I hope this is true, because Hardiman was TOTALLY unacceptable, due to his prior history as a PRO BONO attorney for illegal aliens who he got off...something even just a few years ago he spoke about with pride. NOT MAGA. GO GORSUCH!
Pro bono isn't always a choice.
But Hardiman is completely solid on the Second Amendment. Gorsuch hasn’t built much of a record on the 2A.
I’ll accept any of the three. The alternative was a pick by Hillary Clinton or Obama’s man, Merrick Garland.
I’m giving president Trump a lot of leeway here.
Ann Coulter calls Hardiman the Jeb! of judges.
He's also been deferential to government authority. I want a Supreme Court that skeptically views the government's actions.
Many lawyers are justifiably proud of their pro bono work, even on behalf of clients identified with left wing whining. I represented HIV+ clients who were discriminated against, two significant death penalty appeals for clients who committed horrific murders, residents of a city where the cops routinely showed up in uniform but on their off times to help landlords evict tenants without any eviction notice or proceedings, and a bunch of others. If the side I would normally agree with doesn't have a case, or if they're doing the right thing the wrong way, I always felt positive about winning.
I hate illegal immigration, but the process is there for a reason and if the gov't doesn't have a solid case they may be kicking out someone who really does have a right to be here.
That said, I prefer Gorsuch as well.
Gorsuch is pro-abort and will be another Souter, according to Phyllis Schlafly’s son, Andy.