I got a kick out of Gorsuch’s rope-a-dope strategy that El Rushbo included in his spot-on analyses:

Now, there are competing bits of analysis to explain what Justice Gorsuch was doing here. Believe it or not, there is a school of thought that this is part of a long-term, stealth plan that Gorsuch has to use his kind of awkward definition of textualism to convert the liberals on the court to his way of thinking. And to do that he’s gotta show solidarity with them on some cases and so forth and get credibility.

Rush also gave me a clearer understanding of “textualism”. I thought textualism was doublespeak for “living Constitution.” I now realize both theories are different prongs of the same attack on limited government as the Constitution tells us poor bumpkins in clear English:


. . . textualism is the legal theory that allows a sitting judge to go ahead and throw something from 2020 into 1965 legislation, even though there is no way the legislation in ’65, the Civil Rights Act, could have possibly included LGBTQ transgenders and all that. It was not an issue, it was not at the forefront, nobody talked about it. It wasn’t a big deal.

So you throw it in under the evolving, living Constitution. Well, that isn’t how conservatives look at the Constitution. The original intent, if you go back and find original intent, then that’s all you’re supposed to do. So my point here, everybody on the right — I’m gonna share with you some excerpts today from a column by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review who just nails this and is beside himself with what happened.


Did the Kavanaugh Hearings Intimidate Conservative Justices?
Jun 16, 2020

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...tive-justices/