Interesting analysis from someone who opposes Trumpism:
See link for the Good and the Bad
The Politics: There are a lot of important areas where Gorsuch has no record at all. Some of these issues are especially critical right now, including press freedom, free expression and the right to protest, various “war on terror” issues and forensics issues such as the confrontation clause and ongoing disputes over Daubert analyses.
Gorsuch could, of course, deviate from his record in any number of ways once he’s on the court. But all told, my own feeling is that this is a surprisingly good pick from Trump. The general sentiment around Washington is that Trump basically outsourced the job of picking a nominee. That seems about right. If Trump had really been paying attention or had the capacity to really research his pick, it seems doubtful that the president we’ve seen over the past 12 days would have chosen someone so skeptical of executive power or that the guy who campaigned on law and order would have chosen a judge with Gorsuch’s history on the Fourth Amendment. Not only is this a pick that could have been made by an alternative-universe President Marco Rubio or President Mitt Romney, it would have been an encouraging, good pick from them, too.
There is, of course, the matter of Merrick Garland. Progressive activists are pushing Democrats to block Gorsuch at all costs, not because of his record, but because of the Republicans’ unprecedented denial of even a vote for Garland last year. I’ll just state before going any further that I think Republicans’ behavior with respect to Garland was unconscionable, as was Mitch McConnell’s promise to also block any nominees should Hillary Clinton win the election. It was a gross violation of democratic norms.
That said, this doesn’t seem like the time to revisit that fight. Trump has nominated a thoughtful judge who seems as likely to challenge the inevitable future Trump power grabs as any justice on the court. The added bonus here is that should it come to that, Trump would be opposed by his own nominee.
One can certainly understand the desire for retribution. But a protracted battle here would be counterproductive. On many issues, including most of those we cover here at The Watch, Gorsuch’s record suggests that he’d actually be to the left of Garland. He’s certainly better than the other “finalists” Trump was considering. Moreover, approving Gorsuch would give the Democrats added credibility down the line should they need to oppose Trump’s replacement of, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy — or should he nominate someone far more troubling, like Pryor. Adopting the GOP line of opposing all Supreme Court nominees from the opposing party at all times won’t win over fence-sitters, and it also isn’t likely to be successful.
I think Trump presents a unique threat to American democracy. In fact, I think there’s small but not insignificant risk that he represents the end of American democracy. (If that sounds like hyperbole, remember that his top adviser Steve Bannon has compared himself to Lenin.) In that context, Gorsuch is something of a gift — although probably an unintentional one.
An opposition party should choose its battles carefully. Over the past several days, tens of thousands of people have taken to airports, streets and congressional offices to protest Trump’s odious immigration order and the reckless manner in which it was carried out. Draft orders leaked by the administration this week are more frightening still. I can’t say for certain that Gorsuch thinks those orders are unlawful, but he does have a history of ruling against the executive overreach in immigration cases. The Post reported yesterday that Jeff Sessions not only helped plan Trump’s first week in office but also wanted Trump to go a lot farther — and is the “intellectual godfather” of some of the ugliest facets of Trumpism. If the Democrats are going to muster the will and political capital to tank a nominee and send the Trump administration a message, Sessions seems like a far better target.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.413b1b6fdc2d
See link for the Good and the Bad
The Politics: There are a lot of important areas where Gorsuch has no record at all. Some of these issues are especially critical right now, including press freedom, free expression and the right to protest, various “war on terror” issues and forensics issues such as the confrontation clause and ongoing disputes over Daubert analyses.
Gorsuch could, of course, deviate from his record in any number of ways once he’s on the court. But all told, my own feeling is that this is a surprisingly good pick from Trump. The general sentiment around Washington is that Trump basically outsourced the job of picking a nominee. That seems about right. If Trump had really been paying attention or had the capacity to really research his pick, it seems doubtful that the president we’ve seen over the past 12 days would have chosen someone so skeptical of executive power or that the guy who campaigned on law and order would have chosen a judge with Gorsuch’s history on the Fourth Amendment. Not only is this a pick that could have been made by an alternative-universe President Marco Rubio or President Mitt Romney, it would have been an encouraging, good pick from them, too.
There is, of course, the matter of Merrick Garland. Progressive activists are pushing Democrats to block Gorsuch at all costs, not because of his record, but because of the Republicans’ unprecedented denial of even a vote for Garland last year. I’ll just state before going any further that I think Republicans’ behavior with respect to Garland was unconscionable, as was Mitch McConnell’s promise to also block any nominees should Hillary Clinton win the election. It was a gross violation of democratic norms.
That said, this doesn’t seem like the time to revisit that fight. Trump has nominated a thoughtful judge who seems as likely to challenge the inevitable future Trump power grabs as any justice on the court. The added bonus here is that should it come to that, Trump would be opposed by his own nominee.
One can certainly understand the desire for retribution. But a protracted battle here would be counterproductive. On many issues, including most of those we cover here at The Watch, Gorsuch’s record suggests that he’d actually be to the left of Garland. He’s certainly better than the other “finalists” Trump was considering. Moreover, approving Gorsuch would give the Democrats added credibility down the line should they need to oppose Trump’s replacement of, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy — or should he nominate someone far more troubling, like Pryor. Adopting the GOP line of opposing all Supreme Court nominees from the opposing party at all times won’t win over fence-sitters, and it also isn’t likely to be successful.
I think Trump presents a unique threat to American democracy. In fact, I think there’s small but not insignificant risk that he represents the end of American democracy. (If that sounds like hyperbole, remember that his top adviser Steve Bannon has compared himself to Lenin.) In that context, Gorsuch is something of a gift — although probably an unintentional one.
An opposition party should choose its battles carefully. Over the past several days, tens of thousands of people have taken to airports, streets and congressional offices to protest Trump’s odious immigration order and the reckless manner in which it was carried out. Draft orders leaked by the administration this week are more frightening still. I can’t say for certain that Gorsuch thinks those orders are unlawful, but he does have a history of ruling against the executive overreach in immigration cases. The Post reported yesterday that Jeff Sessions not only helped plan Trump’s first week in office but also wanted Trump to go a lot farther — and is the “intellectual godfather” of some of the ugliest facets of Trumpism. If the Democrats are going to muster the will and political capital to tank a nominee and send the Trump administration a message, Sessions seems like a far better target.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.413b1b6fdc2d
