Anti-Democratic Democrats Question Gorsuch


The hearings to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court began this week. If you aren’t caught up on this season, here’s a spoiler alert for you: he’s going to be confirmed.

Barring some sudden discovery in the next few days that hasn’t been unearthed in the last two months, his confirmation is a foregone conclusion. The Democrat base may be angry over it, but not even Democrat senators think there’s a chance to stop him.

What makes the Gorsuch hearings interesting are the arguments Democrats use against him. Democrats are not arguing that Gorsuch does not understand the law, or that he uses the law to benefit certain interest groups. It’s actually the opposite. Democrats’ main complaint against Gorsuch is that he applies the law as written, instead of as a means to benefit the little guy.

The Democrats’ mode of thinking here is dangerous.

The statue of Justice is blind for a reason. Justice is supposed to be impartial to rich and poor alike. Judges should neither make their rulings with designs to benefit mega corporations nor struggling workers. In fact, after his confirmation, Gorsuch will swear an oath that he “will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” That a law may have an unfortunate outcome is not sufficient cause for a judge to set it aside, and would actually be a violation of their oath and the Constitution.

The judicial philosophy Democrats are espousing is antithetical to our Constitutional order. It is, in fact, a renunciation of democratic principles.

If judges base their rulings on the outcome they most prefer rather than the law Congress has passed, then what exactly is the point of Congress? What Democrats are demanding is that judges become a super-legislature, unelected and unaccountable to the American people, but with far more authority than our chosen representatives.

Our Founding Fathers gave us a bicameral legislature and a veto wielding president to safeguard our liberty. Passing a law currently requires a minimum of 218 Representatives and 51 Senators to vote yes, and the president to sign the bill. Every one of them can be fired if the people do not approve of their votes. Under the Democrats vision of judges ruling based on empathy, all of that would be superseded by a majority of five unelected judges as a supreme legislature.

To be sure, Democrats envision their anti-democratic judicial lawmaking to be beneficial to the people, but anti-democratic it remains.