RNLA leaders have been actively promoting the swift confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch from an array of compelling perspectives.
To their credit, however, Democrats have tried—though ineffectively—to make their opposition about substantive issues they have with Gorsuch. The confirmation hearing was a fascinating look at how many times the same questions could be asked in different ways to try to get Gorsuch to give away all his political preferences, pre-judge cases that may come before him, and prove a conservative bias. . . It’s hard not to be impressed by Judge Gorsuch. Democrats who questioned him didn’t even seem that frustrated or angered by his pleasing personality and impressive ability for recall about cases he worked on and statutes he interpreted. It’s just that Democrats, as far back as January before President Trump even announced his pick, had decided they would filibuster anyone the new president held up for consideration.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) insists the filibuster to come is not payback or vengeance but merely an aversion to a judge that he does not consider “mainstream.” It’s important to make the push back about Gorsuch and his radical conservatism (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and not about a petty payback. Schumer and the Democrats may have some help in the form of progressive groups pledging to pull support for any Democrat who doesn’t fall in line and oppose Gorsuch. . . Whatever the case, the gains for the Democrats will be pyrrhic and short-lived. The lesson of 2016 that Democrats seem to be ignoring is that voters have stopped buying the obstructionist Democratic talking points and are tired of mindless obstruction and partisan bickering in Washington.
(2) John Ryder, RNLA Co-Chair, penned “Democrats’ blinkered look at Gorsuch” for The Washington Times. Mr. Ryder’s focus was a commentary on Gorsuch’s hearing, Day 2, specifically an exchange between Judge Gorsuch and Senator Feinstein that showed that Democrats were strictly focused on talking points rather than the whole picture that makes up the nominee.
Judge Gorsuch thanked Mrs. Feinstein for the opportunity to correct the presentation of his judicial record, noting that he had participated in more than 2,700 opinions in over 10 years on the federal bench and Democratic senators had selected just a few to focus on that do “not represent the body of my work”. . . [Judge Gorsuch] reiterated his commitment to the rule of law, and to not judging cases according to the identities of the parties involved but according to the law: “And the bottom line, I think, is that I would like to convey to you, from the bottom of my heart, is that I’m a fair judge. And I think if you ask people in the 10th Circuit, is he a fair judge, you’ll get the answer you got yesterday from both Sen. Bennet and Sen. Gardner … I can’t guarantee you more than that, but I can promise you absolutely nothing less.”
That is the true Judge Gorsuch, the one that Democrats would see if they bothered to review his record. But as Mrs. Feinstein so tellingly revealed earlier today, the Democrats are not willing to do even basic due diligence to understand his record and judicial philosophy. They would rather repeat exhausted talking points from liberal activists, attack one of the foundational protections for liberty in the American system of government — the rule of law, not of judges — and grandstand to gain political points with radical progressives.
The simple fact is Judge Gorsuch understands Montanans—he is, after all, a fellow Westerner. If confirmed, he will be the only Westerner currently on the Supreme Court and the first in a generation. As a Westerner, he understands the challenges faced by Montanans and has a long record of protecting our freedoms and rights. His decisions on the bench reflect a deep respect of the law as it relates to many of the issues unique to our part of the country, like the 2nd Amendment, private property rights, water rights, and Indian sovereignty.
Judge Gorsuch believes in interpreting the Constitution and the law according to its text, structure, and history. This approach protects the rights of individuals and preserves freedom in our system of federalism with the separated powers of government . . . With a sterling and impressive record and a strong base of bipartisan support, Judge Gorsuch clearly understands us Westerners and our Constitution, and he has a firm commitment to protecting our freedoms.”
Related to this point, Judge Gorsuch has earned the endorsement of major American Indian organizations, specifically National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund. Their statement of support can be read here.
Judge Gorsuch’s answers to
the committee’s questions demonstrated a deep understanding of the law and
respect for the Constitution and the role of judges. The same cannot be said
for many of the senators who questioned him. This fundamental lack of understanding
and respect for the Constitution by some of members of the Judiciary Committee
was on full display as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) relentlessly
pressed Judge Gorsuch on the issues of political speech and campaign finance
disclosure. . . .
Judge Gorsuch did not base his answers on his personal values.
Instead, he stuck to the Constitution and precedent. Exactly what a judge
should do when performing his duties as a judge . . . It was clear from the
confirmation hearings and his record, that Gorsuch will decide cases as the
facts and the law dictate rather than basing decisions on his, or anyone else’s,
personal values. That is precisely the role of a judge and Gorsuch understands
this. Unfortunately, Whitehouse and many
of his colleagues don’t. That is why the Senate should confirm Judge Gorsuch as
next associate justice of the Supreme Court.
We will keep you posted on additional publications by RNLA Leaders as they happen. To stay up to date, consider following our Twitter Feed and Facebook Page.
