Neil Gorsuch | Full Episode 8.16.24 | Firing Line with Margaret Hoover | PBS

[@mab2112]

What Gorsuch said during his Senate confirmation hearing: “Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

[@catbb1000]

He got in there to destroy the gains of the people. He lied like a rug along with his other cohorts to aid project 2025, the Federalist society and Heritage foundation.

[@gregoryspeth8225]

That quote illustrates what a slippery lying sack of judicial crap that Gorsuch is.

[@flyingphoenix113]

Ok. And? Roe is hardly the first precedent that the court has both acknowledged and overturned. There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency in Gorsuch's reasoning.

[@statisticiann]

Ok? The Supreme Court is allowed to overrule its own decisions when it sees fit, based on several criteria which you can read in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health (2022).

[@Sisterwayne]

Next time ask him some challenging questions This was a puff piece for him.

[@MatthewBrackett_Official]

Educational interview about how our legalistic mentality tends to over legislate and over regulate in contradictory ways. So many people criticize religions for too many rules and we do the same in government. An interesting focus of the book on how we do this. Whether you like this gentleman or not.

[@Aruggiero67]

Only normal comment. Most people have lost any ability to be objective and fair. Sad times.

[@brianmulhall5096]

I bought a copy based on his book tour and i look forward to finishing it. His last one was good too.

[@bc-em1xn]

You can't be free without accountability either!

[@lisalivingston6473]

@bc-em1xn Absolutely! The Supreme Court has just given former President Trump the perfect "get out of jail free" card. I hope Jack Smith can use his legal expertise to find a way to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his alleged crimes. I fear if he is not held accountable, someone worse will pick up the baton and run with if ever another despot gains the Presidency.

[@L0st-n0found]

Laws and regulations exist because people keep finding ways to violate laws so they must be clarified. Business as a whole category will always prioritize profit over any morals or decency.

[@lisalivingston6473]

@RH-nc8uu Great comment, and so true, too!

[@musoangelo]

Sorry Margret, gorsuch just ruled that the president is above the law and you didn't even breach that subject. Really disappointed. During his confirmation, he stated under oat that roe was settled law and then overturned it. You didn't even ask him about that. Disappointed

[@brianmulhall5096]

is Plessy V Ferguson settled law that should still be the law of the land? how about Dredd Scott? or do you only pick and chose which cases should be overturned based on which ones you like?

[@musoangelo]

@@brianmulhall5096 It's that same old, equivalence nonsense. The civil rights era of the 60's brought the racist segrigation injustice into focus and stated that "separate but equal" was in no way the current reality or acceptable (plessy v ferguson. ) In the Roe comments, and the immunity case, it attempts to codify a leap back. On the overturning issue, did the gop stealing two supreme court seats pass the smell test? No but I'll bet you'll try and argue that it's ok because they're one's you like. It's still wrong.

[@charlesunderwood8339]

How is a judge to know what is the correct science or if there is science on both sides of an argument.

[@lisalivingston6473]

@charlesunderwood8339 We live in a dystopian America now that the Supreme Court majority is stacked with radicals. They can judge and rule however they want and remain legally unchallenged. This is a direct result of the election of Donald J. Trump and his appointment of three radical Justices that lied during their Senate confirmation hearings (remember stare decisis?) and teamed up with the other three conservatives on the bench to wreck havoc on the Supreme Court. I fear it will take years to reform and recalibrate this mess, and until then we simply need to protest against the injustice that will continue unchallenged in the highest court in our land...disappointing, but true.

[@ColonelFredPuntridge]

Right wing ultra-wealthy guys will buy his book in bulk quantities so that it can be listed as a best seller, in exchange for rulings favorable to their interests. We should make it illegal for justices and judges to earn any income at all or to receive any gifts at all, direct or indirect, while they are on the federal payroll. That should include speaking fees and royalties on books and part-time teaching jobs and gifts

[@lisalivingston6473]

@ColonelFredPuntridge Your comment sounds like a joke, but knowing the lack of ethics of some of these yahoos on our Supreme Court, I wouldn't put it past him. I fear it will take years to reform and recalibrate this current roster of radical Justices, and our country will be worse off for the ridiculous rulings the majority continues to deem as justice.

[@RamonesFan201]

Absolutely!

[@johnpaulgeorgeandringo3559]

Who really cares what Gorsuch has to say, he is too full of himself.

[@MamaJanella]

"I can't tell people how to live..." Says the guy who voted to overturn Roe.

[@codypogalz3706]

Which, in fact, deprived him of the ability to intervene in the issue.

[@twd6568]

If the feminists had their way RBG would have been kept off the court for her views on Roe. We might agree with the outcome of Roe but the decision was garbage.

[@MamaJanella]

@@twd6568"The Feminists"? You do understand that we are not some sort of organized group, right? The decision may well have been garbage, and the government should have put some other laws through so American women weren't vulnerable to having their lives in jeopardy, but this man has blood on his hands.

[@jmc7y804]

RBG said it was bad law, but necessary because of legislative apathy. Regardless of your opinion on abortion, it should have been overturned. Blame your legislators.

[@dominickmilano4858]

Good for him👍

[@chadgrabner4136]

PBS is supposed to do better than this. Here a SCOTUS justice openly says he hates regulations, uses examples of individuals to make his point, but his clients are really the big corporations. Why not ask him if he thinks Chevron is bad because it impeded him from being an activist judge? Also, Gorsuch showed he struggles with laws he doesn't like, such as the immigration law, but it's not his job to state his opinion. Rather he is supposed to rule on the law. And if you get rid of Chevron, and insist Congress pass a specific "parts per million" level of pollutant for each substance...... That's going to create a ton of new Regulations. A new law for every scenario. In the end, SCOTUS conservatives will just pull out their Big Question doctrine which says: who cares about the text of the law, let's just frame the issue in our Big Question way. The textualism sh*t they always claimed died once they gained a super majority. Nominated by a political party that has only won 2 out of 9 POTUS elections since 1988, but owns 6 out of 9 SCOTUS justices.

[@lisalivingston6473]

@chadgrabner4136 I feel your pain, but worst yet, I feel partly responsible for allowing former President Trump to win office. I sat out the 2016 election as did many voters who felt the same apathy as me. I can't stand Hillary Clinton, but I honestly thought her win was a lay-up. Big mistake, big, big mistake. The Trump win made me feel sick to my stomach, but his appointment of three Justices that led to the radicalization of our Supreme Court will take years to recalibrate. I never thought my single vote counted so much (especially in my home state of Pennsylvania), but I have learned a tough and bitter lesson. I now vote by mail-in ballot to ensure my vote is counted no matter how I may be feeling on election day. I encourage all people to try mail-in voting if it is available in your state. No long lines to wait in, and I like knowing that I can check my ballot status on-line to ensure it is received well before election day for added peace of mind.

[@coreyham3753]

@@lisalivingston6473 How about Australian law that requires citizens to vote or pay a fine for not voting?

[@lisalivingston6473]

​@@coreyham3753I've heard about those election laws in Australia. I've never agreed with them. People should feel free to vote or not, but they should not complain about elected officials if they choose to forgo their own voting privileges. As I mentioned, I sat our the 2016 election, and I have regretted that poor decision not only in 2016, but for every year leading into 2020. I live in Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state. I now vote by mail to ensure I never miss another vote again. I've learned the hard way that elections matter, and everyone's vote is important, especially with such narrow margins for victory on either side of the political spectrum.

[@JackAndrews-x5g]

She was very intimidated by the Supreme Court justice and no reason to interview to promote his book. Deal with the mess of the Supreme Court issues or don’t bother! A terrible interview.

[@lisalivingston6473]

@JackAndrews-x5g I agree...a very disappointing interview indeed.

[@MamaJanella]

It was awful, but she wasn't intimidated. She was letting him show his grossness by flirting with him. It was disgusting, and she was overacted, but it sure let his grossness shine through.

[@glennmcgrane8642]

Very disappointed in Margaret Hoover with this soft ball interview. Why bother to interview Gorsuch if you are not going to ask him any tough questions? No questions about the historic Trump - Presidential immunity case? Margaret I thought you were better than this.

[@lisalivingston6473]

@glennmcgrane8642 I am disappointed in Margaret Hoover for even granting the interview, because she prefaced it by saying she agreed not to ask any questions about the court's rulings. The only point of the interview was to plug his book which I have no intention to waste my time reading.

[@brianmulhall5096]

I guess the PBS crowd isn't smart enough to understand how interviews work so ill explain. Because he is sitting Associate Justice and isn't going to sit down to be grilled by the press over his judicial opinions (because why would he he has lifetime tenure and couldn't care less about your feelings on their rulings) he gets to set the ground rules for the interview and he can limit the discussion to probably the promotion of his new book and maybe a few other topics if he is wiling to do so.

[@mab2112]

Does he get an RV or free vacation as an appearance fee?

[@thinktoomuchb4028]

On the arsenic story... so, a court or the community should have decided the safe level? Wouldn't that still be a regulation?

[@johnboscoigwe1314]

The premise is that the government is just another legal person in a democracy. If this legal person (the government) should have disagreement with citizens, there should be a "neutral" arbiter. That's the essence of the judiciary in a democracy. The government shouldn't get to be a judge in it's own case.

[@thinktoomuchb4028]

​@@johnboscoigwe1314 That doesn't answer my question. In such lawsuits, the government is not acting as a person, it acting on behalf of all citizens.

[@margaretdoyle6517]

You’ve got to be kidding me, giving this traitor oxygen. “The illegal we can do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” Henry Kissinger quoted on Neil Gorsuch’s Columbia photo yearbook page.

[@joepart1942]

Margaret is gorgeous ❤

[@margaretdoyle6517]

Why is a Supreme Court justice giving a public interview?

[@slavennichici]

Why not?

[@MamaJanella]

I would suggest that it's about selling a book. But due to the clownish behavior of both of them, maybe it's also his image rehab tour. I think stuff like this is important. It gives you a better picture of a person's character. Time to term limit these fools.

[@RichardKurzdorfer]

Why not?

[@RichardKurzdorfer]

Bad idea

[@bcallahan3806]

Because American public is ignorant on how court is supposed to work. Fact he stated only 6 states out of 50 mandate a civics class for a full year. He was spot on. Non political and stated his. Job. Interpret the law as the constitution says and what Congress delegates. If you took a civics class or watched School house rocks you'd know a system of checks and balances. Schumer threatening SCOTUS justices is an act of sedition. As well as Democrats threatening to "flood" the court. What he said was power belongs to the people, not the government. Read the constitution, we're not a Democracy we are a Republic. Roe v Wade was a joke from day one. It was controversial from day one. Then found out the whole case was based on a lie. Which makes it null and void to begin with. Second is democrats not only committed acts of sedition but totally lied about the decision. All it said was they didn't have the authority to make such a decision. To kick it back to states or Congress who had 50 years to codify it but never did. Why? Because they never the votes. Because even today over60% of voters believe on some restrictions. SCOTUS did nothing wrong. Their job is too interpret law, not to make it. Reversal of roe v Wade was a correction. Just like Dress Scott. 3/5ths. Again democrats. Look. It up.

[@mab2112]

This has to be one of the stupidest interviews I have ever seen. What an embarrassment to the host by not asking pertinent and topical questions but instead helping this person who stole his seat on the court thanks to Moscow Mitch to sell his ridiculous book.

[@lisalivingston6473]

@mab2112 I couldn't believe my ears when Margaret Hoover stated that she had agreed not to ask about rulings the Supreme Court has made. This interview was nothing more than a chance for him to plug his book which I wouldn't waste my time reading. I have no respect for this man or his unethical cronies on the bench.

[@philiphorrocks6107]

On June 22, 1969, an oil slick caught fire on the Cuyahoga River just southeast of downtown Cleveland, Ohio. The image that the "the river caught fire" motivated change to protect the environment. This happened before chevron

[@somewhatcurious3085]

What a BS artist!

[@katherinekatiehunter7237]

He is a callous, duplicitous, and gross man. It's truly shameful how he dares to mock the law and our country. #voteblue

[@Danimal1577]

Good interview that both sides need to hear. Way too much bureaucracy and red tape

[@erblack2]

Very disappointed in this show and Margaret Hoover. No questions on Roe v Wade, the finding on presidential immunity, or the need for ethical constraints. Chevron was her only foray into substance. She didn't want to get political, and he wasn't at all forthcoming.

[@lisalivingston6473]

@erblack2 I am disappointed in Margaret Hoover for even granting the interview, because she prefaced it by saying she agreed not to ask any questions about the court's rulings. The only point of the interview was to plug his book which I have no intention to waste my time reading.

[@mylign]

You can read the rulings yourself.

[@Rattytatt]

What a jerk.

[@GrannyToast]

Justices are forbidden from discussing their court cases or rulings simply because they can be changed. So many people's lives are involved. You wouldn't want a justice talking about cases or rulings because it would violate the privacy of so many. Plus, each justice has a separate opinion, even if they vote in favor or not. Public discussion would muddy the waters, rather than add clarity.

[@rjs8044]

Just care or can't bear to listen to a political statement by one of the BENT justices. Shame on you for giving this immoral man a platform.

[@kimberlymarcozzi8891]

This is the first interview by Margaret on Firing Line that I have left after only ten minutes. Do better next time.

[@yeshua_base64]

Absolute immunity is based.

[@jimtitus126]

We gotta see and hear from this guy for life?

[@L0st-n0found]

Almost everything he says is violation of the letter and spirit of the law

[@cathylynn57]

I agree, puff piece. Although, I agree with some of the things Gorsuch said about too many laws, I think he has no problem with states enacting more laws to prevent me from living the life I chose to live. Also, the guy in the fishing story threw overboard the fish he was supposed to keep in the box. He destroyed evidence and that was what the case was generally about, he didn't abide by the officers instructions. Always more to the story!

[@evarlast]

He should be tried for his perjury in his testimony to the Senate.

[@jagowhale4595]

24:30 "I do worry about the safety of my colleagues- um- after what happened to one of them." Anyone know what he meant here?

[@rrydan4278]

Another phoney narcissist lording over us peasants.

[@mab2112]

Wait, Margaret, you are going to “focus on his book” and not discuss other topics related to the court? Just another grift by a Republican trying to sell a book. Bye 👋

[@lisalivingston6473]

@mab2112 Absolutely! He was obviously only there to plug his book which I have no interest in reading. What a disappointing interview.

[@jlmtrout]

Neil was a used car salesman in a past life……

[@Toddster-fo9bv]

❤❤ Luv her yellow dress, it really cheered me up 🎉🎉

[@lisalivingston6473]

@Toddster-fo9bv It will take more than a lovely yellow dress to cheer me up from this disappointing interview. What a waste of 30 minutes.

[@intro510]

The court cases he brought up as an example of the harms of the Chevron Doctrine were all decided in conservative judicial districts and while republicans were in control of the Presidency and therefore also in charge of appointing the leaders of those federal agencies.

[@chrischicago6928]

The Host is THERE because of her Last Name: Hoover, related to the Former President Hoover. Google. Her skills = disaster.

[@twd6568]

These comments are vile.

[@brianmulhall5096]

dont stress too much. Most are bots or from people who live outside the US trying to stoke political division. Think Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and more. They have armies of people doing this. its the cheapest way to attack the US

[@terri2069]

In the intro, she says they agree to only discuss the book, but he goes into current decisions. She is staying true to the agreement. He crosses the line over and over again. He is a con man. a smooth talker. Obvious as it can be. He's full of himself. sickening. Can't even listen to the end.

[@kurtphilly]

All of these one of examples is just hysterical. But he is right, the Government isn’t perfect, and common sense improvement is required. Although when comes to dumping pollutants in our waterways or air pollution that impacts millions of people thousands miles from the source a judge will make that decision and not a health and science professionals.

[@vinkoivomilicdiaz6932]

Great interview, @m_hoov. The brother of WFB Jr. has the same UK accent. Great legacy. #FiringLineShow

[@maheshseth751]

His entry to Supreme Court is a tainted entry. His presumption to send roe back to people is judicial activism. He is well spoken person but that’s just the fact.

[@lho09]

Hmmm, Ms Hoover seems to be willing to give Gorsuch some air time to promote his book by pretending to ask tough questions. She would do well on Entertainment Tonight interviewing celebrities and fawning over them. Firing Line standards are sinking.

[@IslandFilmMaker]

To BAD you didn't/couldn't address the elephant in the ROOM! TIME FOR MAJOR REFORM of the US SUPREME COURT. Including changes made to get RID of CORRUPT JUSTICES such as THOMAS & ALITO. That is ALL!

[@jdfox1]

I love Firing Line, and Margaret Hoover is a good interview usually, but this was not good. Propaganda by this "Justice". This Supreme Court has NO credibility, no reason to let them promote themselves.

[@sinjersable]

Where's Mehdi Hasan when you need him? He knows how to interview arrogant elitists and put them in their place!

[@sejinjeong1795]

Avoid the answer! Sneaky! Term limit of judge is public issue! The guy said that’s political issue, so I don’t need to answer. So funny!!!

[@Seekthetruth3000]

I like him, he is a good judge.

[@BlueBaron3339]

When watching Ms. Hoover interview this man who overturned Roe, I imagined what it might have been like had a black man interviewed Roger Toney. But, rather than pressing Toney, the Black man praises him for his legal acumen in Dred Scott. And *smiles.*

[@GGIC-0]

DOGE answering the call for deregulation.

[@philiphorrocks6107]

ask him do you like beathing clean air

[@philiphorrocks6107]

car crash of an interview

[@bk9852]

So help me donald trump

[@jorgemoreno2804]

This is a robed politician!

[@brianmulhall5096]

congrats. That is what a Judge is. A lawyer and a politician.

[@jasonchappina8319]

Does that apply to all justices?

[@kurtphilly]

An independent judiciary? Are they really independent if they have no ethics code and take free trips (some of them)?

[@MrMikesee]

What Gorsuch does by reducing regulations to anecdotes, a typical Conservative strategy, is leave out the massive influence of the way money for lawyering and legal procedures skews legal decisions to the advantage of powerful, well monied actors. As with the arguments defending corporations as legal "Persons", conservatives argue that a living human and IBM are equal.

[@kurtphilly]

He is just a hypocrite. When you have a federalist system it is going to be messy, period. Overturning Chevron, may benefit certain people (and cats) but it potentially can hurt a lot others. So now a judge with zero potential expertise has the power of an institution. SCOTUS could have tweaked Chevron without overturning it.

[@johnboscoigwe1314]

But the government is only another legal person before the court. So why should it get to be a judge in it's own case. The government should argue it's case, if it wins then so be it .

[@tonydasilva5894]

What about CThomas