Ted Cruz Shamed the Democrats on Opposition to Judge Gorsuch

Senator Ted Cruz pulled back the curtain today and showed the Democrats for the hypocrites they are by reminding them of the hearings a decade ago when Gorsuch sailed through confirmations without a ‘whisper’ of an objection.

The video below is Cruz’ entire opening statement, which begins with his thoughts on Justice Scalia and the honorable judge he was. His remarks on the Democrats’ blatant hypocrisy begin at the 6:24 mark. Enjoy.

Despite the fact that Gorsuch has an impeccable record and the American Bar Association has given him their highest possible rating of “well qualified” for SCOTUS, the Democrats still ran him through the grinder with every ‘gotcha’ question they could imagine. In the segments I watched, Gorsuch played them like a fiddle and nearly dripped with sugar when Feinstein lamely tried to corner him on the Second Amendment and gun control.

Ted Cruz has a knack for rubbing the Dems’ noses in their own hypocrisy, but I think I got my title wrong. First, the Dems would have to be capable of feeling shame.

~Kathy



Categories: Political

Tags: , ,

9 replies

  1. I’ve seen some of the questioning of Judge Gorsuch and I do appreciate his concise, understandable answers. He’s obviously a bright, smart individual who has taken his judgeship seriously. The dems are in full attack mode and have had little success in damaging him. I looked at summaries of a few notable cases and I believe that he was correct in his application of THE LAW. That’s exactly what a judge is supposed to do – to ascertain if the law was properly applied, according to THE LAW, not according to his personal opinion. That’s a foreign concept to a democrat and one that could cause heads to explode.

    Like

  2. I admire how Ted Cruz calls out the opposition to lay a little truth out for the public, especially when it comes to the hypocrisy of the left. But I have real concerns about this Judge, Niel Gorsuch. I’ve paid close attention to how he responds to issue questions and it’s not favorable. Here’s just a sample:

    Today for Al Franken’s benefit — Judge Gorsuch offered the following reassurances during confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee::

    “I accept Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.” Yesterday Judge Gorsuch stated that he would have “walked out” of his meeting with Donald Trump had Trump asked him to fulfill his (Trump’s) campaign promise to nominate a pro-life Justice that would vote to overturn Roe.

    Again today, Judge Gorsuch revealed — while being careful to separate his personal view from his judicial view — on the issue of same-sex marriage, that he considers it “Absolutely settled law”. Not just plain old run of the mill settled law — until it isn’t — but “absolutely settled”. Wow, on judge-made law, aka judicial activism, he ain’t gonna lift a finger to change it.

    Conservatives believe that marriage is — Biblically — exclusive to ONE man and ONE woman, but the position of Judge Gorsuch when it comes to deciding on that standard in a case like Obergefell, is that it would “take the country back to horse and buggy days.”

    GOSH! does that mean, just in general, that originalist interpretation of the Constitution is trumped by the extra-Constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court because overturning extra or un-Constitutional decisions “takes us back to horse and buggy days”? Just askin’.

    Like

    • Normally, a man is only as good as his word, but in this case, I take his responses with a grain of salt, considering his audience and his goal, which is to get the job. To do that, he has to sit through an extremely long interview held by people who don’t want him there. His answers have to be such that he can convince a few of them he’s the right man for the job, so naturally, they’re going to sound a tad off for conservatives. From what I saw, General Mattis did much the same thing at his hearing.

      Instead, look at his rulings and use those to form an opinion. If he’s good enough for Ted Cruz, he’s good enough for me.

      Like

      • I agree taking much of what he says with a grain of salt would make sense given the political climate, but Gorsuch doesn’t strike me as one that says what he thinks the Dems or Republicans want to hear. And he’s saying some of the darndest things as opposed to just being noncommittal. So I think we do have to consider carefully what he’s saying, the words he uses and in what context. Here’s an example of what I mean, he sat on a case, a three-judge appeals panel, in the case of

        HUGO ROSARIO GUTIERREZ BRIZUELA,
        Petitioner,
        v.
        LORETTA E. LYNCH*
        United States
        Attorney General,
        Respondent.

        During the hearings regarding the immigration issue, he touted that case, so here’s what I mean, this is in-pertinent-part as reported by the Washington Examiner: “Under questioning from Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Gorsuch was telling an anecdote about ethnicity and sentencing when he used the phrase “undocumented alien” before stopping himself and saying “immigrant, sorry.” My point is, he’s often very politically correct. The correct legal term pre-PC is “illegal alien”, so the fact that he referred to the GUTIERREZ BRIZUELA as an undocumented alien, which was only partially PC then immediately stopped — not to say “illegal alien” or even illegal immigrant — but to corrected himself, going full PC saying –“immigrant, sorry” meaning undocumented immigrant — a complete liberal/progressive term — is troubling because a pattern during these hearings has been emerging with such responses.

        Judge Gorsuch described that case as being about protecting the due process rights of the petitioner, HUGO ROSARIO GUTIERREZ BRIZUELA. But the petitioner, in this case, is neither a citizen nor legal resident of the United States so as a matter of fact he had no 5th amendment due process “rights” to begin with unless he’s considered a person within the intent of the 14th amendment and if that’s the case, then no illegal alien can be deported without the Courts signing off first. That whole exchange tells me there may be a problem with Judge Gorsuch interpreting the law of the land through the prism of Ct. precedent.

        There are plenty of absolute 95% to100% conservatives that could have been and could still be appointed to Scalia’s seat. There is NO record directly telling us how Judge Gorsuch has ruled on cases involving abortion so it’s important to know from every available indicator how he views the Law and how he views judicial precedent before he is confirmed, not after.

        I too love Ted Cruz, he was my guy and had he been appointed to fill Scalia’s shoes I’d have no doubt that we were getting a Scalia for a Scalia. There isn’t enough of a record to say that about Gorsuch so it’s essential on social, immigration and procedural issues of law to fully understand where he’s at, and whether or not he fills the bill as Scalia’s replacement. Now not later is the time to bring up questions with people, especially on the Judiciary Committee, regarding questions raised by his testimony that may have been missed.

        Anyhow, I will be interested in how Republicans vote, who voted which way and why, and if Gorsuch is confirmed I’ll pray for the best which is all any of us can do short of urging an Article V convention of states to reign in the courts.

        Like

      • RE: General Mattis — he just last week declared climate change, as in global warming, not the weather, to be a legitimate national security risk that needs to be addressed. He agrees with Ivanka.

        Like

      • It’s not Gorsuch’s job to be conservative or liberal; his job is to follow the laws, be they just or unjust. And it’s not up to him to change those laws we see as wrong; that’s up to Congress. If he can stop the other justices from legislating from the bench, that’s to our benefit.

        Like

  3. Gotta love Ted Cruz! I especially appreciated the way Cruz explained the Senate’s wise refusal to consider Merrick Garland.

    I have to agree with you on your last statement, Kathy. In order to feel shame a Democrat would first have to have a conscience, but of course the first requirement for being a Democrat is not having one.

    Like

    • True, CW, if they had a conscience they wouldn’t be democrats.

      Cruz’s remarks on Garland were timely because several of the Dems made a point of mentioning him in their statements. Gorsuch will be confirmed, but not until after they finish embarrassing themselves.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: