Columbia University. Harvard University Law School. University of Oxford.
Judge Neil Gorsuch, born in 1967 in Denver, Colo., has all the bona fides for a competent, Constitutionalist, Conservative supreme court judge.
“The independence of the judiciary depends upon people in both parties being willing to serve, good people willing to serve who are capable and willing to put aside their personal politics and preferences to decide cases and to follow the law and not try and make it.”
The quote is from his 2006 confirmation hearing for the 10th Circuit Court.
Gorsuch began his esteemed career as a law clerk for the Hon. David Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court in 1991. Two years later, he went on to clerk for the Hon. Byron White and the Hon. Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.
For the next ten years (1995-2005), he worked in a private law practice in Washington, D.C., Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel. In 2005, he then became the principal deputy associate attorney general at the Department of Justice.
Much to the dismay of Liberals everywhere, he is a Constitutional originalist and textualist.
Originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution’s meaning as stable from the time of enactment, and which can only be changed by the steps set out in Article Five of the Constitution. The term originated in the 1980s. Originalism is based on formalist theory, and when applied to meaning, is closely related to textualism.
Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the “fixation thesis”—the notion that an utterance’s semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered. Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:
- The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
- The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable personas living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as the late Justice Anton Scalia, are associated.
Legal formalism is both a positive or descriptive theory of adjudication and a normative (relating to an ideal standard or model) theory of how judges ought to decide cases. In a descriptive sense, formalists believe that judges reach their decisions by applying uncontroversial principles to the facts. Although the large number of decided cases implies a large number of principles, formalists believe that there is an underlying logic to these principles that is straightforward and which legal experts can readily discover. The ultimate goal of formalism would be to formalize the underlying principles in a single, determinate, system that could be applied mechanically (hence the label “mechanical jurisprudence”). Formalism has been called “the official theory of judging”. It is the thesis to which legal realism is the antithesis.
As a normative theory, formalism is the view that judges should decide cases by the application of uncontroversial principles to the facts.
In A Matter of Interpretation, the late Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, who died suddenly last year, defended textualism — and, by extension, formalism — saying:
Of all the criticisms leveled against textualism, the most mindless is that it is formalist. The answer to that is, of course it’s formalistic! The rule of law is about form . . . A murderer has been caught with blood on his hands, bending over the body of his victim; a neighbour with a video camera has filmed the crime and the murderer has confessed in writing and on videotape. We nonetheless insist that before the state can punish this miscreant, it must conduct a full-dress criminal trial that results in a verdict of guilty. Is that not formalism? Long live formalism! It is what makes us a government of laws and not of men.
Scalia’s strongest claim on Formalist credentials can be found in an essay entitled The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules.
Liberal Feminists have been up in arms since Trump was elected back in November. Their initial weeping and wailing has turned into public hysteria. A block of Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration. They’ve been threatening to block Trump’s nomination, although to not much effect.
Five of Trump’s picks have already been confirmed. Most, if not all, of his nominees are on the Conservative side of limited government. Gorsuch, his first Supreme Court nomination – there will probably be more if Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is failing health, retires, and if some of the other justices in their late seventies or early eighties also decide to go into the sunset.
Retirements are bad news for the Liberals and their agenda but a good prospect for the rule of law in this country. Trump really hit the ground running and has been keeping all of his campaign promises. This has to be a first for a United States president.
Liberal women are swiftly losing their credibility, although they will never read it in the mainstream media headlines. They’re especially concerned about losing their “rights” – that is to say, their reproductive rights. They’re terrified a Conservative justice like Gorsuch, if he’s joined by more Conservatives, will overturn Roe v. Wade. Woe are they.
We Conservatives really should reconsider our stance on abortion. Yes, it’s a horrific crime against humanity in the service of feminist selfishness. It’s an abominable practice. Women who do such things shouldn’t have children at all.
Consider this: who is agitating for abortion rights (which, so far, are intact)? Liberal Feminists. Whose babies are being aborted? Those of Liberal Feminists. What portion of the population is over-represented? Liberal Feminists.
If Liberal Feminists want to reduce their gene pool, why should we Conservatives be so concerned about it? If they really want to commit this horrible crime, which affects only their demographic, why stand in their way? Does the world really need any more Liberal Feminists? No, it certainly doesn’t.
So, let them have their right to mass abort future generations of Liberal Feminists – and their weak-spined, transgender sons. What the heck do we care? In a generation or so, we could return to producing normal, gender-correct children who can accept reality, go to work and produce the next generation of normal Americans.
By the 22nd Century, transgenderism could be nothing but a freak footnote in the annals of Western Culture along with transgender bathrooms. Boys will be boys, play with boy toys, and wear blue. Normal girls will gravitate to their favorite color – pink, play with baby dolls, wear their princess costumes, and have absolutely no desire whatsoever to join the Boy Scouts.
So, please. Let the Feminists do what they want – abort themselves into oblivion.