Anybody see anything here that gives you confidence Gorsuch groks RKBA?
[More]
Feinstein
pressing him now about banning "assault weapons"-- Gorsuch fell back on Heller, self-defense, "in common use" and "reasonable regulation," with no acknowlegment about milita utility or how he'd ultimately rule on that.
He has refused to make any statement on his Principles, or on what he truly believes.
ReplyDeleteAll I have seen so far is something like this,
"Judge Gorsuch, did the court, in principle, get this decision right?"
"Senator, I will defer to precedent."
This tells me he is a slimy lawyer and is NOT a principled man.
Looks like Longbow is failing to acknowledge that NO prospect for a seat on SCOTUS should be baited into the How would YOU rule on ( insert case here ) trap as they were not likely in for the trial of any such case that could be cited . Maybe Longbow joined the televised coverage late, or , at least, after the Chairman had the initial exchange with Gorsuch, during which Gorsuch made clear that his PERSONAL views are NOT what any case is decided upon; his job is to apply The Law, and to examine precedent as may apply, ( if adequate similarity exists ).
ReplyDeleteThis proves that Gorsuch is, in fact, a HIGHLY principled man.
Simple. So clear the only way to miss it is to ignore it.
You don't have to ask about "specific cases." But there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. Such hearings are supposed to be, among other things, high-level employment interviews, not pre-coronation ceremonies.
ReplyDeleteNOT doing that, and trusting in nebulous character testimonials from those with agendas, traditonally has worked out badly.
I did see the Chairman's questioning, and I was disappointed with the responses. A prospective Justice does not need to say how he would rule on a future case in order to express an opinion on a previous one.
ReplyDeleteIf, for example, the Heller case had gone the other way, I would expect ANY "conservative" or "originalist" Judge to say boldly that they got it wrong. I don't think that is too much to ask (or expect).
Precedent is overturned from time to time. In order to do that, a Judge has to admit to himself and to the world that the Court got it wrong.
I have absolutely no doubt that an openly leftist judge, appearing before the confirmation committee, would not be bashful in stating his belief that the Heller decision was wrong, but that he would respect precedent (lying).