Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Judge Napolitano's Take On Trump's Supreme Court Pick

Tom Woods writes:
For questions like whether Neil Gorsuch is a good guy, I have two go-to people.

One is Kevin Gutzman, with whom I wrote Who Killed the Constitution? in 2008.

And Kevin is happy about the pick, as he said on the radio today.

The other is Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I haven't written a book with, but who is the godfather of our daughter Sarah.

And he is very pleased indeed.

"I'm ecstatic over this," the Judge told Tucker Carlson. Gorsuch "is the most worthy jurist in the country to fill the shoes of Antonin Scalia."

Gorsuch brings a "Scalia-like dose of skepticism" about government, the Judge added.

I'll do some reading, but if these two guys say this is a good pick, well, that's good enough for me.

13 comments:

  1. And this is why, despite all his shortcomings, Trump is better than Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think we fall into the trap of putting too much faith in the institution.

    http://www.michaelmaharrey.com/supreme-court-hysteria-1683/

    Real resistance to federal power must come locally and regionally - the states. They are just as much interpreters of the Constitutionality of federal law than the SCOTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Trump can (will) make a lot of short-term mistakes, but this pick plus maybe one or two more will have decades of influence. Imagine what Hilary would have done...

    ReplyDelete
  4. An Ivy educated big gov't legacy (Mom was EPA director for Reagan) who is said to have “an inexhaustible store of Winston Churchill quotes.” Another swamp thing in "conservative" guise?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the POSITIVE article on pick!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Napolitano supports the use of the Espionage Act. He’s a cafeteria libertarian conservative self-promoter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As opposed to all the toothless LOLbertarian deadbeats whose only education comes from reading blogs about "muh liberty"

      Delete
  7. It would have been better to leave the seat purposely unfilled as the first step in dismantling SCOTUS which only serves to destroy individual liberty. Whether it is in favor of or against any particular legislation its acts only serve to lend legitimacy to the most illegitimate of human organizations...the state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you ever going to come back to reality or are you going to keep wallowing in delusion? Who gives a shit about your views on SCOTUS. Like it or not, it's there. You have to work within the confines of reality Brian. You can't just say "I wish SCOTUS didn't exist", then close your eyes and ears and fold your arms. Use your brain! It exists, and nobody, for a long time, barring some exceptional event, will be able to singlehandedly dismantle it. The question then becomes, do you want someone who is relatively better or worse. What an idiotic question, but you need to ask it to yourself. Again, use your damn brain!

      Delete
  8. In weed cases that could either way, he seems to ALWAYS side with the state:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-does-trump-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-stand-on-marijuana-law-201708268.html

    Clarence Thomas was very blunt in his California medical marijuana opinion that federal control over marijuana grown in California meant that the "Commerce Clause" granted the feds plenary control over local sewing bees.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Clarence Thomas: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

    ***

    [T]he Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term “ ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term “commerce” is consistently used to mean trade or exchange–not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. The term “commerce” commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California–it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

    **

    This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. (“[T]hus far in our Nation’s history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature” To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the “ ‘the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’ This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
    Moreover, even a Court interested more in the modern than the original understanding of the Constitution ought to resolve cases based on the meaning of words that are actually in the document. Congress is authorized to regulate “Commerce,” and respondents’ conduct does not qualify under any definition of that term.8 The majority’s opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from “ ‘commerce,’ ” ante, at 1, to “commercial” and “economic” activity, ante, at 20, and finally to all “production, distribution, and consumption” of goods or services for which there is an “established … interstate market,” ante, at 23. Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for posting that, Bob Roddis. I never knew I was Clarence Thomas fan.

    ReplyDelete