Random Politics & Religion #21

In preparation for Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings, which begin today, Senate Democrats have tried desperately to fit the exceptionally qualified nominee into their predictable and worn-out partisan storylines. In the process, they’ve done little to undermine Gorsuch’s credibility and an awful lot to demonstrate their own intellectual weakness.

One of the points the Democrats have been making is that the supposedly autocratic style of President Trump means that federal judges will need to exercise judicial independence more than ever, and that Gorsuch has somehow failed to show that independence. For example, Senator Schumer and others have complained that President Trump presented a litmus test for his nominee, promising to nominate a judge who was, for example, pro-life and pro-Second Amendment. They claim that this approach threatens judicial independence – while ignoring that their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, assured a Democratic audience, “I have a bunch of litmus tests,” and proceeded to name decisions she would want her nominee to overturn and Democratic policies she would want her nominee to protect.

What’s more, Judge Gorsuch is one of the most articulate defenders of judicial independence currently serving on the federal bench. He wrote in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch that judges are “insulated from political pressures with the job of interpreting the law and applying it retroactively to resolve past disputes.” In U.S. v. Nichols, he explained that “ours is supposed to be an independent judiciary making decisions based on the legal merits without respect to the vagaries of shifting political winds.” He would certainly agree with the man he’s been nominated to succeed, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that federal judges “have life tenure . . . precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.”

Democrats also complain that Judge Gorsuch’s textualist approach to the law, by which he interprets laws according to their plain meaning as written, makes him a judicial radical. In fact, Judge Gorsuch clearly swims in the mainstream of American jurisprudence. According to one study, 98% of the opinions he wrote for the Tenth Circuit have been unanimous, even though that court tilts to the left. Seven out of twelve of its active judges were appointed by Democrats.

What’s more, his opinions have been unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court four times. These numbers show that he’s a consensus builder, which is why the Senate confirmed him to the federal bench by voice vote in 2006. It’s why his nomination has received support from many liberals, including a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration. And it’s why the American Bar Association has twice given him its highest rating.

Finally, it’s remarkable to hear Schumer and others express concern that Judge Gorsuch will not answer specific questions about, for example, President Trump’s immigration order. This is a disingenuous complaint in two regards. First, they know very well that if Gorsuch were to answer a question about a specific case, and that case came to the Court, he would have to recuse himself. Canon 5 of the ABA’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judicial candidates from, “with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, mak[ing] pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office.”

This emphasis on impartiality is why one nominee explained to a Democratic lawmaker after confirmation hearings: “It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question.”

The nominee was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing to Senator Joe Biden in 1993, shortly before she was confirmed 96-3. Nonetheless, Senator Schumer likes to call this impartiality the “Roberts approach,” as if during his 2005 hearings John Roberts was dodging questions rather than performing his ethical obligations. Today, Judge Gorsuch is only doing what Justices Ginsburg, Roberts and other jurists have realized is crucial to the trust that Americans place in them.

Why do Democrats even bother with these feeble arguments against Gorsuch? The reason is simple: they don’t want him on the court because they want to transform the judiciary into a third political branch, one populated by liberal activists who either rubber-stamp legislation or create new progressive law on their own. This desire to corrupt the proper role of judges – and indeed, to undermine judicial independence and the separation of powers – is why despite all of Judge Gorsuch’s obvious credentials, not a single Democrat has committed to giving him an up-or-down vote and why Senators Schumer and Blumenthal have threatened to filibuster.

The problem for Democrats is that Judge Gorsuch is such an obviously qualified nominee – Columbia undergraduate, Harvard Law, successful private practice, exemplary federal judge –that their efforts to smear him are obviously weak, both politically and intellectually. Judge Gorsuch is an exceptional nominee, one who leaves Democrats flailing in the dark in their desperate attempts to make him look otherwise.

The investigation is to see if anyone in Trumps campaign collided with Russian officials to influence the election... dismissing this outright because you think other governments meddle in elections all the time is silly... its important to find out if this actually happened and you know wait to see if they can find any evidence of it...

It's fine to demand an investigation into this but not to judge before it's over...

"Influence"? Now your parsing words.

"Muh Russian hacking" is "muh Russian hacking".

Desperate moving of the goal posts to justify the nothingness that eventually will come from this nothing burger.

When we parse something down to influence we open the gates for anything to what will no doubt be falsely equivocated to stealing votes.

"Trump took a photo op with the Russian ambassador! See I told you there was collusion!"

Reminder that the only subversion of the democratic process came from Hillary's campaign when she collided with the DNC to rig the primary against Grandpa Sanders.

But of course libs don't care about that.

So, you can't refute my statement at all and have to go to ad hominem. Not the best way to defend your credibility, but when all else fails....

I don't know why you were expecting anything else other than:
"Yes we are investigating Russia's interference in our election and will continue to do so."
"Yes we are investigating the connection between Trump and Russia and will continue to do so."
and
"No there is no evidence that any surveillance took place on Trump during the election by the FBI, NSA, or the Obama admin."

PS: "I hate the New England Patriots."

Have the Democrats declared Victory yet? When is their planned move in date to the White House again?


That's how all their arguments go. Once you've pealed away the layers of self righteousness, identity politics, victim defense and ultimately emotional relevance it shows itself to be nothing but *** and they need to resort to insults to try putting you on the defensive. It's always been about the feelz.

Desperate moving of the goal posts to justify the nothingness that eventually will come from this nothing burger.

When we parse something down to influence we open the gates for anything to what will no doubt be falsely equivocated to stealing votes.

"Trump took a photo op with the Russian ambassador! See I told you there was collusion!"

Reminder that the only subversion of the democratic process came from Hillary's campaign when she collided with the DNC to rig the primary against Grandpa Sanders.

But of course libs don't care about that.

Is it just like trump continues to move the goalpost on the wiretapping claim that you continue to defend? If you're gonna call out people's ridiculousness at least admit your own first...

"Wiretapping" can refer to many things. In the limited format of twitter, one must allow for some flexibility.

In the unlimited format of print, one can be as specific as they want.

"Wiretapping" can refer to many things. In the limited format of twitter, one must allow for some flexibility.

In the unlimited format of print, one can be as specific as they want.

This is just spin at its most pathetic form.

spicer and mccaster have since walked it back a bit saying he was only pointing to a public report on fox and even Fox News division says they can't substantiate that claim... the only evidence there supposedly is is a FISA warrant for which obama would have nothing personally to do with...

And don't get me wrong either... I'm perfectly fine with them investigating Trumps claims...

The question is, by whom?

Only if evidence is provided to justify an investigation.

Known knowns:

Trump basically has 3 teams working for him. There's the bankers and billionaires team, the alt right team, and the family team.

Trump's management style is to have teams and set them in competition.

Basic assumption: "Roger Stone is being set up to be the fall guy..."

Given that he isn't on the alt right team we must assume either he is aligned with the B&B team or the family team or is unaligned. I find unaligned improbable.

All of these teams are no strangers to small group power politics, all have a motive to undermine the other teams.

I still somehow smell a Bannon in the woodpile.

This why our country and current administration and supporters are viewed as a joke.

Here we have the executive branch, (which has access to the most current real data and intelligence), relying on the word of cable news opinion editorial commentator to validate the claim. As opposed to actionable intelligence they should possess.

These guys are supposed to be providing the accurate information in which journalists write reports about. Not citing inaccurate journalism in attempt to validate claims made on twitter. These guys are supposed to be the boss of the intelligence agencies not it's victims. It's like these *** don't even know they're in power.

Yet their supporters don't see the the "Emperor wears no clothes". It's all showmanship and dining on salty tears. Legacy of America be damned.

You forgot the conspiracy team.

Explain the Trump-Russia collusion investigation then.

There is zero evidence presented to justify an investigation, and there is zero evidence obtained by such an investigation.

The only crime committed was outing Flynn in the first place, which even Comey admitted was a federal crime punishable up to 10 years.