And the leading contender for for Trump’s pick to the Supreme Court is:
ABC News has learned that Judge Neil Gorsuch has emerged as the leading contender to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and his nomination is expected as early as next week, according to sources familiar with the selection process.
Gorsuch, 49, is currently a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, to which he was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2006 and confirmed by voice vote. He would be the youngest Supreme Court nominee in about 25 years.
Here’s what ABC News says about him:
CBS has also reported Gorsuch as the leading candidate:
.@JanCBS on Trump's Supreme Court nominee: I'm being told by my sources that a leading candidate is Neil Gorsuch. https://t.co/dCNY7P0alw pic.twitter.com/BxS5b3tdi6
— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 21, 2017
Read what SCOTUSBlog says about Gorsuch:
With perhaps one notable area of disagreement, Judge Gorsuch’s prominent decisions bear the comparison out. For one thing, the great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making. He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia). In fact, some of the parallels can be downright eerie. For example, the reasoning in Gorsuch’s 2008 concurrence in United States v. Hinckley, in which he argues that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would probably violate the rarely invoked non-delegation principle, is exactly the same as that of Scalia’s 2012 dissent in Reynolds v. United States.
This led Allahpundit at Hotair to give him an A+. His counterpart, Ed Morrissey, said this about Gorsuch’s views on life:
Re Gorsuch's "Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia," conservatives should skip directly to chapter 9. Powerful stuff. 1/2
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) January 21, 2017
In ch. 9, Gorsuch gets to his own arguments on the intrinsic value of human life, and its correlation to equal treatment under the law.
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) January 21, 2017
"To act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests only on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends" Gorsuch
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) January 21, 2017
In fact, Catholics would be very, very comfortable (and familiar) with Gorsuch's reasoning on sanctity-of-life basis for equal treatment.
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) January 21, 2017
It sounds like Gorsuch may indeed be a great Trump pick for the Supreme Court. I just hope this is the caliber of nominee that we can expect from him on future nominations as well.