Neil Gorsuch: Scalia's Views On The Constitution Aren't 'Going Anywhere On My Watch'

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

washington examiner
by Ryan Lovelace | Nov 16, 2017, 11:53 PM

[excerpt]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/neil-gorsuch-scalias-views-on-the-constitution-arent-going-anywhere-on-my-watch/article/2641012

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch touted his confirmation to the high court as evidence that the late Justice Antonin Scalia's legal thinking had triumphed.

Gorsuch spoke at a dinner Thursday night held by the Federalist Society in honor of Scalia at Union Station in Washington, D.C., and said the jurisprudential philosophies of originalism and textualism popularized by Scalia had emerged victorious.

"Tonight I can report that a person can be both a publicly committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States," Gorsuch said. "Originalism has regained its place at the table … textualism has triumphed … and neither one is going anywhere on my watch."

[endicom]

Now imagine a couple more of similar conviction.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Now imagine a couple more of similar conviction.

I'm imagining it like a beggar being helped inside to a rich man's Christmas Feast.

And when Gorsuch was nominated and when he was confirmed all of us here had to listen to a parade of, "He's Trump's" I don't believe him. Just You Wait And See!"

Despite the man's track record of judicial hostility to Chevron Deference.

https://lawblog.justia.com/2012/05/21/chevron-deference-your-guide-to-understanding-two-of-todays-scotus-decisions/

Chevron Deference Explained

Chevron deference is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable. The principle is named for the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which involved a dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a provision of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Under Chevron, even if a court finds that another interpretation is reasonable, or even better than the agency’s interpretation, it must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.

Reasonableness in part turns on whether the statute unambiguously addresses the issue. If it does, then the unambiguous meaning controls. If the statute is ambiguous, then the court asks whether the agency’s interpretation of the ambiguous provision is based on a permissible construction of the statute. A permissible construction is one that is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” In other words, it is a very low threshold of deference.

[libertybele]

I haven't done the research, but so far I haven't heard of any earth shattering ruling that he's delivered.   Certainly, I'm glad that he was seated rather than Garland.  Trump and the GOP delivered on that one. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I haven't done the research, but so far I haven't heard of any earth shattering ruling that he's delivered.   Certainly, I'm glad that he was seated rather than Garland.  Trump and the GOP delivered on that one.

Oh I'm reasonably certain the earth will shake on his watch, more than once, but in the mean time it's the aggregation of smaller decisions that don't hit the press, and their adherence to Originalism and Textualism that will make a difference. Sending a message as it were to the Courts beneath them.

"Don't even Think of going there, because if you do, and it lands in our lap, we will either remand it back to you so you can reach the Correct decision, or we will Overturn you, again, outright."

Think of a high school teacher telling a student their homework sucked, so go home and do it over again, and again, until you get it right.