Whoever the next departing justice is, President Trump must make sure the next Supreme Court justice is someone who believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100 percent of the time, not just when it is convenient to achieve the particular policy goal the justice wants. And President Trump will need someone who doesn't care what the New York Times, MSNBC, or the Washington cocktail circuit says about him or her.
Asking the right questions doesn’t mean that Justice Gorsuch will reach the right decisions in these or any future case before the Court. However, conservatives can take encouragement that Justice Gorsuch is starting from the plain language of the Constitution and the statues Congress has passed, not the whims and fantasies of other judges.
Rather than scrapping tradition, the end of the judicial filibuster restores a longstanding tradition of not using it against nominees for judgeships. That tradition was tossed out in 2003 when Democrats began filibustering Republican nominees. That was new. The old way, the traditional way, was followed in the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas in 1990. To say he was a highly controversial pick is putting it mildly. Despite this, no one called for a filibuster or said there's a rule that says 60 votes are required. Thomas was confirmed, 52-48.
The Democrats’ drive to defeat Neil Gorsuch is the latest battle in a 50-year war for control of the Supreme Court—a war that began with a conspiracy against Richard Nixon by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Abe Fortas, and Lyndon Johnson. Behind the hostility to the mild-mannered and decent Neil Gorsuch lies the same malevolence that lynched Clement Haynsworth.
Schumer's chosen role as demagogue stands in stark contrast to what is demanded of judges and can be expected of Gorsuch. Judges and justices are charged with upholding the Constitution and applying justice fairly to everyone. Most of them, liberal or conservative, would never endanger the rule of law with careless comments like those Schumer has made in longstanding and unsuccessful efforts politicize the judiciary.
A vacancy is that rare opportunity for the people to remind the Court that its job is to protect our liberties without interfering unduly with our right to rule ourselves. We should hope that our representatives work their hardest to get this message across. Does this "politicize" the nomination process? Sure. But politics is essential to republican government, and the Court needs politicizing, if only once in a while, to remind it who is really in charge.
For all intents and purposes the President’s powers as Commander in Chief and his executive power to maintain the country’s sovereignty have been seized by 97 globalist technology companies and an unelected judge in the Western District of Washington.
Gorsuch best fits the Scalia model. Like Scalia, he is a great writer, though his opinions are less biting than Scalia's. He knew Scalia and went fly fishing with him in Colorado, Gorsuch's home state. That event has been memorialized in a now-famous picture of the two wading in a river. Also, three of Gorsuch's law clerks went on to clerk for Scalia. In short, his connection to Scalia gave Gorsuch a powerful assist.
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promises with this exceptional nominee. Now, it is time for the Senate to promptly do its part. It’s time for the Senate to give Judge Gorsuch a full and fair hearing and an up-or-down vote so the Supreme Court can get back to work at full capacity.
Trump promised to select a nominee from his “list of 21 judges” vetted by conservatives, and he has fulfilled that promise. Once again, the supposedly unserious Trump has no problem settling upon a serious nominee.
Gorsuch's career is full of decisions in accord with Scalia's opinions on religious liberty, the Second Amendment, criminal laws, and the commerce clause. To the delight of law students everywhere, Gorsuch's legal writing is even likened to Scalia: His decisions are both clear and powerful.
Nothing will unify the right better than a fight against hypocritical obstructionist Democrats with abortion, religious liberty, free speech, and the Second Amendment at stake. Donald Trump has had political success by being unpredictable. Now is not the time, and the Supreme Court is not the issue, to give the country any more surprises.
It is said that conservatives, like elephants, never forget — and apparently some of them never forgive, either. For very good reason, conservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Pryor is reportedly on President-elect Trump’s short list for a Supreme Court nomination. Strangely, some of the fiercest opposition to Pryor comes from a small band of Christian conservatives. Their arguments are sincere, but wrongheaded.
President-elect Trump says he wants to nominate a justice like the late Antonin Scalia to the U.S. Supreme Court. That means a justice who follows the judicial philosophy of “originalism.” Originalism is the view that we should interpret the Constitution much as we interpret other legal documents — in accordance with the understanding of the people who adopted it.
By Richard A. Viguerie, CHQ Chairman
The results of our campaign to turn the Catholic vote away from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump speak for themselves. In the top four battleground states Trump won Wisconsin (where 31 percent identify as Catholic) by 22,177 votes. In Pennsylvania (where 27.4 percent identify as Catholic) Trump won by 67,416 votes. In Florida (where 26 percent identify as Catholic) Trump won by 134,000 votes and in Michigan (where 23 percent identify as Catholic) Trump won by 10,704 votes.
By Richard A. Viguerie, CHQ Chairman
The key to shifting the Catholic vote against Hillary Clinton and for Donald Trump was to reach individual Catholics, and Catholic women in particular, with specific information and facts the media refused to report.
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Sunday that Democrats would filibuster Donald Trump's Supreme Court candidates if they are not "mainstream." "If he doesn't nominate a mainstream candidate, we're going to go at him with everything we've got ... Because this is so, so important," Schumer said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
All of those named on Donald Trump's Supreme Court list should contribute to a sense of optimism among liberty-loving legal conservatives. But Wisconsinites are rightly hoping that the conservative Cheesehead Revolution could extend to the courts, too, with the nomination of Judge Sykes to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The idea that President-elect Trump would invite Ted Cruz into his administration to help solidify the conservative – populist coalition that elected him, while bringing one of America’s brightest conservative thinkers and best legal minds into his Cabinet makes perfect sense. Please take our CHQ poll and tell us what you think: Should Donald Trump Appoint Ted Cruz Attorney General?
Judge Raymond Kethledge of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is presently the narrow favorite of participants in the FantasyJustice tournament, followed closely by Judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court, Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Ted Cruz round out the top five.