Trump’s Nomination of Gorsuch for Supreme Court Justice Was Masterful

President Trump nominated federal judge Neil Gorsuch to become the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. You have to to hand it to Trump; this was a masterful move by him. Consider:

  • Fulfilled campaign promise? Check.
  • Same basic legal philosophy as Scalia? Check.
  • Approved by the Religious Right? Check.
  • Highly qualified? Check.
  • Recently unanimously confirmed by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate when nominated for his seat on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals? Check.
  • Free of baggage? Check. (I think.)

Although some or many Democrats will attempt to paint Gorsuch as “outside of the mainstream” or “not a consensus choice,” I predict such objections will fall flat with many voters. If they want to filibuster a vote on Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court, probably their best option would be full transparency:

“We agree with President Trump. Judge Gorsuch does have an extremely impressive CV / resume. Under normal circumstances, we would allow a vote on his nomination and he would probably get confirmed. But these are not normal circumstances. Our opposition to his placement on the court is nothing personal. This is payback time for how the Republicans in the Senate treated Obama’s nominee for the same seat.”

ETA: In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I want to emphasize that I am not saying that I endorse Gorsuch. My goal here is not to provide an overall favorable picture of Gorsuch. Rather, my point was to explain how, for someone who share’s Trump’s and the Republican Party’s goals, Trump’s nomination was masterful.


1 thought on “Trump’s Nomination of Gorsuch for Supreme Court Justice Was Masterful”

  1. The questions that I most want asked at Gorsuch’s hearing are these: “Judge Gorsuch, do you think that Merrick Garland was treated by the US Senate as he deserved? Does a Supreme Court nominee sent to the Senate by the President of the United States deserve to have hearings before this committee?”

    If Gorsuch answers that SCOTUS nominees deserve hearings, then the follow-up question should be, “Well, then why are we here? We have a nominee that has not received a hearing. If we are to treat SCOTUS nominees as they deserve to be treated, then we cannot hold a hearing for your nomination until we have hearings for Judge Garland.” And if he says that SCOTUS nominees don’t deserve hearings, then the obviously reply is, “Then why are we here?”

    The Democrat on the Judiciary Committee need to make it clear that in accepting Trump’s nomination, Gorsuch is complicit in the mistreatment of Merrick Garland. What a decent person would have said is, “I appreciate the nomination, but there already is a nominee before the Senate who deserves full consideration. Until Judge Garland’s has been given the consideration he deserves, it would not be appropriate for me to accept this nomination.” That he did not say this tells us a lot about Gorsuch.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s