“Even before President Donald Trump
nominated Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court in January, I knew that I
would oppose his appointment.” Meaning it did not really matter who he picked I
was going to oppose him because it is Donald Trump. Having already made up your
mind, you set about to oppose whoever was picked, not because you truly believe
they were a bad pick for the Supreme Court, but because you hate Republican’s
and President Trump so much. You then go on to say “[A]s every day goes by, it
becomes clearer and clearer that a very dark shadow hangs over this President
and this administration.” You just state that as if it were fact without any
evidence. You try to back it up by saying he is under investigation for “potential
collusion with Russia to influence and undermine our election.” It is true that
the FBI is looking into it but they have not found anything yet, nor have they
concluded the investigation. I remember that people in the United States are
innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
You then go
on to say Gorsuch views are out of the “judicial mainstream.” What is that
supposed to mean? It seems to mean that he does not want to use the judicial
system to push a mainstream agenda. Most people see that as a good thing. He is
also an originalist (someone who believes that the Constitution and the law
should be interpreted as perceived at the time of enactment) and a textualist
(someone who things laws should be interpreted literally, not however he feels
like they should be interpreted).
You poison
the well by saying things like “infamous Hobby Lobby decision” “Embraced the
disturbing philosophy”. These are meant to give boring legal decisions a scary
overtone. Hobby Lobby was about a company’s freedom to provide or not provide
specific contraception’s. Hobby Lobby did not want “prevent women from
accessing contraception through their insurance plans.” Instead they did not
believe, from a religious perspective, in certain kinds of contraception’s. It
is this kind of over simplification that you use to make mountains out of mole
hills. You go on to call other decisions of his “both offensive and far outside
the mainstream.” While I can see both sides to these cases and a choice one way
or the other would be a hard one to make, just because you think he made the
wrong choice does not make him the evil terrible person you claim him to be. He
has said and shown time and again that he will follow the law as written.
You end
your hit piece by saying “the Founders made clear that our government was for “We
the People.”” That is just flat out wrong. Our government is not for We the
People, our government is We the People, a very important distinction that you
seem to forget. Gorsuch is not for big corporations or special interests, he is
for the original interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the time
it was written and the literal textual meaning of the law, not what he
personally believes is right or wrong or if he is on the right or wrong side of
history. You are right in saying our We the People government is at stake, but
not from Neil Gorsuch, but from lying ideologues who believe they and their
party know better than We the People and seek to force their perceived vision
of the anointed onto us dirty unwashed masses. You know people like you.
The original piece by Senator Jeff Merkley
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58e2c2fee4b09deecf0e193f
No comments:
Post a Comment