Quote:
Gorsuch is seen as a less bombastic version of Scalia; he also believes in an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution and would seem destined to be a solidly conservative vote on the ideologically split court. But friends and supporters describe Gorsuch as being more interested in persuasion than Scalia, who was just as likely to go it alone as to compromise.
Senate Democrats have promised a vigorous battle, believing that Republican colleagues “stole” the court opening by refusing to hold even a hearing on former president Barack Obama’s nominee for Scalia’s seat, Judge Merrick Garland. His nomination withered.
Some Democrats have pledged to try to block a vote on Trump’s nominee. “I won’t be complicit in this theft,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote in an email to supporters. “There is only one person in America who is a legitimate selection: Judge Merrick Garland.”
Other Democrats aren’t likely to take such a bold move. But there were already signs that things won’t be particularly cozy: Trump invited senior Democratic senators to the White House for a reception to meet his Supreme Court pick, but they declined the invitation, according to senior aides.
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...32c_story.html
Trump picks Colo. appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court
Bork Nomination Reloaded
Endless comedy assured
There are two ideologies in the Supreme Court.
Strict constructionist and modernist in Constitutional interpretation.
- Is the constitutional meaning of laws to be seen in an originalist interpretation -- a more literal reading as the intent was when the words where written, or;
- seen as a guiding document that is adaptive to the need of the present day.
This is not conservafart and libertard. These are the rules of law we have to live by.