Weeks in advance of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a number of Democratic senators had already declared that they would vote against confirming the Supreme Court nominee. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who was one of the first to make a public statement, justified his opposition on the grounds that the nomination is for “a stolen seat being filled by an illegitimate and extreme nominee.”
America’s editors have opposed the unprecedented obstructionism of Senate Republicans who refused even to hold a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland after his nomination by President Obama, arguing that if they believed “that approving this nominee would result in unacceptable outcomes, resolving fundamental questions of social policy in the wrong direction,” then they should have had the courage to say so explicitly and vote his nomination down. While it could be argued that the Democratic senators opposing Judge Gorsuch are showing such courage now, they have—dangerously—pitched their refusal to confirm both as a tit-for-tat response to the last nomination and also in terms of the nominee’s supposed extremism. Both approaches will further entrench the stalemate in which the Supreme Court, by resolving constitutionalized questions of social policy, must constantly be the front line of the culture wars.
The Republican response to the Garland nomination was understandable on political grounds and indefensible on constitutional grounds. Democratic opposition to the Gorsuch nomination as payback is in exactly the same situation. But the attempt to portray Judge Gorsuch as “extreme” goes further. It is, in part, code language that expresses the expectation that he will not support the decisions in Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood or other cases that have made the Supreme Court the only feasible venue for adjudicating the abortion question. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts identified Judge Gorsuch’s “opinions that have demonstrated hostility to women’s reproductive rights” as a principal reason for his opposition. These opinions, however, are not on the fringe. Around 40 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases; and 8 in 10 favor restrictions on abortion, many of which are largely impossible to implement under Roe’s line of constitutional interpretation.
Preserving an absolute right to abortion does not justify pre-emptive opposition to a Supreme Court nominee. Even if Judge Gorsuch were to cast a deciding vote against the precedent of Roe v. Wade, that would simply return the question of abortion regulation to democratic resolution by Congress and state legislatures, where a debate could unfold and be resolved.
It is possible that an open debate over Judge Gorsuch’s nomination—in Senate hearings, without pre-declared opposition—would allow for reflection on how the Supreme Court ought to function and what moral and policy questions must be decided on constitutional grounds. Refusal to confirm a Supreme Court nominee because of expected policy outcomes is understandable, even if unwise. American democracy, however, will be healthier if the Senate acknowledges that nomination hearings are not an adequate arena for a serious policy debate. Like Judge Garland, Judge Gorsuch’s qualifications are excellent. He cannot be opposed on those grounds.
Judge Gorsuch's judicial record shows him to be a Scalia originalist look-alike. he will give us more decisions in the pattern of Heller, Citizens United, opposition to the contraception mandate In the ACA, and hostility to curbing discrimination against members of the LGBT community. thus, many of us who are concerned for our Republic by appointing a Scalia-like Justice oppose him for many other reasons than whatever his stand on abortion.
On abortion one does not presently have an unfettered right to an abortion. For you even to suggest that such is the case is intellectually dishonest. You do not seriously believe if Roe v. Wade falls that all states will permit abortions or that congress would pass legislation to permit it. There are sound constitutional grounds to permit a woman to seek an abortion, articulated in the original decision and others like Casey. Is having an abortion a serious moral decision. certainly but it a decision that each woman must make hopefully after due consideration. The Catholic Church should continue to make its case for its teaching on whether abortion is a sin. However, in a country as diverse as ours , it should not try to impose its will on those who do not agree with it. On the The Editors of America are a part of a drumbeat for a hierarchy that continues to be hostile to women's rights.
As Jesus said, render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. The church's main focus is morality as well as loving, forgiving and not judging; it is not legality. IMHO.
Well when it comes to murder, then legality plays a roll. When it comes to deciding tax and spend policy, I agree. They should stay out.
Right. He's great!
Right. He's great!
Judge Gorsuch deserves a hearing, but not an endorsement before a hearing is held. I have no strong opinion about him either way.
Roe vs. Wade is based on a right to privacy. Given the current ability of social media sites and government to intrude upon privacy, it would be foolish to give up protections for privacy. Abortion is wrong and the Church is right in teaching that. Abortion should be restricted in some ways - that is a matter for public debate and law. Abortion has been part of the reproductive scene for centuries and probably will be as long as humanity exists. If we could quit talking as though it can be completely eliminated by changing laws, and start talking about how to minimize it, we would be likely to make more progress than we currently do.
Choosing a Supreme Court justice on the basis of a single possible decision is as idiotic as choosing a candidate for public office on the basis of a single issue. I would hope that Judge Gorsuch is given a fair hearing and the vote on whether to confirm him is based on his qualifications - despite the nasty politics that allowed him to be nominated. I also hope all the other justices remain healthy for several more years and that the 2018 election is a bloodbath for the Republicans. Then the current president can be impeached and we can start on the process of rebuilding a reasonable government.
The title of this article should have been Justice Gorsuch's pro life views are enough reason TO support him and God willing someday he will cast the vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'd also hope for overturning the Obergefell decision, which mandated the destruction of the institution of marriage in the US, but I won't hold my breath on that one.
Patrick:
You misunderstand the notion pro life.
Please consult Robert Klahn for enlightenment.
Your friend.
Derrick
.
Well... isn't this all nice and tidy!
But I have a better idea...
Send Gorsuch packing, and re-nominate Garland.
Then... and not until then...
can we talk about "making nice" and embracing responsible Government.
.
"The Republican response to the Garland nomination was understandable on political grounds and indefensible on constitutional grounds." Your justification here is wrong on so many levels that its incomprehensible. Essentially, you are adopting a position that an abuse of power in our Congress is understandable (and therefore allowable) for political purposes. A might makes right argument. The Senators had an obligation which they failed to fulfill. They should have been barred from office for malfeasance. Instead, what's your solution? Don't oppose them. Don't call them on their malfeasance. Give in and pretend that they did not take the course of inaction that they took. Don't further the culture wars. Excuse me, the Catholic Church has been committing a slow process of suicide engaged in culture wars for most of my adult life. I'm sorry, but I cannot begin to comprehend where your heads are at in this editorial. Who wrote it?
Understandable and allowable are NOT the same thing.
Constitutionally indefensible is the ruling portion of the comment.
The editorial appears to be written by a false equivalency believer.
Elections have consequences. Republicans were under NO obligation to give Garland a hearing. You can certainly argue they should have, but actually it was completely within their constitutional grounds. President Obama could have gone around them and recessed appointed Garland but he didn't. That is the way it works.
The public could have then elected Hillary Clinton, who likely would have nominated a much more liberal judge instead, but America elected Donald Trump. That is the way it works.
I think a pro-life stance in a justice on the Supreme Court is indeed extreme and is a reason to vote against Gorsuch. He will be bad news for the rights of women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ people as well. Here's an example of his work ... http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Judge-Gorsuch-failed-our-family-11001615.php?cmpid=twitter-premium
I am not anti-abortion, I am pro-life. The pretense that the former is identical to the latter is a fraud, and a great loss to the cause of life.
Approving a typical Republican oriented justice would be abandoning the principles of social justice taught by the Catholic Church. Real pro-life is no where near the opposition to abortion coupled fervently with the belief that the proponent has no responsibility at all for the child that is born of the mother who bears the child.
True pro-life extends beyond birth, to insuring that mother and child have medical care, adequate food and housing, and opportunity to work up to a better life. None of which the right evidences any support for.
Being anti-abortion, with no support for the mother and child, is not extreme, not in today's America, but it should be.
Robert...
I can't remember reading a more compelling statement than yours.
Thank you.
.
Yes, they just believe that the private sector and private charities and encouraging the traditional family unit are better ways to solve these social ills than the government. If you are against Judge Gorsuch, you aren't pro life because you aren't committed to overturning Roe v Wade.
And let's not forget Gorsuch's history of defending torture ... https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-defended-bush-detainee-policies-9a3884f25a0c#.6b565017r ... how pro-life is that stance?
Many thanks for this info, Crystal.
Gorsuch's eyelash-fluttering flood of Oh gosh's and Oh golly gee's
cannot wash away such a depraved history.
Tank the guy.
He's a thug masquerading as a boy scout.
Derrick and Crystal
What a lawyer advocates on behalf of a client is not at all revealing as to what he personally believes or what he would decide if he were a judge on the same issue. The entire history of English and American law is based upon THE OBLIGATION OF AN ATTORNEY TO SET ASIDE HIS PERSONAL POSITION AND TO VIGOROUSLY ADVOCATE FOR HIS CLIENT'S POSITION. Any lawyer who fails to fulfill this obligation should be disbarred.
Your conclusion that Judge Gorsuch's personal position on any issue can be devined from legal positions he advocated on behalf of his client is nonsense and grossly misunderstands our legal system and the foundations of justice in the United States.
Stuart:
Bush's Justice Dept. was up to its slithering dorsal scales in celebration of prisoner abuse and torture when our swell little boy scout, in 2005, took his job at Justice.
He was no merely diligent attorney, then.
Rather, he was a slathering pal-around
quite a'quiver at the chance to slither through Bush's Swamp.
Derrick
A plethora of adjectives demeaning or characterizing Gorsuch hardly bears on or is informative to his obligations as an attorney An obligation which you seem to either not understand or that you simply refuse to accept,as inconvenient to your point
Your simple refusal to understand the nature and extent of that obligation does not negate the obligation.
let me ask you: "Did Bill Clinton's lawyer know he was lying in the Paula Jones Lawsuit?" If he did know, did that knowledge require him to step forward and denounce the lie to the Judge and the Jones Attorneys.....? Seems on your above comment he was required to do so but he didn't.
If he knew Bill Clinton was engaged in other sleazy activities , did that make the Clinton Lawyer a "slathering pal-around"..."slithering in the [Clinton's] Swamp?......based on your comment above it would seem so.
Note that while Bill Clinton was disbarred for giving this testimony (no attorney is permitted as "an officer of the court to lie to the court whether in a personal matter or acting as a lawyer for another") Bill Clinton's lawyer was NOT disbarred, just Bill.
In short a lawyer is not hired to be nor held to the standard of your referenced "Boy Scout"...However, a lawyer is required to become a Boy Scout AFTER HE BECOMES A JUDGE.
I am amused and at once annoyed that the Democrats questioning Judge Gorsuch had only one bottom line ...."Was he for the little guy or the big corporation?" (e.g., Diane Feinstein ) ..not recognizing that a Judge's primary obligation is NOT to take into account whether a plaintiff or defendant is either big or little, rich or poor....Please see the Statue of Justice who is BLINDFOLDED to represent this obligation.
Such questions betray a total misunderstanding of a Judge's principal obligation as do your and Crystal's comments.
- delete duplicate -
You miss the point, Stuart:
Good Little Neil sought the role as torture advocate.
This renders him unqualified for anything but utter contempt.
You get the final word.
PS: I, too, found the little guy strategy silly and misdirected.
Derrick
The Point:
You need to read that favorite liberal journal ...The New York Times.... which specifically refutes your position that Gorsuch "sought the role as torture advocate" see NYT march 21 article by Savage. Note that this is an update on the Savage article of March 17 which was given a tortured reading by the Center for American Progress And originally referenced by Crystal at the start of this thread..
The March 21 article makes it clear that Gorsuch was on the "losing end"of an argument about a Bush signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act ( outlawing water boarding) The Times states Gorsuch sought to clarify the issue by stating that The Detainee Treament Act simply codified existing law. That , Derrick, is a very very long way from "seeking the role of torture advocate".
The Times article was written by its own terms to determine if Diane Feinstein's referencing of an email from Gorsuch about the Bush Signing statement supported your proposition that Gorsuch sought to defend torture. But by it's own terms this article doesn't support that conclusion. If the Times couldn't support that conclusion ....then no one can because, as well you know, the New York Times would loved to have concluded otherwise.
Nice try, Stu:
But...
"The alternative draft that Judge Gorsuch backed made the case that the new torture ban was best read as merely codifying existing interrogation policies. He argued in an email that his preferred version of the draft “would help inoculate against the potential of having the administration criticized sometime in the future for not making sufficient changes in interrogation policy in light of the McCain portion of the amendment.”
Well.
Let the filibuster commence..