Judge Gorsuch Answers the Senate
Some insights into the comments by Judge Gorsuch.
Gorsuch took the time to differentiate between the liberals using the courts too often to resolve social problems, and the conservatives whom he believed did not. He wrote these words in 2005, the same year that John Roberts took the oath of office and is credited/blamed for pulling the court farther to the right. In short, he is backtracking and saying both liberals and conservatives use the courts too often. It is a fair point that the courts' conservatives have used the courts much more, um, liberally since Chief Justice Roberts was appointed.
The Senate GOP leader asked about precedent. We have a justice system built on Common Law, like Great Britain. Of course, this tilts heavily towards precedent instead of "the letter of the law" like statutory law. This was really coded for "tell us you are going to rule in a conservative manner, as expected."
There is a long history of the argument of "activist judges" or, more to the point of what the GOP leader was asking, we consider you to be a conservative and therefore you will rule in a specific manner. Although the term activist judge was coined before Brown v. Board of Education, this case is the best example of judicial activism. The accusation is that judges use their personal opinions about how things "should be" rather than letter of the law. Of course, this is the type of complaint leveled either by people unhappy with the ruling or by the ones actually writing the laws. In other words, the US Senate. After John Roberts became the Chief Justice, he has clearly steered the court in his preferred direction. Which was not hard to do since he was in the majority.
There is an equally long argument over Brown v. Board and originalism since the Brown ruling would clearly not pass from this legal viewpoint. However, in an unrelated discussion Judge Gorsuch did say that principals do not change but technology does. This discussion was about police monitoring citizens without a warrant with new technology. I wonder how well Judge Gorsuch has considered the technology used by police that Black Lives Matter have protested against? What principal allows black people in America to be incarcerated at a greater percentage than white people for committing the same crimes? These questions would seem pertinent.
Judge Gorsuch has also taken the time to distance himself from Donald Trump. This is not surprising since all nominees are expected to say this. Of course, there are examples of independent-minded judges in US history. Oliver Wendell Holmes and Earl Warren come to mind. However, this is a red herring because everyone knows Judge Gorsuch has every intention of ruling as a very conservative justice.
Gorsuch took the time to differentiate between the liberals using the courts too often to resolve social problems, and the conservatives whom he believed did not. He wrote these words in 2005, the same year that John Roberts took the oath of office and is credited/blamed for pulling the court farther to the right. In short, he is backtracking and saying both liberals and conservatives use the courts too often. It is a fair point that the courts' conservatives have used the courts much more, um, liberally since Chief Justice Roberts was appointed.
The Senate GOP leader asked about precedent. We have a justice system built on Common Law, like Great Britain. Of course, this tilts heavily towards precedent instead of "the letter of the law" like statutory law. This was really coded for "tell us you are going to rule in a conservative manner, as expected."
There is a long history of the argument of "activist judges" or, more to the point of what the GOP leader was asking, we consider you to be a conservative and therefore you will rule in a specific manner. Although the term activist judge was coined before Brown v. Board of Education, this case is the best example of judicial activism. The accusation is that judges use their personal opinions about how things "should be" rather than letter of the law. Of course, this is the type of complaint leveled either by people unhappy with the ruling or by the ones actually writing the laws. In other words, the US Senate. After John Roberts became the Chief Justice, he has clearly steered the court in his preferred direction. Which was not hard to do since he was in the majority.
There is an equally long argument over Brown v. Board and originalism since the Brown ruling would clearly not pass from this legal viewpoint. However, in an unrelated discussion Judge Gorsuch did say that principals do not change but technology does. This discussion was about police monitoring citizens without a warrant with new technology. I wonder how well Judge Gorsuch has considered the technology used by police that Black Lives Matter have protested against? What principal allows black people in America to be incarcerated at a greater percentage than white people for committing the same crimes? These questions would seem pertinent.
Judge Gorsuch has also taken the time to distance himself from Donald Trump. This is not surprising since all nominees are expected to say this. Of course, there are examples of independent-minded judges in US history. Oliver Wendell Holmes and Earl Warren come to mind. However, this is a red herring because everyone knows Judge Gorsuch has every intention of ruling as a very conservative justice.
Comments
Post a Comment