I’m good with Judge Gorsuch

David Hardy found a couple firearms cases with Judge Gorsuch contributions and doesn’t find much to directly indicate how he will rule on 2nd Amendment issues.

But from what I have been able to find out, such as here and here, he is an originalist and textualist. That is what I am looking for in a SCOTUS judge. And he is relatively young and should be around for many years. So, I’m good with Judge Gorsuch.

Now to see if the Republicans can get him past the obstructionist Democrats in the Senate.

13 thoughts on “I’m good with Judge Gorsuch

  1. Gorsuch has many fine qualities that commend him for SCOTUS, but there is one final quality that makes him the right nominee for Trump to put forth now: He’s a trap for Democrats.

    He was voted for unanimously the last time, including votes from Senators Biden, Obama and Clinton. If now, suddenly, Gorsuch is Literally Himmler nominated by Literally Hitler, the orange colored god-emperor can point out that their refusal to advise and consent is purely a temper tantrum over his election, and his grudging buddy McConnell has all the justification he needs to nuke the filibuster.

    The second stage of the plan is to wait for Ruth Bader Ginsberg to fail to recuse herself from a case that comes to the SCOTUS and Trump is the respondent is some manner. Remember her injudicious public statements during the election? She’s set herself up to be the first supreme to get removed for failing to produce “good behavior” during her tenure. Then, Trump would get to fill her spot with anyone who can get 51 Republicans to vote for.

    Also… who is really old on the SCOTUS? If filibuster is nuked, Trump may have to only wait. But not too long, since the Biden rule means Senate can’t consider a nominee one the presidential primaries have begun. That excuse is cover for why Trump gets his pick now, so he can’t jeopardize it without undermining legitimacy.

    • Need to change the rules again, so Trump can nominate an “alternate” right now to fill in if any standing judge is incapacitated. 🙂

      • Hey, the Constitution doesn’t say when the Senate has to “advise and consent”. That’s the reason why the president can nominate and the Senate can sit on it.

        There is also no reason the Senate can’t advise and consent in advance to the president, in the form of, “Here’s a list of people that we ADVISE you that we have already CONSENTed to; feel free to pick off the list and job done.”

        And, as you’ve already noted, there’s no reason the president couldn’t affix a large capacity feeding device to the ol’ presidential nominating action full of pre-consented rounds. It’d kinda be assumed that his nominations expire on the last day of his term.

        Considering Trump’s history-to-date of setting up actions with the expectation that the resulting freak-out will also make a subsequent action possible, I see no reason for him not to start pre-loading nominations to the Supreme Court, getting the advise and consent stuff out of the way, possibly for a group of five, which he can then pick from as the circumstances arise. But if he does this, Ruth Bader Ginsberg might break the world record for oldest woman alive and still working, just out of spite.

  2. An alternative would be to revert back to requiring the “talking filibuster” — forcing those who want to obstruct to actually be present and talking the entire time. That will wear them out soon enough.

    • I do like that. If you’re going to filibuster, you should be required to put forth the energy to actually do it. And playground sit-ins with catered pizza and sing-a-longs don’t count.

      • Agreed! No more coddling of filibusters. If legislation is odious enough to you to filibuster it, then have the guts to stay standing with your catheter while you read the phone book aloud. No breaks. The filibuster lasts while you do.

  3. I’ve heard (and so understand, this is hearsay) that he’s largely a textualist and originalist in the style of Scalia, but doesn’t agree with “Chevron Deference” doctrine (where courts defer [read: give wide latitude] to federal/executive agencies over specific policy implementations, unless those policies are clearly unconstitutional).

    If that’s the worst that can be said for him (and even that isn’t inherently bad), I’m pretty OK with this one.

    • The Chevron Doctrine is an abomination, and textualism requires recognizing that. Since the Federal government only has limited enumerated powers under the Constitution, it follows that both laws and regulations should be tested to that standard: each must be plainly permitted by Article 1 Section 8. After all, that section says “all laws … necessary and proper”. It does not say “all laws … that could conceivably be justified”.
      Any judge who opposes the Chevron Doctrine is a good guy in my book.
      I would make the same argument, for the same reasons, against the notion of “scrutiny” (strict or otherwise). The Constitutionally correct interpretation of “shall not be infringed” is those exact words, not “may be infringed with a suitable excuse” which is the current practice.

  4. While I welcome an Originalist nominee, I hope that the Republican senators don’t just approve him unquestioningly. Please see http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html regarding his concurrence on United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), and consider the recent 4th Circuit decision along the same “dangerous until proven innocent” lines (see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444180/gun-control-fourth-circuit-court-appeals-concealed-carry-permit-firearms-civil-rights)

  5. I wonder if any Democrats will point out that Gorsuch is almost an anagram of Groucho.

  6. An originalist and a textualist. For all their duplicious claims that such a judicial philosophy is WAY outside the mainstream, every last Leftist getting apoplectic about his nomination wants such a judge if a contract they entered into could be interpreted in their favor by applying originalism and textualism. They’d raise hell if their mortgage contracts were changed from the meaning of the terms as they signed the contract the way the Constitution’s words have been changed since that contract was signed by the representatives of the states and the people.

    • Maybe not. Consider what Obama did to student loan contracts. I think they are quite happy with contracts being changed after the fact, so long as the changes go in their favor. Since they expect to be in charge, they expect that outcome — never realizing that it’s just as likely the other side will be in charge. I call this the Trotsky effect.

Comments are closed.