Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch

President Trump has made his choice for Supreme Court, and I think it’s a fantastic one.  Neil Gorsuch is an Originalist, meaning he believes the Constitution says what it means, and not what 9 Justices think it means this week. If the government can redefine the law on a whim, how are we, the people, supposed to know what the law really is?

And conservatives have talked about cutting red tape and getting rid of useless regulations for a long time. It looks like that idea’s time has come. In fact, it’s been tried on a smaller scale and it’s worked incredibly well. Listen in for who did it, how it’s helped, and how it’s getting done here.

Mentioned links:

The Red Tape Reduction Act

Doug Black [Wikipedia]

Cutting Red Tape in Canada: A Regulatory Reform Model for the United States?

Canada Cuts Down On Red Tape. Could It Work In The U.S.?

Trump signs executive order requiring that for every one new regulation, two must be revoked

Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

Partisan Standoff Leaves Supreme Court Seat Empty for More Than 350 Days

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

Have you heard of the Red Tape Reduction Act? It’s a great idea that has been introduced to try to reduce, or hold the line, on the number of government regulations that are out there that slow down the economy, make it hard to open a new business, and generally live our lives.

Senator Doug Black describes it this way.

Businesses spend valuable time and resources wading through unnecessary red tape. By reducing this red tape, we will inevitably increase innovation, productivity, job creation, and international investments. We all benefit when the country is able to maintain a competitive edge in business.

[The] One-for-One rule will ensure that for every regulation imposed on a business, one will be removed. It also ensures that the federal departments and agencies enforcing the regulations will offset any administrative burden a business faces due to these regulations. Among the bill’s aims are improving regulatory design and governance and improving the service offered to businesses by the government.

This was actually tried on a state level first, and it worked incredibly well, starting with a 2-for-1 swap that reduced regulations, and scaling back to 1-for-1 later. Overall, regulations have been reduced 40%. That state has gone from being one of the economically worst-performing in the country to being among the best. Economic growth increased from 1.9 percent below the national average between 1994 and 2001 to 1.1 percent above the average between 2002 and 2006. GDP grew faster there than in the nation at large every year between 2002 and 2008, and thousands of new businesses were created during this period.

It’s a fantastic, conservative idea whose time may now have come; get government out of all the meddling it does. Forest companies were told what size nails they had to use the build a bridge. Restaurants were told what size televisions they could have in their establishments. Kids even were affected. They were being told they needed 2 permits to show a tadpole in their classroom at show and tell.

OK, now you’re probably wondering who this Senator Doug Black is. You’ve probably not heard of him, and it’s understandable. He’s a Senator in the Canadian legislature, a conservative. If you want to go back and listen to this segment again, just replace “state” with “province”. The province in question is British Columbia, whose economy did quite the “about face” when they enacted the policy. And since 2013, this has been the policy with their federal government. It passed the Canadian House of Commons by a vote of 245 to 1, the Green Party being something of a hold out.

Could it work here? Well, given its great track record north of the border, yes it can. And we’ll find out soon enough. On Monday, January 30th, Trump signed an executive order doing just that. It calls for agencies to pinpoint “at least two” current regulations to be repealed for each new proposed regulation. And it says the net incremental cost for fiscal 2017 should “be no greater than zero,” meaning the cost of new regulations should be offset by existing rules that will be rescinded. So it’s not just one-line-for-one-line; it has to be of equal or greater economic value.

You probably didn’t hear about this on the news. That’s OK. You’re welcome anyway, America.

Judge Neil Gorsuch is President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court seat that was opened up when Justice Scalia died. This, as I’ve said multiple times on this podcast, is why I voted for Trump. Gorsuch is an originalist, meaning that he believes the Constitution means what is says it means, and what its writers meant when they penned it. It is not what 9 justices think it means this week. The problem with that whole “living document” concept is that we, the people, can never know what the law is, if it depends on shifting political opinions. If we can’t truly know what the law is, the government can redefine the law any way it wants.

This is yet another example of the wonders of limited government. Since you don’t know who’s going to be in power after the next election, better to limit your use of it now. Live by shifting political opinions, die by shifting political opinions.

But Democrats, despite unanimously voting him onto the 10th Circuit court, are now going to make this all political. They say that Obama’s choice, Merrick Garland, should have gotten a vote. The thing is, you have to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover’s first term to find a Supreme Court vacancy that occurred during an election year which was then filled by the President’s choice. Yeah, it’s not a hard and fast rule, but it’s certainly not unprecedented.

Democrats have argued that they should have had a chance to vote on him. I say, yes, I agree with that. Those Democrats should have brought it to a vote. But here’s the thing; they couldn’t because a Democratic majority in the Senate had been lost over the last 8 years. The American people had spoken in election after election until Democrats couldn’t muster enough clout to get a vote. Republicans, seeing this slow-motion referendum on President Obama, thought that the seat should be filled after the upcoming election; an election, it turned out, that cemented even further the results of that referendum. That’s the Obama legacy. Democrats stopped making a big deal of the vacancy after they were sure Hillary Clinton would beat Trump. So much for that gamble. The American people have spoken. Again.

And so, in the upcoming confirmation hearing, they will have to explain why he was a unanimous choice 10 years ago, but is completely unacceptable today. Democratic voters will, of course, not be concerned about this flip-flop, if they are even aware such a flip flopped. Of course, if you are a Democrat listening to this, you are clearly better informed. If Democrats can block this, that is their right, but, as always, elections have consequences.

So what do you think? I’m always up for a discussion, and I want to hear you voice, or at least your words, right here. What do you think of reducing regulations? Clearly, British Columbia didn’t fall apart due to being under-regulated. And Neil Gorsuch recently spoke against his nominator, President Trump, when Trump was disparaging various judges. Isn’t this the kind of judicial independence we want?

Filed under: Economics & TaxesGovernmentJudiciarySmaller Government