Trump lifts transgender bathroom guidance for students

In the continuing eradication of the progressive agenda of President Barack Obama, by the new administration of President Donald Trump, the latest reversal is the federal guideline that allowed school aged children, who identified as transgendered, be allowed to use the restroom that matched their chosen gender identity, rather than that of their birth.

Critics say that removing this right of access will lead to bullying and harassment, a view that the Trump administration, does not believe, because it says that the anti-bullying component of the legislation is still there.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers said, in her statement, "Reversing this guidance tells trans kids that it's OK with the Trump administration and the Department of Education for them to be abused and harassed at school for being trans.”

One unintended consequence is more internal division in the GOP, who say that this latest firestorm coming from Trump has not been welcomed by its older, more established Republicans who feel that the culture wars are something that they have wanted,and tried, to put behind them.

Part and parcel of the objection was the, by now, familiar refrain of, as The New York Times described: [it]“was improper and arbitrarily  devised,” and did not respect the “primary role of the states and local school districts in establishing educational policy.”

Last year, the Obama administration via the Education and Justice Departments, issued the guidelines, “saying among other things that transgender students should be called by their preferred names and pronouns, and have access to the restrooms, locker rooms, and other single-sex facilities that correspond with their gender identity.”,noted the LGBT publication, The Advocate, on its website.

At that time, one judge had issued a stay, and 13 states issued official complaints. “Even without that hold, the guidance carried no force of law. But transgender rights advocates say it was useful and necessary to protect students from discrimination. Opponents argued it was federal overreach and violated the safety and privacy of other students.” reported NBC New York.

They also noted that “The guidelines are nonbinding, but the Obama administration had warned that schools not following them could be found in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination, and face a loss of federal funding. During Obama’s presidency, the departments held that Title IX covers discrimination based on gender identity.”

This effort was largely pushed by the new Attorney General Jeff Sessions who was widely expected to quickly roll back civil rights expansion,(once he was confirmed) that were “put in place under his Democratic predecessors. “ He also worked to move quickly to avoid a possible pending decision upholding the protective laws, and thus forcing the government to litigate.

Sessions who has opposed LGBT protections in the past “pushed Ms. Devos to relent, “ said the Times. Faced with either denying Trump, or signing, she chose to go along with him. In the face of her confirmation hearing where she was not adamant about protection for minority students, of all stripes.

The news of her support for the Obama policy came as a surprise to many considering the monies spent by her family, on anti LGBT measures, and at a time when she served on their boards and family foundations, as an officer.

In a statement, released by her office, she stated that she considered it a “moral obligation” for all American schools to protect “all students from discrimination, bullying and harassment.. Yet, she framed her support in terms of state rights, not federal protection, revealing more of a prior stance, and in keeping with the Trump administration.

Also reported by some was that she and Sessions fought over the change. But, this was later denied by Sean Spicer, White House spokesperson, who instead said, that any differences were over timing and language.

Reaction from LGBT organizations has been swift and condemning. In a statement released on Wednesday, Equality Illinois stated: "We are outraged the Trump Administration would choose to target transgender children for discrimination. Rescinding the guidance letter sends a terrible message and invites personal bias to flourish in our public schools," said Brian C. Johnson, CEO.

Mrs. DeVos

Furthermore, they noted, “Equality Illinois reminds Illinois school districts that they should not feel free to adopt discriminatory policies despite the federal action. Title IX of the federal education law still protects transgender students, as most courts have agreed, and Illinois law prohibits discrimination in public places.”

Johnson said that Illinois protections for LGBTQ people include the Human Rights Act against discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and housing, the anti-bullying statute, and the ban on conversion therapy.

Using state’s rights as a cover, a holdover from the opposition to civil rights for Black Americans, in the 1960s, this action fulfills a campaign promise, and some say the president’s pressure from the religious right., But, from whatever source the tape is unwound, and the damage, or potential for damage, is done.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality said this about the motive behind the change.  "That message is sure to empower bullies. But it does not change the legal and moral duty of schools to support all students. That’s why the nation’s education leaders and more and more schools in every part of the country are supporting transgender students, and that won’t change."

“What could possibly motivate a blind and cruel attack on young children like this?” added Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin. “These transgender students simply want to go to school in the morning without fear of discrimination or harassment.   The consequences of this decision will no doubt be heartbreaking. This isn’t a ‘states rights’ issue, it’s a civil rights period.”

In the absence of  the Obama directive, “it will be up to states and school districts to interpret federal anti-discrimination law and determine whether students should have access to restrooms in accordance with their expressed gender identity and not just their biological sex,” said the news station.

“A patchwork of state laws could continue to emerge as a result of the change. Fifteen states have explicit protections for transgender students in their state laws, and many individual school districts in other states have adopted policies that cover such students on the basis of their gender identity, said Sarah Warbelow.”

As many have noted, myself included, the Trumpian style, as it were, is designed to play to the base, create chaos, or a chaotic response, then circle back, and try some fence mending. Yet, even on a hot button issue, as being transgendered, when children and young people, are involved, the waters get muddy. The attempt, by some, to portray Trump as a prisoner of the right, along with Devos, is not convincing.  What gives us pause is that resurrecting this wedgee issue, is more of an effort to distract the public from the far more convincing charge of missteps, and impolitic behavior that have marked these five weeks in office.

The Lonely Passion of Janet Yellen

Mrs. Yellen

Janet Yellen may not be contemplating retirement, but she may well linger a moment longer over her evening cocktail as she assesses the last two years of reporting to Congress, as the Federal Reserve Board Chair is required to do semiannually, and as she did last week.

In 2015, I wrote how she got roughed up by Congressman Jeb Hensarling and Sean Duffy, who had accused her of a coverup of a meeting with investors, that ultimately went nowhere.

Now, in 2017, with again that long drive up the Hill, she removed the dovish outlook that she had previously taken, in favor of one that was more hawkish due to the improved gain in jobs; and a growing U.S. economy, that would put the Fed in line with its historic goal of improving conditions for employment, and meeting inflation goals, generally seen as 2 percent.

The reliably reticent Mrs. Yellen, whose data driven foundation, had led her, to the consternation of some, to be ever cautious as she increased interest rates, must have seemed chipper that she was able to see the path ahead, that so many desired. After all there was sustained job growth, with 190,000 jobs added in the second half of 2016, and 227,000 expected the first quarter of this year.

On the first day, at the Senate, she said that the Fed was open to increasing interest rates further, but emphasized, “As I noted on previous occasions, waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise, potentially requiring the FOMC to eventually raise rates rapidly, which could risk disrupting financial markets and pushing the economy into recession.”

While she would not commit to a March increase, most observers have said they are waiting, and watching, for the new Trump administration fiscal policy. But, as Business Insider noted, “The Fed's outlook remains nimble and open to adapting to changing economic circumstances.”

Critics point out, however, despite that, the often disjointed, and even cumbersome efforts, from the Trump White House, (in other policy areas), seen over the last four weeks, make them fearful. This despite an overall favorable disposition to a businessmen being president.

With Yellen’s appearance before the House, aggression, again ruled the day, “After eight years, there is zero evidence that zero interest rates and a bloated Fed balance sheet lead to a healthy economy,” House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) told Yellen.

His voice leads that of many Republicans who feel that the Fed’s direction, under Yelen, and their holding reserves of $4.65 trillion, including $2.5 trillion in treasuries and $1.8 trillion in mortgage-related securities, has been unproductive. Along with others in the the GOP, Hensarling feels that they need to be shrunk.

When she was asked when the Fed would begin reducing the size of its more than $4 trillion balance sheet, which has grown with the Fed’s successive rounds of bond purchases aimed at lowering long term interest rates, Yellen said that Fed officials do not feel the bond holdings should be reduced until they have raised its benchmark rate, currently at a range of 0.5 percent to 0.75 percent, to a more normal level of 1.24 percent to 1.5 percent which would give the Feds room to lower the rate if the economy was given an unexpected jolt.

In the anti-regulatory atmosphere, that is as much a part of Washington, now as partisanship, Yellen has remained open to change, including Dodd-Frank, saying, in part, easing regulatory burden was a “legitimate and important goal,”

As The Washington Post reported, “Hensarling indicated that he would be pushing his legislation to limit the Fed’s independence by requiring the central bank to follow a numerical formula for setting interest rates and by subjecting the Fed’s interest rate decisions to audit by the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress.”

Standing her ground, Yellen said she is opposed to both of his proposals, arguing that although the Fed can consider various formulas during its discussions on interest rates,  “no single formula offers the flexibility the Fed needs in making decisions,” and that using them “would result in poor economic performance."

“I think central banks all over the world have recognized that an independent central bank that can focus on the long-term health of the economy . . . gives rise to a better economic environment,” Yellen said. She stressed that, “I see well-capitalized banks that are regarded as safe, strong and sound.”

While the GOP is focusing on profitability versus regulation, the identifying the very role of a central bank is up for dibs. But, most economists feel that a strong central bank is associated with lowered, and more stable, rates of inflation. Moreover, for people like Hensarling, there is no real relationship between central bank independence and true economic activity; and no correlation with average unemployment, the volume of unemployment, and average growth in the GDP, or its volatility, to name but a few.

In the absence of a financial policy, from Trump, many critics of the GOP, feel that there is an overzealous quest for deregulation, that ignores basic economic principles.

Repeating the remarks that she delivered on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee, Yellen, at the House, indicated that the Fed, which has “implemented two modest quarter-point interest rate hikes over the past two years, is likely to accelerate increases this year if the labor market remains healthy and inflation continues to move toward the Fed’s 2 percent target.”

On the the button issue of bank regulation, Yellen agreed that Dodd-Frank regulations on the nation’s community banks “were burdensome and needed to be modified. But she argued that the requirements imposed on the nation’s largest banks in terms of increasing the amount of capital they need to hold, and in subjecting them to annual stress tests, had made the financial system safer.” In fact, only 4 percent of banks in a national survey said they had trouble obtaining loans, and indeed these were smaller banks.

GOP lawmakers have urged the chair to abandon any new rules, or regulations, in their anti-regulatory mode, until President Trump filled two vacant slots and one pending. But Yellen has said that any new regional heads could review any regulations, and voice objections, or request changes.

U.S. bankers and their lobbyists have devoted much of their recent attention to the never-filled Fed role of vice chairman for supervision, which was created by Dodd-Frank. Yellen laid out some of her plans for how she’ll treat a Trump appointee to that role, including allowing the person to represent the Fed in international talks over bank rules.

Trump, who has called Dodd-Frank a “disaster,” signed an executive order earlier this month instructing the Treasury Department to examine financial rules and file a report on its findings within 120 days. In response, Yellen has said, I certainly do agree with the core principles," Yellen said. “They enunciate very important goals for our financial system."

She also told Bloomberg News, that “she looks forward to working with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on the review. And, in her Tuesday speech she said that she agrees with the principles outlined in the administration’s executive order, which include preventing taxpayer bailouts of banks, making regulations more efficient and targeting government policies that might encourage financial executives to take undue risks.”

Her answer, or course is diplomatic, but also reveals the diplomatic posture needed in Washington, even though, there may be howls for her head on a platter. But, with no Salome in sight, Yellen seems safe enough.

During the campaign, Trump said that she should be “ashamed” of the way she ran the Fed. Yellen’s four year term ends in January of 2018, and she told Sen. Lamar Alexander, that she intended to finish that term.

Republicans are eager to place their own people in two vacant positions, and one pending, that of Daniel Tarullo, the Fed’s leading official on bank regulations, who recently announced that he will step down in  April. The seven member board could easily be influenced, many say, by the upcoming administrations views. Anticipation builds.

U.S. gets the Trump touch, just part of the plan

Those that were against the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban from seven mostly Muslim countries, received the good news, Thursday, that the stay would be continued; after being maintained by a federal appeals court which said it was determined to “stay in it for the long haul,” as Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, said in Seattle.

“The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Seattle federal judge’s earlier restraining order on the new policy should remain in effect while the judge further examines its legality,” reported The New York Times.

Moreover they also noted  with this action, “The panel, suggesting the ban did not advance national security, said that the administration had pointed to “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations had committed terrorism in the United States.”

Supporting the traditional American concept of checks and balances, they emphasized that “It is beyond question,” the unsigned decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” In fact judges have a crucial role to play in this time honored, indeed enshrined system.

Reaction, from President Trump, was an assertion that judges were preventing the nation from being safe from the threat of terrorism, or to use his words, radical Islamic terrorists,” despite the fact that no recent acts have been committed by members of these seven countries, with many carried out by U.S. citizens, claiming influence from radical Islamic terrorists from abroad.

The panel did acknowledge, and gave defence to any president’s traditional role but also said, in no uncertain terms, “The government has taken the position,” the decision said, “that the president’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.” In fact they noted, he wants far more than deference.

The angry response from the president was, in the now expected form of a tweet, “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

Accusing “them” of playing politics, was part and parcel of the Trump playbook, that takes little from the truth to advance a distinct political agenda, one that is part of his plan, much like the playbook itself, but also to keep the campaign promises that he laid out on the campaign trail that America had been badly led, was in deplorable shape, and whose very existence was threatened by the travel of even legal residents, as well as foreign exchange students from those countries.

As we have seen before, from radical politicians, like Trump,(aided by Steve Bannon, his strategist) can now send the well-honed message that these “pesky liberal activist judges are keeping the country unsafe, and that he, and he alone, can prevent disaster.”

Trump is very aware that his slim margin from the electoral college, not much higher than John Kennedy in 1960 (whose Catholicism cost him many votes) is hardly suggestive of a mandate, and it stings him. This is also why he is adamant that there were illegal voting patterns that prevented him from  gaining the popular vote, lead, which Hillary Clinton received. If he can establish in the minds of his supporters that he was cheated, then it shows him, and the world, that the electorate was unequivocally behind him and not Clinton. Or, in the parlance of competitive sports, “he was robbed.”

In an earlier time, in the not too distant past, there was something called disinformation, and itself was often disguised as misinformation --- a deliberate attempt by some politicians at labelling a falsehood, as truth, often containing some elements of the truth encapsulated as a lie.

What the president, and his team, have done is taken this.and re-spun it (Yes, Dorothy one can even re-spin spin)  to make not only an alternative universe, which helps, but most importantly to project a political agenda. This is what we have here, and this is what we will see more of in the balance of the 100 day tradition.

An overlooked aspect of the new administration is that it has a crusade like aspect that cannot be overlooked, and one that needs actions to rally the base to help sustain it.in its quest for dominance. The probable step of taking his fight to the Supreme Court is the next action. Subsequently, there will be speeches, by every group in the country, flags will fly, banners will wave, and the president can say, “I have fought for national security all the way to the Supreme Court. This is how much I want to protect you and make America great again!”

The truth is really irrelevant. What is dominant with this new paradigm is that the Chief Crusader for the nation is Donald J. Trump. And, don’t forget the exclusion of Christians, whh have “suffered so badly” trying to immigrate. Again, not true, but the statement fits the crusade narrative, too neatly. In fact, when reading it I thought Bannon might have take the analogy too far, but since so few people read history anymore, and since he knows that, it worked.

Chaos also has a role to help propel the agenda forward, and the madness and the protests that were seen at airports were just what was desired, and which pleased the White House to no end --- in fact tagging onto that was the president’s assertion that it all worked so well -- he almost slipped with that remark, and had to quickly amend it to say only 109.000 had been effected. False? Yes, but it helped the narrative to stay on script, and with a former reality TV star, staying on script is vital.

Now that the system of checks and balances are once more, front, and center, the administration's narrative will have a new sub-text, already there are those that are saying immigration will be the next topic of the next executive order. And, just in time. I am already hearing some people say, “They have to leave, they broke the law,” much like a veteran of the war in Afghanistan told me, of Muslims in America: “They can never, ever, come over here.”

The ensuing chaos is also part of the plan. As I have noted before Trump’s “get tough” stance is one that he has consistently portrayed, and in case, no one believed him, the proof we have seen with the ban, as he and his advisers stood tall on the parapet watching the confusion below.

Indeed, the Chicago Tribune in an earlier report said that Steve Bannon, “the former head of the far-right website Breitbart News, once said his goal was to ‘bring down everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.’”

Neil Gorsuch making the grade for the Supreme Court

Neil Gorsuch

Minority status in Congress is not an enviable spot for any of the two major political parties in the U.S. -- but it’s definitely not so when the former has lost the White House and Congress in a brittle, brutal, and near punishing trouncing by a non-politician with a theatrical flair, and whose rallies seemed more like Barnum and Bailey than the limits of political theater have previously allowed.

Now comes the possible bruising fight for the man, some have called, “Scalia without a scowl”, the affable, and boyishly handsome, Neil Gorsuch, whom everyone has praised as being a clear writer with a literate flair for judicial writing. While filling the vacuum may be the heartfelt desire of President Trump, others concerned that the Denver native might go postal on social issues, like abortion, women’s rights and gay rights, aren’t so sure.
 
They don’t have too much to go on as this Ivy Leaguer’s writings have not indicated too much beyond showing him as a moderate conservative, in most every case, not a radical.

Gorsuch self identifies, as a constitutional constructionist - that is one who hews closely to the original intent of the framers of this august document. This is very much in the tradition of Scalia, and is not an automatic disqualifier, but some say that moving away from that “creates” policy influenced by politics, pointing to the example of the Warren Court.

The only whiff of scandal was decades ago, with his mother’s role as the Environmental Protection Agency’s head.  Ann Gorsuch’s tenure as the first administrator, and its first female leader, was one marked by, noted The Washington Post, “sharp budget cuts, rifts with career EPA employees, a steep decline in cases filed against polluters and a scandal over the mismanagement of the Superfund cleanup program that ultimately led to her resignation in 1983.”

There are still some that say; it was asked for by President Ronald Reagan. Of course, one hardly wishes the sins of the mother to be revisited on the son.
 
What has been examined by concerned liberals is his support for the Hobby Lobby decision decision decision which says that business owners do not have to violate their religious beliefs to fulfill the law - in this case the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Seen as a landmark victory by those that support religious freedom the decision also affected another case with The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic women's religious order.
 
For the former he wrote: “The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.”  And, for the latter he wrote, ““When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”
 
What is at stake, say those who favor reproductive rights is a broad reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that might threaten future cases, or the bete-noire law of Roe V. Wade. The Trump administration has a fierce advocate in the pro-life movement especially with Mike Pence, the Vice-President, even though President Trump’s views have evolved against abortion, over the years.
 
While much of his work in Denver has been prosaic -- insurance and contract work seem to dominate -  there is one area that he will not compromise on: a strong belief against the court paying deference to regulatory agencies. As The Denver Post noted, “Gorsuch has been a leader in the conservative rethinking of deference to agencies, arguing that too often they exercise executive, legislative and judicial functions at once — and that the Constitution aims to prevent this dangerous concentration of power.”
 
With a concentration by other cabinet members and officials, state’s rights, once the rallying call of anti-civil rights advocates, it has now has taken on new usage, despite antecedents.
 
Gorsuch may also pull for state’s rights and as the Post noted, “even when Congress has failed to push states out of regulatory fields, the courts have sometimes held that they were treading on federal turf."
 
In a doctrine called the “dormant” or “negative” commerce clause, it divides conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas,who  is a skeptic, and so was Justice Scalia. But their opinions have not prevailed, and Justice Samuel Alito has defended it, as has Gorsuch.
 
Some of his dissensions will prove worrisome to some -- for example he dissented in a temporary injunction against a judge who wanted a stay in funding for Planned Parenthood, after a series of videos by purported journalists, that were heavily edited to reflect the sale of fetal tissue.
 
In light of the police shootings, mainly involving black men, and videotapes of police behavior, Gorsuch may prove to be a “law and order” man, In a case where a man was tasered after reaching into his pocket, several times. He wrote the prevailing opinion where he said, “The situation at the time the officer fired his taser was … replete with uncertainty and a reasonable officer in his shoes could have worried he faced imminent danger from a lethal weapon. A reasonable officer need not await the glint of steel before taking self-protective action.”
 
There is a certain ambiguity in his stance towards immigration, and while in a previous case he expressed concern about due process for an immigrant, he also took the chance to look at how the case reflected on agency interpretations of the law, that he feels are appropriate for the court.
 
Of course the confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee will create intense examination, especially of one so young, as Gorsuch, whose lifetime tenure can have a myriad effect on future cases before the Court.
 
While the Democrats, some have said, are contemplating a filibuster, Trump has instructed the Senate to “go nuclear” and make rule changes for an up and down vote. Yet, the Dems are unlikely to take even this relatively mild appointment lying down as they saw Republicans mount a heated campaign citing, mis-citing, history with President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland for the Scalia spot.
 
They misread history and said that it was too late in the Obama term to confirm Garland. In fact, they were wrong, with some notable precedents: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, nominated by Woodrow Wilson, was confirmed five months before the presidential elections, in June of 1916. And, perhaps most speedily, President Benjamin Harrison’s nominee George Shiras was confirmed four months before the 1892 election..
 
Leading the opposition to Garland was Sen, Mitch McConnell, the majority leader who said, that the “voters should have a say”, in filling the vacancy. By this he meant that the voters should elect a Republican to the presidency so that he could nominate one of his own, not the electorate.
 
Despite defectors such as then Senator Mark Kirk, who broke rank and asked for an up and down vote, the majority stood firm, having their wish fulfilled that Hillary Clinton would be defeated. Now they have that chance.
 
In return, the Dems could resurrect what they did to the Robert Bork nomination in 1987 where they mounted a campaign to discredit and defeat him with 54 votes, when Reagan wanted him to fulfill the Powell vacancy.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, within 45 minutes of the announcement from the White House, said:

“Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizen.”

Things got tense with ongoing considerations by women’s groups and civil rights group, like the NAACP, (Bork was opposed to the Warren and Burger courts action supporting civil rights) and said so, even opposing voting rights for blacks.

“Pro-choice legal groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he be named to the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. These groups also claimed that Bork's second marriage to a former Roman Catholic nun would allow her to influence his decisions on the abortion issue,.” going from bad to worse.

With Bork, it could be argued this long record of opposition to civil rights for blacks, contraceptives and other liberal touchstones was fodder for the opposition. It is less so for the clean shaven, and clean cut Gorsuch, whose record is less harsh, and who looks less menacing than the burly, scraggly bearded Bork. At the time,the TV critic at The Washington Post, when he viewed the hearings, said that "He looked and talked like a man who would throw the book at you — and maybe the whole country."

But managing a well-financed  campaign even without the imprimatur, and political genius, of Kennedy might well show the Trump administration, that all is not to be had in the first 100 days.

The confirmation is a lengthy process and could take 10 weeks, or more, and while some say April, that would be a longshot. For Sonia Sotomayor it was 10 months and 87 days before her confirmation. Time marches on.

Update: On Wednesday, in response to President Trump saying that the Washington state judge who stayed his travel ban, was, in his estimation, a "so-called judge" in a tweet. Gorsuch, in turn, told Sen. Richard Blumenthal that the president's remarks were "demoralizing and disheartening."  Trump also tweeted that the senator lied about his service in Vietnam, when he actually served in the U.S. These statements were made in 2010, which he later apologized for, saying that he misspoke. Trump's sideswipe, said Blumenthal, was not about him, but that he revealed the Gorsuch reaction in a private conversation. White House spokesperson, Sean Spicer later said that Gorsuch was not talking about any specific case. Reaction has been fraught with rumor and innuendo, with some saying that the reaction was calculated for an intentional leak, or that he favors an independent judiciary. There has been no further comment from Judge Gorsuch..