Posted on 07/03/2020 11:15:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week, the Supreme Court struck down a Montana constitutional provision barring religious schools from benefiting from the state's tax dollars. There are similar now-unconstitutional laws on the books across the nation -- many of them borne of anti-Catholic bigotry -- that subvert religious liberty and further empower government, rather than parents, to make educational choices for their kids. In most cases, those laws are now dead.
Some of us happen to believe that this development is more consequential than another tax cut or better trade policy. For us, school choice and the meaningful protection of religious liberty are non-negotiable. Would you know this from listening to the press?
Voters who took a completely rational view of the transactional nature of American politics, and who pulled the lever for Donald Trump as a result, are ridiculed with the derisive phrase, "But Gorsuch." Some liberals, such as Bill Scher, make the argument explicit, contending that "the GOP traded its principles for conservative judges. It was a bad deal." They misunderstand conservative priorities.
You'll notice, first off, that Democrats never betray "principles"; rather, they engage in pragmatism when supporting flawed candidates. I hate to break the news to them, but backing a corrupt and philosophically vacant charlatan like Hillary Clinton, who had no problem "wooing" Vladimir Putin and a slew of other authoritarians, was also an unprincipled choice. It's just one they're comfortable with. Still, whatever the choice, "But Gorsuch" is literally correct. Trump's judicial picks will transcend his tweets and his anarchic time in office. Moreover, considering the speed with which the mainstream Left has abandoned elementary republican governance, the courts may well be the only way to preserve our traditional constitutional order -- at least, in the short term.
One reason the courts exist is to temper the excesses and vagaries of crude majoritarianism. There is no reason whatsoever to shy away from demanding that courts uphold the law as written -- which is not the same as judicial activism, though liberals gleefully conflate the two. Scher argues that, historically speaking, Trump's record on judges been neither unique nor impressive, and that his loss might well pave the way for more liberal judges. That's certainly one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Trump's improbable win interrupted a potential 16-year string of anti-constitutional appointments, and, to some degree, balanced the ideological disposition of the courts moving forward. The idea that Democrats wouldn't have waged the same war on the judiciary if Clinton had won -- after they had blown up the judicial filibuster -- is, of course, baloney. They just thought they were going to win again.
"But Gorsuch" also had immediate implications. Without Gorsuch, there is no Janus v. AFSCME, and unions would still be forcing workers to pay dues to organizations that participate in political causes they do not support. Without Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- who, say what you will about Trump, was unlikely to have sustained the support of any other Republican president through such a malicious confirmation battle -- states such as Colorado would still openly be destroying the lives of Americans over thought crimes.
A Supreme Court with two Hillary Clinton appointees would be whittling away the free speech protections of Citizens United. It would be hammering the Second Amendment protections that were reaffirmed by Heller and McDonald. Roberts may view himself as a Solomonic strategist and stickler for precedent, but his liberal colleagues have little problem dispensing with it whenever convenient.
It's true that Republican presidents often flub their picks. Gorsuch disappointed social conservatives when helping invent new protections for LGBT workers. Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, will be a perpetual disappointment, I'm sure. Yet, both are worlds better than the alternative. You don't need to look any farther than the Montana school-choice decision to understand why.
The lesson gleaned from recent history isn't that Republicans have gotten a "bad deal," but rather that Republicans should fight harder to seat more jurists like Clarence Thomas and fewer like John Roberts. There is no "winning" in politics, after all, there is just constant struggle. Conservatives, as their name indicates, rack up unappreciated victories by hindering the progress of bad ideas and preventing them from coagulating into law.
Was Gorsuch worth it? Counter-histories are most often a waste of time. Perhaps Trump's election damaged the long-term prospects of conservative causes. Perhaps Democrats wouldn't have radicalized as quickly had Clinton been president. It doesn't really matter now. There are plenty of reasons a person may have not to vote for Donald Trump, yes. But the underlying arguments for "But Gorsuch" are stronger than ever.
When a writer gets carried away by the case he's making and veers off into Stupid.
It's not that Gorsuch was the deciding vote for LGBT rights. It's that he had to completely violate the Constitution he was sworn to uphold to do it. He added an amendment to a law passed by Congress.
From now on he should be known as Gorsuch(WTF).
Other than that detour the author has a point. Gorsuch is better than whoever Hillary would have appointed.
A more correct line would be:
But even though the underlying arguments for "But Gorsuch(WTF)" are weakened, they are still strong enough to be a deciding factor in how conservatives vote."
I think you have to consider where we would be if liberal judges in the federal courts, and liberal justices to the Supreme Court would have been appointed by a President Hillary.
Yes I share dismay over Gorsuch and Roberts amending the Civil Rights Act to mean that sex discrimination law now applies to the whole panoply of so called “LGBT” and additional alphabet identities. But I think we would all be worse off, if Trump had not been there to appoint more conservative judges to the federal courts.
I share the frustration that conservative judges do not always render opinions which comport to the laws at hand and the constitution. I think though that we are better off with them there, than with openly radical judges.
And I share the frustration that John Roberts has decided to bend over backwards to render judgements which appease the liberal side of our politics.
If any one thing costs Trump the election it would be Gorsuch.
Whenever it looks like the Court will have 5 conservatives and 4 liberals one of the conservatives morphs into a moderate. But if there was a 6-3 conservative majority that would be less of a danger--even if one conservative defected there would still be a 5-4 conservative majority.
If Biden wins, Ginsburg will probably retire and be replaced by a younger clone of herself. But if Clarence Thomas were to retire Biden would pick a radical left black woman to replace him. Maybe Stacey Abrams' sister.
We have a historic opportunity to reverse a century of unconstitutional infringements on the Second Amendment. If we can hold the Senate and reelect President Trump, we’ll get 1-2 new picks to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch and others don’t need to be perfect, but I do need to see FOPA, the GCA, and the NFA struck down before I die. Right along with all the illegal state and local restrictions. 1-2 more Trump picks for the Supreme Court will get us there.
The legislation has the potential to jail multitudes of Christians. Letting gorsch and trump off because it could have been worse? Ridiculous. Everyone should be held accountable when they do not uphold the constitution as sworn.
The destruction of our country is complete. People came for freedom, from persecution. Those two are complicit in the persecution. Plain and simple.
Easter cancelled under a Republican.
See post #5.
What do you mean, Easter cancelled under a Republican?
I don’t think anyone is letting Gorsuch off the hook for his decisions.
If you think that Trump is complicit in the destruction of this country, for nominating Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, I’m speechless. If you want to clarify, please do.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
It isn't that someone who was voting for Trump would vote for Biden. But they may not vote at all.
Here is a quote from Gorsuch in the civil rights decision:
“Today,” Gorsuch said, “we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear.”
His answer was ‘no’!
One of the plaintiffs worked in child welfare.
One was a funeral home director.
Please spend a few minutes thinking about the practical effect of that decision.
Gorsuch has a defective mind. He took a very large chunk of our freedom and sided with perversion and harm to children and society in general. And Trump called the decision ‘powerful’ and still gloats over Gorsuch.
Sorry but much of the bloom is off the rose. Previously I would have been deeply distressed by Trump losing. Not now. I will vote for Trump but could easily understand someone leaving it blank. That decision was sickening as was how it was largely ignored by the conservative media.
Bump
Other than being a commie puke, there are no reasons.
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.