Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Why Judge Gorsuch’s Confirmation Matters

The Senate Democrats who opposed Judge Gorsuch were engaging in political obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

Why Judge Gorsuch's Confirmation Matters

Why Judge Gorsuch’s Confirmation Matters

by Congressman Raul Labrador

Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed an outstanding jurist, Judge Neil Gorsuch, to the U.S. Supreme Court, ensuring his place as the 113th justice in U.S. history.  I was pleased when President Trump nominated Judge Gorsuch back in January and I publicly supported his nomination.

One of the most important reasons I supported Donald Trump during last year’s campaign is the President’s power to appoint Supreme Court justices and indeed, all federal judges.  As we’ve seen in recent years, on so many issues – from abortion to marriage, from immigration to health care – the judiciary is truly a co-equal branch with Congress and the White House.  This year alone, judges have blocked President Trump’s travel moratorium on those coming from seven countries plagued by terrorism, showing the dangerous power of unelected jurists to ignore the Constitution and put our country at risk.

The President’s power to appoint judges is underappreciated but undeniable.  President Obama alone nominated 329 judges, including two Supreme Court justices, who won Senate confirmation.  Those judges will sit on the bench for decades, ruling on issues critical to our national security, the administration of our government, and the vitality of our culture.

Last year, as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to appoint justices in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest justices of all time.  Justice Scalia was the embodiment of what a justice should be – an impartial arbitrator, not a champion of trendy political causes.  Justice Scalia understood that Congress’ role is to make the law, the President’s job is to execute the law, and his role, as a Supreme Court justice, is to interpret the law.  That is all.  And when judges overstep their boundaries – and allow their personal feelings to reign supreme – the results are disastrous, as we saw when the Ninth Circuit struck down President Trump’s travel moratorium.

We have every reason to believe Judge Gorsuch will be a worthy heir to the legacy of Justice Scalia.  During his confirmation hearings, for example, Judge Gorsuch said, “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge…stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.”  That is a humble and refreshing comment from a Supreme Court nominee, and a welcome change from President Obama’s nominees, who – in Obama’s own words – were selected because they exhibited “empathy” and “understood that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory.”

The Senate Democrats who opposed Judge Gorsuch were engaging in political obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.   They never questioned his character or his qualifications.  Even the American Bar Association, which the Democrats once called “the gold standard” for judicial nominations, gave Judge Gorsuch its highest rating.  Instead, they wanted to score political points against President Trump.  Their strategy failed, and it deserved to.

I am confident that Judge Gorsuch will make the people of Idaho proud.  Hopefully, this will be only the first of many outstanding judicial nominees from this still-young administration.  On Day 78 of the Trump Era, Idahoans who support the Constitution and understand that a judge’s role is inherently a conservative one, have a big win to celebrate.


1 Comment on Why Judge Gorsuch’s Confirmation Matters

  1. “This year alone, judges have blocked President Trump’s travel moratorium on those coming from seven countries plagued by terrorism”

    No, they didn’t. they do not have the authority to override the US Constitution, or the duties that is delegated to the Office of the US President, nor can they countermand the Oath of US Presidents.

    The Oath of all those that serve as US Presidents REQUIRE them to “faithfully execute the Office of President…, PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States”.

    One of a Presidents duties is to “… take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”.

    We have a Lawful immigration Law that was being enforced by President Trump as is his duty while serving as a US President.

    “Those judges will sit on the bench for decades, ruling on issues critical to our national security, the administration of our government, and the vitality of our culture.”

    Study the US Constitution from the framers viewpoint, you know the ones that wrote it. Judge do NOT rule, they are ONE OF THE VOICES that decide if an issue meets its US Constitutional requirements. If it does, then it is “Law, a Treaty; a Lawful action, etc; a Lawful agency, etc”. If it does not meet those requirements = and they are in writing for all to know – then it is NOT Lawful and is “color of Law”, which is NOT Lawfully binding on the American people, our nation.

    “Justice Scalia understood that Congress’ role is to make the law, the President’s job is to execute the law, and his role, as a Supreme Court justice, is to interpret the law.”

    I like Justice Scalia, he was the closest to getting what a judges constitutionally assigned duty was correct. Closest.

    US Constitution, Article 3, Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
    –to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
    –to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
    –to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
    –to Controversies between two or more States;
    –between a State and Citizens of another State;
    –between Citizens of different States;
    –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

    Article 6: “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Where do you see that Judges “interpret” the US Constitution?

    Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

    James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots…

    James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort;”

    Some things to consider…
    During the ratification debates, Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina not only said that we “should disregard” unconstitutional acts, but that we should “punish them for the attempt.”

    James Madison, Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (It was established.)

    St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?” (Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in his edition of ‘Blackstone’s Commentaries On The Law’ (1803))

    Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

    James Madison, Federalist 57, wrote that Congress “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”

    J. Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

Comments are closed.