mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
the high court
Why the Gorsuch Hearings Are Boring
Features Icon
show comments
  • WigWag

    There are some other things that could be done to get the arrogant jackasses who serve at all levels of the judicial branch under control.

    How about allocating just enough money for Supreme Court Justices to have only one law clerk? How about making appellate and district court judges share one clerk for every three judges?

    How about laying off all the secretaries and requiring judges at all levels to do their own typing and, while we’re at it, insisting that they handle the scheduling for their dockets? Another great idea would be turning all the thermostats in the Supreme Court building down to 62 degrees.

    It’s irrelevant whether the Justice in question was appointed by a Democratic or Republican President or whether they are liberal or conservative in their inclinations. The entire Court is out of control as are the lower courts. The Judicial Branch needs to be cut down to size.

    Judges and Justices are under the misimpression that they are demigods. If there is any swamp desperately in need of draining, it’s the American judiciary.

  • Andrew Allison

    The Gorsuch hearing, like most such, are boring because we persist in electing grandstanding jackasses to Congress

  • Charles Martel

    It simply isn’t the case that textualist justices and liberal justices are equally dependent on their partisan biases to determine their rulings. While I don’t want to claim textualists are perfectly objective, they largely adhere to the clear meaning of the constitution; and likewise honestly evaluate statutes and precedent. Liberals, however, are just the opposite. They arrive at their preferred outcome without fail, and without any theoretical or textual foundation. The false equivalency between legal textualists and legal liberals is a lie that the left would love us to believe – after all, they’ve largely given up the pretence that their justices are objective – now they want to advance the lie that textualist are equally unprincipled and dishonest.

  • vb

    Gorsuch said several times that he would decide the cases based on the law and that changing the law was the job of the legislature. In other words, he was telling the senators to do their job.

  • Eurydice

    I don’t know – if the fiction is that the system is bloodless, then we wouldn’t be complaining about how boring it is. The fiction is that this is supposed to be entertainment.

    • BettyLewis111

      << I was without work for 6 months when my former Co-worker lastly recommended me to start freelancing at home… It was only after I gained $5000 in my initial month when I really believed I am able to do this for a living! At the moment I am joyful than ever… I work-from-home moreover I am my own boss now like I always wanted… I see quite a lot of unsatisfied people around me, working the same old boring job that is sucking the daily life out of all of them day-after-day… Each time I see anybody similar to that I say START FREELANCING MAN! This is how I started➤➤➤➤

  • Kenneth Currie

    I don’t expect judicial nominees to state how they would rule on a case. I would be appalled if they answered most of the questions Dems are hurling at Gorsuch. Judges are supposed to rule on the facts of the case. Kudos to Gorsuch for not being trapped into giving hypothetical answers to dumbass questions.

  • QET

    because the country has come to accept, in the last 50 years, what the former Stanford Law Dean Larry Kramer calls “judicial supremacy”—that is, that Court opinions are sacrosanct in a way they might not have been during earlier chapters in American history

    Sure it has.

    By “the country,” you must mean the Left when the decisions go its way.

  • FriendlyGoat

    I believe Gorsuch spun yesterday that there is no such thing as a Democratic judge or a Republican judge—–only a judge. Someone from the Dem side SHOULD have immediately pointed out that if such was true that Garland would be on the Court and Gorsuch would not be at a hearing. In other words, he should have been knocked back on his heels (politely) for attempting to spin bullhockey for the Senators and the camera.

    • Tom

      Given that it’s the same line every nominee for the SCOTUS has spun in congressional hearings, I don’t understand what you’re complaining about.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Because it is bullhockey and everyone on both sides in the 21st Century knows that it is.
        That is why someone should have told him to “get real”.

  • rheddles

    Senate SCOTUS hearings. TSA for the elite with the whole nation watching the pat down. Entertainment Nation.

  • Fred

    The power of the Supreme Court also helped bring us Trump. I for one would never have voted for him (I would have stayed home) had I not been convinced that any damage he can do the country in four years pales in comparison to the damage a liberal Supreme Court would do over decades.

    • FriendlyGoat

      You’re not embarrassed enough yet about the diminishments you supported for the lower half of America. Stay tuned. So many more are coming.

      • Fred

        I’m not the least bit embarrassed about what you call the “diminishments” for the lower half of America. I quite agree with most of Trump’s policies. It’s his personal foibles and his temperment that worry me, but again, they don’t worry me nearly as much as a liberal Supreme Court would.

        • FriendlyGoat

          You SHOULD be concerned about the diminishments for the lower half of America, because the president you like was elected on a basket of deplorable lying to the exact contrary. The hat wearers were led to believe that both they and the country could be made “great again”. Large numbers from the lower half showed up to vote for that.
          But everything enabled by this Republican alignment is now to be takeaway, takeaway, takeaway——FROM the very people who trusted the colossal con job and an UPWARD shift of power and wealth INSTEAD. Educated and/or church-affiliated people who cheer for these results are hard for me to understand.

          • Tom

            Because they don’t agree with the assumption of the first sentence of your last paragraph?

          • FriendlyGoat

            And “because”, as a result, I do not believe they have either much sense or much integrity. Many of them are determined to remain as recalcitrant deniers of economic reality for other dubious reasons. And I, having identified that “problem”, am determined to continue dwelling on it. We either have an honest, sensible Church or we have crappy politics. At the moment, we’re on the latter and the only fix for it is getting the Church out of the mental ditch.

          • Fred

            I didn’t say I wasn’t concerned about diminishments for the lower half of America. What I said was I’m not embarrassed by what you call “diminishments.” And I put the word “diminishments” in scare quotes to reinforce the point, that being that I completely disagree with your characterization of Trump’s policies. My concern is not and never was that Trump’s policies would get enacted. My concern is that because his pathological ego drives him to make stupid mistakes and then double down on them (instead of backing off or even quietly letting them drop) and because of his terrible habit of Tweeting himself in the foot, his policies won’t get enacted.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The main “diminishments” for the lower half will be coming from Mr. Trump’s high-end tax cuts, corporate deregulation and corporate-leaning Courts, just as occurred with Ronald Reagan. People of serious faith and serious education are supposed to have known this from observing the last 35 years—-to the point of not being so willing to repeat it on an even-larger scale.

  • Boritz

    If the court really is what you think it is then the founders should have just set up a tricameral Congress instead of a court. How quaint and naive of the founders to believe in things like law, statute and jurisprudence that might be administered apart from raw recourse to ones political bloodlust urges. If the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law” then of course Congress should make a multitude of laws on that very topic and if the court agrees with the politics they should rubber stamp it. Any fool can see that that’s how it must work.

  • Douglas Levene

    Willick’s suggestion of term limits for SCOTUS justices is an excellent one. I would propose 10 years but the exact length is not as important as the principle. Let’s lower the stakes and make the Court less important.

  • Matthew Kilburn

    You say banality, I say farce. This is all a product of the Left’s religious devotion to abortion. No religious devotion to abortion, no Litmus test. No litmus test, no absurd spectacle where we bid nominees to sit in front of congressmen for three days and spend lots of time speaking without actually saying anything.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service