We Are the Gun Lobby!

H/T US Concealed Carry.

Gun owners make up the NRA, US Concealed Carry, etc so we are the gun lobby.

Who or what, exactly, is the gun lobby?

What does that term mean to you? Is the gun lobby some political organization? Is it an untouchable group of people? Is it some elite corporate entity? Or is the gun lobby the one-sided, evil-minded “terrorists” the media tries to make it out to be?

Claim It

No matter what you thought it was or what others have told you it means, the 2A community needs to look at the term “gun lobby” and claim it for ourselves. All of us. Every single one. Not just Republicans. Not just Democrats. Not just hunters or competitive shooters or gun owners. Not just the NRA or the GOA or the USCCA. Everyone.

Protect It

With our rights under attack, we can’t just leave the Second Amendment up to some “organized group” to fight for and protect. We can’t wait for someone else to do something for us. And we certainly can’t lose ground in the meantime. History has shown that if we do not exercise and preserve our rights, those rights are eventually lost. And once a right is lost, it is almost impossible to get it back.

For this reason, we need to pay attention to laws and legislation. We need to contact our representatives — whether that includes writing them, calling them, emailing them or making appointments to see them in person — and we need to take the lead in combating calls for tighter gun laws. The assaults on our rights must be addressed with our voices and with our votes.

Share It

Ultimately, it is up to all of us everyday, ordinary people to share the importance of the right to keep and bear arms with all who will listen. So stand up and be heard! We are pro-2A. We are pro-rights. We are the gun lobby! And the gun lobby can only be as influential as the individuals who support it … and the individuals who are part of it.

About Beth Alcazar

Boasting several training certifications including TWAW, SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute and I.C.E. Training, Beth Alcazar is enthusiastic about safe and responsible firearms ownership. She has nearly two decades in the firearms industry and is a Certified Training Instructor and Senior Training Counselor for the USCCA and Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for the NRA. The associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine, Beth also uses her experience and degrees in language arts, education and communication management to author the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column as well as Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leftist Group Releases List of Raging Radicals for SCOTUS if a Democrat Beats Trump

H/T Town Hall.

The left is hoping they beat President Trump so when Ruth Buzzy(Bader)Ginsburg dies or leaves the Supreme Court she will be replaced by a leftist.

Ahead of the 2020 election, leftist organization Demand Justice has released a list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court should a Democrat win the White House.

“In 2016, Donald Trump released a shortlist of possible Supreme Court picks, and it succeeded in rallying conservative voters to his side. In 2020, the Democratic candidates running for president should also state what kind of justices they would appoint. Doing so would show their commitment to the Supreme Court as an issue and draw a clear line in the sand about what is at stake in the coming election,” Demand Justice released in a statement. “To prod the candidates, Demand Justice is releasing its own Supreme Court shortlist of possible nominees in the next Democratic administration. Our list is made up of brilliant lawyers who have spent their careers fighting for progressive values and represent the diversity of our nation.”

“In releasing this list, we also hope to make clear that the next Democratic president ought to approach the task of nominating judges with a new playbook––one that prioritizes unabashedly progressive lawyers and legal thinkers, who have all too often been pushed aside,” the statement continues.

According to the Judicial Crisis Network, an organization that has supported nominees like Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, the Demand Justice list is quite radical.

Carrie Severino@JCNSeverino

These people are radicals. This list is a dream come true for far left activists who seek to turn the courts into a political super-legislature. https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/1184083118166290433 

Brian Fallon

@brianefallon

Democrats running for President should tell primary voters who they might appoint to the Supreme Court. And they should be bold enough to pick someone who’s worked to defend civil rights, worker’s rights or reproductive rights – like those on this list:https://demandjustice.org/supreme-court-shortlist/ 

129 people are talking about this

Carrie Severino@JCNSeverino

Only 8 of the 32 potential nominees on this list have judicial experience. Which makes sense – they’re looking for activists, not judges.

Trump’s list – with the sole exception of Sen. Mike Lee – was all judges, bc they were chosen for judicial philosophy, not political views.

79 people are talking about this

Carrie Severino@JCNSeverino

Amazing: there must be hundreds of federal judges Obama put on the courts, and only 4 make this list. This list would have been way too liberal for Obama.

Carrie Severino@JCNSeverino

This is an attempt to return the Court to 1960’s style judicial activism – left wing judicial tyranny. They keep losing elections, so now they’re trying to pack the courts and get their agenda done with radical activist judges.

62 people are talking about this

The group also released criteria Democrat candidates should use when selecting nominees. It’s so far left, current liberal Supreme Court justices wouldn’t qualify.

Timothy Meads

Josh Blackman

@JoshMBlackman

My take on the 32-member short list: by excluding law firm partners, @WeDemandJustice excludes most of the people Hillary Clinton would have picked. Justice Sotomayor would also be out. https://reason.com/2019/10/15/who-is-and-is-not-on-the-demand-justice-scotus-not-so-shortlist/ 

View image on Twitter
See Josh Blackman’s other Tweets

Even SCOTUSBlog is knocking it.

SCOTUSblog

@SCOTUSblog

The @WeDemandJustice list is a diverse group that many will view as highly qualified potential SCOTUS nominees. But it does not remotely resemble anything like a plausible Democratic shortlist—whether or not it should. It just represents an ideal of the party’s progressive wing.

39 people are talking about this

In the meantime, President Trump has not only successfully placed two Justices on the Supreme Court, but has nominated, with the Senate confirming, federal judges at record pace.

Democrats Call for Justice Brett Kavanaugh to Be ‘Impeached’

H/T Breitbart.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not committed any crimes to be impeached for.

A growing number of Democrat presidential candidates and groups are lining up behind calls to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, after the New York Times reported that the FBI did not follow up on a woman’s story that he had pulled his pants down and thrust his penis at her at a college party.

The report came from a forthcoming book written by two Times reporters titled, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.”

The first of the candidates to call for Kavanaugh’s impeachment was former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who tweeted on Saturday, “It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath. He should be impeached.”

He also called for Congress to investigate the Justice Department for failing to “properly” investigate the matter:

Julián Castro

@JulianCastro

It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath. He should be impeached.

And Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter. https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1173037649474572288 

Julián Castro

@JulianCastro

Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is a shame to the Supreme Court.

This latest allegation of assault must be investigated.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html 

9,240 people are talking about this

The second candidate to call for Kavanaugh’s impeachment was Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I sat through those hearings. Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached,” she tweeted:

Kamala Harris

@KamalaHarris

I sat through those hearings. Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice.

He must be impeached.

41.2K people are talking about this

Shortly after, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. She was also among the first candidates to call for President Trump’s impeachment.

“Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached,” Warren tweeted Sunday:

Elizabeth Warren

@ewarren

Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.

23K people are talking about this

Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), shortly after, also called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

He tweeted, “Yesterday, we learned of another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh—one we didn’t find out about before he was confirmed because the Senate forced the F.B.I. to rush its investigation to save his nomination. We know he lied under oath. He should be impeached.”

Beto O’Rourke

@BetoORourke

Yesterday, we learned of another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh—one we didn’t find out about before he was confirmed because the Senate forced the F.B.I. to rush its investigation to save his nomination. We know he lied under oath. He should be impeached.

8,186 people are talking about this

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said he supported “any appropriate constitutional mechanism” to hold Kavanaugh accountable, but did not specify whether that meant impeachment or an investigation.

“As a federal judge who overwhelmingly sided with corporate power and Wall Street, Brett Kavanaugh should never have been nominated. Supreme Court justices are not above the law. Someone who sits in judgment over the nation should have the highest integrity,” he tweeted.

“The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable,” he tweeted:

Bernie Sanders

@BernieSanders

As a federal judge who overwhelmingly sided with corporate power and Wall Street, Brett Kavanaugh should never have been nominated.

1,718 people are talking about this

Bernie Sanders

@BernieSanders

Supreme Court justices are not above the law. Someone who sits in judgment over the nation should have the highest integrity.

Bernie Sanders

@BernieSanders

The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable.

1,307 people are talking about this

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has not called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment, but spoke on ABC News’ This Week on Sunday about how the Justice Department would have to turn over documents of their investigation to Congress for any potential impeachment hearing.

Several progressive groups also called for Kavanaugh to be impeached — The Center for Popular Democracy, Women’s March, and Demand Justice, according to a Hill report.

They plan to protest Kavanaugh’s confirmation outside of the Supreme Court on October 6, a year after he was confirmed.

Get Ready For Apocalypse Ruth

H/T Town Hall.

When Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsberg dies we need to be prepared for a very ugly fight to fill her seat on the Supreme Court.

It will make the Brett Kavanaugh fight look like an ice cream social.

Progressives’ ghoulish glee over the death of an old man turned into barely constrained panic when, later that day, it was revealed that their heroine Ruth Bader Ginsberg was just treated for pancreatic cancer yet again. Their disgraceful joy at David Koch’s passing was yet another reminder of the harsh truth that leftists want you dead or enslaved. Koch’s sin was that he disagreed with liberals (though, in important ways, also with conservatives). For that, these cretins danced around like idiots celebrating his succumbing. And they’ll celebrate when you die too. Always believe people who tell you they hate you and want you dead.

Oh, and never disarm.

Of course, RBG is eager to disarm you, and she would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling Supreme Court kids who actually read Second Amendment. Her constitutional jurisprudence consists of disregarding what she dislikes that’s in the Bill of Rights and making up stuff that’s not in it but that she feels – not thinks, feels – should be in it. She’s a terrible justice and conservatives would love to see her step down. But our side expressed no delight in her latest suffering comparable to the giddy revelry that greeted Koch’s kicking the bucket. We’re not monsters, though how long that remains true is up in the air. When you establish New Rules they tend to come back and bite you on the Schumer.

Here’s a pro tip, liberal dummies. If you are going to normalize the hatred of political opponents and express open joy at their demise, the savvy play is to be the political faction that possesses and knows how to use AR-15s and not the one that agonizes over its pronouns.

RBG’s latest successful MMA bout with the Grim Reaper is a reminder that we conservatives need to gird our loins for what’s coming when she finally leaves the Supreme Court for good. But our anticipatory loin girding is merely prudent preparation.

In fact, most of us feel a grudging respect for Ginsburg as a worthy opponent and as one tough cookie. She’s like John McCain with a neck doily; he drove us up the wall too, but as a group we did not wish cancer on him.

Not wanting her to die a horrible death is not to sugarcoat the damage she has done with her utterly upside-down vision of our founding document, but to simply reaffirm a point that never should have been an issue but is an issue because of the shameful behavior of liberals like we saw with Koch. We conservatives don’t want people to die simply because they have different political beliefs.

But she’s very old and she’s very sick and facing that reality is not the same as high-fiving it. There’s a more than significant chance that before the 2020 election she will pass on to her reward despite her being the Energizer Bunny of being wrong wrong wrong about constitutional jurisprudence. She just keeps going and going and going, but someday she’s going to run out of juice and join her pal Antonin Scalia on the bench in the great beyond, and if that happens with Trump in the White House, ho boy.

You can relive the shameful saga of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino’s remarkable Justice on Trial. What will happen next time will pale in comparison. If you thought you saw frothy, mouth-foaming insanity last time — just you wait.

The elite’s message will combine “Trump is illegitimate” with “Cocaine Mitch is breaking precedent” and “They’re going to bring back slavery when they establish The Handmaid’s Tale as the law of the land” with a bit of “This will shred the fabric of the nation we love so much that we support jerks who kneel during the National Anthem.”

The Democrats are already prepping the battlespace with this cheesy narrative. Obama’s brain David Axelrod tweeted: “If there is a SCOTUS vacancy next year and @senatemajldr carries through on his extraordinary promise to fill it-despite his own previous precedent in blocking Garland-it will tear this country apart.” I responded to this tweet by observing – employing terms that were a bit salty and therefore shall not be linked – that the last time Democrats failed to get their way and tore the country apart, we patriots (paraphrasing) handily defeated them. But hey Dems, maybe the second time’s the charm!

It’s not worth the time to dissect the wrong premise about confirming justices during an election year in Axelrod’s wrong tweet. Liberals are disinterested in argument, and the Murder Turtle running the Senate gets this and won’t even play their game. This is about power. On an objective level, perhaps Justice Ginsburg should step down, but she has the power not to and therefore it’s silly to whine about her not doing it. Similarly, we have the power to shove a new conservative Supreme Court justice down the Dems’ throats, so it’s silly to argue with the libs about it (though our objective case for doing it is strong). After a short and dignified interregnum, once the impending RBG vacancy becomes actively vacant, Donald Trump should unashamedly use the power of the office he was elected to and nominate a replacement, and Moscow Mitch should start rushin’ toward confirming him – or her.

The fact is that soon we’re going to have six conservatives on SCOTUS, or actually, five-and-a-half if you count Justice Soft Serve Roberts.

And when this all goes down, the left will freak out in a festival of freaking outness unparalleled in American history. The Dem candidates will go nuts. Big Chief Warren will be on the warpath, Bernie will call for revolution, Harris will say whatever she thinks is useful, Biden will start talking about how JFK visited him in the White House, and Beto will continue to be a furry.

We’ll get lots of the “Orange man bad, orange man not nominate a judge because he bad” babble from the libs and their gimp media. Maddow will cry, Don Lemon will pound an umbrella drink and Tater Stelter will sweat profusely as he reads off the teleprompter about how Trump is literally Hitler. The Fredoconswill weigh in with their patented brand of sissy submission to their elite tops. We’ll be informed how taking back the Supreme Court like the geebos of Conservative, Inc., promised for three decades is actually not who we are and how we’re better than that and how oh well I never. Can you imagine Jeb! or Mitt in this situation? They would eagerly, whole-heartedly buy into the compromise unity candidate ploy to stick some moderate muggle on the bench in order to “repair the heart of our country” and “build bridges” of bipartisan love.

Trump builds victories, and he’s going to blow up that bridge.

My money is on him appointing Amy Coney Barrett, who has the unique ability to be a Scalia-like justice and to own the libs by being a woman. And not just any woman but a female woman who has kids and goes to church and is down with originalism like a boss. It’s going to be hard to paint her as the ringleader of a teen rape gang, and while her beer-appreciation status is yet unknown, it is unlikely she will have to explain to the dummies on the Judiciary Committee her high school clique’s unique flatulence euphemisms.

But they will still try to destroy her. That’s their only move, one not unrelated to the giddy cheer that greeted David Koch’s death. All we conservatives did with whoever Merrick Garland was was tell him “No.” But if you are conservative and you oppose them, they will try to wipe you out, if not literally then at least figuratively. But that’s a desperation tactic and it does not work, not if you hold strong and refuse to back down. Clarence Thomas fought back and won. Brett Kavanaugh fought back and won. And Amy Coney Barrett will fight back and she will win.

And that means our Constitution will win.

Loins, commence girding.

Read a vivid account of what happens if the left establishes its dictatorship in the ruins of the blue states in my action-packed yet hilarious novels, People’s Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire. Due to liberals being terrible, the United States splits into red and blue countries and if you think California is bad now, just wait. The Never Trump weenies hate my books, probably because people actually read my books, and these cruise-shilling losers tried to label them “Appalling” for mocking the Ahoy Boyz liberal masters. That’s a potent validation of my novels’ wokeness!

B

RBG scare: David Axelrod warns Supreme Court vacancy fight could ‘tear this country apart’

H/T The Washington Examiner.

I beg to differ with Comrade Axelrod the only problem about an opening on the Supreme Court will be a problem for liberals but not the rest of the country.

Many Americans are tired of the activist Supreme Court and want the court to become more of a Constitutional Originalist court.

That didn’t take long.

A former Obama adviser set the stage for a potentially nasty confirmation fight in the Senate next year within an hour of the Supreme Court announcing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently completed three weeks of radiation treatment after doctors found a localized cancerous tumor on her pancreas.

“If there is a SCOTUS vacancy next year and @senatemajldr carries through on his extraordinary promise to fill it-despite his own previous precedent in blocking Garland-it will tear this country apart,” David Axelrod said in a tweet Friday afternoon.

He was referring to how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier this year that the Senate would consider a presidential nominee to fill a vacancy on the court if one occurred in 2020.

“Oh, we’d fill it,” the Kentucky Republican said at an event in May.

That upset Democrats who remember the role McConnell played in blocking consideration of then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. At the time, he defended Republicans’ decision not to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland because it was a presidential election year.

Facing accusations of hypocrisy after McConnell seemingly changed his mind this year, his office claimed the senator was being consistent because he stressed that the issue three years ago was that the White House and Senate were held by different parties. In 2020, both the White House and Senate will be in Republican control.

Ginsburg, who is 86, has battled various illnesses over the last 20 years. The Supreme Court said in a statement Friday that she “tolerated the treatment well” and concluded that there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in her body.

After a third bout with cancer earlier this year, Ginsburg told NPR in July that she has no plans to retire anytime soon. She said her plan is to “stay longer” than the late Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the high court in 2010 at the age of 90.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Treated for Cancer on Pancreas

H/T Breitbart.

It is time for Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsburg to step aside so her position on the court can be filled sooner than later.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently underwent three weeks of radiation treatment following the discovery of a cancerous tumor on her pancreas, a court spokesperson announced Friday.

Ginsburg, 86, began radiation therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City on August 5th, according to the court. Doctors from the hospital said tests show that the rest of the justice’s body is cancer-free. As part of Ginsburg’s treatment, doctors inserted a stent into her bile duct.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today completed a three-week course of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City,” the court’s statement reads. “The focused radiation treatment began on August 5 and was administered on an outpatient basis to treat a tumor on her pancreas. The abnormality was first detected after a routine blood test in early July, and a biopsy performed on July 31 at Sloan Kettering confirmed a localized malignant tumor.”

“She cancelled her annual summer visit to Santa Fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule,” the statement added. “The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Justice Ginsburg will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans. No further treatment is needed at this time.”

Ginsburg, the liberal face of the Supreme Court, has fought cancer on and off for roughly two decades. She underwent a procedure to remove malignant nodules from her left lung on December 21st of last year. The cancerous growths were discovered while receiving treatment for a fall in her office. Ginsburg missed the court’s oral arguments for several days in February, participating in cases using transcripts — a first in the justice’s 25-year tenure on the bench.

Ginsburg has experienced several health issues in recent years. The justice underwent cancer surgeries in 1999 and 2009 and broke her ribs in at least two separate occasions. In 2014, Ginsburg had a stent inserted into her heart.

Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ginsburg dismissed calls to retire from the nation’s highest court during then-President Barack Obama’s second term, when a confirmation process for a liberal judge appeared less volatile due to a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Last year, Ginsburg signaled she intends to remain on the bench by hiring law clerks for at least two additional terms. In an interview last December, Ginsburg affirmedher commitment to remain a justice for “as long as I can do it full steam.”

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

H/T Fox News.

DemocRats going back to Emperor Franklin The First have wanted to pack the court.

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was “motivated by politics” more than by the law.

Dramatic changes to the Supreme Court have been proposed by several Democrats vying for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination, with “court-packing” being a common — though highly controversial — suggestion. Increasing the number of justices on the court would allow the president to shift the balance on the bench by loading up justices of his or her preference.

Democratic candidates, including former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, and Gillibrand, all have signaled an openness to expanding the number of judges on the court should they reach the White House.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has also supported expanding the court, proposing a plan to have some justices appointed by the president and others selected by the other justices in order to “depoliticize” the court. He’s admitted that the only way he can think of to make this work would be to increase the size of the court from nine justices to 15, while stressing that simply “adding more justices onto the court who agree with you” would be a bad idea.

Yet other candidates such as former Vice President Joe Biden have come out againstcourt-packing, as has Bernie Sanders, though the Vermont senator has suggested rotating judges to other courts.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also spoken out against court-packing, telling NPR in July, “Nine seems to be a good number.”

The Democratic senators’ brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an “industrial-strength influence campaign” to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

If the court still decides to hear the case, a ruling against New York City could prevent other cities and states from passing similar gun control laws.

Conservatives currently outnumber liberals on the Supreme Court 5-4, but the past year featured a multitude of cases where conservatives — including President Trump’s picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — sided with the liberal bloc.