Justice Neil Gorsuch

Neil Gorsuch has now been confirmed by the Senate and will swear-in next week as one of the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court.  I expect Justice Gorsuch to support strong patent rights, but primarily focus on statutory language and historic precedent. I.e., do not expect Gorsuch to see patents as a fundamental right, but rather a policy tool that can be fully regulated by Congress.

Neil_Gorsuch_and_Donald_Trump

 

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

102 thoughts on “Justice Neil Gorsuch

  1. Silk shirt, black tie,
    I don’t need a reason why
    They come runnin’ just as fast as they can
    ‘Cause every girl crazy ’bout a sharp dressed man

  2. I am not a fan of Justice Gorsuch or his philosophy. That said, I can appreciate his clarity of thought and insistence on precision in language.

    If he were to bring some clarity of thought and language to the body of cases from Benson to Alice, he would do the inventing community a great service.

    Should an eligible “process” or “method” require a machine or transformation (to a “different state or thing”)? What is an “abstract idea?” When is a sequence of steps NOT an eligible process? When is it permissible to blend 102 novelty or 103 non-obviousness requirements with 101 eligibility issues, if ever?

    Not only business methods inventions but also bioinformatics inventions will depend on that clarity.

    1. Machine or Transformation was one of the 9-0 holdings of the Bilski decision – not sure why you think that that needs an answer…

      😉

      As to any other “clarity” – one new Justice simply is not going to provide that.

      1. Anon, indeed, all nine justices approved test as important, but not exclusive. Also, Mayo clarified that even of portions of the claimed process passed the test, that is not sufficient.

        I believe that the claim as a whole must pass the test in that the claim be directed to a special machine or that the claim as a whole be directed to a new or improved process that passes the MOT.

        I think that is the point of Mayo and Alice.

        1. I agree with Ned. The court did not designate the MOT as a categorical test. It left the door open for future cases wherein different rules might arise based on the facts of a given case. The MOT was seen as a “clue” that might (or would) allow consideration of eligibility.

          I do think there is a danger of blending eligibility and patentability requirements. also.

          1. You “agreeing” with Ned does not reach the rest of your statement since while that rest of the statement recognizes the mere “clue” nature, Ned does NOT believe in that same mere “clue” nature.

            His version dictates it as an actual requirement and a change to the statutory categories to pre-1952 (and NO USC 100 definition of the STATED expansion of process).

      2. Machine or Transformation was one of the 9-0 holdings of the Bilski decision

        Sure, that makes a whole lot of sense. Crystal clear!

    2. That said, I can appreciate his clarity of thought and insistence on precision in language.

      Because persnicketiness is sooooooo unusual among legal types.

  3. I didn’t have time to follow the hearings blow by blow (I get turned off with the preening senators), but did the new justice get asked about the separation of powers? The expanse of the modern administrative state? If he holds true as an ‘originalist’ that would indicate (IMHO) at lean toward revoking PTAB.

  4. Having very briefly looked at the speech he made when he was nominated, it may just be that in nominating Neil Gorsuch, President Trump selected a really good bloke. So once again, forget all the whining and wish him the very best of fortune and wise opinions in IP and other matters.

    1. Who is whining? He should not be in that seat. It’s a travesty. His qualifications (or lack thereof) are immaterial.

      1. PatentBob,

        You are one of the whiners.

        1. Remember, folks: “anon” is the only Truly Objective person in the room. Always. In his own mind, anyway.

          1. Did you have a point to make?

            Do you disagree with my comment?

      2. LoL.

        – “Who is whining?”

        vs.

        – “He should not be in that seat. It’s a travesty. “

  5. Not asking about customary practice, but asking about actual rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

    What is there to stop the new Justice Gorsuch from participating in cases that have already been submitted (i.e., oral argument concluded), but not yet ruled upon?

    I don’t believe there is a rule, but simply a custom that need not be followed. Thus, Gorsuch could participate in the biggest patent case this term, TC Heartland, correct?

    1. Newly appointed Justice Warren did so in Brown, but then they ended up re-arguing the case anyway (after he joined), so that’s not quite the same.

      I don’t think anyone has since, despite there not being any “rule” about it.

  6. I think the estimate is that Trump will end up appointing 1/3 of the judiciary in the next four years. Wow.

    1. Let’s be real. There is no way to read into the Constitution rights for gays. It really is just not there and all the history is the opposite. And, so what. They also had slaves and women who couldn’t vote.

      So, let’s amend the Constitution to put in there equal right for gays, realistic restrictions on gun ownership, more privacy to account for changes in modern technology, etc.

      What we have is each side claiming they can tell you the people in 1789 would have thought of something of today. Just rot.

      1. each side

        LOL

        What?

        1. What? Someone is Making America Great Again. And some people dislike the idea and fear it.

      2. >the people in 1789 would have thought of something of today

        As I’m sure you’re aware, originalists are nutters.

        And, moreover ‘…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ was 1868…

        1. True enough, but 1868 was not exactly the golden era of liberalism. And, technology and social norms have changed so much since 1868.

        2. “As I’m sure you’re aware, originalists are nutters.”

          Word.

        3. orig4lyfe! Living breathers are the true nutters. You and I both know documents don’t live or breath.

          1. Is that like machines that have thoughts…?

            😉

          2. You and I both know documents don’t live or breath.

            Deep, deep stuff here, folks.

  7. Neil Gorsuch shares with Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and the present writer the distinction of being an alumnus of University College, Oxford.

    His legal education was at Harvard and Oxford, where his PhD was supervised by the distinguished legal scholar John Finnis, and where he also had the good fortune to meet and marry and Englishwoman. Encouragingly, he has Episcopalian leanings.

    His past history gives every sign of a deep and abiding interest in and concern for the law, and readers should join me in wishing him well in his new appointment.

    1. Hear hear.

    2. Didn’t this used to be a blog about patents?

    3. Wow, self promotion, and political commentary all in the same post. You must be a lawyer Paul Cole.

      I’ll say it again: the way out of the mess we are in is to realize that the Constitution doesn’t really provide an answer to things like abortion, modern guns, modern sexuality, equal rights for women, etc. We need to amend the Constitution so these issues are no longer political issues of the moment, but longer term issues that result in amendments to the Constitution.

      Seriously, how could the people of the Constitution have imagined guns and bombs like we have now? Besides, I am not that interested in maintaining a Constitution without more amendments when the Constitution was written by many slave holders and people that did not even allow women to vote. We need to continue to amend the Constitution. It will end all this political nonsense and allow us to focus on important issues like sustainable living for the world.

      1. “We need to amend the Constitution so these issues are no longer political issues of the moment, but longer term issues that result in amendments to the Constitution.”

        I agree, vote in a few more republicans so they have enough state houses to amend the constitution to end the debate. If people want an abortion, female supremacy, no guns, or whatever else, they can go to canada or mexico.

        “Besides, I am not that interested in maintaining a Constitution without more amendments when the Constitution was written by many slave holders and people that did not even allow women to vote. ”

        See, that’s what’s wrong with the country. People not even interested in maintaining the well-font of their own lifestyle and prosperity. Literally just not even interested in it.

        I wouldn’t be surprised that NWPA is sworn in to protect (and maintain) the constitution as an officer of a court somewhere, but he doesn’t care about things like that.

        “It will end all this political nonsense”

        Nah bro. All it would do if the republicans get to do it is increase MM’s being upset with his buddies and they will whine forever. If lefties or progressives get to do it then there will be a revolution and the lefties will be kil led.

      2. @ Night Writer

        If you trouble to read my posting, I say nothing about the US constitution or US politics and my remarks about University College are simply to express confidence about the quality of the education taught there and the balanced outlook that is promoted. Interestingly from the US political standpoint its appeal is bipartisan, which is perhaps a good thing. I am therefore more than willing to give Neil Gorsuch the benefit of any doubt, and to wish him well in the difficult and demanding tasks that lie before him.

        1. Paul Cole in the USA any endorsement or even good words towards Neil Gorsuch is considered political. Plus, you are characterizing him based not on his judicial decisions which is what people are so upset about.

        2. But it is always fun dealing with the British and their arrogance towards the colonies.

      3. That’s funny Night Writer. But, heck , if the guy is proud of Oxford, well good on him and good on the institution that instilled some pride and esprit de corps. IMHO, it’s something we could all use some more of these days, not Oxford mind you (they’re like the Dutch!), but all of our institutions.

    4. It’s immaterial. He occupies a stolen seat.

      1. I agree. I was very disappointed in Obama for not pressing this more. He could have done a lot more.

      2. How exactly – and legally – did this so-called “theft” occur?

        Maybe you want to present a legal argument with your use of legal terms there PatentBob…

        1. How exactly – and legally – did this so-called “theft” occur?

          LOL

          Oh lookie! It’s very serious “anon” coming to the rescue of the Repukkkes again. Remember, folks: “anon” claims to be “above” all this partisan bickering. For him, Mango Hairpiece and Hillary were indistinguishable. After all, private email server (have we finished investigating it – LOL).

          “anon” longs for the day when people have no memory of the recent past. Just how did Stolen Seat Neil manage to replace Scalia when Scalia died during Obama’s presidency with over a year left in Obama’s term? Stolen Seat Neil was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was literally bred up by fantastically wealthy people to be a power player. Did that have anything to do with his rise to the top and his appointment by the party of rich white men? Let’s let “anon” explain it to everyone. He’s a very serious person, after all.

          1. No rescue at all, Malcolm.

            Let’s just use the legal terms correctly – and less of an emotionalISM ploy – that’s all.

          2. born with a silver spoon in his mouth

            Name ONE Supreme Court Justice that does not have that “silver spoon” IVY LEAGUE taint….

            That’s what I thought.

            1. Hey, Anon: you’re right, everyone one of these nine attended law school at Harvard or Yale, and Malcolm is a hypocrite for only complaining about Gorsuch’s pedigree. But why get into a pi$$ing match with him over that? I’m gloating at the fact that, for the next 25-30 years while Gorsuch is on the bench, Malcolm will be discomfited by the very fact of Gorsuch’s appointment. Excuse me, that’s JUSTICE Gorsuch.

              1. gloating at the fact that, for the next 25-30 years while Gorsuch is on the bench, Malcolm will be discomfited

                Spoken like a true Repukkke. Focus on the important stuff!

                everyone one of these nine attended law school at Harvard or Yale, Malcolm is a hypocrite for only complaining about Gorsuch’s pedigree

                Going to Harvard or Yale isn’t the issue, you depressingly dense p.o.s.

          3. “born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was literally bred up by fantastically wealthy people to be a power player. Did that have anything to do with his rise to the top and his appointment by the party of rich white men? ”

            Seems like really a silly thing to say given Judge Garland was regarded as one of the wealthiest noms ever, and his net worth disclosure range completely blows Gorsuch out of the water.

            And Garland’s “old money”, also, and very connected (link to dailymail.co.uk).

        2. So, anon, how long can one delay voting on a Supreme Court justice? One year? Two years? Three years? Forever? I’m not republican or democrat, but I’m appalled at this stalling tactic.

          1. PatentBob,

            I too was appalled – and I think that it did incredible damage to the “brand” of the Repukes.

            But please, try to not let the emotionalism obscure the legal points.

            “Theft” is simply not the correct legal label.

      3. You need to take that up with Justice Ginsburg.

    5. Paul, I do wish him well.

      Also, he will be the only Protestant on the United States Supreme Court. Think about that for a second.

    6. His past history gives every sign of a deep and abiding interest in and concern for the law

      Did you hear the joke about the frozen trucker?

      1. No, but I would absolutely love to hear it. So over to you!

  8. OT but a Disney patent application is in the news. Apparently everyone involved was born yesterday. Try to believe this:

    link to appft.uspto.gov

    1. A robot for human interaction, comprising: a robot controller including a joint control module; a link comprising a rigid support element and a body segment coupled to the rigid support element, wherein the body segment includes an outer sidewall enclosing an interior space; a pressure sensor sensing pressure in the interior space of the link; and a joint coupled to the rigid support element, wherein the robot controller operates the joint based on the pressure sensed by the pressure sensor.

    Sensors! They detect stuff. And something else responds. But this is all taking place in some new fangled thing called a “robot” and — get this — there’s an inside and an outside. Wowee zowee!

  9. But what is his view on the constitutionality of the PTAB?

  10. When will Gorsuch realistically join the bench as an active Associate Justice?

  11. MM said: “got my baseball bat and bricks set”

    Ah yes. Not unexpected … from you and yours.

    The instrument of “force” and the violation of rights, has always and will ever be the primary tool of yours and your kin.

    No matter how “compassionate”, “progressive”, or “liberal” you and your friends like to say you are, your prerogative, your mantra, the very instrument built into your so called moral high-ground the initiation of force against those who have not initiated it, in opposition to their will, individual rights, and freedoms. This is no surprise because a free ride for some requires (according to you and yours) a forced ride for others… never questioning the premises that a free ride is a right or that force for it’s sake is moral.

    No doubt you will laugh, perhaps while stroking your bat or bricks… no doubt they are precious to you… you know that as destroyers, not creators, you and yours would be powerless without them.

    I realize it is a waste of my time to continue writing this… sufficed to say I prefer freedom to you and your “bat and bricks”. No offense.

    1. Take away your rights? Which ones? The right to make money without taxes or giving back to the society that has provided the economy that gave the medium to make money in the first place? Please, there is no such natural right. Liberals are not the Bolsheviks you make them out to be.

      Put away Ayn Rand and step into the real world.

      1. Put away Ayn Rand and step into the real world.

        Or he can just keep spouting platitudes about “freedom” while cheering for increased privatization and the accelerated concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. Extreme cognitive dissonance is just a fact of life for these Heritage/Federalist types. Sharing/collectivity is for weaklings, not “winners.” And we all love “winners”. Right? USA! USA!

        1. You don’t seem to understand the basics of the US patent system and the role of that system with disruptive innovation…

          … much like your dichotomy of going after the form of innovation MOST accessible to the non-wealthy….

          (I know: “Go figure Folks,” hmm?)

    2. LOL

      Never underestimate the ability of a fake libertarian to speechify about “freedom”, especially if it’s the “freedom” of rich white guys to make life as cr@ppy as possible for everyone else.

      The instrument of “force” … has always and will ever be the primary tool of yours and your kin.

      Oh noes! I chucked your tea into the harbor. Boo hoo hoo.

    3. As far as Gorsuch… we’ll see. I have no reason to believe he is pro or anti intellectual property

    4. The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has now withdrawn its outrageous and unconstitutional order demanding Twitter give up user data related to an account frequently critical of the Trump administration. …

      On Thursday, Twitter filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, the CBP, and others, arguing that the CPB’s demand to provide possibly identifying user data on @ALT_uscis, one of many anonymous Twitter accounts critical of the Trump administration, violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. According to Twitter, the CPB bizarrely justified its order by citing a statue concerning imported merchandise.

      Nothing to see here, folks. Just the usual narcissist authoritarians spreading that delicious “freedom” around. Nobody could have predicted any of this.

    5. I think the best way to describe this comments is “unhinged.”

      Conservatives and faux-libertarians try to cloak themselves in the mantle of “freedom,” but the freedoms the ascribe to are only the ones the reinforce their power and ability to concentrate wealth into their hands. The primary tool of the conservatives and faux-libertarians is violence. The violence may not be physical (though it may be through the use of unaccountable enforcement agencies, such as police, the FBI, the DEA, INS, etc.); but the violence the economic, social, and environmental. Polluting the waters causing harm to people just so they can amass more wealth.

      And you are surprised that a lot of people are extremely upset at those actions?

      I would suggest everyone listen to the first couple of episodes of Seasons 4 and 6 of the Revolutions podcast. The parallels are striking.

      1. Ordinary Squirrel, this post of yours is borderline In S Ane. All of it, pure leftist propaganda.

        But of course, you seem to believe everything you say there to be true in fact, which is the pitty.

        1. I don’t advocate violence or overthrow of the government. All I want is sensible policy that will benefit everyone instead of the new age robber barons. You are blind, and likely live in an ivory tower, if you can’t acknowledge the source of a lot of people’s frustrations.

          If I am not within my rights to defend myself when I am mugged on the street, why am I not within my rights to defend myself when a corporation is dumping chemicals into the water I drink or the air I breath?

          1. Squirrel, if someone violates your rights, you can sue. If you are poor, there are a lot of public advocacy groups or rich people willing to back you.

            I once had a case where the ACLU provided the attorneys, and a major league rich guy helped with the finances.

            I am almost always on the side of the little guy. But I do not buy into the leftist point of view because I do not believe they are in fact on the side of the little guy. A recent study showed this. The socialist care more about punishing the rich and about control over everything, than they care about the little guy. The socialist will protect the owl of the forest over 30,000 good paying jobs. The socialist will stop the pipeline rather than provide the people with low-cost energy and jobs, job, jobs.

            I am still aghast that the famous incident where Dow stopped, after years of trying, to get the necessary 100 permits to build in California a major chemical plant. The socialist environmentalists crowed about their victory while the people of California suffered.

            Example after example can be had of this ilk. The interests of the little guy are swept aside in favor of punishing the big corporation.

            Today, the socialist backs illegal and legal immigration that only lowers wage rates of Americans. The farm worker, the construction worker and the engineer/scientist are all suffering depressed wages because of too much immigration too fast.

            Ordinary people get trampled, day in and day out, by socialist policies; but the rhetoric of envy continues as if that justified all the bad policies the socialist promotes.

            Higher taxes on corporations — who then flee.

            Higher regulations on corporations — who then flee.

            More regulation, more taxes means fewer jobs, less prosperity for Americans.

            There is a reason that the worker voted for Trump. Hopefully, he delivers on his promises. But the worker is best advised to never against vote left.

            1. I can sue, yes. Or I can use some form of collective group action, say a government of some sort, to defend myself.

              Your comments about immigration are empirically wrong. Immigration does not “take jobs” or “depress wages.” That view ignores economics 101. (And your comments specifically about farm labor are really off the mark. Look into the history of farm labor in the US. Except for the great depression, for the last 150 years, farm labor has been largely done by immigrants.) Automation and productivity are the cause of job loss and suppressed wages. And guess what, unless Trump voters are going to start throwing wooden shoes into the gears, automation and productivity are here to stay, no matter what happens to immigration.

              Global trade is a force for good. It makes the pie larger. The problem is that there are always going to be winners and losers when it comes to trade. But here is the key realization, the reason people are upset is that global trade is a form of wealth redistribution from the workers to owners. Programs to help the workers to lost to global trade (I am personally in favor of taxing the winners to give direct cash payments to the losers) is in fact anti-wealth redistribution. It is the winners realizing that their gains came at the expense of the losers, and then paying those losers back for their sacrifice.

              As much as there is no reason to vote for the left, there is equally no reason to vote for the right. At least with the left, I can have civil liberties, a decent environment, and at least some privacy. All issues, I might add, that the right has be particularly terrible with in the last few months. The right has no solutions that will make the lives of the average worker better. We have seen this over and over again in the last several months. And the thing is, everybody knows this to be true. I bet you know this is true. To pretend otherwise is to be delusional. That is why there is so much political discontent.

              As for Trump, he made no promises. He made statements that he thought would help his election chances. Anyone who is relying on what he has said is fooling themselves.

              1. Hugo Chavez, himself, was against illegal immigration because he saw first hand how it undermined his attempt to organize farmworkers and bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. So where your econ 101 argument is flat.

                1. What does this comment even mean? Like Hugo Chavez is someone to take economic advice from. Saying “Even Hugo Chavez said this about the economy…” is like saying you take econ. advice from a horse.

                  The Science of Immigration

                2. “is like saying you take econ. advice from a horse.”

                  Generalizing what happened in one little area, which is arguably one of the “best case scenarios for illegal immigration” to the overall general case for the country is also like saying you are a horse when it comes to your econ understanding.

                  The economic science has been “in” for quite some time on the situation as a whole. Immigration, especially illegal immigration of unskilled workers, shts on the native population’s wages and sometimes working conditions as well. Though OVERALL it presents a net benefit (as in, rich people, middle class people and even poor people get way cheaper goods, and there are “more jobs” total because more people are hired cheaper etc. etc.) while shafting the lowest on the totem pole quite a bit.

                  And the “crime rate” is but one small tiny fraction of the social/societal issues that arise.

              2. “Automation and productivity are the cause of job loss and suppressed wages”

                That’s literally not what nearly all economists are saying, though those things also suppress wages.

                You’re confusing “net benefit” (which means it benefits some people and hurts other people but overall the net is a positive when everything is taken into account) with “it benefits everyone”.

                “Global trade is a force for good.”

                Yes, while shi t ting on the poor.

                “The problem is that there are always going to be winners and losers when it comes to trade.”

                Yes, and in the current paradigm the “losers” are nearly always the ones not doing so well already. And the “winners” are the ones already doing quite well.

                “But here is the key realization, the reason people are upset is that global trade is a form of wealth redistribution from the workers to owners. ”

                Glad to hear you go ahead and cop to it.

                “Programs to help the workers to lost to global trade (I am personally in favor of taxing the winners to give direct cash payments to the losers) is in fact anti-wealth redistribution.”

                In other words, a gigantic gubmit bureaucracy to try to offset the enormous negatives of a policy that, at best, is nothing but “icing”. Of course, when this agency inevitably fails, you can always say that the republicans “kneecapped it” amirite?

                “It is the winners realizing that their gains came at the expense of the losers, and then paying those losers back for their sacrifice.”

                LOLOLOLOL. Their MANDATORY sacrifice. How long do you think they’ll continue to vote people in that are MANDATING they sacrifice? Hint: Donald Trump just showed you how long, it’s precisely until someone comes along and says they’ll stop oppressing them.

                “The right has no solutions that will make the lives of the average worker better.”

                That’s where you’re wrong bucko. At least with Trump.

                “As for Trump, he made no promises.”

                Um he made a literal contract, and he’s gotten quite a few of the “promises” done.

                link to donaldjtrump.com

                1. Your comment is entirely substance free. Though, that is not unexpected with someone inducted into the cult of Trump. Give me a source where Trump is not tied to Trump, then I’ll consider it. So far, he has not done anything to benefit anyone but himself.

                  You can’t stop global trade. It is a source of cheap goods. The people who are going to be affected by an increase in the price of goods and services are going to be to poor people in the red states.

                  And no, immigration is not a major contributor to wage suppression. If manufacturing come back to the US, it will be done with robots. The jobs that were lost of globalization will never return. To think otherwise is tilting at windmills. So, a higher cost of goods and not an influx of job…. hrm… sound like a winning recipe.

                2. Additionally, studies have confirmed that immigrants, legal and illegal, commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens. That is not is dispute anymore.

                  Again, on the wage issue. Science is not on your side. I posted a link to that talks about the scientific studies (studies not performed of commissioned by political campaigns) that supports that idea. Until you can do the same, you don’t really have leg to stand on.

                3. The red states, btw, that feed at the trough of the blue states. Kentucky and Mississippi are the top two leeches in the US. They receive way more federal benefits than they pay in taxes. I, for one, am welcome to cutting them off and stop this wealth shifting to those states.

                4. “Give me a source where Trump is not tied to Trump, then I’ll consider it. ”

                  I’m not even sure what you’re referring to.

                  “So far, he has not done anything to benefit anyone but himself.”

                  That’s because you only read lefty news. Here’s even a piece of lefty news showing you what he’s done.

                  link to news.sky.com

                  “legal and illegal, commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens”

                  Yes but that’s only if you keep our ahem, “diverse” members of our population in the data set. And especially if you leave out the legal immigrants with high skills/high class. Whitey themselves, living in high % white neighborhoods stands only to loss when it comes to crime rates going up or down with poor illegal immigrants (fun fact, even if those poor illegal immigrants are white). And whitey is still the majority. That’s the full view on the data, and why whitey as a voting block will always oppose illegal immigration within your lifetime.

                  “You can’t stop global trade.”

                  Technically we as a country could, but nobody is planning or calling for that. What most developed nations DO have, which we don’t, are ameliorating policies put on it.

                  “And no, immigration is not a major contributor to wage suppression”

                  It is for low wage jobs and always has been. This is undeniable on the facts when any sizeable group comes. It’s literally the law of supply (of labor) and demand (for labor). Thems the facts and they’re easy to look up. Even lefty pieces state them.

                  link to politico.com

                  “Until you can do the same, you don’t really have leg to stand on”

                  Even lefties now concede that it’s hurting the poor bro. Just because your one link thinks differently (which I will check when I’m home) doesn’t mean much.

                  “The jobs that were lost of globalization will never return”

                  Maybe, maybe not. But we can stop trying to force ever more of them away.

                  “The red states, btw, that feed at the trough of the blue states”

                  Tis true, but irrelevant. Not all states develop equally over the years. They’d rather have jerbs than gibs. Just because dems are intent on giving gibs to maintain their vote plantation doesn’t mean much to the red states.

    6. No doubt you will laugh, perhaps while stroking your bat or bricks…

      Remember, folks: this guy is undoubtedly all over the Internets defending the NRA like there’s no tomorrow.

      Bearded dudes who never graduated high school openly carrying automatic rifles while they cruise from the local bar to their klan meeting: best thing ever

      Bearded dudes with Ph.D.s marching with bricks and bats to the courthouse: oh my, it’s pearl clutching time

    7. So much for civilized rational discourse.

      Attempts at ad hominem attacks against one criticizing reference to and the initiation of force, while the fool who makes pronouncements about bats and bricks commands tacit approval.

      So vary sad for western civilization.

      1. Why are you surprised, Anon2?

        11 years now. Unchanged.

      2. I anxiously await you pointing to where you tried civilized rational discourse. It does not seem to appear in this thread.

      3. anon2, the state of the left in the Western World today is abysmal. Virtually all of them are radicals of one kind or another.

        So long as they stay so far away from the center, the less likely it is that they will hold onto power democratically. But it IS shocking just how much terror and fear they now spread. In Blue areas of the world, the moderate has to keep is mouth shut and his views hidden.

        1. Like it is any better in the red areas of the world. Terror and fear are tools that both extremes aptly wield.

          1. Horse sht. I can take you to a bazillion “red” area of the world. They’re just going to glare at you.

            1. Republicans use threats to terror to strip people of civil liberties all the time. See the Department of Homeland “Security.”

              1. “threats to terror”

                I think you mean “threats of terror”. And it most certainly isn’t republican’s “fault” that we’ve been massively importing populations of people with “terrorists” baked right in. Look up who passed the act of 65′. Fairly bi-partisan, but mostly dems. Because because because RAYYYYYYCYSM.

                link to govtrack.us

                “to strip people of civil liberties all the time.”

                I can agree with that. And I’m less than enthused at the TSA and the spying and all. But, again, it’s both sides of the aisle that supported most of those things, look up the vote patterns.

                1. If by “we’ve been massively importing populations of people with ‘terrorists’ baked right in” you mean white males, then yes, you are correct.

                2. “If by “we’ve been massively importing populations of people with ‘terrorists’ baked right in” you mean white males, then yes, you are correct.”

                  Um no, I mean people of the socio-political ideology “hardcore/radical islamist”. You might remember the 19 hijackers. They kind of made a big splash in the news a decade or so ago by killing 1.5k people in one day. Probably a terrorist world record. But you can refer to them as white if you like.

                  link to en.wikipedia.org

    8. The guy is an anarchist.

  12. Just another massive credibility blow to the Supreme Court, as if Bush v. Gore weren’t enough. We’ll wait and see how things play out but I’ve already got my baseball bat and bricks set aside should Stolen Seat Neil and his fellow neanderthals decide that women are best thought of as sub-human breeding cannisters.

    The j0ke that we call the Supreme Court is kind of a sideshow right now, of course.

    1. Baseball bat and bricks — to go about and damage the property of others and inflict bodily harm on white folks and the police?

      Why can’t you even conceive of a peaceful, law-abiding protest?

      1. Because it’s illegal to open carry a baseball bat.

        Sure, that makes sense.

      2. Ask Colin Kaepernick that question.

        If only we had law-abiding law enforcement agencies that people could trust.

      3. “Baseball bat and bricks — to go about and damage the property of others and inflict bodily harm on white folks and the police?”

        Obviously.

        “Why can’t you even conceive of a peaceful, law-abiding protest?”

        It’s because of his “muh decency!” lololololol. I literally cannot tell if you’re joking. You can’t understand the lefty mind control yet?

    2. “got my baseball bat and bricks”

      Our little radical wants to be the first one shot.

      I have to give you MM, it’s cute.

      But first, looks like we might have a war to fry.

  13. Now where is that bookmark to Malcolm’s prediction…?

    (As well as my explanation as to why the Dems would not succeed wherein the Repukes did…)

    😉

    1. I don’t really see much “success” here unless you’re counting the steady slide of the US into the sewer of history, which is perhaps where it always belonged.

      1. … “where is always belonged”…?

        You do know that you don’t have to stay here, right?

      2. “I don’t really see much “success” here unless you’re counting the steady slide of the US into the sewer of history, which is perhaps where it always belonged.”

        How does it feel to know that you helped make that happen MM?

      3. “the US into the sewer of history, which is perhaps where it always belonged.”

        Arguably the greatest country the world has ever known, and MM is so mind controlled as to think it might should go into the sewer of history.

      4. Thanks for revealing your true colors, “Malcolm”. The USA gives you the right to spout inane junk in fora like this one, including junk that’s critical of the government, and you say it’s a crappy country? It enables you to make a living in a profession where you don’t have to break your back or stay out in the sun all day, and you say it’s a crappy country? Try living a s–thole like India. Or any Arab country. Or Russia or China, where criticism of the powers-that-be can be dangerous to one’s health.

        It ain’t perfect, but it beats the pants off of most other countries. I’m with Anon: if you don’t like it, haul off to another place. What an ingrate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting