McCONnel wants the guy? That right there should be enough proof this whole process is nothing more than show.No single individual has shown Gorsuch to be a solid Conservative, all they've proven so far is he has a clean slate, the RINO love him, the Dims feign abhorrence and in the end, he'll be confirmed.I'm not saying Gorsuch is a lib or Con, no one really knows, but what we do know is people with his record have screwed us once seated.
It would make more sense for dems to oppose the replacement for a liberal justice, though Trump would be wise to replace a hard lefty with a moderate.
With both houses and the WH. WHY go for a moderate unless your a RINO.
I agree I don't know much about him but his history looks good and besides the RINO's loving him Cruz and other true conservatives do to. That is a very good sign!
Gorsuch will sail through, this is just more Kabuki so both party's can claim they're fighting for their constituency.Truth is, the Dims don't hate him, and that should be the real red flag despite their faux protestations.No one is asking the real question, that if we can appoint anyone we want, why in the fuck aren't they promoting a true Conservative?
First, consider the Constitution. Judges, after all, must do more than merely consider it. They take an oath to uphold it. So any theory of judging (in this country at least) must be measured against that foundational duty. Yet it seems to me those who would have judgesbehave like legislators, imposing their moral convictions and utility calculi on others, face an uphill battle when it comes to reconciling their judicial philosophy with our founding document.Consider what happened at the constitutional convention. There the framers expressly debated a proposal that would have incorporated the judiciary into a “council of revision” with sweeping powers to review and veto congressional legislation. A proposal that would have affordedjudges the very sorts of legislative powers that some of Justice Scalia’s critics would have them assume now. But that proposal went down to defeat at the hands of those who took the traditional view that judges should expound upon the law only as it comes before them, free from the bias of having participated in its creation and from the burden of having to decide “the policy of public measures.” In place of a system that mixed legislative and judicial powers, the framers quite deliberately chose one that carefully separated them. The Constitution itself reflects this choice in its very design, devoting distinct articles to the “legislative Power”19 and the “judicial Power,” creating separate institutions for each, and treating those powers in contradistinction. Neither were these separate categories empty ones to the founding generation. Informed by a hard earned intellectual inheritance—one perhaps equal parts English common law experience and Enlightenment philosophy—the founders understoodthe legislative power as the power to prescribe new rules of general applicability for the future. A power properly guided by the will of the people acting through their representatives, a task avowedly political in nature, and one unbound by the past except to the extent that any piece of legislation must of course conform to the higher law of the Constitution itself...
I watched the hearings and the democrats did their usual grandstanding however each of them listed many cases to which they disagreed with Gorsuch's ruling. I researched them and each time Gorsuch simply upheld the law as written by congress. That's what we want a conservative judge to do.