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.
Sorry, that “Makes sense” was my commentary. Not sure why FR gobbles up paragraph breaks after copied tweets.
Ed Morrisey of Hotair has read the judge’s book from 11 years ago: “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” and tweeted his favorable impressions. Judge Gorsuch is very pro-sanctity of life. Morrisey said: “In fact, Catholics would be very, very comfortable (and familiar) with Gorsuch’s reasoning on sanctity-of-life basis for equal treatment.”
Judge Gorsuch WAS on candidate Trump’s original list of Scotus list, and has been moving up on President Trump’s shortlist as well.
.
Gorsuch is not a friend of gun owners by any stretch.
He believes that gun laws are constitutional.
The Second Amendment doesn’t.
.
From Hot Air
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/23/cbs-judge-neil-gorsuch-emerges-as-a-leading-supreme-court-candidate/
It’s worth your time to read SCOTUSblog’s profile of him. In a sea of conservative jurists aspiring to be the next Scalia, Gorsuch may be the most Scalia-esque.
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. For example, the reasoning in Gorsuch’s 2008 concurrence in United States v. Hinckley, in which he argues that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would probably violate the rarely invoked non-delegation principle, is exactly the same as that of Scalia’s 2012 dissent in Reynolds v. United States.
Lots more at the link (plus a live link to SCOTUSBlog is there)
I would need to see a source on that.
.
He was at odds with Cruz’ amicus on the Heller case.
.
She must have been selected by Nixon, who started the EPA.
You are thinking of someone else.
Wake up!
I’m talking about the proceedings before SCOTUS.
“Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, O’Connor, Kennedy, just to name a few.”
You left out Roberts. His ACA and AZ immigration rulings were unforgivable. Why don’t any of the left wing hacks ever turn? I hope Trump has a way of spotting these Trojan Horses.
Yes, I left out Roberts.
YAF opposed O’Connor and we were right.
Howard Phillips and the Conservative Caucus opposed Souter and we were right. (Howard even testified against the nomination.)
Ann Coulter and a few other conservatives opposed Roberts and we were right. (Ted Cruz is right — the pick should have been Michael Luttig instead of Roberts.)
All of them (us) got attacked by fellow conservatives for taking these positions.
If Trump were to nominate a Souter type, I suspect that the same dynamic would play out, with some conservatives vigorously opposing the nomination and many, including a lot of the people here, attacking them vigorously.
I don’t think that will happen, but sometimes strange things happen where the Supreme Court is concerned.
It’s because they pick left wing hacks and the right in Congress show deference and do little to demonize the candidates. See if Trump’s pick gets that courtesy. That’s why I a! For electing ha is as well. I wouldn’t mind Cruz because he seems to be a stubborn jerk. Exactly the type of person the right needs in the court
Yes, please do. Judge Gorsuch had nothing to do with the SCOTUS proceedings in Heller. He was in Denver sitting on another court when Heller was heard. You have bad information.
That’s why I’m for nominating hacks as well... That’s what I meant to say
In the mean time, seek out the source of the leak!!!! Anyone who refuses a poly, should be fired.
If the democrats won’t fight Gorsuch then he sucks.
We don’t need them.
Nuke the bastards from orbit and confirm whoever they hate the most.
I’d say Ted Cruz. But I hate that slime ball just like everybody else. There’s gotta be someone else.
Pryor
If poly’s didn’t have a huge margin of error they would be used everywhere.
“We will have to overlook his mother having been the first head of the EPA...” ?????
Where did that nonsense come from ?
The first administrator of EPA was William Ruckelshaus.
The intent of the Second was to prevent fedgov from seizing weapons it did not apply to the states.
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.