An Evening with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch

[@NoName-ge6wc]

Grew up with Neil in Denver. He was he smartest boy in my class at Christ the King and an even better person. Nice to see he reached the top. We always knew he would.

[@thepiperreport8198]

Regardless how you feel about Garland, how can you not like this man? He's honest and authentic. He speaks truthfully and you can tell he really loves this country and respects the rule of law. He's very intelligent too, which always helps

[@paulrubio3918]

Wow, what an amazing presentation. Justice Gorsuch not only displayed his brilliant legal mind in discussing Constitutional principles, he also fully displayed his sense of his grasp of humanity with deeply personal stories like coloring with a girl on an airplane.

[@neryanatanov385]

This is the best SCOTUS interview I have seen

[@amandamoses8918]

Should be part of of HS civics & stats class moving forward! Perspective & leadership at all levels is much needed.

[@andrewnyanhete8452]

Neil is brilliant

[@futurekillerful]

yep agree with him or not he's brilliant...i could listen to him talk all day lol.

[@juanl6401]

Blindingly

[@angrypop2594]

Every day is constitution day in our republic. We must be cautious of the judges being moderators of constitution courses.

[@edriquez57]

I wish someone would explain what would be an attack on the Constitution, since it is in the OATH to defend it from all of enemies foreign and domestic ! Who is a domestic attacker of our Constitution? Because it seems like there have been many people attacking our Constitution but nothing happens to them. So have I been mistaken. I don’t think so .

[@Sarah-vr7yh]

Calling all athiests, the Gnostic Supreme Court hiding as cute child Justices before the eyes of their father dead in.

[@DHTCF]

He's a very impressive speaker. Originalism strikes me as a flawed doctrine. Take "cruel and unusual punishment". It's in the constitution - so lawyers have to determine what it means. It is perfectly obvious that the meaning of words changes over time. It would have been obvious to the framers of the constitution - and they would have likely disagreed about what it meant even then. So, should intelligence 21st century American judges interpret those words as intelligent 21st century Americans? Or should they look back to the meaning that the words carried in 1789. which is, I think, an exercise that is inherently difficult, as they aren't 1789 Americans. I would have liked to see him asked about that.

[@kenlandon6130]

another example is with the 2nd amendment. the guns and other weapons in use today are not much like the muskets and cannons and rudimentary rifles of 1789.

[@DHTCF]

@@kenlandon6130 2nd amendment also speaks of a “well-regulated militia”. Yet originalists seem to dislike the idea of gun ownership being regulated

[@driger888]

guess some people don't understand how the process works. neil gorsuch is 100x's better than merrick garland.

[@tye829]

10 things in my world every American should know by age 15: (1) What "federalism" is and why you have to follow the laws of _both_ the state and federal governments. How this makes us different than other unitary countries, and what all the aforementioned terms mean. How every state has its own "three branches of government," and the fed govt too; and that most of the time you are actually interacting with _state_ law. (2) What courts and judges actually do; what congress is and does; who the president is what does he and his admin do (3) What does "the law" actually mean? What is a constitution vs. statute vs. a regulation vs. court precedent, and how do all four of these things interact via the "three branches of government." (understanding, again, state and federal versions of all four, both which apply to you). (4) What the U.S. Constitution is and does, starting not with the Bill of Rights, but with the most important part: the articles. What is its status compared to the other aforementioned "laws" (and again that you have a _state_ version too). (5) The 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, and 14th Amendments -- the most important amendments (6) The 1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments -- the second most important amendments (7) What is the difference between a civil case and criminal case? Why does that affect what laws or constitutional amendments apply to you? (8) A general overview of all the above in the context of a court case. E.g. What if you are arrested? What happens? What should you do? How does all of the above apply to you? ... and what about a civil case? What is going on there?... What are the burdens of proof for both. What is a "prosecutor" "defendant" "plaintiff" and "defendant (civil)." (9) General overview of the armed forces and national guard. (10) What is a treaty? Who makes one? ============================================================== Justice Gorsuch is right. Many Americans might not even be able to tell you what "federalism" means. It is like they are walking around in a haze. The fundamental structure of how it all works and they are oblivious. They certainly hear "50 states" but have little understanding of what this actually means in practice. Even in _law school_ , they prime you in the first month with basic civics 101 because they can't even count on prospective attorneys to have been taught this before. Astonishing. And this leads to such bad consequences for our society. It isn't just about being unknowledgeable. It makes people misunderstand things and makes our society worse. For example, "sovereign citizens." I am convinced these people would not exist if they had a good civics class growing up. Because they think "You don't need a driver's license under federal law (which is true), therefore I don't need a driver's license to drive." Yes, not under federal law, but you do need one under the law of all 50 states and Guam and Northern Mariana Islands and USVI and American Samoa... Oh yeah... America is 50 quasi-countries, plus territories, and you have to follow all those laws too. Or the whole public-private distinction -- I can't tell you how many times I have heard ignorant people claim things like you can film in a courthouse because of the First Amendment and because it is a "public place." Smh. "Public" does not mean open to the public. And it doesn't mean you can do whatever either. SCOTUS doesn't allow filming for godssake. It just means publicly funded, that's literally it. Civics should absolutely be required everywhere. If you have to scrap world history or American history -- both very important subjects, no doubt, and two everywhere has -- so be it, civics should replace one of them if need be. It's more practical and important, and you learn about history elsewhere, from TV/ movies/ documentaries/ books/ the news... I took civics in 8th grade for a full year... Tbh it wasn't that great. I don't think the teacher and/or curriculum understood that it was not supposed to be a history course.. but ideally every American citizen would know this stuff.

[@Black-rs1ry]

The constitution isn’t for We The People to follow rules; it’s written for elected officials and their employees to know the terms set by The People, so that those sworn to uphold the terms, for The People, don’t do any unlawful act. As Neil said recently, on his book tour this summer, “The People are sovereign.”

[@angrypop2594]

Sounds like a lawyer trying to diminish the constitutions fundamental principles that clearly declare the people are the sovereign over the persons they elect as trustees and servants accountable at all times. The federalist lost the debate at the founding of our nation and thus we are not governed by federalism. The ever broadening statutory claims of authority over the people hold little authority over the sovereign people but are administrative to govern the persons in commerce.

[@AB-et6nj]

Very glossy, idealistic, and simple. But the devil is in the details, and the details aren't so pretty

[@drmgoulet]

Very folksy but I philosophically disagree with him and I have constitutional concerns about how he was appointed. So the folksy babble doesn’t reassure, it actually makes me more upset. Nothing like being smiled at and joked with as your rights are taken away.

[@chrisdeming9287]

He was appointed constitutionally. He was nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. As far as his philosophy, he's an originalist. Liberals believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can be twisted to mean whatever they want it to mean. We need constitutionalists on the court, not left-wing activists.

[@markbrophy5454]

Gorsuch is the only one of 9 justices who will protect your rights. Nominating him is one of the few things that Trump has done right.

[@chrisdeming9287]

@@markbrophy5454 Not true at all. Not sure where you got that nonsense from.

[@lumanate1493]

Gamer Fan every time in history rights have been taken it is through evolutionist judges. Plessy V Ferguson, kormatsu, hirabayashi. Evolutionist judges are the reason civil rights took an additional 70 years. Originalism isnt perfect but it protects against decisions which hinder democracy.

[@darishennen898]

@@markbrophy5454 Thomas

[@dstorm7752]

Nice guy, but none of these judges should be on TV like this. Justices are merely politicians in silly robes.

[@markbrophy5454]

Gorsuch is the best Supreme Court justice of the last 100 years because he understands that the 3 branches of government are the legislative, executive, and judiciary; and that the legislature, Congress, should legislate laws, the executive, the President, should execute laws, and the judiciary should adjudicate laws. This is important in civil and criminal law. Trump and Obama are idiots who have/had too much power. Every voter should read his book and everyone who hasn't should abstain from voting. Idiot voters produce idiot dictator Presidents.

[@danishbiochem]

Why is he here? This spot belonged to Merrick Garland. #neverforget

[@Josh-tt6zg]

Get over it. Biden set the precedent for it way before Mitch utilized the lame-duck excuse.

[@danishbiochem]

Josh That’s a lie. Mitch McConnell now says that if a vacancy occurs in 2020, he won’t hesitate from filling it. You don’t get to choose precedents based on your convenience. #PackTheCourts #ImpeachTheCrap

[@MAGA4PNUT]

Danish Mitch would disagree haha

[@LoseBellyFatNow0]

RIP Merrick :(

[@lumanate1493]

Danish because Republicans control the senate get over it democrats would do the same thing