(Quin Hillyer, Liberty Headlines) With leftist outfits predictably aghast and conservatives thrilled with the performance so far of new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, what often gets lost in the focus on his “results” is the substance of Gorsuch’s reasoning.
The hard-left editorial board of the New York Times shrieked that “the theft of a Supreme Court seat from President Obama” has “paid off in the extreme” in the person of Gorsuch. For an example, the Timescomplained that Gorsuch wanted to go beyond a compromise crafted by Chief Justice John Roberts in the religious-liberty case called Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. The Times was aghast that Gorsuch insisted that “the general principles here do not permit discrimination against religious exercise — whether on the playground or anywhere else.”
Oh, the horror.
Heaven forbid a justice who thinks all discrimination against religious exercise – rather than Justice Robert’s slim restrictions against playground discrimination – is forbidden by the First Amendment.
Of course, as the liberals howl at Gorsuch, conservatives rejoice that so far he appears to be “the real deal.” But for conservative court aficionados, what pleases them is not just that Gorsuch came down on their “side” of various cases, but how he arrived at his decisions. His legal reasoning, his clarity, his ability to cut through legalistic mumbo-jumbo, and the eloquence of his writing are all drawing conservative applause….
[later in the column]…
Conservatives care deeply about restricting the judiciary to its “proper role,” without succumbing to the temptation to “amend” legislation by trying to impose on it the judges’ ideas on how it might work better – which is what, for example, they criticize Chief Justice John Roberts for doing when his decision a few years ago saved the “individual mandate” in Obamacare…..
[For the full article, please follow this link.]