Of those who voted for candidate Trump in November, 75% reported that filling the open seat on the Supreme Court was an important or the most important factor in their choice. Tonight, President Trump moved to satisfy them by nominating Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the high court vacancy. As the National Law Journal describes him, “Gorsuch, 49, who has been on the Tenth Circuit since 2006, is known as a consistent conservative much like the late Antonin Scalia in his embrace of originalism in interpreting statutes and the Constitution.”

That would appear to bode well for gun rights. In a world where the Heller decision hangs by a slim 5-4 margin, the nomination of an originalist — someone who can reasonably be expected to support and defend the individual right to keep and bear arms as laid out in the Second Amendment — would satisfy a large majority of those who pulled the lever for Tump. For them, anything else the new President may accomplish will be gravy.

Will a Justice Gorsuch be a jurist in the Scalia mold we all have hoped for? Only time will tell. At only 49 years old, he can reasonably be expected to be on the Court for at least another 20 years, maybe 30. In the mean time, there’s reason for optimism. The People of the Gun will certainly be watching with interest.

Recommended For You

89 Responses to Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to ‘Scalia Seat’ on Supreme Court

  1. Its great to have another conservative on the court. Maybe there will be another vacancy from the radical left side of the court in the next 4 years.

    • Does Ginsburg have a marble or a wooden staircase in her house? Maybe someone can give it a nice polish, make it shiny and smooth.

    • He joined an opinion on the tenth circuit that said it was alright for a cop to disarm a citizen for no reason other than the citizen was carrying and the cop perceived that as a threat.

      • Oh no!!

        Some of you guys probably whined through your entire first piece of a$$.

        This guy is a 99 out of a possible 100.

        We were a few rigged voting machines away from another flaming liberal activist.

        Count you blessings for God’s sake.

      • Not just disarm, but forcibly disarm and detain — and only afterward check to see if the citizen is carrying legally.

        That’s worrisome.

        • I disagree , as a law abiding ccw holder I will have no problem temporarily surrendering my side arm to a law enforcement officer untill such time I establish my legal right to carry .its for the safety of the office and myself . If that takes just one one in ten guns out of the hands of criminals I think all of us in the gun community should support that goal.

      • Don’t just throw it out there. Was it TEMPORARILY disarming an individual while an investigation was underway? Or was he in favor of permanently taking the firearm? There is a big difference.

        • DaveW – This was a topic on TTAG not that long ago but I couldn’t find it on an Internet search. Perhaps someone else can. I hope I have the facts of the case recollected properly but if I don’t I’m sure someone will pitch in and set me straight. As I recall, police received a call because a citizen observed someone in a parking lot load a handgun, put it in his pocket, and then get into a car as a passenger. A police officer observed a vehicle not far away which matched the description given and pulled it over after noting that the occupants were not wearing seatbelts as required by law. The officer asked the passenger if he was carrying a firearm and received a noncommittal reply. When the officer initiated a pat down, he discovered the handgun in the man’s pocket and seized it. It was later determined that the man was a convicted felon and therefore illegally in possession of the firearm and he was arrested, charged, and convicted accordingly.

          Again it’s as I recall ….. An appeal was filed claiming that the officer lacked legal grounds to detain and disarm the appellant because he had no knowledge that the appellant was not legally in possession of and licensed to carry a firearm and therefore was not “dangerous” to the officer. The court put paid to that argument and further opined that ANYONE carrying a firearm could be lawfully disarmed by the police. I don’t remember if it was just for the duration of the investigatory detention or longer time period than that. If anyone can dig up a citation for the case, I’d appreciate their posting it.

        • I don’t have much problem with cops having some amount of discretion, when we have evidence about that specific cop being right more often than not. If this event (as described) was one of 1000 times he searched for and confiscated a citizen’s firearm, I suspect the result would be different. One size does not fit all.

    • “Its great to have another conservative on the court.”

      Not really. At *best* we maintained what we had with Scalia there. Another Leftist (or Kennedy, for all practical purposes) needs to vacate a seat to make the court properly Conservative.

      It’s the dead of winter. It’s icy and slippery out. Old bones break easily…

      EDIT – On second thought, I ought to add Roberts to the list of suspect Conservatives, with his bizarre, twisted ‘logic’ in the ‘Affordable Care Act’ decision…

    • Ginsburg, born 1933
      Kennedy, born 1936
      Breyer, born 1938

      Most recent Presidents have gotten two picks, if he gets a second term Trump is likely to exceed that.

      • The actuarial tables suggest he should get to replace at least one of them, and RBG has been in poor health for some time. The word from the Court watchers I know was that she thought Hillary had it in the bag and thus she could just wait a bit longer to retire so Hillary could appoint her successor.

        RGB and especially Kennedy seem to define themselves by their “legacy” on the Court. None of them are likely going to voluntarily allow Trump to appoint their successors, especially when that would almost certainly tip the balance of power on such “legacy” issues as abortion, voter ID, immigration, affirmative action, gay marriage, and of course 2A.

        I could be wrong (hey, I predicted Sykes for this appointment, so my crystal ball is hardly infallible), but my read is that none of these three will voluntarily leave during a Trump administration, and would probably like to have their staff pop them up a-la El Cid if they expire in office.

        Still, there are now almost certainly going to be 5 votes on for things like eliminating Chevron deference, forced public unionization, and many more where Scalia’s death left the Court split 4-4.

  2. Of course, the whiny libtards in Congress are planning to stonewall Gorsuch’s nomination. They’re all P.O.’d because Republicans would not allow OBozo to break with tradition and nominate a replacement for Scalia in an election year, thus denying the progressives a chance to stack the USSC in absolutely the wrong direction. If Gorsuch is confirmed, there is every chance that Trump will have a chance to replace a leftist Supreme Court justice with another one who leans in the RIGHT direction, making it even more likely that our nation will be finally back on track agian after years of commiecrat mismanagement and progressive manipulation towards a socialist “paradise”.

    • They actually were not that POed. They didn’t push that hard. Instead they did the same thing as the right and said if you want a libtard justice vote Clinton. What they are saying now is just more lies because they lost.

      • They weren’t that PO’d then, because they were expecting a Clinton victory, after which everything would be rainbows and unicorns. They were willing to wait for the next Ginsburg clone.

        Guess they’ll have to wait a bit longer.

    • I’ve been reading analyses for a week now, and the consensus seem to be that the Democrats will ask sharp questions but not do much trying to stop this confirmation because Gorsuch is the least controversial of those Trump had on his list.

      He will be an improvement over Scalia in that he does not automatically defer to interpretations of law by bureaucrats and has no record of making crap up to support his positions.

      I just hope he understands that only human beings have rights, and we can get the Citizens United reasoning fixed, and of course that he grasps that “shall not be infringed” is the strongest statement of protection for a right that the Framers set down.

      • “…the consensus seem to be that the Democrats will ask sharp questions but not do much trying to stop this confirmation…”

        I’ve been reading what you’ve been reading and it makes practical sense. They won’t want to waste the political impact of forcing the ‘nuclear option’ in confirming him.

        They will save that for the justice that makes a hard lock on the court being Conservative…

  3. Fourth generation Coloradan? Newcomer. And he lives in Boulder. Not up to my standards. His Ma was EPA head, he’s a hippie kid.

    All 6th gen Coloradan snark aside – great choice. And my grandsons are 8th gen. Even the one who’s 2nd generation American 🙂

    • Damn hippies. For example his “hippie” mom attempted to slash the EPA budget by half, wanted industry to voluntarily comply with clean air laws and not to be forced to comply, and promoted the use of deadly pesticides similar to ddt. What a “hippie” she was.

  4. As with Scalia, “dirt naps” can overtake someone at unexpected times. For those of you inclined to such things, please pray that some Liberal justices are “called home”, and soon.

    • I’ll not pray for the death of anyone, but I’m really hoping those actuarial tables will come through for us.

    • “As with Scalia, “dirt naps” can overtake someone at unexpected times. For those of you inclined to such things, please pray that some Liberal justices are “called home”, and soon.”

      You’re pretty f’n sick. Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?! Gee, a gun rights activist who wishes death on other people, – yeah, that’ looks great for our side! GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR MOVEMENT, YOU’RE NOT WANTED HERE! We don’t need our successes tarnished by your petty and degrading BS.

        • Shove it. I’ve invested thousands of dollars in this fight and don’t feel like losing it because of some nut that’s lost it.

        • @Dave,

          I’ve often mused why such evil, twisted people – who seem to start looking like Emperor Palpatine – can live such long lives. Ginsberg and Feinstein are prime examples. I wish health and long life to good people. To Feinstein and Ginsburg I wish, at best, early retirement. They can’t leave their posts soon enough.

          A 49 year old conservative SCOTUS justice should be able to create snowflake histrionics for decades to come.

      • Wishing death on someone harms that person not at all. Get over yourself, those asshats are harming every American every day. Your fury is both silly and misplaced.

  5. You know, you got to give it up for Trump !! I don’t think they have even removed the bleachers yet from the inauguration and yet he has gotten right down to business. He said would what he was going to do and he did

    Let’s hope he succeeds and gets on the court….

  6. If McConnell doesn’t do whatever it takes to get him on the bench, including nuking the filibuster for USSC justices (if necessary), I will write a $2,000 check for his next Primary opponent.

  7. Great choice! I hope he gets in without too much libtard BS. I was a feared Donnie would go for his leftist sister’s buddy. We’ll see…happy with Trump so far.

    • i’m glad your afearment hunkered down some.
      i can’t really remember any prexy doing much at all but backpedal.
      at this rate if he makes mistakes he may have time to rectify them.

  8. OK, my money was on Diane Sykes, so I was wrong on my guess for Trump’s nominee.

    Gorsuch is a solid conservative. Very low odds of him turning into another Souter/Stevens/Blackmun.

    Of course, the Dems are going to go apeshit over this one.

      • Especially when Chicago is in her district, it would be a very nice ‘F*ck You* to the 44th (non-magnum and decidedly not ‘special’) POTUS, a permanent reminder that his fantasy of ‘Hope and Change’ was neither…

  9. This requires further research and some other perspectives… but it seems to be of interest to POTG. Re: US v. Rodriguez in the 10th wherein a NM police officer noticed a concealed weapon, and disarmed a citizen, subsequently finding that the citizen was not permitted to CCW… the citizen argued that he shouldn’t have been disarmed and frisked solely on the indication of a gun, while the court ruled that police officers can presume criminality based on seeing a gun. Obviously, there is more it than my one sentence summary.

    I reserve judgment until I am further educated about it, but it is worth researching. A summary of the incident is here:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.html

    The article does note that Gorsuch sided with the court, but did not participate in any opinion regarding the ruling. Interesting.

    Be safe.

    • Seriously Mort?

      We were a few hundred thousand votes away from Obama’s next activist appointee. Trump’s guy is a Christmas present.

      • Yes, seriously.

        Although I do not have an opinion on the matter, other than in a general sense: Stick to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and most people will be happy, even if they disagree from time to time.

        But, not to point out the obvious too obviously… this is a gun site. About guns. About the social, political, recreational, et al issues regarding guns. So, while Gorsuch might be a fine man and a fine pick, here & now we ought be commenting about the SCOTUS pick with regard to our concerns about guns and gun rights.

        So, I will say what I said above: I reserve judgment about the case & ruling until I further researched it, and until I am better educated about the particulars. It does seem to be, though, of interest to us. Us being “People of the Gun.”

        Because the presence of a gun on a citizen should not presume criminality. Whether that is the meat or periphery of that case, I am not informed enough or qualified to declare… but, once again I think it’s worth looking into. And, is interesting regardless. I’m not even in the 10th, and I enjoy the rights of Constitutional Carry.

        Be safe. And, a belated Merry Christmas 😉

        • Under New Mexico state law, concealed carry gives the cops probable cause. The Defendant didn’t challenge that law. He challenged whether or not the cops had reasonable suspicion.

          In a footnote, the opinion states that the Second Amendment was not raised. This fact could have been critical to getting a consensus opinion.

          The case also suggests that the results would be different in an open carry case because there is no law against it in New Mexico.

          This case states that if the police have reasonable suspicion that a person is committing a crime under state law and that the person is dangerous, the police can search him for a weapon (settled law). It also states that completely legal activity can be viewed as grounds for reasonable suspicion (also settled law). The “new” thing in this case is that armed=dangerous. If someone is committing a crime and he is armed, then I’d assume he is dangerous.

          This case is less than helpful in understanding Gorsuch’s stance on the 2A. Mort, your link is probably the best analysis of the case that I have read (skimmed) on the case. Most of the analysis has been about how “now anyone carrying can be harassed by the cops.”

    • American Thinker is an opinion site, not a news site. There IS more to the story, I guarantee.

      http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131231054/U.S.%20v.%20RODRIGUEZ

      Best line from American Thinker was “Hard cases make bad law.”

      In a nutshell, my opinion of this case is that of the Court. Officer Munoz could clearly see a concealed handgun. A prudent and reasonable man would assume that a concealed handgun is loaded and therefore a potential violation under NM 30-7-2(A), allowing a Terry stop to be performed. Had the handgun not been stolen and Mr Munoz not a felon, that would have been the end of the story.

      • “A prudent and reasonable man would assume that a concealed handgun is loaded and therefore a potential violation under NM 30-7-2(A), allowing a Terry stop to be performed.”

        “Potential” violation? Are you serious?

        Gorsuch should not have concurred to the majority opinion. Unless he has some other 2A case where he performed demonstrably better, then a reasonable and prudent man must assume Gorsuch is bad for 2A.

  10. I think that Gorsuch is a good pick; anyway, I hope he is.

    I wish no harm to befall the Ridiculous RBG, but I do hope that the doddering old fool will retire and allow Trump to nominate another right wing Justice to SCOTUS. Maybe Hardiman.

    And may Stephen Breyer soon join her in peaceful retirement, allowing Le Grande Orange to promote another right winger to the nation’s highest court. Maybe Diane Sykes.

    • I think the chances of any Left-appointed SCJ voluntarily retiring under a Trump administration are somewhere between “chuckle” and “you owe me a new keyboard.”

      But you never know.

    • Apparently Gorsuch has said that the 2A “may not be infringed lightly.” Sorry, but this is a bad sign. I’m guessing he’d be OK with the whole ‘justifiable need’ garbage, or any other infringement that he seems fit at the time. SCOTUS has already ruled that ‘some’ 2A infringement is fine by the states, exactly like the justifiable need nonsense. Looks to me that this guy would agree.

  11. I think that the Commerce Clause is a weak leg to stand on. It works for guns, which are in interstate commerce, but it doesn’t work for people. Although all states recognize the driver’s licenses of all other states (as far as I can ascertain), this is the result of interstate pacts, not federal law. As long as there is a recognition of a police power to control the carriage of guns, a national reciprocity law is a direct confrontation of the Individual States sovereign power. National reciprocity CAN come, I think, only if the Supreme Court recognizes an individual right for citizens otherwise qualified to possess guns to carry them for the purpose of immediate self-defense, i.e., a national shall issue or constitutional carry status. At that point, the recognition of the right places it out of the power of the states to regulate the lawful exercise of a Constitutional right.

    • The pressure to not step down with the Trump in office is gonna wreak havoc on RBG’s health. Can’t wait to watch it, she’s already been caught napping during testimony.

  12. We need justices that favor freedom for the people. Gun rights are freedom. Left leaning judges that back LE forceably detaining people carrying firearms is NOT supporting freedom – imagine how he feels about other rights.

  13. I look forward to hearing democrats say this judge can’t be on the SCOTUS, because he has sex with four legged beings. Possibly from Venus. The “stories” that will be told about any Trump nominee for the courts will be out of this world.

    • “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”
      “lightly”

      That’s not a good sign at all.

      • His full quote is as follows:

        “the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly. Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 610, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). At the same time, of course, the Court has expressly indicated that laws dispossessing felons are consistent with the Constitution. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783; but see United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1048–49 (10th Cir.2009) (Tymkovich, J., concurring) (questioning the Court’s analysis on this score).”

        What he said is correct. The Supreme Court has held that. Scalia did write that. No judge will rule “shall not be infringed” to be absolute. Look at the 1st Amendment as to what we can hope for at best. Just google “first amendment airport” to get a taste at how much regulation speech is subject to because (among other reasons) airports are not traditional places of 1st Amendment expression.

        Am I worried he won’t be at least as good as Thomas and Scalia on the 2A? Yes, but most of the criticism I’ve seen of him on the issue is shallow. If that criticism is informed, it is disingenuous as well.

    • The NRA’s 35 million of support likely wasn’t the reason Trump won.

      FBI Director Comey’s opening of, then ‘closing’, then re-opening and closing *again* of the HildeBeast’s ‘investigation’ put *just* enough taint on her likability to depress the Democrat turnout on election day.

      Her own Progressive voters abandoned her fat, evil ass when she needed them the most, and she has *no one* but herself to blame.

      FBI Director Comey is the real hero of November 8, 2016 in my book…

        • Isn’t that the number being bandied about on how much the NRA spent on that election cycle?

      • Hillary and her Progressive wing of the Democrat party is what killed her chances. The Progressives turned their back on the traditional strength of the party – the unions. Their stump for globalism and free trade spells lost jobs for blue collar workers in the US. That’s why she lost PA and OH, and, consequently, the election.

    • On second thought, ask them not to bring up the gun issue at all. Less chance of him getting Borked. Let the debate focus on the abortion crap that nobody cares about.

    • Well, ‘conservatives’ have reason to be highly suspicious of SCOTUS picks. After all, we’ve gotten a Souter and Roberts sold to us as supposedly “sound conservative jurists.”

    • The citizens of the United States have never received a single “gift” from the federal government. The President nominates, the People, through our elected representatives, approve. It is our responsibility to question any appointee. Anything less is an abdication of our authority.

  14. “Bunch of dudes looking a gift horse in the mouth around here tonight. Sigh.”

    Nobody is “looking a gift horse in the mouth.” We have suffered years of defeat and things are starting to move in the right direction. People naturally have questions. If you have a problem with people asking questions or for having their own opinion, then you’re part of the problem.

  15. So after a night of research I think that this is a very very good pic. Not a perfect pick but a very very good one. Moreover, he is probably the worst of the best on the Second Amendment. Which means that if the Democrats truly tried to block him president Trump will likely dig up the corpse of Charlton Heston and nominate him instead. Big thumbs-up on this one.

  16. “As he pushed the door open once again his shirt came up, and I saw the gun, and it was at that time I pulled the gun out of the back of his waistband.”

    Id. at 16. When asked why he removed the gun from Defendant’s waistband, Officer Munoz stated, “Just for officer safety, until we could figure out what was going on and why he had a firearm.” Id.

    wow. and Gorsuch concurred with this LEO’s actions. figuring out why someone has a holstered firearm is none of the police’s goddamn business.

  17. It’s not the Scalia seat, it’s the Merrick Garland seat, the seat stolen from the previous administration for 12 months.
    “Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to ‘Merrick Garland Seat’ on Supreme Court.”
    There, I fixed it for ya!

    • That’s inane. Garland never sat on the Supreme Court, so it can’t be his seat.

      Nor was anything “stolen”. Congress did what it was supposed to do — advise. It’s just that their advice was “we won’t consent to anyone you nominate”. That may have been stupid and irresponsible, but it was within their authority to do.

      Though IMHO, Trump should, once Gorsuch is confirmed, go ahead with the Garland nomination and then another, a real libertarian. Eleven would be a good number for the Court (though my favorite prime number is nineteen).

  18. And this is the news you need to pay attention to. Trump’s public character is a well crafted persona, but look at what he does and who he appoints. You think he’s a clown, but look who he surrounds himself with.

    It’s going to be an epic 4 years.

    • Four years with a cabinet drawn from bankers and the military should be epic, yes — I fear it will be epic in neglect of we, the people.

      But if he can get us a Supreme Court that will establish firmly that “shall not be infringed” is to be taken as strictly as “shall have no other gods”, I’ll put up with the rest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *