MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Neil Gorsuch Benchslaps Donald Trump, Calls President’s Attack on Judiciary ‘Demoralizing’ and ‘Disheartening’

Trump SCOTUS nominee rejects Trump's attack on the courts.

C-SPANC-SPANIt's not everyday that a judicial nominee openly criticizes the president who nominated him in the midst of the judicial confirmation process. But that is exactly what happened yesterday when Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, denounced Trump's recent attacks on the judiciary as "demoralizing" and "disheartening."

Gorsuch's statements came in a meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who later told the press what Gorsuch said about Trump. A spokesperson for Gorsuch then confirmed that the judge had indeed faulted the president. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has also reported that Gorsuch lambasted Trump in a meeting with him.

Predictably, Trump took to Twitter early this morning: "Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?" Unfortunately for Trump, Gorsuch's spokesperson has confirmed Gorsuch's words. Trump can tweet about it all he wants, but Trump can't change the reality of Gorsuch's statements.

Gorsuch is absolutely right to be dismayed by Trump's actions. Over the weekend Trump attacked the "so-called" federal judge hearing the case against his executive order banning travel from seven majority-Muslim countries. "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system," Trump wrote. Trump's bully pulpit tactics are plainly intended to undermine the independence of the judicial branch and to deter it from ruling against him.

When Trump nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court last week, I noted that Gorsuch's judicial record includes some impressive opinions against overreaching law enforcement and against the overreaching executive branch. "Gorsuch demonstrated admirable and reassuring judgement in these cases," I concluded. "It's not difficult to imagine Gorsuch imposing the same severe judicial scrutiny against the misdeeds of the Trump administration."

It turns out that Gorsuch felt compelled to benchslap Trump a little sooner than expected.

Related: If you were outraged by Obama's attacks on the judiciary, you should be outraged by Trump's.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rich||

    It remains to be seen how Trump will react when he loses in higher court.

    It *all* "remains to be seen".

  • ||

    I'm tired of Remaining to be seen with this Administration already.

    #trumpexit

  • Quixote||

    Come now, everyone is making much too much out of a few gentle words; all that Gorsuch actually meant to say was that it's disheartening when a president is obliged to criticize certain judges for their outrageous political bias. In other words, Gorsuch was actually criticizing the judges here, not Trump, but now of course the politicians are going around, seizing on every word and generating more and more fake news.

    And look, the bottom line is that everyone knows that certain judges deserve not only to be criticized, but to be punished for their egregious efforts. Who here, for example, would dare to defend the unpresidented "First Amendment dissent" of a single so-called judge in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case? Fortunately that individual is no longer on the bench on account of his advanced age, but he caused considerable harm to our system of ordered liberty before retiring, and measures should be taken to ensure that his so-called "dissent" does not reach the eyes of students, lawyers, or indeed Gorsuch himself. See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Jerryskids||

    "It remains to be seen". Predictably, Trump took to Twitter early this morning. Still uncertain as to what Trump's reaction's going to be?

    And I still want to know - when Trump predictably whines about how any criticism of him is an unfair attack by a dumb loser poopy-head and appends the "Sad." at the end, is that because he doesn't know how to make the sad-face emoticon? :(

  • RodgerMitchell||

    #ImpeachNow

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The implication, dummies, is that Trump is going to go totally ape if the court smacks him down. His retaliatory strike will be swift and is likely to spill the banks of 140 characters. He might even chastise justices directly to their so-called faces right in the middle of the State of the Union Address.

  • WTF||

    Not even Trump would do something so beyond the pale, the media would crucify any President who did that, I'm sure of it!

  • Idle Hands||

    "Never pick a fight with someone who buys characters 140 at a time."

  • commodious rebrands||

    He might do worse than that... he might resort to tweeting images of paragraphs to get around the character limit. There is no etiquette he's unwilling to flout.

  • MarkLastname||

    Grounds for impeachment right there

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Paging Maxine Waters

  • WTF sloopysmommatters||

    I don't know why we hold the courts sacrosanct when they have obviously been highly politicized for years and blatantly decide cases based on their personal political desires rather than the constitution and the law. I see nothing wrong with calling them out for that.

  • ||

    "...based on their personal political desires rather than the constitution and the law"

    Anyone who says this must be ignorant of the workings of courts at all levels. There's nothing magic about the law and the Constitution, that it can be always applied to all cases before courts. It's at times ambiguous, outdated, incomplete, or inapplicable. At those times, subjectivity comes in and must be applied to resolve the case. This is why SCOTUS choices should be investigated thoroughly in those edge cases. It's nothing new and it's never going to go away.

  • WTF||

    Holy fuck, what a fool. How would you like it if your mortgage contract was subject to being subjectively reinterpreted at any time to get to the bank's desired result? Talk about ignorant, the constitution is the highest law of the land, and the words as understood at the time they were written are pretty unambiguous. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. Since I haven't seen you before, I'm not sure yet which one applies to you.

  • Mollie the mare||

    To add on to this, Gorsuch even takes a stab at what was an effective reinterpretation of how your mortgage contract is disputed in his Law's Irony essay

    In any event, our 1938 forefathers expressly rested their "modern" discovery "experiment" on the assumption that with ready access to an opponent's information parties to civil disputes would achieve fairer and cheaper merits-based resolutions
    ...
    Have we maybe gone so far down the road of civil discoverythat—ironically enough—we've begun undermining the purposes that animated our journey in the first place?

    Common law is older than the nation. Fiddling with the way it is adjudicated has only be a determent to the rule of law.

  • Rich||

    the constitution is the highest law of the land, and the words as understood at the time they were written are pretty unambiguous.

    What a quaint sentiment. 8-(

  • ||

    Oh bullshit. It's not unambiguous, the people who wrote the goddamn thing argued with each other over how to interpret it.

  • WTF||

    Horseshit, that article just illustrates how plain language in the law is undermined by the acceptance of specious arguments to rationalize a desired result. "Shall not be infringed" and "Shall make no law" are not ambiguous, dishonest attorneys and politicians simply argue that they are in order to rationalize doing whatever they damn well please. You shouldn't buy into that bullshit.

  • ||

    You still interpret "speech" to mean "most if not all means of personal expression". That's an interpretation.

  • ||

    And how is one to determine what other rights the 9th amendment is talking about without interpretation?

  • ||

    And in the 4th. "Reasonable" search and seizure. That word is inherently subjective. There is no mathematical formula to tell you what "reasonable" is. What's reasonable to me may not be reasonable to you.

    You just plucked out two admittedly completely unambiguous phrases, while ignoring many others that are far less clear.

  • ||

    The 7th and 13th are also ambiguous. Plus, if we go to some sort of "originalist" meaning, then we have opinions on what was originally meant... Kinda like how we keep imaging what dinosaurs looked like when we just have bones.

  • WTF||

    No, that part is covered by "the press" which referred to the printing press, in other words, the means of disseminating speech.

  • ||

    That's certainly one interpretation. Nothing on the 9th or 4th?

  • prolefeed||

    1st amendment --

    "Congress" -- is this only a limit on the federal government, or does it apply to states and counties and municipalities?

    does the "free exercise of religion" include the right to NOT exercise any religion, to be openly atheistic?

    "abridging" -- does that mean ANY sort of law whatsoever regarding free speech or press is not allowed?

    "speech" -- is NOT talking also protected (especially in the context of the 5th amendment)? Is walking naked down the street a form of speech?

    "peaceably" -- what exactly does that mean? Where is the line, and who draws it?

    And so on. A lot of ambiguity just in the first amendment, and after 200 years of statists trying their damndest to argue it out of existence, we have something approaching the opposite of what I would consider a plain reading in force.

  • SomeGuy||

    a religion is a belief system just like atheism is a belief system....your not that dumb are you?

    Peaceably? Easy...it is anything that does not directly harm anyone according to natural law.

    Done. Easy.

    Walking naked. That is the only slightly debatable one. I would learn towards yes. Walking naked isn't illegal. As much as i don't want to see dicks and ugly people being trolls.....i don't see how it is illegal unless it would fall under sexual assault. That is the only real way i could see you arguing being naked would be illegal. Still find it debatable.

    Abridge? Yes. No fucking laws at all.

    Not very hard.

    Bill of rights obviously applies only to Federal government but bill of rights enumerates natural law and it applies to all forms of government.

    Yep...pretty fucking clear.....unless you are dishonest.

  • ThomasD||

    it is impossible to speak in a manner that cannot be misunderstood.

    Either you accept that, or you deny the concept of agency.

  • Mollie the mare||

    Oh bullshit. It's not unambiguous, the people who wrote the goddamn thing argued with each other over how to interpret it.

    It's not clear to me why it took 16 thousand words to make the point that the government should not have a monopoly on law. In fact, you don't even have to imagine that hard to know what that would look like. "Private alternative dispute resolution" is now common in civil disputes.

    The article fails with respect to criminal law in two respects. 1. Section VII incorrectly assumes that the purpose of the rule of law is to deliver justice and that for it to exist the law must be politically neutral. Neither are true. 2. In section VIII the credit to the stability of the legal system is given to the stability of social norms. This misses the huge role precedent plays in common law. Additionally, social norms often move faster than the legislators change the law, this does not mean the judiciary should change the law.

  • ||

    Right. I'm sorry. Thanks for that well-spoken explanation. I forgot that "...the words as understood at the time they were written are pretty unambiguous..." and all the court cases that reach the Supreme Court are a slam-dunk, fully objective application of said words.

    Are you a lawyer or judge?

  • ||

    Also, I said the whole body of law is "...at times". That does not preclude having a reasonably well-written mortgage contract. But, imagining a scenario that fits one's bias is easy...

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    The legal language of contracts exists in its present state precisely because it has be so frequently "subjectively reinterpreted" by lawyers and subsequently ruled on by courts for millenia.

    If the Founders had thought the language of The Constitution so "unambiguous", they likely wouldn't have seen the need for a Judiciary at the Federal level - as it is we do have a Supreme Court to settle such arguments.

  • Jerryskids||

    I wouldn't say "at all levels" - at the lowest levels you've got judges who were former prosecutors who only get elected if they've got the support of the local police. They're pretty predictably going to bend over backward to give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution, even if they have to invent excuses and rationales.

    At the SCOTUS level, anybody who thinks a particular case is a slam-dunk for one side or the other doesn't understand that "slam-dunks" don't make it to the SCOTUS level. There've been several levels of learned legal experts arguing the issue and disagreeing as to what the law means.

    But when flipping a coin gives you just as good a chance of guessing the ruling as analyzing the case, it's tempting to suspect the ruling is going to be a little random. Like the Obamacare ruling - lots of experts claimed it was clear from this, that, and the other evidence one side had the advantage and lots of experts argued the contrary with just as much evidence but as far as I can tell not one damn one of them predicted the ruling was going to introduce us to the word "penaltax". You're not really an expert for predicting the Pats would win the Superbowl if your analysis said the Pats offense was unstoppable and their defense impenetrable and therefore the Pats were going to win 43-7.

  • Jerryskids||

    (Although there were some experts who don't know a damn thing about the law who correctly predicted Obamacare would be upheld on the grounds that John Roberts is a slimy shitweasel who's going to find some fucked-up excuse for upholding Obamacare. Those people obviously know more than the law professors with all their erudite essays on what the law means.)

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    If they are that unambiguous, insist that any law which is not upheld unanimously be voided in its entirety for being vague, unclear, and confusing. I would go further and require that all trials concerning the constitutionality of laws be held by juries of ordinary people, require unanimity to confirm they are constitutional, and be final. If a jury of ordinary people can't agree unanimously on what a law means, it is too confusing to be enforceable. Appeals just confirm the vagueness and as such are pointless. Such laws should be voided altogether, not just the defective clauses or words, because that is rewriting the law by unaccountable juries. Just void them and tell the legislature to try again.

  • Fairbanks||

    While most jurists try to objectively follow the law, many do not, including some SCOTUS jurists. And this is not a deduction by reading between the lines in the opinions - it's there in black and white. From my readings of SCOTUS cases Ginsburg is the worst. She sometimes explicitly describes how she gets to a decision based on what's appropriate public policy, as opposed to the law.

  • Konima||

    Republicans gonna republican.

  • WTF||

    You get lost on the way to Breitbart?

  • Konima||

    Wat?

  • SIV||

    FAKE NEWS

  • Lyle||

    Yep.

  • Idle Hands||

    If you were outraged by Obama's attacks on the judiciary, you should be outraged by Trump's.

    I wasn't and I'm not, that being said I'll be very disappointed if Gorsuch name gets pulled because he couldn't keep his mouth shut till he was nominated. He's probably the most libertarian-ish judge we could ever hope to get.

  • NoVaNick||

    I'll be very disappointed if Gorsuch name gets pulled because he couldn't keep his mouth shut till he was nominated.

    Was thinking the same thing. But he made these comments supposedly in private, in a meeting with the senators. I wonder if Dick Blumenthal leaked them in order to undermine the nomination.

  • Just Say'n||

    I was outraged and I was outraged by attack on the court by the current baboon occupying the White House.

    However, I can't find Root's article about being outraged by Obama's attack on the court? Does this outrage only work one way or can someone provide me with the article where Root voices his outrage.

    I'm not saying that there isn't an article, I just can't find one.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    In fact, when Obama famously attacked the Supreme Court right in front of their faces during that SOTU address (causing Alito to shake his head in dismay and clearly say "that's not true"), Reason chose to laugh it off as a giant nothingburger, which they nearly always did with Obama's personal attacks.

  • Fairbanks||

    Is there some requirement somewhere that Root has to write an article every time he's outraged by an action or else he's not allowed to ever write an article on that topic? (Don't take this as me agreeing with Root about being outraged by Trump).

  • Lurk Diggler||

    Doesn't strike me as particularly libertarianish to believe the courts are above criticism.

  • 13914||

    "I wasn't and I'm not"
    I agree.

    outraged? attacks? benchslapped? it sounds like someone needs a safe space to avoid some microagressions. Definitely not the type of reporting I come to Reason for.

    Shouldn't we be happy that the various branches are pushing against each other and not simply delegating or usurping more or less responsibility? I hope Gorsuch gets in and continues to have many battles with the executive and legislative branches in defense of the Constitution.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    If you were outraged by Obama's attacks on the judiciary, you should be outraged by Trump's.

    Conversely, if you are outraged by Trump's attacks on the judiciary, you should have been outraged by Obama's. And almost none of you BS artists were.

  • The Grinch||

    Yep.

  • Mollie the mare||

    Even worse, stiff opposition from the Democrats may even provide enough cover for Trump to pull Gorsuch for a more compliant judge.

  • Alcibiades||

    If Trump's not reined in here he could very well end up scolding the entire bank of Supreme Court Justices right in front of them and also nationally in a State of the Union Address. I think, far-fetched though it may sound, at this point we have to take this possible scenario seriously.

  • paranoid android||

    Conversely, if you are outraged by Trump's attacks on the judiciary, you should have been outraged by Obama's. And almost none of you BS artists were.

    Them some fine alternative facts, Domestic Bootlicker.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, still looking for Root's outrage about Obama's attacks on the court.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    It didn't, and doesn't, exist.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Raging troglodyte screams at the sky again.

  • ||

    Conversely, if you are outraged by Trump's attacks on the judiciary, you should have been outraged by Obama's. And almost none of you BS artists were.

    Remember when Obama picked a team of rivals to help prevent him from doing stupid shit? Brilliant, right? Remember when he did stupid shit relatively unopposed anyway? Like drawing red lines and implementing healthcare exchanges so poorly that the "rivals" on his team lost their jobs? Remember when SCOTUS overturned him unanimously a record number of times? And then, as a fig leaf or anti-partisan gesture, he coughed up Merrick Garland?

    Trump picks team, the mere existence of their opposition and that they'd have the audacity to oppose him proves his incompetence.

    Unless you think Gorsuch's statements and the whole debacle are pure theater, I don't see how this is a bad thing. Even if you think they're pure theater, I don't see how, until decisions start coming down one way or the other, this is a bad thing. Until then, two adult (read: not thin-skinned) actors are calling each other names.

  • Calidissident||

    If someone didn't call Obama "Block Insane Yomomma" then they clearly were in the tank for him.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If someone noted that Obama was, in fact, the president of the United States for eight years, that meant they wanted to go to town on his weiner. Mikey's world has got to be a pretty baffling place in which to live.

  • american socialist||

    Trump needs to stfu

  • Praveen R.||

    I personally think it is a ploy by Gorsuch to get bipartisan support for his confirmation. I have a hard time believing he is stupid enough to piss off Trump before getting confirmed. Or he has more principles than I give most candidates credit for.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I think he absolutely has principles and was honestly speaking his mind to both senators. In any case, his qualifications alone are already fragmenting opposition to him.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    I don't know what those principles are then. Fact of the matter is the judges ruling was plainly idiotic, claiming the Constitution prevented restricting immigration by nationality. It's simply not difficult to see the Constitution says nothing of the sort.

    So then does Gorsuch believe in inventing clauses in the Constitution, or does he believe that those that do should not be criticized?

    I don't know, but neither answer is good.

  • Zeb||

    Having respect for the process doesn't mean you have to agree with every decision any court makes. And if you value rule of law, you have to respect the judicial process. If a judge gets something wrong, or makes shit up, the proper recourse it to appeal it to the next level.

    Trump is doing more than criticizing one judge or decision. He's saying that courts should shut up when the president declares something important to national security.

  • Lurk Diggler||

    Where does he say that?

  • MikeP2||

    "respect the process"? Why?

    "Trump is doing more than criticizing one judge or decision. He's saying that courts should shut up when the president declares something important to national security."

    That doesn't appear to what be Trump has been saying. What a majority of legal scholars appear to be saying, and Trump is pushing, is that the judge is well outside his purview and doesn't have the authority to put a stay on actions clearly defined by law as the sole providence of the administration. Trump could be more clear...as always, but he's right on the ridiculous of this ruling. The judge didn't put a TRO on a specific act relative to a specific party. He stayed the entire EO. Does that mean whenever the opposing side what's to cripple a POTUS, they just find an activist judge to put a stay on every EO that's issued? Or heck, why stop there. Just put a stay on every action for every administrative department.

  • american socialist||

    Trump needs to dump twitter since he lolls petty and a blowhard. Just let the dems look like babies. Develop thicker skin and get some new advisors.

    As actual potus he has been ok. I dont agree with the rollout of the eo and the gc, immi visa thing. Think wall is a waste and not to keen on sessions. Give him a pass on yemen raid since preplanned but going forward wont

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It totally works for Trump. He gets to send his messages out unfiltered by the lefty media and distracts them at the same time. The left cannot shut Trump up and in those 140 characters you can pick out the alternate route will take.

    Trump is literally rallying his supporters and fucking with the left at the same time.

    Why is Trump badmouthing those members of the judiciary that are biased and do not follow the constitution nor law? He is letting them and everyone who is scared of Trump know they have been exposed for the judicial hacks that they are. He is going to ruin them and run them out of the judiciary.

    You think Trump will slow down on his agendas once all his cabinet have been confirmed- Gorsuch is on the SCOTUS- ObamaCare is repealed- the wall is built- the illegal immigration/visitor problem is reined in? He is clearly doing what he said he would do.

    He will drain the swamp and some of that stagnant water resides in federal courts all over the USA.

  • american socialist||

    I hope he does but he can go about it in a way more respectful manner. Let the dems only continue to act like spoiled kids...dont stoop to their level

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah Trump clearly is a constitutionalist at heart.

    /s

    Good lord some people are delusional

  • MikeP2||

    I think its hilarious how you are reporting out second-hand information from a known liar, Blumenthal. That's kinda funny. Because Trump! whatever.

    I would love to see poll numbers on the number of people who think "its wrong to mock/ridicule/criticize judges". FFS. We all know there are a multitude of idiots, assholes, and losers in the world. Judges, politicians, everybody has a reasonable likelihood of being an idiot and Trump has every right to use his bully pulpit to criticize, mock, and chastise. Actions are prohibited by our constitution, not words. Hell, the criticism wasn't even defamatory. It was mocking. "so-called judge". so friggin what...

  • Konima||

    Hot take. It's not second-hand if Gorsuch confirmed that he said it. Stop looking at things through your Trump-lense.

  • MikeP2||

    "trump-lense"

    Does that mean anything less then whining hysteria is now considered "trump-lens" FFS.

    and are you sure Gorsuch confirmed what Blumenthal reported, or just that Gorsuch's spokeman confirmed that he was critical of Trump? Because the headline of this article attributes those quoted words to Gorsuch, when it is not actually a quote. It is second hand from a known liar. Maybe its you who has some sort of "lense" skewing what you read.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'm with MikeP2 on this. Given that Blumenthal is a known liar and the press loves to misinterpret or even lie about Trump, I would not take these reports at face value quite yet.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Until Gorsuch confirms what he said or there are transcripts, audio or video- the comments were taken out of the entire conversation and either true or a lie. The left has a serious axe to grind and are looking for any Republicans to back a no-vote. The left know what is coming and it is not pretty for them.

    The Senate will vote to remove the filibuster and confirm Gorsuch, if there is a duck fart of less than 60 Senate votes.

  • Hihndication||

    Concern troll gonna concern troll.

  • Jerry Baustian||

    Gorsuch may have said something like what Blumenthal alleged that he said.

    But right now Gorsuch is in the business of getting 60 votes in the Senate for confirmation. Making one of those senators out to be a liar would probably not be helpful.

  • Lyle||

    What Gorsuch said was taken out of context. Which is why Trump is calling Blumenthal a liar.

  • Just Say'n||

    Thank God, Gary Johnson didn't get to appoint another 'Souter' to the Court (as he heaped praise on Souter and called him his ideal Supreme Court pick).

    Come to think of it, since Reason pimped the Johnson so hard (pun intended), despite his lavish praise for statist justice Souter (not to name his other apostasies), why should we listen to anything you guys have to say about the Court?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Nope.

  • Just Say'n||

  • paranoid android||

    I know you're not a particularly intelligent person, as your defenses of Trump amply prove, but K-E-N-N-E-D-Y does not spell "Souter".

  • BakedPenguin||

    Kennedy, not Souter. And while that's bad, his list of picks was good, including Kosinski & JR Brown

  • ||

    Actually, Kennedy has taken the less authoritarian side. Kelo is an exception to that.

  • Just Say'n||

    To be fair, he did put out the list after getting push back on the Souter thing

  • Tony||

    Because Reason is under no obligation to be a right-wing Republican propaganda outfit?

  • american socialist||

    Don't you hate libertarians? You should worship trump since your ideology is unconditional love of the federal government and its powers

    can you help me out too?

  • Bacon-Magic et tu Reason?||

    Good for Gorsuch, we need differing opinions to keep the one's in power in check. For all his mouthiness, I faintly believe Trump understands this and that is why he picked him.

  • Konima||

    *it's why Steve Bannon picked him. It's cute that you think Trump has a nuanced understanding of Gorsuch and his positions though.

  • Bacon-Magic et tu Reason?||

    Did you mean Trump's version of Valerie Jarrett? Are you going to start saying Bannon controls everything? Do I need to build a bunker? *straps tinfoil upon brow

  • Konima||

    Trump's ideas and policies a very Bannon-driven. Bannon said so himself. There's a reason he basically told John Kasich that he would basically get to be president. Trump doesn't have the necessary cognitive ability to come up with complex policy. It's why he generally resorts to using the least-intellectually-stimulating platform possible, Twitter, to disseminate his ideas. 140 characters is perfect for Trump, because he genuinely isn't capable of anything more.

    It's not much of a conspiracy theory, as it has been confirmed and isn't difficult to believe.

  • Konima||

    One day I'll check for spelling errors and typos.

  • Bacon-Magic et tu Reason?||

    Prove it then.

  • Konima||

    If you're not aware of the aforementioned, you're probably not worth having a conversation with, huh? If I wanted to teach you... I'd become a teacher.

  • Bacon-Magic et tu Reason?||

    Fuck off, troll. I knew you'd say something like that. Argue in good faith or don't respond.

  • Konima||

    You're accusing me on not arguing in good faith when you're trying to get me to waste time explaining something you're already aware of? Shut the fuck up.

  • Konima||

    If I produce evidence, do you promise to never post here again? Is that the stand you want to take?

  • Bacon-Magic et tu Reason?||

    Judge Nap had his questionable hands in on the SCOTUS picks, he must be Illuminati.

  • Pompey:何 Class Mothersmucker||

    Steve Bannon is our modern answer to the foregone era of Martin Van Buren: Little Magician? You decide!

  • american socialist||

    Tinfoil

  • Jerryskids||

    Alternative facts - Gorsuch wasn't actually complaining about Trump, he was making a general complaint about the level of public discourse and the lack of civility and propriety on the left that makes Trump's comments both necessary and appropriate. And of course we all know who's responsible for the sad state of public discourse - Johann Gutenberg, him and his damn printing press that made it possible for illiterate morons to become literate morons.

  • Jerryskids||

    Dammit - (((Johann Gutenberg))).

  • Basketball Uber Alles, Jr.||

    It's not everyday that a judicial nominee openly criticizes the president who nominated him in the midst of the judicial confirmation process.

    Nitpick: the usage of "everyday" I've seen during my lifetime is as an adjective, as in "This is an everyday occurrence". In this instance, the sentence should begin "It's not every day...".

  • Lurk Diggler||

    Is there a link confirming what Blumenthal said? I don't see it in the article at the Hill.

  • Right_by_Choice||

    What would be the best way for Gorsuch to win over....oh..let's say 8 or 9 Democrat Senators.

    Would "Benchslapping" Trump do it?

  • prolefeed||

    I don't think even 1 D Senator is likely. These confirmation votes are mighty close to party line, and a whole lot more is at stake with a SCOTUS nominee.

  • Tony||

    I'm sure Trump is taking this in stride.

    And what excellent strategy as president: offend the entire judicial branch. That'll make them deferential to the actions of the most mentally unstable president in history, for sure.

  • american socialist||

    So you were cool with it when obama did it? What are you upset about...your ideology is unwavering devotion to expanding the power of the executive branch

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Only when the executive branch is run by progressive Democrats. Tony is the partisan hack's partisan hack.

  • Tony||

    If Obama had spent five minutes behaving as Trump does every moment of every day, he'd be impeached.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is likely that the judge in question had no legal basis for his ruling (he did not explain his reasoning), and may have overreached his authority by making the stay nationwide. Maybe they are both in the wrong?

  • american socialist||

    This. Trump is being petty here. The TRO reasoning is BS

    As far as i can tell it is legal except for gc and immigrant visas perhaps

  • Chipwooder||

    No one should use anything that transpired here to dissuade them of the notion that Dick Blumenthal is a liar and a massive piece of shit. Just wanted to get that out there.

  • Cis Species Lord of Feces||

    I don't have a problem in principle with the president talking shit about the judiciary. Cordial relationships between branches of government lead to disgusting incestuous norms like Chevron Deference, judicial deference to congress, etc. I was much more concerned by congresscritters calling the president "boss" than I am by Trump being a salty cunt all the time.

    That said, while I am glad that Gorsuch is willing to bite the hand that feeds from a separation of powers perspective, I hope that it does not derail his nomination. I guess it's a question about how unpragmatic Trump is willing to be to save face.

  • Fisting Ethics||

    It will probably help his nomination, a nomination which isn't seriously in question anyway. Democrats can now have a reason to "like" him. It's not like any of these judges won't help slowly erode individual and state rights in favor of the federal government.

  • Fisting Ethics||

    Though selected by both Red Team and Blue Team, the US judiciary is largely a group of big government progressives consistently sanding away at individual liberty. If one looks at the federal government's wide range of rights and actions (many of those "rights" already tested in court), the only conclusion is that the judiciary is not a reliable restraint against federal powers. How does one even take sides in this circus? I'm just enjoying the show, Trump has helped the government show grow from a mildly comedic tragedy to a most epic farce.

    Dress them in fine suits and majestic black gowns, but they are all dangerous buffoons.

  • Fisting Ethics||

    Though selected by both Red Team and Blue Team, the US judiciary is largely a group of big government progressives consistently sanding away at individual liberty. If one looks at the federal government's wide range of rights and actions (many of those "rights" already tested in court), the only conclusion is that the judiciary is not a reliable restraint against federal powers. How does one even take sides in this circus? I'm just enjoying the show, Trump has helped the government show grow from a mildly comedic tragedy to a most epic farce.

    Dress them in fine suits and majestic black gowns, but they are all dangerous buffoons.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    +9 justices carpooling to work in a single Volkswagen Beetle

  • Bubba Jones||

    "i am a Harvard trained lawyer choosing a govie job instead of a fat partnership. "

    How can they not be tools of big government? On average.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'm liking Gorsuch more and more each day. I hope he gets confirmed over the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the progtards. The proggie tears will be delicious, and then tears of Trumpkins will be just as sweet the first time he slaps down Trump. Salty ham tears all the way down.

  • The Fusionist||

    I'm glad Gorsuch has the stones to criticize the guy who nominated him, instead of being cringingly deferential while the nomination is pending and only finding his courage when he's safely confirmed.

    In this particular case, Trump was engaging in legitimate criticism of an out-of-control district judge who blocked an entire executive order without troubling to explain why it might be illegal. There were some specific provisions over which we can have a legitimate debate, but most of the people affected by it are being treated lawfully.

    To block the entire order, not just the dubious parts (green card holders, immigrant visas, affirmative action for minority religions) is pure TDS, and a violation of separation of powers.

  • Thrackmoor||

    "Trump's bully pulpit tactics are plainly intended to undermine the independence of the judicial branch and to deter it from ruling against him."

    I do believe that you give the President to much credit for long-term planning.

  • PapayaSF||

    Trump started to plan his run for president right after Romney lost. He came up with the MAGA slogan and trademarked it. He can do long-term planning.

  • Tony||

    Did he come up with it or was it one of his neo-Nazi friends?

    Virtually all of the policies Trump is trying to enact came from trying slogans out at rallies and keeping the ones that got applause.

  • Fisting Ethics||

    That is different from other politicians how?

  • MarconiDarwin||

    When Gorsuch makes the statement publicly, even if it is not pointed at Drumpf, then he can be taken seriously.

    Something like "The choice of language used by the executive branch against a member of the independent judiciary is appalling"

    This basically bad cosplay

  • Bubba Jones||

    1). We should be stoked that trump nominated an independent thinker and not a toadie.

    2). I seem to recall Obama and friends putting a lot of public pressure on Roberts during the Obamacare cases.

  • RodgerMitchell||

    Kind of a weak "benchslap." If Gorsuch had any moral strength he would come out and say that Trump's comments were outrageous, unAmerican and intolerable. #ImpeachNow

  • Ray W||

    Well Damon, thanks for your opinions. Here are some other opinions though that you might want to read. And it's also from Reason
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....the-courts
    And ya, Trump has every right to curtail immigration from those countries. I'd like the judge to explain to me what is unconstitutional or illegal in barring immigration from those 7 countries. So ridiculous. This is why people are so pissed off this election cycle. Most politicians, news organizations, and the hordes of paid bloggers keep spreading inaccurate, incomplete news. Ok I guess we all know Damon isn't a Trump fan. Fine - but on a rag like 'Reason', you'd think you'd have people be 'reasonable' and analyze an issue from both sides, rather than present just one side.

  • ranrod||

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

    freedom outpost

  • SF Pete||

    and no Mention of Obama's lambasting (wrongly) the Supreme Court in a Sate of the Union Address..by comparison, Trump's comments were very mild. And it shows the politics the Judiciary has sunk to, I guess the unelected Judges now protect the Borders...and what Bureaucracy do they command to do this??

    I thought Libertarians cared about the Constitution, I guess not..

  • REMant||

    The Supreme Court has NEVER demonstrated an understanding, or even a belief in, the Constitution of the United States. That's because there's no place for "common law" in it, and such was certainly never intended to be applied to the states, much less to the people. No branch of govt has encroached on the Constitution more than the judicial. If Gorsuch wasn't pandering to those senators, I'm afraid he's an unfortunate choice.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online