By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Take Al Franken for instance…he literally told Judge Gorsuch…who, by the way, will soon be JUSTICE Gorsuch…“Your Constitution isn’t MY Constitution!”
Franken, I suspect, was 100% correct…as Judge…I mean JUSTICE Gorsuch’s Constitution is the one written and ratified by our nation’s Founders and Framers…while Franken’s is in manifesto form penned for the ilk of communist parties everywhere.
Franken was trying to grow hay, by spreading his brand of fertilizer, accusing the future Supreme Court Justice of being uncaring regarding a fellow who was fired for driving away from his disabled semi-truck on a cold winter’s night.
It seems, this trucker had his trailer brakes freeze up in minus 14 degree weather, which caused him to call his company for assistance, and the fellow was told to wait. He did…and called again when he could no longer feel his feet…and was told, again, to wait right where he was. As his truck’s heater wasn’t working, and as he was drifting in and out of sleep, waiting for assistance, the man decided to unhitch the trailer, drive to someplace where he could warm up just a bit, and then return to his trailer…which he did…and was then fired for leaving his trailer unattended for whatever short amount of time he did so.
When the case, a lawsuit brought by the fired driver, made it to the court of Judge Gorsuch…the Judge upheld the right of the company to fire the driver. Why? Because the law stated that the driver could NOT be fired for NOT driving the disabled or dangerous rig down the road…but what the driver did WAS drive the rig…so…the law was on the side of the corporation…not the individual…minus 14 degree weather notwithstanding.
Was the driver about to freeze to death sitting in that disabled truck?
Could he have dragged the brake-locked trailer down the road?
Would that have posed a danger to other drivers on the road?
Yes again…and any accident resulting from it would have been the fault of the truck driver so…he did what he had to do to potentially save his own life, against company policy…and was fired for that violation OF company policy, which the law, as written, allowed.
Did Judge Gorsuch feel bad for the driver who lost his job? Indeed he did, as Gorsuch told Franken and the senate panel that his heart went out to the man…but…Judge Gorsuch is a Judge’s Judge…a man whose commitment is to the letter of the law, and not guided by squishy feelings, as liberals seem to want everything to be guided by squishy feelings.
Franken made it clear that there was, indeed, a statute that would have allowed for extenuating circumstances…such as freezing to death…that could have been applied to the case, thus saving the driver’s job…and Franken was incensed that Judge Gorsuch did not apply the extenuating circumstances statute to the case.
But here’s the rub…
In liberal la-la land…JUDGES can do things like that…however…in the real world…if a Judge is to abide by the Constitution…it is up to the client’s ATTORNEY to introduce the extenuating circumstances statute in such a case…and that driver’s attorney failed to do so. For Judge Gorsuch to have introduced it…it would have required the JUDGE to become the ATTORNEY in a case he was hearing…and that simply, constitutionally, is not something an impartial Judge can, or should do.
What Franken, and one can assume liberals wanted, was for Judge Gorsuch to have acted as both the prosecutor and the Judge in the case that was before him…a clear judicial violation under the law…but perfectly acceptable in liberal circles.
And let’s not forget that it wasn’t Judge Gorsuch who fired that driver…it was the trucking company that did that…and if anyone acted in bad faith…it was the trucking company.
At another point in the confirmation hearings, the manure machine from Minnesota, Al Franked, reloaded for another fertilizer dump by attempting to have Judge Gorsuch delve into what Steve Bannon meant at CPAC when Bannon stated, “Every business leader we’ve had in is saying not just taxes but it is also regulation.” Of President Trump’s appointees, Bannon said, “They were selected for a reason and that is deconstruction. The way the progressive left runs is if they can’t get it passed [in legislation] they’re just going to put in some sort of regulation in an agency.”
Franked demanded to know, from Judge Gorsuch, what Bannon meant by that…to which the Judge answered, and appropriately so, “Senator, respectfully, I believe that’s a question best directed to Mr. Bannon.”
But the true answer to Franken’s question, and the answer he most certainly did not want to hear…came at a different point in the hearing. When asked about over-criminalization…the Judge related that he had once asked his staff to count up the number of federal laws on the books…which came to something like 5000. He then asked his staff to provide the number of laws, which carried criminal penalties, attached to regulations…things that any American could find themselves in violation of, which could send them to jail, or include the imposing of fines, enacted not by elected officials in the halls of Congress, but by unelected bureaucrats in various federal agencies.
Judge Gorsuch said that his staff gave up trying to get an accurate figure when they went over…300,000…such criminal penalty carrying regulations….laws which carry criminal penalties, that have been placed on the books…not by elected officials, but by unelected bureaucrats….not what Franken wanted to hear, and yet, the unvarnished truth.
Throughout Tuesday’s hearing, the absurdity of questions was certainly not limited to Al Franken, it was spread equally amongst each and every liberal member of the committee as each one expressed their pet agenda items, trying like all hell to ascertain exactly how JUSTICE Gorsuch would rule in cases that could, and most likely would, come before the Supreme Court…indicating that they would not be apt to vote to send his nomination to the full Senate for a vote if he wouldn’t agree to adopt their each and every liberal agenda viewpoint.
Perhaps the most telling utterance was offered in an interview before questioning even began, by Diane Feinstein, who said she had deep concerns regarding Judge Gorsuch, as he is an originalist…a point she tried to make each and every time the rounds of questioning came her way.
An originalist, is a judge who interprets the law, in accordance to the meaning of the words OF the law, as they were written…and a judge who interprets the Constitution, in accordance to the words as they were written by the Founders and Framers.
So, Feinstein has deep concerns, that Judge Gorsuch, and eventually, Justice Gorsuch, will interpret the law and the Constitution, as both were written…will adhere to both the law, as written, and to the Constitution, as written…upholding them both.
This is an anathema to liberalism, and to the entire liberal agenda. Feinstein went on to state that in her mind, the Constitution is a “living and breathing document,” a view held by liberals far and wide.
In other words…Feinstein, and liberals at large, believe that the Constitution, and the law, are, or should be, subject to change, alteration, and legislation from the bench…and both she, and they, seek federal court judges, and certainly Supreme Court Justices who will do exactly that, on a whim.
Feinstein has deep concerns that Judge…Justice Gorsuch, would never be so inclined…because he feels, and rightly so, that neither the law, nor the Constitution, are mere suggestions to be trifled with by shifting winds, or by oscillating political fortunes.
Here is a prime example…
Justice John Roberts changed the wording of the Obamacare law, based on squishy feelings as to what he believed the writers OF that law most likely meant, which was in opposition to how they actually wrote it, in order to save Obamacare from itself when it was challenged at the Supreme Court.
A Justice Gorsuch would not have done such a thing…and instead would have ruled on the exact language of the law, as it was specifically written, and thus, today, there would be no need to repeal and replace the infernal thing because it would have been put out of our misery right then, and there.
Hence, Feinstein’s deep concerns…but let me be clear…she, and liberals have a great deal more than deep concerns…they are, in fact, terrified, because in Judge Gorsuch, they see exactly the sort of judge President Trump would nominate if a second, or third seat becomes available on the Supreme Court, or to any bench in any federal court in the country…originalists, not activists…judges who adjudicate, rather than legislate.
This is also a clear indication of why the ilk of liberal, Maxine Waters, Elizabeth Warren and others, are so desperate to find a way to impeach President Trump, even though they don’t hold a majority in either the House or the Senate. It’s not over how he handles policy, or who he nominates for his cabinet…the crux of the matter is who he has, and will appoint to judgeships, and specifically to the Supreme Court…appointments that could, and most likely would, make the courts more based on the Constitution, rather than squishy feelings, for decades and generations to come.
Over the course of 10 years on the federal bench, Judge Gorsuch has ruled on 2,700 cases, and only once was his ruling overturned, which tells me that he tends to cross every “T” and dot every “i” in the word “Constitution.” His record on the bench indicates that he is exactly the sort of Supreme Court Justice we need…one who is swayed only by the words of the law and the Constitution, and not by personal feelings.
Is that to say that I will agree with every vote he casts as a Justice on the Supreme Court? Probably not…but given his record, and what I have heard in his conformation hearings, I would be much more apt to believe, when I don’t like his vote, that the flaw is either in the law, as written, or in the presentation of the attorney who is trying to make the case before him, or in the written language of the law itself.
It also doesn’t mean that I believe Judge Gorsuch, or Justice Gorsuch, is above criticism, and I would offer this as criticism…
During his hearing on Tuesday, Judge Gorsuch stated that politics doesn’t play a role in the day to day of Judges. He said that, “there are no democrat Judges, and there are no Republican judges…there are just Judges.”
My criticism is that in this respect, Judge Gorsuch is too idealistic. While he has been able to exercise the political demons from his mind, by putting on the robes earned by his role in the judicial branch…he somehow believes that all Judges, by virtue of their robes are just as virtuous, and free of political agenda as is he, himself.
Reality paints a vastly different picture. On the bench he is about to ascend to, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor are decidedly political, as are a grand number of federal judges from bench to bench across our great nation, and not, I might add, only from the left side of the aisle. Very few, and very far between are those who, like Gorsuch, and Scalia before him, have divested themselves of political trappings.
Just as the high court is divided along ideological lines, the process of confirmation is deeply politically divided, which is why liberals in the Senate are now trying to strike a deal with the Republican majority, not to resort to the nuclear option, of a straight majority vote, on what will be the next SCOTUS nomination in the Trump administration…most likely the seat now occupied by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
If such a deal can be reached, the liberals will put Judge Gorsuch through without a filibuster now…but were I President Trump…I would offer to allow the endowment for the arts, the annual $300 million taxpayer subsidy to remain intact and reserve the nuclear option in order to leave a legacy of Constitutional leaning Justices on the nation’s highest court for decades to come.
Either way…Judge Gorsuch will soon become Justice Gorsuch and key provisions within our Constitution will be preserved for at least the next generation.
Copyright © 2017 Craig Andresen / thenationalpatriot.com
Tomorrow, Friday, March 24th from 7 to 9pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori present a Special Report on the Terror attack in London with special guest Jordanian Coalition of Opposition Secretary General Mudar Zahran, Also covered will be a recap of the Judge Gorsuch hearings.
Join us at: http://bit.ly/2cpXuRd