Judge Gorsuch
Posted on 01/30/2017 6:57:00 AM PST by Kaslin
“...there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch’s record. Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry. To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion. He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment.
...
At the end of the day, a single opinion such as this is not be enough to derail a Supreme Court nomination, especially since Judge Gorsuch did not even write the opinion. But he certainly did join the opinion. And if he is nominated to the High Court, a pro-gun United States senator or two should most certainly inquire as to this decision and ask Judge Gorsuch to explain whether he really believes that the police should be free to treat all armed citizens as though they were dangerous criminals.”
“And if he is nominated to the High Court, a pro-gun United States senator or two should most certainly inquire as to this decision and ask Judge Gorsuch to explain whether he really believes that the police should be free to treat all armed citizens as though they were dangerous criminals.””
The reason the dude did not identify as being armed is because he was a felon in possession of a stolen gun.
If he had kept it hidden no one would have called the cops on him.
So forgetting about this single ruling (which he didn’t write though, yes, he did concur with), what is the judgement of people here on FR about Gorsuch?
I’ve searched the whole forum and don’t see much discussion.
My opinion is he sounds good but...
... but I don’t know much about him.
Anybody have a detailed opinion?
“So forgetting about this single ruling “
Nothing about the ruling concerns me.
Cops were called to the scene about two guys displaying guns inside store.
Number one rule for felons carrying stolen guns: Don’t display them in public.
That is your opinion, which is meaningless to me.
A proper refutation requires the reasons why he was right.
Then let’s toss this wrinkle in. Let’s say the detainee was OPEN carrying, as is my personal habit. Would you conclude then that a police officer has the unilateral right to detain and disarm me? For his safety? It’s not as if there is any question about my being armed.
Since you threw in only one wrinkle ...
If they suspect you of a crime they have the right to detain you and in that case disarm you if they fear for their safety.
DAILYWIRE.COM——1. Gorsuch was appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush in 2006. The Senate confirmed him without much objection.
2. Gorsuch has an extensive legal resume prior to being confirmed to the appeals court. These include, per the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) blog:
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.
There is one part of that background that may be of concern to those hoping for an originalist justice:
3. Gorsuch is only 49-years-old. His age may be why Trump is focusing on him over Judge William Pryor—who was once believed to Trump’s top choice—as Gorsuch is five years younger than Pryor. His relatively young age gives him a better chance of having a longer influence on the court.
4. Gorsuch is reminiscent of Scalia in several ways. University of Denver law professor Justin Marceau told the Denver Post that Gorsuch would be Scalia’s “intellectual equal and almost certainly his equal on conservative jurisprudential approaches to criminal justice and social justice issues that are bound to keep coming up in the country,” although Gorsuch may not be as “combative” as Scalia was on the court.
The SCOTUS blog notes that Gorsuch produces the same kind of “entertaining” and “incisive” writing Scalia became famous for, making him “the most natural successor to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Trump shortlist.”
“Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making,” the SCOTUS blog writes. “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).”
5. There is one notable area in which Gorsuch and Scalia disagree: the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine is the practice in which the courts allow federal agencies to broadly interpret law to empower themselves through massive amounts of regulation. Scalia tended to defer to the Chevron doctrine, while Gorsuch has been critical of it as a “behemoth” that has resulted in the concentration of “federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.”
Given that the Obama administration unleashed over 97,000 pages of regulations in 2016 alone, this is a crucial perspective.
6. Gorsuch wrote a book that was critical of assisted suicide. The book, titled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, was published in 2006 and was described by the Princeton Press as “a nuanced, novel, and powerful moral and legal argument against legalization [of assisted suicide and euthanasia], one based on a principle that, surprisingly, has largely been overlooked in the debate—the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”
Ed Morrissey read through the book and seemed to be impressed:
7. It has been insinuated that Gorsuch would not be a pro-life Supreme Court justice, but the evidence suggests otherwise. The charge was made by Andy Schlafly, a pro-life activist who claimed that Gorsuch has a penchant for citing Judge Harry Blackmun rulings that supported the legality of abortion, has never used the phrase “unborn child,” and has never spoken out in favor of the pro-life view. However, Ed Whelan notes at National Review that Gorsuch wrote in his book that the court admitted that “no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life” if they had considered unborn babies to be people.
Whelan also points out that “Gorsuch has never cited a Blackmun decision on standing in support of liberalized standing” and that Gorsuch gave a strong dissent in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert:
As the faithful reader will recall from these posts of mine, in the aftermath of the Center for Medical Progress’s release of videos depicting various Planned Parenthood affiliates’ ugly involvement in harvesting body parts, Utah governor Gary Herbert directed state agencies “to cease acting as an intermediary for pass-through federal funds” to Planned Parenthood’s Utah affiliate. But after the district court denied Planned Parenthood’s request for a preliminary injunction against Herbert’s directive, a divided panel, on very weak reasoning, ruled that Planned Parenthood was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Gorsuch’s dissent dismantles the panel majority’s reasoning.
All in all, it would appear that Gorsuch’s body of work suggests that he would follow Scalia’s originalist philosophy on the Supreme Court if confirmed.
Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter @bandlersbanter.
Judge Gorsuch
What are the concerns. Can you provide some brief bullet points?
2nd Amendment.
...............................................................Wrong! This is not a second amendment issue! The police were called to a potentially dangerous situation where “guns were being waved around.” The guns were the reason for the call for police aid and “waved around” is reason for suspicion of irresponsible conduct. The police have a job to do which is to protect against endangerment and crime whenever possible. The officer saw the gun concealed and withdrew it from the possession of the questionable person. That person was found to be a felon carrying a stolen gun.
The court’s decision was correct in a law and order society.
This person had no “Right” to carry a gun within the law. His 2nd amendment right had been withdrawn due to his past felonious history. Being a “citizen” had nothing to do with the finding by the court. The decision was correct.
What are the concerns. Can you provide some brief bullet points?
2nd Amendment.
...............................................................Wrong! This is not a second amendment issue! The police were called to a potentially dangerous situation where “guns were being waved around.” The guns were the reason for the call for police aid and “waved around” is reason for suspicion of irresponsible conduct. The police have a job to do which is to protect against endangerment and crime whenever possible. The officer saw the gun concealed and withdrew it from the possession of the questionable person. That person was found to be a felon carrying a stolen gun.
The court’s decision was correct in a law and order society.
This person had no “Right” to carry a gun within the law. His 2nd amendment right had been withdrawn due to his past felonious history. Being a “citizen” had nothing to do with the finding by the court. The decision was correct.
Then let’s toss this wrinkle in. Let’s say the detainee was OPEN carrying, as is my personal habit. Would you conclude then that a police officer has the unilateral right to detain and disarm me? For his safety? It’s not as if there is any question about my being armed.
_________________________________________________________-
I would reach the same decision. I do so because when there is a “confrontational” situation involving a possible criminal violation, I must err on the side of the sworn officer and the need to maintain order until the basis for the detention is either confirmed or dispelled. If the reason for the detention is dispelled, the citizen gets his/her firearm back.
I did not see the part about "guns being waved around." Perhaps there was more to it. I have read some articles where the concern was that the ruling set a precedent for officers to be allowed to disarm any concealed carry citizen, until they could check if they have a permit. The writers felt that he should have written a supporting statement or in some way clarified, that he does not support police disarming citizens first, and checking their permit second. They did not mention the guns waved around. If there was some sort of public nuisance, or threat, or etc., that is more understandable.
But if that was the situation, I am surprised that these 2nd Amendment supporters felt the need to mention a concern.
I am sure he would be questioned about it in the confirmation hearings, so it will be clarified. There is so much to read and keep up with these days, it is hard to learn all the full details of all the situations!
Why would the cops be called if there were no reason to fear these persons? Plain common sense dictates the officer should relieve the suspect of his gun. If he was proven to be a ccp holder, he could have shown it to the officer before or after the incident. I also put a great deal of faith in the men who place their lives on the line every day and never know where an attack on them personally can come from. They have certainly developed instincts beyond the ordinary person.
I am a CCP holder and have a history as a gun lover for over 65 years. I defend the Second Amendment daily, but when ridiculous assertions are leveled at the police, I tend to stand with our law enforcement officers.
“But if that was the situation, I am surprised that these 2nd Amendment supporters felt the need to mention a concern. “
Cops were called about two men displaying weapons.
At the scene they observed two clerks in a small store. One had a gun in his back waistband that showed as bent over.
He was acting nervous so they asked him to step outside. As he passed the cop and reached to open the door, the gun again was seen. The cop then pulled the gun out.
Subsequently, he was found to be a felon in possession of a stolen gun.
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.