As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Trump Chooses Gorsuch for the Supreme Court

President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy during a prime-time announcement Tuesday.

Gorsuch, a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, emerged as a top contender from Trump’s short lists in the final weeks before Trump made his pick public, the Washington Examiner reported.

An appointee of President George W. Bush, Gorsuch is a 49-year-old Harvard Law graduate who has developed a reputation as an “incisive legal writer” with a “flair” reminiscent of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he will look to fill.

Gorsuch said he thought a crucial component of Scalia’s legacy was to call attention to the differences between legislators and judges, in a lecture on Scalia’s legacy at Case Western University last year.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

10 Responses to Trump Chooses Gorsuch for the Supreme Court

  1. I don’t know enough to comment with any credibility. So, I will only say Thank God it’s not another Wise Latina and I hope Justice Gorsuch is more dependable in his beliefs and legal interpretations than that other Bush guy, John Roberts.

    I’ll check back when youse smart guys mosey over.

  2. Looks quite promising indeed. His 2005 piece for National Review, where he essentially called out the Left for using the courts to get around the ballot box, is going to make all the right heads explode.

    Someone tell Chuck Schumer that he’s going to want the filibuster back later; bork this nominee at your own risk.

  3. Everything I’ve read and heard so far indicates Neil Gorsuch is s top notch pick–solid Constitutionalist, etc. So looks like a job well done in this selection.

    Schumer and his band of idiots are already looking far back into Gorsuch’s behavior to find a reason to destroy him and, they hope, his entire family. They apparently uncovered an event when Gorsuch accidentally broke another kid’s coloring crayon in Kindergarten. And another time when he was 9 years old and forgot to brush his teeth before going to school. Schumer has ordered the NYT to do a full investigative report on these two events, so we’ll see what happens.

    • Half of these congressmen could never survive a real ethics investigation.
      All of them are tied to someone or something that would eliminate any of these candidates, hence the drive to dig up trivial things from their past in an attempt to derail them.

      The hypocrisy is staggering.

  4. The question McConnell needs to be asking Chuckles is, how badly will you want the filibuster back when President Trump picks someone even further to the right, to replace, say, Ruth Ginsburg?

    Gorsuch for Scalia is status quo ante, nothing more. This will change nothing, so not only is it way too early to make a final stand, it’s the wrong nominee to make it on.

  5. Watching the local news today on our CBS affiliate as they reported on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to the SC. In a two minute story, they informed the viewers, via the people they were quoting, that Gorsuch was “far outside the mainstream”, a “far right conservative”, a “very dangerous nomination”, with “questionable judicial opinions”. You get the drift.

    There was not a single person interviewed who said even the slightest positive comment about the Judge. Not one. Maine’s own Socialist Democrat in Congress, Chellie Pingree, said, “Gorsuch is very far to the right, and that troubles me, naturally.”

    So there we are. The battle is joined.

    If a President Hillary Clinton had nominated a left wing Socialist whack job to the SC, the same news report would have praised that nominee as “mainstream”, a “supporter of women’s rights (abortion, of course)”, and “clearly, a brilliant choice for the Supreme Court”.

    That’s what we are up against, folks.