The biggest hit Democrats have against Judge Neil Gorsuch is that he’s good at not answering questions they want him to answer. That’s it, they’ve got nothing else, other than fringe lunatic material and fabrications. But they want to pretend they can trap him.
Sen. Al Franken is a smart man. It could not have been easy to be funny in 1975, a year after Nixon resigned, when the wounded were still flowing in from Vietnam, and “funny” wasn’t really something associated with politics. Franken graduated Harvard with a degree in government, and decided instead to be funny in 1975.
Now as a senator, he’s more serious, but as liberals are wont to do, he conflates allegiances. In the poster-child case where a truck driver was fired for doing something his employers disagreed with, Franken tried to get cute. I won’t rehash the detals here (as others have done that), but Slate’s take is that judges must have an allegiance to victims over the law.
Here’s Franken’s criticism of Gorsuch:
It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death, or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That’s absurd. Now I had a career in identifying absurdity. And I know it when I see it. And it makes me—you know, it makes me question your judgment.
Gorsuch has one allegiance: to the law. That’s what Supreme Court justices do. It’s what appellate court judges do. Facts and arguments are hashed out in trial courts. But liberals think that judges should always make the “right” decision, and therefore are beholden to ideological lines of questioning.
Slate’s Susan Matthews added, somewhat sanctimoniously, “Franken bypasses the academic discussion of how Gorsuch read the law and instead makes a much more effective point—that Gorsuch’s ruling in this case reveals something about his heart.”
Gorsuch’s rulings reveal little about his heart or his moral judgment. Nor should they. They reveal his approach to the law, and how he holds those who write the laws accountable for what they’ve written. This includes, to a very large degree, holding lawmakers and judges accountable to what the founders wrote in the Constitution–we call that “originalism.”
Liberals don’t want an “originalist” unless that judge also gets to decide what the founders “meant” and what was their “in their hearts.” Bad laws are passed by legislators all the time. It’s not a judge’s responsibility to overturn them simply because they were poorly conceived. It’s a judge’s job to ensure they are applied fairly.
What liberals call being evasive, Gorsuch holds as being true to the job description of a judge. Some legal precedents deserve to be overturned. Some should be upheld. Asking Gorsuch which ones he believes should fall into either category is asking him to prejudge cases that could potentially appear before him.
Sorry to disappoint liberals writing things like “His mask is starting to slip,” and Democrats “might even trick him into answering a real question.”
Gorsuch knows where his allegiance lies, and he’s not going to fall for stupid grandstanding or trickery.