It's February. And it's snowing.
President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Conservatives seem uniformly ecstatic.
Ed Whelan notes Gorsuch's
judicial record as an originalist".
Ramesh Ponneru calls him
textualist and an originalist Supreme Court justice in the vein of
Eugene Volokh pronounces
which pretty much seals the deal for me right there.
Any reasonable naysayers? Well, let's go over to Reason and see what Damon Root has to say! There's good news:
Gorsuch demonstrated admirable and reassuring judgment in these cases. Not only did he cast a principled vote against overreaching law enforcement, he cast a principled vote against the overreaching executive branch. It's not difficult to imagine Gorsuch imposing the same severe judicial scrutiny against the misdeeds of the Trump administration.
And maybe not so good news:
On the hot-button issue of abortion, Gorsuch's judicial record is quiet. But in his 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, he did seemingly point in an anti-abortion direction, rejecting the case for legalizing assisted suicide on the grounds that "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and the taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." Gorsuch also rejected the "libertarian case for assisted suicide" because, he argued, "faithful adherence to libertarian theory" would also justify the legalization of "mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illegal drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)."
Overall, Gorsuch seems to be the best one could hope for from Trump. Things will get more interesting (and by "interesting" I mean "batshit crazy") if and when Trump nominates a replacement for one of the lefty Supremes.
Note the "inherently valuable" quote above. Seems pretty
straightforward, right? Well.
If you ever wanted to gain a fuller appreciation of the term "mealy-mouthed", you could do worse than read "Eric Swalwell’s Mealy-Mouthing on Value of Human Life", provided by Wesley J. Smith at NR. The setting is Tucker Carlson's interview with Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), a rising Democratic Party star. Topic: Neil Gorsuch. The kickoff is:
Carlson: He (Gorsuch) wrote in a book about ethics, “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Do you believe that?
What ensues is not pretty, as Swallwell desperately recites pro-abortion talking points instead of just answering the question.
David Harsanyi at the Federalist makes a good point:
Trump, Conservatives Have Little Choice But To Take It Issue By
There’s an expectation — often, a demand — that movement conservatives be all in or all out on the Donald Trump presidency. Lock-stepping partisans of both varieties offer this false choice. The election phase of the debate is over. Traditionally, presidents offer a menu of policies that more or less comport with the worldview of their party. This is different. So while I don’t contend to speak for all conservatives, I do imagine many are horrified/excited/sad/happy/content/embarrassed by what’s going on — often on the same day.
Heck, even in the same hour.
Not exactly a burning issue, but an interesting one. Daniel J.
Government’s War on Money Laundering Is Causing the Wrong Kind of
Casualties". He points out that if Trump is serious about
[…] so-called anti-money laundering regulations should be on the chopping block. Banks and other financial institutions are now being forced to squander billions of dollars in order to comply with laws, rules, and red tape that require them to spy on all their customers. The ostensible purpose of AML policies is to discourage criminal behavior, but experts have concluded that this approach has been a failure.
Also see J. D. Tucille: "Cash Means Freedom, Which Is Why So Many Officials Hate It".