He sounds so judicial. He talks about neutrality, raising plain vanilla issues about deference to the expertise of administrative agencies. It is boring, hardly likely to engender indignation. He says his decisions are required by the law — not affected by his own background. He is Judge Neil Gorsuch and he may soon be on the Supreme Court. Don’t be fooled. His approach is not neutral, not required by the law, and far out of the mainstream. Quite apart from social issues like abortion or gay rights, his approach could gut health and safety and antidiscrimination laws.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
If Gorsuch is moderate, then Thomas is a liberal.
ReplyDeleteThis is not just an up or down vote on a very conservative jurist. In denying even a vote on Garland, the Senate abdicated its constitutional responsibility. It cannot now act as if that is all just water under the bridge. The Senate, as a bipartisan whole, must redeem itself first.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution doesn't require a vote. There have been 160 Supreme Court nominations in our history; 25 of them never got a vote.
ReplyDeleteOnce a President nominates someone, the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Doing nothing for an entire year is not providing the mandated advice and consent. You can spin it any way you want, 2:41, but the Senate did not do what the Constitution required it to do. Not because it couldn't but only because it wouldn't for the same partisanship the GOP leaders now decry. The Senate should have had hearings and a vote on Garland.
ReplyDeleteRemember when the GOP wouldn't even meet with Garland and look him in the eye? Gutless cowards.
ReplyDeleteOh please. Consent is not required. You don't know what the Constitution says or history. You thinking they "should" have had hearings doesn't make it unconstitutional not to have a hearing.
ReplyDeleteGarland met with numerous GOP senators. Truth and the Constitution not very high priorities with you hysterics.
ReplyDelete4:16 - why didn't senate vote on Garland? You ok with that?
ReplyDeleteYou are right, 4:06, the constitution doesn't spell out that congress, the president or courts actually have to do their job, it is just kind of expected of people who are supposed to be serving us.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama did his job and nominated a qualified jurist, Garland. The senate did not do its job. It did nothing. And now those same obstructionists want to be rewarded.