While President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, has managed to hit a grand-slam so far at this week’s confirmation hearings, this hasn’t stopped well-meaning “Never-Trumpers” and principled conservative pundits from picking apart his comments.
The double-edged social media platform known as Twitter is great. It has empowered everyday people to have a voice when it comes to politics. However, sometimes it gives a platform for people to stir the pot and create problems where there are none.
Take, for example, the uproar over Gorsuch’s answer to a question posed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Roe v. Wade:
In response, Steve Deace (whom I greatly respect) tweeted out yesterday:
Unreal. He basically says “I would’ve walked out the door if Trump had asked me to stop state-sanctioned murder.” https://t.co/fXprsXxYB3
— Steve Deace (@SteveDeaceShow) March 21, 2017
That’s clearly not what Gorsuch was saying. What he meant was that he would rule on each case based solely on the Constitution, law, and facts presented. This is what justices are supposed to do. It’s that simple.
If every justice practiced this, we would not have the constitutional crisis we are mired in today.
This trap set by the Senate Democrats — which Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito all managed to avoid — is meant to expose the nominee as biased and partial to certain viewpoints and ultimately kill his or her nomination.
Gorsuch is right to avoid that trap.
I understand how a conservative could get confused or even upset when hearing these comments, but that person ought to brush up on SCOTUS nomination history. That is exactly the point the esteemed Notre Dame Law Professor Gerry Bradley made in the National Review last week.
Gorsuch is a true constitutionalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If anyone doubts this, they should look to his prior rulings and writings. They speak for themselves.
Photo credit: Screenshot via YouTube
