The Jury Talks Back

1/31/2017

Obama Administration Lawyer: “Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch” (Plus Bonus Elizabeth Warren Nonsense)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 8:30 pm

There’s at least one honest man among the left in this world, and he supports Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court:

I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.

Considerable doubts about the direction of the Supreme Court have emerged among Democrats in recent weeks, particularly given some of the names that have been floated by the administration for possible nomination. With environmental protection, reproductive rights, privacy, executive power and the rights of criminal defendants (including the death penalty) on the court’s docket, the stakes are tremendous. I, for one, wish it were a Democrat choosing the next justice. But since that is not to be, one basic criterion should be paramount: Is the nominee someone who will stand up for the rule of law and say no to a president or Congress that strays beyond the Constitution and laws?

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.

There are also dishonest people among the left — a lot of them. For a hint of the type of claptrap we’ll see in coming days, check out Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren:

Before even joining the bench, he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women’s access to basic health care.

Blah, blah, blah. It goes on like that. These Native Americans do drone on, don’t they?

Guess what? She is going to lose. So don’t be angry at her. Laugh at her. Point, and laugh.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

11 Comments »

  1. “These Native Americans do drone on, don’t they?” – Patterico

    Hey buddy, I’ll have you know I’m 1/64 Iroquois. So I think I stand on as firm a geneological foundation as any (well, as her anyway) to say that … oh heck, I can’t even type this with a straight face tonight.

    Comment by Quibus Vigilius — 1/31/2017 @ 10:23 pm

  2. How many divisions does this “Rule of Law” have?

    More and more, it seems like the Dhimmis will swallow hard and not push McConnell to push the nuclear button. I can also see McConnell agreeing to some kind of deal which weakens the conservative cause.

    We will win this battle. Hopefully, the Dhimmis overstep and it costs them dearly.

    Comment by Ed from SFV — 1/31/2017 @ 11:37 pm

  3. HOLY GUACAMOLE! THIS IS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST!!1! https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/01/ignore-the-attacks-on-neil-gorsuch-hes-an-intellectual-giant-and-a-good-man/?utm_term=.51728c1ff48a

    Comment by nk — 2/1/2017 @ 6:13 am

  4. There are liberals who have an open mind and admire principled people, even if they are conservative. We have some like that who comment here. But some of this may also be liberals struggling to figure out the best way to deal with President Trump. Do they resist much or make nice? I feel their pain. Most of the GOP has the same problem.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/1/2017 @ 7:06 am

  5. Interesting study linked here. Click on the first link in the initial paragraph.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/1/2017 @ 8:09 am

  6. DRJ: i’m somewhat in the camp you describe at #4. I have no problem with Judge Gorsuch, especially as a replacement for Justice Scalia.

    At the same time, I consider Sen. McConnell’s refusal to hold a hearing on Judge Garland to be an abuse of power. So what’s the right way to respond to that abuse? It *must* be responded to, because otherwise it will become the new normal, and Supreme Court Justices will, for the forseeable future, only be confirmable when the Senate is controlled by the same party as the President, and that will be a disaster.

    I don’t think filibustering Gorsuch is the right response. But I don’t know what *is*.

    Comment by aphrael — 2/1/2017 @ 10:36 am

  7. I’d like a principle for this sitUation, aphrael. You know I like principles and rules. But confirming Supreme Court Judges is a Senate function, and the Senate has 100 strong egos — most of whom will ignore principles and rules when it suits them. I don’t think there is a principle that works when the Senate has the deciding vote.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/1/2017 @ 11:52 am

  8. This time it helps Republicans but it’s helped Democrats in the past.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/1/2017 @ 11:55 am

  9. DRJ – I am seriously concerned that Democrats have to choose between these options:

    (a) no Supreme Court Justice will ever again be confirmed if there is a Senate majority from the opposing party

    (b) no Supreme Court Justice will ever again be confirmed if the President is a Democrat and the Senate majority is not Democratic.

    I don’t see how we increase the scope of available options.

    Comment by aphrael — 2/1/2017 @ 2:05 pm

  10. (C) could well be as simple as “no Supreme Court Justice would ever have been confirmed if the President was Barack Obama in 2016.”

    It may be that simple, aphrael. Obama was loathed by the Republicans by 2016 (if not well before). If I’ve learned one thing about politicians in my young life, it’s that they are not slaves to precedent.

    Comment by Leviticus — 2/1/2017 @ 3:32 pm

  11. How many Senate Democrats stand up to leadership on important issues, aphrael? They vote with leadership most of the time. It’s Republicans who stray most of the time, as illustrated by Rubio trashing Tillerson and Collins/Murkowski refusing to vote for Education Secretary DeVos. It’s Republicans who face the choices you posit as much or more than Democrats, and that’s because of the current dynamics of the ego-driven Senate.

    Comment by DRJ — 2/1/2017 @ 3:40 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.