U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner
Press Release

Rep. Sensenbrenner Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court

"Time and again, Judge Gorsuch has proven himself an ardent defender of the Constitution..."

By - Apr 7th, 2017 02:02 pm

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner released the following statement on the Senate confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court:

Congressman Sensenbrenner: “Time and again, Judge Gorsuch has proven himself an ardent defender of the Constitution, a faithful advocate for the sanctity of human life, and a prudent judicial practitioner who has served with humility, integrity, and candor. His confirmation today is a victory for the American people and our judicial system. I have no doubt he will continue to serve this nation with honor and the utmost respect for the spirit of the law.”

Mentioned in This Press Release

Recent Press Releases by U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner

Rep. Sensenbrenner Introduces the CyberTipline Modernization Act

"The modernization of this bill would be a significant step forward in the fight to reduce the sexual exploitation of children online."

Rep. Sensenbrenner Introduces the RFG Modernization Act

"I have been an advocate for consumer relief from burdensome fuel regulations for many years."

Sensenbrenner Bill is a “No-Brainer” for Taxpayers

The No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017 would codify the principle that businesses must be physically present in a state before it is lawful to tax or regulate them.

12 thoughts on “Rep. Sensenbrenner Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court”

  1. David Ciepluch says:

    The man is a dangerous extremist and further corrupts the Supreme Court, just as Republicans have done in Wisconsin as people like you undermine freedom and rights of all for a corporate controlled state.

  2. Um, no. He obeys his corporate masters and allows his political views to guide his interpretation of the law. Despite what the prevailing will of the people may br. Despite what common sense would suggest.The one thing we know about him is he won’t rule against an employer.

  3. AG says:

    David, if you believe Gorsuch to be an extremist… I’m not really sure who wouldn’t be considered one. I’d love to see where you get your information and what influences your thinking.

  4. Vincent Hanna says:

    NPR’s legal correspondent says he is more conservative than Scalia (and she isn’t the only person who has said this), so how you view Gorsuch is probably influenced by how you view Scalia. It also depends on your view of Originalism. Michael is right, Gorsuch has frequently sided with employers, including in the infamous “frozen trucker” case. Between not even holding a hearing for Merrick Garland through this, the Senate has seen better days. Remember when at least three GOP Senators said if Clinton won they would never even hold a hearing for any of her nominees?

  5. AG says:

    So, I’m not totally following… do all four of you believe Gorsuch is an extremist?

    And call him business friendly if you want, but his arguments have more to do with federal agencies trying to create laws by themselves w/o congress than being “pro-business.” Agree or disagree with that position, but if whatever you’re reading is telling you the decisions regarding that is because he’s in bed with big business, then you have some screwed sources.

  6. Tim says:

    AG, link to something. You don’t have any credibility to just type it and it’s magically true.

  7. David Ciepluch says:

    Gorsuch is an extremist judge that will render obtuse and create his own distorted interpretation of laws. He is also an activist judge in his distortions and backflips where the color black is made into white, and is likely more extreme than Scalia, who often twisted and distorted logic and reason in knots to reach his obtuse decisions.

    Often these types of judges favor corporations as citizens in their interpretations over human beings. There is something severely lacking in their empathy and compassion for the human species. Judges like Gorsuch are a danger to freedom and rights of all people.

  8. AG says:

    Tim, I appreciate that you’re requesting backup for my statements. So here it is: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520310365/trumps-supreme-court-nominee-skeptical-of-federal-agency-power

    But none of that was really my point. I’m more perplexed at how he is seen as an extremist… and I haven’t seen evidence to point out that he is. The strongest stance I’ve seen referenced is in his decisions that uphold his ideology of agencies not having authority to create law. However, that’s not an extreme position… nor is anything else mentioned here (or not mentioned in David Ciepluch’s case).

    So back to my point… what judge who tends toward conservative could possibly be nominated that David, or the rest of you, would not be seen as “extremist?”

  9. Vincent Hanna says:

    Merrick Garland was considered a centrist. A moderate. Gorsuch is not considered a centrist or moderate. He is, depending on the source, more conservative than Scalia or more conservative than Thomas. What word is appropriate? How would you label someone who is considered that far to one end of the political spectrum?

  10. Tim says:

    That story also seems to paint Neil Gorsuch as an extremist.

    “The Chevron decision is perhaps the most cited case in American law. Decided unanimously in 1984, it established a general rule of deferring to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute.”

    “In some of his dissenting and concurring opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, he has called for reconsideration of the Chevron decision.”

    Yes, it is extreme for a judge to attempt to change the basics of established case law interpretation. Do you consider any judges extreme? Which ones?

  11. AG says:

    OK, so both of you are pretty much saying that any judge who generally takes positions that align with those of a political party then they must be extremists. Luckily there are more “extremists” on the bench that I agree with than those you agree with. 😉

    Side note Tim, reconsideration of rulings is a normal function of the judicial system. It’s not always correct, but that’s for the court to decide. I’m sure you can’t think of one case that liberal leaning justices have pushed to reconsider.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *