At Slate Mark Joseph Stern, writing of Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch, notes:
Although he is a rock-ribbed conservative, he conveys his ideas fluently and courteously and is well-liked by his colleagues on the left and right. And though his rulings can be reactionary, he has never directly stated his opposition to hot-button legal issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Democrats may argue that Gorsuch is an illegitimate justice in a stolen seat, but the judge himself will not fit easily into the role of a villain. Whatever extreme positions he may hold will be concealed by his humble, articulate demeanor. It seems overwhelmingly likely that Gorsuch will soon sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
and closes:
If confirmed, Gorsuch will restore the ideology of the Supreme Court to about where it was before Scalia died. He is vastly more conservative than Judge Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee whom Republicans blocked for nearly a year in the hope—now realized—that a Republican might appoint Scalia’s successor. The memory of this ghastly disregard of basic constitutional norms will hang over Gorsuch’s hearings and may even tarnish his legacy. His confirmation process will have the whiff of illegitimacy, which Democrats will attempt to use to keep him off the court. But this strategy seems destined to fail, because it is so difficult to explain what is objectionable about Gorsuch himself. Yes, he is conservative, but he is not a rank partisan like Justice Samuel Alito, or a flame-throwing culture warrior like Scalia. He is a judge’s judge. And he is, in all likelihood, our next Supreme Court justice.
As I have written before, I think that the Republican majority in the Senate should have confirmed President Obama’s selection, Merrick Garland. And I agree with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s observation that President Trump might have appointed a “consensus candidate” but failed to do so. So might President Obama. What would such a consensus candidate have looked like? Presumably, one that would not have changed the ideological balance of the court.
Would Republicans have backed such a candidate? We’ll never know. Will Democrats support Neil Gorsuch? We may know in due course. If no Democrats support the appointment, I believe they’ll be making the same error as the Republicans did and two wrongs still do not make a right.
President Obama gambled in the Garland appointment and lost; the Republicans gambled in their refusal to confirm his appointment and won.
I hope that some Democrats find it in their hearts to confirm Judge Gorsuch’s appointment, as some Republicans found it in their hearts to confirm Justices Sotomayor and Kagan’s. Increasing escalation inevitably leads to violent confrontation.
