If you’re anything of a political junkie, you’re already aware that President Trump has tapped Colorado judge Neil Gorsuch as the next justice of the Supreme Court. To all appearances he’s well-qualified and, well, if you applied to Central Casting for a Supreme Court justice, they’d send Neil Gorsuch. He’s an Episcopalian which breaks the Catholic-Jewish lock on Supreme Court nominations.
Senate Democrats must give him a grueling going-over. They’d face revolt among their own supporters if they did anything else.
IMO if they’re prudent that will just be theater. He’s probably as good as they’re going to get and they won’t be able to delay confirmation for four years. Additionally, the odds are quite high that there will be additional justices to appoint over the next several years and, if they block a well-qualified appointee with judicial temperament for policy reasons, all rules will be off for the next appointment.
What do you think of the appointment?
Update
I think that Doug Mataconis’s commentary at Outside the Beltway is solid:
Personally, I suspect that Democrats will put up a fight but that Gorusch will be ultimately confirmed. The real fight will come if and when President Trump get a chance to replace another Justice, particularly if that Justice is Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Stephen Breyer. Unlike replacing Scalia, that would be a pick that would drastically alter the direction of the Court for a generation or longer.
The comments clearly point to wanting Senate Democrats to fight the appointment to the last breath. I think that’s a strategic error.
I’m of two minds:
– On the one hand, he’s a native son (Colorado) from my generation, so confirm now.
– On the other hand, I have to question the judgment of anyone who would give up living on a ranch in Colorado to move to DC for the rest of their lives.
Meh. My prediction was that Trump would choose the guy off of the list who was under 50. I think that was the primary criteria, besides being conservative. He will get confirmed.
Steve
Actually, one of my first thoughts about his nomination was “Why would anyone want to trade CO for DC?”
Otherwise, I think Gorsuch was a prudent choice, having a steller educational background and experience in overseeing big and controversial cases. The latter will most likely fuel blowback from Dems (Hobby Lobby). But, then the new snarling Dem party would take issue with anyone the R’s put forward as the 9th SCOTUS.
BTW, I think the loyal opposition party is overplaying their legitimate checks and balance push back roles, by applying too many petty grievances too soon and with too much mean-spirited behavior. I’m even getting negative feedback from life long liberal Dem friends who are showing disgust for the childish representation of their party’s interests.
I believe the Democrats need to maintain a delicate balance. On the one hand they shouldn’t allow themselves to be rolled over by the White House or Congressional Republicans. On the other they shouldn’t go to the mat over this confirmation.
There are too many extremely vulnerable Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2018.
He’s pretty much exactly what we would expect to be nominated by a Republican in normal times.
But, these are not normal times. With the Republicans “holding open” the Scalia seat and refusing to hold hearings for nearly a year, they have destroyed normal order. A price needs to be paid.
Losing the filibuster would hurt. But there’s no point in having it if you cannot use it. Further, the Republicans will filibuster any of President Biden’s nominees in 2021 — if it’s a weapon that can only be used by the Republicans, it’s not worth having.
I also think that an energized Democratic Party — I almost wrote base, but the people protesting are far more than the base — will help a lot in 2018 and 2020.
There are some fights worth fighting, even if you will lose. This is one of them. Grill the nominee, try to find something to cause him to withdraw. Then filibuster. Then refuse to vote.
Use the filibuster to block a bad candidate not as good a candidate as might be expected. Blocking a good candidate doesn’t just make you look unreasonable. It means you are unreasonable.
Democrats need to learn that energizing the base isn’t enough. There are four incumbent Democrats running in 2018 in states that Trump carried by double digits and several more running in states Trump carried by high single digits. Democrats will need to attract moderates and independents in those states.
It’s not enough to get 100% of the vote in California if you’re losing seats everywhere else.
I agree Democrats are in a bad position. If they play super hard ball then that’s a recipe that will guarantee the end of the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. And it’s a very bad gamble because Democrats are unlikely to take back the Senate in 2018 and it seems to me that total obstruction doesn’t materially better their chances in Senate races.
Kennedy is 80, Ginsburg is 83 – both could suddenly die at anytime (just like Scalia) and then what will Democrats do if they’ve shot their load on this nomination? They’ll have lost the SCOTUS for a generation and sacrificed what’s left of their moderate wing for a counting coup political victory.
So, barring something really bad from his past, or a major screw-up during the hearings, I think he’ll get confirmed.
That’s my point.
Additionally, I think it’s better for them to be the adults in the room and let the Republicans be the bullies rather than the other way around.
Most “moderate” commentators have a similar appraisal as Mataconis, in that the real battle will come about when the trio of more liberal jurists mentioned leave the court.
Also, blocking a good candidate, so early in a new administration, is bad for either party to do. However, in the case of Garland being kept at bay from SCOTUS, an 80 year precedent, as well as Biden’s comments in the Bush era, lend credence and partisan validation for McConnell blocking Obama’s late term nomination.
Also, I think Reid’s decision, to exercise the so called nuclear option in order to expedite Obama’s judicial nominees, has created so much congressional divisiveness that it’s become less of an explosive option for the R’s now to employ.
I thought the Republicans’ stonewalling Garland’s appointment was wrong but the reality is that the Democrats gambled and lost while the Republicans gambled and won. Going after revenge is unlikely either to be effective or to improve the Democrats’ position.
As Sam Clemens said “Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest. “
“If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.â€
Nancy Pelosi
Knock yourselves out, Democrats. How long until we hear he’s a stupid racist, indeed a Nazi, who watches Long Dong Silver and picks pubic hair from Coke cans?
Nancy Pelosi is a parody. She exemplifies what everyone despises in politicians – superficial smiles, botoxed face hiding genuine human expressions, and obsessed with power and privilege. Dems would have been wise rotating her out of her house minority leadership position and putting in Congressman Ryan from Ohio, instead.
I’m no expert but based on what I’ve read if anybody believes in stare decisus this is the guy. Which would mean that most of the claims about him are wrong. He’s very unlikely to overturn settled law.
I predict he will be quite willing to overturn settled law if he thinks it was settled poorly, meaning in such a way that it does not favor the wealthy or his preferred groups.
Steve
It’s just too easy to predict what people will do rather than actually wait and see what they will do.