Hugh Hewitt invites Evan Thomas, “Newsweek” editor-at-large to discuss the inspiring life of Sandra Day O’Connor, all of which is detailed in his New York Times best-selling just-released book, First: Sandra Day O’Connor. O’Connor, as the name of the book implies, was the first woman Supreme Court Justice. She was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and served until 2006.Read More »
We look at the last effort by Democrats to stop the nomination of Judge Gorsuch. Also, Susan Rice is back in the news. And Hugh talks with the subject of the new movie, The Case for Christ.[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/316482263″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /] Read More »
Democrats opposed to the Supreme Court nomination of Neal Gorsuch cite his “legalistic” failure to show consistent favor to “the little guy” against big corporations. But Gorsuch defenders insist that an impartial judge can’t allow emotion to tilt the scales of justice.
In this, Gorsuch echoes both his mentor, Justice Scalia, and the Bible. In Leviticus God commands: “You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor, and you shall not honor the great.” The prophetic books and the New Testament Book of Acts make similar points, describing God as “no respecter of persons” who applies standards equally.
Traditional Jewish commentators insist on a crucial distinction between charity—which is a personal obligation to show mercy to the unfortunate—and justice—which is a communal responsibility to honor the law above feelings or favoritism.
We must remain a nation of laws, not men; of principle, not personal preference.[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/315939154″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
New York Senator Charles Schumer recently announced that he and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate will filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court.
The reality is that if there is anyone qualified to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it is Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Nonetheless, what is at stake is not the judge’s qualifications, but his understanding of the constitution as a text limited by its words and sentences and the intention of its authors, rather than an evolving text to be interpreted by contemporary judges according to their own current political understanding.
If indeed the Democrats follow through with a filibuster on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, then Republicans must change the rules of the Senate, to make certain that this presidential nominee sits on the United States Supreme Court.
The battle over the Court in this generation is not happening by accident. It is happening precisely because both sides understand just how much is truly at stake.
The nation is now engaged in a one of our most important democratic traditions: namely, the confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice. In this case, for Judge Neil Gorsuch, the first nominee of President Donald Trump.
One of the most important observations came from Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska. He pointed to the symbolic nature of the robe that a justice wears, a black robe. It is neither a blue robe nor a red robe, neither Democratic nor Republican.
In our nation’s constitutional system, the judiciary is intended to be nonpartisan. Nonetheless, the reality is that the Court has become highly partisan, especially over the last half-century. We’ve also seen that there is a correlation between the constitutional philosophy that a justice takes to the Court and the partisan identity of the President who has appointed that justice.
But it was a service to the country that Senator Sasse expressed that ideal and that was very important for Americans to hear.