Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Neil Gorsuch

So Trump nominated 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch. I’m not in love with the choice, but most conservatives will be.

Here’s what we know about Judge Neil M. Gorsuch:

Great qualifications.
• Harvard Law School, 1991
• Law clerk, Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White/associate attorney general
• Nominated by George W. Bush, 2006, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
• From 1995–2005, Gorsuch was a lawyer at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel
His decisions are this:
• Opposed to class action suits. That’s good. Class actions suits are an abomination that let lawyers use injured people to rob companies. No one benefits but the lawyers. The left will hate this.

• Ruled that religious employers cannot be forced to provide contraceptive insurance. This was the same thing the Supremes would say later. The left hates this. He also said that governments can display religious materials without needing to display the materials of all competing religions. Liberals will hate that too. But in so saying, he pointed out that the law doesn’t protect popular beliefs, it protects unpopular beliefs. I suspect this means he will protect the rights of minority religions equally. This is how it should be, but it will frustrate the Religious Right, who don’t like the government also promoting Islam.

• Favors capital punishment. Not controversial.

• He’s never ruled on abortion, but he’s VERY opposed to euthanasia, which suggests he’ll be pro-life. How he goes on this will be hard to tell. He’s a “strict constructionist,” but that doesn’t actually suggest a position because abortion is a new issue... it was not part of the Constitution when written. Conservatives often claim to respect precedent. But when it comes to Roe v. Wade, they often go apesh*t on the precedent issue. I suspect he will go with his political views and be pro-life, but who knows.

• No idea what he will say on gays. I think that issue is settled though.

• He’s very pro-big business. I don’t like that.

• He doesn’t support a wide open Commerce Clause. That means he would have voted against Obamacare and may be opposed to the war on drugs. This is generally a good position for those who favor smaller government. I see that as a red herring.
His most interesting opinion to me, is a case called Guitierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch. Do you remember me talking about the way to shrink the federal government is to take away the ability of Congress to pass vague laws and let the Executive essentially fill them in? In Guitierrez-Brizuela, he talked about reconsidering the court’s 1984 Chevron case which gave federal agencies the authority to interpret ambiguous laws rather than striking them down and sending them back to the Congress. That's the case I was talking about, or at least the final nail in the small government coffin. Changing that would be a great change, and the fact he recognizes that makes him interesting.

Ultimately, I don’t think Gorsuch changes anything though. He is a safe choice who was approved by the Democrats in the Senate under Bush (though they will block him now), and he replaces Scalia and should rule about the same. The next justice will be more interesting. Trump definitely picked a solid candidate to make the GOP establishment happy. This was no rogue pick. I don't think the public will care either way. I am disappointed Trump didn't pick a woman to defuse the "he hates women" stuff. We'll see.

Thoughts?

26 comments:

LL said...

Trump went for a safe, qualified, conservative choice and Gorsuch will be confirmed. The next selection to replace a vacancy will generate a more strident war.

Anthony said...

Seems like a conventional but good choice. It will be interesting to see how intense the Democrats' opposition is.

BevfromNYC said...

He seems to be a solid choice. But Chuckles Schumer will cry again and has vowed to stop any nominee regardless of qualifications. This is certainly statesman-like and doesn't make him or his followers look the least bit irrationally partisan. Expect more boycotts and walkouts. One note, our other senator Kirsten Gillibrand is up for re-election in 2018 and she has remained deafeningly silent in all of this. I would hope a valid Republican will emerge to challenge her. Oh, look! A unicorn just walked by!

Also, Obama has broken with tradition of silent former Presidents and has weighed in how he supports the all the protests. Oh, and California is threatening to secede. I think we should demand it...

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, He's a surprisingly normal choice. I was reading an article that point out that several prior presidents got burned picking unqualified friends as their first choices, and that Trump wanted to avoid that so he looked for a candidate with impeccable credentials.

I think the Democrats will fight like mad because they are angry about this being a "stolen seat." In the end, they will lose. I personally hope they end up pushing the Senate to drop the filibuster rule. That would help the rest of the agenda as well.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, Agreed. The next one will be more interesting no matter who he picks.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I totally support forcing them to leave the union.

tryanmax said...

I think Trump took the "win-win-win" approach on this pick. There's literally no downside. If Gorsuch is approved, he replaces Scalia as a virtual heir-apparent. If Democrats try to block him--more if they succeed--they beclown themselves further, if that's still possible. His first pick being so soporifically conservative, he's taken for himself the politikraum to go ideological on the next pick.

I jabbed at Trump's flower-ceremony for the SCOTUS pick, but a tweet from Sen. Ben Sasse helped me to see it for what it was. LINK It's a visual or I would've copied it--the photo is of a fill-in-the-blank protest sign; "#STOP" with "GORSUCH" scribbled in. Normally, the rumor-mill figures out who the nominee is ahead of time, little clues are dropped and, if nothing else, just watch for someone taking an unexpected plane trip to D.C. Trump managed to make the formal announcement into an actual announcement!

As a result, Trump neutered the left's ability to have a ready-made protest and talking points. In retrospect, I think Hardiman was a head-fake. His record can easily be summed up as "Law-and-Order" which Democrats interpret as "oppress the blacks." He would've been an easy protest target and, I suspect without knowing, that's who the Dems were prepared for. Based on the mostly non-germane reactions to Gorsuch, I think they were caught flat-footed. The most interesting stuff I encountered amounted to ham-fisted assertions that "originalist" means "pro slavery." *Yawn!*

FWIW, Sen Wyden of Oregon shat out this adorable gem:
Gorsuch represents a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have fundamental Constitutional rights.
7:11 PM - 31 Jan 2017


And here's something interesting: searches for Ruth Bader Ginsburg are #14 on Google Trends as of this moment. She's apparently giving a lecture at VMI today, but I suspect most people are checking to see how many ticks the old bird has left in her clock.

AndrewPrice said...

Forgot to post this. The attacks on Gorsuch will be:

1. His mother is worse than Hitler, he must be too.

2. He hates autistic kids.

3. You just know he hates gays and women.

4. He wants to let the US government impose Christian theology on everyone.

5. He wants to undo all regulation on business and poison the planet.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think you're right. Trump tripped up the left with this one. They were ready to smear Hardiman or Pryor and didn't prepare for Gorsuch. So they struggled to come up with anything to say except the usual platitudes: "opposes Constitutional rights, way out of the mainstream on legal thinking, hates women, gays, blacks, Muslims, children, clean air and water, safe toys." Yawn.

The biggest problem they will likely have with attacking this guy is that (1) he has nothing that is easy to attack about him, (2) they've expended whatever credibility they have whining about insane crap, (3) they risk the Senate GOP dropping the filibuster, and (4) Trump can come back with someone even more hard core and Trump has shown a penchant for making you pay for bad faith.

I think Trump gets Scalia, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, and possibly Breyer if he gets a second term.

BevfromNYC said...

Oooh, the Repubs are going a head and pushing Cabinet nominees through w/o Dems who are boycotting Live From DC, It's...

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That is fantastic. So holding your breath until you turn blue doesn't work, and the GOP has the nerve to do what the Democrats routinely did -- change the rules.

These are exciting times! :)

tryanmax said...

Ni-i-ice! Of course, we can expect that, despite walking out of their own volition, the walkouts will decry the going-ahead as an affront to Democracy. We demand our voices be heard!

BevfromNYC said...

COMMITTEE VOTES TODAY:

STEVE MNUCHIN (TREASURY)- See “mini-nuke” below, Republicans met w/o Democrats, voted 14-0 to recommend

TOM PRICE (HHS)- “Mini-nuke” again, 14-0 recommend

JEFF SESSIONS (AG)- 11-9 recommended, all Rs yea, all Ds nay

SCOTT PRUITT (EPA)- vote delayed, Democratic boycott

MICK MULVANEY (OMB)- vote delayed, likely tomorrow

FINANCE COMMITTEE-Hatch reconvened this morning, rule changes made, Republican members present voted to confirm both Mnuchin AND Price. Both nominations head to the floor. All Republican members showed up.

BevfromNYC said...

Tryanmax nailed it! Dems are screaming "RAILROADED!!!" "SERIOUS ETHIC PROBLEMS!!!!!", and my personal fave "BREAKING THE RULES!!!". But, but, but, if they had just not boycotted. Oops, Imma guessin' these long time Senators just forgetted that all they needed was a quorum to vote them outta committee. All Republicans showed up...

AndrewPrice said...

This is rich. Dem. Rep. Tom Lieu is blaming Obama for "normalizing Trump" after the election. Apparently, meeting him, not smearing him, and that whole peaceful transfer of power thing is why no one seems upset at the things Trump has done.

Talk about having a tentative grasp on reality.

AndrewPrice said...

A couple thoughts...

1. The left is having a really hard time working themselves up over Gorsuch. Most of the usual suspects would rather deal with fake outrages than touch this one. This what the flaw in fantasy. The more prone you are to sugary fantasy protests, the harder it becomes to work yourself up over gritty, not as easy reality issues.

2. The immigrant protest has all but died. It's now in the death throws with only hardleft professionals protesting and celebrities taking pot shots. That's usually the end. I'm not surprised though as the poll numbers were 53-42. That's a strong indication they never got past the "preaching to the choir" crowd in terms of reach.

3. What Women's March? Was there a women's march that changed the world?

Critch said...

If California secedes do we get to burn their crops, shell their cities and steal the family silverware? Just askin'?

BevfromNYC said...

Critch - Nah, we just have to turn their access to the power grid off and they will come to heal. Since they refuse to sully their environment with nasty things like generating their own power and just haven't gotten a grasp on securing any water sources, I give them about as long as it takes for the batteries in their phones, laptops, and electric cars to run out juice and the dams to shut down.

However, I don't think the spotted owl, delta smelt, or mountain trout would make it out alive.

BevfromNYC said...

UPDATE: Senate just voted and Tillerson confirmed as Sec't of State. Cue...moral outrage from the Dems who boycotted or somethin'/somethin'.

Maybe the game that Dems are trying to play is like what the Repubs did with the ACA vote (All Repubs voted 'no") tactic. If/When Tillerson or any of the nominees do something bad/wrong/cause WW3 that can't just go to Rachel Maddow and scream "See, THIS is why none of us voted for him/her/them!!!!". Of course, the Repubs can respond that "at least we actually voted; you all hid yourselves away in a boycott!"

I'm getting the hang of this politickey thing!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I think the issue is this...

If they showed, they had to get something on the record. It is easiest for them to not show up and then pretend they were tricked and the rascally cheating Republicans confirmed him "against the rules" rather than explain a yes or no vote. I think this was meant to give them cover. Their drones will easily believe the Republicans cheated, but they won't accept a "yes" vote and they don't want to be held to a "no" vote in the redder states.

AndrewPrice said...

Critch, I like how you think! :)

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I can't help but think there's a bonus item to the elected Democrats boycott, which is that it gives them optics to say they're just like the people protesting in the streets, which they are not.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew & Critch - Of course, sadly Californians are just making noise about secession just like Texans do from time to time. However, this is where Texas was far-thinking. When the national power grid was being built, the people of Texas politely declined to join and built their own separate grid. 'Cause ya'll never know when it might be advantageous to have our own...

Critch said...

I see that the raggedy-ass Bolsheviks at Berkeley haven't changed..those nuts don't fall far from the tree that grew them....

Kit said...

For the record, I like the pick.

Kit said...

For the record, I like the pick.

Post a Comment