Posts Tagged ‘Neil Gorsuch’

Supreme Court roundup

“What Kind of a Judge is Neil Gorsuch?”

New paper from Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison for the fledgling Cato Legal Policy Bulletin series, which launched in January with Thomas Berry’s paper “The Illegal Tenure of Civil Rights Head Vanita Gupta.” From the executive summary:

…President Donald Trump picked Gorsuch after promising the American people that he would appoint someone in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who is best known for his devotion to the original meaning of the Constitution, his textualist approach to interpreting legal statutes, and his commitment to ordered liberty through constitutional structure. This policy bulletin weighs Judge Gorsuch’s record with respect to those ideals, ultimately asking whether a Justice Gorsuch would uphold the Constitution’s protection of individual liberty. A survey of Gorsuch opinions in cases involving criminal procedure, constitutional structure, and individual rights reveals an adherence to the rule of law. Moreover, Gorsuch has questioned legal precedent on the separation of powers—especially when it comes to the administrative state—in a way that shows a commitment to the judicial duty to check the other branches of government.

Other links on the nominee: A study of cases finds Neil Gorsuch in the middle of the pack among Tenth Circuit judges on employment discrimination and immigration [Kevin Cope and Joshua Fischman, Five Thirty-Eight] And the editors at the New York Daily News, one of the most outspokenly anti-Trump newspapers, say the Senate should confirm him:

In exchange after exchange with members of the Judiciary Committee, Gorsuch revealed himself to be not the caricature conjured up by Democrats, but a rigorous judicial practitioner with respect for the legislative process and for precedent….

Sen. Dianne Feinstein challenged Gorsuch on whether he “would give a worker a fair shot” — asking him to cite cases in which he stood up for the little guy, affirming his or her rights over that of a wealthy employer.

Gorsuch, off the top of his head, named 10….

Democrats are doing the nation a disservice by planning to filibuster his nomination….They should stand down.

March 22 roundup

  • Gorsuch hearing “unlikely to change a single vote on anything” [Ilya Shapiro] “No, there is no way to force Supreme Court nominees to give revealing answers” [Orin Kerr] Members of Supreme Court bar are keen on the nominee [letter courtesy SCOTUSblog] And many law professors, even [letter via Will Baude]
  • “Nice Try! Judge Nixes Attempt To Turn $4 Million Worth Of Stickers Into $10 Million Bonus” [Daniel Fisher]
  • Problems here would seem to go beyond lack of court interpreter: “Interpreter no-show stalls Chigwedere witchcraft case” [The Herald, Zimbabwe]
  • “The Strange Case of Everet vs. Williams: When Two Highwaymen Took Each Other To Court” [Paul Anthony Jones, Mental Floss]
  • Important Phil Hamburger op-ed: Chevron entrenches a judicial bias in favor of state, Gorsuch is right to oppose it [New York Times]
  • It’s cute when legislators try to legalize dachshund racing [Lowering the Bar, Idaho, earlier]

Attacks on Gorsuch — and on the rule of law

“I’m not sure who decided that the Democratic critique of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch would be that he doesn’t side with the little guy. It’s a truly terrible idea.” Judges should stand up for the law and their interpretation of the correct way for it to develop, rather than ruling consistently with the interests of a particular category of litigant. “…consider the whole point of a rule-of-law system: It establishes rules so that people can be confident in advance of how decisions are made. That creates regularity and predictability. And in the long run, it protects the little guy a lot better than a system rigged to favor one side, because such systems will naturally tend to favor the rich and powerful, not the poor and downtrodden.” So cut it out, interest groups with your stop-Gorsuch campaign [Noah Feldman, Bloomberg View] More: David Harsanyi.

March 15 roundup

  • A workplace hazard? Push in Britain to “make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work.” [Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason]
  • Service dogs on planes: “a ‘credible verbal assurance’ books Fido a trip to San Francisco for the weekend” [David Post, Volokh Conspiracy] Australia, too, sees trend toward exotic service and emotional-support animals [Workplace Prof; earlier]
  • Trial lawyers would like Supreme Court to squash the arbitration alternative, but few signs Judge Gorsuch is on board with that plan [Edith Roberts, SCOTUSBlog]
  • New York radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, not a favorite in these columns, dead at 77 [Scott Johnson, PowerLine, earlier]
  • Baltimore police scandal, “yes means yes” bill for MoCo schools, homicide rap for overdose suppliers?, school wi-fi scare, Tom Perez, and more in my Maryland policy roundup [Free State Notes]
  • Suing so soon over White House regulatory reform, Public Citizen, and with so little show of injury? [Brian Mannix, Law and Liberty]

Crime and punishment roundup

  • Dairy Queen manager charged with involuntary manslaughter following suicide of teen employee reportedly bullied on the job [AP, Missouri]
  • Court orders new trial: carpenter, in school to argue against son’s school suspension over knife, had displayed knife he carries as part of work [Lancaster Online, Commonwealth v. Goslin]
  • Desires for retribution aside, hanging homicide rap on dealers after overdoses unlikely to solve opiate problem [Mark Sine and Kaitlyn Boecker, Baltimore Sun]
  • “Man wrongly convicted with bite mark evidence confronts bite mark analysts” [Radley Balko]
  • Judge Neil Gorsuch and over-criminalization [C. Jarrett Dieterle, National Review]
  • Debate over DoJ oversight of city police forces continues [David Meyer Lindenberg, Fault Lines (report on Chicago) and more]

Schools roundup

  • Judge Neil Gorsuch on education law issues [Clint Bolick and Marty West, Education Next] And if you haven’t read Gorsuch’s dissent in the “burping student” case, A.M. v. Holmes — among his most famous opinions — it’s here;
  • Tables for sharing food at cafeterias: “‘It’s the same objections every single time,’ he said. ‘There’s this myth that they’re going to get sued.'” [Michael Melia, AP/Yahoo]
  • “Why heroin and classroom sex aren’t enough to get teachers fired anymore” [Julia Marsh, New York Post]
  • “…a story of the pitfalls that await teachers who make extended efforts to aid troubled students.” [Andrew Marra, Palm Beach Post]
  • St. Paul, Minn. saga of school discipline and “disparate impact,” cont’d [Katherine Kersten, earlier here, here, and here]
  • “I first found ‘Free Range Kids’ from the Overlawyered site” — one commenter’s tale of the fate of children’s books at a local library after CPSIA came in [Free-Range Kids]

March 1 roundup

Banking and finance roundup

Gorsuch nomination roundup

More on the nominee, starting with a Washington Post profile:

  • How to read last year’s Garland precedent? [David Post, Jonathan Adler]
  • Gorsuch “consistently applied established First Amendment protections” [Adam Liptak, New York Times quoting Gregg Leslie of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]
  • We’ve earlier linked Cato podcasts on the nomination with Ilya Shapiro and Andrew Grossman and now here’s a somewhat more skeptical one featuring Ilya Somin;
  • On product liability [Eric Wolff, Perkins Coie]
  • California Federation of Teachers, explaining its opposition to the nomination, dismisses his constitutionalism as devotion to a document “drafted to protect the interests of white slave owners” (via Amy Alkon);
  • “Follow the law, as judges are supposed to do, and you’ll get tarred as a supporter of criminals” when Nancy Pelosi et al. go low: [Eugene Volokh on gun cases U.S. v. Games-Perez and U.S. v. Reese]