Neil Gorsuch Might Be Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Because His Mother Tried To Kill The EPA Or Something

by William Teach | February 1, 2017 7:47 am


So, Mr. Trump has picked Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court nominee. We can be assured that Democrats[2] will give him a fair shake caterwaul and carry on to the point Mitch McConnell implements the nuclear option. We already have Nancy Pelosi[3] saying that he’s a “very hostile appointment.” I wonder if she realizes her vote is meaningless?

Democrats already had their pre-printed[4] “grassroots” signs made, and ABC News[5] rushed to print the DNC’s talking points. On thing that might concern is that Neal K. Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama admin, says that Liberals should back Gorsuch[6].

…he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.

Well, those are antithetical to the beliefs of Liberals, so, maybe not so great for him. But, hey, don’t worry that the NY Times printed the op-ed, because the Editorial Board is being totally calm and rational

Neil Gorsuch, the Nominee for a Stolen Seat[7]

Or not. The butthurt is strong. And David Leonhardt[8] provides the reason Liberals should oppose him. Salon[9] goes Salon by noting Gorsuch is GASP pro-life.

But, you know what’s worse?

Remember that time when Neil Gorsuch’s mother tried to dismantle the EPA?[10]

Anne Gorsuch — whose son has just been nominated by President Trump for the Supreme Court — was administrator of the EPA from 1981 to 1983, under Ronald Reagan. And much like Scott Pruitt[11], Trump’s EPA nominee, she wanted to rip the agency apart.

Anne Gorsuch slashed[12] EPA’s budget by 22 percent and aggressively rolled back clean air and clean water rules and other protections. A lawyer herself, she apparently did not like to see the legal system used to protect the environment: “In the first year of the Reagan administration, there was a 79 percent decline in the number of enforcement cases filed from regional offices to EPA headquarters, and a 69 percent decline in the number of cases filed from the EPA to the Department of Justice,” a House staffer told Grist in 2004[13]. Anne Gorsuch resigned less than two years into the job over a scandal involving mismanagement of the Superfund program.

Like mother, like son? During his decade as a federal appeals court judge, Neil Gorsuch has not ruled on notable environmental cases, so he doesn’t have much of a track record to assess. He is a staunch conservative like his mom, though, and that’s enough to have environmentalists very worried.

Obviously, he’s a bee and polar bear hater in waiting, a guy who wants to cover the world in fossil fuels and coal, causing the seas to cover all the land. The is being repeated around the Left-o-net, by places such as Salon’s baby transgender Slate[14], Yahoo News[15], and Heavy[16], among others. Heavy also notes

Many are worried about Neil Gorsuch’s views on environmentalism and clean energy. As President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace former Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, his viewpoints could make a big difference in the future of clean energy. Some are concerned that his opinions might echo those of his mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford. However, at least one of his rulings may bode well for environmentalists.

Here’s what you need to know.

A ruling from 2015 in Colorado might show that Gorsuch could be favorable toward environmental laws. In 2015, on a three-judge panel, Gorsuch affirmed that Colorado’s renewable energy law would remain in place and did not violate the Constitution[17]. The law required that utilities get 30 percent of the electricity they sell to Colorado customers from renewable resources. The plaintiff had advocated for a free market approach to environmentalism and argued that the law violated the Commerce Clause and unfairly hurt out-of-state businesses, such as coal producers.

The big takeaway on that ruling?

He also noted that even if the law raised electricity prices, Colorado residents had voted overwhelmingly in support of the mandate, so they apparently were “happy to bear” the higher costs. Think Progress touted the ruling[18] as a win for all environmental groups who wanted to promote renewable energy in Colorado. Conservation Colorado said in a statement about the ruling:

So, he’s willing to let Warmists be hoist on their own petard. Good, good.

Inverse[19] whined about his mother a week a go, being the first that I can find to do so. They are also Very Concerned that he is a man of faith. But, then, Liberals are always concerned when people have a moral bedrock. At CNN[20] we see

Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard said that Gorsuch would do nothing to preserve environmental regulations needed to fight climate change.

“There is no evidence in Gorsuch’s track record that indicates he would be a champion for these legal protections,” she said.

There’s virtually no evidence in his track record that he isn’t. He has almost no rulings. But, that’s of little consequence in Liberal World, where they would block anyone Trump picked. He could have picked Merritt Garland and Democrats would be against.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[21]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[22].

  1. [Image]:
  2. Democrats:
  3. Nancy Pelosi:
  4. pre-printed:
  5. ABC News:
  6. Liberals should back Gorsuch:
  7. Neil Gorsuch, the Nominee for a Stolen Seat:
  8. David Leonhardt:
  9. Salon:
  10. Remember that time when Neil Gorsuch’s mother tried to dismantle the EPA?:
  11. Scott Pruitt:
  12. slashed:
  13. told Grist in 2004:
  14. Slate:
  15. Yahoo News:
  16. Heavy:
  17. did not violate the Constitution:
  18. Think Progress touted the ruling:
  19. Inverse:
  20. CNN:
  21. Pirate’s Cove:
  22. @WilliamTeach:

Source URL: