Post 3 - Due Feb 6
Last night President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Please answer the following 2 questions in your post:
*What are 2 questions that you think Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken should ask when/if the Senate Judiciary Committee has hearings on his nomination? Why are these important questions for the American people and the Senate to know the answer to when considering his nomination.
*Do you think Judge Gorsuch will be a judicial activist or show judicial restraint if he's on
the US Supreme Court? Be sure to have evidence / sources to back up your prediction.
Your post should have a minimum of 3 sources.
Labels: Senate, Supreme Court
posted by Ms. Aby @ 1:11 PM
45 Comments:
If/when Neil Gorsuch is questioned by Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I think it would be important to hear broad questions that help Americans understand who he is, why he was appointed and how will contribute to the nation’s government not just based on political ideology, but his take on either judicial activism or restraint. I personally agreed with something we discussed in class, that is asking nominees about views on abortion rights. Senators such as Franken and Klobuchar aren’t simply asking him if he is pro-life or pro-choice, (1) but they would be asking if he is willing to uphold the constitution regarding the women’s right to choose. He should hopefully respond thoroughly and leave no uncertainty to the American people who have the right to understand. Another thing he should be asked is quite broad and can vary based on opinion, but Gorsuch should be questioned if believes that previous cases fairly reflects the equality and justice that the constitution says it does, and if not how would he change them. (2) I think this gives congress and citizens a better perspective on his take of the nation as a whole, not just who people think he will represent because of his political standing. I think Gorsuch will show more political restraint based on quotes from both him and liberal colleagues. He is very respected by democrats and republicans and he is described as having a deep commitment to the original understanding of the constitution and rule of the law. He’s talked about how not every outcome of a case is supposed to reflect his conservative beliefs and that’s why many decisions he’s made have not always left him happy.
https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/pub_fac_supremecourt_6.21.10.pdf
http://www.lwvohio.org/assets/attachments/file/sample_questions_for_judicial_candidates.pdf
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14450024/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
Two questions I would like answered by Gorsuch are: Do you believe that the constitution takes ultimate precedence, even if sections of it have been overturned by previous cases? You are extremely young to be nominated for the Supreme Court, do you believe that your experience, or lack thereof, is enough to represent the country and the constitution in your decisions? Gorsuch has been seen to regularly practice judicial restraint, though he has made a few activist rulings in his past. I believe he will stick to this policy, respecting precedent until something truly against his beliefs arises.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gorsuch-is-right-for-supreme-court/article/2613111#!
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-commentary.html
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/3-questions-every-conservative-should-be-asking-neil-gorsuch
I think the questions they ask should be:
What will he do about the ban on islamic countries, and will he uphold the constitution rather than be loyal to President Trump?
They are important questions because it matters people if the judicial branch will uphold or declare an executive decision unconstitutional. Judge Gorsuch is perfectly qualified for the position of a Supreme Court Justice. I think he will show judicial restraint like Justice Antonin Scalia (2). He shares the same conservative legal philosophy as Scalia. Although he is less conservative than Justice Thomas but more conservative than Scalia. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gorsuch has the views of Scalia and the style of Justice Kennedy. “Gorsuch described Scalia’s approach as his model” (3).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch (just used for background info)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee.html
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-supreme-court-20170131-story.html
When the Senate Judiciary Hearing questions Neil Gorsuch, I think that Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar should ask questions pertaining to his interpretations of the Constitution relating to individual rights. Due to the recent controversies involving abortions and Planned Parenthood, I think that it is important to ask what Gorsuch thinks of overturning previous cases (like Roe v. Wade) so that the Senate and public can see if Gorsuch is willing to set aside precedents (1). I also think that Franken and Klobuchar should ask Gorsuch if he thinks that the executive and legislative branch can suspend or infringe upon the writ of habeas corpus. By asking this, the Senate could indirectly get an idea of what Gorsuch thinks of Trump's muslim ban and detaining of green card holders. At a time like this, I think it's important for the public to see what Gorsuch thinks of these issues.
I think that Gorsuch will be a practicer of judicial restraint over judicial activism. On the political spectrum compared to other justices, Gorsuch is more conservative than Antonin Scalia. Scalia was a huge advocate for judicial restraint, and although political ideology doesn't correlate with restraint or activism, I do believe that Gorsuch will show more judicial restraint (2).
(1) - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trumps-supreme-court-could-overturn-roe-v-wade-without-overturning-it/
(2) - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
We already know quite a few things about his political ideology due to his books about assisted suicide and cases that he has supported such as the Hobby Lobby case (1). Also due to his “eerie” similarities with late justice Scalia, whose position he would fill, there is less need for asking questions about his positions on the issues (1, 2). Some questions that they could ask would be “how important is precedent in the judicial system?” and “what is your opinion on how the Constitution is interpreted today?” These are important questions because it will give the american people a sense as to how much the judicial system would change things during his time as a justice and would let them see the things he would like to change. I think he will most likely use judicial restraint because of what he has said previously and he seems to have respect for democrats. So he will keep to the precedents already set (3). That being said, he is also a strong conservative so with some issues he may break precedent (1).
(1) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/heres-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/
(3)http://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512851970/if-confirmed-would-neil-gorsuch-rule-contrary-to-trumps-policies
I have a couple of questions that I would recommend Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar to ask at Neil Gorsuch’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first would be about his thoughts on Second Amendment rights. The number of mass shootings on a yearly basis in the United States have increased dramatically over the past decade -- clearly it has become a major issue for the American people (1). Gorsuch reportedly has voted for decisions that protect the individual’s “right to keep and bear arms” (2). It is important for us to know how Mr. Gorsuch would rule on issues like regulations on semi-automatic weapons and guns in schools (to protect from grizzly bears). The second question should be about his views on the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and its relation to the economy. In recent years, we have seen cases of businesses and government officials refusing to provide service or benefits to people based on their religious convictions (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby). With an increasingly diverse nation (ethnically, religiously, and in gender identity), it is important to see how Mr. Gorsuch would handle cases of people citing “freedom of religion” -- his record has shown a willingness to side with the “freedom of religion” defendants (3). It appears that Gorsuch is much like Scalia in that he is a strict constitutionalist. This would suggest that he will, on the whole, show judicial restraint (again, like Scalia).
(1) https://www.crimetraveller.org/2015/10/columbine-effect/
(2) https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170203/trump-supreme-court-nominee-neil-m-gorsuch-would-respect-the-second-amendment
(3) http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
Recently, Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch for a seat on the Supreme Court has elicited a great reaction from the public. I think it is important that Senator Klobuchar or Senator Franken ask Gorsuch how he would use a position on the Supreme Court to further and better the country. I think that this question is important so the Senate can understand Gorsuch ideals and priorities and where he sees room for improvement in the country. I also think it is important to ask Gorsuch how he views the role of the Supreme Court as an institution. I think it is important to know if Gorsuch sees the Court as a system used to simply keep the government and the people in line or if he believes that the Court should be used to make larger decisions to potentially better society.
Looking at Gorsuch’s past rulings and stances, I believe he will be more likely to show judicial restraint. In the past, Gorsuch has definitely shown a strict adherence to the Founder’s Constitution. For example, in 2013 Gorsuch showed his commitment to upholding the freedom of religion by siding with Hobby Lobby in their Supreme Court case opposing the requirement to provide birth control to employees (1). Gorsuch has also shown his fundamentalist views in his upholding of the 2nd Amendment as seen in his support of Games-Perez’s gun ownership in the case US v Miguel Games-Perez (2). Finally, Gorsuch enforced the 4th Amendment by upholding that police needed a warrant to enter the house of cocaine-smuggler Carlos Enrique Lehder-Rivas (3)(4). Using these cases, it appears that Gorsuch will show judicial restraint and strictly interpret the Constitution.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/hobby-lobby-executive-power-gorsuch-key-rulings/
(2)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/03/2012-case-highlights-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuchs-pro-gun-record/97353700/
(3)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuchs-past-opinions/story?id=45228325
(4)http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/955/1510/448042/
Neil Gorsuch will be a heavily contested candidate for the Supreme Court position mostly because he was nominated by Trump. Trump has already issued several executive orders that are definitely questionable when it comes to protecting civil liberties, and it is the job of the Court to uphold these liberties and to ensure a just society. I believe that some questions Senators Klobuchar and Franken should ask Gorsuch are: what are your views on Trump's ban on immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, and what are your views on integrating religion with government? (1) (2). These questions are important and relevant to the American people because these are both issues that Trump has brought up in his first few weeks as president. Many Democrats have questioned the constitutionality of Trump's actions, and since it is the Supreme Court's job to uphold the constitutionality of the government, these are important. If Gorsuch does, in fact, agree with Trump on the Muslim immigrant ban, there could be serious issues with his confirmation. While there is not much evidence on Gorsuch's views on immigration, it is known that he is a supporter of religious freedom (2). Since Trump has talked about further integrating religion and the government, which is unconstitutional to some extent, this is also an important issue. As far as whether Gorsuch will be a judicial activist or show restraint, I believe he will show restraint. Many legal scholars and people in the legal community believe that Gorsuch is a very fitting judge to be the successor for Antonin Scalia, who was known for showing judicial restraint (3). It seems that most sources believe that Gorsuch is very qualified, unlike many of Trump's other nominees for the executive branch. He studied law at Columbia, Harvard, and Oxford, and most people believe that although he is conservative, he isn't radically so, and he will make good decisions while on the Court (2) (3). I believe that from what I've seen, Gorsuch is a better candidate than what we could have hoped from Trump, and I don't believe Trump will elect a more moderate or liberal judge. I would rather have a qualified judge that fills his predecessor's shoes than an ideological extremist who will turn the Court in a radically different direction.
(1): https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/a-fractured-us-senate-awaits-supreme-court-pick-neil-gorsuch/2017/01/31/5fe569f0-e7f9-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.4efb7a2eba8c
(2): http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
(3): http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
The first question, I believe that Amy Klobucahr, and Al Franken should ask Neil Gorusch about is his stance on abortion.This would be an important question to ask, because abortion is a highly debated topic these days, and knowing a potential supreme court justices stance on the issues would allow people to prepare for changes to abortion policly. Furthemore, to support this :the Los Angeles Times states that"Gorusch views on aborition- always a closely watched issue in the high court confirmations- are not clear"(1). This shows the idea that it is good to know what a possible supreme court justices opion on abortion is. The second question that should be asked of Neil Gorusch is if he will try to repeal some of the Supreme Court Cases relating to LGBT rights. This question is important, because(just like abortion) the protection of LGBT rights is important for American social progress. I believe that Neil Gorusch will exercise judical restriant, and stick strictly to the Constituion. This is shown when Poltiico.com states" Gorusch is a favorite of legal conservatives"(2). This shows that Gorusch is a conserative judge, and as a result he will most likely follow conservative polciies. Finally, Cnn also shows this when it states" He challenged the notion that courts should defer to adminstrative agencies when they interpret the law(3). This shows that Gorusch is in support of using the Constitution as support for laws.
Sources:
1. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-supreme-court-20170131-story.html
2.http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
3. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/
This comment has been removed by the author.
The first question I think our Senator's should ask if how will Gorsuch's geographic background play a part of influence his decisions. A big deal has been made about him being from Colorado, a state that is meagerly represented in Supreme Court Justice history. In Colorado, Gorsuch is an active member of the legal community and is well known for enjoying the outdoors (1). Being a conservative from a fairly liberal western state could give Gorsuch a unique viewpoint. I think it would be interesting to know if he thinks his geographic background plays a role in his decisions and is important to see if he may be bias towards certain cases or positions. The second question I think should be asked of Gorsuch is if he believes the judiciary should be independent from the executive and to what degree. Not even a month into Trump's presidency, the constitutionality of some of his executive orders and actions have been questioned. I believe it is important for the American people to know if Gorsuch will place constitutionality over loyalty or personal opinion about Trump. Cases involving the constitutionality of Trump's orders could eventually end up coming before the Supreme Court and I think it is essential to know where Gorsuch stands on that issue (2). I believe that Gorsuch will practice judicial restraint if he becomes a Supreme Court Justice. Gorsuch believes that judges should only strike down laws in "extraordinary" circumstances (3). This position on judicial restraint could mean that Gorsuch would be unwilling to rule on some of Trump's orders or new laws passed by the 115th Congress. Overall, I think Gorsuch will use judicial restraint if he gets on the court and defer to precedence.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/donald-trump-mike-pence-travel-ban-judge.html
(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/31/thoughts-on-the-gorsuch-pick/?utm_term=.fc5e741a011d
The first question I think Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken should ask Judge Gorsuch is whether or not he believes in overturning past Court decisions, specifically what his opinion on overturning Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade. I think that they should ask his opinion on these cases specifically, and on judicial precedent overall, because they seem to be the cases at the forefront of the minds of the American people. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, pro or anti gay marriage, Americans are passionate about these rulings, and whether or not they will be overturned (1). The second question I think that the senators should ask Gorsuch is whether or not he will let his partisanship affect his voting. For example, if Gorsuch is confirmed quickly, and if the case of the refugee ban’s constitutionality goes to the court, I think the senators should ask him whether or not he would consider the president and his party when voting on it, instead of simply whether or not it is constitutional. In a time where the parties are more polarized than ever, it’s important to know whether or not Gorsuch will remain impartial. If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, the New York Daily News is worried about a statement he made in 2005: that “judges should only strike down laws in “extraordinary” circumstances” (2). This suggests that he would be a supporter of judicial restraint, and precedent. However, this statement comes into question when we look at his continuous support of pro-life groups, and support of defunding Planned Parenthood (3). In the end, it comes down to whether or not Gorsuch will let his partisanship and personal views affect his voting.
(1).https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/learning/lesson-plans/evaluating-trumps-nomination-of-judge-gorsuch-to-the-supreme-court-a-lesson-plan.html
(2).http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scotus-pick-neil-gorsuch-troubling-views-judicial-review-article-1.2960953
(3).http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/01/planned-parenthood-slams-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-hell-overturn-roe-v-wade/
I first think that Neil Gorsuch will be more of a judicial restraints and won't be taking part in a lot of judicial activism. I think this because he has said that he believes the court's only duty was to interpret the law and not to create it. This I think shows that he will lean more towards judicial restraint, and even though he is very conservative, I don’t believe that he will be a part of overturning various rulings. If I do remember correctly, it was considered disrespectful to straight up ask the nominations what their opinion on abortion and gay rights, so I think a question should be something like this “You partake in hunting, fishing, and skiing, and you clearly enjoy the environment in colorado. How does this affect your view on the environment, and do you think that it is reasonable for the government to get involved with protection of the environment and if yes, how far.” I think this will not only give us the information on what his opinion on global warming is and how much the government can be involved with impending issues. I think our next question should be more about how he will act in the court. The question would be like “If you were the deciding vote for overturning different decisions like the recent Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wade. Ignoring your personal opinions here, would you overturn them and why.” I think that this will give us a great idea about whether or not he supports judicial activism or judicial restraint. From what I can tell he is going to probably answer this by saying that the decisions will be upheld because he doesn’t believe in changing previous decisions.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scotus-pick-neil-gorsuch-troubling-views-judicial-review-article-1.2960953
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/reading-between-the-lines-for-gorsuchs-views-on-abortion.html
Neil Gorsuch was Trump's supreme court nominee and is presumably a conservative thinker, and conservative thinkers are often assumed to practice judicial restraint, and believe that the Constitution is a literal document, with no greater metaphor. In my self interest I would prefer that if a conservative thinker is appointed to the Supreme Court, that the appointee were closer to moderate than radical. In order to determine if this person aligns with my views, our senators should ask Gorsuch if he is a supporter of precedent and what constitutes precedent (i.e. lower court decisions, supreme court decisions). They should also ask if Gorsuch believes that the judiciary is a tool to expand meaning of the constitution, or if it is instead a document that is only expanded through the amendment process. Following the stereotype assigned to conservative judges, I am assuming that Gorsuch believes in the idea of judicial restraint. To prove this, I will look to Gorsuch's background and career. (1)Gorsuch has been known to question a precedent related to the regulation of big business, and this may lead him to question precedent on social cases as well. He also is a defender of "religious freedom" which translates to being pro life.(2) Gorsuch points to the free exercise clause that congress can't pass laws elstablishing or nullifying religions. It's important to note, however, that Gorsuch applied this belief by saying that Obamacare and its provisions for abortions were in violation of this clause. (3) Gorsuch also exemplified a support of judicial restraint at a speech last year when he was quoted saying "The great project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators. To remind us that 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, " he said. "But that judges should do none of these things in a democratic society." Through the research, it becomes quite apparent that Gorsuch is indeed a supporter of judicial restraint, but only supports precedent when it matches his ideological standing.
(1)http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
(2)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-neil-gorsuch-scotus-nominee/story?id=45008516
(3)http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominee/
Last night Neil Gorsuch was nominated to fill the opening in the Supreme Court. Gorsuch is a Harvard Law graduate, and has served on the 10th Circuit of Appeals for 10 years [1]. Throughout his time on this serving as a judge, he has ruled on criminal justice, religion in public places, administrative law, and others.
I believe that there are a lot of questions that Senators Klobuchar and Franken should ask this nominee, but there are two that seem particularly important. They should ask Gorsuch what his view of the Muslim ban is, and whether he believes such an act is constitutional. This question is significant because this is an issue that has been debated a lot recently, it has received a lot of coverage from the media, and it been important to the public. Another question they should ask is how he would have ruled in the Roe v. Wade case. Gorsuch has not given a certain opinion on the topic of abortion [2], and since it is a very controversial issue how he views the case would provide a lot of insight to how he would act as a judge.
Not only are specific questions such as those important, questions that cover a broader area are also necessary. A lot of people are going to be wondering whether Gorsuch is a judicial activist or restraintist. Gorsuch has said “It seems to me that the separation of legislative and judicial powers isn’t just a formality dictated by the Constitution. To the founders, the legislative and judicial powers were distinct by nature and their separation was among the most important liberty-protecting devices of the constitutional design, an independent right of the people essential to the preservation of all other rights later enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments.” [4] This suggests that Gorsuch is a judicial restraintist, and believes that the judiciary shouldn’t get too involved in the legislative process.
1)http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
2)http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444526/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-abortion-birth-control-left-limit-executive-power
3)http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-gorsuch-234466
4)https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/a-jeffersonian-on-the-supreme-court/515319/
I believe That Neil Gorsuch will be more of a judicial restrainist. There are two reasons for this, one, he is conservative and they typically are more on the restraint side. Two, he has said the only job of the courts is to uphold the laws, which makes me think he values precedent very much. As for questions to ask, I think number one that should and will come up is his stance on Trumps travel ban. Whether it's phrased as, "how do you view the constitutionality of banning foreign entry of a specific group of people?" or "Is it constitutional for the president to take such steep measures that may impact the economy?" (something in Congressional jurisdiction). Another question that may be good would be "how do you feel about the recent defundings of planned parenthood and their relation to past cases?" This could shed light on political ideals as well as the restrainist point of view.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444526/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-abortion-birth-control-left-limit-executive-power
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-neil-gorsuch-scotus-nominee/story?id=45008516
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
I think that Senators Franken and Klobuchar should question Mr. Gorsuch on his view of Roe v. Wade. A majority of the US, 53%, support not overturning Roe v. Wade. If the court has a majority that supports overturning it, it will not be fair or democratic for the American people. Another thing the senators should question is whether Mr. Gorsuch supports LGBTQ+ rights. With 4.1% of the population identifying as LGBT, a significant amount of people would be hurt by court rulings aimed at removing LGBTQ+ rights. Neil Gorsuch will show judicial restraint on many things. He has already made statements on judicial restraint, saying that New Deal era judges who showed restraint were right, and that laws should only be overturned in “extreme circumstances”. He may, however, be uncompromising from some of his positions, such as defendants’ rights, and the Chevron Doctrine, a bureaucracy favoring law.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx?g_source=lgbt&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scotus-pick-neil-gorsuch-troubling-views-judicial-review-article-1.2960953
I think that the two most crucial questions for Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken to ask Judge Gorsuch are his positions on Roe v. Wade and Trump's "extreme vetting" plan.
Abortion and immigration are two divisive issues in America today, and it is very important to know the impact his appointment will have on them. Gorsuch hasn't provided much information on his opinion of Roe v. Wade, but he is traditionally conservative, implicating that he is most likely pro-life. He has also given general statements on the issue: “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable… the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." [1] However, this is not necessarily indicative of his potential future rulings, as he has also said that these statements are personal beliefs and have no bearing on his decisions. [1]
The travel ban will also be a critical issue. The ban is being opposed on many legal fronts, with 16 attorneys general supporting a lawsuit against it. [2] Immediately following the ban, the nation's acting attorney general, Sally Yates called the ban "unconstitutional" before she was fired. [3] Since the ban's constitutionality is called into question, I would be shocked if the the issue doesn't make its way to the Supreme Court, meaning that Gorsuch could very well be part of the decisionmaking. This means that we, as a country, need to know (at least roughly) what he may do.
I think that Judge Gorsuch will show judicial restraint. He is a known originalist, and regards Antonin Scalia (another originalist) as a personal hero. [4]
Sources:
1.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/reading-between-the-lines-for-gorsuchs-views-on-abortion.html
2.http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/02/06/16-attorneys-general-say-federal-court-should-block-trumps-travel-ban/
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-memo.html
4. http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/heres-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch
I believe Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar should ask Neil Gorsuch his position on some key issues that divide America right now. I believe they should confront his stances on issues that may not be agreed upon by the majority of the American people and would most definitely affect him if he succeeds. If he is willing to confront these issues during the hearing, it will be a good way for the American people to know more about the judge who may be serving the rest of his life on the Supreme Court.
I believe Franken and Klobuchar should first ask his opinion on Abortion, specifically Roe v. Wade. [1] Going into detail on how in favor of not in favor of the case will be important to many people. I believe they should also confront him on how he plans to work with members of the opposing party and how he will create compromise in the Supreme Court.[2] The better people get to know Gorsuch as a person, as well as his stances on key issues, the less nervous and in the dark the American people will be about his nomination. These questions will both be highly important to the American people. Abortion currently is an extremely decisive issue that will be important to know about. His ability to negotiate and listen will also be important as he represents a majority for the Republicans in the Supreme Court, and Democrats will want him to also be on their side for some issues.
I believe Gorsuch will be in favor of Judicial Restraint rather than Judicial Activism. I believe this firstly because judicial restraint is most recently a commonly Conservative mindset, and Gorsuch has leaned towards a more Conservative path in the past. I believe this secondly because Gorsuch has actually made remarks in direct favor of Judicial restraint. In a 2005 article he complemented New Deal-era liberals' "judicial restraint and deference to the right of Congress to experiment with economic and social policy." [4]This clearly shows his favor towards the philosophy of Judicial Restraint. Overall I believe if Gorsuch makes it onto the Supreme Court he will lean more towards Judicial Restraint rather than Activism.
[1]https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/if-we-care-about-abortion-asking-judge-neil-gorsuch-his-opinion-roe-v-wade-not
[2]http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/heres-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch
[3]http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=journal_articles
[4]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/31/thoughts-on-the-gorsuch-pick/?utm_term=.ad66cee1713a
When Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, goes in front on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I hope that Senator Franken and Klobuchar ask questions pertaining to Gorsuch’s views on immigration and abortion. The matter of immigration into the U.S. is extremely relevant at this time, due to President Trump’s 90 day ban on immigration from: Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq; and the 120 day suspension on the refugee system. Americans have reacted to the executive order, also know as the Muslim Ban, by having protests that promote Americans standing with immigrants and refugees. In one such protest, among the seas of posters and signs, there were chants that continued the message, “Say it loud, say it clear, immigrants are welcome here(2).” Abortion is another issue that needs to be addresses in light of the President’s first executive order, a block on giving aid to foreign organizations that use funds from other organizations to pay for abortions or discuss them. The ban was created in 1984, it was called the “Mexico City Ban” and was criticized as being a “global gag rule” (3).
I believe that if appointed Gorsuch will be a judicial restraintist. “Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution,” he wrote in a concurrence last year. “And that document isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams (1).”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee.html
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/29/512336501/protests-against-immigration-and-refugee-executive-orders-continue-across-the-co
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/01/23/trump-reverses-abortion-related-policy-to-ban-funding-to-international-health-groups/?utm_term=.79deea5fdcb2
When the Senate Judiciary Committee holds its hearing on Neil Gorsuch and his Supreme Court nomination, Senators Franken and Klobuchar should ask questions on Gorsuch’s stance on the First Amendment and freedom of religion, especially with Trump’s attempts in implementing a travel ban on Muslim nations. In the past, Gorsuch, “sided in favor of religious freedom claims made by the Little Sisters of the Poor and the owners of the craft company Hobby Lobby, who challenged language in the Affordable Care Act that required them to pay for contraceptive coverage for employees” (1). Although Gorsuch has supported religious freedom in the past, it is important to evaluate his position of religious freedom in other, more current scenarios because the United States is such a diverse country. I also think that Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar should ask Gorsuch a question on his beliefs surrounding abortion. Gorsuch has not clearly stated his clear beliefs, but it is implied that he is against abortion from his stance and work on cases involving assisted suicide (2). Clarification is crucial because President Trump is an advocate for overturning Roe v. Wade despite widespread protest on this issue.
I think Gorsuch will primarily show judicial restraint if his nomination to the Supreme Court is approved. Gorsuch is described as ardent textualist, just like his predecessor, Antonin Scalia (1). However, Gorsuch’s conservative nature depicted by the New York Times may challenge his beliefs in using judicial restraint in certain scenarios like abortion cases since the use of precedence goes against his suspected stances on the issue (3).
1. http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/heres-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch
2. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14450024/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
3. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee.html
I believe that there are many things that Senators Franken and Klobuchar could ask Gorsuch but perhaps the most important of any questions would have to be whether Gorsuch will vie for socially progressive decisions or will he seek to revert any decisions. Additionally there is the basic question of: "Is the Constitution a flexible or living document?" The first question addresses all of the key social progresses that have been made in the past decade as well as any that might be made in the future as well as the basic concept of how he might interpret the very document he may be tasked in upholding.
I think that Gorsuch will be a face of judicial restraint. The key issue is that there have been a number of controversial decisions in the past decade and honestly, I would imagine that the majority of people want the politics of our government to be toned down from the level they have been at. As such, Gorsuch's approval rating based upon several polls (~52%) suggest that perhaps there are a rather large portion of the population who want what he represents: a stricter reader of the law (1). Gorsuch belongs to a conservative judiciary movement as he is known for interpreting the law as it is written rather than how he wants (2). Interestingly, Gorsuch is rather flexible in how he deals with certain things. For example, he sided with the concurrent opinion in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc case were he agreed that there shouldn't be a mandate for employers to provide contraceptive coverage for female employees because that mandate wasn't the least restrictive way to do so. On the other hand, in the Yellowbear v. Lampert case Gorsuch argued that the plaintiff had a right to exercise his non-mainstream religious beliefs and that the prison had to accommodate him because it wasn't truly inconvenient to do so (3). Basically what this shows is that while Gorsuch does tend to be conservative in his rulings, he will not shy away from upholding someones rights if it doesn't fall into a conservative approach.
(1) http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/06/3-reasons-neil-gorsuch-is-an-ideal-successor-to-scalia/
(2) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/6/neil-gorsuch-trumps-supreme-court-pick-draws-appro/
(3) http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/two-religious-liberty-cases-show-neil-gorsuch-to-be-deliberate-fair/
There are two questions I think Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken should ask when or if the Senate Judiciary Committee has hearings on Neil Gorsuch. One question that I think they should ask Neil Gorsuch is about whether he would reverse Roe vs Wade or not. They should ask him this question for a couple of reasons. The main reason is to find out what type of judge he would be. By him answering this question you can find out how conservative he is, to some extent. In addition, you can find out if he will be a judicial activist or show some judicial restraint. It would guess that Gorsuch show judicial restraint if he did not change it because he wanted to follow the precedent. It would be judicial activism if he did want to reverse it. My second question would be does being the youngest justice ever appointed effect your judgement during a court case because of the age difference. According to cnn, his quick ascent is due to a combination of factors, including his track record, and demeanor. In addition, the impression he has made on Trump and the small group of advisers assisting him on how to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia also make him qualified.(1) Gorsuch has the typical pedigree of a high court justice. He graduated from Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, clerked for two Supreme Court justices and did a stint at the Department of Justice.(2) This shows he is very qualified for the job. In my opinion Judge Gorsuch will show judicial restraint. The selection fulfills an early campaign promise by Trump to nominate a solidly conservative judge with a record of strictly interpreting the U.S. Constitution.(3) I believe that he would show judicial restraint because he is very conservative. Based on the research I did, Gorsuch follows the constitution and would not make bold decisions. In addition, he is very conservative, thus, I would guess that Gorsuch would show judicial restraint.
(1):http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/
(2):http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
(3):http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/here's-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch’s hearing will include a variety of questions that could range from his decisions from the past to his views for the future. Among the questions Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken will ask, I think his views on immigration should be one of them. More specifically, I think they should question his views on the immigration ban. According to his voting record, there’s no indication of being a defender or a critic of immigrants’ rights. He has ruled in favor of immigrants a little less than half the time, however (1). Immigration is such a hot issue right now because of the recent travel ban. It’s inspired protests, and the constitutionality of it is already being questioned. Federal Judge James Robart issued a temporary nationwide restraining order on the ban (2). If Gorsuch were to become a justice of the Supreme Court, his voting behavior on this issue may be noteworthy since the issue of constitutionality may bring the executive order under the Supreme Court’s analysis.
Another question I think is worth raising is what his views on abortion are. Trump has supported restricting abortions, so whether or not his nominee does would be important to the agenda of future abortions. Gorsuch’s view is unclear because there’s no rulings to gather opinions off of, but he has written a book on the issue of assisted suicide. He wrote, “Human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable. The intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong” (3). He supports the ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia, so there is reason to believe he may be pro-life based on this quote. Although his view is subject to his belief of whether a fetus qualifies as a person or not as well.
Overall, I believe that if Judge Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will most likely practice judicial restraint. Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution Center said, “Like Justice Scalia, he sometimes reaches results that favor liberals when he thinks the history or text of the Constitution or the law require it, especially in areas like criminal law or the rights of religious minorities, but unlike Scalia he’s less willing to defer to regulations” (4). This would mean that he would not try to chart new constitutional ground, but will probably stick to judicial restraint similarly to Scalia.
(1) http://immigrationimpact.com/2017/02/01/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-immigration/
(2) http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317884-washington-state-judge-halts-trump-immigration-ban-nationwide
(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/reading-between-the-lines-for-gorsuchs-views-on-abortion.html
(4) http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
I think a critical question to ask Walter Gorsuch would be to ask him his opinion on the Muslim Ban, and specifically the court’s role in deciding its unconstitutionality. Not only would information about Gorsuch’s ideological leanings be revealed through his thoughts about the ban, we would also see his statements put into practice. Gorsuch has gone on record as saying that "to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be -- not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best." [1] However, we don’t know how Gorsuch would approach a case with virtually no legal precedent, which would be interesting to know. It would also tell us whether Gorsuch’s loyalties lie with his nonpartisan principles or his Republican appointers. Should they lie with his principles, Trump may actually find his power limited by his justice, as the president’s power has grown since the days of the Constitution, and Gorsuch historically has directly interpreted the Constitution in his decisions [2]. Another key question to ask would be his opinion on Roe v. Wade. Both democrats and republicans say that “He's a good listener. He's easy to work with. He's not someone who skews the facts to fit what he wants.” [3] By all indications, Gorsuch believes in keeping partisan and ideological preferences out of legal decisions. However, it would be interesting to see which way he leans on an issue that is almost entirely ideological. Finally, I believe that Gorsuch will practice judicial restraint. The Supreme Court, from the days of the Constitution, has granted itself quite a bit of power, beginning with its establishment of judicial review. The Constitution, as stated in Federalist Paper 78, originally intended to the courts to be the weakest branch, and to merely receive cases rather than seek them out. From his decisions and statements, it appears Neil Gorsuch will interpret law in this manner.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/
[2]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/a-jeffersonian-on-the-supreme-court/515319/
[3] http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/heres-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch
If I was Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken I would ask Neil Gorsuch, If he would base his decisions on a political bias or would he incorporate the Constitution in his every decisions, if so how would he most likely interpret the Constitution? Another question I would ask is, do you think that with you being so young, it will affect the way you make decisions, even though you are highly qualified for the job, do you think that the others justices seniority advantage will somehow pressure you into making a different decision? These are important I think because it gives the people an idea of what this man really thinks.
I think that Neil Gorsuch is a judicial restraintist. (2) “it is more important than ever that we enforce the traditional legal principle” this can be inferred as he wants a traditional law system, which is referring to the constitution. (3) “that the Constitution aims to prevent this dangerous concentration of power.” In this context it is talking about how judge Neil Gorsuch agrees that there is too much power within the government as of this day in age, and reverting back to the ways of the constitution will dwindle or prevent future powers that the branches can receive.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0201/849177-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scotus-pick-neil-gorsuch-troubling-views-judicial-review-article-1.2960953
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/01/where-neil-gorsuch-stands-on-three-legal-issues-that-divide-conservatives/
I think that Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken should address Neil Gorsuch’s opinion on overturning court decisions that have been important in setting precedence on important issues, such as Roe v. Wade decision. For instance, he has stated his sympathy towards companies who feel that requiring coverage for contraceptives violates their religious beliefs, but whether he is willing to overturn past decisions makes a difference in his impact on the Supreme Court bench [1]. Given his conservative views that are congruent to Trump on issues such as gun rights, and the affordable care act, he could play a role in overturning some past liberal decisions [2]. Knowledge about his opinion of amending judicial precedence would clarify how he would influence past decisions and those to be made in the future. Based on Gorsuch’s conservative views, I think that it is very necessary to ask specifically about his views on LGBT rights and immigration. Having discovered his stance on overturning past cases, it is vital to develop an understanding of his views on these issues because changes in the rights of American’s and their ability to enter this country are both controversial. This could be vitally important when determining the constitutionality of executive orders such as Trump’s immigration ban. Gorsuch will likely be on the Supreme court bench for three to four decades and these topics are of great concern to Americans in the long run [3]. Creating a conservative majority on the Supreme Court could also influence the progress made in recent years for LGBT rights [3]. I find it clear that Neil Gorsuch will practice judicial restraint. He says that the a court should, “independently decide what the statute means and whether it has or has not vested a legal right in a person” [1]. This follows that Gorsuch believes in a judiciary that is interpreting the constitution, but he also says that cases are to be decided by judges based on the actual text and historical context of the document rather than, “ based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best." [2]. This implies that the nominee will consider controversial issues, but through a perspective that is not very active in leading new trends in policy.
[1]http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
[2]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/
[3]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-cases/97367082/
When Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken hold their hearing for Neil Gorsuch for his nomination of supreme court justice. They should address the fact that by confirming him it would create a majority of conservative justices on the supreme court. They should also address the fact that there were other candidates Trump could’ve picked that were both more moderate and more qualified(1). Klobuchar and Franken should also ask Gorsuch about his stance on abortion, because that is such a big dividing issue at this point in time. This will be important in their decision because of the fear that the decision of Roe v Wade will be changed (2). It will be important for them to find out about his views on abortion because it could make or break whether Democratic Senate members are likely to confirm his nomination or not. Speaking of this I think it will be important, and a deciding factor for the judiciary committee to ask Gorsuch about his willingness to change precedence, and how likely he will be to follow the decisions that have been made with previous cases. It is important for them to ask him this because it will help in deciding whether or not the democratic members voting on him can trust him not to change precedence just based off of his political views. Gorsuch has recently said that legislators are to appeal to their own morals to create laws, but judges are to apply the laws that are already in place without their moral input (3). Gorsuch has demonstrated the limit that he should have when comparing the constitution to cases, and understand that it is not his job to rewrite the constitution. This leads me to believe that Gorsuch will show judicial restraint because he has shown in his past decisions on the national appellate court that he follows the constitution.
1. http://www.phillytrib.com/trump-s-supreme-court-pick-neil-gorsuch-is-no-moderate/article_94416bec-9359-5c7c-905f-03fb07cb4237.html
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/reading-between-the-lines-for-gorsuchs-views-on-abortion.html?_r=0
3. http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/31/neil-gorsuch-is-an-excellent-pick-for-the-supreme-court/
There are a couple questions I think that Senators Klobuchar and Franken should ask Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch. One, the Senators should ask him about his thoughts on the denial of the Senate to even have a hearing for President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court Merrick Garland. Trump's goal with his appointment was to appoint a "staunch conservative justice to replace Antonin Scalia" [1]. If Trump's goal is to replace justice Scalia than he should be nominating a strict judicial restraintist. The constitution says that the sitting president has the power to nominate a justice and the Senate can advise and consent however the Senate's refusal to even hold a hearing for Garland shows a departure from the constitution that a true judicial restrain advocate would rebuke. Another question the Senators should ask is what is Gorsuch's opinion on the relationship between religion and government. As a judge Gorsuch has weighed in on several religious cases largely in favor of religious groups [2]. Also, with Trump proposing to loosen rules about ministers advocating for political candidates from the pulpit it seems that the separation of church and state will be an important issue in the coming years. I believe that Gorsuch will practice judicial restraint largely because in his nomination Trump was looking to replace justice Scalia and Gorsuch seems to be a good choice for that [3].
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/gorsuch-trump-supreme-court/515232/
2. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
3. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
two questions I would ask Gorsuch:
What makes you believe you are capable of being a well practicing judge on the Supreme Court? I think this question is important because it would make him have to think about how he can truly serve this country as a judge.
I think they should also ask if he is going to be willing to help overturn past decisions that would strongly affect progressive movements today. Trump's administration has been good at skirting around these questions, and they finally need to be addressed.
I think Gorsuch is going to show judicial restraint. Gorsuch believes in protecting constitutional rights [1] and protecting religious freedoms [2] especially when it comes to protecting Christianity in America. He was a strong believe in allowing religious private businesses to deny services to others based on their beliefs. Another reason I believe he will practice judicial restraint is because he is most likely going to mirror his jurisprudence after Scalia's, who was a strong practitioner of judicial restraint [3].
[1]http://djournal.com/opinion/roger-wicker-judge-gorsuchs-judicial-philosophy-simliar-scalias/
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/31/supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-on-religious-freedom/?utm_term=.cb5d760bc739
[3]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gorsuch-is-right-for-supreme-court/article/2613111
If I were on the Judiciary Committee, I would ask Neil Gorsuch a few questions. The first of these questions is whether he believes Senate Republicans were acting constitutionally when they blocked Obama’s judicial nominee from having hearings. [1] This is ultimately a question that he would want to avoid, so it would be good to get a clear answer. As a person practicing judicial restraint, and someone who follows the Constitution, he would most likely say that the Senate should have done their job and either gave consent or denied consent. The Senate shouldn’t have been able to get around their obligatory duty. However, this would call into question the legitimacy of his own nomination, as if the Senate hadn’t blocked, he wouldn’t be there as a nominee.
Another question I would like to ask him is whether he believes that the legislative and executive branches should be the sole force in determining immigration policy, of if the courts should have some check. [2] This question is important because if Congress created an unconstitutional piece of legislation, and it was implemented by the bureaucracy, people might be deported out of the country. However, if they wanted to file a lawsuit about this, they would not be citizens and couldn’t sue in the American Judiciary system. This creates a loophole in which the Supreme Court may know that something is unconstitutional, but there is no way for it to be brought to them, so the law would live on.
I would classify Gorsuch as someone who practices judicial restraint, though he has said and ruled both in favor of activism and restraint. [3] In an article he wrote in 2005, he said that judges should strike down laws only in “extraordinary” circumstances. This implies that some violations to the Constitution would be overlooked, which could be classified as judicial activism. However, he also praised New Deal liberals for their judicial restraint practices. As a final question, I would ask him whether he believes in judicial restraint or judicial activism, to clear up his previously unclear statements.
[1]https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/02/02/ask-neil-gorsuch-about-merrick-garland/hB1lMt89367mAGjDIgJ7sM/story.html
[2]https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/3-questions-every-conservative-should-be-asking-neil-gorsuch
[3]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scotus-pick-neil-gorsuch-troubling-views-judicial-review-article-1.2960953
I believe that Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken need to ask Neil Gorscuh many questions before a confirmation vote. Two of the questions I believe they need to ask would be "Is torture permitted under the constitution?", (1), and Is Trumps refugee ban constitutional. I believe that the first question about torture needs to be asked due to what Trump has said in the past about torture. Trump has numerous times come out in favor of waterboarding, such as on a interview with Fox News, on January 26 (2). I do not believe that torture should be used on anyone, as it is very inhumane. Not everyone in Trumps cabinet agrees with him, most notably Mattis, but I believe it is important to know if his justice pick believes the constitution permits torture. From my study of it in this class, I believe that the bill of rights protects people from cruel and unusual punishment, which in my belief would include torture. Even if there is a terrorist act, it would still be cruel and unusual punishment to torture the attacker. I also believe it is important to ask the other question. Trump has enacted many controversial executive orders in his two weeks in office. The most controversial has been his supposed "not a ban" refugee ban. This ban has had major legal battles, and Trump has just said he plans to take the battle to the Supreme Court (3). If he is going to take this to the court, it is important to know if the new justice believes the ban is constitutional or not. That will allow senators to make an informed vote, based on if they support the mans qualifications, and his ideology. I believe this issue would be a large legal battle, as America was founded by immigrants, and refugees are in our culture, and history. However, the question is if the constitution prevents an executive order such as this. I would like to believe it prevents such an action, and therefore if it goes to the court, the justice choice could lead to a decision in one way or the other. Gorsuch definitely is a nominee who will show judicial restraint in the supreme court. Gorsuch adheres to presidents set by other landmark cases (4). This is shown in his record, and statements he has made. Gorscuh is very conservative, and believes in the judicial restrain mindset. Due to this, I do believe that he will not be a judicial activist, and therefore he will take the constitution exactly how it is, without modern interpretation, and previous precedents will largely affect his decision.
(1): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-most-important-questions-for-trumps-justice-are-about-democracy/515394/
(2): http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trump-on-torture-again/
(3): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-supreme-court-travel-refugee-latest-president-executive-order-a7567621.html
(4): http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/31/with-neil-gorsuch-trump-has-chosen-original-for-supreme-court.html
I think the main questions that Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar should ask Neil Gorsuch are first of all common ones like his stances on abortion such, but the two I would be most concerned about is stance on 2nd amendment rights. and immigration laws (like do you believe Trump's executive order is constitutional?). These are both important questions because these are 2 popular issues being brought up at this current moment, especially between democrats (which both Franken and Klobuchar are). If these questions are asked and the public has a large outcry on the stances, this could lead to Senators not confirming his nomination(1). For example, as gun violence and mass shootings are still a heavy issue and gun control laws are being brought up, and it is a fact that most people want to place tighter gun control laws, and he wants to "protect 2nd amendment rights, the people will have some major push back.
For how Gorsuch is going to act/rule is that he is going to be a conservative, judicial restraintist, that is going to fill in the hole left by Justice Scailia's death (2). I believe this is the case mostly by his current rulings in past courts including voting on banning legal euthanization, protect freedom of religion, and voting against a required contraceptive clause in the Obamacare legislation (3). This is why I believe he will continue to be a conservative force, and a candidate that the majority republican Senate will be able to consent as the most recently confirmed Justice.
1)http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fights-over-trumps-immigration-ban-and-gorsuch-supreme-court-confirmation-on-collision-course/article/2614174
2)http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512629596/here-is-what-it-takes-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee
3)http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
Were I in the in the position to do so, I would ask Neil Gorsuch about whether or not he would uphold the Supreme Court decision made in Roe v. Wade, as well as their decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. I think that these are important questions because they are decisions that are constantly being questioned by Republican lawmakers and their supporters, as well as the fact that women and members of the LGBT+ community need to know if their rights will be protected or turned back (by over 40 years in the case of Roe v. Wade)
I think that Gorsuch will show judicial restraint, based on his history of protecting religious freedoms[1] during which he has ruled in favor of allowing corporations and non-profit organizations to not fund birth control measures for their employees. He has protected "gun rights" and his nomination was met with approval from the NRA [2] He commonly makes his decisions based upon what he believes the framer's original intent was, not on what he interprets it as [3]. Overall I expect that Gorsuch will be steadfastly conservative, making him an appropriate nominee for Trump, and a fitting replacement for Scalia.
[1] http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=982575284&message_id=13915468&user_id=NRLC&group_id=966113&jobid=36364301
[2] https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170131/nra-applauds-neil-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court
[3] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir
It is important to ask significant questions in the nomination hearings of Neil Gorsuch so that the Senate is able to get a better sense of who he is and what he plans to do if approved to the United States Supreme Court. Since Gorsuch is very conservative, it would be important for our Democratic Senators to ask him things that could prove he is not the right person to be on the Supreme Court. One thing that I think would be crucial for Senators Klobuchar and Franken to ask him would be if he would plan to uphold Roe v Wade or not if confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is important since both Klobuchar and Franken are Democrats and also because it is a significant topic across America today. He is known to support ‘right to life’, so his answer to a question such as this may cause uproar among the people and may show reason to be hesitant in confirming him(1). Another question that may be helpful to ask could be his opinions on issues concerning companies and consumers/employees. According to an article in The Economist, Gorsuch has a history of siding with companies rather than with the employees or with the consumer(2). Asking this question could lead him to either lie or to say things that may upset a great majority of Americans who are the workers or are the consumers, and also gives us a better idea on how he may rule in certain cases. These are only two of many topics Senators Klobuchar and Franken could bring up in questioning in attempt to block the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. If Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court, I think he will show judicial restraint. This is reflected in several of key decisions he has made, including protecting freedom of religion and voting against the arrest of a 7th grader being a distraction in school(3). Also, in the case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch shared his opinion against the Chevron Doctrine. This doctrine states that a bureaucracy could have a say in interpreting the law in special circumstances. Gorsuch believes this is going against the intention of the framers to have the power of interpreting the law preside solely in the judicial branch(4). His opinion on this topic again reflects a judicial restraint mindset.
(1)http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/how-the-democrats-can-stop-neil-gorsuch
(2)http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/02/economist-explains-6
(3)http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-gorsuch-234466
(4)https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/24/should-chevron-be-reconsidered-a-federal-judge-thinks-so/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.66f5ee825d26
(1) President Trump recently nominated Colorado federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch I believe Senator Klobuchar and Senator Al Franken should inquire to Neil Gorsuch at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing his stances on abortion and the second amendment. (2) These are arguably two of the most controversial topics in the country and it is important that the Senate and public alike are aware of where he stands. If he is too polarized on either of these stances, it may affect the outcome of his rulings. I personally believe Gorsuch will act more upon judicial restraint than judicial activism. (3) According to The Hill, Judge Gorsuch is a strong believer in judicial restraint and will act upon it throughout the next years. He has said, "I have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.” It is necessary to gather the stances of Gorsuch on certain issues before he is put in the position of Supreme Court judge.
(1) http://www.procon.org/
(2) http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/318051-judge-neil-gorsuch-will-bring-needed-perspective-to-supreme
(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-picks-colo-appeals-court-judge-neil-gorsuch-for-supreme-court/2017/01/31/2b08a226-e55e-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.f89174db4b8d
Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken should ask Neil Gorsuch questions to see how he will decide on rulings, and if his decisions will be based on precedent or the constitution. One question one of the senators could as is how he would rule on abortion. Would he uphold Roe vs. Wade, or would he say the protection provides a right to life and rule against abortion? This could also help show his view on an important issue of Trump’s proposal to defund planned parenthood, which most people are against according to a recent Washington Post poll (1). Klobuchar and Franken should also ask his opinion on Trump’s executive order to ban immigration from majority Muslim countries. Much like the previous question, it shows if he will vote in favor of the president who appointed him, or if he will vote based on his judicial beliefs. I think Neil Gorsuch will show judicial restraint. In the case Hobby Lobby vs Sebelius, he voted based on the constitution (2). He is also said to put his ideologies aside (3).
(1)https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/acts-of-faith/live-coverage-of-the-march-for-life/poll-most-americans-oppose-defunding-planned-parenthood/?utm_term=.1273869057cd
(2)http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-key-rulings/
(3)https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee.html
Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken should ask Neil Gorsuch questions to see how he will decide on rulings, and if his decisions will be based on precedent or the constitution. One question one of the senators could as is how he would rule on abortion. Would he uphold Roe vs. Wade, or would he say the protection provides a right to life and rule against abortion? This could also help show his view on an important issue of Trump’s proposal to defund planned parenthood, which most people are against according to a recent Washington Post poll (1). Klobuchar and Franken should also ask his opinion on Trump’s executive order to ban immigration from majority Muslim countries. Much like the previous question, it shows if he will vote in favor of the president who appointed him, or if he will vote based on his judicial beliefs. I think Neil Gorsuch will show judicial restraint. In the case Hobby Lobby vs Sebelius, he voted based on the constitution (2). He is also said to put his ideologies aside (3).
(1)https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/acts-of-faith/live-coverage-of-the-march-for-life/poll-most-americans-oppose-defunding-planned-parenthood/?utm_term=.1273869057cd
(2)http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-key-rulings/
(3)https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee.html
I think that Gorsuch should be addressed with questions pertaining to the individual rights of citizens. I feel this way because many of Trump’s proposed policies have been met with widespread concern about of protection of individual rights (1), so it is important to ask Trump’s nominee about individual rights. I propose that we ask Gorsuch about his opinions on Roe v Wade, as it will distinguish his stance on the protection of women’s rights. A good second question to ask could be to what extent do you consider precedent when making decisions involving individual rights. This is reveal whether or not he is a judicial activist or practices judicial restraint when addressed with cases involving civil rights. From his previous stances, especially his decision to stand with Hobby Lobby (2), it can be deduced that he strongly believes in the use of the freedom of religion to provide services to people who don’t fit that religion’s ideals. Alongside this decision, he also is eerily similar to the previous justice Antonin Scalia, who was known for practicing judicial restraint (3). Based on his political ideology, similarity to Scalia, and previous rulings I predict that Gorsuch will practice judicial restraint.
1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/opinion/civil-rights-under-donald-trump.html
2 - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/hobby-lobby-executive-power-gorsuch-key-rulings/
3 - http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-neil-gorsuch/
If/When Gorsuch is questioned by Senators Franklin and Klobuchar, I think it's important that they ask him his opinions on landmark cases such as Roe v. Wade, and also about his position on the issue of judicial activism vs. restraint. These are important questions as they help both Senate and the American public get a gauge on Gorsuch's political views and stances and what he might be like as a Justice. Whether he supports Roe v. Wade is important as it's an essential case for both reproductive and privacy rights, and a negative opinion towards Roe v. Wade could mean that it is overturned (1). His opinion on judicial restraint vs. activism is also important as this gives the best indication of how Gorsuch will make decisions as a Justice (2). Based on Gorsuch's respect and reverence of Justice Anton Scalia, it's likely Gorsuch will practice judicial restraint if elected to the Supreme Court, as Scalia championed judicial restraint (3). Gorsuch also shares many of Scalia's views, as seen in his support of Hobby Lobby and so-called religious freedom laws.
(1) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18
(2) http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2816&context=tlr
(3) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0
President Donald Trump recently nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This nomination raises many questions due to the lifetime terms and power of the Supreme Court. I would recommend Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken to ask Gorsuch if he would be willing to overturn previous cases. According to a Vox article, “Gorsuch is more outspoken and forthright in his positions than your typical Supreme Court aspirant, providing a lot of fodder for any opponents” which suggests that Gorsuch may do whatever he can in order for court rulings to reflect his views (1). I would urge Klobuchar and and Franken to ask about this, as overturning previous court cases may drastically change the condition of the United States. Additionally, I would recommend the senators to ask about what Gorsuch believes the role of the Supreme Court is. I believe that this will really demonstrate how radical Gorsuch may be in his decisions.
According to an article from The Guardian, Gorsuch is “ an “originalist”, indicating that he places overwhelming importance on the original meaning of the constitution as it was understood by “we the people” at the time it was written” (2). This leads me to believe that Gorsuch will show judicial restraint in the Supreme Court, as he won’t stray from the direct meaning of the Constitution. An article from the National Review also states that Gorsuch “recognizes the importance of limiting government to protecting rights” (3). This also makes me think that Gorsuch will demonstrate judicial restraint in court, as he believes in limited the scope of government.
(1) http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14450024/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/02/originalism-constitution-supreme-court-neil-gorsuch
(3) http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445130/neil-gorsuch-limited-government-constitutionalist
Neil Gorsuch is President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. Trump most likely picked him due to his conservative values and supposed ability to sway the court in a Republican direction (1). One of the questions I would want Franken and Klobuchar to ask is if he plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. on the court he plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. This raises the question of his views on abortion as well as if he is a judicial activist or not. He has also not publicly declared his position on abortion, even though he has written over 175 majority opinions during his position on the lower courts (2). It is speculated, however, that he closely sides with Trump on these issues, as Trump would not likely choose a justice who is not pro-life (3). Klobuchar and Franken should also ask if Gorsuch would be more inclined in any case to defer to the precedent or to create new policy in the court’s decisions. This would show whether he truly practices judicial activism or restraint for all cases, not just those he wants changed.
I believe that Gorsuch will generally believe in judicial activism. He has already “sharply questioned” a precedent in which the courts defer to government agencies in their interpretation of policies, which conservatives liked (1). It is also likely that he will try to overturn Roe v. Wade, which shows that he does not wholeheartedly respect precedents like those who practice judicial restraint do.
1-http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437
2-http://www.ajc.com/news/national/who-neil-gorsuch-president-trump-choice-for-the-supreme-court/o3JFT175GUHaqnldUG53CP/
3-http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/
I think an important question to ask Gorsuch is if he will uphold the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade. I think it is important for the American people and the Senate to understand his position of this landmark case as it is fundamental in a woman's right to chose. I also think it is important to understand his position on second amendment rights. With the rise in gun violence and mass shootings it is important to understand how he views regulating weapons as well as guns in school.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trumps-supreme-court-could-overturn-roe-v-wade-without-overturning-it/
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-commentary.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
Despite the prompt, I believe that there are three important questions that should be asked of Neil Gorsuch. 1, should the ACA be repealed due to its perceived unconstitutionality, 2, if so, what should be placed in its stead to ensure all Americans can viably receive comprehensive medical care, and 3, if not, has the ACA overstepped its reach when it comes to dictating what Americans are forced to pay for with their taxes. Now there is no doubt that Gorsuch believes that the ACA cannot overstep religious boundaries as shown by US v Nichols (1) but he has never outwardly stated that he directly opposes the ACA in its entirety. Rather than having a problem with US citizens paying for a national healthcare plan, I believe that he is more unsupportive of the ACA violating one's rights, like in this case the freedom of religion. He has a track record of being a solid Republican but also an active believer in judicial restraint as both said by his peers and his Democrat "opposition". (2) He also has a track record for being a well-liked and logical man on both sides of the spectrum, which plays into him using more judicial restraint rather than following a specific agenda. (3)
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/us/neil-gorsuch-fast-facts/
(2) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38818482
(3) http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513532446/heres-what-we-know-about-neil-gorsuch
One important question I believe should be asked is about Gorsuch's view on precedents, as this determines how previous court decisions will affect his decision making, giving the public a better idea of what his actions may instigate. As he questioned a 30-year-old precedent (1), this question will give insight as to whether that is more of an isolated occurrence or if he will frequently question precedents. A second question, considering his alignment with Scalia's legal philosophy (2), would be "In what ways do you plan to do things similarly as well as similarly to Scalia?" This would provide a basis for people to see how his actions could mirror the past, as well as how they will make change for the future.
Gorsuch calls himself an originalist, meaning he places the most emphasis on the original intent of the Constitution, rather than how the meaning might apply to the present (3). This suggests that he will be inclined to judicial restraint, as he will avoid more progressive interpretations of the Constitution, as opposed to those who will try to apply the Constitution to the present day in ways not explicitly expressed.
1: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-gorsuch-supreme-court-234464
2: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee.html
3: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/02/originalism-constitution-supreme-court-neil-gorsuch
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home