The advantages of an "originalist" Supreme Court Justice such as new Justice Neil Gorsuch

[Little-Acorn]

Judges like Gorsuch are referred to as "originalist". This means they favor interpreting the Constitution as closely as they can get to what the people who wrote and ratified it, meant. And they tend to decide what it means, by looking at the text of the document, much more than what subsequent judges have claimed it means.

They have a great advantage, in that the meaning of the Constitution changes much less over time, then under judges who feel it should change with changing times. If people want to change what it means, they can amend it by using the procedures it contains. And if they don't amend it, that means they don't want its meaning to change. Not in sufficient quantities to justify the change.

Changing the Constitution by imagining it means something different from what it says, is called "rule of men" as opposed to "rule of law". This becomes important when people have long-range projects or businesses, and need to run their affairs according to known rules, rather than by rules that might change to something completely different later on.

The originalists are generally hated by the left, since the Constitution is a conservative document designed to prevent people from expanding the government and give it unlimited authority. Originalists won't let the leftists pretend the various passages mean something other than what they actually say.

They prevent the leftists from inserting things that aren't there (imagining it calls out a general right to privacy that abortion can hide behind, exceptions to the 2nd amendment's ban on govt having any say in who can own and carry weapons, strange additions to the Commerce Clause and Welfare Clause that authorize govt to regulate far more then the Framers intended etc.), or ignoring things that ARE in the Constitution (bans on govt influencing people's practice of their own religion etc.).

This prevents leftists from pursuing their main agenda, which is expanding government and giving it more and more control over people's own private lives. Limiting government this way (as the Framers intended), leaves people far more freedom to make their own decisions and live by the results, instead of relying on govt to do it for them.

Hopefully President Trump will appoint such originalists to the Supreme Court and lower courts, to overrule the big-govt leftists (in both parties) and start getting government back to the limited size the Constitution requires.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Sure enough, Trump did it right. He kept yet another campaign promise, nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Kudoes, President Trump! Keep up the good work!

 

[JustAnotherNut]

As long as the left doesn't screw it up for all of us.....we might get our 'freedoms' back.

 

[waltky]

The Donald picks his first Supreme Court Justice nominee...

Trump picks Neil Gorsuch as nominee for Supreme Court.
Wed, 01 Feb 2017 - President Donald Trump has announced that he has chosen Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for Supreme Court.

The 49-year-old is currently a federal appeals court judge sitting in Denver, Colorado. If confirmed, he would replace the vacancy left on the high court by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Judge Neil Gorsuch (c) and his wife Marie Louise look on, after US President Donald Trump nominated him​

The nomination will have to be confirmed by the Senate, where Democrats have threatened to block any candidate seen as too conservative. Mr Trump said Judge Gorsuch had "tremendous bipartisan support", adding that he was the "ultimate" representative of Justice Scalia.

In accepting the nomination, Judge Gorsuch called the late justice, who died a year ago, a "lion of the law", adding that he missed him. "I am honoured and I am humbled," he added. The youngest Supreme Court pick in a quarter of a century, Judge Gorsuch is not expected to call into question high-profile rulings on abortion and gay marriage.

Trump picks Neil Gorsuch as nominee for Supreme Court. - BBC News

See also:

Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch skeptical of gov't regulations
Jan. 31, 2017 - Neil Gorsuch, named Tuesday as President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, is known for his clear, colloquial writing, advocacy for court review of government regulations, defense of religious freedom and skepticism toward law enforcement.

Gorsuch is a Colorado native who earned his bachelor's degree from Columbia University in three years, then earned a law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Supreme Court Justices Byron White, a fellow Coloradan, and Anthony Kennedy before earning a philosophy degree at Oxford University and working for a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm. He served for two years in President George W. Bush's Justice Department before Bush appointed him to a seat on the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. He is the son of Anne Gorsuch, who served as EPA administrator during the Reagan administration. Gorsuch has contended that courts give too much deference to government agencies' interpretations of statutes, a deference that stems from a Supreme Court ruling in a 1984 case. He sided with two groups that successfully challenged the Obama administration's requirements that employers provide health insurance that includes contraception.

David Lane, a prominent Denver plaintiff's attorney who frequently clashes with law enforcement, praised Gorsuch as fair and open-minded. Lane won a $1.8 million jury verdict against the Denver Police Department in a brutality and wrongful arrest case. The city appealed and the case ended up before Gorsuch. Lane said the judge tore into the city's lawyers and urged them to go to mediation rather than drag out appeals for years to deny the plaintiffs their reward. The mediation led the case to be settled for $1.6 million. "He is a very, very smart man. His leanings are very conservative, but he's qualified to be on the Supreme Court," Lane said. "I don't know that Judge Gorsuch has a political agenda and he is sincere and honest and believes what he writes."

Judge Neil Gorsuch. Conservatives who care about the court say they have no such worry this time around. They feel confident that whomever President Donald Trump nominates for the Supreme Court, they won’t be looking back with regret in the years to come.​

Rebecca Love Kourlis, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice, said Gorsuch has written 175 majority opinions and 65 concurrences or dissents in his decade on the 10th Circuit. "He's really earned his stripes," she said. Kourlis said Gorsuch is also a notable advocate for simplifying the justice system to make it more accessible. "Legal services in this country are so expensive that the United States ranks near the bottom of developed nations when it comes to access to counsel in civil cases," Gorsuch wrote in an article in a journal for judges last year. "The real question is what to do about it."

The article is written in Gorsuch's characteristic, straightforward style. "He thinks it's really important for people other than lawyers to understand what he's writing," Kourlis said. Gorsuch is also an avid skier, fly fisherman and horseback rider, Kourlis said. He teaches at the University of Colorado's law school in Boulder. "He is humble, he is extremely articulate and he is extraordinarily hardworking," Kourlis said. In his financial disclosure report for 2015, he reported assets ranging from $3.1 million to $7.25 million. He earned $26,000 for his law school duties and another $5,300 in book royalties that year.

Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch skeptical of gov't regulations

 

[kyzr]

The dems will try to "Bork" Gorsuch as payback for Garland, this could get interesting as the DC clowns play their chikin-shit games.

 

[Little-Acorn]

As long as the left doesn't screw it up for all of us.....we might get our 'freedoms' back.

The Democrats are terrified of a Supreme Court justice who actually obeys and enforced what the Constitution says.

The Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document that says the Fed govt has no powers except those assigned by the Constitution. And that if the people want the Fed to have any more, they can give them to it by amending it.

And the people have mostly decided not to give the Fed more powers. So the Democrats have had to twist, shuck, jive, and fake what the Constitution says, to expand government power.

People like Gorsuch will stop that.

It's like the crack of doom for big-govt Democrats.

Hopefully President Trump will appoints a few more such "originalist" justices to the Court in his next eight years.

 

[Edgetho]

As long as the left doesn't screw it up for all of us.....we might get our 'freedoms' back.

"Freedom" and "The left" are two phrases that should never be used in the same sentence

 

[JustAnotherNut]

As long as the left doesn't screw it up for all of us.....we might get our 'freedoms' back.

"Freedom" and "The left" are two phrases that should never be used in the same sentence

except when it comes to them trying & in many cases succeeding in taking those freedoms away.


There once was a bumper sticker that said.........'Freedom by permit only'.... Maybe now that will become an antique oddity

 

[Little-Acorn]

Changing the Constitution by imagining it means something different from what it says, is called "rule of men" as opposed to "rule of law". This becomes important when people have long-range projects or businesses, and need to run their affairs according to known rules, rather than by rules that might change to something completely different later on.

This is one of the most important non-criminal-justice reasons for abiding by the Rule of Law instead of the rule of men.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A guy that attacks one of the few areas that the constitution tells him not to do isn't the guy I want nominating shit.

Gorsuch should quickly agree that what trump is doing with the travel ban is unconstitutional or he shouldn't be confirmed.

 

[there4eyeM]

It seems a code law system, such as Napoleon originated, is what these folks would prefer to living, evolving Common Law, the system we adopted.
Did Moses descend from the mount with stone tablets written by 'God' for the 'founder fathers' (we never talk about the mothers; oh, that's right, women weren't acknowledged at first, that came later), or was the Constitution created by humans, for humans?

 

[owebo]

It seems a code law system, such as Napoleon originated, is what these folks would prefer to living, evolving Common Law, the system we adopted.
Did Moses descend from the mount with stone tablets written by 'God' for the 'founder fathers' (we never talk about the mothers; oh, that's right, women weren't acknowledged at first, that came later), or was the Constitution created by humans, for humans?

What fascist tripe.....

 

[there4eyeM]

Dictating forever a meaning of what was said in the past could be considered fascist, perhaps, yes.

 

[Claudette]

A guy that attacks one of the few areas that the constitution tells him not to do isn't the guy I want nominating shit.

Gorsuch should quickly agree that what trump is doing with the travel ban is unconstitutional or he shouldn't be confirmed.

Bullshit. The Constitution gives a President that power dumbass. The same power both Douchebag and Carter used. If this goes to the SC Trump will get what he needs to protect this country.

The perpetrators of 9-11 were all in this country on visa's. Guess that doesn't resonate with a tree stump dumb ass like you.

Trump is doing what he can to protect all Americans. You are an idiot.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution gives a President that power

Actually, the Constitution gives that power to the Congress.

And Congress made a law delegating the power to the President.

So what Trump is doing as President, is indeed Constitutional.

Originalist justices such as Gorsuch will support such a power. We need him on the bench, plus a few more like him.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Originalist" judges such as Gorsuch favor interpreting the Constitution as closely as they can get to what the people who wrote and ratified it, meant. And they tend to decide what it means, by looking at the text of the document, much more than opinions about what subsequent judges have claimed it means.

They have a great advantage, in that the meaning of the Constitution changes much less over time, then under judges who feel it should change with changing times. If people want to change what it means, they can amend it by using the procedures it contains. And if they don't amend it, that means they don't want its meaning to change. Not in sufficient quantities to justify the change.

Changing the Constitution by imagining it means something different from what it says, is called "rule of men" as opposed to "rule of law". This becomes important when people have long-range projects or businesses, and need to run their affairs according to known rules, rather than by rules that might change to something completely different later on.

The originalists are generally hated by the left, since the Constitution is a conservative document designed to prevent people from expanding the government and give it unlimited authority. Originalists won't let the leftists pretend the various passages mean something other than what they actually say.

They prevent the leftists from inserting things that aren't there (imagining it calls out a general right to privacy that abortion can hide behind, exceptions to the 2nd amendment's ban on govt having any say in who can own and carry weapons, strange additions to the Commerce Clause and Welfare Clause that authorize govt to regulate far more then the Framers intended etc.), or ignoring things that ARE in the Constitution (bans on govt influencing people's practice of their own religion etc.).

This prevents leftists from pursuing their main agenda, which is expanding government and giving it more and more control over people's own private lives. Limiting government this way (as the Framers intended), leaves people far more freedom to make their own decisions and live by the results, instead of relying on govt to do it for them.

Hopefully President Trump will appoint such originalists to the Supreme Court and lower courts, to overrule the big-govt leftists (in both parties) and start getting government back to the limited size the Constitution requires.

 

[there4eyeM]

The intellectuals who created the documents founding the U.S. were thinking 'outside the box', not trying to create a new one to cage thought.

 

[Clementine]

A guy that attacks one of the few areas that the constitution tells him not to do isn't the guy I want nominating shit.

Gorsuch should quickly agree that what trump is doing with the travel ban is unconstitutional or he shouldn't be confirmed.

Stopping immigration or travel from certain countries is at the discretion of the president is in the constitution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Stopping immigration or travel from certain countries is at the discretion of the president is in the constitution.

Actually, the Constitution gives that power to the Congress.

And Congress made a law delegating the power to the President.

So what Trump is doing as President, is indeed Constitutional.

Originalist justices such as Gorsuch will support such a power. We need him on the bench, plus a few more like him.

 

[TooTall]

A guy that attacks one of the few areas that the constitution tells him not to do isn't the guy I want nominating shit.

Gorsuch should quickly agree that what trump is doing with the travel ban is unconstitutional or he shouldn't be confirmed.

Gorsuch knows that the travel ban is 100% constitutional so defined as a power of the President.