News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles.Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
Monday, April 03, 2017
Judge Gorsuch: ‘Everyone Who Comes To Court Deserves Respect’
Judge Gorsch: As Judges, ‘Sometimes The Answers We Reach Aren’t Ones We Would Personally Prefer. Sometimes The Answers Follow Us Home And Keep Us Up At Night. But The Answers We Reach Are Always The Ones We Believe The Law Requires.’
JUDGE GORSUCH: “I also had the great fortune to clerk for Justice Kennedy. He showed me that judges can disagree without being disagreeable. That everyone who comes to court deserves respect. And that a legal case isn’t just some number or a name but a life story.”(U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 3/20/17)
·JUDGE GORSUCH: “As a judge now for more than a decade, I have watched my colleagues spend long days worrying over cases. Sometimes the answers we reach aren’t ones we would personally prefer. Sometimes the answers follow us home and keep us up at night. But the answers we reach are always the ones we believe the law requires.” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 3/20/17)
FLASHBACK:Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Praised Judge Sonia Sotomayor For Hewing ‘Carefully To The Text Of Statutes, Even When Doing So Results In Rulings That Go Against So-Called Sympathetic Litigants’
·SCHUMER: “…her record shows that she is in the mainstream. ...she has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases against the immigration plaintiff, she has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases, she has denied race claims in 83 percent of cases. ... In a case brought by plaintiffs who claimed they had been bumped from a plane because of race, she dismissed their case because the law required it, Judge Sotomayor has hewed carefully to the text of statutes, even when doing so results in rulings that go against so-called sympathetic litigants. In dissenting from an award of damages to injured plaintiffs in a maritime accident, she wrote, ‘we start with the assumption that it is for Congress, not the federal courts, to articulate the appropriate standards to be applied as a matter of federal law.’”(U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Confirmation Hearing For Sonia Sotomayor, P.25, 7/13-16/2009)
JUDGE GORSUCH: ‘If Anyone Is Suggesting That I Like A Result Where An Autistic Child Happens To Lose, That’s A Heartbreaking Accusation To Me. … The Fact Of The Matter Is I Was Bound By Circuit Precedent’
·“The key point is that the [Supreme C]ourt’s judgment repudiated the 10th Circuit. And it thereby repudiated the 2008 Gorsuch opinion applying the circuit’s precedent. But the court didn’t repudiate Gorsuch, not by a long shot. His decision was correct as a matter of 10th Circuit law. That law was wrong. Bur Gorsuch didn’t make it. He applied it -- which is what his job was.”(Noah Feldman, “The Supreme Court Didn't Really Smack Down Gorsuch,” Bloomberg, 3/23/17)
JUDGE DEANELL TACHA, 10th Circuit (Retired), Who Wrote The Urban Precedent: “…in particular, in the Luke P. case, Judge Gorsuch was following very longstanding precedent … [T]his committee… had heard Judge Gorsuch repeatedly say precedent is important, precedent stands. It is an important piece how -- of the lens that I referred to that a judge looks at a case through, and to be absolutely specific. Judge Gorsuch was applying precedent that went all the way back to 1982 in the Supreme Court decision of Board of Education v. Rowley. So, with all my heartstrings with the family, what Judge Gorsuch was called on to do was apply that very longstanding precedent for our circuit. … Further, I can say with some authority that he was following not as dicta, but as a holding in his case, WHAT I WROTE in the Urban case,which he was following, and I -- both all wrote, that the statute as interpreted must be more than de minimis.” (Emphasis Added; U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 3/23/2017)
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH: “Senator, I really appreciate the opportunity to respond to that. ... Let’s start with the Luke P case and work forward from there. Luke P was a unanimous decision by my court. It included on the panel of three judges an appointee who happened to be appointed by a Democrat president. There was no dispute, in my court, about the applicable law. And there wasn’t because we were bound by circuit precedent. A case called Urban vs. Jefferson County, 1996, that said that the appropriate standard was de minimis—the educational standard had to be more than de minimis. That’s the law of my circuit, Senator. And I’ve been asked an awful lot about whether I abide precedent and whether I always like the results I reach. Here’s a case for you. …If anyone is suggesting that I like a result where an autistic child happens to lose, that’s a heartbreaking accusation to me. Heartbreaking. But the fact of the matter is I was bound by circuit precedent, and so was the panel of my court. And I had been bound for about 10 years by the standard in Urban vs. Jefferson County. Now, Senator, there are other cases, where, again, unanimously, my court had ruled for children with disabilities under this law. School of Deaf and Blind. Another Jefferson County case. Are examples I joined, participated, or wrote in IDEA cases where I wrote for the family under our binding standard. I understand that today the Supreme Court has indicated that the Urban standard is incorrect. That’s fine. I will follow the law. Now, sometimes--I think it was Justice Jackson who said just because I made a mistake unknowingly yesterday doesn’t mean I should make a mistake knowingly today. I’d invoke him here. I was wrong, Senator. I was wrong because I was bound by circuit precedent, and I’m sorry. But I tried to apply the law and I can tell you that we were doing it unanimously in all those cases.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 3/22/2017)
JUDGE GORSUCH:‘My Heart Goes Out To Him [Alphonse Maddin]… I Said That In The Opinion That He Was Put In A Rotten Position’
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH:“…my heart goes out to him [Alphonse Maddin]…I said that in the opinion that he was put in a rotten position. And I go home at night with cases where sometimes the law requires results that I personally would not prefer.”(U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 3/21/17)
·GORSUCH:“I’ve been stuck on the highway in Wyoming in a snowstorm. I know it’s involved. I don't make light of it, I take it seriously. But, Senator, this gets back to what my job is, and what it isn’t.” (U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 3/21/17)
MADDIN CASE: ‘Judge Neil Gorsuch Wasn’t Saying Truck Driver Alphonse Maddin Was Wrong To Abandon His Trailer’
Tags:IJudge Gorsuch, everyone, who comes to court, deserves respectTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
#Conservative #Constitution #NRA #GunRights #military 22 yr #veteran #professor #Christian #ProLife #TCOT #SGP #CCOT #schoolchoice #fairtax Married-50+yrs #MAGA
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting the beliefs associated with the ARRA, this blog/site is not controlled by nor funded by the ARRA. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.