BREAKING: President Trump’s Pick for SUPREME COURT Has Just Been Revealed… Meet Neil Gorsuch

[libertybele]

Back to the topic of Gorsuch.  He has been endorsed by the NRA.

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN

URL: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/01/neil-gorsuch-gun-rights-nra

by Lois Beckett


After $30m in campaign ad buys and months of unflinching support for Donald Trump, the National Rifle Association has what it wanted: a supreme court nominee it views as a strong defender of gun rights.

The federal court judge Neil Gorsuch “will protect our right to keep and bear arms”, the gun rights group said on Tuesday night, in a swift endorsement of Trump’s supreme court pick.

Gun control advocates say that some of Gorsuch’s previous cases suggest he might support laws that “make it easier for felons to own guns”.

Unlike Thomas Hardiman, another federal judge who was also reportedly on Trump’s shortlist for the supreme court seat, Gorsuch does not have a clear record as a supporter of gun rights.

Gorsuch “doesn’t have any major second amendment cases”, Dave Kopel, a gun rights attorney and lifetime NRA member, said on Tuesday night.

But the smaller gun rights cases that have come before Gorsuch show a pattern: “Judge Gorsuch reads the second amendment in a very broad way, to protect even people who have been convicted of felonies,” said Adam Winkler, a gun rights expert at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.

That suggests Gorsuch “would read laws that ban people from having guns narrowly”, Winkler said, and that he would oppose a lifetime prohibition on people with felony records owning guns.

“He doesn’t have a lot of cases, but the cases he does have very much fall in line with the NRA’s view,” Winkler said.

The nation’s largest gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, did not immediately oppose Gorsuch’s nomination, but it pushed for senators to ask the nominee “tough questions”.

“Neil Gorsuch’s record on gun-related cases indicates some willingness to make it easier for felons to own guns – something that puts our families and communities at risk,” Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement.

After months of campaigning for Trump, the NRA promised to keep up the pressure to get Gorsuch confirmed. The group will join a broad swath of interest groups that are likely to spend millions of dollars in the coming months to advocate for confirmation of the nominee.

“We will be activating our members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Gorsuch,” said Chris Cox, the NRA’s s chief lobbyist, said in a statement.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry’s trade association, also “expressed its strong support” for Gorsuch.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST...

[mountaineer]

Back to the topic of Gorsuch.  He has been endorsed by the NRA.

Good to know!

[Cyber Liberty]

Good to know!

The right to self-defense is a Natural Right.  The more I see, the more I like him.  Dems are going to crazy.  Pelosi hates him, but so bleeping what?  She has no say in the matter.

[Wingnut]

Big Ceegar!

Do you know @uglybiker?    Looks just like him!

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you know @uglybiker?    Looks just like him!

I really DO know him, and that gal looks just like the one he's had in his avatar....

(@uglybiker lives in AZ and we've had meetups from TOS)

[Wingnut]

I really DO know him, and that gal looks just like the one he's had in his avatar....

(@uglybiker lives in AZ and we've had meetups from TOS)

I thought it looked familiar. 

[don-o]

Do you know @uglybiker?    Looks just like him!

No. But, I knew a biker named Asskiller who posted to the Waco biker threads at TOS. Got his nick from a collision with a donkey.

[Cyber Liberty]

No. But, I knew a biker named Asskiller who posted to the Waco biker threads at TOS. Got his nick from a collision with a donkey.

I would say that biker has one heck of a Hog.  Cages have difficulty winning a collision with a donkey.

[don-o]

I would say that biker has one heck of a Hog.  Cages have difficulty winning a collision with a donkey.

As he told it, it was a close run thing - he and his wife.

[sneakypete]

Big Ceegar!

@don-o

I have no idea who she is,but I bet she would be a lot of fun to talk to.

[uglybiker]

Do you know @uglybiker?    Looks just like him!

@Wingnut  @Cyber Liberty
Careful how you talk 'bout my Mamma! She'll smack you into next week!   

[Wingnut]

@Wingnut  @Cyber Liberty
Careful how you talk 'bout my Mamma! She'll smack you into next week!   

I have no doubt about that!

[Cyber Liberty]

@Wingnut  @Cyber Liberty
Careful how you talk 'bout my Mamma! She'll smack you into next week!   

Ahem...yessir. 

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not disagreeing with that sentiment. The point I am making is that the Roberts Court will not go down that road, in his view the issue clearly should be solved through political means and he will be pushing the SC not to intervene. My speculation is that Gorsuch will join in that effort..time will tell.

Why not? Roberts rewrote the "penalty" clause of the ACA, and then ruled favorably on a "tax" that originated in the Senate. In one fell swoop he trashed separation of powers and the requirement that revenue (tax) measures originate in the House.
If he has gone that far, what's holding him back? 

[Smokin Joe]

It didn't "recognize" or "acknowledge" those rights -- it created them out of thin air.  Abortion had been illegal in many states for a very long time, and it never occurred to anyone that banning abortion was unconstitutional.  The Framers would be stunned to learn that someone read that into the Constitution.

It was a Court-created right -- that's inarguable.  It was not created by legislatures or the Constitution.  Your argument amount to saying "it's okay if the Court removes state authority and creates new rights out of thin air, but it's not okay if the Court later reverses itself and returns the issue back to the states."

That's the "ratchet effect" that anyone who cares about the Constitution should oppose.  The easy answer is that if you want abortion rights, pass them at the state or federal level.  But by elected representatives, not unelected judges.

Exactly! Well said!

[Smokin Joe]

You know that signs like that are where they will line up to try it...

[Smokin Joe]

In his book on euthanasia he writes that abortion only affects the interest of the mother. This means he doesn't think the state or the unborn child has an interest in the matter.

No one ever mentions the father, either.

[Frank Cannon]

My unnamed sources tell me the Gorsuch was involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping. He provided Bruno Hauptmann with the ladder.

[montanajoe]

Why not? Roberts rewrote the "penalty" clause of the ACA, and then ruled favorably on a "tax" that originated in the Senate. In one fell swoop he trashed separation of powers and the requirement that revenue (tax) measures originate in the House.
If he has gone that far, what's holding him back?

Roberts was telling the Congress that they cannot rely on the SC to do their job. It is up to the politicians to do their jobs  the Roberts court will not do it for them. This is the mark of a Conservative jurist, many Conservatives assume that a "Conservative" judge will have the same political philosophy that they hold. Nothing could be further from reality. Roberts expressed his philosophy very clearly during his confirmation hearing stating he viewed his job as that of an umpire calling balls and strikes not influencing the outcome of the game. In Obergefell, the gay marriage case, his dissent was based on his belief that the SC should not have gotten involved.
I think refusing to take up cases involving cultural issues is the future direction of the Court and there will be a great reluctance on the part of the Court to strike down legislation even if it means a "strained" opinion. In my view Roberts wants the Court to take a much less activist role than we have come to expect over the past half century, much to the consternation of both political conservatives and liberals.
Gorsuch is likely to be much more like Roberts who wants the Court to stay out of the political arena than Scalia who believed in fighting liberal judicial activism with conservative activism in my view..
 

[Smokin Joe]

Roberts was telling the Congress that they cannot rely on the SC to do their job. It is up to the politicians to do their jobs  the Roberts court will not do it for them. This is the mark of a Conservative jurist, many Conservatives assume that a "Conservative" judge will have the same political philosophy that they hold. Nothing could be further from reality. Roberts expressed his philosophy very clearly during his confirmation hearing stating he viewed his job as that of an umpire calling balls and strikes not influencing the outcome of the game. In Obergefell, the gay marriage case, his dissent was based on his belief that the SC should not have gotten involved.
I think refusing to take up cases involving cultural issues is the future direction of the Court and there will be a great reluctance on the part of the Court to strike down legislation even if it means a "strained" opinion. In my view Roberts wants the Court to take a much less activist role than we have come to expect over the past half century, much to the consternation of both political conservatives and liberals.
Gorsuch is likely to be much more like Roberts who wants the Court to stay out of the political arena than Scalia who believed in fighting liberal judicial activism with conservative activism in my view..

If Roberts wanted to send the Congress a message, there are ample other means to do so other than violating the separation of powers to rewrite legislation. If he wants Congress to do their jobs I suggest it would be better if he did not do their job for them. His egregious extraconstitutional behaviour has cost millions of Americans their health insurance, and those who managed to retain some semblance of their former plans millions of dollars to retain a vestige of the insurance they formerly had. The damage to Americans is incalculable, because he didn't do his job. Try as you might, you can't excuse that, especially not in the behaviour of a Chief Justice. He should have been impeached, but our nutless Congress was so happy to be rid of the tarbaby they created they would never have considered it.

If they wanted to refuse to do the job of the Congress, the Court should have refused cert or thrown the act out, not rewritten the legislation, which is precisely the job of Congress.

[montanajoe]

Try as you might, you can't excuse that, especially not in the behaviour of a Chief Justice. He should have been impeached, but our nutless Congress was so happy to be rid of the tarbaby they created they would never have considered it.

Not excusing anything just offering my opinion of why the CJ acts the way he does from the bench....and why I think those expecting him to think and act as they expected will continue to be disappointed. 

It's not that he is being blackmailed or any of the other theories out there by those on the right, its the way he said he would do the job from the get go. This is why people should pay close attention to the Gorsuch confirmation hearings....

[Bigun]

Try as you might, you can't excuse that, especially not in the behaviour of a Chief Justice. He should have been impeached, but our nutless Congress was so happy to be rid of the tarbaby they created they would never have considered it.

Not excusing anything just offering my opinion of why the CJ acts the way he does from the bench....and why I think those expecting him to think and act as they expected will continue to be disappointed. 

It's not that he is being blackmailed or any of the other theories out there by those on the right, its the way he said he would do the job from the get go. This is why people should pay close attention to the Gorsuch confirmation hearings....

I would be happy if the courts just attended to THEIR  business and left the rest alone. Telling the congress that they went beyond the bounds of the Constitution "sends a message"  far more clearly than any amount of court sophistry ever will IMHO!

[Jazzhead]

Not excusing anything just offering my opinion of why the CJ acts the way he does from the bench....and why I think those expecting him to think and act as they expected will continue to be disappointed. 

It's not that he is being blackmailed or any of the other theories out there by those on the right, its the way he said he would do the job from the get go. This is why people should pay close attention to the Gorsuch confirmation hearings....

My view is that Justice Roberts acts exactly as a conservative jurist should - his job is to "call balls and strikes" accurately and in conformity with the law,  regardless of the policy implications of the outcome.  It is not his job to "legislate from the bench" - legislation should be solely the job of the peoples' elected representatives.   

Judge Gorsuch appears to be cut from a similar mold, and I will be delighted if he conducts his job in the same way as Justice Roberts.   

[montanajoe]

I would be happy if the courts just attended to THEIR  business and left the rest alone. Telling the congress that they went beyond the bounds of the Constitution "sends a message"  far more clearly than any amount of court sophistry ever will IMHO!

The SC's business is to render a judgment on the issues brought before them. They are not the Plaintiff's, they don't initiate lawsuits in order to legislate from the bench.

The fact of the matter is that the ACA was passed by overcoming a filibuster in the Senate and having enough votes in the House to pass it without a single Republican vote and having a Dim POTUS sign it into law....in response the GOP playing the same game of lookey lo, they did it, so we can too... brought lawsuits.

The CJ in my opinion, simply refused to refused to use the Court to overturn a policy decision by a super-majority in the Senate and a majority in the House. In other words he refused to allow the SC to legislate from the bench.

This is what a Conservative Originalist Judge is supposed to do, and its what he said he would do had anyone listened. I believe the SC with the addition of Gorsuch will continue to refuse to make policy decisions for the politicians which is a good thing in my opinion. Those wanting a Conservative activist on the Court will likely ultimately be disappointed with Gorsuch. Those, like myself, wanting the SC to just butt the hell out will likely be pleased...time will tell