Judge Neil Gorsuch on burping in class and why liberals should support
The New York Times has an interesting take on why liberals (too bad that doesn’t mean real classical liberals) should consider supporting the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Essentially, arguing he will uphold the rule of law in a way that maintains some independence from the federal government. In short, your next choice may be much worse.
Update: Some cause for concerns here and here. BUT DON’T FORGET TO SCROLL DOWN FOR THE BURPING STORY…
…On the other hand, there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch’s record. Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry. To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion. He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment… – American Thinker
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html#ixzz4XY1GkpIl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
But first, a story on Judge Gorsuch’s views on class clowns and disruptive burping. I’ll also post some more links down below.
I’m always down for a good burping story…
President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court said in a dissenting opinion last year that it was inappropriate for a school police officer to arrest a student for behavior that would have previously led to a trip to the principal’s office.
It’s long, but I think you’ll find this enlightening and amusing. This is from the actual ruling. Perhaps best of all, he cites Charles Dickens! It may seem like a silly story, but civil libertarians have reason to cheer his impulses here.
If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what’sa teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal’s office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that’s too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal’s office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that’s so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.
…Silva expressly held that this language does not criminalize conduct that disturbs “merely the peace of the school session” but instead requires proof that the defendant more substantially or materially “interfere[d] with the actual functioning” of the school. 525 P.2d at 907. Neither do my colleagues offer any reason why a reasonable officer could have thought this same language carried an entirely different meaning when applied to public school burps rather than college sit-ins — and the parties supply none. Cf. Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 233 (2005) (“[W]hen Congress uses the same language in two statutes having similar purposes, . . . it is appropriate to presume that Congress intended that text to have the same meaning in both statutes.”).
…Often enough the law can be “a ass — a idiot,” Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist 520 (Dodd, Mead & Co. 1941) (1838) — and there is little we judges can do about it, for it is (or should be) emphatically our job to apply, not rewrite, the law enacted by the people’s representatives. Indeed, a judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels. So it is I admire my colleagues today, for no doubt they reach a result they dislike but believe the law demands — and in that I see the best of our profession and much to admire. It’s only that, in this particular case, I don’t believe the law happens to be quite as much of a ass as they do. I respectfully dissent. – Full document.
Judge Gorsuch (in dissent) said police violate the 4th Am. by coming onto someone’s porch if it is surrounded by “no trespassing” signs. pic.twitter.com/AuwbhkJVKx
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) February 1, 2017
On the Fourth Amendment at least, seems like Gorsuch is considerably better than Garland (who was pretty awful).
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko) February 1, 2017
There are so-called “liberal” justices who are much worse on these civil liberty issues.
More interesting background on his college days here. I find it hilarious that “Gorsuch apparently was disqualified from the university council race because he “broke postering rules.”
What Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s old college newspaper columns say about himhttps://t.co/7IbktGIFhZ
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 1, 2017