The Supreme Court today UNANIMOUSLY handed this fake lawyer his head by rejecting his assault of the education of handicapped children. Even Thomas!
Dogs all around Capitol Hill are howling and covering their ears to try and make the whistling stop. Gorsuch knows, as do the senators, that the Roberts court has no respect for any precedent that gets in their way. Some day while Gorsuch is on the bench, a whites-only charter school case will come up, and Gorsuch will vote to overrule Brown in an instant.
(Okay, not quite whites only, just, erm, kinda disproportionate.)
Can Gorsuch–or any nominee–be asked, not for his personal feelings about a given decision, but whether he thinks the case in question was rightly decided? Seems to me there’s a difference between the two. Don’t the committee members want to get at the candidate’s thinking? How he judges? What he thinks is good argument?
I’d also like to know on what he based his decision in the case the Supreme Court just invalidated. They called it a wrong decision. How does Gorsuch defend his decision?