The Nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch

Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because they feared that a Democratic president would appoint another liberal judge to the Supreme Court. In recent times, the court has often ruled on politics, not the law. Mr. Trump nominated forty-nine year old Neil Gorsuch from Colorado. Gorsuch has a very solid judicial record and serves on the tenth US district of appeals in Denver. Yesterday there were hearings in the Senate to approve Judge Gorsuch to the highest court in the country. Predictably, some liberal politicians do not like the judge simply because he is not a liberal. Even though his record is stellar and his philosophy independent, some Democratic senators will not vote for him. 

Some senators (like Democratic Californian Senator Dianne Feinstein) at the hearing voiced their opinions in support of loose interpretation of the Constitution and also that the Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves. Those Democrats should know better. If judges are free to rule on judicial evolution, that means that they become politicians. All judges in America should just have one rule: what was the intent of the original Constitution? If they reject that, then they make decisions based upon their own political beliefs. Then what do we have? Just another extension of Congress, not a Supreme Court.

There’s no question that the Constitution gives the president power to stop some foreign nationals from coming into the US. But activist judges have blocked President Trump’s travel order, saying in essence it’s anti-Muslim. If that were the case, many more Muslim countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other countries) would be included in the president’s order, but they are not. So everybody (every fair minded person) knows that politics, not the law, are involved here and eventually the president will win in federal court. The activist judges don’t care. They have temporarily blocked the order and are liberal heroes. Judge Gorsuch looks like a traditionalist man who believes the intent of the Constitution should reign. Again, the seems to be unacceptable to the Democratic senators. They want a political judge. They want a liberal judge.

The best example of Constitutional debate is the Second Amendment: the right “to keep and bear arms.” It is clear that the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to have the ability to protect themselves. Back then, militias were the mechanism, private citizens with guns organizing against threats. Today, the threats are more personal, terrorists and criminals, not frontier marauders. Americans have a Constitutional right to defend themselves against those who would harm them. That’s why firearms cannot be banned, but they can be limited. Some limits are reasonable and individual states have the right to mandate gun laws based on the will of their people. The left rejects that and in some cases wants to ban guns outright. Things could change dramatically if the Supreme Court becomes solely a political party dominated by the left. 

Intent, not evolution, should be the litmus test for Constitutional law. That’s why a traditional judge, like Neil Gorsuch, is vital in this situation. He will likely sit for decades, presiding over a country in the middle of a social civil war.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s