UPDATE: According to the New York Times, Gorsuch and Pryor have emerged as the two finalists for the empty black robe. President Trump said today that he may make his choice public as soon as next week.
—–
Colorado has been well-represented in high-level positions at the White House over the last two decades, a trend that seemingly ended with President Trump. Both President Obama (Ken Salazar) and President Dubya Bush (Gale Norton) selected Coloradans as Interior Secretary, and President Clinton tapped former Denver Mayor Federico Pena as Transportation Secretary. Trump did not select a Colorado son or daughter for his cabinet, but as the Los Angeles Times reports, there may be a job opening on the Supreme Court:
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a highly regarded conservative jurist best known for upholding religious liberty rights in the legal battles over Obamacare, has emerged as a leading contender for President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination.
Gorsuch, 49, was among 21 potential high court candidates circulated by Trump’s team during the campaign, but his stock has been rising lately as several admirers and supporters have been named to positions in the Trump administration.
He currently serves on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. A former clerk for Justice Byron White, also a Colorado native, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he served in the George W. Bush administration’s Justice Department.
In Gorsuch, supporters see a jurist who has strong academic credentials, a gift for clear writing and a devotion to deciding cases based on the original meaning of the Constitution and the text of statutes, as did the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Gorsuch is not a new name in the discussion over the Supreme Court (though autocorrect does automatically change the word to “Grouch”). He was included in Trump’s pre-election list of potential justices, but as the Times writes, Gorsuch may be rising in Trumpland. Atlanta Judge William H. Pryor Jr. and Chicago Judge Diane Sykes were believed to be the frontrunners to be nominated to replace Antonin Scalia, whose sudden death last year left a vacancy that Senate Republicans refused to fill under President Obama, but Gorsuch appears to be emerging as a safer, less-controversial choice compared to Pryor or Sykes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
BY: Me Not U
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: kwtree
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: Genghis
IN: Educating All Kids Is Still The Right Thing To Do
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
BY: Genghis
IN: At Least She’s Not Your Puppy Murdering Governor
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Is this dude related to that hideous, despicable, environment/nature-hating Reagan-appointed EPA administrator, Ann Gorsuch Burford?
God help us.
Gorsuch a little better than Pryor
Agreed, ZMulls. If the choice is between Pryor and Gorsuch, hands down it's Gorsuch. Much better than a lot on the list. And his opinions are a good read, even if I disagree with the result or reasoning
I'll take sane and believing in government if that's our best option for SCOTUS. Does anyone know where he stands on abortion or cannabis law?
Pretty sure he is pro choice and leans toward decriminalization of pot. Not my choice, another closet liberal, need to find a good justice.
Peepee recommends Gorsuch! Good enough for me.
For more informed opinions, see the SCOTUS blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
I have no idea why you'd be sure at all, let alone "pretty." There's no particular evidence that he is pro-choice. He was, however, concerned enough about assisted suicide that he wrote an entire book about it.
In that book, he translated this passage from Roe:
Into this statement, which I find concerning:
One might also look to his vigorous dissent in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, in which he may either be firmly defending a particular principle of jurisprudence, or attempting to allow the governor of Utah to quash Planned Parenthood funding after those faked abortion body part videos.
I also saw what you saw, Psue, in looking at Gorsuch's opinions on the SCOTUSblog.
While I'd like to think that Gorsuch is a classical American defender of religious liberty in the tradition of Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, instead he seems to be defending a very narrow slice of Christian doctrine that finds birth control and abortion morally abhorrent. His opinions build walls around Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor being able to not provide birth control coverage in employee health plans, for example.
And he is known for that.
But the news on cannabis in Colorado may be better; if Gorsuch is the new SCOTUS nominee, he is also known for defending something called the "Dormant Commerce" clause. If I'm understanding it (and I don't speak legalbargle), the Dormant Commerce clause defends states rights to transact business as they see fit, and holds back other states rights to restrict it. This would be relevant if, as Nebraska and Wyoming tried to do, a state complained that legalization of cannabis threatened good orderw within neighboring states' boundaries.
Of course, I could be completely misreading the legalbargle. But on the whole, given the choices, I'd prefer an anti-abortion sane SCOTUS judge who doesn't want to stifle CO's cannabis economy, as opposed to an anti-abortion racist nutcase who can't compose an intelligible sentence. Even Justice Roberts did the right thing on marriage rights when it came down to it.
So, the dormant commerce clause is a legal construction (judges made it up). The Constitution's Commerce Clause indicates that Congress has the power to legislate interstate (and some other) commerce. The courts decided that it, therefore, made sense that states couldn't. That last bit isn't in the Constitution, it was "discovered"– much like the right of privacy described in Griswold, which then led to the inescapable conclusion that abortion also had to be legal in Roe.
If you look at his ScotusBlog profile, you'll actually see that Gorsuch shares both Scalia's love of originalism and hostility towards constructed Constitutional powers/rights– he is, in fact, opposed to the dormant commerce clause, and likely other "unwritten" constitutional provisions, like that which underpins Roe.
In the only weed case I could find, Gorsuch ruled against the grower. It was a disclosure issue in a tax case, and the issue was whether an injunction should be issued against IRS demands for their books. Really doesn't say anything about his position on weed that I could tell.
Thanks for clarifying Gorsuch's stand on the Commerce Clause. So in your opinion, would Gorsuch still be the least of the three Weevils that might sit on the bench?
I think you're looking at a Scalia (Gorsuch), a Rehnquist/Roberts (Hardiman), and maybe an Alito/Bork (Pryor). Personally, I'd take Hardiman, but who knows. Gorsuch writes pretty, though.
That would be his mother. Neil is smarter than his mum
That's right, anyone who questions the Democrat climate orthodoxy is stupid.
Anyone who questions scientific facts is stupid.
Also known as the facts. Not the alternative facts, but the actual, objective facts. But make climate change political. That'll be great for the next generations, assuming they live to experience it
Moddy is just looking forward to buying some beachfront property in Idaho soon!
I'm standing front of a crowd of 100 people. In my hand, I hold up an orange. 99 of the people agree with me when I say it's an orange. 1 person yells profusely at me that I'm lying, and that what I have in my hand is an apple
Now, tell me, is that one person not objectively stupid?
I don't care what those 99 idiots think. Your hand is OrangeFree!
CBS reports that Pryor was ditched and that Hardiman is in the running. According to folks who study judicial voting records (when there were still three names in the running):