Tag: Neil Gorsuch

Member Post

 

Josh Hammer and Garrett Snedeker argue that it’s time for conservatives to adopt a more confrontational attitude toward rogue decisions of the Supreme Court. In Newsweek, they write: A case as wrongly decided as Bostock would, in an earlier era, have immediately triggered the equivalent of constitutional “antibodies.” Congress would bring forth bills to limit the scope […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Gorsuch Legal Alchemy

 

The United States Supreme Court has sent shockwaves through much of the nation with its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. By a six-to-three vote, the Court held in no uncertain terms that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to fire a person “simply” due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The basic statutory text of Title VII provides that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

More

Member Post

 

The President, the Chief Justice, the Senate Majority Leader, and at least one other of Chuck Schumer’s Senate colleagues have denounced his threat against two Supreme Court justices. Naturally, Republicans are concerned that someone might take Schumer’s words as an invitation to violence. Senator Schumer’s threat against originalist justices deserves strong rebuke and censure, and […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

James R. Copland joins City Journal editor Brian Anderson to discuss President Trump’s impact on the federal courts, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and the diversity in conservative judicial philosophy emerging today.

The director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, where he is a senior fellow, James Copland has written and spoken widely on how to improve America’s civil- and criminal-justice systems. “Toward a Less Dangerous Judicial Branch,” his article (coauthored with Rafael A. Mangual) assessing Trump’s court appointments, appears in the Winter 2019 issue of City Journal.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer Neil Gorsuch and other Supreme Court justices for blasting civil asset forfeiture in an Indiana case that may soon limit the government’s ability to seize property from suspected and convicted criminals. They also sigh as Jeff Flake forces the cancellation of committee votes on two dozen judicial nominees because he can’t get a floor vote on legislation to protect special counsel Bob Mueller. They also imagine the sanctimony primary between Flake and John Kasich as both seem interested in launching irrelevant 2020 presidential campaigns. And they react to Stormy Daniels revealing that attorney Michael Avenatti has filed suits and made statements in her name that she never approved and that Avenatti won’t tell her how he’s spending the money many people have donated to her legal cause.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America mourn the murders of five people in an Annapolis mass shooting and are frustrated by the litany of ignored warning signs and the knee-jerk online condemnation of President Trump for the killings because of his criticisms of the media. They also applaud the police for arriving on scene in just 60 seconds and saving many lives…and the staff of the Gazette for it’s commitment to publishing a paper today. And they try to make sense of New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand suddenly supporting the abolition of ICE and wrongly insisting that no Democrats voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

More

As has become an annual tradition in the Trump era, the end of another Supreme Court session brings rumors of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement. In this episode, Richard Epstein looks at Justice Kennedy’s legacy, considers whether lifetime terms on the Supreme Court are justified, and looks at the future of a post-Kennedy court.

More

Richard Epstein explores the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay marriage ceremony, critiques the judicial style of Anthony Kennedy, and explains how anti-discrimination laws have expanded beyond a useful scope.

More

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America look through a rough and often disturbing 2017 to find three things they’re each thankful for in politics and beyond this year. From some important accomplishments to the arrival of an important new figure in Washington to the bravery of people in different walks of life, Jim and Greg find some silver linings in our toxic political culture. Happy Thanksgiving! There will be no podcast on Thursday. Please join us again on Friday.

More

Richard Epstein looks at a recent Supreme Court ruling that could have major implications for when and how religious institutions can access public money.

More

Member Post

 

Next on Thinking It Through with Jerome Danner:  I invited a writer and thinker who is influencing me more and more after I heard him on the Eric Metaxas Show. Dr. John Zmirak is a writer for The Stream and he was a great guest to talk to about President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office. https://jeromedanner.net/2017/04/15/episode-32-jzmirak-of-streamdotorg-on-trumps-first-100-days-john-zmirak-of-the-stream/ More

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

Reminder: Sean Spicer just Tweeted: “On Monday Associate SCOTUS Justice Kennedy will administer the oath of office to Judge Gorsuch in the White House Rose Garden at 11am ET” The more I read about Neil Gorsuch’s history, the more convinced I have become that he, at some point in a hopefully long Supreme Court career, […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Justice Neil Gorsuch

 

The Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Friday. The vote was 54-45, in which three Democrats joined the Republicans. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) did not vote as he is recovering from back surgery.

Gorsuch will fill the seat left vacant after the death of Antonin Scalia. “He’s going to make an incredible addition to the court,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “He’s going to make the American people proud.”

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Nuclear Option

 

The Senate deploys the nuclear option. In tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal (online now), my old friend Sai Prakash and I defend the constitutionality of the Senate’s decision to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. We conclude: “Senators should stop worrying and learn to love the nuclear option.”

Democrats are crying foul, and Republican “institutionalists” have been expressing their regrets. The Democrats had every right to try a filibuster, a political tool with deep Senate roots. But the Republicans also had every right to abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. In 2013, Democrats under the leadership of Harry Reid made the same change with respect to all other appointments.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Ned Ryun; Writer for George W. Bush, CEO American Majority

 
“Democrats are in a world of hurt”.
On this episode of Whiskey Politics, we discuss Neil Gorsuch, the Democrats awful hand for future elections, American Majority and the next generation of activists, Donald Trump and of course, no interview with a George W. Bush administration official would be complete without discussing W’s legacy.
More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Gorsuch v. Schumer

 

It does not take a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing on Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination. Gorsuch will be confirmed, one way or another. If Senator Charles Schumer makes good on his pledge to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination, the Republicans will exercise their so-called nuclear option to end the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees, after which Gorsuch’s nomination will be confirmed, perhaps on a strict party-line vote of 52-to-48 Senators. The Democrats cannot get over the fact that the Republicans did not need to filibuster to stonewall Merrick Garland, given their majority in the Senate. They could just sit on his nomination. But since the Democrats could not stop the hearings for Gorsuch, they have chosen to act out their unhappiness by raising frivolous objections against an exceptionally well-qualified nominee who enjoys the respect of everyone who has worked with him.

This increased polarization of the Senate is a relatively recent phenomenon. Between 1954 and 2005, a large number of liberal justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. The list includes Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justices William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun, and David Souter. But the divisions have hardened since then. The last six choices to the Court—Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—have not made any surprise judicial conversions. But Schumer was correct in noting that all six of these nominees overcame the filibuster hurdle by garnering 60 votes—a fact he is using to attack Gorsuch with: “If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes—a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees and George Bush’s last two nominees—the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee.” In fact, the Democrats could still take the same approach they used with Samuel Alito in 2005: avoid the filibuster by a 72-25 vote (Obama and Schumer among the 25) and then allow confirmation to take place by a 58-42 vote, including some Democratic senators.

More

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Schumer’s Filibuster Threat Means Gorsuch Is Headed to SCOTUS

 

Over at FoxNews, Sai Prakash and I argue that the Democrats’s filibuster effort of Gorsuch is a sign of victory — for Gorsuch. Do we have it right?

Contrary to media reports Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s promise to invoke a filibuster signals the success, not the failure, of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination. If Democratic Senators had made any progress in attacking Gorsuch’s qualifications, record, or judicial philosophy, they could persuade their Republican colleagues to reject Gorsuch. With 48 Senators in their caucus, Democrats would only need persuade three Republicans to join them.

More

Member Post

 

It’s being reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has announced that the Democrats will invoke a filibuster that would force the Republicans to earn 60 votes to end debate and allow a vote on the Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court. This is somewhat incredible when you think about it. Today is the fourth […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

We live in a world where Orwell’s “two minutes hate” has become commonplace, fueled by posts, tweets, and op-ed pieces, with the two-minute haters frequently misreading or misinterpreting – or not reading at all – the ostensibly offensive words spoken or written by the “hatee.” Therefore, I thought that it might be useful to provide to Ricochet members the actual text of […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. We’re Against Emotionalism, Except When We’re Not

 

Conservatives have rightly taken pride in Neil Gorsuch’s calm and cerebral performance at his Senate confirmation hearings. Many commentators, along with Republican senators, have mocked Democrats for presuming to evaluate Gorsuch based on the outcomes of his cases. Did he “side with the little guy” or with big corporations? The correct answer, conservatives have correctly chided, is that justice is supposed to be blind. A good judge makes determinations based upon the facts and the law without regard to whether he personally prefers one party to another and without some social justice agenda to equalize the fortunes of little guys versus big guys. It’s not little versus big, sympathetic versus unsympathetic in a courtroom, but facts and law.

It’s a shame then, that so many conservatives are disregarding the virtues they laud in Gorsuch – prudence, careful weighing of facts, refusal to be swayed by emotional appeals – when it comes to a disturbing story of a rape in Maryland.

More