It's Showtime: Leonard A. Leo Previews the Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing

[Valin]

The Weekly Standard:

Leonard A. Leo

Mar 20, 2017

 

His long trek through more than 70 senators' offices behind him, Judge Neil Gorsuch now comes before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary knowing at least two things for sure. * First, he can expect Democratic members to offer uplifting discourses on the vital principle of judicial independence. And second, those very members will demand answers and specific commitments that, were he to oblige, would seriously compromise judicial independence. The message of the day has already been announced by progressive pressure groups: "No answers, no confirmation."

 

For current members of the Supreme Court, who have been through it all themselves, it will doubtless bring back uneasy memories. Invariably during confirmation hearings, inquiries into the quality of mind and fitness of a nominee devolve into attempts to extract specific promises on matters likely to come before the Court. It's never enough for some senators to understand a nominee's general approach to constitutional issues. They want to know exactly how that nominee would vote on the usual issues—in effect, a solemn pledge to support and defend the liberal agenda.

 

It's lost on the progressive left how this undermines any coherent definition of judicial independence. Their project for so many years now has been to bend the federal courts to their own ideological purposes, advancing changes in law that could not be achieved in the elected branches of government. Prior Court decisions favored by liberals are to be treated with hushed reverence, as if enshrined in law for all time and never again to be questioned. Less favored rulings are to be regarded as open questions, ripe for reconsideration. If a nominee doesn't display a feel for all this, knowing which precedents call for genuflection and which require an air of earnest skepticism, that's when the trouble usually starts.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

* My Sarcasm Meter Is Twiching

[Valin]

Gorsuch Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Live Stream: How to Watch Online March 20

(Snip)

Major Cable Networks’ Live Stream Options for the Supreme Court Hearing

Because Gorsuch isn’t expected to start testifying until Tuesday (although this isn’t guaranteed), there won’t be quite as many avenues for watching today’s live stream. Your best option is to tune in to C-SPAN for live coverage starting at 11 a.m. Eastern. You can watch on C-SPAN at this link.

 

(Snip)

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Lawnewz: WATCH LIVE: Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing

[Valin]

I'm Shocked Shocked I say!!!
NARAL‏Verified account @NARAL 30m30 minutes ago

We're outside the Senate confirmation hearings today to voice our opposition to #Gorsuch's nomination! #StopGorsuch #WeObject

 

 

[Valin]

So Far Blah..Blah...Blah.

[Valin]

[Valin]

Gorsuch tries to bridge partisan divide in start of confirmation hearings

 

@WestVirginiaRebel

 

Pinned. Please Post All Neil Gorsuch Articles Here

[Valin]

[Valin]

From The Sublime to the Ridiculous

 

[Valin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itv0_XfUB9c

[Valin]

CBS News

"No one ... asked me for any commitments, any kind of promises about how I'd rule in any kind of case," Gorsuch says http://cbsn.ws/2k2WwLh

8:58 AM - 21 Mar 2017

 

 

H/T Hot Air

[Geee]

Gorsuch: Separation of Powers Is 'The Genius of the Constitution'

 

(CNSNews.com) - On the second day of his confirmation hearing, Judge Neil Gorsuch was asked for his view on the separation of powers.

Speaking slowly and firmly, the Supreme Court nominee told Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that the separation of powers is "the genius of the Constitution."

 

His response – spontaneous, not read -- speaks for itself and is transcribed here in its entirety:

 

On the separation of powers, it is, Mr. Chairman, the genius of the Constitution.

 

Madison thought that the separation of powers was perhaps the most important liberty-guaranteeing device in the whole Constitution.

 

And this is a point of civics that I do think maybe is lost today -- how valuable the separation of powers is.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gorsuch-separation-powers-genius-constitution

[Geee]

What Gorsuch Said When a Democrat Asked Him About Roe v. Wade

 

“I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is precedent of the United States Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said. “It has been reaffirmed … a good judge will consider a precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

 

Precedent is important,he said, because it “adds to the determinacy of law.”

 

Hinting how he might judge, Gorsuch said, would be stripping his profession of its integrity:

 

 

If it looks like I’m giving hints or previews or intimations about how I might rule, I think that is the beginning of the end of the independent judiciary. If judges have to make effectively campaign promises … Respectfully, Senator, I have not done that in this process, and I’m not about to start.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2017/03/21/what-gorsuch-said-when-a-democrat-asked-him-about-roe-v-wade/

[Valin]

Presenting 2 of the leading lights of the Democratic Party.

 

Minnesota's own

 

Sen. Amy box of rocks Klobuchar

 

 

Al horses ass Fraken

[Valin]

From The Ridiculous to the Sublime

 

 

[Geee]

Feinstein Asks Gorsuch If Originalism Means No Equal Protection for Women, Gays or Lesbians

 

"Senator, first of all, a good judge starts with precedent and doesn't reinvent the wheel,” Gorsuch responded. “So to the extent that there are decisions on those topics -- and there are -- a good judge respects precedent.

 

The second point I'd make is, it would a mistake to suggest that originalism turns on the secret intentions of the drafters…The point of originalism...what a good judge always strives to do, and I think we all do, is strive to understand what the words on the page mean. Not to import words that come from us, but apply what you, the people's representatives, the lawmakers, have done.

 

And so when it comes to equal protection of the laws, for example, it matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the 14th Amendment were racists, because they were. Or sexists, because they were.

 

The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws to all persons. That's what they wrote. And the original meaning of those words -- John Marshall Harlan captured in his dissent in Plessy. And equal protection of the laws does not mean separate in advancing one particular race or gender. It means equal.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/feinstein-asks-gorsuch-if-originalism-means-no-equal-protection-women-gays

[Valin]

Minnesota We're #1!!!

[Geee]

FIVE DUMBEST QUESTIONS TO GORSUCH

 

The questioner: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

 

The issue: Klobuchar pressed Gorsuch about his views on originalism, a concept in which judges adhere to the strict meaning of the Constitution when it was written.

 

The question: “So when the Constitution refers, like, 30-some times to ‘his’ or ‘he’ when describing the president of the United States, you would see that as, well back then, they thought a woman actually could be president of the United States even though women couldn’t vote?”

 

The answer: “I’m not looking to take us back to quill pens and horses … Of course women can be president of the United States. I’m the father of two daughters. And I hope one of them turns out to be president.” In response to a similar question about the Air Force, which did not exist at the time of the Constitutional convention, he said, “Senator, I think the generals of the Air Force can rest easy.”

 

The founders recognized the natural equality of rights among men and women. When they asserted that “all men are created equal” — shocker! — “men” meant “mankind” or “human beings” and included “women.”

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/five-dumbest-questions-to-gorsuch.php

[Draggingtree]

Schumer Stance on Gorsuch Heightens Threat of 'Nuclear Option'

By Rebecca Berg
RCP Staff
March 24, 2017

 

A “nuclear” confrontation is brewing in the Senate over the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court — with Democrats threatening a historic filibuster, and Republicans pledging a historic rules change in return.

 

Republican leaders have warned that they would resort to a “nuclear option” to avert an impasse, changing Senate rules to require a simple majority to end debate on the nomination, rather than 60 votes. President Trump has endorsed the option, last month urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear” if needed.

 

But Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, announcing his opposition to Gorsuch from the Senate floor Thursday, warned Republicans against such a move. “If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes ... the answer isn’t to change the rules; it’s to change the nominee.”

 

There is a good chance that 60 senators would not vote to end debate in the current political climate, thus forcing the GOP’s hand on the nuclear option — although the matter is far from settled. Democrats’ vote counter, Sen. Dick Durbin, told CNN on Wednesday that Gorsuch is likely short of that threshold for now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/24/schumer_stance_on_gorsuch_heightens_threat_of_nuclear_option_133428.html

[Draggingtree]

OppCast Gorsuch, Duck-Sized Horses and a Legal Nerd-Fest

 

March 24, 2017

0 COMMENTS

This week on OppCast, we let the legal nerds take over. With the marathon Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Neil Gorsuch finally in the bag, it’s not totally clear what was learned, what was accomplished and what to expect moving forward. That’s why we brought in special guest Shoshana Weissman, digital media director of Opportunity Lives and a card-carrying legal nerd, along with the Cato Institute’s Senior Constitutional Scholar Ilya Shapiro, to geek out on what you may have missed. (And perhaps a little mutton-busting while we’re at it)

 

https://ricochet.com/podcast/gorsuch-duck-sized-horses-legal-nerd-fest/

[Draggingtree]

In Feinstein vs. Gorsuch, Originalism Wins

 

March 23, 2017

by Ben Boychuk 2 Comments

Neil Gorsuch is no Robert Bork—to the great chagrin of the Senate Democrats who are trying to block his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thirty years ago, Senate Democrats derailed Bork’s nomination, claiming the judge’s judicial philosophy of “judicial restraint” was well beyond the mainstream. Today, Democrats are looking for any reason at all to oppose the 10th U.S. … [Read more...]

[SrWoodchuck]

KAMALA HARRIS WON’T VOTE FOR GORSUCH BECAUSE...

...HE RULES WITH THE LAW NOT FEELINGS http://downtrend.com/71superb/kamala-harris-wont-vote-for-gorsuch-because-he-rules-with-the-law-not-feelings?utm_source=fn3&utm_medium=facebook

 

 

During the Senate confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, several democrats suggested that Trump’s nominee was unfit to serve because he believes in the Constitution. Seeing as how the job of Supreme Court Justice is to determine the Constitutionality of things, this seems like a pretty bizarre argument, but democrats aren’t known for being rational. Speaking of which, California democrat Kamala Harris says she won’t be voting to confirm Gorsuch because he bases his decisions on the law instead of feelings.

 

Harris tweeted out this stunning statement today:

 

“Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination,” wrote Harris.

 

Legalism? Oh I get it, she means the law. How dare a judge make rulings on what the law actually says when people’s feelings might be hurt, right? After all, we are a nation of feelings, not laws. Gosh, now that I have written that out it seems like the opposite might be true.

 

She also linked to an op-ed she wrote for the SF Chronicle with even more silliness.

 

Check this s^#@ out:

 

The stakes don’t get any higher. Some argue that if a nominee has a stellar legal resume, he or she is qualified to sit on the bench and our job is done. I disagree. As U.S. senators, we have an obligation to also examine a nominee’s legal approach and ask whether he or she considers the impact of those decisions on our society and the daily lives of our people.

 

In case you are failing to understand what she just said, it is her argument that a qualified judge is unqualified if he or she rules by law instead of worrying about how people will feel.

 

Harris even writes:

 

President Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, certainly has a paper resume that would impress legal scholars.

But concludes…

…Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued narrow legalisms over real lives. I must do what’s right. I cannot support his nomination.

 

Keep in mind that before Kamala Harris was gifted Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat, she was the California Attorney General. In other words, she is a lawyer who had a job to interpret and defend the law. I think it’s clear by her opposition to Neil Gorsuch that she threw the law out the window and let her feelings (liberal feelings) dictate her decisions and actions.

 

The great thing about liberals is they don’t even pretend that they’re not full of s^#@.

[Draggingtree]

Schumer’s Gorsuch Gambit

He threatens a filibuster, and Republicans should call him on it.

 

So much for Senate deliberation. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch had barely finished his testimony when Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday that he would vote against the judge and demand 60 votes for confirmation. Republicans will have to be prepared to call this Democratic bluff.

 

“Judge Gorsuch’s nomination will face a cloture vote & as I’ve said, he will have to earn sixty votes for confirmation,” Mr. Schumer tweeted. On the Senate floor he explained that Judge Gorsuch “almost instinctively favors the powerful over the weak” and is “not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology.” Judge Gorsuch was also “groomed by the Federalist Society and has shown not one inch of difference between his views and theirs.”

 

You’d think the Federalist Society is some secret society in a Dan Brown novel. In the real world it’s a mainstream group of 60,000 legal minds who run the conservative gamut from Borkean judicial restraint types to Scalia originalists to Randy Barnett libertarians. As far as we know their conferences are public and no torture rituals are involved.

https://t.co/OVc2i6dLvx

[Draggingtree]

SCOTUS Hearing Revealed The Character Of Neil Gorsuch AND Senate Democrats

Posted at 12:00 pm on March 25, 2017 by Sarah Lee

 

There was a moment during the Neil Gorsuch SCOTUS hearing last week that was more revealing than any other as to the character of the man who will very likely be confirmed, even if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is forced by Democrats to change the rules and go nuclear to stop the filibuster.

 

On the 3rd day of the hearing, after nearly two nine-hour days of sitting at a table being questioned by friendly Republicans and harassed by unfriendly Democrats, Gorsuch displayed a kindness to an attendee of the hearing — likely a staffer of a Senate Judiciary panel member — who let out a sneeze. At the sound, Gorsuch, in the middle of explaining his thoughts on the right to privacy of the terminally ill (as he laid it out in a book he had written on assisted suicide), turned his head toward the itchy-nosed person and said, without breaking stride, “God bless you,” before promptly getting back to the matter at hand.

http://www.redstate.com/slee/2017/03/25/scotus-hearing-revealed-character-neil-gorsuch-senate-democrats/

[Draggingtree]

Gorsuch Showed “Little Guy” Needs Protection From Government

March 24, 2017 by John Herr 5 Comments

 

In 2012, I asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a question: Do you think the theory of “positive rights,” as promoted by President Obama’s legal adviser Cass Sunstein, will catch on in the judicial branch?

 

“I sure hope not,” he growled.

 

I thought of this while watching the nomination hearings for Scalia’s would-be successor, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

 

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made it clear they believed the Bill of Rights — sometimes described as a charter of “negative rights”—is wholly insufficient to protect what they repeatedly called the “little guy.”

 

“I firmly believe that our American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves,” said ranking Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-Calif.]. “So I am concerned when I hear that Judge Gorsuch is an originalist and strict constructionist.”

Cue the booing!

 

Faced with these attacks, Judge Gorsuch did not play along. Instead, he pledged to honor the letter of the law and respect precedent.

 

https://amgreatness.com/2017/03/24/gorsuch-showed-little-guy-needs-protection-government/

[Valin]

Unpinned