Posted on 01/23/2017 1:06:59 PM PST by Kaslin
Well, SCOTUS watch kicked off on CBS This Morning Saturday, with Jan Crawford saying that her sources are telling her that a leading candidate has emerged from President Trump’s solid list of judicial candidates to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia: Judge Neil Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Gorsuch is a Bush 43 appointee—and appears to be a worthy successor to Scalia (via SCOTUSblog)
He was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, graduated from Harvard Law School, clerked for prominent conservative judges (Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court), and was a high-ranking official in the Bush Justice Department before his judicial appointment. He is celebrated as a keen legal thinker and a particularly incisive legal writer, with a flair that matches— or at least evokes — that of the justice whose seat he would be nominated to fill. In fact, one study has identified him as the most natural successor to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Trump shortlist, both in terms of his judicial style and his substantive approach.With perhaps one notable area of disagreement, Judge Gorsuch’s prominent decisions bear the comparison out. For one thing, the great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making. He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia). In fact, some of the parallels can be downright eerie.
Gorsuch seems to be a solid conservative pick, with academic credentials that are impeccable as well. He’s also young at 49 years of age (via Denver Post):
“He has a clear record of a consistent judicial philosophy and applying that in action,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group. “One of the real values here is he’s someone with solid record and we’re able to assess his experience. Conservatives are still concerned about the ‘David Souter effect.’ ”[…]
For conservatives such as John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, Gorsuch meets conservative standards as an originalist and a textualist — someone who interprets the Constitution and statutes as they were originally written.
[…]
David Lat, managing editor of the legal website Above the Law, points to Gorsuch’s stellar academic pedigree and national connections, but also to his age — 49 and primed for an extended run — as reasons to consider him among the favorites for the nomination.
[…]
The other thing to remember,” Lat said, “is that Donald Trump, when he issued his list, thanked the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society for their input. I don’t think they would have given their stamp of approval to somebody they thought was going to be another Souter. I think that since Souter, presidents are getting better at picking justices who don’t disappoint them.”
Crawford did note that this pick might surprise some conservatives since many were banking on him nominating Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. He also served as Alabama’s attorney general. Like Gorsuch, he’s also young (he's only 54). She added that he’s also seen as “the most worthy successor” to Justice Scalia.
Your wariness is warranted, given the disappointments Roberts,O’Connor, and Breyer turned out to be. President Trump would be wise to choose from state supreme courts. Justices on state supreme courts have to make final judicial decisions, not just kick cases up the judicial food chain. A review of those decisions would enable President Trump to make a solid choice on an originalist to replace Scalia.
An interesting position, but have not the federal courts held some state gun laws unconstitutional?
In fact, even fed circuit courts accepting such a case would be telling.
Sorry, away from access to any internet case sight tonight.
Yes, they have. In fact, here in Illinois the feds have forced Chicago to change its restrictive laws.
It is claimed that the 14th amendment gives the feds an in to control states’ gun laws.
CBS has no sources. They do however just make stuff up.
He put out a list of ten that he thought were good candidates.
CBS has stuck a pin in the list and that is the one they are saying he picked.
They have a one in ten chance of being right.
If they are then they can say that they know what Trump will do at some future date and people will believe them.
If they are wrong they can claim that they actually were right but their exposing of his nefarious plan made Trump change course.
Spin baby spin.
Sorry—I read his Wikileaks entry to quickly. She was the first *female* head of the EPA, under Reagan.
.
The 14th amendment directly applied the principles of the first ten amendments to the states.
.
A+ for creativity!
.
.
>> “If the democrats won’t fight Gorsuch then he sucks.” <<
And they have apparently indicated that he is their man.
I think they find his affinity for gun laws to be to their liking.
.
She came on board 11 years after the EPA was created by Mr. Nixon’s proclamation.
.
If you think Cruz is anything but an excellent statesman you need to find yourself a country.
He is not going to be on the court, but he should be doing the picking of who gets nominated. Nobody else knows the judiciary as well as he does.
.
That inclusion was ignored wrt the Second for over a hundred years.
The intent of the Second was to prevent fedgov from seizing weapons it did not apply to the states.
Absolutely. States not only routinely suppressed the press and free speech. Southern states stopped Abolitionist publishing, allowed crowds to burn their presses and totally shut down any speeches or discussions about slavery.
The last year of his life Hamilton argued for the freedom of the press against the state of New York - Croswell vs New York. He was the greatest lawyer in the nation but lost this case: the legislature changed the law shortly thereafter which made the truth a defense against libel and defamation in law suits.
Not only this but many states had state supported religions until about 1830 when they ended (mainly because of the increased power of non-established churches.)
An early supreme court case (Barron vs Baltimore) made the disconnection clear.
William Ruckelshaus was the first head of the EPA.
My apology on my post is above—she was the first *female* head of the EPA.
His findings indicate that he is NOT PRO LIFE. Not a good Scalia replacement....
His findings indicate that he is NOT PRO LIFE. Not a good Scalia replacement....
JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1963 to force the admittance of two black students to the University of Alabama (presumably a state school), and the federal government has been mandating “civil rights” ever since.
To say that the federal government doesn’t routinely smack around so-called “states rights” is ludicrous in the extreme.
The same principle should apply to guns. The second amendment is a right of US citizenship, not a right of residence in a state or city.
I know, I know, local gun control laws are in effect everywhere... but the point is, if civil rights can be enforced by the fedgov, then gun rights deserve to be too. Fair is fair.
Do you have any evidence of that to share? All I have found is that Schlaffly didn’t like that he didn’t use the term “unborn child” in his findings.
If he’s a strict constitutionalist, I would think he would leave the issue to the states—which is what I believe they should do. (I know there are those who disagree with me, but if you’re gonna follow the Constitution, I think that’s the correct resolution.)
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.