The tactic taken by Democrats is to “just say no” to anything President Trump offers up.
No to every single cabinet appointment. Nyet to every executive order. And, of course, no to the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.
This particular judicial appointment was of such critical importance to conservatives that, even though Donald Trump was a flawed candidate who made many of them plenty nervous at times, they willingly voted for him for president. The alternative? Having Hillary Clinton make this appointment and several future ones, thereby ensuring that “progressive” sensibilities, such as political correctness, racial grievance, and entitlement are enshrined in U.S. case law for a generation to come.
Gorsuch is a nomination that may be particularly good for Alaska. At 49, he is a relatively young judge of the 10th Circuit Appeals Court, and he could have the better part of a quarter of a century ahead of him as a Supreme Court judge.
Gorsuch is the son of the first woman to head the Environmental Protection Agency, an appointment made by President Ronald Reagan. He is a Coloradan, which means he has strong western state values of independence and self-reliance, not to mention an appreciation of western lands issues.
And his judicial philosophy and history mirror Scalia’s, which brings cheer to conservatives.
“Confirmed by the U.S. Senate on a voice vote to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, Judge Gorsuch is well within the mainstream of American judicial philosophy and has demonstrated the judgment necessary to garner the support of Republicans and Democrats alike,” said U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. “Judge Gorsuch’s record reflects Justice Scalia’s legacy of textualism and an ardent respect for the Constitution and rule of law. He is poised to make an excellent addition to the Supreme Court.”
It’s thick stuff, this textualism, not something Alaskans typically talk about over a beer. But if you look at the way the Supreme Court determined the legality of Obamacare, (the Affordable Care Act), it’s easier to understand: The majority opinion was that since Obamacare can be viewed as a tax, and since Congress has the authority to tax, then it is legal. They chose to view it as a tax because that helped them dodge the inconvenient textual problem that the Constitution frowns on forcing people to purchase something.
Scalia did not go along with that majority opinion, and conservatives hope that Gorsuch will be cut of the same cloth: Stick to the law, don’t read intent into a law, and avoid the temptation to legislate from the bench.