Wow... It so nice not have to be so damn cynical about our political leaders. Trump is really doing what he said he was going to do. Gorsuch seems to be the perfect pick from what I am seeing. I can't believe it. We were so close to destruction by Clinton. Now... we are going to have a court that respects the constitution again. Trump was wrong about one thing. I am not going to get tired of winning like this.
Gorsuch seems like an ideal pick. There is an element of justice involved here as well. His mother, Ann Gorsuch, was head of the EPA under Reagan. She was held in contemp of congress over turning over some documents that democrats wanted. Obama laughed off contempt charges against people like his AG, but republicans back then had no backbone at all and forced her out of her job to placate the likes of Ted Kennedy. She died a few years ago, but I am sure she would take a lot of satisfaction in knowing her son will be on the Supreme Court.
Probably a lot better than Obama's two picks who were confirmed, Sotomayer and Kagan, but he was a pretty doctrinaire liberal who was on record for weakening Second Amendment protections, among other problems. Obama knew very well he wasn't getting a pick confirmed. That's why he picked someone relatively innocuous like Garland. Another baby seal. If he had a chance to actually get some one else on the Court, it would have been another far left lunatic.
Unlike Trump, who perhaps went in the opposite direction? http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a52744/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court/ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/...tive-ideologue-neil-gorsuch-to-supreme-court/
I don't know much about him and I haven't taken the time to read his opinions. I did read the second link and I listened to the woman from People for the American Way last night on Tucker Carlson. I would say the cases that are brought up tend to be very complex cases where competing policies and principles intersect, eg Hobby Lobby, where religious liberty rights conflicted with an Obamacare mandate. Or the objections about his support for the Chevron doctrine, which essentially requires the judiciary to defer to agencies on statutory interpretation, which after all, is the essence of what judges are there for. What I am saying is these are not easy issues that lend themselves to bumper sticker answers. Of course, democrats don't want to acknowledge that. In their world, it's only the identity of the parties that matter, not the law or Constitution, so a deeply thoughtful judge like Gorsuch is not what they want. They want a dimbulb like Sotomayer, who determines her vote by the names on the pleadings. Sotomayer and Kagan were easily confirmed however, and Gorsuch will be as well, even accounting for the fact that democrats are far more combative in these matters than the timid republican cucks in the Senate.