The Hon. Neil Gorsuch, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge and fourth-generation Coloradoan, has been tapped by Trump as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This pick comes after much consternation, on both sides, as to whom he would pick. Our world of judge-made law (consider Obergefell and Roe as just two examples) means that Supreme Court picks are even more weighted than ever was intended by the Founders.
That being said, Gorsuch is as fine a pick as we could wish for. He’s brilliant, attended all the right schools, clerked for Justice Kennedy, and has enjoyed a fine career on the bench. In an ordinary world, a man of such qualifications would pass almost without a second thought.
But our world is topsy-turvy. A world where substitute drama teachers, reality TV stars, and community organizers govern nations. In a world where “normalcy” is unbearable, Gorsuch will be fought by a Left which still cannot control itself after the election.
The SCOTUS Seat Was Not Stolen
In addition to rioting over Milo, the Left has been complaining that the empty Supreme Court seat is a “stolen seat,” taken rightfully from Obama and handed unjustly to Trump. Here’s why that’s absurd: the Senate is not required to vote on a Supreme Court nominee in a certain amount of time. In theory, it could leave a seat open for years (though one hopes they would not do so).
The current Senate avoided confirming Obama’s own pick, the Hon. Merrick Garland, because of something called the Biden Rule. The Biden Rule is not an actual rule, and there’s nothing in either the Constitution or the Senate rules which says they shouldn’t consider a Supreme Court nominee. But this Rule was nevertheless argued for by then-Senator Joe Biden in 1992. After 3 ugly Court fights–over Justice Rehnquist 1986, Justice Bork 1987 and Justice Thomas 1991–Biden gave a speech in which he argued that, in an election year, a President should not force the issue of a Supreme Court pick on the Senate.
Flash forward to 2016, and the Republican controlled Senate chose not to consider Obama’s nominee. This could be called political opportunism. Or, it could be called disallowing a lame duck nomination–which is exactly what then-Senator Biden called for in his own Rule.
Hypocrisy On Display
The left’s hypocrisy on this issue, however, has been perfectly clear. Here’s a few prominent examples:
- In 2007, Democrat Chuck Schumer declared in a speech to the American Constitution Society that, “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances.” While this did not occur during Bush’s final year in office, we should not doubt Schumer’s willingness to hold up a Court nominee.
- In 2016, the Democrats found Biden’s decades old remarks to be deeply embarrassing. Even Biden tried to distance himself from his own words.
- In 2006, the Senate had no issue with Gorsuch as a judicial nominee: the body unanimously confirmed Gorsuch for the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Democrats seemed entirely willing to support the Biden rule in the past, and didn’t find Gorsuch distasteful just ten years ago. So, what changed?
Is that because, in 1992, it would have helped Democrats to not have George H.W. Bush nominate a Justice, but in 2016, it hurt them? Nah, it can’t be! we all know that Democrats are idealists, who don’t care for the nitty-gritty of power politics, right?
Politics Run Amok
What changed is that Trump won. Astonishingly, he is following through on his promises to nominate a conservative justice–or, better put, an originalist justice. Trump’s follow through on many of his promises has left conservatives aghast and progressives apoplectic.
The recent protest at the Supreme Court building tells us much about the Left’s desire to block Gorsuch. Protesters were holding signs, with the word “#STOP” followed by a blank. We may presume the blank was left for protesters to insert whatever name came up. So, they have penned in the name “Gorsuch.”
Progressives have always been impatient, now they protest for something without knowing who it is they’re protesting against. But it doesn’t matter: all that matters is that the person is not “us,” which makes him one of “them.” Therefore, he is evil. I suspect that even if the he were a she, they’d still still be upset.
So let the battle begin. Be sure to remind your village progressive about who, and sometimes what, they’re opposing. They get confused, poor dears: despising everything that exists must be exhausting.