Neil Gorsuch Decimates CBS News Reporter Pushing Left-Wing Talking Points

As a Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch typically stays out of the public eye. His job is to interpret the law, not please the howling voices in the political world. Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration has decided to force the issue by making a series of ludicrous and counter-productive proposals to "reform" the high court, not because they genuinely care, but because they desire total control over the lives of Americans. 

---

SEE: Joe Biden to Unveil His Supreme Court Plans - and They're Non-Starters

---

The details boil down to 18-year term limits and an enforceable "ethics code." Naturally, the term limit being proposed would immediately boot off multiple conservatives while ensuring the court gains a strong liberal majority. What a coincidence, right?

With that now being battled over in the political sphere, the press is doing what it always does, which is to parrot talking points in support of whatever the Democrat position is. Gorsuch found himself on the receiving end of that in a recent interview with CBS News. The justice responded by decimating the arguments being made. 

The following clips and transcripts are courtesy of my friend Curtis Houck over at Newsbusters.

Just a master class schooling by Justice Neil Gorsuch when whacked from the left by CBS's Major Garrett.

 

Gorusch: "I read the other day that...I agreed with Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson something like 45 percent of the time. That’s the court I know."… pic.twitter.com/PdGR3IHlq6

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) August 5, 2024

GORSUCH: I read the other day that...I agreed with Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson something like 45 percent of the time. That’s the court I know.

GARRETT: But there are people who watch this right now and say I thought I understood what Roe v. Wade meant in our country. I thought I understood what affirmative action in college admission meant, and this court told me I didn’t understand what that meant and I wrongly relied on things that I thought were settled. What would you say to those?

GORSUCH: I would say those are deeply complex legal questions on which reasonable minds can, of course, and do disagree. And that when it comes to Roe v. Wade, for example, what did the court decide? Decided that we the people should answer that question, not nine people sitting in Washington, D.C.

Let me start by saying that Garrett's premise is nonsensical. Just because a bad decision existed prior does not mean that decision is worthy of preservation. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was a joke written, relying almost exclusively on the whims of then-Justice Harry Blackmun, who was desperately trying to find a middle ground for political reasons. There was no actual constitutional right to an abortion, and to claim the right to privacy somehow covered it has never passed legitimate legal muster. 

As Gorsuch explains, all the Supreme Court did in overturning the precedent set by Roe v. Wade was return the decision to the voters in each state. That should be far preferable to anyone who values "democracy" than unelected judges creating legal precedent out of whole cloth simply to appease one side of the political aisle. 

Garrett wasn't satisfied with that answer, though, and he then pressed Gorsuch on affirmative action.

GARRETT: How about affirmative action?

GORSUCH: Much the same thing. What did we decide? We decided that all people are created equal, that it’s not acceptable in this country to discriminate on the basis of race.

Again, how is this even a discussion in 2024? Affirmative action was legalized discrimination based on race. A white person should no more be punished for their skin color than a black person. Historical oppression should play no role in modern-day decisions regarding people with equal rights. That the press thinks that such a ruling is wrong is an indictment on them, not the Supreme Court. 

Still, Garrett kept going, making yet another emotional appeal.

GARRETT: And, for those who would say but I feel something’s been ripped away from me, you would say?

GORSUCH: I would say that we’re taking it back to you. In a democracy, you’re in the driver’s seat. You’re the sovereign. Those famous three first words of the Constitution empower you. Do you really want me deciding everything for you?

GARRETT: And for a woman in a state where she no longer has the rights she once relied on, is that cold comfort?

GORSUCH: Major, all I can say is I don’t know better than you do on these questions. And that most major western democracies have decided these questions through the ballot box.

Gorsuch hits the nail on the head again. It is not his job to make up "rights" that give "comfort" to women who want abortions. If Americans want that, they should be forced to own it through their vote, unable to hide behind the cover of a flawed legal judgment from half a century prior. 

With that said, notice what Garrett never bothers to ask about throughout the interview. While he continually makes appeals to emotion, he doesn't give any credence to what the law actually says. Wouldn't that be the most important factor in any Supreme Court decision? 

Expectedly, once the interview segment ended, the in-studio team took their shots without Gorsuch there to embarrass them as well. 

GARRETT: Gorsuch does not appear at all troubled by the decline in public confidence in the Supreme Court or the real-world ramifications of overturning decades of legal precedent. Comfort, with such contradictions, of course, is one of the things that comes with a lifetime appointment to the highest judicial perch in the land.

KING: Yeah, many people are questioning whether it should be a lifetime appointment.

Gayle King might as well be on the White House payroll. The "many people" who are questioning lifetime appointments are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris along with a slew of Democratic Party politicians. To whatever extent that has trickled into the public consciousness is completely inorganic. 

The Supreme Court does not exist to win popularity contests. On the contrary, it was designed from the founding to rule absent of political pressure. Lifetime appointments are part of that equation as they relieve the justices of any concern about post-court opportunities and influences. 

DUTHIERS: I appreciate you pushing back on those issues because I thought it was sort of telling that the associate justice said, do you want me deciding everything for you? If you’re a woman, you will say — but you have decided. Even though you’re suggesting that you’re sending it back to the people, the Court made those decisions that had been precedents for over 50 years. 

GARRETT: And what was once relied upon can no longer be. That’s the change.

I'm trying to remain professional, but part of me just wants to call Vladimir Duthiers an imbecile and leave it at that. His reasoning is so ridiculous as to be worthy of nothing but mockery. Would he say the same about the precedent that once allowed segregation of schools? What about the precedent that once restricted personhood for black Americans? The idea that a precedent is untouchable simply because it exists is moronic. What matters is proper legal interpretation of the law. Nothing more, nothing less. 

In the end, what this Gorsuch interview shows is that Democrats have no actual argument. They are simply emoting at any given point, wrapping themselves in contradictions to garner the political outcome they want in the moment. The Supreme Court stands in the way of that, and that's why they are trying to destroy it. 

Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication to reflect that Roe was authored by Harry Blackmun.