Left Goes Apoplectic Over Pro-Gun SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch

by
posted on February 3, 2017
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

The Armed Citizen
The Armed Citizen

The Armed Citizen® January 27, 2023

True stories of the right to keep and bear arms.

Biden Doesn’t Get to Tell Us We Can’t Own Semi-Automatic Firearms

Semi-automatic firearms have been popularly sold to private citizens since the late-19th century. They are the most-popular design sold today and have clear constitutional protections. So, no, the president doesn't get to tell us we can't own them.

From The Editor: Facts Still Matter

As it turns out, facts still matter when debating someone with opposing views.

NRA Challenges Illinois Gun Ban

The NRA and other pro-Second Amendment organizations filed a lawsuit challenging a recently signed Illinois law.

Reduce Crime, Not Rights

Jurisdictions that embrace the progressive soft-on-crime philosophy that was popularized after a handful of high-profile police-suspect interactions are fueling rising crime rates. American freedom is not to blame for this.

President’s Column | Your NRA Membership Is All That Defends Our Liberty From Lies

The most-consistent—and likely most-accurate—thing President Joe Biden says about firearms is that he wants to ban them.

Interests



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