued against the methodology while remaining agnostic as to the underlying fact: (“I don’t claim to know how conservative or extreme he is, but I’m thinking that assigning him the identical rating that anyone else nominated from his state would get, simply based on the senators from that state, is not that defensible.”) > > But it’s the SDMB, it was a liberal claim, and . . . somehow, challenging it just wasn’t in the cards. Sure, I could have, but I was too busy refuting dumb liberal claims elsewhere on the internet. I’ve quit my job, and cut my non-liberal-refuting time (including sleep) to 7 hours per day… HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME? I’m going to go lie down now. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/275 "2017-03-23T23:03:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but you can read his link, which discloses the basis for the claim. You can reason for yourself how defensible that claim is in light of the methodology used to make it. You could even have argued against the methodology while remaining agnostic as to the underlying fact: (“I don’t claim to know how conservative or extreme he is, but I’m thinking that assigning him the identical rating that anyone else nominated from his state would get, simply based on the senators from that state, is not that defensible.”) > > But it’s the SDMB, it was a liberal claim, and . . . somehow, challenging it just wasn’t in the cards. I don’t think that’s a fair criticism. Not everyone reads every link, and given that claim isn’t really central to any underlying argument, it’s reasonable to not look at the methodology which you have to click through twice (some of it) to get to. Only if someone were to adopt that cite as support for a given position would I expect them to read it. And if someone else points out the problems with the cite (me in post #253), there really is no need to add to that unless the item is contested. I don’t think anyone is contesting that the 87% figure and the ‘more conservative than Scalia’ criticism employed pretty terrible ways to measure anything. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/276 "2017-03-23T23:05:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Sure, I could have, but I was too busy refuting dumb liberal claims elsewhere on the internet. > > I’ve quit my job, and cut my non-liberal-refuting time (including sleep) to 7 hours per day… HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME? > > I’m going to go lie down now. That’s what you’re _claiming_. Really it’s because George Soros is not [_paying_](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20088426&postcount=2) you anything to refute dumb liberal claims … 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/277 "2017-03-23T23:05:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He’s an extremist, according to you, based solely on his state’s senators? > > That’s how you guys judge judicial leanings, do you? > > I would love to hear your stringent defense of this methodology. Please. Um, no. How about if I apologize for not reading the link carefully and cheerfully retract the post in question instead? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/278 "2017-03-23T23:27:51Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Um, no. How about if I apologize for not reading the link carefully and cheerfully retract the post in question instead? Equally cheerfully accepted. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/279 "2017-03-23T23:30:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s what you’re _claiming_. Really it’s because George Soros is not [_paying_](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20088426&postcount=2) you anything to refute dumb liberal claims … > > 🙂 Damn it! How did I let that slip? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/280 "2017-03-23T23:30:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think anyone is contesting that the 87% figure and the ‘more conservative than Scalia’ criticism employed pretty terrible ways to measure anything. Well… no, still not in agreement. The SDMB, priding its collective self on being reality-based and skeptical, ought to have had more posters than you and me wonder at the absurdity of the exacting 87% figure and trigger a careful look at the cite. It was confirmation bias. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=15)