Democrats have to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch before they read his SCOTUS opinions!

During a press conference on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi famously declared, “We have to pass the [ACA] Bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Perhaps the same standard should apply to Senate Democrats on the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the position of Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States?

Perhaps the U.S. Senate should unanimously confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch based upon his judicial credentials and then see what is in his opinions as an Associate Justice?

Here is the video of President Trump introducing Judge Gorsuch at a White House ceremony:

The day after President Trump asked the Senate to confirm Judge Gorsuch through an “elegant” and “dignified” process.

Mat Staver, Chairman of the Liberty Counsel in an email wrote:

President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, a federal appellate judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, as the next Supreme Court Justice. Judge Gorsuch is 49, a graduate of Columbia University, Harvard University (J.D.), and Oxford University (D.Phil.), where he studied Natural Law, and a former Supreme Court law clerk. His credentials and experience are stellar.

More importantly, his judicial philosophy is right. Gorsuch wrote a book titled, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. One quoted portion of the book states: “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable” and that “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

He sided with the state of Utah’s defunding of Planned Parenthood, and he supported the religious liberty arguments against forced abortion mandates under ObamaCare in Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor.

Gorsuch wrote two pieces relevant to the proper role of judges. The first is an opinion for National Review in 2005 on the subject of Judicial Activism. He stated:

“This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose.”

A few weeks after Justice Scalia’s passing in 2016, Judge Gorsuch gave a lecture that details his judicial interpretation philosophy and honors Justice Scalia. This excellent article is something similar to what Professor Robert George and Justice Scalia would write:

“Respectfully, it seems to me an assiduous focus on text, structure, and history is essential to the proper exercise of the judicial function. That, yes, judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views, always with an eye on the outcome, and engaged perhaps in some Benthamite calculation of pleasures and pains along the way. Though the critics are loud and the temptations to join them may be many, mark me down too as a believer that the traditional account of the judicial role Justice Scalia defended will endure.”

[Emphasis added]

There are those in the Senate who fear, no are terrified, of a judge who properly exercises his judicial function and adheres to the letter of the law and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Jennifer Warner, National Organizing Director of Organizing for Action in an email wrote:

Legal experts expect that if he’s confirmed, he will be one of the most conservative modern justices to sit on the Court — and based on his record, I’m deeply concerned about his views on women’s, workers’, and civil rights, as well as his perspectives on environmental, health, and safety protections for Americans.

Now more than ever, we need a Supreme Court that reflects America’s core values and independently serves its crucial role in the system of checks and balances that is at the heart of our democracy. [Emphasis added]

Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch does in fact support the system of checks and balances that is at the heart of our Constitutional Republic. That is what they really fear, loath and hate. A judge who equally applies the law as passed by the Congress, and does not “legislate from the bench.”

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“

RELATED ARTICLE: 

Judge Gorsuch – just what the voters ordered

How do you expect Senate Democrats to handle the Gorsuch confirmation?

Trump taps Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

A Closer Look at Neil Gorsuch, an Excellent Choice for the Supreme Court

How Senate Republicans Can Break a Supreme Court Filibuster

---