Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch at the Nixon Library 

Yes!!! Great point ! We cannot have liberty without self-restraint and informal guides to social cooperation that tradition, customs, and morals provide.

He disagrees with T. Woodrow Wilson, and they do not. In fact, they love his ideas.

Well you see he is a man of faith. That he will one day be able to retire in West Palm Beach. He is a believer in the Almighty dollar. But really he is a useful idiot. The book shows that - the rich will explode his ideas to delay delay delay - justice delayed is justice not given.

@@davidweihe6052 then my question becomes, why do the dumbest people on earth think there the smartest?

​@@ronammologist16because it interferes with dems getting bribes from soros and arabella..

Laws on corporations posing as personhood can be unlimited. They have no feelings.

Agreed, but Neil Gorsuch was very interesting from start to finish. Trump did a good job with this appointee!

The world suffers from too many statutes. Constitution = Law of the Land Too many statutes = Lawlessness.

@@Mike-cr5ez Depends on the statutes. Not all statutes = lawlessness because not all statutes are unconstitutional but many are. If the world suffers from too much law then its because of too much government since government is the reason for law. Constitutionally Congress should only be convened and in session by the times given in the Constitution. Representatives were never meant to be career politicians. They were meant to be with their constituents in their home states, not in the Capitol except at times given in the Constitution. The nation is almost always better off when Congress is not in session making more unconstitutional laws we don't need and never making Constitutional laws that we do need.

@@Mike-cr5ez More laws, less liberty, more costs, less innovation. The idea of law is about preserving liberty equally.

Lawlessness is the greater threat to liberty. When the social order breaks down, then order must be imposed by any means necessary. We saw this in the French Revolution. The breakdown in the social order set the stage for Napoleon. Lawlessness breeds tyranny. Self-control and social custom breeds true and sustainable liberty and freedom.

@@christophergraves6725 We aren't against all laws. Only laws to preserve liberties should remain.

There are a lot of independents and “republicans in exile” that agree with you up to the point of Trump and the extreme elements of current republicans pushing through an agenda clearly the majority of Americans don’t agree with. Both parties need to get back to more moderate positions and meet closer towards the middle. It’s not as simple for most saying “the democrats are driving me crazy lately so now I’m a republican” because for most Trump is the way worse choice, and it’s not hard to see why, especially after his refusal to accept last election’s results (and his incessant repulsive behavior and decorum).

There are no political parties in our constitutions… praise God

Indeed. I too am independent and now see the Democrat party as the greatest threat to the liberty, prosperity & future of Americans. And most Democrat voters have no clue the tyranny and subversion they vote for because they’re propagandized, low-information people who often believe in their moral superiority.we need sophisticated citizens who recognize propaganda, marketing & advertising w/ basic understanding of psychology and logic. And we need a society that values virtue & decency.

So you are OK with a president who breaks the law being to go free. What happened if the president stood up & laughing & said because of the SC giving me complete immunity I sold the nuclear codes to Russia.

Lol, no detail for why that is so.

​@prometheusrex1 the explanations of our justice system, the process of law, over regulation, the importance of civics classes (which it seems you might benefit from) the examples etc etc.. tho ibama did over regulate an appointment lib judges/DAs, all while remiv7ng some regs so he could strip us of our Bill of Rights.. but yah.. maybe listen to it again..

​@@prometheusrex1 ^^^

Thanks much

Thank you

it all matters.. start at the beginning 0:01

I'll take... Null and Void For $500....Alex

Except when appointed by the proper party, when they must rule as the Democrats want. At least, so say the partisans of that party.

Unfortunately that has always been part of the role of the courts even if it makes no sense for it to be that way. The system was in fact never very good. And so that kind of nonsense has often been needed to make the machine work. Because Congress is too dysfunctional to be able to be as responsive as it should be.

Not everything is partisan. Your reply is precisely why everyone should agree that bipartisan reform of SCOTUS is long overdue.

​@@I_Am_Neitherso easy to say from your keyboard, all while offering no solution .. its the best system on the planet, and the USA is the most generous nation on earth.. capitalism has benefited more people on the globe since we hav existed as a human species.. so back up your negative claims with some substance, instead of just wasting pixels and O2..

​@@I_Am_Neither...I think SCOTUS is back on Track with a strict adherence to Fundamental principles and the law as Written. Text, History, Traditional is what they use now. Chevron is RIP...so all that "president" and "case law" stuff is all done. It was a hoax. Not Lawful. Judges don't make law. Now he is saying Agency's don't make law. SCOTUS affirms, confirms or reaffirms the law as Written. That's it.

Huh?

"with the majority of America" vs. the Constitution of the USA?

I've been an American my whole life, so right there we're not the same. The SCOTUS isn't right or left. The courts only job is to test the constitutionality of a case. What is disappointing about that?

@@NoName-ge6wc Luck? May I respectfully suggest that thete is no such thing as luck? America is BLESSED to have such a man. As you say God gave him to us! He is a Blessing!

@@ronammologist16 agree. And it was also no luck when Ginsberg croaked.

you run your country.. we'll run ours..

He, along with others, were put on notice to declare what is written

Who on the court is not a failure to the constitution in your opinion and who is true to these "founding principles"

@@RAW_GHC02 Anyone that dissented on the immunity ruling. Barrett didn't completely fail the republic either tbh. I appreciate that she only agreed in-part, her issue being the most egregious part of the ruling. Though if she had dissented in-part, she'd be much more faithful to our founding texts. The opinion itself was very poorly thought-out. The founding texts they reference ("strong executive") have absolutely nothing to do with anything. If you've read the Federalist Papers then you know exactly what I'm talking about. The text refers to a multi-headed executive branch. When they say a "strong executive" they mean they only want a single person in the highest office as to act decisively rather than two executives wasting time bickering about what to do. It has nothing to do with the powers of the office nor their consequences. The Nixon references were all about civil law and they used it as a way to apply criminal law in a 1:1 manner, as if they are one and the same. It's an objectively bad opinion, even if you agree with the result. When you read and research this ruling, it becomes painfully clear that they made a political decision first and then tried to find any historical and legal justification for it, no matter how weak that justification is. Look, we created the republic because we wanted a nation of laws and not men. Well now we have a President who cannot even be questioned about a crime, so long as they use official means to execute that crime. If you're a historically keen American and you love our founding ideals, there is just no way that this sits right with you.

You need to cite the grievances you have with him or a specific ruling so we know what your objections are rather than just virtue signaling your indignation....

Those that degrade what he says has no understanding of our highest law… the Constitutions (50+1)

@@rksocal2828 Presidential immunity of course, but obviously you already knew that.

Agreed, he is an American in name only. A kingmaker cannot be American in their values. That said, it's drivel not dribble! And that is the perfect word for it.

Justice Gorsuch js the biggest advocate and proponent of indigenous rights that has ever sat on the court. You clearly have yet to read one of his opinions outside of Dobbs. Even then, I doubt you read any of it.

@@RAW_GHC02 Not at all relevant.

@chomskysfavefive How are indigenous rights and our ethical obligation of upholding treaties not "relevant?" Some would argue respecting these very basic rights is imperative to a functioning republic and true to our founding principles. You obviously feel it is not significant and have whitewashed the issue.

@@RAW_GHC02 The justice, endorsing an imperial presidency, and presidential immunity far outweighs his support of indigenous rights.