This morning I will testify at the confirmation hearing on the nomination of the Hon. Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court. The hearing will commence around 9 am at the hearing room of Hart 216. Ironically, it is the same room that I litigated much of the Porteous impeachment case before final arguments before the 100 Senators on the Senate floor. Below is my written testimony.
The Committee has assembled an impressive array of witnesses to discuss Judge Gorsuch’s background and jurisprudence. I will focus my remarks on two specific areas. First, there has been a long debate over the proper standard or criteria for evaluating a nominee for the Supreme Court. Exploring many of these past criteria reveal an exceptionally strong nominee in Neil Gorsuch. Second, while many of Judge Gorsuch’s views are likely to overlap with those of Justice Scalia, the one area of likely divergence would be his approach to agency decisionmaking and the Chevron doctrine. I will address cases that are illustrative of Judge Gorsuch’s views on agency review, statutory interpretation, and more generally the Separation of Powers: Hwang v. Kansas State University, Elwell v. Oklahoma, ex rel. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 693 F.3d 1303, 1313 (10th Cir. 2012), De Niz Robles v. Lynch, Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, United States v. Nichols, and TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board. These cases reveal a powerful intellect and voice committed to core principles of constitutional law. Judge Gorsuch’s would bring valuable and needed contributions to both of these areas. We stand at a critical crossroad for the country with fundamental changes occurring in our constitutional system. There could not be a better time for the addition of a justice who has a deep understanding and fealty to the original design of our government. I believe that Judge Gorsuch is such a nominee.
The panel of expert witnesses will include Mr. Jeff Lamken (Partner, MoloLamken); Professor Lawrence Solum (Georgetown University); Professor Jonathan Turley (GW Law School); Ms. Karen Harned (Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center); Ms. Heather McGhee (President, Demos); Ms. Fatima Goss Grave (National Women’s Law Center); Pat Gallagher (Sierra Club); Ms. Eve Hill (Brown Goldstein Levy).
Here is my testimony: Testimony.Turley.Gorsuch.Senate Judiciary
I want to thank Thomas Huff and Seth Tate for some late night proofing of this testimony.
I would be interested in your opinion about how Judge Gorsuch could be so wrong in interpreting the IDEA that 8 Sup. Ct. justices ruled against his opinion.
“The behavior of Congressional Democrats (and some Establishment Republicans) has become downright bizarre even by their normally bizarre standards. Yesterday, House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes, a Republican, spoke publicly about information he had obtained which indicated members of the Trump campaign had been surveilled and their conversations recorded. this claim appeared to substantiate, at least in part, President Trump’s earlier statements that he had been “wiretapped” by the previous Obama administration.
That declaration by Congressman Nunes has since sent D.C. into an all out scramble mode, a situation that includes Congressman Elijah Cummings, a Democrat, now calling for an investigation to be launched against Congressman Nunes.
Cummings’ complaint is that Nunes spoke out of turn, going directly to the American people with his thoughts on how the Obama administration did in fact oversee some sort of surveillance against Donald Trump and/or the Trump campaign – a situation that would push the boundaries of normal presidential practice far beyond acceptable.
It should be noted that to date, there has been NO evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign prior to the November Election, and yet Cummings and other Democrats (and some Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham) have had no issue with repeating their “concerns” over a situation the facts state never existed.
At the same time, the House Intelligence Chair comes forward indicating facts show the Obama administration DID in fact know of surveillance of Trump/and or the Trump campaign – and for that, Cummings believes Congressman Nunes should be silenced via threats of an investigation against him.”
http://dcwhispers.com/panicked-democrats-threaten-house-intelligence-chair-for-supporting-president-trump/
Sen. Feinstein’s nickname in DC is Deepthroat. It has something to do with sexual preferences.
The Democrat party is a mess, but at least they are organized in their Resistance to all things Trump. At least they know how to fall in line and tow the party line – which continues to be Russia, Russia, Russia – while the Republicans flail about hurting their party and eating their own. They do it every time.
Dems are now falling in line to oppose Gorsuch. They figure Republicans will have to go nuclear for one of the next openings on the Supreme Court that will actually tip the balance, so why not make a stand now. So it looks like Schumer has made the calculation to force Republicans to go nuclear now instead of later. What a shame.
MARCH 21, 2017, 8:19 A.M.
Sen. Feinstein grills Neil Gorsuch on torture and wiretapping work during Bush presidency
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-feinstein-grills-gorsuch-on-torture-and-1490108624-htmlstory.html
The Supreme Court Just Gutted a Gorsuch Opinion — and Made Him Look Extreme
By Ed Kilgore
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/scotus-just-issued-a-decision-gutting-a-gorsuch-opinion.html
Isn’t this the same Supreme Court that amended a law, changing the word “penalty” to “tax” so that they could then put their stamp of approval on it? That court?
his morning, just as day three of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings began, SCOTUS released a unanimous opinion in a special-education case arising in Colorado that overturned a Tenth Circuit decision that in turn relied on a 2008 opinion written by — you guessed it — Neil Gorsuch. To make a long and complicated story short, SCOTUS decided that a Tenth Circuit standard for school districts applying the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that required them only to add some limited value to the educational attainments of special ed students was in error and denied these students their right to a individualized plan and a real chance to progress. That now-overturned standard was most clearly articulated, and arguably was developed, by Gorsuch.
Ed Kilgore, career Democratic Party hack, is scraping what he can from the barrel, and so are you.
I don’t understand the logic in opposing voter ID. For those that oppose it; do you also oppose the requirement for ID’s to open a bank account? Do you oppose providing proof that you are authorized to take funds out of your own account? Do you oppose the security questions asked by financial institutions over the phone (required by law) to prevent fraudulent access to your personal accounts?
As annoying as they might be, you want those steps in place because when fraud occurs there you are IMMEDIATELY impacted by it. If fraud occurs in our election system, every fraudulent vote wipes out a legitimate vote. This identity theft has far greater consequences than just nullifying a legitimate vote. The perceived legitimacy of our government institutions is predicated on the foundation of a perceived legitimate electoral process. And the root of confidence in that process begins with the providing the voters that sense of security that comes from knowing every reasonable measure has been taken to verify those participating in the process have a legitimate right to vote.
It makes certain types of electoral fraud more difficult. Ergo, it’s ‘voter suppression’.
Olly, all of your examples are distinct from voting. None of those activities are afforded constitutional protection, unlike voting, the right to which is specifically guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Constitutional provisions regarding suffrage do not guarantee it to anyone. What they do say is that the delineation of the body politic can take no account of race or sex; that you cannot institute poll taxes; and that the age of majority for purposes of suffrage is 18. Voter ID requirements violate none of these strictures.
Read the 14th.
The 14th has some apportionment rules (applicable to Congress) and some relict provisions regarding qualifications to sit in Congress. It has no provisions regarding the dimensions of suffrage. Which you’d know. If you’d actually bothered to read it.
I’m not going to have time to explain the various provisions of the 14th Amendment to you, but I’ll give you a hint by question; what “privileges and immunities” do you think it protects?
It does not protect suffrage, because there were no constitutional provisions regarding suffrage in 1868. The dimensions of suffrage were at the discretion of the states.
Wrong answer. I realize you are not a lawyer, so I understand you have no facility to comprehend the scope and breadth of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is just one case which holds a voting restriction unconstitutional under the protections afforded by the privileges and immunities clause. There are many others, but this one is sufficient for my purposes. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 645 (1944).
Wrong answer. I realize you are not a lawyer, so I understand you have no facility to comprehend the scope and breadth of the Fourteenth Amendment.
No, correct answer. There’s the 14th amendment, and then there’s judicial opinions from high-class shysters who purport to be interpreting the 14th amendment. There is little or nothing in the actual 14th amendment concerning suffrage, and you cannot point to a single piece of text therein which supports your contention, which is why you haven’t quoted any text even as you’ve played the supercilious prick in this discussion.
“None of those activities are afforded constitutional protection, unlike voting, the right to which is specifically guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”
You have it exactly backwards. Property is an unalienable right and Voting is an alienable right. The former right exists with or without government. The latter right exist only because our form of government says it exists. Our government was created to secure my unalienable rights, period. All other rights created by government can only legitimately serve to provide the security of my natural rights. We are a republic, which means we need to vote. Which means we need to determine who should be provided access to that franchise. That process demands security against fraud or it will threaten EVERY right we have naturally or legitimately provided by government. If requiring voter ID actually disenfranchises a segment of qualified voters, then every effort should be made to correct that; not do away with the voter ID.
Freedom of contract may be a natural right, but it requires animation in positive law.
By animation are you implying security?
You’ll want a do-over on this comment. Rethink it.
The alienable right comment
Done. Voting is an alienable right created by government. If it were unalienable, then everyone would be eligible to vote.
The do-over offer was so your answer could be amended to address the subject raised by my post, whch pertained to whether the United States Constitution provided for voting rights protections. “Alienable” or “unalienable” is not relevant to such a conversation.
““Alienable” or “unalienable” is not relevant to such a conversation.”
See, that is THE fundamental problem. Few people care to understand the relevance of the distinction. Voting rights are positive rights. There is nothing in the right to vote that prevents the state and federal governments from defining the rules that secure the integrity of the vote, as long as those rules apply equally.
1) Studies as well as courts have found little evidence supporting a need for such laws (incidence of abuse insignificant)
2) Findings corroborate suppression of legitimate Black and minority voters
3) Frequent first step in re-introduction of Jim Crow laws
Assuming the above is correct, then those items provide an answer to your query; I don’t understand the logic in opposing voter ID
Unfortunately, no matter which side of the issue one might take, the tendency is strong to reject findings that contradict their views. Moreover, such rejection does not have to be “dishonest” on the part of the individual. So one can argue that both sides are honestly convinced of their point of view and are resistent to facts. And whether you agree or not, that should at least help you to understand the logic of those opposing voter ID requirements:
U.S. Distric Judge, James Peterson, puts it well:
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/21/review-states-voter-id-laws-found-no-voter-imperso/
1) Studies as well as courts have found little evidence supporting a need for such laws (incidence of abuse insignificant)
The court system doesn’t have the tools to investigate this type of question. The next time I actually see someone cite a valid study will be the first.
2) Findings corroborate suppression of legitimate Black and minority voters
There are no such findings.
3) Frequent first step in re-introduction of Jim Crow laws
Lawmakers are not responsible for your fantasies, nor should they pay them any mind.
The court system is the best forum for resolving such disputes. The adversarial nature allows both parties to gather and present their evidence in a manner which supports their respective arguments. The fact that those who desire to keep “those people” from voting are unable to present any evidence of voter fraud speaks to truth.
The court system is the best forum for resolving such disputes.
It is not a forum for anything but adjudicating disputes between discrete parties. Assessing surveys is something it cannot do any better than can a commission or congressional committee.
BB,
Studies? How about the evidence that exists actual voter fraud happens? For the amount of money this country pisses away on [put name here]. we could very easily find a way to get every qualified voter an ID card. Hell, do the buddy system. Give me the name or names of those unable to get an ID in my district and I will find a way to get them an ID, at no cost to them.
There is only one reason to object to any effort to eliminate fraud in our voting system and that is to want more of it.
So Olly, your question wasn’t really a question was it.
Of course it was a question. You provided an answer and then I followed up. If requiring voter ID improves the public trust in our democratic process but “unfairly” disenfranchises eligible voters, then the problem is not with the requirement but with the disenfranchisement. A fair compromise would be to keep the requirement but provide a system that provides the ID most efficiently and effectively. Wouldn’t that be reasonable?
There is only one reason to object to any effort to eliminate fraud in our voting system and that is to want more of it.
This sort of statement strongly suggests an impasse. It’s nothing but a judgement with preemptive sarcasm to mimic rational argument: only one reason to object and that is to confirm my opinion because anyone who rejects voter ID simply wants more [disinfranchisment]) . It’s the usual, I’m right and you’re wrong impass, wrapped up to look like clever self evident argument which makes abundantly clear you never wanted or expected an answer to your question.
As I said in my original response, both sides honestly believe their set of facts. That should not require that the other side must be arguing in bad faith, but to you there is no other possible explanation and your solution is to offer a Trojan horse compromise that the anti ID crowd could probably not trust any more than they trust anything coming out of contemporary legislative mouths. I say Trojan Horse, because it looks like to refuse it, they would be negating their own position, but would that really be the case, or would such a claim simply be the usual ruse of double speak?
They would reason (and it IS logic, just not your logic, and it is based on facts, just not your set of facts), that since there is no significant disenfranchisement, if any, in the first place, then why wast money and time to fix something not broken unless you have an ulterior motive? And that motive, they might justifiably assume, whether you individually are aware of it or not, is to create a problem that doesn’t exist where the solution – quelle surprise- makes it harder for minorities to vote. They would also be suspicious of your point blank statement that there is no proof of their claims and would further argue there is no realistic way to provide ID’s without suppressing minority votes since that is the intention in the first place and that any such compromise such as the one you suggest would be like all other politicians promises, in appearance only and usually having the opposite effect of the name of the bill.
There are extensive arguments on the net (easy to google) for why it is difficult to impossible for the poor (poor usually being the case with minorities such as blacks or Hispanics that seem to be the target of these proposals) to get and or maintain these ID cards. I do not need to rehash them because I am not trying to prove or disprove the assertions other than to point out they are based on reason and logic just as much as the counter arguments by the pro ID crowd.
I didn’t expect you to agree. I thought possibly you were asking a sincere question rather than making a rhetorical statement. I was wrong.
I should point out I am not accusing you of the Trojan Horse character of your suggested compromise. I suspect you offer it in good faith.
But by the time it got implemented, would it look the same? And those who disagree (or for that matter, who agree) with voter id laws would not need to go back beyond Obama and Bush II to find a rich field of examples where politicians claim one thing for a bill and manage to implement the exact opposite.
I took nothing personal BB. You should know by now I would never advocate for anything that would disenfranchise any eligible voter. 20 years in the Navy taught me that for security to be effective it will in most cases be inconvenient. I cannot at the moment identify any circumstances where security made access “more” convenient.
When it comes to voting, we have two primary issues where both need to be true: 1. All eligible voters need to be provided a process to exercise their right to vote. 2. That process needs to be as secure from fraud as physically possible.
Voter fraud, by its very nature is intended to be done without detection. Studies indicating the instances of fraud are few do nothing to address the risk for fraud. Here is an example: If the military ran their security access in the same way my district runs the polling station, all one needed to do is walk up, give the name of someone on their list to gain access. Just because only a few people were caught committing this fraud does not tell you how many were not caught. Often, the fraud wouldn’t be detected at the gate. This weakness in security puts everyone at risk.
Security should not set at the lowest common denominator. Just because Pvt. Jones cannot find the ID he was issued or because he lacks the ability to get a new one does not mean we should eliminate the requirement.
On the one side we have the assumption that disenfranchisement occurs so the laws are necessary, on the other, we have the assumption that it does not occur so that the laws are unnecessary and thus suspect.
It reminds me of the Harvard/Yale game where two players went into the bathroom to take a pee after the game. On leaving, the Yale guy said to the Harvard guy, “At Yale, they teach us to wash our hands after we take a pee.” Without missing a beat, the Harvard guy replies, “At Haaaavaaaad, they teach us not to pee on our haaaands.” 🙂
The Marines were our Yale brothers. 😃
anon,
I hope they do but my gut feeling is they will fold like a cheap suit. The Dims work for the oligarchy, same as the Repubs. If the oligarchy wants him, he’ll be confirmed no matter the grandstanding Dims put on for their base.
You could be right. Why wouldn’t the oligarchy want him? Corporations are people.:)
Jill,
You would clarify what in Neil Gorsuch’s record on the bench and his testimony before this committee leads you to believe he will support the oligarchy and not the rule of law?
Olly,
Look up his connection with the Bush administration’s torture policy. You’ll see two things: 1. he supports torture and 2. he claims the executive may overrule the law in some instances, torture being one of those instances.
Torture is against our law, no exceptions. Further to say the executive may ignore the law is very dangerous. This is why I do not believe he will uphold the rule of law. His actions and statements have shown the opposite.
Jill,
I looked it up and could find no evidence where Gorsuch said he supports torture or that he believed any President may place himself above the rule of law. If you would cite your evidence then I’ll be happy to review it.
Jill has an affection for emotionally satisfying fictions. Doesn’t matter if it’s a demonstrable bald-faced lie.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/844922443978420224
“Schumer Now Regrets the ‘Nuclear Option’ “. -Washington Examiner, Jan.3, 2017.
NOW he regrets it.
A big win for torture! A big win for executive power grab! Yes, those things are wonderful and I’m so thrilled that a professor of Constitutional law is now supporting them by supporting Gorsuch. I can’t tell you what that means to me. His confirmation puts another nail in the coffin of what is just and decent in our society.
It seems the people are to be betrayed at every turn. And I truly feel for those who will see no justice for the terrible crimes committed against them.
Me Turley, What is your opinion / thoughts on Hans Von Spakvosky relationship to Judge Neil Gorsuch and Voter Suppression?
I enjoy your Blog ,
Thanks you,
Mitch S
Are you referring to issues raised such as this?
http://billmoyers.com/story/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-praised-voter-suppression-efforts/
BB,
Another plus! Yes, Gorsuch is just the man we need on the SC!
Ya, because everybody knows that we can’t have “those” people voting.
Who are “those” people you are referring to? Illegal immigrants?
Illegal aliens (and legal ones). People who’ve long since moved away but are still on the rolls. Felons.
Ya, because it happens so much. Plus, they be dusky.
Is this your disgusting attempt to be racist? Ignorantly thinking that a certain shade of citizen is less able to get an ID or that they do not have an ID, is racist!
I actually have considerable experience canvassing. Even a generation ago, you worked neighborhoods with high turnover, masses of people on the rolls had moved away. In that era, they purged anyone who hadn’t voted in four years and anyone for whom notices from the board were returned to sender or subject to an attempt at forwarding. Fifteen years later, they were more lax, and you could readily find entries for people who had left town – not the previous year, but four years previous.
Partisan Democrats are madcap about this mild measure in part because that’s what the talking points are (and they’re a status-driven and other-directed bunch of people) but in part because people who’ve done some precinct work in shizzy areas know this will injure their operations.
This does not even address the matter of aliens voting and felons voting. You won’t bother to look, and then condescending tell everyone it isn’t happening. You do that because you’re snotty shills by nature.
Names of those who voted illegally? That’s what I thought. Next. It’s really just about the duskiness, isn’t it?
He has no opinion, because there is no such thing a ‘voter suppression’.
Watching the Democrats trying to find anything to take down Judge Gorsuch explains everything that is wrong with Congress. Their line of questioning exposes how desperately they fear a conservative Justice will legislate from the bench because THEY expect that’s what Justices do. Gorsuch represents in every way possible exactly what this branch of government should do which doesn’t sit well with these Senators who desire a Supreme Court Justice that will rubber stamp their progressive agenda.
Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed one way or another and the Democrats would be wise to not force the Republicans to go with the nuclear option. The record of these hearings will reflect the Democrats obstruction of a nominee that truly honors the honor, integrity and wisdom necessary in this branch of government and any vote against him will reflect the opposite qualities in those that oppose his confirmation.
FYI: Sen. Chuck Schumer is at again…..Something to do with Russia
Sen. Schumer Calls on Democrats to Boycott Neil Gorsuch Vote While Trump Is Under FBI Investigation
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: You can bet, if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI, the Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances. After all, they stopped a president who wasn’t under investigation from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his presidency. It is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment, while this big gray, gray cloud of an FBI investigation hangs over the presidency.
Yet a candidate can run for President while having a secret server in her basement. 👌 Keep obstructing and not one Democrat will be in office come 2018 and 2020.
https://twitter.com/NickKristof/status/844864141013659648
Kristof? 😂 The one who posted on Twitter for someone to illegally get him a copy of Trump’s tax returns. He offered money and his address! You have got to be joking or high!!
Absolutely. It’s why we need someone who runs a tight-ship like Trump: because he would never release private information, like Lindsey Graham’s phone number.
Lindsay Graham’s phone number is public record as a Senator. Heck my phone number is public record. Your points are ridiculous.
So you think Manafort is innocent?
I don’t have an opinion of that person. Your rhetoric just keeps getting recycled. But, but, but…give me a break!
Shannon is running out of babble. Please give her a break.
Rude and pointless. Gorsuch will be confirmed despite all of the liberal lunacy BS. Have a wonderful day! I am 🙂
“In recent years, with the growth of the “alt right” segment of the white supremacist movement, a segment that draws some of its support from some of the above-mentioned Internet sites, the number of “alt right” Pepe memes has grown, a tendency exacerbated by the controversial and contentious 2016 presidential election. Though Pepe memes have many defenders, the use of racist and bigoted versions of Pepe memes seems to be increasing, not decreasing.” PEPE THE FROG
Never seen Pepe on JT’s blog before. That is frightening.
Pepe performs “Fantasia”……Now you’ve seen him.
Jerry, thank you very much for a refreshing breeze in this conversation that should be about one branch of government and keeps on moving towards another branch. In a way these commentaries show better than anything else the cause of the mess our country is in. Everyday we, the citizens, move farther away from the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Our Senate and our Congress are deep in the muddy waters of a changing world. And we, the people, keep on looking for answers to the problems that the digital era has brought with its robots and AI, plus genetic modification plus over population plus climate change, and so on. Maybe the digital era is the reason that SCOTUS ruled that a corporation is a persona, they were just thinking in a future in which AI maybe one of the branches in our government. Crazy idea? Who knows what the present, that actually is the future, we live in can bring? But, please stop discussing “law” with a “political” flavor. Law is a fascinating but also a dry and exact science. If it stops being treated as such it fails to serve its objective. And stops being the law.
I think it could be argued that whoever gave Wikileaks the emails was Deep Throat. No one sane has said that the emails posted by Wikileaks weren’t genuine.
Mark Felt, Watergate’s “Deep Throat”, was convicted in 1980 of arranging illegal breakins.
He was the #2 man at the FBI, and upset when Nixon passed him over for the top job when J.Edgar Hoover died.
In response, he leaked grand jury testimony and gave Woodward and Bernstein play by play updates of details of the FBI investigation into Watergate.
He probably could have been prosecuted for revealing grand jury testimony and information from an ongoing FBI investigation
Mark Felt was not “THE villian” of Watergate, just “ONE OF” the villians.
(The info on Mark Felt was a reply to Anon’s post of the Nicholas Kristof article).
I have read interesting things about Georgetown prof Solum. Hope to get a chance to watch your testimony and his. Good luck.
The “original design of our government” included slavery. If Gorsuch and JT agree with that then I am sure that the present Senate will Confirm.
Jerry Jeff Walker would confirm.
Fortunately Slavery was abolished NOT by a Judge but the legislative branch. A Judge is NOT to make the laws but interpret them. Geeze.
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
“This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. ” Thomas Jefferson — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823
Indeed. The people through a fair election voted for Donald J Trump whom chose Judge Gorsuch.
“Fair” is in the eyes of the beholder.
You will be very sad by this news. Marbury v. Madison is not likely to be revisited in this universe.
Marbury v. Madison was an assertion that the courts could test a statutory law against the Constitution, not an assertion that the courts could pull whatever they cared to out of their rear end.
If no one tells you today, you’re brilliant! 🇺🇸
Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment. The 14th Amendment made all citizens equal. The language helps to overcome the elites. The 15th Amendment gave the Freedmen the right to vote. These there Amendments were from the Reconstruction Era just after the Civil War. Geeze Louise.
Doesn’t Congress put forth the amendments?
No, the 14th amendment was an omnibus, some components of which were ambiguously stated. It did not make anyone equal. What it did do, by implication, was extend citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants.
One of the most striking aspects I noted in watching the questioning of Neil Gorsuch was that of all those speaking, he was permitted the least amount of time to answer. Many of the senators were often reminding the nominee that his time was limited but yet the senators rambled on with nebulous questions and mostly talked about themselves and their politics. it was hardly an interview in the ordinary sense.
I would have expected more substance and nuance to be found in their questions. But most presented themselves as amateurs yet resorted to feigning expertise by focusing on delivery and body gestures to convey themselves in a stately manner.
I believe the substance is going to come from those, such as our host, who provide testimony. But in truth the undertone of these hearings is such that the decision on behalf of nearly all these senators has already been cemented in their minds and very few are going to sway. But, judging by the questions asked by most of the senators, the hearings afford them the opportunity to speak their politics while someone is actually watching, enticed by the novelty of a SCOTUS justice’s confirmation. The subject of Judge Gorsuch is mostly a vehicle to them.
“Many of the senators were often reminding the nominee that his time was limited but yet the senators rambled on with nebulous questions and mostly talked about themselves and their politics.”
This isn’t true of every committee and (especially) sub-committee?
I would not presume to judge the judges so harshly. The Republican congress held up a lot of judges during Obama’s presidency. There is a huge backlog of cases due to the lack of judge. Hopefully we can solve the probably soon. The elected positions are full. The appointees are held up.
I hope I can watch some of the proceedings. A link would be helpful when there is one.
C-Span is repeating the proceedings in the evening.
Shannon is right on. Dem prog libs want a rubber stamp for their agenda, the rest of us want a SCOTUS appointee who will go by the Constitution & original intent.
The blocking of Mr. T’s travel ban is a great example. In their renderings, none of the so called judges bothered to read the law that 100% gives Mr. T the power to do what he did in the EO. The ‘judges’ brought up stuff that had no bearing on the case because they are protecting the Dem ‘let them flood in so we can get them to vote Dem and build an insurmountable voting block’ agenda.
Regarding the travel ban & the judges, the two primary issues are “what does the EO say” & “does the law back Mr. T.” All the jive expressed in their absurd opinions is actually meaningless. These fanny hats that pass for judges need to be replaced. We need men & women on the bench who go by what the law actually says, not their over reaching personal biases.
We don’t have enough honest people on the bench. Most of the left do not want honesty in the court as their take the US down agenda is their highest priority ATM and is primarily why Neil Gorsuch is facing so much push back. The US Constitution & original intent is to them like garlic to vampires.
SamFox
Ugh! That’s the truth! I feel like I awoke on an alternate planet!
We have a fraudster D-list celebrity steak-salesman with a lexicon consisting of 88 words, as a leader.
This is an alternate planet. With alternative facts.
And just what do you call the regency of Barack and Michelle? That guy didn’t know anything either and doubled the debt. The two of them used two planes when going to the same destination. Donald Trump started with $100 million given by his father and turned it into $10 billion+. He is a very savvy business man and is trying to clean up the mess made by BO. If people would let him, this country would hum again. Dave137, what have you accomplished in your life?
Nice pivot. The Pizza Hut spokesman received a strong economy when compared with the economy Obama inherited; the Sharper Image Steak-Salesman complained that Obama golfed too much, so he flies down to his own golf course to play golf something like six times in eight weeks. Please. And if the cameo-star of Home Alone 2 received $10 from his father and turned it into $100 million, that would be just a tad more impressive than starting with $1 0 0 m i l l i o n.
And certainly take your boring ad hominem and place it where the Sun clearly doesn’t shine.
Their red Chinese manufactured hats are becoming more tarnished as each day passes.
Spoken like a true liberal JERK!
I am no Obama supporter, neither am I a trump supporter, Your comment…”That guy didn’t know anything either and doubled the debt.” concerning Obama is asinine. Obama can spend not one penny more, nor one penny less than what Congress tells him to spend. I am pretty sure that is in the Constitution somewhere. And if not (but I am sure it is), the Supreme court ruled in a case that Ronald Reagan brought concerning his not spending money allocated by Congress. The court said he had to spend the money. Oh, and wasn’t the Repos in charge of Congress for a considerable part of Obama’s Presidency?
Until people hold Congress accountable for our debt, we are screwed.
I’m confused about the 9 asses…..
I love OUR President! I may not agree at all times but to disrespect him with your groupthink mentality suggests that perhaps I didn’t awake on another planet, but I awoke to an a large amount of hateful, intolerant, ignorant, disrespectful liberals who are EVERYTHING they claim others to be.
Not my president.
Unless you are not an American citizen, he is in fact your President and thank you for proving my previous point. 🇺🇸
Shannon, He will never be my president and I am an american citizen. He has the support [and in some cases, the love] of 60 some million who voted for him and white supremacists/nationalists/racists/authoritarians around the world. That’s it. He is rightly despised or ignored by the rest. I don’t know if our American institutions will hold during his regime. If they do, then we are a great country. If they don’t, then he will be the president who takes us through the gates of hell.
Grow up! I’m so sick of the childish, whiny baby crap. You don’t like our President…fine, suck it up. I did for eight plus years and served under some I didn’t care for as well.
LOL. What a grown up response. I lived under presidents of both parties I didn’t like, either. However, Trump is a singular threat. Enjoy the “love.”
No he isn’t. That is just the Democratic Narrative that you are repeating under the delusion that if you say it enough, it will transcend utter idiocy and become TRUTH!
“Singular threat”??? What a load of crap.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ya, the judge in Seattle that upheld the Constitution was appointed by that well-known leftist George W. Bush.
Left or Right, the Judge did not uphold the constitution. I don’t care who appointed him. As a citizen, I depend on Judges to to base their ruling on what is within the 4 corners of the order etc. regardless if they personally agree or not. That’s when those we depend on to interpret the law become nothing more than activists. These Judges will have their rulings overturned.
Whatever virtues Gorsuch might have in the mind of the general public he’ll always be the weaselly lawyer (trying to sanitize 14 below zero as “cold”) who was deservedly torn to shreds by a non-lawyer, a former comedy writer, whose experience mining absurdity provided the perfect background for analyzing Gorsuch’s masterpiece of legal scholarship that a truck driver should be fired for trying to ward of hypothermia. Franken was 100% right: it makes you question his judgement
You were watching a diffrent channel perhaps? Mine was carried live and dounded nothing like that except continuing to question Franken’s judgement… as you mentioned and that bit of honesty is to be applauded.
Yes!!!
If anyone’s sanity or judgment should be questioned it is Franken’s! Did you actually listen and then HEAR what Franken babbled on about when he spoke? It was sad and I’m from Minnesota and it made me embarrassed to say he is a Senator from my state. He is one of most non-intellectual and a person who does not understand the way LAW works. Gorsuch showed him up quite nicely.
The LAW states if the plain meaning rule will produce and absurd result it can be superseded by ordinary common sense. I am not a lawyer or even a high school graduate but I know the law just gotta protect an employee whose transgression consisted if taking reasonable measures to avoid hypothermia.
Concerning Franken being “non-intellectual”–that’s a major asset for politicians. Intellectuals place too much importance on ideas & not enough on practical considerations. Non-intellectuals would not fault a man for trying to avoid a major medical problem even if it might possibly cost his employer some money–and it wouldn’t have. If the driver dutifully went down with the 14-below-zero-no-heater-ship the workers comp/disability costs would exceed the worth of the precious cargo.
Fraken should be applauded? He made a complete fool of himself! If Judges ruled based on “feelings” vice the law we’d get the 9th Circus and the Hawaiian Judge all over! If Franken doesn’t like the law, he’s part of congress and it’s his job to change it! Gorsuch ruled based on the law and not his personal feelings! After all, that’s his job.
Franken is an ass.
It looks like you’ll be testifying before the very people who want this Judge to legislate from the bench. It’s atrocious to listen to the questions and worse when they cut him off because they aren’t getting an answer they want. I hope you can help end this torture.
Nice to see Chevron revisited….I’m seeing a lot of the principle cases in some pre-law and Constitutional studies classes which meant nothing after sitting in a college class being droned at. It took the US Army education centers classes on goverenment and the law (special set up U. of Oklahoma. Ayn Rand Institute, Hillsdale College, and Frank Zappa U. (if you want an education go to the library if you want to get laid go to school.) and cross checking studying history, philosophy and government but to live through this episode of life WITH access to this sort of resource is the light on the candle on the frosting on the cake.