Tweet

January 31, 2017

Statement of Eugene Delgaudio, President of Public Advocate

"Last week, I was quoted a 2nd time in the Washington Times in a follow up question: "If I
had to pick one of the 3 finalists who would it be?" Thank you Washington Times for asking
that Question. Up to that point I had only opposed William Pryor.

On behalf of the 100,000 supporters of Public Advocate and all who responded over the past
weeks, thank you President Donald Trump for not picking William Pryor.

In my letter, I selected Neil Gorsuch as having the best qualities out of the three. So
the pick is the best of the three finalists in my opinion," said Eugene Delgaudio

LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES REGARDING NEIL GORSUCH (January 26 2017)

You have asked me to give you Public Advocate's thoughts on which of the three candidates - Judges Gorsuch (10th Circuit), Pryor (11th Circuit), or Hardiman (3rd Circuit) would be most like Justice Scalia, as discussed in the article you sent.

Of those three, hands down, the answer is Judge Gorsuch.

Not only does Gorsuch embrace wholeheartedly Scalia's "originalist" jurisprudence, but he has the intellectual power and will to persuade others to agree with him - as did Justice Scalia - and therefore, has the potential of sharing with Justice Thomas the role of being the dominant conservative voices on the Court.

While Judge Pryor has been vocal in his opposition to Roe v. Wade, it will take more than emotion to either overrule that decision as being an arbitrary political rather than principled constitutional decision.

Pryor talks a good game, but when it comes time to rule on matters of Religious Liberty or Traditional Values he always sides with the Homosexual Lobby.

Frankly, Roe v Wade should be disregarded as a case based upon a demonstrably false factual narrative about when life begins - but we doubt Judge Pryor would know how to do that.

From what we know, Hardiman is more of a conventional conservative, who would likely be a reliable vote on most issues, but not a leader.

It appears to us that neither Hardiman nor Pryor has the intellectual firepower necessary to counter the ideological extreme left voices of Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer.

Indeed, rather than file a principled dissent, Pryor went along with two of the most liberal members of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in joining an opinion that extended the right not to be discriminated on the basis of "sex," to a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of a "Gender Identity Disorder" - a biological male in the process of transitioning to a self-identified male. At the time that this case was decided there was no binding precedent to apply.

And what analogous precedent there was, did not dictate the notion that discrimination on the basis of gender identity was the same as discrimination on the basis of sex or even sex stereotyping, as the Supreme Court had decided in a previous case.

Missing entirely from Pryor's opinion was any effort to examine the text or history of the Equal Protection Clause - but that is the way that Justice Scalia would have analyzed the case. Instead, Pryor's opinion relied primarily upon judicial balancing competing interests (which Justice Scalia derided as "judge-empowering interest balancing"), and notions of evolving values - the antithesis of a search for fixed legal principles, as Justice Scalia would have done.

In fact, not until the Supreme Court granted review in the Gloucester County case, just this fall, has the question of discrimination on the ground of gender identity ever come before the Supreme Court.

Public Advocate has filed two friend-of-the-court briefs, both in the Fourth Circuit, and in the U.S. Supreme Court, documenting the novelty of the question and, therefore, the lack of any controlling precedent at the time that Judge Pryor docilely followed the lead of his two most liberal colleagues. That is not what Justice Scalia would do.

I attach a document that is making the rounds and is being quoted today and I am hopeful you have seen this as well.

It is an inspiring example of the type of clearly written spiritually uplifting language employed by Gorsuch which contrasts him favorably from the sabatoge, betrayal or caution of Pryor:

From Page 909 Volume 66 - Issue 4 Case Western Reserve Law Review (attached)

Titled: Of Lions and Bears, Judges and
Legislators, and the Legacy of Justice Scalia

In part, Gorsuch says:

"..............Respectfully, it seems to me an assiduous focus on text, structure, and history is essential
to the proper exercise of the judicial function.

That, yes, judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation, rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own political views, always with an eye on the outcome, and engaged perhaps in some Benthamite calculation of pleasures and pains along the way.

Though the critics are loud and the temptations to join them may be many, mark me down too as a believer that the traditional account of the judicial role Justice Scalia defended will endure."

Sincerely

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate