Supreme Decision

President Trump announced tonight that he has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

I don't know a lot about Gorsuch but from what I know I like this selection a great deal.

It is difficult to argue with the qualifications of Gorsuch but the Democrats will rant and rave about how terrible he is from this day forward. Count on it. It is what Democrats do.

It is not something that Republicans have historically done. The GOP has generally focused on qualifications and not rejected Supreme Court nominees based on ideology. Take Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a far left ideologue when she was nominated for the Court in 1993. She had been the ACLU's General Counsel. However, like Gorsuch, you could not fault her qualifications. She was confirmed 96-3. The same was also true of Justices Kagan and Sotamayor who were Obama selections. Kagan was confirmed by a vote of 63-37 and Sotamayor by a vote of 68-31. See if Gorsuch gets that kind of support from Democrats even though Gorsuch has a superior legal resume to both.

For Democrats, it is all about ideology. Nothing else matters when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Neil Gorsuch with President Trump
Credit: Business Insider

Gorsuch has impeccable qualifications for the Supreme Court. It would be hard to find a better resume for the job.

Columbia undergraduate degree. Harvard law degree. A Doctor of Philosophy degree from Oxford University in England. Truman scholar. Marshall scholar.

Judicial clerkship for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Supreme Court clerkship for both Justice White and Justice Kennedy.

A partner in private practice for a D.C law firm.

Service as Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General for the United States.

Ten years as a judge on the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver for which he was confirmed without any objection by the United States Senate in 2006.

Why will Democrats put up such a stink about Gorsuch?

He could be the swing vote on the Court which is now divided equally between liberals and conservatives.

He is known be an "originalist" who believes in interpreting the Constitution as the Founding Fathers would have interpreted it.

He is only 49 years of age. He could be on the Court for a long, long time.

The Democrats also know that without the Supreme Court "making law" they have little hope in realizing their progressive ideals. They have generally failed in establishing any of their big ideals through Constitutional means. Most everything they care about did not come from legislation or constitutional amendment but by the opinions of five Supreme Court justices. Look no further than abortion and gay marriage as prime examples. Or the affirmation of the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Gorsuch believes (as did Justice Scalia) that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was written. It is not to be considered a "living" document that is to be bent to the "current times" by nine justices. This is something only the Congress and the states can do. The Constitution establishes a clear structure to do this through the Amendment process.

There was a time when the Constitution meant something.  It was respected for what it was.  So were the limitations that were carefully crafted into the document by the Framers.  Even when there was pretty compelling language in the Constitution to bend it to the "current times" it was ruled out of bounds. Has something been lost?

Consider a couple of examples in our history.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Nevertheless, the income tax law of 1892 was ruled unconstitutional because it was considered outside the power of Congress. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 to allow it.

There is also  nothing in the Constitution signed by the Framers that precluded women from voting. All references in the document were to people, not men.  However, the culture and custom was generally for only males to vote. Nevertheless, it took the 19th Amendment in 1920 before it became the law of the land.  Interestingly, 15 states (beginning with Wyoming in 1870) granted women the right to vote before adoption of the 19th Amendment.  Since voter eligibility was an issue left to the states (in that it was not specifically enumerated in the Constitution by the Framers) women in these states voted in both state and federal elections before 1920.

Was the Constitution designed to change with time? Of course. That is what the amendment process is for (Article V).  The Framers in their wisdom also considered this carefully.  They did not want it amended for some passing fancy.  Nor did they want a small majority to change the key foundations of the governing document to the detriment of a significant minority.  Therefore, 2/3 of both the House and Senate can come together and propose any amendment.  They do not even need the President to concur.  Alternatively, 2/3 of the states can come together and call a convention to propose their own amendments and bypass Congress completely.  If the amendment is ratified by 3/4 of the state it is adopted as part of the Constitution.

If the American people want a federal government with expansive power they can have it. They can allow gay marriage.  Or ban it in all 50 states. The same with abortion. They can ban the use of alcohol or repeal the ban and allow it again. They can require everyone to buy health insurance or anything else.

It is simply not within the power of a handful of judges to suddenly discover fundamental rights that have somehow been hidden in the Constitution for over 200 years and start applying them to 310 million citizens by fiat.

That is why there is an amendment process to the Constitution.  It is hard and it was meant to be hard.
However, what Democrats have not been able to gain at the voting booth they have chosen to win at the Supreme Court.

And for that reason Neil Gorsuch is a supreme threat to Democrats. This is not just a confirmation. This puts their entire agenda at risk. They know that they do not have the support of the necessary majorities of American voters to support and extend their progressive agenda. They do not want to follow the Constitution to get there. Our Founders wanted a clear consensus before we made radical changes to the rules that governed us. The Democrats simply don't want to wait and do the heavy lifting necessary to get what they want.

If you want to know a major reason why the country is so divided right now look no further than what the Supreme Court has done to undermine our constitutional principles. It has moved the country before it was ready to move to support that progressive agenda.

Let us hope with the appointment of justices like Gorsuch we are near the end of this misguided experiment where judges legislate from the bench.

Congratulations to President Trump on a supreme decision.

And good luck to Neil Gorsuch.

Let's hope that by the end of the process he will be able to retain some sense of dignity and decorum in the face of what are sure to be relentless Democrat attacks. His life is going to be looked at with a microscope because the life of the Democrat party is at stake. Remember that as this process unfolds.