The Constitution does not specify any requirements for a Supreme Court Justice, other than they shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the senate. They are not required to be a current sitting judge, hold a law degree, be of any specific age, gender, or ethnicity, or even be a citizen. The senate is required to grant its consent to the nominee. The Constitution does not specify that a senator must grant their consent if certain conditions prevail, such as the nominee has received a favorable review by a bar association.
In our divided form of government, it is the duty and function of the legislative branch to make the law, the executive branch is to administer the law, and the judicial branch is to adjudicate disputes as they pertain to the law. Jefferson told us that so long as each branch adheres to its assigned duties, our government may last a long time, but it will not be so if any of the branches start to assume the duties and role of the other two.
Judge Gorsuch has been appointed to the Supreme Court by the President, as is the role of the President under the Constitution. Now the Senate is in the process of advising and consenting to the appointment of Gorsuch. Again, the Constitution does not require that the senate apply certain or specific guidelines in this role. The only implied guideline that might be applied is that the senate make a fair and reasonable judgement that the nominee understands the principle of “rule of law” and understands the importance of divided government, and that they will adhere to the specific responsibilities of the judicial branch without usurping the power and authority of the other two branches of government.
These requirements would be implied because they are at the very essence of the requirements for our nation to remain our free society as clearly was the intent of the founders. Jefferson made it quite clear that adherence to the principle of divided government was essential to our freedom.
Any Senator that understood the Constitution would understand that they had every right to say they would not consent to Gorsuch without giving a reason. When a Senator says that they will not support Gorsuch because he believes in “rule of law” and divided government, they are showing their total misunderstanding of and their total disregard for the Constitution and the very principles upon which our nation was founded.
California Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Kamala Harris, former Attorney General of California, says she won’t be voting to confirm Gorsuch because he bases his decisions on the law instead of feelings. That is exactly what “rule of law” and divided government means and requires. In a totalitarian state under arbitrary law, a judge would be expected to base their decisions on feelings and not the law. The judge would be ruling based on social, political, or economic status and would at the same time be making new law. Marxist/Progressive Harris would have been within constitutional guidelines if she had just said that she could only support a fellow Marxist.
Marxist/Progressive Nelson of Florida said, “I have real concerns with his thinking on protecting the right to vote and allowing unlimited money in political campaigns.” “In addition, the judge has consistently sided with corporations over employees, as in the case of a freezing truck driver who, contrary to common sense, Judge Gorsuch would have allowed to be fired for abandoning his disabled rig during extreme weather conditions.”
In both of the above situations, it is the duty of the judge to follow the law. If Nelson does not like the outcome of a judge’s decisions which are based on current law, then Nelson and his fellow congresspersons should change the law.
Al Franken, Minnesota Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) admonished Judge Gorsuch for refusing to condemn the way Senate Republicans treated Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee, Merrick Garland, who was not afforded a hearing. Gorsuch was a sitting judge at the time and is expected to refrain from entering a political fray.
Marxist/Progressive Peters of Michigan said he believes Gorsuch’s "previous rulings indicate he believes that corporations have greater rights than individuals" and "often fails to take into account the human face behind each case." Again, Peters is in the Senate and it is his obligation to change the law if he disagrees with it. In addition, a judge is supposed to be blindfolded to the faces behind each case and apply the law regardless of social, political, or economic status.
And the list goes on and on. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have come to expect the courts to legislate their agenda. The result of this usurpation of the role of the congress by the courts is advantageous to the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) agenda, because it facilitates the fundamental transformation of the United States from a free and independent nation based on the principles of individualism, to a Marxist totalitarian state. However, this clear violation of the principles of “rule of law” and divided government is exactly what our founders feared; the freedom for which they paid such a dear price would be lost to the very government they were creating and the American citizen would become a slave to that government.