Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Politics Supreme Court

What Dems Hate About Neil Gorsuch, Besides his Constitutional Adherence

Written by Jim Bowman

Common Sense Thinking

The January 31st headline announced, “Democrats force delays in votes on 3 nominees.”  Is it just me or is this meant to generate a round of applause?  I mean, great, let’s clog up our governing.  Such negative remarks would never command the media’s ink four or eights years ago.  The headlines congratulating these delay, debunk, and discrediting tactics are engendered solely upon our citizen President.

While that January announcement still prevails, a March 23rd headline again informs, “Dems threaten delay on Gorsuch.”  Let me see, two months after President Trump’s inauguration, democrats are still bruising over the election results?  Only this time, the roadblock is against his Supreme Court pick.

Since all who are elected to Congress do so with the public’s trust and faith, and with an abidance to both their Constitutional dictates and sworn loyalty by oath to serve their constituents and country alike, one must wonder as to just what or who is being served by this platform of negative, even combative conduct?    Concerning this Supreme Court nomination, just what is so repugnant about Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence, other than his Constitutional adherence?  Consequently, what is so repugnant about our Constitution?

Within this Gorsuch report, I find it very telling that of the six democrat Senators to be quoted in this AP report, even including one who is “open to voting for him” (Gorsuch), the writer wisely omits the name of a fellow Senate interrogator who is somewhat tenuous, based upon his past conduct.

Explain how Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut, managed to weasel his way onto this “hang ‘em high” kangaroo panel?  I mean, being elected as a Senator already reflected badly upon his constituents but to actually level judgment over such a highly placed judicial appointee seems offensive.  If nothing else, his presence turns back the pages to another Supreme Court inquisitor with a murky past.  Who remembers that “Lion of the Senate,” one Ted Kennedy?

Just to fill in the blanks of the present day good Senator, this public servant falsely bragged about his heroic Vietnam combat service.  Then, in 2010, this weasel attempted to weasel out of his lie by inferring that he only meant that he was in the service during that time of war.

Then consider this current tale:  Gorsuch will guarantee a conservative Court majority.  He, by replacing conservative icon Antonin Scalia, only resets the previous make up, of which was seated when Obamacare was upheld.  While this notion has been bandied about routinely, it still fails the “fake news” labeling, which it so richly deserves.

Honestly, what irritates the Schumers of this world is that Gorsuch represents a Constitutional originalist, right out of the Scalia mold.  And given his youth, his Constitutional influence will continue for decades.

The present age of the Court sends shivers through the democrat ranks.  This reasoning was what moved Obama to select Judge Garland.  If Obama’s pick was approved, Garland would have cemented a liberal majority by turning the most notable conservative robe inside out.

However, there was no Constitutional mandate which spurred Obama’s sheepish attempt since the Constitution fails to credit the Court with any predetermined number of jurists.  As was typical of his reign, it was based upon his personal agenda; reminiscent of his Congress skirting executive orders.  Only this time, our Constitutional order held firm.

Throughout this confirmation process, the gotcha attempts which make up the line of questioning are as equally shabby as was the previously mentioned Judge Garland ruse.  Sen. Casey cited his concerns over Gorsuch’s “rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy.”  Obviously, his rigidity negates any progressive revisionisms from their “living Constitution” theorems.

While Casey’s comment had to do with political preference, other inquiries attempted to corner the appointee concerning the infamous Roe v. Wade decision.  These petulantly childish tactics reflect badly upon the process.  So much so that such negativity has begun to nurture its own embarrassments from within.  At some point, even the most popular of replays become boring.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Jim Bowman

Retired, grandfather, 71 years old, Vietnam vet, author of This Roar of Ours, over 25 year of published op/eds.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to a friend