UPDATE: Guy says place your bets on Gorsuch. Judge Hardiman is also en route to Washington. Why? Phil Kerpen has a theory:
Another explanation for two judges en route to DC would be a surprise retirement...
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) January 31, 2017
The Denver Post is hoping President Donald Trump nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The publication noted Gorsuch’s qualifications, adding that he’s most famous for setting the legal framework for the Hobby Lobby decision that undercut the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate.
The editorial board disagreed with the decision, but added that they have no problems with jurists who exhibit a strict interpretation of the Constitution, “as long as he is willing to be consistent even when those rulings conflict with his own beliefs.”
Neil Gorsuch is a federal judge in Denver with Western roots and a reputation for being a brilliant legal mind and talented writer. Those who have followed Gorsuch’s career say that from his bench in the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals he has applied the law fairly and consistently, even issuing provocative challenges to the Supreme Court to consider his rulings.[…]
…in considering Gorsuch’s body of work and reputation — and yes, we like his ties to Colorado as well — we hope Trump gives him the nod.
We are not afraid of a judge who strictly interprets the Constitution based solely on the language and intent of our nation’s founders, as long as he is willing to be consistent even when those rulings conflict with his own beliefs.
As Denver Attorney Jason Dunn, who considers himself a longtime fan of Gorsuch, explains, his views stem “from a belief in a separation of powers and in a judicial modesty that it is not in the role of the courts to make law. Justice Scalia would put it: If you like every one of your rulings, you’re probably doing it wrong.”
A justice who does his best to interpret the Constitution or statute and apply the law of the land without prejudice could go far to restore faith in the highest court of the land. That faith has wavered under the manufactured and false rhetoric from critics that the high court has become a corrupt body stacked with liberals. And while Democrats will surely be tempted to criticize the nomination of anyone Trump appoints, they’d be wise to take the high road and look at qualifications and legal consistency rather than political leanings.
Recommended
Well, there may be some debate about the liberal wing of the high court, but that’s for another time. Guy wrote yesterday that the Trump White House has whittled the list to two men: Gorsuch and Judge Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Hardiman is the more populist-leaning choice. His father was a cab driver, with Hardiman becoming a cabbie to pay his way through college at the University of Notre Dame. The Senate has vetted both men, with both of their nominations to the appellate courts unanimously confirmed—Gorsuch in 2006 and Hardiman in 2007. Gorsuch is reportedly a carbon copy of Scalia, while Hardiman is more in line with sitting Justice Samuel Alito. Both are solid picks.
The president is expected to nominate his Supreme Court nominee at 8 P.M. tonight. Senate Democrats vow to block whomever Trump nominates for the Court.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member