I haven’t been paying that much attention to the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, or his testimony and the grilling he received. But I think I’ve read and heard enough to believe that he’d probably be better than most other Justices.
Besides Sen. Chuckles Schumer, who wants to try to block the Gorsuch appointment, there are other left-wing hystericals out there. They’re nutsos, it seems to me.
For instance, in her latest Boston Globe op-ed, Harvard law professor and retired judge Nancy Gertner says that “Judge Gorsuch is more dangerous than he appears.”
And the people on the left view him as dangerous because his decisions have been in line with property rights and show an opposition toward “positive rights,” which are privileges or entitlements that are called “rights” by those who reject private property and freedom of association. By “rights,” the hystericals want to use the armed powers of government to force their social agendas onto others, quite frankly.
Judge Nancy Gertner brings up the “frozen trucker case,” in which a trucker was fired for not following his employer’s instructions. Gorsuch sided with the employer. All the factors involved, such as the trucker’s being stuck out in an area and in extremely cold weather, are irrelevant, in my view.
The first point I would make is that private employers have a right to hire and fire whomever they want, and for whatever reason. They own the business, not the truckers and not the government. It has to do with private property rights.
The second point is to do with Gertner’s references to the “Administrative Law Judge from the Department of Labor,” and the “Administrative Review Board.” But the U.S. Constitution does not even authorize the federal government to have a Department of Labor and its respective unconstitutional judges in the first place.
Judge Gertner writes:
He does not believe in deference to administrative agencies. He hinted darkly that the “administrative state” poses a grave threat to democracy. And he even rejects the usual standards for legislative interpretation, which calls for interpreting language in the light of Congress’ purposes. It is a mistake, he says, to “assume a statute pursues its putative purposes to their absolute and seemingly logical ends,” singling out health and safety statutes for special ire.
Go, Gorsuch, go!
Gertner then lets out her own leftist nonsense biases, such as in her writing, “He ruled against an autistic child, who claimed a violation of the statutory right to a ‘free appropriate public education.’ In doing so, he rejected the expertise of school officials and substituted his own crabbed view.”
Well, there actually is no “right to a free appropriate public education.” It may be a “statutory” right but that’s really a government-granted entitlement, not a right. No one has a right to demand that society provides one with education, or “free education,” because society consists of individuals, it consists of your neighbors. You don’t have a right to demand that your neighbor provide you with or contribute financially to the provision of an education, involuntarily. The ones with actual “rights” are the neighbors who have a right to live their lives and not have something demanded from them involuntarily.
The Declaration of Independence refers to “unalienable rights,” among them the “rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unalienable means that we have those rights inherently as human beings. The right to liberty means that one is free from aggression against oneself by others. The use of coercion or threats in making demands of others involuntarily is under the category of aggression.
Leftists support the use of aggression and coercion to carry out their demands on others. When they say that all people have a “right” to an education, they mean that society, which consists of individuals, is obligated to provide and fund the education of others. And that is the system we have now. (And why do you think so many people are as dumb and ignorant as they are now? Why do the government schools not actually educate the kids but engage in indoctrination, mainly of leftist views? Would our society be different if education were all voluntarily organized and not by way of coercion and force, and theft for its funding?)
There are not enough “rights” for those on the left to promote, in which they may forcibly make demands on others. For instance, those on the left believe that people have a “right to health care,” i.e. a right to forcibly demand that doctors or hospitals treat you, involuntarily. And there are other “rights,” really entitlements, such as the “right” of a lesbian couple to force a Christian baker to have to do extra labor to serve them, involuntarily. Many on the left now just don’t believe that interactions, associations, contracts, should all be voluntary, i.e. peaceful. They do not believe in peace. They do not believe in freedom, in my view.
In her conclusion regarding Judge Neil Gorsuch’s decisions, Judge Nancy Gertner writes, “If this approach were accepted by other justices it could gut major health and safety and anti-discrimination legislation.”
I am not a big fan of the U.S. Supreme Court and I don’t view their existence as “important,” only as dangerous, because having to be slaves of their bad decisions goes against our freedom and our security. Yet another reason for full decentralization. However, Judge Gorsuch shows that maybe some Supreme Court rulings may not be as bad in the future as they have been up to now. (But there are always the Tenth Amendment and civil disobedience, if need be.)