DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court

Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Cou

Neil Gorsuch (AP)

by Ken Klukowski

31 Jan 2017



WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday evening to fill the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court left open by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

President George W. Bush appointed Gorsuch to the federal bench in 2006, after he worked in the Bush administration for two years as a deputy associate attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice. Gorsuch currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, New Mexico, and his native Colorado.

Gorsuch is considered one of the most intellectual jurists on the federal bench, evinced by his gilded pedigree. He received his undergraduate degree from Columbia University in 1988 and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. Later in his career, he earned a Ph.D. from Oxford University in 2004. He would be the first Supreme Court justice in decades to hold a doctoral degree.

He’s had a picture-perfect legal career. He served as a law clerk for Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, then clerked for both Justice Byron White and later Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. He went on to a very successful career in the private sector before joining the Bush Justice Department in 2005.

Gorsuch has embraced a textualist view of constitutional interpretation, including language that suggests he might share Justice Scalia’s view that judges should further construe the text only in a manner consistent with its original meaning. In Cordova v. City of Albuquerque (2016), he wrote:

Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution. And that document isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams . . . but a carefully drafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning. If a party wishes to claim a constitutional right, it is incumbent on him to tell us where it lies, not to assume or stipulate with the other side that it must be in there someplace.

That same year, Gorsuch authored a scholarly publication about judicial philosophy, in which he explained his view that

an assiduous focus on text, structure, and history is essential to the proper exercise of the judicial function. That, yes, judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views, always with an eye on the outcome…

He concluded: “Though the critics are loud and the temptations to join them may be many, mark me down too as a believer that the traditional account of the judicial role Justice Scalia defended will endure.”

Gorsuch is known for a number of constitutional rulings that conservatives have applauded. He has consistently ruled in favor of religious liberty. In American Atheists v. Duncan (2010), he took the position that the Constitution’s Establishment Clause permits roadside memorials honoring fallen state troopers on public land. Regarding the free exercise of religion and federal statutes, he took the position that Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate violated Hobby Lobby’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a case that eventually became a landmark Supreme Court case.

He has not been as outspoken on some other issues, such as the Second Amendment, but has nonetheless been generally supportive of gun rights when the matter has come before him.

Judge Gorsuch was born in 1967 in Denver, Colorado. At age 49, he would be one of the youngest justices in decades, nearing Justice Elena Kagan’s age (50) when she was confirmed in 2010.

Gorsuch has been married to his wife Marie for 20 years. They have two teenage daughters together.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/trump-nominates-judge-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/

A conservative that doesn't legislate from the bench. Trump kept his word on this one.

Yes, he did Mr.Ted!

Kind of impressed by reading that. Hope he does well.

Great choice to replace Scalia. He is definitely in the same mold as Scalia.

I think that Dems will whine and complain, and maybe even, *gasp* protest ..... but this man was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate when he came to the Federal Court under GW Bush, and I bet that several Dems who are up for election in states Trump won might find themselves in danger is they decide to play politics.

Good luck Neil!

The Dems are beginning to circle.

I'm sure they will let out a hysterical wail of agony soon.

Top of the list on why I voted Trump, despite misgivings - the Supreme Court. Odds are he'll seat at least 2 more Supreme Court justices during his presidency.

This is an impressive resume.

When I heard the 'list of three' a few days ago, I did some digging. Of the three, I was holding out hope that this would be the pick.

We need seasoned, solid professionals in positions like this, and 45 could have picked worse.

This is the reason I voted for Mr. Trump also and I love the list of possible nominee's still available.

It doesn't mean anything but Laura Ingraham predicted on Hannity tonight that there will be another opening within four months on the court.

Who?

I love the fake happiness from people on this board, knowing damn well y'all never heard of this guy a day in your life before today. But somehow think it's an awesome pick.

Let's wait til the more detail information and hearings start.

I may be wrong here cuz I didn't look it up but I did some ciphering
and came up wit dis...

It takes 51 votes to add a new rule in the Congress, right?
It takes 60 votes to confirm that there Supreme.
If the Dems drag feet and pretend to ponder this Supreme too long,
The Republicans can pass a new rule with 51 votes to lower the necessary number of votes for confirmation to 51 instead of 60
and push that there judge right on through.

There's the wail of agony lol

Yup. They'll just nuke him in.

Thank you Harry Reed for setting this system in motion!

Exactly. He is the one who opened Pandoras Box. Through all the tough times, the Senate managed to keep it closed.

Hey Harry! Remember that phrase we had in the 60's? "Whether it's Azz, Gas, or Grass, no-one ride for free" brother.

You are wrong, I have followed him since I got his Federal Justice Rookie Card years ago and I wear his authentic replica robe every time I watch Court TV.

The reason that I'm happy about it is that level headed conservatives that I trust who follow this kind of stuff are happy about it... and the criticisms I've heard from more liberal people that I trust have been fairly minimal.. from there we shall see where it goes. In the end, from what I've heard, it's going to come down to the dems being mad that Obama didn't get his guy when he had the chance and the "But Trump" reason.... because on the merits, from what little I know, he seems like a solid pick.

For people who supported holding up the process under Obama, you sure seem to be whining when the Dems will try to follow your example! LMAO

He'll be confirmed and he's qualified for the job.

Trump delivered his speech well. Gorsuch excepted graciously. Now democrats need to take the high road on this and do what the republicans didn't.

I find no reason to filibuster Gorsuch. No need to drag feet on this selection. Seems like a perfect replacement for Judge Scalia. I hope he's confirmed sooner rather then later. Moving on.

#Highroad.

The GOP didn't hold up Obama's nominees except for Supreme Court and that was because the GOP had its hands tied by the Biden Rule.

Still whining about Obama? And again lies about Biden? There is no Biden rule. That was made up. Alt facts = lies

Maybe in your world. But it existed and was the basis for why Obama was out of line in nominating a Supreme before the election.

I listened to him being introduced and then I listened to him speak last night.. Very impressive guy.

I've done literally no research on him so what do I know.

But he seems fit and able. I think it will be difficult to turn him away.. Barring someone discovering that he had sex with Monkeys or something along those lines....I think he's a shoe in.

Yes, the Biden Rule.

Otherwise the GOP could have rushed Obama's pick right thru the system, like crap through a goose!

Sadly our hands were tied.

whatever... continue the Alt facts, lies, & whining like a good little troll.

As I said before the democrats need to take the highroad on this and confirm this appointment to the SC without delay or filibustering.

Well part of your High Road should begin with an apology for being wrong on the Biden Rule and accusing the GOP of lying.

To who? You? You lied. Stop whining and acting like a little troll.

You and those like you leave me with a dilemma.

Whenever I disagree with you I am called a troll but if I were to agree with your wrong headed thinking I would have to throw myself off a bridge for doing a disservice to common sense.

When reading your posts, it's obvious that it's not that common. lol

So according to you, that my wrong headed thinking for the Dems to accept this SC appointment without a filibuster and to confirm him ASAP is the wrong approach?

What do you really want me to accept here? A lie that a Biden rule exists? Link me to a U.S. Government document, an executive order, or anything signed by the U.S. Congress or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling showing me that a Biden rule exists. Otherwise quit trolling me. Thank you

I can't help you but Dave can because he posted the link above of Biden setting the rule, and a video of Biden fully explaining it.

In fairness to perfect, though, I certainly don't see where what's called the "biden rule" ever became a LAW.

He made a speech about it, about thinking it was right, and he liked it at the time, and now he's saying he doesn't like it.........but I can't see where it ever became a law.

It is not a law, it is a rule.

It's fake news and lies I tell you! That's obviously a Joe Biden impersonator, who somehow managed to get to the floor of the Senate, to make that statement that "Uncle Joe" Biden would never, ever make.

So help me out here..........if a senator gives a speech on the floor of the senate, and the first words out of his mouth are "it is my view........", somehow that becomes a rule? How does a speech become a rule?

And let's be straight up here - biden said that in 92 because Bush was president. He disagreed with it when it was concerning Obama.

Help me out - what am I missing that made it become a rule?

When the body of the Senate hears the impassioned plea from one of its senior members and decides to honor his wishes out of respect, Then many years later that very same Senator sits at the head of the chamber as Vice President of the United States while the exact same issue comes before the Senate, and his own accepted rule has been in effect since the day he originally called for it, the rule continues to apply.

To then announce he was only kidding would be a slap to the face of all those who respected him.

There are laws governing the running of the Senate and there are rules they have of their own making. Just like any club or organization.

I can help you out... a politician said something because it applied at the time based on who was in power... then when the other party came to power and they saw the opportunity to use those words against him, they did... then both sides danced around and said, "But this is different"..

This is much like the confirmation hearings of Sally Yates, the recently fired AG... you see during those hearings, back in January 2015, Jeff Sessions had a very detailed discussion with her about whether or not it was HER JOB to tell the President NO if the President was overstepping his bounds or doing something that could be found illegal or unconstitutional.. he went out of his way and basically even gave her an analogy to get her to openly agree with him that if the need arose, she would tell the President NO. Of course that was when Obama was President.

Then Trump became President, she was put in such a situation, she said no.. and got fired for it. Now Jeff Sessions is going to be nominated to take her position as AG... oh what a tangled web we weave...

One would think that this kind of thing has happened enough to both sides that they would stop doing it, but neither side ever seems to learn. If you take a position that is politically expedient at the time.. it will come back to haunt you when you want to do the same thing... but they keep doing it and they keep getting away with it... so I guess I'm the dummy in all of this.