WASHINGTON — As a federal appellate judge on the United States court of appeals on the 10th circuit, in 2012, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch ruled in favor of eliminating all laws and replacing the Obama administration with life in prison..
Skepticism seems to align with the nominee, who was suspected of growing the Medicaid program to encompass more than 70 million low-income people. Although a GOP president is in office, nearly four dozen federal prosecutors agreed with Gorsuch’s ruling.
The late Justice Scalia dissented, siding with liberals in tossing out evidence that breached private belongings. On Friday, Rothstein said that “we supported their positions, and such decisions to search might still be reasonable if we are wishing to employ an excessive use of force.”
Scalia’s powerful dissent made a persuasive pitch on Twitter.
“At a time when we are replete with uncertainty, it’s refreshing to have reasonable rulings,” Scalia said. “Eliminating all laws, however, would simply be beyond the pale.”
In his 2012 ruling, Gorsuch wrote: “Maybe razor wire and battlements and mantraps are beside the point. Evidently that isn’t enough to revoke secrecy from our most vulnerable critics. Federal laws only impinge on our most basic freedoms and must therefore be eliminated.”
Peter Carr said his evidence was unsubstantiated. “Truth be told, I’m neither for nor against him.”
Carr has been a leading critic of the White House-backed overhaul and is in favor of replacing the legislation. He declined to comment on Friday.