# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/401 "2017-03-27T15:25:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If a 14 year old girl was “married,” to her 20 year old cousin under Islamic law in Syria, and then the happy couple moved to Bavaria, the 14 year old’s inherent value would be protected by: > > (a) leaving the lovebirds to wedded bliss > (b) separating the couple because Germany’s minimum age for marriage is 18, or 16 with parental consent > > So far as I can tell, the German federal court decision that recognizes the legality of that marriage and holds they may not be separated has been appealed by the city with no final decision yet, but I’m curious if you agree that 14 year olds married to adults in German in 2017 are having their inherent value respected. And I am told that child brides as young as 11 are similarly situated. Any thoughts on them? I wonder if this story would have made the conservative gossip circle if it had been a 14 or 15 year old girl married in the U.S. moving to Germany. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/402 "2017-03-27T19:32:03Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Any legal decision, any law, and any _application_ of the law has to first pass the muster, “does this respect and protect the inherent value of human beings”. This is going to be a huge problem when ruling on abortion rights. There will be pandemonium as different judges will have different definitions of “human beings”. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/403 "2017-03-27T20:40:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > But what does “changing his material circumstances” have to do with the law in play here? Your argument, unstated, is, “Do I realize that the company was asking him to choose between getting fired and freezing to death?” > > Yes. I do. > > Now tell me what law the company violated by doing that. The underlying message here is, “Because the company acted so poorly, we’ll contort the law to achieve justice.” > > Sorry. I prefer to ask the legislature to fix the law. And for all I know, there are a host of civil actions the company’s conduct could trigger. What it should NOT trigger is 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B)(ii) refusal to operate protection. > > Turn it around. Suppose we were discussing identical circumstances, but the law in question said that refusal to operate an assigned vehicle was a permissible termination offense. And the driver said, contesting his firing, “I didn’t refuse to operate – I drove the only part of the equipment I safely could. And I did it to avoid freezing.” > > What would you say then? Would you still contend that “operate” has the same broad meaning? > > I am very confident the answer is no. You’d indignantly (and this time correctly) point out that he did operate the tractor cab. Right? Bricker, I know your a big fan of Musical theater. One thing I’ve always wondered about you. When you watch Les Mis. do you root for Javert? Not meaning this as an insult but, you and he seem very simpatico in terms of your views of justice. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/404 "2017-03-27T20:40:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I wonder if this story would have made the conservative gossip circle if it had been a 14 or 15 year old girl married in the U.S. moving to Germany. I don’t know if it’s in the conservative gossip circle, and I don’t know of any legal marriages for 14 or 15 year old girls in the United States, although I concede that the legal system in several states could theoretically approve such a marriage with parental consent and judicial approval. I’m just not aware of it actually happening present-day, although that means little since I haven’t checked. But even so, my view of the two cases would still be different for precisely the reason that judicial approval was required. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/405 "2017-03-27T21:11:13Z")
Nope, it still happens, or at least as of a few years ago. > **[Opinion | America’s Child-Marriage Problem (Published 2015)](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html)** > > Child marriage and forced marriage are more of a problem in the U.S. than you’d expect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/406 "2017-03-27T21:23:35Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Nope, it still happens, or at least as of a few years ago. > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/americas-child-marriage-problem.html) Holy shit. > [@](#): > > Nevertheless, the data show that 3,481 children were married in New Jersey between 1995 and 2012. Most were age 16 or 17 and married with parental consent, but 163 were between ages 13 and 15, meaning a judge approved their marriages. > . > . > . > Data after 2010 excludes New York City, where statistics are kept separately. Still, the state data show that in 2011 alone, a 14-year-old married a 26-year-old, a 15-year-old was wed to a 28-year-old, another 15-year-old was wed to a 25-year-old and a 15-year-old married someone age “35 to 39.” All of those marriages were approved by New York judges. I am absolutely stunned. And profoundly disturbed. But I can tell you that if a German court ruled against recognizing those marriages, I’d be fine with that, absent some sort of unimaginably compelling reasons. Holy shit. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/407 "2017-03-27T21:27:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … some sort of unimaginably compelling reasons. “It’s their culture” isn’t a compelling-enough reason for you? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2017, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/408 "2017-03-27T21:48:33Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Bricker, I know your a big fan of Musical theater. One thing I’ve always wondered about you. When you watch Les Mis. do you root for Javert? Not meaning this as an insult but, you and he seem very simpatico in terms of your views of justice. _I was born with scum like you; I am from the gutter too._ It’s hard to answer that. I thought the Bishop of Digne’s candlestick gift was the epitome of the grace of forgiveness. But Javert had a point, and it’s difficult to explain how, but I’ll try. We cannot have a society in which people are allowed to steal from others. SUrely you can see that no matter how noble Valjean’s deed was in stealing bread for his nephew, we cannot generalize permission for people to steal bread. But if the law requires a five year sentence for stealing a mouthful of bread, and gives no wiggle room for circumstances, then the law is the problem, and it needs to be changed. Javert clung so strongly to his belief that the violator of the law is evil, and deserves punishment, that his whole worldview depended on it being true, and when Valjean sets him free instead of killing him, he cannot bear the conflict. That’s crazy, and it’s not at all what I’m saying here. I agree the crappy actor is the company, not the driver. But at the same time, Valjean did break his parole. I’m comfortable in saying that Valjean’s circumstances were so extraordinary that Javert should have let it go. But ultimately, the problem Valjean faced was a heartless body of law – and a system in which the law came from King Louis-Philippe I (although he was a constitutional monarch, the French were not ruled by We The People). The role of judges, of government itself, in France in 1832 is not fairly analogized to present-day United States. So that question does not map to the present case. We’re not even talking about criminal law here – we’re discussing whether a law prevents an employer from firing an employee, one who is already free under the law to resign at any time. Any law that says the employee can quit without notice anytime he pleases for any reason he pleases, but the employer needs to justify himself, is unbalanced. Here, Congress has laid out certain protections for drivers. This wasn’t one of them. It’s not the case that the driver faces five years at hard labor – at most, he faces losing his job, and that’s only if there are no other provisions of law that might work to protect him. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/409 "2017-03-28T01:14:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Holy shit. > > I am absolutely stunned. And profoundly disturbed. > > But I can tell you that if a German court ruled against recognizing those marriages, I’d be fine with that, absent some sort of unimaginably compelling reasons. > > Holy shit. As disturbing as that is, it is perfectly legal. One does wonder how such laws remain on the books (I assume they are a holdover from days when being pregnant outside of wedlock was a shame few could bear). Would you be OK if the SCOTUS overturned those laws? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/410 "2017-03-28T01:28:20Z")
Gorsuch’s ruling in the truck driver case was bad. That being said, the nominee is the nominee, and that’s too late to really change. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/411 "2017-03-28T01:37:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As disturbing as that is, it is perfectly legal. One does wonder how such laws remain on the books (I assume they are a holdover from days when being pregnant outside of wedlock was a shame few could bear). Would you be OK if the SCOTUS overturned those laws? Absolutely not. On what basis? They are awful, but they are expressions of legislative will. The legislature should repeal them. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/412 "2017-03-28T02:14:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As disturbing as that is, it is perfectly legal. One does wonder how such laws remain on the books (I assume they are a holdover from days when being pregnant outside of wedlock was a shame few could bear). Would you be OK if the SCOTUS overturned those laws? Of course not. Repeat after me: SCOTUS is not your mommy! If you don’t want 14 year olds marrying adults you elect a legislature that will pass a law about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/413 "2017-03-28T04:39:51Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Of course not. Repeat after me: SCOTUS is not your mommy! If you don’t want 14 year olds marrying adults you elect a legislature that will pass a law about it. Precisely. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/414 "2017-03-28T05:52:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Precisely. Now you understand that I understand you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/415 "2017-03-28T15:02:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > _I was born with scum like you; I am from the gutter too._ … Thanks, as I said in the original question this wasn’t meant as an insult of a gotcha. I’ve always viewed Javert as a sympathetic but tragically misguided soul, the epitome of Lawful Neutral according to the D&D alignment system. Ideally I feel the court system should be lawful good. I feel that the constructionist philosophy tends to sacrifice the good too much in the pursuit of the rigid lawfulness, but I can understand and accept your alternative point of view. ---
**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 28, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/416 "2017-03-28T21:25:26Z")
Not going to address the trucker case again as we seem to have gotten to the point where everybody keeps repeating themselves. But [this](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/for-a-trump-nominee-neil-gorsuchs-record-is-surprisingly-moderate-on-immigration/) article from 538 applies a credible-seeming (yes, I checked this time!) methodology to evaluate Gorsuch’s ideology, and he actually doesn’t look bad for a Republican. In cases involving immigration and employment rights, he actually ruled in favor of immigrants and workers slightly more often than the average Tenth Circuit judge (although the Tenth overall is conservative relative to SCOTUS). These were the only areas of law which this study examined, so it’s possible he’s disqualifyingly horrible on some other issue. But for now, I would lean strongly against filibustering him. Although as has been discussed in other threads, given that the Democrats can’t stop the confirmation, the only real basis on which to make a decision about filibustering is how it will affect the next elections, and I’m prepared to trust Chuck Schumer’s judgment over mine on that call. ---
**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 28, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/417 "2017-03-28T21:55:06Z")
Other things that those on the left may find favorable about Gorsuch is his opposition to Kelo. [Cnn article:](http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/19/politics/gorsuch-kennedy-scalia-thomas/) > [@](#): > > Buried in the thousands of pages of Gorsuch emails that the Justice Department has turned over to Congress is one from 2005. It reflects his deep respect for Thomas. > At the time, Gorsuch was riding a train and had just finished reading a dissent that Thomas had issued in Kelo v. City of New London, a controversial case over eminent domain. > > … > > Gorsuch thought the dissent was so powerful that he sent an email to two friends who were former Thomas clerks. > “I am blown away by Thomas’ dissent,” Gorsuch said. > “Brilliant stuff that completely demolishes the majority,” he wrote. “Reminds us of the plain textual meaning of the Constitution and then breathes life and vital purpose into it, explaining the weaknesses of misguided judicial glosses.” There is also his opposition to Chevron deference. From [Volokh](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/25/gorsuch-is-right-about-chevron-deference/?utm_term=.ab2eb468970f): > [@](#): > > Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence is his opposition to “Chevron deference”: the doctrine (first imposed by a 1984 Supreme Court decision) that requires judges to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of federal law in most cases where the law may be “ambiguous” and the agency’s position seems “reasonable.” In what is probably his best-known opinion, Judge Gorsuch denounced Chevron deference as “a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.” He’s absolutely right about that. If a person is concerned about executive power, Chevron deference should be opposed. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/418 "2017-03-28T22:08:41Z")
Istm, concerns about executive power tend to fluctuate according to who is in power not a left or right issue. Eta: I wanted to add that just because I didn’t like his truck driver dissent I haven’t seen anything disqualifying. I’m sure he’ll be a fine Supreme and the Dems would be silly to filibuster. ---
**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 28, 2017, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/419 "2017-03-28T22:11:53Z")
So where the law is ambiguous and an agency is interpreting it in a reasonable way, a judge is obligated to stop them from doing that and interpret the ambiguous law in some unreasonable way in accordance with his personal ideological beliefs?😕 I’m guessing the real argument here is about how common it is for laws to be genuinely ambiguous; otherwise, I can’t imagine how anyone could object to this doctrine. ---
**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 28, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/420 "2017-03-28T22:15:31Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Other things that those on the left may find favorable about Gorsuch is his opposition to Kelo. 😕 Kelo was a left wing decision, opposed by the RW on the court. > [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > So where the law is ambiguous and an agency is interpreting it in a reasonable way, a judge is obligated to stop them from doing that and interpret the ambiguous law in some unreasonable way in accordance with his personal ideological beliefs?😕 I don’t understand why you’re inserting “unreasonable” and “ideological” here. > [@](#): > > I’m guessing the real argument here is about how common it is for laws to be genuinely ambiguous; otherwise, I can’t imagine how anyone could object to this doctrine. Pretty much, I would guess. If the most reasonable reading is X and an agency’s reading of Y is barely supportable by the text if you read it in the right light, do you defer to them or not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=22)