3 Questions for SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch
What the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask the Supreme Court candidate.

On Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gorsuch is a highly respected federal judge with admirers across the political spectrum. But there are still some major unanswered questions about his jurisprudence. Here are three questions that I would like to hear Judge Gorsuch address as he faces the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.
1. Congressional Power
The use of recreational marijuana is currently legal in eight states. Yet Congress continues to ban marijuana on the federal level, and the Supreme Court has upheld the federal marijuana ban as a lawful exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court did this in the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, despite the fact that the medical marijuana at issue in that dispute was both grown and consumed entirely within the state of California.
I'd like to hear Judge Gorsuch, a self-described constitutional originalist, explain his views on the proper scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Does he think that the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce is broad enough to allow Congress to ban a local activity that is legal under state law and that never crosses any state lines?
2. Executive Power
The federal courts are currently hearing arguments about the constitutionality of President Trump's newly revised executive order banning travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries. In February the Trump administration told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that Trump's first executive order on this matter was effectively beyond the reach of "even limited judicial review." In fact, according to the Trump administration, the federal courts have no business taking "the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national-security judgment made by the President himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority."
I'd like to know if Judge Gorsuch agrees that the president's executive orders are beyond the reach of judicial review if the orders are ostensibly connected to the president's "formal national-security judgment." How deferential must the federal courts be to president when he is acting in the name of national security?
3. Unenumerated Rights
The Constitution lists of a number of individual rights that the government is forbidden from violating, such as the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. But the Constitution also refers to rights that it does not expressly list. For example, the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Likewise, the 14th Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The Supreme Court has recognized and protected a number of unwritten rights over the years, such as the right to privacy, the right of parents to educate their children in private schools, and the right to gay marriage. None of those rights appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
In his 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Judge Gorsuch sharply criticized the Supreme Court for protecting unenumerated rights via the Due Process Clause, claiming that the clause is "stretched beyond recognition" when it is held to be "the repository of other substantive rights not expressly enumerated in the text of the Constitution or its amendments."
Judge Gorsuch has apparently rejected the idea of defending unenumerated rights under the Due Process Clause. But what about the 9th Amendment? And what about the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Regrettably, his book did not address those provisions. I'd like to hear what Judge Gorsuch has to say about them. What is his view of the 9th Amendment? What does he think the Privileges or Immunities Clause means? Does he believe that either one protects any rights that are not listed in the Constitution? And if not, does he think the Supreme Court should reverse its prior decisions and eliminate the unwritten right to privacy?
The American people deserve to hear what Judge Gorsuch has to say about these crucial constitutional issues. The Senate Judiciary Committee should ask him about them during his confirmation hearings next week.
Related: What you need to know about SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why was this article not written by Judge Napolitano? And how would it have differed if it had been?
A Judge Napolitano piece would be nice
??????O. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2 each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. cash....????????????____BIG.EARN .MONEY.___???????-
Sadly, the only question that will be asked is "how quickly will you rule Trump himself to be unconstitutional?"
Why do you hate the uterus? Scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate The Audacity of Hope? Boxers or briefs?
The Dems are going to ignore important relevant issues and only ask about tranny bathrooms and waayycists because they are useless.
That's because trannies being able to whichever bathroom they want is way more important than question involving judicial deference, the commerce clause, and due process (whatever that is). You'd understand this if you were more woke. /prog
I just read something that they are apparently going to focus on campaign finance and money in politics. They are so fucking stupid they deserve to have the little power they have.
I fucking hate that shit. It's just disgusting how many people are willing to trample free press and speech because they don't want the "wrong" sort of people and organizations involved in politics.
Everybody has the unalienable right to vote for the pre-approved policies and candidates. All the the benefits of universal suffrage (equality, good feelings, self congratulation) and none of the downsides (icky opinions, disagreements, consequences).
My big question would involve Auer/Chevron deference. Is this a big load of bullshit or what and how fast are you going to overturn it if the fake news sites manage to bullshit the public as to how far down the slippery slope we've slid?
But I'm not gonna hold my breathe waiting for them to ask those questions. That would mean that the confirmation hearing was something other than kabuki theater.
Could someone also ask him about Lincoln's "apple of gold in a silver frame" and if defending the Constitution doesn't include securing fundamental rights such as "Life", thereby forbidding capital punishment? Thanks.
Watch the TDS really go off the rails starting Monday.
Will they find a right for any alien to enter the country?
Only aliens with an average household income of 150k or up.
The "Making America Great Again (by stealing the smarties) Act"
It would probably be a good idea idea if members of Congress and Judiciary were required to carry a copy of Black's Law dictionary. All words have meaning as defined by that book not what they want them to mean on any given day.
"that book," (Black's Law Dictionary) doesn't define words. It states, at the top of Section A, "Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern." In other words, it defines not words but "terms and phrases" used in a language used in Jurisprudence (legal procedures). It is a language usually referred to as legalese. The words spoken in our everyday intercourse don't have the same meaning in legalese, even though they may look and sound the same. That's the reason for Black's Law Dictionary
"All words have meaning as defined by that book..." True when one is interacting in a legal setting but not true for the colloquial usage; that is if you accept that "terms and phrases" means words.
BTW, there is a court, accessable to every man and woman in this land, that is superior to the U.S. Supreme Court. Make use of it and SCOTUS becomes irrelevant. SCOTUS is the supreme court of the U.S. government, not the people.
Thread Hihnfection at critical levels, all. FYI.
I have a question: Why are there so many white nationalists on a libertarian site?
To get to the other side?
A zebra with a sunburn?
42?
'White nationalist'
Def: People I don't like
If you overuse a term enough times it becomes meaningless
I cast a white nationalist lure and you won't believe what happened next!
Because your a white nationalist, of course
Overflow from Breitbart.
Unenumerated rights. Otherwise known as 'shit we just make up'. Why not an unenumerated right to 'healthcare'? Oh, I see, it only applies to things you like. Well, guess what, it also works for things you don't like.
There are rights that are absent from the constitution. Pretty sure there's already a way to get those rights in the Constitution through the amendment process
Pretty sure there's already a way to get those rights in the Constitution through the amendment process
At *least* one way. It's quite arguable that the right to privacy was already/previously secured by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Am. or that those do more to create and secure the right than the 9th ever could. But then you don't get to do fun stuff pretend that women have a right to publicly-funded abortions.
Positive "rights" are a problem, but the amendment process can also be used to remove legal protection of natural rights or create new positive rights. And it's majority rule.
There are plenty of problems with judicial review, but at least there is opportunity to protect individual rights even if it runs contrary to public opinion.
The amendment process is 'super majority' rule
Yes, that's true. Which saves us from a lot of bad ideas. But is also why it is unlikely to be used to expand the protection of the sort of individual rights that libertarians favor.
One way or another, people are just making shit up. So I'll take it where I can get it: if courts limit government power and expand individual rights, that's good.
Michael hihn seems unhinged
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small Minds discuss people.
12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
to offset their tiny penises,
and tiny hands.
Others stand up, in self-defense, defiant toward aggression - confident of their manhood,
or womanhood.
Guess which ones run some tiny patch of the world. And which ones llive a life filed with raging hatred, shaking their fists into the wind)
(posted in defense of cyber-bully aggression)
Please note that the most raging commenter here, by far, is the one who originated that particular slab of platitudinous tripe.
Hihn's projection is epic. It makes Tony look like an honest and ingenuous interlocutor.
Fourth question: explain the FYTW clause and why we ordinary mortals can't see it no matter how closely we read the Constitution.
my gf's parents just got an almost new red Buick Regal GS only from working off a laptop. look at this site?????O OPEN Big OPPORTUNITIES JOB ?????-
Another Topic to explore with Gorsuch:
Do you believe the President has the authority to take the country to war on his own prerogative, without consulting Congress?
Would any war waged by the US be legal without an express declaration by Congress?
Ok folks here's the truth. This confirmation will be delayed beyond all delays because the idiots know President Trump's Immigration Executive Order will pass with flying colors as it should have already if Judge Gorsuch is confirmed and this is the sad game being played with our safety.
In addition, what is not being mentioned in the media is this fact. Both the Hawaii and Maryland Judges that temporarily struck this lawful Order down stated this:
"If we had a different President the Order would have passed"
On foreign policy, no, the judiciary shouldn't have any voice in any part of it.
I am using it now & it's awesome! I've signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made ?350 and the 2nd week I doubled it & then it kinda snowballed to ?150 a day! just folllow the course.. they will help you out
================> http://MaxNet80.com
These are meaningless. No answer provided by Gorsuch is relevant, since they are asking for an opinion.
He'll be confirmed, the sooner the better.
All I want is the Democrats filibuster and delay confirmation as long as they can, and if possible force McConnell to do away with the filibuster
my gf's parents just got an almost new red Buick Regal GS only from working off a laptop. look at this site?????O OPEN Big OPPORTUNITIES JOB ?????-
my father in-law recently got a stunning green Ford Focus ST just by some part-time working online with a laptop.see more
... http://www.MaxNet80.com
But why ignore abortion. Is it because Reason panders to the Paulista Cult?. Like Ron's shameless denial (and abuse) of the 9th and 14th Amendments? http://htpratique.com/league-o.....-au-monde/
just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here....... Clik This Link inYour Browser ??O FAST JOB FAST CASH
Where's Trump's $15 billion/year tax loophole, Michael? You still haven't justified that number you pulled out of your ass.
The angst!
Where's my eyeliner?
Your inalienable rights can be disparaged/abridged if you violate someone else's rights (i.e. If you murder someone, you can be punished by being put in jail). You have a right to liberty to the extent that your liberty doesn't trample on another's. Do you really think that your right to liberty includes wantonly endangerment of another's life? With abortion there is no situation in which your liberty doesn't end in the loss of life.
If you recognize the 'fetus' as a person with rights you can't really defend your position.
Before you say it:
-I read what inalienable means.
-I don't care for Ron Paul, and the concept of equal freedom existed before Ron Paul was ever born.
Show us on the doll where Ron Paul touched you, Mikey.
Why are you bullying Judge Nap, Michael? Such unwarranted aggression by you against him.
This bullying is the kind of aggression that fascists always resort to.
You can keep whining but you haven't answered the question. You keep shifting the goalposts, calling people names, and making accusations but you can't justify the number.
I mean seriously, how can anyone be getting a $15 billion tax loophole when they don't even revenues, never mind taxable income, of $15 billion?
So what that he's "exempt" from corporate income tax? Personal income tax is still income tax. You keep acting like I don't know what I'm talking about but that's just because you put words in my mouth. I'm not half as stupid as you keep accusing me of being.
So, that makes you a small-minded person who's 12 years old. Good to know.
Hihn is much, much closer to 12^2 than he is to 12, but advanced senility is a cast-iron sumbitch.
'12-year-olds call names,' said they guy who called me a cyber-bully...
'12-year-olds call names,' said he guy who called kbolino a lying stalker...
He doesn't have $15 billion in yearly revenue, how could he possibly be enjoying a $15 billion loophole?
Maybe if you stopped frothing at the mouth you could learn how to count.
To be fair, he's not really much closer to 144, since he long ago stopped counting the millenia.
Repetition is not support. You just made the number up and now hope that if you repeat it enough it will become valid. It doesn't work that way, sport. No matter how much formatting you use, you have presented no argument.
One more time for the lying aggressor. THE EXEMPTION FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX, as explained here.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6794915
(emphasis added for the morally crippled)
These projections of yourself onto others is very obtuse, vain, and quite frankly unhealthy.
the level of triggered and butt hurt you always post is insane.
When Michael Hihn does all the things he accuses other people of doing, it's perfectly acceptable because he is pure of heart and noble of intent, unlike all of us brutal savages who are too stupid to appreciate his wisdom.
Self awareness is like an unenlarged prostate or the ability to appreciate modern music: Michael Hihn hasn't been within shouting distance of it in the better part of a century.
There are numbers between 0 and $15 billion. Even if Trump's pass-through corporations did have $15 billion in revenue, and they don't, then the taxes would be less than that, even if absolutely no "loopholes" were taken advantage of, and so any loopholes could not possibly be worth more than that. This is basic math.
Try again.
R = The revenue from Trump's pass-through corporations
0 < R < $15 billion I = Taxable income from Trump's pass-through corporations if they were taxed as ordinary corporations 0 < I < R < $15 billion r = 0.38 = the maximum corporate income tax rate T = r * I = the maximum corporate income tax Trump's pass-through corporations could possibly have to pay if they were not pass-through 0 < T < I < R < $15 billion L = the alleged windfall Trump is enjoying from taking advantage of loopholes, which cannot possibly exceed the maximum tax his corporations could be on the hook to pay 0 < L < T < I < R < $15 billion
I appreciate and accept your apology.
However, your arguments are still lacking.
1) "60% tax cut for himself" ... and millions of other Americans, along with lesser cuts for virtually every taxpayer.
2) "Corporate taxes paid by pension funds -- on workers -- that Trump is already exempt from" ... what are you referring to? Personal income taxes? Those are paid by the worker. Payroll taxes? Trump is not exempt from paying those. Workers don't pay corporate income taxes and pensions have nothing to do with this.
3) "That Trump pays ANY corporate income taxes (see #2)" ... he pays personal income tax instead. He's not exempt from income tax. This "exemption" is available to anyone, with an s-corp or LLC.
Also, while $15 million is a lot more plausible, you still haven't explained it. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm asking for you to walk through the calculations that led you to the number.
Michael Hihn
What's this?
http://thelawdictionary.org/unalienable/
Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
What is UNALIENABLE?
Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
Yes, it looks like a word, to you and me, that we would use in everyday language; however, as i wrote previously, Section A states clearly: "Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern." [emphasis mine] Terms and Phrases are not words. Even though a word that we may use in our common language is also used in the legal language and may even have the same general meaning, it is, nevertheless, a "term or phrase" when used in "legalese."
This is one reason why, in many cases, people get slaughtered at court. They think everyone is speaking English when, in reality, they are the only one speaking English and the court can interpret anything they say in whatever way it wants or disregard them entirely because it just can't understand them.
Also, how does Marbury v Madison show the jurisdiction of the court over the people?
Do you know the difference between a "superior court" and an "inferior court?"
Well, actually, no it wasn't. The STATES ratified the Constitution, and not by popular vote.
You're absolutely correct. You're totally clueless and i'm done playing with a statist such as you. Not worth the time.
Statists and authoritarians of every stripe do that.
Depends. If you're Andrew Jackson or Trump, you ignore the Court and do what you want anyway. If you're Bill Clinton, you have your people try to "find a way around the Constitution." If you're FDR, you threaten to expand the Court with new justices. If you're Nixon, you sic the FBI on your opponents. If you're ...
Almost every politician these days wants to find ways around the parts of the Constitution that they don't like and wants to read new meanings into other parts to make it a "living" document that agrees with their position.
You sidestepped my question.
The act of aborting is an initiation of aggression against the 'person'. So your equal right to liberty is infringing upon the rights of the other person.
It's like cutting the cord of someone mountain climbing with you, knowing full well that they will fall to their death because you don't feel like carrying them up or sharing supplies with them. To make it worse you brought the person up there in the first place as a by product of your decisions.
I don't have the equal liberty to drive on the sidewalk either. Doing something that will predictably end in death is wanton endangerment and my right to liberty can be infringed.
It's reality. The judge's have basically said that a different President would have not had any issues with it.
When the "rule of law" is based on who judges like, then it's time for judges to be hanging from lamp posts.
I didn't vote for the idiot in HI. I have zero evidence that he is terribly intelligent on any foreign policy questions.
This is a libertarian website.
Infested with Republican commenters and authors pretending to be libertarian
I agree that both sides see no middle ground. What I am trying to parse out is your solution for resolving the conflict. Please be more specific and refute my arguments with counter arguments, not just quips.
I do believe you have an argument, I'd like to hear it.