Posted on 02/07/2017 4:03:24 PM PST by Sopater
Excellent credentials but troubling questions remain concerning Neil Gorsuch
Our young are so full of innocence and capabilities that are not yet known. Why would anyone want to destroy that through abortion? One of the most absurd pro-choice claims is that those who are pro-life do not like or care for the baby after he or she is born. In fact, pro-lifers find equal importance of life inside and outside of the womb. The gravity in a baby’s eyes, showing such extreme happiness for life, is one of the most beautiful things in the world.– G. K. Chesterton
I am overjoyed that Donald J. Trump is our 45th President, and I’m thrilled with 95% of his nominees. Nevertheless, unlike the sycophants who supported Obama and Hillary, when I am in doubt, I’m going to let my readers know about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilloutsider.com ...
The “cons” are that he’s not already sworn-in as an associate justice.
Ridiculous
What’s “ridiculous?”
I believe that Justice Gorsuch will serve our Country honorably.
MAGA!
Gorsuch said one thing that convinced me he is an excellent judge and SCOTUS candidate.
He said judges that consider the outcomes of their decisions are not good at their job.
Good judges interpret the law, they don’t make it.
That a con is that he is not yet on SCOTUS. This will be a fight of unknown length. We need to be strong
According to this study he rates high on Scalia-ness
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3520678/posts
On the other hand, during his 2006 confirmation hearing:
Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has struck down an unprecedented number of federal statutes, most notably several designed to protect the civil rights of Americans, as beyond Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, Flores V. City of Boerne, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), Kimel v Florida Board of Regents, 120 S. Ct. 631 (2000), and Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 19 S. Ct. 2240 (1999). The Supreme Court has also recently struck down statutes as being outside the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause, such as in the case of U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 ((1995) or U.S. v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000). I am hopeful that the Court’s recent decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005) signals a turn away from the diminishing of the authority of Congress to legislate to protect the American people.
In light of your advocacy for judicial restraint and deference to Congress, what is your understanding of the scope of congressional power under Article I of the Constitution, in particular, the Commerce Clause, and under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Response: As the question indicates, on the of the Court’s most recent pronouncements with respect to the Commerce Clause came last year in Gonzales v. Raich. There the Court made clear that “Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established.” The precedents of the Supreme Court addressing the Fourteenth Amendment have likewise repeatedly demonstrated that Congress’s authority to enact legislation pursuant to Section 5 is very broad. If confirmed, I would enforce these Supreme Court rulings fully in cases that may come before me, applying the same judicial restraint and deference to congressional judgement in these arenas as I would in any other.
2006 confirmation hearing, page 42-43 - http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2016_0131_gorsuch_confirmation.pdf
Is there a Commerce Clause abuse issue?
Good catch. Right there on pdf page 7. I didn’t see that.
He cited Gonzales v. Raich (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15647611274064109718), a case about a person who grew marijuana for themselves. The marijuana was never sold and it never crossed state lines. The federal government claimed the Commerce Clause authorized the regulation/criminalization due to “the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere”. Sounds reasonable.
Returning to Gorsuch’s confirmation written response: There the Court made clear that “Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established.” [] If confirmed, I would enforce these Supreme Court rulings fully
This all stems from Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn grew wheat for his own use on his farm (he raised cattle and chicken). The Court’s reasoning was that the aggregate impact of farmers growing wheat for their own use would have an effect on interstate commerce, therefore it was subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.
I’m not thrilled by Wickard, or Gorsuch’s enthusiasm for precedent rather than the Constitution. Unfortunately this mindset is endemic. I pray he is like Scalia or Thomas.
He’s listed as a “term member” on this list of donors.
http://i.cfr.org/content/member/CFRdonors2009.pdf
Term members are five year memberships.
http://www.cfr.org/about/term_member_program.html
His 2006 confirmation mentions CFR membership. The 2009 donor list shows him as a “term member”. So, at a minimum, a five year membership which covers 2006 and 2009. Meaning the earliest possible date is 2004, the latest date is 2011.
Gosh - have to twist pretty hard to make the authors concerns into something relevant. “Can’t be sure he’d vote to turn over Roe vs. Wade” is pulling stuff from so far up one’s colon that it has saliva on it.
Isn’t that what (many said) Heidi Cruz was? A term member? Apologies...I can’t remember 100% if that was the type of CFR member she was/is.
She definitely was CFR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.