Jump to content
TennesseeTuxedo

Neil Gorsuch - Trumps Nominee For SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

10 things to know about Neil Gorsuch.

1. His academic resume alone is very impressive: 

He completed his undergraduate studies at Columbia University in New York, got his J.D. from Harvard Law School, and then earned his doctorate from Oxford after studying under the titanic legal philosopher and natural lawyer John Finnis

2. There would also be another interesting first:

 After clerking under Justice Byron White, Gorsuch clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy. If confirmed, it would be the first time a Supreme Court justice sat on the same bench as a jurist for whom he’d previously clerked.

3. He knows the struggles of being a conservative on a liberal college campus: 

According to a bio prepared by the Alliance for Justice during his confirmation process in 2006 outlines his conservative student journalism 30 years prior:

“While in college, Mr. Gorsuch co-founded a newspaper and a magazine at Columbia University. Both publications – The Morningside Review (the magazine) and The Federalist (the newspaper) – were intended to counter what Mr. Gorsuch and his co-founders saw as the predominance of liberal political views at Columbia during the mid-to-late 1980s. A review of available issues of the The Morningside Review, located in the Columbia archives, revealed two pieces authored by Mr. Gorsuch: one was a comment on U.S. policy in Afghanistan; the other, a general defense of conservative political philosophy. The Columbia archives also contain most, but not all, of the editions of the The Federalist published during Mr. Gorsuch’s tenure at the paper. According to its initial statement of purpose, The Federalist attempted to provide a “classically liberal” forum for conservative students and others who want to air views not typically heard on campus. Mr. Gorsuch, one of the paper’s three founders, served on the board of editors and later as a contributor.”

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-trumps-supreme-court-nominee#sthash.V3MFSpnL.dpuf

 

4. He’s no fan of over-litigation:

 

Frivolous lawsuit-mongers — leftist and otherwise — may want to take heed to Gorsuch’s 2005 op-ed in National Review, where he calls out the Left’s obsession with what Justice Scalia called “social transformation without representation”:

During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect–instituting profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today. In the face of great skepticism about the constitutionality of New Deal measures in some corners, a generation of Democratic-appointed judges, from Louis Brandeis to Byron White, argued for judicial restraint and deference to the right of Congress to experiment with economic and social policy. Those voices have been all but forgotten in recent years among liberal activists. It would be a very good thing for all involved–the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself–if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.

5. He’s pro-term limits (or at least was during the Bush 41 administration): 

According to a 1992 paper he co-authored shortly after finishing law school at Harvard:

Recognizing that men are not angels, the Framers of the Constitution put in place a number of institutional checks designed to prevent abuse of the enormous powers they had vested in the legislative branch. Bicameralism, frequent elections, staggered terms, differing qualifications, shared and exclusive powers, and state control over election procedures are all examples of the mechanisms the Framers crafted with the hope of ensuring a responsive yet responsible legislature. A term limit, we suggest, is simply an analogous procedure designed to advance much the same substantive end.

Gorsuch and Guzman argue that this has been upended by the party system, legislative seniority, committee assignments and things of that ilk, thus precipitating term limits.

6. He’s literally written a book on life issues: 

After studying the issue at Oxford, Gorsuch penned a book about the moral and legal arguments surrounding the end-of-life debate, entitled “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” Published by Princeton University Press, the work is cited extensively in Ryan Anderson’s Heritage Foundation paper on physician-assisted suicide from 2015. 

7. He’s also a rock star on federal regulations administrative law: 

One area where Neil Gorsuch appears to be more of an originalist than Justice Scalia is on the question of giving federal agencies the ability to interpret statutes themselves and make de-facto regulations. The so-called Chevron Deference is one area where Gorsuch has made substantial waves as an appellate judge with a dynamite opinion back in August:

“There’s an elephant in the room with us today. We have studiously attempted to work our way around it and even left it unremarked. But the fact is Chevron and Brand X permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth.”

“For administrative law nerds, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch’s” Chevron opinion “is about as thrilling as it gets,” reads a press release from the Pacific Legal Foundation.

8. He’s no fan of over-criminalization: 

In a 2013 lecture at the Federalist Society, Gorsuch tackled head on the problem of having far too many laws on the books:

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-trumps-supreme-court-nominee#sthash.V3MFSpnL.dpuf

 

“What about our criminal justice system, you might ask. It surely bears its share of ironies too. Consider this one. Without question, the discipline of writing the law down—of codifying it—advances the law’s interest in fair notice. But today we have about 5,000 federal criminal statutes on the books, most of them added in the last few decades, and the spigot keeps pouring, with literally hundreds of new statutory crimes inked every single year." 

“Neither does that begin to count the thousands of additional regulatory crimes buried in the federal register. There are so many crimes cowled in the numbing fine print of those pages that scholars have given up counting and are now debating their number." 

“When he led the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden worried that we have assumed a tendency to federalize, ‘Everything that walks, talks, and moves.’ Maybe we should say ‘hoots’ too, because it’s now a federal crime to misuse the likeness of Woodsy the Owl. (As were his immortal words: ‘Give a hoot, don’t pollute!’) Businessmen who import lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes can be brought up on charges. Mattress sellers who remove that little tag? Yes, they’re probably federal criminals too." 

9. He pulls no punches on due process rights: 

Another notable area of Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence revolves around the Fourth Amendment and his decisions on issues surrounding search and seizure — especially as they relate to technology and cyber security. “New technologies bring with them not only new opportunities for law enforcement to catch criminals,” he wrote in an opinion in U.S. v. Denson, “but also new risks for abuse and new ways to invade constitutional rights.”

In another case, which focused on police entering a property without consent, Gorsuch ruled that the home owner had “unambiguously” revoked the government’s ability to enter his home unwarranted when he posted a no-trespassing sign on his property.

10. He won’t be that easy to confirm:

With a resume this impressive, Senate Democrats are going to put up one hell of a fight to get someone more “mainstream,” as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (F, 2%) has demanded. Republicans will either have to get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations or invoke the two-speech rule to get Gorsuch onto the bench.

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-trumps-supreme-court-nominee#sthash.V3MFSpnL.dpuf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13025/5-things-you-need-know-about-trump-scotus-pick-frank-camp

 

In a 2005 essay for National Review, Gorsuch wrote:

"American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary...

the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has–its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare."

 

Can't imagine that's going to make him too popular on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denali   

Just received in my email from the Colorado GOP Press Office:

The Colorado Republican State Party Applauds the Nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court
 
DENVER - “Tonight, President Trump fulfilled one of his biggest campaign promises to the American people by selecting federal appeals court Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a mainstream conservative to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” said Colorado Republican Party State Chairman Steve House.  “I am confident Neil Gorsuch will faithfully uphold the Constitution, protect our individual rights, and preserve the idea of limited government.”
 
Judge Gorsuch holds degrees from Columbia, Harvard Law School and Oxford and has clerked for the Supreme Court. President George W. Bush appointed Gorsuch, 49, to the 10th Circuit in 2006.
 
“I strongly urge Senator Michael Bennet to respect the will of the American people and treat Judge Neil Gorsuch the same way the Senate treated Supreme Court nominees of past newly elected Presidents,” said Chairman House. “The American people have spoken, and it is time to for the Supreme Court to once again have nine justices.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patsplat   
1 hour ago, Denali said:

Yet another campaign promise made to the American people that Sir Donald has come through on.

The man is a machine.

So apparently is tux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogue   
5 hours ago, Denali said:


“I strongly urge Senator Michael Bennet to respect the will of the American people and treat Judge Neil Gorsuch the same way the Senate treated Supreme Court nominees of past newly elected Presidents,” said Chairman House. “The American people have spoken, and it is time to for the Supreme Court to once again have nine justices.”

Interesting comment. "......newly elected presidents".  What distinction to make!  

Choice wording to give him some wiggle room for the Senate simply not voting on the last SC nominee.  My money is on the guy claims to believe in the Constitution.  

Edited by Rogue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justafan   

I actually agree.  I think he's a good pick.  I would be much happier with him as AG but you knew he was going to nominate someone conservative.  At least this guy is consistent and doesn't seem to be the racist Anton Scalia was or a complete partisan hack like come of the other judges nominated have been.  He's conservative but I don't think he'll go to work to immediately overturn roe v. wade either.

Having said that.  The Dems are going to block it.  They had a good nominee last year in Garfield and he was blocked simply out of spite and an obstructionist agenda.  Why should the Dems give an inch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolltide   

A good balanced choice.

 

Superbly qualified. 

 

Pro business, that's what you would expect and why Pelosi was acting retarded.

 

He is better at guaranteeing civil liberties than most conservative judges. 

 

Not an evangelical bible thumper! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Justafan said:

I actually agree.  I think he's a good pick.  I would be much happier with him as AG but you knew he was going to nominate someone conservative.  At least this guy is consistent and doesn't seem to be the racist Anton Scalia was or a complete partisan hack like come of the other judges nominated have been.  He's conservative but I don't think he'll go to work to immediately overturn roe v. wade either.

Having said that.  The Dems are going to block it.  They had a good nominee last year in Garfield and he was blocked simply out of spite and an obstructionist agenda.  Why should the Dems give an inch?

Then they should pick their battles.  They can't claim tit-for-tat on the cabinet nominees and the SCOTUS nom.  The 'pubs approved obama's cabinet in a matter of days, even though they had reservations.

But currently the dems are being obstructionist about both, and they're looking petty because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's EPA nominee stalled as Republicans boycott vote

Republican senators on Thursday stalled the confirmation of President Barack Obama's pick to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saying they were "completely unsatisfied" with answers provided by Gina McCarthy on several topics.

Their decision to boycott the Senate Environment Committee meeting on her nomination was the latest in a series of procedural moves by Republicans that have made it difficult for Obama to get his second-term Cabinet in place. Obama has complained that Republicans have stymied his agenda at every turn.

The dispute over McCarthy stems from more than 1,000 written questions Republican senators asked her after her confirmation hearing - what Democrats say is a new record for the number of written questions asked of a nominee.

An administration official said she answered every one.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-mccarthy-idUSBRE9480LE20130509

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:35_thinking:

Yeah, the GOP just let Obama's nominees sail right through! 

I agree they have to put up a right with Gorsuch just because of what happened to Garland. At least Gorsuch is solidly conservative, but not a crazy Trumpian judge.

Edited by Titans279

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

:35_thinking:

Yeah, the GOP just let Obama's sail right through...

After the atrocities committed by the EPA under her watch, in hindsight, they should have rejected her.

http://www.denverpost.com/2015/10/22/review-gold-king-mine-spill-was-preventable-disaster-potential-not-understood/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/10/navajo-nation-epa-mine-wastewater-spill/31399517/

 

ETA: Obama had 7 members of his cabinet confirmed by his 1st inauguration, and an 8th the following day.

Edited by TitanDuckFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...