Neil Gorsuch

Gorsuch filibuster will be the dumbest in US history

Rich Lowry, New York Post

The filibuster Chuck Schumer is about to undertake against Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination is perhaps the institution’s dumbest. It won’t block Gorsuch, won’t establish any important jurisprudential principle and won’t advance Democratic strategic goals, indeed the opposite. A Gorsuch filibuster would be an act of a sheer partisan pique against the wrong target, with the wrong method, at the wrong time.

Gorsuch Against the Extremists

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., The American Spectator

The essential extremism of the American left can be seen in their formula for choosing justices. They would choose justices who see themselves as above the other branches of government and above the Constitution itself. The conservatives see themselves as complementary to the other branches and subservient to the Constitution. If they want to change the Constitution, they go to the onerous process of changing it or its laws. Conservatives are for limited government. Liberals are for hog-wild government, which is very piggish of them.

When Neil Gorsuch stood up for the little guy

T. Becket Adams, Washington Examiner

Gorsuch's remarks on the controversial Kelo vs. City of New London case, which came to light only very recently after the Justice Department turned over his emails to Congress, is one that favors the "little guy" against coercion from the government and other faceless entities.

Gorsuch’s Foes Embarrass the Senate

Sen. Orrin Hatch, Wall Street Journal

Whatever Democrats' motivation—be it the outcome of President Obama’s lame-duck nomination during last year’s election, an unwillingness to accept the November results, or the desire for judges to push a liberal political agenda—they have apparently decided to wage a desperate, scorched-earth campaign to derail this nomination, no matter the damage they inflict along the way. We are now watching the confirmation process through the funhouse mirror.

When politicians judge jurists

Andrew P. Napolitano, Washington Times

The Senate is a political body, and its members are politicians. One of the reasons Justice Scalia gave for rejecting as an interpretive tool the statements made by members of Congress when they passed any legislation under scrutiny is the truism that politicians have only one goal in their work, no matter what they are saying — to get re-elected. The senators examining Judge Gorsuch are probably more concerned with that than with doing the right thing for the court. I hope that in this respect, I am wrong, as I have been before.

Judging Judge Gorsuch

William Murchison, The American Spectator

The left understands Gorsuch to represent the non-political temperament it would exclude from the court, so as to broaden the ability to impose on the American people (bless their pointed heads) plans and objectives for which they have not asked. The left, this time, may not get away with it. Too many of us see what its spokesmen and propagandists are really up to.

Gorsuch v. Death, Inc.

Terence P. Jeffrey, CNS News

Gorsuch's belief that the both the Declaration and the 14th Amendment reflect the same understanding of human life that caused him to conclude that "the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong" cannot be reconciled with Roe's determination that the Constitution created a right to take a human life. Many innocent lives may now hinge on whether Justice Gorsuch acts on the court in keeping with this principle he championed as a private citizen.

A Question for Gorsuch -- Are you a 'Hamburgerian?'

Editors, New York Sun

Mr. Trump ran as a president prepared to challenge some of our long-standing institutions, and the idea that our courts should defer to administrators certainly deserves to be one of them. So this is a question to hearken to in the hearings on the nomination that begin this week. Is Gorsuch Hamburgerian? If the hearings suggest that yes, Judge Gorsuch is an admirer — or follower — of Professor Hamburger, then the Senate should confirm him forthwith.

Religious Liberty Isn’t a Government Privilege

David French, National Review

The Founders appropriately resolved the conflict between fundamental rights and government power. In all but the most compelling circumstances, fundamental rights should prevail. This does not mean that asserting a religious-liberty claim means automatic victory. The assertion must be sincere, and even sincere assertions should be overcome when the governmental interests are sufficiently compelling and its action appropriately narrow.