Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Trump's pick an originalist

El Presidenté Trumpo has announced his supreme court pick of Neil Gorsuch and he is an originalist.

From The Washington Post:

Like Scalia, Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism — meaning that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written — and a textualist who considers only the words of the law being reviewed, not legislators’ intent or the consequences of the decision.

Later...

Gorsuch said in a speech last spring that as a judge he had tried to follow Scalia’s path.

“The great project of Justice Scalia’s career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators,” Gorsuch told an audience at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

Legislators “may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future,” Gorsuch said. But “judges should do none of these things in a democratic society.”

Instead, they should use “text, structure and history” to understand what the law is, “not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.”


Wow. The law is as the law is in the letter of the law (1). Gorsuch wants to interpret the law as it impacts on now based on how it went then—from often a land of no medicine, no rights and monstrous bigotry; a society blighted by enslavement and its corrupting effects.

If that's his attitude he should only be allowed to give non-binding opinions at Colonial Williamsburg instead of the highest court of the land.

The law is there to serve and protect the people of now; not ghosts 200 years dead.

Trump's "Make America great again" is coming true; only, that is, if heading towards 1776 rather than 2017 is your preference.

Lousy non-white and no-property class having a stake in the polity ... and their music.

(1) Unless, that is, you're the GOP in the final year of a Democratic presidency and you refuse to even consider the then president's pick in direct violation of founding laws. I wonder what Gorsuch's views on that will be? They should ask him.

No comments:

Post a Comment

No comments needed, really.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.