Left Goes Apoplectic Over Pro-Gun SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch

by
posted on February 3, 2017
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
17-nrz-001_awr-hawkins_main_2-3_oc.jpg

At 8 p.m. on Jan. 31, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, a United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit judge, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by Antonin Scalia. Within minutes, the left was unhinged and, in a matter of hours, apoplectic.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., exemplified the left’s frenzied response by describing Gorsuch as a “hostile” pick and suggesting that he was chosen by Trump for the purposes of distracting from his executive order on immigration.

Breitbart News quoted Pelosi as saying, “If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.” She also uttered a conglomeration of disjointed, strained phrases in hopes of appealing to every factional leftist group and voting block that would hear her words. Within minutes, the left was unhinged and, in a matter of hours, apoplectic.

In a classic case of “throw it at the wall and see what sticks,” Pelosi said:

He’s come down against employer’s—employee’s rights. Clean air, clean water, food safety, safety in medicine, and the rest; if you care about that for your children, he’s not your guy. [Former Representative] Gabby Giffords’ group … said that he comes down on the side of felons, over gun safety. Hostile to women’s reproductive rights, Hobby Lobby case for example. The list goes on and on.

The Daily Beast reacted in a similar fashion to Pelosi, describing Gorsuch’s nomination as a “payoff to the religious right,” singling out Alliance Defending Freedom—defenders of life and the First Amendment—as especial beneficiaries of the nomination.

The next day the craziness continued, with former John Kerry adviser and Clinton Global Initiative consultant Peter Daou tweeting: “The unprecedented, unconstitutional GOP obstruction of Merrick Garland is the inexorable backdrop to ANY debate over Neil Gorsuch.” Daou’s opposition is telling in that it signals opposition to any candidate Trump could have put forward, unless by chance that candidate was Garland himself.

Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

The Democratic National Committee followed in Daou’s steps, sending out a fundraising email in which it described Gorsuch as a nominee for a Supreme Court seat that Trump had literally stolen from Barack Obama. The DNC email began:

Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s newly revealed Supreme Court nominee, has a legal history that shows a deep sympathy for corporate interests and an apparent disdain for workers. Donald wants to put Judge Gorsuch in the Supreme Court seat the GOP stole from President Obama.

The Huffington Post quoted numerous liberal senators pushing similar talking points. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said, “This is a stolen seat being filled by an illegitimate and extreme nominee, and I will do everything in my power to stand up against this assault on the Court.” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said, “We don’t need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence. Based on the long and well-established record of Judge Gorsuch, I will oppose his nomination.”

In all likelihood the left’s opposition is mainly the result of one overarching, undeniable fact: Judge Gorsuch is a justice “in the mold of Scalia,” which is the very type of justice Trump pledged to nominate while campaigning for the presidency. During the Oct. 9, 2016, presidential debate Trump said:

I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. … People that will respect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that this is so important—also, the Second Amendment which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton."With the nomination of Gorsuch, President Trump has kept his word and defended Heller."

Trump’s pledge to nominate a justice like Scalia was intended to safeguard the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller—a ruling that Hillary Clinton, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and numerous other liberal mouthpieces had rallied against and criticized. The left’s goal was to keep the case alive so it could be revisited once a left-leaning justice took his or her place on the Supreme Court, thereby reversing the 5-4 pro-gun majority enjoyed when Scalia was alive and Heller was decided.

With the nomination of Gorsuch, President Trump has kept his word and defended Heller. In the process, he has defended the Second Amendment and gun owners throughout America.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter @AWRHawkins, or reach him directly at [email protected].

Latest

House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Jason Smith
House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Jason Smith

The Greatest Second Amendment Victory in a Century

On July 4, 2025, Americans celebrated not only our nation’s independence, but also the restoration of our constitutional Second Amendment rights becoming unconstrained by burdensome and arbitrary fees.

Opening Salvo | More Evidence That Gun-Control Groups are Freaking Out

With the Trump administration’s law-and-order push showing America’s crime problem is clearly not the fault of lawfully armed citizens, gun-control groups are freaking out.

John Rich has a Song for Armed Citizens

John Rich's latest song is "The Righteous Hunter." It is a moving tune about standing up to stop those with evil intentions. It is a song for lawfully armed citizens.

This Department of Education Grant Could Change Things

The University of Wyoming’s Firearms Research Center has been awarded a nearly $1 million grant by the U.S. Department of Education to develop a nationwide program on the origins, meaning and implications of the Second Amendment.

From the Editor | Charlie Kirk Lived for Freedom

“Give me liberty, or give me death,” are the immortal words of Patrick Henry spoken on March 23, 1775, to the Second Virginia Convention in Richmond, Va. His impassioned words were a call to arms against British tyranny.  

Ninth Circuit to Revisit Background Checks on Ammo Case

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted rehearing en banc in Rhode v. Bonta—a case backed by the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association. 

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.