Posted on Mar 22, 2017
While Gorusch was testifying, the Supreme Court unanimously said he was wrong
1.68K
135
57
2
2
0
UNANIMOUSLY. Awkward.
Like the ice truck case, this shows his thinking is much too rigid and literal for lifetime tenure as a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court is asked to weigh in on cases where the literal meaning of the law isn't always obvious. Gorsuch is unsuited.
Like the ice truck case, this shows his thinking is much too rigid and literal for lifetime tenure as a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court is asked to weigh in on cases where the literal meaning of the law isn't always obvious. Gorsuch is unsuited.
While Gorusch was testifying, the Supreme Court unanimously said he was wrong
Posted from thinkprogress.orgPosted in these groups: 
Supreme Court
Disability
Supreme Court Disability
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 11
16
16
0
So you agree with the opinions published in a Leftist propaganda organ and that's enough for you to declare Gorsuch is unsuited? Now, if you look back to the prior hearings when Gorsuch was appointed to the federal bench, no one, not even one Democrat could find fault with the man. What do you suppose happened in the interim? Ah yes, President Trump was elected and set about unraveling President Obama's legacy. Furthermore, the darling of the Left, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg failed to retire after the election and the Left is running around with their hair on fire because there's a good chance she will leave the bench while Trump is President and the ideological balance of the court will sway even further from their grasp. Yes, I understand your petulance and can only offer you a crying towel. Now excuse me while I continue celebrating...
(16)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
MSgt (Join to see) - No it isn't common practice for the Senate not to fill a vacancy during an election year. That had been debunked numerous times already. It sure as hell not common practice for the Senate to deny a hearing during an election year. Even in '92, after Biden's objection, they held a hearing and confirmed the nominee to Justice. Senate held hearings and filled a vacancy during an election year for Bush. The atrocity of the GOP against Garland was the precedent they set denying a hearing. All they had to do was hold a hearing, voted 'no', filibuster and carry the vacancy to after the election; that would have met Constitutional procedures. Instead, McConnell and GOP will forever be remembered as the party that illegally denied a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee for 11 months.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CPT Jack Durish - You don't consider the struggle by both parties to have either considerably Liberal or Conservative judges (not moderate) on the court in majority numbers to ensure their party's political agenda isn't interfered with by the judicial branch as an example of "political control"? Why do you think the hearings are all about each side trying to expose any left/right extremist views of a nominee? Why you think GOP denied Garland (a moderate Liberal) a hearing? Was in hopes that keep the court Conservative heavy; hell they're hoping Ginsburg and Kennedy retire, that's two more seats for more conservative than moderate valued (anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-state) judges. Your denial that the Supreme Court has been a battleground of political control and influence by both parties is disturbing.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ James Woods - My opinions disturb many people, but I'm a traditionalist. For me politics in America was and always be a struggle between opposing parties seeking political office to advance their vision of a common goal. An ideological struggle is between parties with opposing goals. That, to me, is not a subtle difference.
(1)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CPT Jack Durish - Opinions don't disturb me. I'm full of them myself as an independent thinker. Hahaha!
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
Nice narrative you have there - it would be a shame if something... happened to it...
Obviously the author of the article is counting on people not actually reading either decision. These are two different cases, with very different circumstances, so no the SCOTUS did NOT say Gorusch was wrong - they did NOT review Gorusch's ruling. The author clearly is attempting to paint a picture of Gorusch being over-ruled by SCOTUS which could not be further from the truth.
In the case Gorusch ruled on, the School District went out of their way to adjust the IEP to meet the parents requests, and the student WAS making progress. In the latest SCOTUS case, the district was simply passing the student from grade to grade with no improvement and using the same IEP for each grade while the student WAS NOT making progress.
From the facts of the Gorusch case:
"At the meeting, the parents presented a list of goals they had developed based on recommendations from Ms. Osaki and asked that the goals be included in Luke’s IEP for 2004."
"The school district officials expressed openness to revising Luke’s IEP to include the parents’ proposed goals and to working with Ms. Osaki to improve their special education program."
"At the meeting’s conclusion, the school district officials stated that they planned to revise Luke’s IEP and then submit a new draft to the parents."
So, the school WAS working with the parents to meet their request for the child. However, it quickly became clear that the parents didn't care, and were simply angling for a way to have someone else pay the freight for their private school choice. In fact, it appears they had already applied to the private school before even meeting with the District:
"Two days after the IEP meeting, on December 18, BHS accepted Luke’s application for enrollment. The next day, on December 19, counsel for Luke’s family sent the school district a letter stating that the family intended to remove Luke from Berthoud Elementary, enroll him at BHS, and seek from the school district reimbursement of the costs of Luke’s education at BHS."
Didn't even TRY to work with the school district. Then the ruling DID NOT hinge on the word "merely" as the article's author tries to imply. From the actual Gorusch decision:
"Indeed, both the IHO and the ALJ found the December 2003 IEP to represent a “monumental and genuine effort on the part of the District to improve [Luke]’s performance in a number of areas affected by his autism.”"
"The fact that, by the admission of every factfinder in this case, Luke was making some educational progress and had an IEP reasonably calculated to ensure that progress continued is sufficient to indicate compliance, not defiance, of the Act."
Lastly, It is also noted that the laws in the State changed AFTER the 2008 case was briefed, something the author of the linked article conveniently left off of his article, and there is no mention how this change to the Colorado laws implementing IDEA impacted the 2017 SCOTUS case.
Obviously the author of the article is counting on people not actually reading either decision. These are two different cases, with very different circumstances, so no the SCOTUS did NOT say Gorusch was wrong - they did NOT review Gorusch's ruling. The author clearly is attempting to paint a picture of Gorusch being over-ruled by SCOTUS which could not be further from the truth.
In the case Gorusch ruled on, the School District went out of their way to adjust the IEP to meet the parents requests, and the student WAS making progress. In the latest SCOTUS case, the district was simply passing the student from grade to grade with no improvement and using the same IEP for each grade while the student WAS NOT making progress.
From the facts of the Gorusch case:
"At the meeting, the parents presented a list of goals they had developed based on recommendations from Ms. Osaki and asked that the goals be included in Luke’s IEP for 2004."
"The school district officials expressed openness to revising Luke’s IEP to include the parents’ proposed goals and to working with Ms. Osaki to improve their special education program."
"At the meeting’s conclusion, the school district officials stated that they planned to revise Luke’s IEP and then submit a new draft to the parents."
So, the school WAS working with the parents to meet their request for the child. However, it quickly became clear that the parents didn't care, and were simply angling for a way to have someone else pay the freight for their private school choice. In fact, it appears they had already applied to the private school before even meeting with the District:
"Two days after the IEP meeting, on December 18, BHS accepted Luke’s application for enrollment. The next day, on December 19, counsel for Luke’s family sent the school district a letter stating that the family intended to remove Luke from Berthoud Elementary, enroll him at BHS, and seek from the school district reimbursement of the costs of Luke’s education at BHS."
Didn't even TRY to work with the school district. Then the ruling DID NOT hinge on the word "merely" as the article's author tries to imply. From the actual Gorusch decision:
"Indeed, both the IHO and the ALJ found the December 2003 IEP to represent a “monumental and genuine effort on the part of the District to improve [Luke]’s performance in a number of areas affected by his autism.”"
"The fact that, by the admission of every factfinder in this case, Luke was making some educational progress and had an IEP reasonably calculated to ensure that progress continued is sufficient to indicate compliance, not defiance, of the Act."
Lastly, It is also noted that the laws in the State changed AFTER the 2008 case was briefed, something the author of the linked article conveniently left off of his article, and there is no mention how this change to the Colorado laws implementing IDEA impacted the 2017 SCOTUS case.
(9)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
LTC Stephen B. - I'm sorry that you took the time to write that out Colonel. Why? She'll ignore it. You can bet she read it, though, but wouldn't it be nice to see her actually try to respond for once, when her position has been so successfully assailed?
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
SN Greg Wright - I know it will either be ignored or dismissed by those that follow the Narrative. It was more to give ammunition to those that actually pay attention, and so they can use the information in other contexts.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
He'll get confirmed. As far as how he goes about interpreting the law, while I don't agree with it, it's as valid as any. I didn't agree with Scalia's reasoning either but that's just the way the court works.
When Gorusch is on the SCOTUS I suspect I'll continue to disagree with his reasoning but he will get exactly one vote on the outcome of such cases and I will get exactly zero.
When Gorusch is on the SCOTUS I suspect I'll continue to disagree with his reasoning but he will get exactly one vote on the outcome of such cases and I will get exactly zero.
(6)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Concur. There is nothing overly disqualifying Gorsuch. This just stings more because of the mistreatment of Judge Garland. Gorsuch isn't corrupt or immoral, many of his decisions have been based on ideology that many of us will shake our heads in disagreement.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google