44.2 F
Monday, March 27, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsThorner: Gorsuch remarks raise concerns about 'Judicial Supremacy'

Thorner: Gorsuch remarks raise concerns about ‘Judicial Supremacy’



image from https://s3.amazonaws.com/feather-client-files-aviary-prod-us-east-1/2017-02-13/5974df37-d904-4014-a34e-a21397f33264.png

By Nancy Thorner –

An Editorial in “New York Sun” on February 8, 2017, had this to say about the Gorsuch gaffe:

Talk about disheartening. That’s the word President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is using to describe President Trump’s remarks in respect of the riders of the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The president is upset at their politicking over his order to tighten up on immigration. Is the president’s pique so disheartening? Not to us. What’s so disheartening is to see such a promising nominee to the high court lose his bearings in a storm. (Bold type added)

The commentary goes on to muse that Judge Gorsuch's complaint to President Trump to Senator Richard Blumenthal, whose authenticity was documented by other senators, "was a gaffe that will be seen as a failure to keep himself disentangled from political questions."

As expressed in the “The New York Sun” commentary:

What in the world was Judge Gorsuch thinking? President Trump, in remarks to police chiefs, expressed his exasperation with the 9th Circuit’s pettifogging. The president was right and Trumansesque in the bluntness with which he made clear his views of the judges’ shenanigans. Judge Gorsuch then fetched up in the office of the senior Democratic senator from the People’s Republic of Connecticut, and starts wringing his hands about the behavior of the president who nominated him.

Might it be wise to be very skeptical about Judge Gorsuch's conservatism, considering that graduates from elitist schools all seem to be very agreeable and "nice" to the Left?  Might Judge Gorsuch be like another Roberts if confirmed?, even though Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and other conservative Republican radio talk show hosts continue to unconditionally support Judge Gorsuch and summarily dismiss his remarks. Could it be that national syndicated radio hosts like Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity are often pro-Establishment in their own way?  All three hosts named are supportive of convening a “Convention of States” (ConCon), which could result in a runaway Convention by those who wish to alter our Constitution

Recommendation by Lou Dobbs for Gorsuch to withdraw nomination

Consider what Lou Dobbs, a well-respected host of a weekday TV business show on Fox News Business, had to say on Thursday, January 9, 2017.  Having here before been very complimentary about candidate Judge Gorsuch, Dobbs called for Gorsuch to withdraw his nomination.  In Dobb's own words:  "Not only did Gorsuch break an ethics rule when he spoke about a political matter, but he spoke so loosely in front of his mortal, ideological enemy, that is, one senator, Richard Blumenthal. 

Dobbs indicated that candidate Judge Gorsuch had shown a lack of honor, and if Gorsuch has honor he should withdraw his name out of just the pure disrespect he has shown to our President and also his lack of grace.  Dobbs concluded by saying it wasn't smart for Gorsuch to comment as he did, as one having degrees from Harvard and Oxford.

Pat Buchanan links Gorsuch's remarks to how Gorsuch perceives Judicial Supremacy  

Pat Buchanan's commentary published on January 8, 2017, Trump must break judicial power, strongly advocates that "a clipping of the court's wings is long overdue."  Patrick J. Buchanan was a founder and editor of The American Conservative.  Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of 10 books. His latest book is "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

As Pat Buchanan sets forth in his commentary:

“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said? A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.  Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

The Judge Gorsuch issue at hand is not as much about his loyalty to President Trump, as it is about his comment that demonstrates his support of judicial supremacy.

A pro-life nominee never would have embarrassed Trump as Gorsuch has done.  Pro-lifers recognize that the federal judiciary overreaches in its authority, as it did inRoe v. Wade with terrible consequences.  Pro-life judges understand that the federal judiciary is supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch, subject to checks-and-balances and criticism by the other branches.

Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady would not have caused this fiasco.  Neither would have the other pro-life candidates, who are better qualified than Gorsuch anyway.  Gorsuch has never served in a legislature, federal or state, and his entire career is devoted to believing in judicial supremacy and stare decisis, including Roe v. Wade.  No thanks.

The Federalist Society makes millions of dollars by promoting and defending the federal judiciary.  The Federalist Society blocks pro-life judges from being nominated, and instead pushes judges like David Souter and Gorsuch who hide their pro-choice views.

George W. Bush properly withdrew his nomination of Harriet Miers.  It seems like Trump was talked into nominating a judge who is not pro-life.  It is a complete fiasco now.  Donald Trump should do as President George W. Bush did and withdraw his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch and move on.  Otherwise the future gets only worse from here.

Other articles written by Nancy Thorner about Judge Neil Gorsuch:

Friday, January 6, 2017


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories


  1. There is nothing conservative about declaring that the Federalist Society, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin are a bunch of big government enemies of conservatism.
    We will always have disagreements on the Right… the Right is not monolithic like the Left; we have healthy disagreements, on both the big things and the small things sometimes.
    Even the greatest justices in recent memory, Scalia and Thomas, disagreed occasionally during the 25 years they served together on the court. Would you declare one of them to be a liberal just because on that issue you agreed with the other?
    Neil Gorsuch is a solid conservative, as solid and principled as we can rationally hope for. Will we likely disagree with him occasionally, as we have with other terrific justices like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito? Sure. But there is no human being possible with whom we’d agree on EVERY issue, every day… not even ourselves.
    Neil Gorsuch is a good solid appointment. He’ll make the Court a better place.
    We need to be solid in opposing Trump when he’s wrong… but we need to support him when he’s right.
    And to find fault with Gorsuch, of all people, for a few “judicial superiority” comments that all judges have have been expected to espouse for 200 years… well, that’s really making a mountain out of a molehill.

  2. I did appreciate the time it took you to write your comments to me,and there are no hard feeling, John. No one can be completely sure what a nominee will do once a member of the Supreme Court. I also believe that Republicans must stick together on noble causes because this is the only way there will be a chance of defeating the unhinged left.
    My problem with Gorsuch is that he had no past writings about the issue of abortion that could be evaluated. As you well know, John, the issue of abortion is of great concern among Christian conservatives voters and why many of them voted for Trump in November. In that not one judge was even considered for whom there was no question that the judge was pro-life, is not a good sign. Why not, John?
    I’m also bothered because Judge Neil Gorsuch and his wife were members of an Episcopalian Church. Judge Gorsuch even served as an usher. His woman minister also marched in Washington, D.C. with the feminists. Upon returning the minister remarked that “she had never felt so much at home”
    We were uneasy with the church the Obama’s attended, but with the choice of church for Judge and Mrs. Gorsuch there has not even been a question raised as to what he heard in this church, which is a mainline liberal church.
    If there is any questions about Judge Gorsuch, why take the chance. Gorsuch seems to be conservative in rulings he has made, but the abortion issue, and how he would rule, has never been clarified, John.
    Trump will be badly tarnished if Gorsuch rules in such a way that would infuriate his base of conservative Christian voters.

  3. For once I agree with you, Mr. Di Leo. Thorner is falling into the trap set by the Democrats, which is to take every word Gorusch has ever said and hang him with them. Thorner should read the Feb. 9 Vanity Fair article entitled, “How the Democrats can stop Neil Gorusch” and see just how badly they want to keep him off the court. That should tell her something. We need to support this nominee and stop “eating our own.”

  4. The thing about the church scares me. So, I hear that it’s ‘the church’ of the social elite in Boulder, which is an EXTREME left wing place to begin with. Who knows how left other churches are there, including Catholic and evangelical. The argument goes that Gorsuch wasn’t really going to that church out of a particular theological or ideological conviction (though he is Protestant), but ‘society’. Okay. He is Scalia conservative (in Boulder of all places), so this is arguably proof, probably really good proof that he can withstand the ‘Washington social scene’ that drags (some) justices way far left.

  5. I think it is very difficult these days to find a church that has not been tarnished by political correctness. This election has revealed everyone for who they truly are. I thought my own church was conservative and pro-life. Wrong. Almost ALL of my fellow parishioners voted for Clinton, seem to be supportive of illegal immigration, and some even attended the Women’s March. I was recently unfriended by a fellow church member who didn’t like my comments about refugees (called me callous or something like that). Let’s stick with what we do know — his rulings. I would hate to be accused of being a left-wing liberal based on my church membership.