Donald Trump’s announcement of 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for Supreme Court was greeted with lavish praise from Republicans who commended his constitutional literalism.
The mainstream press, meanwhile, fixated on comparing him to the man he would succeed, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, rather than digging into his record.
Gorsuch was said to be the least controversial pick on Trump’s shortlist, having sailed through his early confirmation hearings in 2006 with only a few questions on assisted suicide from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. But now Gorsuch has a 10-year record of legal opinions, some of which disturbingly echo Trump’s aversion to limits on law enforcement power.
Trump campaigned as the “law and order candidate,” and was extremely reluctant to hold police accountable for violence. Gorsuch, from his first year on the federal bench, expressed a similar devotion to police impunity.
In a 2006 case, police had caught 22-year-old Ryan Wilson growing marijuana in Lafayette, Colorado. Wilson tried to flee, but an officer tased him in the back of the head and he died of cardiac arrhythmia. Despite the marketing claims of taser manufacturers that their products are a safe way to incapacitate criminals, they frequently cause permanent damage or kill victims.
Wilson’s parents sued for damages, claiming that police had used excessive force. When the case found its way to the 10th Circuit, Gorsuch ruled in favor of the police. “Mr. Wilson was resisting arrest by fleeing from officers after they identified themselves — even if the crime of which he was suspected was not itself a violent one,” Gorsuch wrote for the majority.
Fellow Judge Mary Beck Briscoe disagreed, saying “A reasonable officer would know that aiming or recklessly tasing Ryan Wilson in the head under the circumstances presented was unconstitutional.”
Gorsuch also ruled that the police were protected by the doctrine of “qualified immunity” – which shields government officials from lawsuits if there is any reasonable uncertainty about whether their actions are legal.
Commentators have pointed to the breadth of “qualified immunity” as a major obstacle to police reform. It has been invoked to protect law enforcement in several recent high-profile cases, like the lawsuits brought by the families of Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice.
The Supreme Court issued a new ruling in 2011 — in an opinion written by Antonin Scalia — that government officials can be sued only if “every reasonable official” would know that an action is illegal, making it even harder to hold them accountable.
Gorsuch apparently believes the doctrine has some limits, however. In July 2016, two of Gorsuch’s colleagues ruled that a police officer could not be sued after arresting an Albuquerque seventh grader who “generated several fake burps, which made the other students laugh.” Gorsuch dissented, saying that the law does not criminalize “noise[s] or diversion[s]” in the classroom.
Gorsuch’s beliefs about qualified immunity for government officials will take on a greater significance at the national level. In addition to insulating police brutality from civil suits, qualified immunity has shielded officials in the Bush administration from lawsuits over the torture program, and has been invoked by the Obama administration to protect the drone program from legal scrutiny.
Gorsuch’s rulings have also chipped away at Constitutional protections from warrantless searches. He has repeatedly ruled in favor of police searching vehicles without a warrant after routine traffic stops (see here, here, and here).
Gorsuch also ruled in a case last year that if police track your car with a GPS device for weeks — without going to a judge — the evidence is still admissible at trial, as long as the police have an “objectively reasonable good-faith belief” that what they are doing is legal.
The case closely resembles a frequently cited 2012 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court failed to decide whether prolonged GPS tracking violated someone’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Top Photo: Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch. during a meeting with Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2017.
And this writers is Lefty moron!!!
Briscoe Affirmed most of the Opinion. Dissented only in part. Third Judge Meridith Affirmed as well.
On Tucker Carlson’s show last night on Fox, Mac Zibler indirectly referenced my brother’s case “Wilson vs. City of Lafayette” which involved a Lafayette, CO officer John Harris killing his son (my nephew) by tasing him. It was a drive by ignorant comment to Carlson to assert Gorsuch was “extreme” by siding with police in his 10th Circuit Court Opinion supporting giving police too much power. He failed to provide case specifics. As the decedent’s Uncle, allow me to clear things up since Mac didn’t bother reading the 41 page Opinion.
While I was disappointed the 10th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment granting officer John Harris Qualified Immunity, I must support Judge Gorsuch.
I was present to hear the oral arguments and I found Judge Gorsuch to be fair and brilliant during arguments. He wrote the Opinion for the court citing more than ten established case laws and ending it citing a Supreme Court case “Malley vs. Briggs” from 1986 which provides a broad brush granting police Qualified Immunity against prosecution. The SCOTUS already established the precedent by which Gorsuch based his Affirmation. Gorsuch simply sided with existing case law. Not displaying “extreme” jurisprudence in the least. Excessive force case law has been well established, as well as that of Qualified Immunity. Malley vs. Briggs was a 7-2 decision on Q/I that notably included three Democrats voting “For”. Were those three Democrat Justices extreme?
Nice try Mac, but you missed the ball. Typical liberal play. Throw an on-air smoke bomb with no supporting facts to back it up just in an attempt to further a liberal narrative. Facts be damned. Professional credibility be damned. My brother has a 5 foot tall four drawer filing cabinet packed with seven years of legal and court documents. Everything from the initial police report to Gorsuch’s 41 page Opinion from February 13th, 2013. If you want an education on the case, rent a copy machine and get a hotel down here for a few days. Otherwise, stop commenting on case outcomes on which your only knowledge is based on Google searches.
Well sooprise sooprise sooprise,… not.
“Trump’s Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch founded and led club called ‘Fascism Forever'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/amp/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html
Benito was his hero. Stomping on opponents faces with his jackboots was his favorite sport. And making whoopie with a local stray dog was his favorite passtime..just like his mother. Unfortunately, the best part of him ran down his mothers leg. Of course, that failed abortion is what caused the permenant pernial abscess between his ears. Meanwhile, rumor has it the giggling beasts that spawned him killed themselves in recognition of what they had done. However the mere fact he became a judge is living proof even pond scum can wear a black robe.
Thank god he is not an Obama-style authoritarian … the first president to claim the legal right to kill anyone without judicial oversight, the president that bugged reporters and prosecuted more of them under the espionage act than any of his predecessors, the president who forced down a plane of the Bolivian president just because he thought Ed Snowden was a passenger, the president who illegally detained immigrant children and then defied court orders to release them.
I am sure this right-wing ken doll will uphold the dictatorial powers of the unitary executive that Bush and Obama fought for.
Thank god someone is. After all we fought long and hard for them dictatorial powers
Readers interested in limiting corproate power and protecting clean air and clean water and responding to climate change should understand Gorsuch’s views on federal regulatory power.
Read his radical analysis in HUGO ROSARIO GUTIERREZ- BRIZUELA,
Petitioner v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, (starting at page 15, see:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/14/14-9585.pdf
Gorsuch’s corporate friendly radical ideology would roll back the New Deal’s “administrative state” and literally return us to the 19th century Robber Barron impunity.
For a little historical analysis of Gorsuch’s personal and intellectual development, see:
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2017/02/the-first-gorsuch-was-too-much/
I bet a Democratic Party controlled Congress and a Democratic Party President could pass laws that would legally change the immunity clauses.
Hahah! I’m kidding. They’d never do such a thing.
Donald Trump isn’t an authoritarian. The authoritarianists come from the left, the people using violent riots to try and overthrow a democratically elected POTUS. The people shooting people, burning cities, and kidnapping people for daring to vote against the narrative.
The current POTUS is the first in recent history who isn’t subservient to special interest groups and elites, and instead listens to the PEOPLE of the United States, and protects us from the tyranny of the majority as our forefathers established our nation to be. President Trump SERVES the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Not the violent thugs who want to do everything in their power to erode our rights away for the sake of virtue signalling and being useful idiots to their filthy rich powerful elite handlers.
This is typical left propaganda for typical leftists who cannot survive outside of their echo chamber.
@Jasmine
If you truly believe that, I feel sorry for you. What do you make of Trump’s cabinet filled with billionaires and multi-millionaires? Do you think that since they have become so rich, they no longer care about financial gain and will truly serve the people?
It’s one thing to think that when Trump was running, but I would say the writing is on the wall now. Trump is draining the swamp, indeed, but he is doing that so he can fill it with his own people. If you cannot see that now, I am afraid you are a lost cause.
True, except for his abject subservience to the apartheid enclave of Israel aka ‘the Jewish state’.
That’s funny. Let’s look for examples of this shall we? He fired the Attorney General for disagreeing with him. He threatened to send troops into Mexico and he’s unilaterally closed the borders to Muslims. Oh, and he’s begun to erase all evidence and scientific data that’s published on government websites.
Yea….keep telling yourself that….lol.
Oh, I forgot the best part. ALL of this was done in the first 10 days! lol.
“Donald Trump isn’t an authoritarian.”
Then how can you square his ruminations on “opening up libel laws” and eminent domain?
Authoritarians are not limited to just the “left”.
quote”Donald Trump isn’t an authoritarian”unquote
Says one with autographed pictures of Hitler, PolPot, and Mussolini on his wall.
Nice try schmuck. Next time, cover up that Swastika tattoo on your forehead, and don’t wear jackboots.
quote” President Trump SERVES the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES a SHIT SANDWICH”unquote
fixed it.
To snowflake liberals he is an authoritarian because he dared to run against a racketeering war-criminal with a ‘D’ by her name. For them, his authoritarian nature continued when he dared to assume office and carry out a conservative agenda.
Yes, we may have an outbreak of authoritarianism with associated arrogance and pride. I remember from my SF training, an old OSS gentleman who had parachuted into France and blow up a German troop train. “We have trained you well as good as you can be”, “best of the best” speech.” “Remember on the battlefield arrogance and pride will get you all the steel you can carry and all the dirt you can eat.” In politics it will just get you FUBAR real fast and you will lose the base you need. Mr. President if you got the time, second even third wise opinions before action is good policy, never assume you opposition is stupid. I suggest you read or reread you own book “Art of the Deal” and “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu and adapt to your “new” reality as President. Arrogant believe in the false reality of hard-line ideas, absolute truths, will destroy your presidency as it has the past two. I for one wish you, the American and the World’s peoples a better future.
I believe the book was ghost written, so it may be an initial read. As DJT has previously showed very little interest in politics, one of his advisors made the pick. So far these guys have shown little respect for institutions, and prefer to wing it from their fascist-like instincts. They are mote dictatorial than democratic.
Hope you are part wrong but not counting on it. If they try the dictator route they will quickly become just another book mark, place holder presidency with a dissembled legacy like the last one, Bush after 911 got things done but the wrong things for a Constitutional Republic. Hillary was a more of the same, why she lost. While many lined up with Hillary or Trump there are enough moderates left to swing elections. Hint generous but legal immigration, National defense without endless war and too much MIC influence and lift the lower middle class in urban and rural areas back to center a tide that will help lift all boats/yacht poor to rich . In short a progressive-conservative Constitutional Republic. Hard left and right can fight over the margins but not hold sway.
Judge Neil Gorsuch was greeted with lavish praise. . . from Republicans who commended his constitutional literalism.?.?
OUR Constitution calls for a separation of church and state – BUT he decided against women’s rights in the Hobby Lobby case…”CITING religion” Business was once described as the country’s business. That makes it ..S T A T E.. not religion and another faulty decision – from a man who would be king (oops) I mean JUSTICE ( as he sees fit by political whims)…..to be appointed to our highest court – to be there for many (SAD) years to come
Congratulations. Your argument describes the longest, shadiest constitutional penumbra (possibly) ever. I’m considering wearing ‘it’ instead of sunscreen next time I’m at the beach.
By the way, can the penumbra you described be applied when, let’s say, ‘a business’ which is STATE business (fascism, right?) fires someone because of things they say. But then the STATE says ‘hire them back, you idiots because… FIRST AMENDMENT’?
Hobby Lobby was not about “women’s rights”. It was about the government trying to mandate that owners of a private business provide services that they found morally objectionable.
Gorsuch cited religion only in the context of how it pertained to the state of mind of the business owners. He agreed that it was reasonable for the owners to believe that the Obamacare mandate was forcing them into complicity with something that they believed to be morally wrong. He even emphasized that such a belief was entirely subjective. Nothing in the ruling suggested that birth control is morally wrong in any legal sense. It stated only that it was “reasonable” for Christians to believe that it is. Some of us might find it silly to believe that eating pork and drawing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad are morally wrong but it’s nevertheless “reasonable” for a person of Muslim faith to believe it.
If you agree with the idea of separation of church and state, how can you justify any laws which allow government to force people to violate their religious principles?
it wasn’t about women’s rights??? are you on birth control??
Does he beat his wife to a pulp on a weekly basis?
At his announcement, issued with great fanfare and typical Trump aplomb, Judge Gorsuch described Justice Scalia as a mentor and “lion of the law” which left me sleeping with one eye open. .. because lions don’t sleep at night.
*also, although many of his most consequential opinions and rulings appear to be infused with a certain, uh, ‘religious freedom’ fervor … I seriously doubt that would extend to the ‘Muslim ban.’
Judge Gorsuch conveniently rediscovers the limits on executive powers in the Constitution when the questions involve “liberal” regulations.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html?_r=0
Angry, large-D democrats are about as aggressive as pill bugs.
Daily political briefing: Predator, prey, and opportunistic cannibalism.
The narration is spot on. ;-)
Buncha’ white, connected, entitled guys. Haven’t they done enough damage already?
So tired of white old men with ZERO morals running our country.
Filibuster now, Democrats.
Any cooperation after the Republicans denied Obama’s nominee will be seen as appeasement.
If you go along to preserve a system that the Republicans have already betrayed will be tantamount to unconditional, unilateral surrender.
Neville Chamberlain avoided war by condemning a piece of Czechoslovakia to Nazi occupation. They called it “peace in our time.”
World War II followed a year later.
History will condemn you.
No filibuster is appeasement.
Demand Merrick Garland as a nominee before you vote on ANY Trump nominee.
The people are watching.
You sound more like Bernie Sanders everyday, wilt’mellow %^)
You mean that hype-partisan Clinton lover I voted for in caucus?
It’s time Dems see themselves not as “the loyal opposition” but as the Resistance.
Police are local, just like schools. Unless there is an obvious constitutional issue, let the locals handle it.
Like, for instance, qualified immunity, right?
And then there’s the USC. . .
All criminal suppression matters are decided on constitutional law.
He’s against assisted suicide too. The ultimate right of every human being.
ASSISTED suicide would be a benefit, not a right because… you need an assistant. No?
No, there are forms where a doctor makes a prescription and the patient can swallow a pill, alone, without any direct assistance.
He has been part of plenty of decisions against the government as well.
Your inflammatory lede takes away from the articles credibility. Qualified Immunity has been unfortunate precedent a long time, as has the good faith doctrine. An authoritarian is a bit much, imo, but I know you need to generate the clicks.
The cities and states could strip qualified immunity by passing a law, but not even the deepest blue (democrat, not thin line) state has done so.
Where is Illinois and California, add Oregon and Washington – and New Mexico on this?
Judges aren’t radical just because they won’t impose something the legislature and executive could easily do.
Oh, and the problem was Marijuana was illegal back then – war on drugs.
You don’t shoot at someone, or even taser them, for running away from you…do you?
The cops are legally permitted to use deadly force on fleeing suspects only if they believe the suspects pose a danger to society.
Even though the incident resulted in a death, the question is whether or not the officer *believed* that he was using deadly force. Sounds to me like the family should have sued Taser International for marketing their tools to law enforcement as “non-lethal”.
The mother did sue Taser, but I don’t know how that was resolved.
Thank you for the explanation. Taser Intl. does spell out in the manual how the weapon should not be fired at the head.
qualified immunity is the operating principle of 3rd world dictators like bashar, momar, netanyahu, pol pot, obama, and others who worship the capture torture and kill clause of the NDAA and written by senator carl levin whose partner in this was john mccain.
capture and kill is how israel takes land from palestinians.