[AnotherUnixGeek]

Conservatives have too often fought for "strict constructionist" types who turned out to be huge disappointments on the bench. Liberals fight hard to place liberal activists on the SC who will advance their causes - conservatives fight to place people who will maintain the status quo and are often disappointed to find that they won't even do that. The only way to stop the seemingly relentless tide of left-wing judicial activism is by appointing strong, committed right-wing judicial activists - otherwise this is simply a losing effort.

Gorsuch makes me nervous.

[BillyBoy]

>> Conservatives have too often fought for "strict constructionist" types who turned out to be huge disappointments on the bench. Liberals fight hard to place liberal activists on the SC who will advance their causes - conservatives fight to place people who will maintain the status quo and are often disappointed to find that they won't even do that. The only way to stop the seemingly relentless tide of left-wing judicial activism is by appointing strong, committed right-wing judges - otherwise this is simply a losing effort. <<

Sadly, only you, me, and a handful of other FReepers seem to realize this common sense statement.

Assuming a SCOTUS nominee will vote the way we want because his "judicial philosophy" is said to be "strict constructionist" (or "originalist" or whatever they're calling it now) has PROVEN to be a total failure over the last four decades. Scores of judges that were marketed as so-called "strict constructionists" sided with the liberal activist crowd once they got a cushy lifetime job on the federal bench.