Patterico's Pontifications

2/8/2017

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Criticizes Trump’s Comments on Judges

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:00 pm



I like this guy more and more all the time.

Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, on Wednesday called the president’s tweets attacking federal judges “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

A spokesman for Gorsuch confirmed to CNN that he expressed concern about Trump’s remarks during a meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), after Blumenthal first told reporters about the nominee’s reaction.

Trump, you have no doubt heard, first tweeted about the District Court judge:

and

and

And now has taken his tweet-whinges to the next level:

You realize they’re going to make Gorsuch say this in front of the TV cameras, right? That’s when President Tweet may go nuts. Laura Ingraham is already upset:

Me, I think it bodes awesome.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

80 Responses to “Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Criticizes Trump’s Comments on Judges”

  1. Currying favor with fake marine, is a fools errands the ones against this ban were the same sort who hounded his mother from office, because then they cared about transparency and accountability, like with the independent counsel law, ha!

    The first time I heard her name was when Anne Richards rattled it of at the Dnc speech in 1988

    narciso (d1f714)

  2. ***I hope you don’t mind my cross posting this comment agaun which I just put on another thread at almost the same time this thread went up.

    Oh-I was so hoping somebody would bring this up! As someone who studies words, the first thing I noticed was how perfectly Gorsuch had crafted this empathetic yet meaningless phrase, “demoralizing” and “disheartening”, to both address the issue of the president’s criticisms of the judges, while perfectly playing into the Dems love of feelings. You will note however that he did not use words of substance or judgement such as “invalid or undeserved” in characterizing the criticisms. I think he is going to be formidable on the court.

    This was a very nuanced multi-purpose multi-recipient statement from Gorsuch. Something for the senators, other judges, and the president.

    elissa (895d7e)

  3. These judges need to be reined in. How can a district Judge make national security decisions for the whole country over riding the President’s informed decision. It’s like obama is President again

    jim (a9b7c7)

  4. A spokesman for Gorsuch confirmed to CNN that he expressed concern about Trump’s remarks during a meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), after Blumenthal first told reporters about the nominee’s reaction.

    What do lawyers do with anonymous sourced hear say evidence?

    I’m not a lawyer but I have watched Perry Mason reruns.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  5. Isn’t Gorsucks currently looking for the favor of 60 Senators?

    Tactic or true position?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  6. Gorsuch wanted this to be out there, papertiger. Better theater coming through Blumenthal and “confirmed” than saying it outright.

    elissa (895d7e)

  7. Not so surre anyone should take Blumenthal’s word at face value. Remember that this hack is a Vietnam poseur!!

    T. Allred (f35c80)

  8. Roy’s boy [is that ok, Rebekkah?] and his big yap are what put Gorsuch on the spot. Just like his campaign rhetoric about Muslims poisoned his executive order. STFU, Trump!

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Ideally, one would have another member of the party, denounce the judges pathetic reasoning, like someone who signed the omnibus.

    narciso (d1f714)

  10. Nobody trusts Blumenthal but Gorsuch spokesman confirmed it, I Allred. That’s how we know it was purposely positioned to be “published”.

    elissa (895d7e)

  11. When did the fake marine ever care about the law

    http://www.nhregister.com/article/NH/20150217/NEWS/150219529

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. #2 elissa, that’s beautiful.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  13. Eyes on the prize, people. Blumenthal is a shiny object–don’t get distracted. This is about Gorsuch saying and doing what he needs to do to get himself confirmed. That is not to suggest that what he said is insincere. But yes. He needs some Dem votes and he is going after them. The president’s tweets, no matter what you think of them, have given Gorsuch a place to distance himself safely and publicly.

    elissa (895d7e)

  14. Well that was last week so what does it matter:

    http://ctmirror.org/2017/01/31/blumenthal-serious-concerns-about-gorsuch

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. I’m just pointing how civil blumenthal has been in the past.

    narciso (d1f714)

  16. Better than sources close to the situation.

    I always figure it’s just a straight up lie when they start out like that.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  17. It isn’t Trump who is propping Gorsuch up. Were Trump to dump Gorsich over this slight it would hurt Trump immeasurably inside the Party. People would be lining up for the exits.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  18. I imagine that the hearings (mid-March?) will feature Democrats trying to get Gorsuch to criticize Trump as often as possible. I also expect Gorsuch to make them look like tools when they do it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. Nice one Ann.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  20. Have I missed something Kevin M.? Where did you get an inkling that Trump would dump Gorsuch. I have seen nothing credible to remotely suggest that. IMO that ain’t gonna happen. And Gorsuch ain’t gonna walk away from a chance to be on the supreme court, either. I think this Gorsuch “slight” isn’t nearly as much of a slight as some are trying to make of it.

    elissa (895d7e)

  21. elissa–

    Go read the last tweet in the post.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. elissa–

    I agree that it’s a carefully measured statement of independence, while not saying anything meaningful. I note that nine Dem Senators have said they will not oppose cloture.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. No he’s a candidate with an ‘immaculate record’ I use that in the actual,not the implied manner Baldwin used itin the departed.

    But take machin who mouthed off to a dios about price, which takes a certain chutzpah

    narciso (a3b273)

  24. With the whole Mylan affair with epipen.

    narciso (a3b273)

  25. Kevin M.–Laura’s tweet? Well, you already know me and tweets—but I didn’t even understand what she meant, “bode well”. Bode well for whom? Is she insinuating an inside track into Trump’s brain? Is she insinuating Gorsuch will be disloyal to conservative principles once on the court? Who knows from that cryptic tweet?

    elissa (895d7e)

  26. Well they figured they got rid of Crowley son specious grounds

    http://m.huffpost.com/us?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000627

    narciso (a3b273)

  27. She named the other two candidates and suggested they would be better behaved. Pat got it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  28. narciso,

    I love the way the left STILL plays the “America First Committees” as being anti-Semites. Back in 1939-40, this committee was trying to keep the US out of the European war. It had people in it like John F Kennedy, Walt Disney, Sargent Shriver, Potter Stewart and Frank Lloyd Wright. A whole lot of mainstream folks.

    It also had a lot of Communist infiltration since the Hitler-Stalin Pact was still operating and Stalin wanted the US kept out of the war.

    Then Hitler attacked Russia. All the Communists dutifully quit and started agitating for war, as Stalin’s desires had changed. And they turned on the AFC and labeled them “anti-Semites” and “Nazis” in order to discredit them. They continue the lie to this day. And ANYONE who says ANYTHING different is immediately called a Nazi. Even now.

    The AFC disbanded December 10, 1941 for fairly obvious reasons.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  29. ==She named the other two candidates and suggested they would be better behaved.==

    Yes, I saw that but I still am asking– Is she an influencer to whom special attention must be paid? I know who she is and that she has a talk radio show, but I don’t know what role she is thought to play with respect to the new administration and its decision making. I still don’t know what “bode well” means. You think she is threatening Gorsuch in that tweet?

    elissa (895d7e)

  30. And it was that libel, that Anton was addressing,

    narciso (a3b273)

  31. R.I.P. “Professor” Irwin Corey, comedian

    Icy (a5759d)

  32. Get this guy on the bench. ASAP.

    mg (31009b)

  33. I love the way the left STILL plays the “America First Committees” as being anti-Semites. Back in 1939-40, this committee was trying to keep the US out of the European war. It had people in it like John F Kennedy, Walt Disney, Sargent Shriver, Potter Stewart and Frank Lloyd Wright. A whole lot of mainstream folks.

    Some were rabid anti-semites and Nazi worshippers, like Kennedy’s father and Charles Lindbergh, respectively, and some were just useful idiots playing into Hitler’s hands. JFK himself was only 23 years old in 1940, so I wouldn’t attach too much weight to his views on geopolitics at that time.

    Dave (711345)

  34. narciso @9.

    Ideally, one would have another member of the party, denounce the judges pathetic reasoning,

    Donald Trump did that today.

    He said he listened to the arguments at the Court of Appeals (if he did, he’s responding to criticism) and said something to the effect that he was surprised at the low quality of the judges, who didn’t toss the arguments against out of court.

    He said even a ‘bad high school student’ would rule in his favor. You don’t even need to be a good student. And he was a good student, he said, so he can comprehend things, and there is no case against him – the law can’t be written any plainer or better.

    Sammy Finkelman (4b8ab4)

  35. No sammeh someone else with a stake in the matter, honestly the GOP are like basenghis when administration policy in under attack when they are not sofpedaling major initiatives like obamacare repeal or tax cuts

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. You don’t even need to be a good student. And he was a good student, he said, so he can comprehend things,

    “I know words, I have the best words.” – Donald Trump

    Dave (711345)

  37. It really is striking that the state’s amicus was better structured than ribarts own decision

    narciso (d1f714)

  38. It really is striking that the state’s amicus was better structured than ribarts own decision

    How many lawyers does the state have to review and polish its filings? How many does Robart have to do the same for his decisions?

    Dave (711345)

  39. Dave, but the Stalinist propaganda is what you and all the liberals recite.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  40. How many does Robart have to do the same for his decisions?

    He could at least have cribbed from the arguments and filings. Have you seen anyone praise his work?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  41. Not a great sign for Trump that after two short weeks, his fresh appointments are criticizing him. Short coat-tails. The 2018 elections will be hilarious.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  42. “The 2018 elections will be hilarious.”

    I hear the MSM gives a 97% certainty on that.

    And if you can’t wait. Go to YouTube, where there are hundreds of clips of dem/liberal reaction to the Nov 2016 cavalcade of comedy.

    Harkin (f2f14e)

  43. 2018 elections will be hilarious. When Sessions deports 50 million illegal pricks.

    mg (31009b)

  44. harvardtrash princesses like gorsuch are wholly incapable of not sneering at Mr. Trump for something or the other

    It’s a signaling thing they do like how dogs sniff butts

    happyfeet (a45472)

  45. I saw your comment on the sidebar, and I was writing it in my head as I clicked on it. Except for capitalization and punctuation, I wrote what you had written.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. It was a shoddy piece of work, he picked his laziest clerk to draft it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. You guys wanted a guy like Scalia, you got a guy like Scalia.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. “Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the 9th Circuit oral argument over President Trump’s executive order was that lawyers for both sides seemed to know nothing about some of the most basic real-world issues surrounding the case. Two examples:

    First, the question of terror-related crimes committed by people who come from the seven nations covered by the Trump order. Many of the president’s adversaries have claimed that no terror-related crimes have been committed by nationals of the affected countries — Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. “The various people who have, in fact, committed terrorist acts in this country, from 9/11 on, none of them came from any of the seven countries that are the subject of the president’s executive order,” New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler said on CNN Jan. 28.

    Even James Robart, the judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State who temporarily stopped the Trump order, believed the talking point.

    “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?” Robart asked a Justice Department lawyer in court on Feb. 3. When the lawyer said she didn’t know, Robart said, “Let me tell you. The answer to that is none, as best I can tell.”

    It turns out the judge, and Nadler, and everybody else repeating the talking point had it wrong. Last year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.

    So the talking point wasn’t true. And yet at the 9th Circuit oral argument, the judges appeared to believe it was true, and Justice Department lawyer August Flentje didn’t know enough to correct them. . . ”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fact-free-debate-on-immigration-order/article/2614298

    Colonel Haiku (215a2d)

  49. Laura Ingraham should shut her gopher trap.

    nk (dbc370)

  50. First and foremost, a judge should be fearless.

    nk (dbc370)

  51. A storm is coming:

    https://m.facebook.com/wretchard.cat

    narciso (d1f714)

  52. It really is striking coronello what passes for conventional wisdom, well not really,

    narciso (d1f714)

  53. You know its a shame because he used to turn out good work at the beast

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/02/09/whats-washington-posts-josh-rogin-love-affair-fakenews

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. Yep, narciso, it just takes folks with the time to compile data. I posted that to help show how pathetic these “judges” and the media are – but we knew that – and to help educate a few around here.

    Colonel Haiku (215a2d)

  55. The left always has their astroturf battalions out, Arab American network, splc car, whereas our side is always ‘darning their socks’ like the sing goes

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. The problem is this is the story for today, on all outlets, why did bonjean give CNN the time of day, on this point

    Just as the reprimand against Tulsi, remember the primary against Richard black that the assoc director of the chi was a party to.

    narciso (6a4407)

  57. 52. nk (dbc370) — 2/9/2017 @ 5:58 am

    First and foremost, a judge should be fearless.

    Exactly.

    This was something extracted from a private (albeit not confidential) conversation in a meeting that Judge Neil Gorsuch had with Senator Richard Blumenthal, (D-Conn.) and Senator Richard Blumenthal went very public with it, and said that this was important and Gorsuch should tell everybody.

    This just in: (earlier this morning)

    CBS News reported at 7 am:

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?

    3:57 AM – 9 Feb 2017

    In the broadcast CBS called attention and emphasizedthe fact that the tweet was being quoted exactly, and the reporter said the question mark meant it wasn’t clear what Donald Trump was saying, and maybe he was asking a question and not asserting anything.

    It seems pretty clear to me what Donald Trump was saying. Trump probably spoke to Judge Gorsuch or Mike Pence or someone else did. That question mark is really something closer to an exclamation point, or goes to the question of why Sen. Blumenthal would think he could get away with that, and

    Donald Trump was quite clearly saying that Senator Blumenthal had quoted Judge Gorsuch out of context.

    Now you may ask: How could it be out of context?

    Well, what did Blumenthal tell people that Gorsuch had said?

    Just two words: “demoralizing” and “disheartening.” (and the general subject matter)

    To whom was it demoralizing? To whom was it disheartening? The judge, or maybe Gorsuch?

    And what about it was demoralizing?

    Maybe it was demoralizing and disheartening to people concerned about civility and the the tone of public life, and trying to stop that from deteriorating into name calling, and there’s enough of that coming from Democrats already. Or possibly to anyone who wanted judges to be honored, and courts obeyed.

    What particular comments were disheartening?

    Everything that Trump tweeted or said, or only some of it, or the repetitiveness of it all?

    This just in (as of 8:19 EST)

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave “service” in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS!

    5:19 AM – 9 Feb 2017

    Sammy Finkelman (4151a0)

  58. He seems to have spoken to sasse as well, I would have thought it was a good deal.

    narciso (6a4407)

  59. It’s great that Gorsuch THINKS this. All judges should think that the President should not impugn the legitimacy of a duly-appointed judge. (I’m less concerned about Trump criticizing the judge’s DECISION.)

    It’s not so great, ethically, that Gorsuch is (indirectly) voicing an opinion on a politically divisive issue, even one involving the judge himself.

    Judges should stay out of politics to the extent reasonably possible.

    Mitch (341ca0)

  60. It’s not the tome of what passes for political debate in the US that bothers me, but the pettiness and stupidity of it. Trump does nothing to elevate it, but the other side is no better.

    I am so reminded, again, of Kornbluth’s “The Marching Morons.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  61. Gorsuch is laying down a marker of independence, and seems to have succeeded in getting enough Democrats saying they’ll vote for cloture to avoid a filibuster. He’ll probably be confirmed with 70 votes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  62. Ingraham.

    Upset.

    And irrelevant.

    “Shut up and sing….”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. Elizabeth Warren’s new NA moniker: Dances With Stalin

    Colonel Haiku (215a2d)

  64. elissa has the correct take: all about the placement. It allows Gorsuch to distance himself. I’d add that it also throws some red meat to left wing fevah swampers and #NeverTrump.

    Colonel Haiku (215a2d)

  65. John Hinderacker at Powerline expressing a concern I share:

    “What to make of these statements by Gorsuch? I think they betray a serious lack of judgment and, perhaps, loyalty. Trump’s reference to Judge Robart, who violated his judicial duty by issuing a political opinion that he didn’t even attempt to justify with facts, law or logic, as a “so-called judge,” was arguably apt. In any event, if Gorsuch really would be “demoralized” by such a mild rebuke as “so-called judge,” he lacks the stomach to sit on the Supreme Court. . . . I fear it is a sign that Gorsuch lacks the tough-mindedness that we need in conservative Supreme Court justices.”

    “(L)acks the tough-mindedness . . .” No kidding. Why is it always the same old song and dance with “conservative” jurists?

    ThOR (c9324e)

  66. A lack of tough-mindedness is nothing to applaud.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  67. Senator Richard Blumenthal had said that Judge Neil Gorsuch

    “certainly expressed to me that he is disheartened by the demoralizing and abhorrent comments made by President Trump about the Judiciary”

    A spokesman for Judge Gorsuch, Ron Bonjean, e-mailed the New York Daily News that:

    “He did not use the word abhorrent but used the words disheartening and demoralizing”

    And I’m saying it is Judge Gorsuch who is disheatened, and either he or numerous federal judges are demoralized, but I think it’s probably him and what he is disheartened and maybe demoralized about is the tone into which public life is sinking.

    Gorsuch maybe didn’t say very much, but Blumenthal may be interested in having it appear that Gorsuch did. Senator Blumenthal has indicated he is consideting voting for Judge Gorsuch. So Senator Blumenthal may be looking for some grounds to vote for Gorsuch that will not make the strongest anti-Trumpers too unhappy.

    The Democrats need to have Gorsuch get 60 votes (8 or 9 Democrats) to preserve the filibuster rule for future Supreme Court appointments. And on top of that they might think he might be one of the best nominees they could get from President Trump – from their point of view as well – because Judge Gorsuch is the kind of judge who might rule against Donald Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (4151a0)

  68. The dnc thinks this is a ruse

    narciso (6f49c6)

  69. DNC would know ruse. DNC is all about ruse.

    Colonel Haiku (215a2d)

  70. About Robart’s decision — since he was entering only a TRO, and he did so on a very limited record, the situation normally doesn’t allow for much more than he wrote. But he could have put some “meat on the bones” of his conclusions without having to launch into a bunch of legal analysis.

    But regardless of what happens in the 9th Cir, there is already a briefing and hearing schedule set for the motion for preliminary injunction on the same issues that were raised for the TRO. A TRO is by definition of limited duration, and its followed up by a more thorough hearing on a PI. There will be more evidence presented, and there will be more legal analysis presented. The issues will likely be broken out into specific pieces — Sections 3, 4, and 5 will be addressed separately since they deal with separate claims.

    If Robart inters a Prelim Inj., that will last as long as the case is pending before him. That Injunction — if he enters it — will also be appealable to the 9th Cir. But an Order entering a Prelim. Inj. is much more detailed in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, because its intended to last indefinitely, so it must be justified.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  71. Thank you SWC and other attorneys. For a non-lawyer like myself, this discussion is illuminating.

    I’m feeling desperate for Gorsuch to live up to his “conservative” billing – I’ve had my hopes dashed too many times in the past.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  72. harvardtrash ladyboy “Neil Gorsuch” is proving he’s a big fat liar already

    i bet you he’s about as demoralized and disheartened as barack obama’s preening self-satisfied prancey dancey harvardtrash butt

    he’s just saying he’s demoralized and disheartened cause hello he’s that way

    that’s how he is

    that’s how all them harvardtrash ladyboys are

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  73. In any event, if Gorsuch really would be “demoralized” by such a mild rebuke as “so-called judge,” he lacks the stomach to sit on the Supreme Court.

    who the eff does this powerline wanker think has been sitting on the supreme court

    profiles in effing courage?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  74. If Gorsuch said “any of attack on any of, I think his term to me was brothers or sisters of the robe, is an attack on all judges.” he has taken the kool-aid.

    rats.

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  75. I think I see whose “hind” Hinderaker is raking and it’s not Gorsuch’s and it’s not raking. (Unless he can rake with his tongue.)

    nk (dbc370)

  76. 79.
    Bad radar?

    mg (31009b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1110 secs.