Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 08:56 AM Mar 2017

Democrats should make a deal on Gorsuch - WaPo Editorial Board

By Editorial Board March 22 at 7:32 PM

SENATE MAJORITY Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) chastised Democrats on Tuesday for threatening to block Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. “If Judge Gorsuch can’t achieve 60 votes in the Senate, could any judge appointed by a Republican president be approved with 60 or more votes in the Senate?”

Well, that is rich. Democrats said the same sorts of things about Merrick Garland, the judge President Barack Obama nominated more than a year ago, whom Mr. McConnell blocked in a cynical power play. In fact, Democrats had more reason to complain: More than Mr. Gorsuch, whom conservative activist groups handpicked, the moderate Mr. Garland was a consensus nominee. Of all the people to take Democrats to task, Mr. McConnell has the least standing.

Nevertheless, the national interest requires that Democrats judge Mr. Gorsuch “on the merits,” as Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said at this week’s confirmation hearings. Those merits include top-flight academic credentials, a decade on the federal appeals bench, a “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association and the support of some key Obama administration legal officials. In his hearings, Mr. Gorsuch defended judicial independence, went as far as he could in criticizing President Trump’s bullying of federal judges, and expressed reverence for legal precedent.

Mr. Gorsuch answers were far from perfect. He was overcautious in discussing his legal thinking during his hearings. He said less than previous nominees on long-established precedents, raising questions about why. Though he defended the “originalist” approach, holding that the law should be read as it was understood when written, he said too little about what happens when the original meaning was in dispute at the time or is debatable now. Despite its adherents’ pretensions, originalism often provides inadequate guidance, and some originalists have used the approach as pretext to embrace conclusions at least as arbitrary and ideological as those they criticize. Moreover, though he would deny he sent any such message, Mr. Gorsuch’s past writing signaled skepticism of some important existing precedent.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-should-make-a-deal-on-gorsuch/2017/03/22/9e35d790-0f35-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.d00271ef7e23&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

FBaggins

(26,757 posts)
5. Those two statements don't go together
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 09:30 AM
Mar 2017

They can filibuster if they want... But they don't have the power to leave the seat open.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
2. "would be deeply unwise and injure both parties in the long term" - no supporting argument for that
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 09:03 AM
Mar 2017

claim appears in the article. Was it unwise for both parties to eliminate the filibuster for
appointees other than Supreme Court nominees previously?


FBaggins

(26,757 posts)
7. Haven't read the article, but what I saw yesterday was...
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 09:38 AM
Mar 2017

... they're looking for a "gang of 14" type of deal - where seven Democrats agree to vote against a filibuster in exchange for seven Republicans agreeing to oppose any rule change (thus preserving the filibuster for future USSC nominees during the remainder of Trump's four years).

This would actually be a great idea (though many here will insist otherwise). The problem is that there's no reason for Republicans to make such a deal. They aren't worried about a filibuster of Gorsuch (in fact probably want it).

MurrayDelph

(5,301 posts)
11. So we should
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 11:06 AM
Mar 2017

cave in so we can keep an arrow we're never allowed to use, no matter how needed, when the other side has shown that they consider keeping deals to be a sign of weakness?

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
8. I just hope Mcconnell doesn't go nuclear
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 09:40 AM
Mar 2017

If we didn't have so many Supreme Court justices close to retirement, I wouldn't care but this has to be played perfectly by the democratic senators.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
10. answers mean nothing. His record tells the true story
Thu Mar 23, 2017, 10:45 AM
Mar 2017

the hearings are a dog and pony show to make sure the nominee can recognize that someone is asking him a question and answer it without cursing or wetting himself.

Sort of like elections.

Money and record says more than statements and platforms on the campaign trail, which is why I told my students even if they agreed with Trump, there was no way to tell what he would actually try to do since he had no record as a politician and until pretty late in the day, no donors that the public knew about.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Democrats should make a d...