Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Nina Totenberg, NPR's legal affairs correspondent, has decided that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is unacceptable. . . because of his unacceptable habit of frequently citing the Constitution.
When rumors were swirling about potential Supreme Court nominees in late 2016, a former Gorsuch clerk wrote on Yale’s Notice & Comment blog: “Whenever a constitutional issue came up in our cases, he sent one of his clerks on a deep dive through the historical sources. ‘We need to get this right,’ was the memo—and right meant ‘as originally understood.’”
As a member of the Supreme Court, Gorsuch is putting these principles into practice and he is fulfilling his commitment to faithfully interpret the Constitution according to its originally intended meaning.
Totenberg said she hears Gorsuch “doesn’t believe in precedent."
As a member of the Supreme Court, Gorsuch is putting these principles into practice and he is fulfilling his commitment to faithfully interpret the Constitution according to its originally intended meaning.
Totenberg said she hears Gorsuch “doesn’t believe in precedent."
The Constitution is a social contract, so precedent doesn't apply - when it comes to contracts the question must be that either the authority is in the contract, or it is not. That is how contract law works.
Her concern about him not believing in precedent means that from her point of view he could be more easily persuaded by the original writings of the Constitution to overturn cases liberals like if given the chance. Democrat Senators shared the same concern during Gorsuch's confirmation hearing. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, grilled Gorsuch about his views on the “superprecedent” status of Roe v. Wade. During the hearing, Gorsuch explained several factors that judges weigh when deciding whether an old decision is still a reasonable ruling in accordance to the Law of the Land.
Of course, Gorsuch would need the help of a majority of judges on a panel that is currently practically split down the middle, in order to overturn any past leftist ruling.
Of course, Gorsuch would need the help of a majority of judges on a panel that is currently practically split down the middle, in order to overturn any past leftist ruling.
Jeffrey Toobin wrote an article for The New Yorker taking issue with Gorsuch “dominat[ing] oral arguments, when new Justices are expected to hang back” and writing dissents in his first couple months on the job.
Was Gorsuch supposed to be quiet when he saw the other justices acting in an unconstitutional manner?
Was Gorsuch supposed to be quiet when he saw the other justices acting in an unconstitutional manner?
In an article in The New York Times over the summer, Linda Greenhouse said the new justice violated the court’s unwritten rules and norms and “morph[ed]… quickly into Donald Trump’s life-tenured judicial avatar.”
Gorsuch is a reminder to the liberal left that Trump is in the White House, therefore, his constitutionality is an even bigger target. . . if they can use it to try to hurt Trump.
Gorsuch is a reminder to the liberal left that Trump is in the White House, therefore, his constitutionality is an even bigger target. . . if they can use it to try to hurt Trump.
They are hoping that Americans feel their pain, and are willing to hate the Constitution, too. . . like the good little programmed lemmings that they are.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment