Posted on 11/02/2017 5:16:21 AM PDT by markomalley
The newest Supreme Court justice, Neil Gorsuch, has made headlines since joining the court last springand not just for his written opinions. Pedantic. Boorish and juvenile. Annoying. In his colleagues faces. These are some of the harsh things liberal Court watchers have had to say about Gorsuch.
Its hard to square these comments with the outpouring of support Gorsuch received from former clerks, classmates, and others after he was nominated to the Supreme Court earlier this year. Just watch a few minutes of this speech by Mark Hansen, Gorsuchs former law partner, who was close to tears at the end, talking about what an honorable, decent (and whip smart) friend and colleague he has been:
(video at link)
But the left would have you believe otherwise.
When rumors were swirling about potential Supreme Court nominees in late 2016, a former Gorsuch clerk wrote on Yales 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 fulfilling his commitment to faithfully interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
And thats not all Totenberg had to say about Gorsuch. She claimed there is a rift on the court between Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan. Heres what she said:
My surmise, from what Im hearing, is that Justice Kagan really has taken [Gorsuch] on in conference. And that its a pretty tough battle and its going to get tougher. And she is about as tough as they come, and I am not sure hes as tough or dare I say it, maybe not as smart. I always thought he was very smart, but he has a tin ear somehow, and he doesnt seem to bring anything new to the conversation.
First, Im highly skeptical of someone purporting to know what happened when the court met in conference. The justices are notoriously secretive about these meetings not even law clerks are allowed in the room. During conference, the justices discuss cases following oral argument and cast their initial votes in conference, though they sometimes change after draft opinions have been circulated. This is precisely the time for the justices to debate the issues in a case.
Second, Totenbergs assertion that Gorsuch is maybe not as smart as she thought is off base. Anyone who has read his speeches or his written opinions either from his time on the appeals court or his first two months on the Supreme Courtcan see why that is patently false. The Columbia-Harvard-Oxford-educated judge weaves literary references into his opinions and writes in a clear, concise manner thats easy for lawyers and lay people alike to understand.
Totenberg also said she hears Gorsuch doesnt believe in precedent which is likely motivated by a concern that he would overturn cases liberals like if given the chance. This same issue came up during his confirmation hearing, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., 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 good law.
He even wrote a book on this topic, along with 11 other judges and leading lexicographer Bryan Garner. And hes given every indication that hell follow the Supreme Courts guideposts for when to overrule or uphold a past decision. Its also worth mentioning that, even if he disagreed with a past decision, Gorsuch cant singlehandedly overturn precedents like Roe v. Wade. If an appropriate case came before the court, a majority of the justices would need to agree.
Gorsuch rubs Totenberg the wrong way and she isnt the only one.
At the start of the courts current term, 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.
Toobin highlighted a case involving statutory interpretation where Gorsuch dissented from the majoritys reading of the statute. Gorsuch wrote, If a statute needs repair, theres a constitutionally prescribed way to do it. Its called legislation. What Toobin objected to are basic functions of the job if justices arent to ask questions at argument or write separately when they disagree with the majority, what are they supposed to do?
In an article in The New York Times over the summer, Linda Greenhouse who referred to Gorsuch as the justice who holds the seat that should have been Merrick Garlands said the new justice violated the courts unwritten rules and norms and morph[ed] quickly into Donald Trumps life-tenured judicial avatar. This gets to the heart of the problem.
According to the left, Gorsuch shouldnt be on the Supreme Court, and Trump shouldnt be in the White House. In other words, these criticisms of Gorsuch can be explained as simply another iteration of the resistance movement.
But Gorsuch isnt going anywhere. The apoplectic left better get used to him sparring with the other justices, asking questions, writing fiery dissents, and generally returning to first principles.
Nina Totebag needs to retire.
NPR’s payroll is paid by you and me.
I hope Gorsuch lives to be 100 and never retires.
Isn't that old hag ever going to retire? Don't these NPR/PBS people ever go away? Seriously, she is two months shy of 74 years old. She is disgusting to look at on TV with those squinty pig eyes and self-righteous grin. She's always part of a televised panel coven of smug fellow travelers whipping up a toxic brew against America.
Totenberg is extremely wealthy having soaked donors and taxpayers for years. And with all the honorarium and speaking fees, she most definitely has a nice chunk of change salted away in addition to a gold plated pension.
And she inherited a fortune from her father, including a rare Stradivarius violin worth millions. Nina has already harped and nagged one rich husband to death, and after cleaning him out, she is currently working on taking out hubby number two. Please Nina, don't go away mad, just go away.
Side note: Bernard Goldberg: NPR and the Nina Totenberg problem. In closing, Totenberg means "Death Mountain" in German, a rather appropriate handle for a witch.
Nina Totenberg is an infected carbuncle!
Yep. McCarthy was right after all.
I'm hearing her fourth toe on the left side has been amputated and she can't walk a straight line! Oh, that's on her fifth leg. She has eight! Arachnid? Yep that's what I'm hearing! (I say this with tongue planted firmly in cheek, but what if it's true?)
Yeah - something seriously wrong when a SCOTUS Justice, who is supposed to be a steadying influence in making sure laws are Constitutional, citing the Constitution is an obvious problem....
Precedent is not law........'Case Law' is not law.......Only written law is law....................
Prior precedents...
1. Burning witches
2. Bleeding with leaches
Feel free to add...
"When you start taking flak you're almost over the target."
What a great MAGA day! A Red state team beat a Blue state team for the World Series win last night and the Libtards are crying over Gorsuch actually protecting and DEFENDing the Constitution.
As happy as I am about the Series, I have to admit that I'm damn near gloating over the fact that Gorsuch is living in the Libtards heads "rent free".....LMAO.
MAGA!
Remember Totenberg is the same piece of dog shit who said “I’d gladly give Bill Clinton a blow job...” Now we know what a fraud NPR is with our money paying them.
If Nina doesnt like him that means Trump chose wisely. Defund NPR.
A clear violation of The Separation Of Court and Law.
Its really way past time to cut off NPR access to the Federal Teat.
3. Returning runaway slaves.................
NINA TOTENBERG!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I did read some of it, and a little just after seeing her name...:)
"...NPRs legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg took aim at Gorsuch. First in her crosshairs was his habit of frequently citing the Constitution. She objected to Gorsuch bringing things back to first principles at oral argument. He often prefaces his questions by saying, Lets look at what the Constitution says about this Its always a good place to start. This should come as no surprise. When rumors were swirling about potential Supreme Court nominees in late 2016, a former Gorsuch clerk wrote on Yales 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 fulfilling his commitment to faithfully interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
And thats not all Totenberg had to say about Gorsuch. She claimed there is a rift on the court between Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan. Heres what she said: My surmise, from what Im hearing, is that Justice Kagan really has taken [Gorsuch] on in conference. And that its a pretty tough battle and its going to get tougher. And she is about as tough as they come, and I am not sure hes as tough or dare I say it, maybe not as smart. I always thought he was very smart, but he has a tin ear somehow, and he doesnt seem to bring anything new to the conversation.
I should be enraged and not amused, but...these are run of the mill leftists...I can just hear Nina Totenberg's outrage now: "There! There! He's doing it again, citing the Constitution! How dare he!"
Even if Trump did nothing else, his judge selections are worth it all.
BTTT!
Totenbag has been a far left nut for a long time.
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.