As I watched Sen. Patrick Leahy claiming that following the original intent of the Constitution is “troubling” and “outside the mainstream,” and then, oddly, trying to get Judge Neil Gorsuch to agree that the Federalist Papers would require him to overturn Citizens United (no, the Founders would not have believed that Americans shouldn’t be allowed to join together to criticize Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election), I thought I’d share another classic attempt to “Bork” Gorsuch.
If you aren’t old enough to recall, one of the ways that Democrats slandered Judge Robert Bork’s reputation was by bringing up “outrageous” things he’d said to his law students as if they were his actual opinions. In fact, he had merely been bringing up hypothetical topics for class discussion. In this latest case, someone is trying to tar Gorsuch as anti-woman for allegedly suggesting that some women might take advantage of employers who offer lavish maternity benefits when he was actually just making students in a LEGAL ETHICS class discuss how they would handle a lawsuit in which someone was accused of that. You know: like someone who wants to become a lawyer or judge might someday have to do.
To save future Senate confirmation hearings a lot of time: just because someone discusses a topic, that doesn’t mean they endorse it themselves. For instance, I hear a lot of today’s Democrats mention the First Amendment, free speech and freedom of association, but I don’t think for a second that they seriously believe in any of it.