Neil Gorsuch, the so-called Supreme Court Justice. Bought and paid for.
5
What this Editorial fails to acknowledge is that even if there was a vote on Garland, he would surely have been defeated. There was going to be payback for Bork and this was it. It took over 30 years, but it finally happened.
18
To answer everyone's question liberal politicians appoint judges who want to change laws based on feeling and what is popular in the moment. Conservative judges follow the laws and interpret the laws as they were intended. Case in point, the travel ban. Separation of powers works. Allowing unelected officials to make law is Tyranny.
23
Well, by McConnell's logic, President Trump should not have the right to fill any Supreme Court vacancy that occurs in the first ten months of the year 2020: he faces a new Presidential election in November 2020.
So only 2 1/2 years to go! Then there's a chance a Democratic president will "repeal and replace" the Trump administration, and restore a fair process to Supreme Court and other judicial appointments.
So only 2 1/2 years to go! Then there's a chance a Democratic president will "repeal and replace" the Trump administration, and restore a fair process to Supreme Court and other judicial appointments.
33
And for this, I blame Susan Sarandon and the rest of the die-hard, bitter-ender leftists who simply could not bring themselves to support the only person capable of preventing the catastrophe we are now living through. I hope, but don't expect, these people will someday realize how stupid they were to campaign against Hillary Clinton even after she got the nomination.
68
Just give it up. We fought this battle after Scalia's death and through Gorsuch's confirmation, and it is time to move on. There are more productive ways to spend energy and column inches. McConnell won this one.
16
It was the Democrats, with all the ill inspired wisdom of Harry Reid, that initiated the "nuclear option" in the Senate. You reap what you sow. Any talk of the filibuster proof Senate for future court appointments can be laid solely at his feet. You reap what you sow.
JimF from Sewell
JimF from Sewell
23
If Obama had played political hardball over the Supreme Court pick, he would have had a better chance to get his choice in.
Obama could have picked an eminently qualified Supreme Court justice from the state of Iowa. That happens to be Chuck Grassely's State. Guess who heads the Judiciary Comm.? Guess who is running for re-election? Guess who may be in trouble if he blocks said pick?
Dems could have played 'hardball' in other instances during Obama's term. Reps threaten to shut down the Government? How about putting a hold on the Social Security checks going out as a result of those actions? Reps complaining about the stimulus bill? Why doesn't Obama show up at a ribbon cutting in a Republican Congressman's district and call out the hypocrisy?
With Trump as President, this nation in peril, it is time that Dems took the gloves off.
Obama could have picked an eminently qualified Supreme Court justice from the state of Iowa. That happens to be Chuck Grassely's State. Guess who heads the Judiciary Comm.? Guess who is running for re-election? Guess who may be in trouble if he blocks said pick?
Dems could have played 'hardball' in other instances during Obama's term. Reps threaten to shut down the Government? How about putting a hold on the Social Security checks going out as a result of those actions? Reps complaining about the stimulus bill? Why doesn't Obama show up at a ribbon cutting in a Republican Congressman's district and call out the hypocrisy?
With Trump as President, this nation in peril, it is time that Dems took the gloves off.
34
It might not happen dring Trumps term but eventually democrats will get their revenge and then what? Republicans will cry afoul saying its different. Well Mitch you are to blame for increasing the partisan rift and revenge politics. This is not the way our country survives into the next century. Its not possible as other commenters have pointed out when one party gets the minority of votes yet controls the entire govt. This leads to a coup or war and I dont suspect Mitch or any of the old boys want this but they will invariably be held responsible. The greatest form of patriotism is setting your own party beliefs asside for the good of the country.
10
I currently live in Brazil. Politicians like Mitch McConnell are the norm here, not the ringleaders. The country has also been suffering from a political crisis since 2015 and is on the verge of deposing yet another president. Taking political alliances to an extreme, molding a supreme court that will reinforce such alliances, while disregarding safeguards within the political process is a slippery slope of ruin for everyone.
26
Mitch and his political party did indeed steal that Supreme Court seat, and much more. And nobody says anything while we pretend that is all okay. While we pretend that was equitable or merited.
Realistically, since Scalia and the party pushed Citizens United on us, if you are anything but a party line R conservative (where those piles of cash go), then currently you (half the nation) are being taxed without representation.
And in the makeup of the SC, it already shows, the misrepresentation. More, would make that branch near worthless.
Realistically, since Scalia and the party pushed Citizens United on us, if you are anything but a party line R conservative (where those piles of cash go), then currently you (half the nation) are being taxed without representation.
And in the makeup of the SC, it already shows, the misrepresentation. More, would make that branch near worthless.
13
Trump will last until 2025 at the latest, as you write. Given what he has already done or is still to trying to achieve, the "this is not normal" president if he is able to win reelection may end up changing or usurping the constitution and remain in power beyond the mere mortal two terms. If his health also holds out.
As for that pivotal moment in 2016 when the republicans made clear they would deny Obama a Supreme Court justice, I'll never understand (then or now) why the reaction by the democrats was not all out war. As you know, there are more than a few republicans in the house and senate who believe in the strict interpretation of the constitution.
Where does the constitution say that a president in his last year of office can not name a replacement justice?
As for Gorsuch himself, his earlier reaffirming decision (of a lower court) where a trucking employee stranded at the side of the road in a remote area seeking shelter from the severe cold could be fired for not following company policy, says it all.
If we are worried about the AI machines taking over humanity, here's an early taste of it. Yuck.
As for that pivotal moment in 2016 when the republicans made clear they would deny Obama a Supreme Court justice, I'll never understand (then or now) why the reaction by the democrats was not all out war. As you know, there are more than a few republicans in the house and senate who believe in the strict interpretation of the constitution.
Where does the constitution say that a president in his last year of office can not name a replacement justice?
As for Gorsuch himself, his earlier reaffirming decision (of a lower court) where a trucking employee stranded at the side of the road in a remote area seeking shelter from the severe cold could be fired for not following company policy, says it all.
If we are worried about the AI machines taking over humanity, here's an early taste of it. Yuck.
17
This theft should have brought the government to a halt. I blame Democrats for letting this happen.
22
What McConnell did was neither courageous no cynical. It was evil. Pure and simple. In addition, I cannot understand why it wasn't unconstitutional. I agree with Ann Rice whose comment asks how the majority leader was allowed to "dictate" a "no vote" on a sitting President's appointee? And why didn't we hear a far louder hue and cry from the Democrats in Congress and an even louder one from President Obama. A disgrace all around. And evil. Pure and simple.
33
Judges, or Justices, by definition, are supposed to be neutral. Not conservative. Not liberal. They are supposed to be blind like the blindfolded goddess holding the scales of justice.
I don't have an in depth knowledge of how the idea took root in this nation that a conservative President appointed conservative justices and a liberal President appointed liberal justices.
In the absence of appointment of neutral justices, the responsibility of making fair and neutral judgements devolves upon the conscience of the justices themselves. I would hope that after taking the oath to uphold the Constitution, every newly appointed justice settles down to do honest work like the blindfolded goddess of justice.
I don't have an in depth knowledge of how the idea took root in this nation that a conservative President appointed conservative justices and a liberal President appointed liberal justices.
In the absence of appointment of neutral justices, the responsibility of making fair and neutral judgements devolves upon the conscience of the justices themselves. I would hope that after taking the oath to uphold the Constitution, every newly appointed justice settles down to do honest work like the blindfolded goddess of justice.
8
McConnell invoked the Biden rule to block left wing Merrick Garland. The nuclear option was first used by Harry Reid. Deal with it. Elections have consequences. Don't feel too bad as Obama's harmful legacy is dismantled piece by piece. That is necessary to simply preserve the country. We will be paying off the debt from his wasteful spending, more debt than all past President's combined - for decades.
16
So i guess you consider dismantling the EPA one of the cool things the republicans are doing to save the
country ...
country ...
14
There is no Biden rule! Mitch McConnell made that up by completely taking a speech out of context. As usual republicans have no problem looking their constituents in the face and blatantly lying to them. It's too bad that the press doesn't call them on their lies often enough!
24
The Bad Guys are winning at the expense of political moderates and the middle class.
Turn off the TV
Read books.
Vote, write, agitate.
Turn off the TV
Read books.
Vote, write, agitate.
22
Good luck with that.
6
So Garland was one of the best SC nominees ever? Is that like your statement a year ago that Hillary Clinton was one of the best presidential candidates ever? Apparently, the NYT has very low standards. I would have preferred that the Senate had taken a vote and voted down Garland, but it has no responsibility to do so. Certainly it does not need to confirm someone. Just look at how Democrats kept Bork from joining the court, and howyOur beloved Obama joined an effort to try and filibuster Roberts in order to prevent a vote on his nomination. The low opinion of the citizens of the press, lower even than their opinion of Trump, is due in no small part to distortions and lies by the media such as the NYT.
18
Dear Editorial Board:
You have clearly lost any semblance of the non-partisan journalism and quality editorialism for which the Times was renowned for many years. This quote clearly demonstrates that the degeneration of this formerly great institution is complete: "he knows he has already won the biggest fight of all: the theft of a Supreme Court seat from President Obama".
If the NYT editorial staff had ever cared enough about their jobs to crack open a high-school level civics book, they would know the seat was not Obama's seat, but the people's seat. It does not belong to Obama - or Trump or anyone else, other than the people. And since it never belonged to Obama (or anyone else other than the people), it could not possibly have been stolen from him.
And that same civics book would teach you that in order to fill it, you must nominate a candidate who is acceptable not only to whoever is president, but also acceptable to 51 members of the US Senate. The rest is just posturing by both sides. The 2016 US Senate elections were a clear referendum on Garland/Scotus and the people spoke loud and clear.
That being the case, nobody doubts that if Obama had nominated a moderate right-leaning candidate instead of a moderate left-leaning candidate, the nominee would have been confirmed.
The arrogance of claiming that a Scotus seat somehow belonged to Obama and the Dems seems to be lost on the Editorial board. Fortunately it is not lost on the citizenry.
You have clearly lost any semblance of the non-partisan journalism and quality editorialism for which the Times was renowned for many years. This quote clearly demonstrates that the degeneration of this formerly great institution is complete: "he knows he has already won the biggest fight of all: the theft of a Supreme Court seat from President Obama".
If the NYT editorial staff had ever cared enough about their jobs to crack open a high-school level civics book, they would know the seat was not Obama's seat, but the people's seat. It does not belong to Obama - or Trump or anyone else, other than the people. And since it never belonged to Obama (or anyone else other than the people), it could not possibly have been stolen from him.
And that same civics book would teach you that in order to fill it, you must nominate a candidate who is acceptable not only to whoever is president, but also acceptable to 51 members of the US Senate. The rest is just posturing by both sides. The 2016 US Senate elections were a clear referendum on Garland/Scotus and the people spoke loud and clear.
That being the case, nobody doubts that if Obama had nominated a moderate right-leaning candidate instead of a moderate left-leaning candidate, the nominee would have been confirmed.
The arrogance of claiming that a Scotus seat somehow belonged to Obama and the Dems seems to be lost on the Editorial board. Fortunately it is not lost on the citizenry.
19
Again, a rewrite of facts and reality! Spinning an alternate universe out of thin air, has become a Repiblican specialty.
20
"One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’ ” Mr. McConnell told a political gathering in Kentucky last summer."
And that's why the extremely wealthy, and a lot of other people in the World, don't desire to visit Kentucky.
And that's why the extremely wealthy, and a lot of other people in the World, don't desire to visit Kentucky.
21
This is not Republicans vs. Democrats, it is the Religious "Conservatives" vs. Secular "Liberals". The writers of the Constitution preferred a secular government with separation of Church and State. The Religious Conservatives will have second thoughts when Judge Roberts & Gorsuch et al rulings allow Muslim schools to have "safer playground equipment" than the Christian schools, and "In God We Trust" is replaced with "In Ali We Trust". But that's what the "Conservative" Supreme Court wants.
12
Beautiful writing..especially since the premise is so wrong. Gorsuch has a seat on SCOTUS due to rare GOP backbone. The seat never rightfully belonged to any Obama nominee. The Senate told Mr Obama no pick for you, in a rare display of earned power.
Enjoy tormenting yourselves for the next 16 years of Trump, Trump, Pence, Pence administrations continuing to push the country away from the destructive policies of the left.
Enjoy tormenting yourselves for the next 16 years of Trump, Trump, Pence, Pence administrations continuing to push the country away from the destructive policies of the left.
4
Point 1 - why McConnell was wrong. I think there can be a case made for a window between the month of the conventions and the swearing in of the president-elect when the current president shouldn't make SC nominations, because at that point the contestants are both known, and the election is set. Doing so earlier than that, however, is just a grey zone. For example, why stop with "the beginning of the year of the election"? Why not start with the beginning of the campaigns? Too much you say? So was stating "the people should decide" in February when the people hadn't even finished deciding on the actual candidates. It was just an excuse to do something not in the best interests of the country, plain and simple. The Senate could have held hearings and been done prior to end of June, at latest.
Point 2 - The next empty seat. If one of the liberal members of the court were to need replacing, then the Republicans should nominate Judge Garland in his or her place. That way, the balance of the court is preserved (for these two slots at least), and McConnell fixes the very problem he created in the first place. What happens after that would then be the usual terrible process of the past 20 years, but at least we would be back to the normal level of politics.
Of course, McConnell likely won't do this; if so he will join the list of other Senators whose actions became infamous with the passage of time. (For a great example, look up "Preston Brooks" in the Wikipedia.)
Point 2 - The next empty seat. If one of the liberal members of the court were to need replacing, then the Republicans should nominate Judge Garland in his or her place. That way, the balance of the court is preserved (for these two slots at least), and McConnell fixes the very problem he created in the first place. What happens after that would then be the usual terrible process of the past 20 years, but at least we would be back to the normal level of politics.
Of course, McConnell likely won't do this; if so he will join the list of other Senators whose actions became infamous with the passage of time. (For a great example, look up "Preston Brooks" in the Wikipedia.)
2
Thanks, Mitch. Pretty is, as pretty does.
6
With the passage of Obamacare the Right knew the country was open "to promot(ing) the general welfare," using policies akin to FDR's and LBJ's. The Right knew Obama had to be stopped and pulled out almost all the stops to do it. They demonized Obama and Obamacare, with great electoral success at all electoral levels, except for the 2012 presidential election. I am sure McConnell's actions to deny Obama's SC nominee even common courtesy of meeting with him, let alone a fair hearing, was something anticipated and planned should a vacancy arise. For the Right the stakes are to high. They want a different America and those who get in their way will be handled as they did Obama and Garland.
9
We had Conservatives before, but to put in a guy who wants to turn this country into his own brand of Puritanism where we must abide by the laws of Christians is what scares me. He already has stated he doesn't believe in family or maternity leave which only leaves room for more discrimination against women.
We may yet be subject to our Syrian Religious police force. Handmaid's Tale may be fiction, but it takes one group of zealots led by the man with the orange hair to lead us down that path.
We may yet be subject to our Syrian Religious police force. Handmaid's Tale may be fiction, but it takes one group of zealots led by the man with the orange hair to lead us down that path.
21
Excellent analysis
4
Now its time for our conservative friends to tell us that Senate Democrats, when they held a majority, did far worse, and then it will be time for ordinary, right-leaning conservative readers to assume it must be correct--probably because they heard it in the conservative media.
The only problem is that its NOT true. No Democratic senate majority denied a hearing to a Republican nominee--ever.
The reason McConnell denied Garland a hearing, when you get right down to it, is that he could get away with it due to all of the disinformation about past practices out there.
But that same disinformation would also have resulted in much louder public anger if the senate had actually voted Garland down. So, this is the calculation in a world of moderately uninformed to wrongly informed voters: Hold no hearing at all and most people won't one care; vote against Garland and you could look like obstructionists.
The triumph of limited information and disinformation is a conservative court for the basically the duration of our lifetimes--the next retiree will be replaced by another Gorsuch, not another Roberts, let alone another Kennedy. Say all you want about the moderation of those two--there won't be any more like them under Trump.
The only problem is that its NOT true. No Democratic senate majority denied a hearing to a Republican nominee--ever.
The reason McConnell denied Garland a hearing, when you get right down to it, is that he could get away with it due to all of the disinformation about past practices out there.
But that same disinformation would also have resulted in much louder public anger if the senate had actually voted Garland down. So, this is the calculation in a world of moderately uninformed to wrongly informed voters: Hold no hearing at all and most people won't one care; vote against Garland and you could look like obstructionists.
The triumph of limited information and disinformation is a conservative court for the basically the duration of our lifetimes--the next retiree will be replaced by another Gorsuch, not another Roberts, let alone another Kennedy. Say all you want about the moderation of those two--there won't be any more like them under Trump.
10
There will always be an * behind Gorsuch's name; he will always be illegitimate. Does not undo the damage he will impose on us all.
19
Gorsuch will go down in history with an asterisk next to his name for sure. If there were an MVP asterisk he would surely receive it due to his excellent credentials and so far, his great positions on recent rulings.
Reversing the poisonous positions of the left was clearly the majority of state's populations. Mr Gorsuch will clearly play a significant role since the left can only get their way in the courts. Electorally they are bereft of support and will be so as the country continues to pull itself out of the morass the left created.
Reversing the poisonous positions of the left was clearly the majority of state's populations. Mr Gorsuch will clearly play a significant role since the left can only get their way in the courts. Electorally they are bereft of support and will be so as the country continues to pull itself out of the morass the left created.
6
OK. I'm done with my "Yea, but" Republican "friends"
To be sure we strained sometimes through Bush and Obama -but never wavered in our basic humanity - just our very different paths to the America we saw as the place we wanted to live in. But we loved each other and tried to look past it - secure in our basic agreement on humanity and rights.
Now our conversations can no longer be on the "yeah" bit on the "but". when I bring up a conversation focused on the most recent Trump abomination my Republican debate opponents do not allow me to finish my argument but jump on the "but".
"But the Democratic party did this, "but" Hillary did that" , but "Clinton did this", but the Democratic party used to hate -----"
They are master at the "yea, but". They sort of acknowledge the yea - getting them off the replay hook before the deflect to "but"
before defecting to the "but his"but" has nothing to do with the ":yeah"
I have been burned out on my "friends with whom I cannot have an equal Yea - But conversation.
I want them to fully realize, acknowledge and discuss openly with me that the Presidents 'YEAS Before the other side gets airtime for it's buts.
Fair and balanced. Equal time, Not just "but by his supporters - but the "buts" from his opponents.
To be sure we strained sometimes through Bush and Obama -but never wavered in our basic humanity - just our very different paths to the America we saw as the place we wanted to live in. But we loved each other and tried to look past it - secure in our basic agreement on humanity and rights.
Now our conversations can no longer be on the "yeah" bit on the "but". when I bring up a conversation focused on the most recent Trump abomination my Republican debate opponents do not allow me to finish my argument but jump on the "but".
"But the Democratic party did this, "but" Hillary did that" , but "Clinton did this", but the Democratic party used to hate -----"
They are master at the "yea, but". They sort of acknowledge the yea - getting them off the replay hook before the deflect to "but"
before defecting to the "but his"but" has nothing to do with the ":yeah"
I have been burned out on my "friends with whom I cannot have an equal Yea - But conversation.
I want them to fully realize, acknowledge and discuss openly with me that the Presidents 'YEAS Before the other side gets airtime for it's buts.
Fair and balanced. Equal time, Not just "but by his supporters - but the "buts" from his opponents.
6
It has long been obvious that we need a new way of filling Supreme Court vacancies. No matter what we do politically, a few of this type and we will be unable to sustain any laws that the people want. Strike down health care laws, strike down environmental laws. OUR SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING. Gorsuch is an ideologue…..Obama had an opportunity to fill the vacancy and he did not take it. I cannot understand that. I cannot understand Obama's eight years of mild mannered, cerebral calm. It was not appropriate to the mess we are in.
6
Have you forgotten that the republicans
blocked President Obama's nominee, Merrill Garland?
Thereby breaking the law?
blocked President Obama's nominee, Merrill Garland?
Thereby breaking the law?
5
Am not gleeful about interpretation but what truly frightens me is the mess we are in with a demented president and no tested precedent for removing him. Our constitution needs critical updating, morality and ethics paramount along with tax returns.
And yes, am aware of the 25 Amendment, putting it to the test an altogether different matter. Wonder what Gorsuch's thoughts / interpretation of this would be.
And yes, am aware of the 25 Amendment, putting it to the test an altogether different matter. Wonder what Gorsuch's thoughts / interpretation of this would be.
4
Article 3 of the constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the composition of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch's seat doesn't "rightfully" belong to anyone else. It's just how our system works. As a famous incompetent man once said, "I won." Move on.
6
The everlasting question:
How to deal successfully with bottom-feeders such as McConnell and Trump, without lowering yourself to their duplicitous, immoral standards?
Taking "the high road" is the preferred direction, but not if you are killed and the environment destroyed in the process.
How to deal successfully with bottom-feeders such as McConnell and Trump, without lowering yourself to their duplicitous, immoral standards?
Taking "the high road" is the preferred direction, but not if you are killed and the environment destroyed in the process.
15
McConnell and Gorsuch and the entire collection of billionaires and Republican incompetents have been allowed to destroy the democratic system which was the marvel of the world for over 200 years. We need to have one of our proven leaders like John Kerry to assume the presidency and restore some trust in the office. Without a John Kerry appearing and taking the Republican-billionaire thumb off the scale of our democratic system. we are doomed to have despotic Republicanism as a huge octopus dominating our lives and destroying our environment. Rescue us Mr. Kerry. Bernie Sanders and his army are ready to join you in getting the octopus back in its lair.
9
If democrats somehow manage to retake the senate, they must steadfastly refuse any future Trump nominee other than Merrick Garland. This unconstitutional stolen seat and waiver of sixty vote rule must both be fully accounted for. The majority of America demands it.
14
You've been watching too much CNN.
6
Since the SCOTUS has been politicized, I have no faith that the conservative justices on the court continue to believe in the Rule of Law. Four things need to be fixed for our country to begin to repair and heal itself:
The Citizens United ruling significantly contributed to the mess our government is in now and needs to be repealed.
Gorsuch is not a legitimate SC justice and needs to step down. I still can’t believe Mitch McConnell was allowed to get away with this! How can SC rulings possibly be considered lawful until this dishonest maneuver is corrected? Until this happens, we must consider that our nation's Supreme Court is there to help the GOP do whatever it wants.
Term limits need to be set for Supreme Court justices. As politicized as the court has become, no political party should have a lifetime control of the court.
Gerrymandering needs to be declared illegal for every group everywhere.
Until these things happen, we must consider ourselves under a malevolent one party rule and our national tragedy will continue.
The Citizens United ruling significantly contributed to the mess our government is in now and needs to be repealed.
Gorsuch is not a legitimate SC justice and needs to step down. I still can’t believe Mitch McConnell was allowed to get away with this! How can SC rulings possibly be considered lawful until this dishonest maneuver is corrected? Until this happens, we must consider that our nation's Supreme Court is there to help the GOP do whatever it wants.
Term limits need to be set for Supreme Court justices. As politicized as the court has become, no political party should have a lifetime control of the court.
Gerrymandering needs to be declared illegal for every group everywhere.
Until these things happen, we must consider ourselves under a malevolent one party rule and our national tragedy will continue.
11
In 1974, William Harrison wrote a short story called "Roller Ball Murder." (It was adapted into two dreadful films, but the story itself is amazing.) He imagined a world in which corporations have supplanted all the national governments. The corporations keep the populace distracted by televising increasingly violent gladiatorial games. 43 years later, Harrison's nightmare vision has come true. Our government is bought-and-paid-for by huge corporations. Our system of checks-and-balances is a joke. NFL games are becoming bigger, badder, and meaner--and fans eat it up like ice cream. Worst of all, our government officials--elected and appointed--KNOW they are corporate stooges. And they are perfectly okay with that. May God have mercy on us all.
5
Obama got appoint three judges, and the Republican's refusal to consider his proposal for a fourth in an election year (which is the tradition) is a "theft"? I think not.
9
Obama appointed two justices, not three; and there is absolutely NO "tradition" of refusing SC nominees in an election year.
13
Yes, you think NOT.
8
Kudos!
I've read it many times, that America will eventually resemble a banana republic. With conservative policies that prospect is becoming authenticated with McConnell in power. The Health Care bill treats average Americans like Central American peasants were treated with republican foreign policy and the Reagan Doctrine. The extremism of funneling tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires is bald faced dishonesty with a kicker of, what are you going to do about it, we're running things now. Do they really believe that millionaires and billionaires deserve that much more of the rewards for success than the people who helped them cash in? How are we allowing profit to be siphoned out of the market of Death? Its shameful, but conservatives have been ignoring the shame and making that sucking sound for decades. Trump can't possibly be a 2 term President as unfit and worse as he proves himself to be daily.
6
Neil Gorsuch will always be known as the justice that required two separate travesties in order to take a seat of the Supreme Court. First, Mitch McConnell failed to uphold his duties as mandated by the U.S. Constitution by refusing to allow a vote on President Obama's perfectly qualified nominee. And second, McConnell also had to change the Senate rules in order to get Mr. Gorsuch approved by the very slimmest of margins.
And to make matters worse, Gorsuch will always be remembered as the justice that was named by Donald Trump, the psychotic con-man who colluded with the Russians in order win the electoral college, while losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
And to make matters worse, Gorsuch will always be remembered as the justice that was named by Donald Trump, the psychotic con-man who colluded with the Russians in order win the electoral college, while losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
17
Our new justice may have attended some great educational institutions, but he has not a clue about the true meaning of the separation of church and state. He is a religious fundamentalist and " compromise " is not in his vocabulary. This is terribly unfortunate for all of us. He should never have been chosen for a place on the Court !!
15
The first paragraph states that Gorsuch's seat was a result of "theft". Fake news. No theft occurred. No laws were broken. The Senate action was completely within it's constitutional authority and the NYT's editorial staff knows this to be true.
This premise renders the editorial fraudulant.
Gorsuch is a justice who will base his decisions on what the constitution actually says, not what someone wished it said. He will not base decisions on which way political winds are blowing.
Gorsuch also understands that the constitution is a living document with a defined way to change it's original intent or purpose. That process is the ability of elected representatives and citizens to amend the constitution. Gorsuch understands that the constitution can not be changed or altered by judicial fiat. This fact should make both the laft and right happy.
This premise renders the editorial fraudulant.
Gorsuch is a justice who will base his decisions on what the constitution actually says, not what someone wished it said. He will not base decisions on which way political winds are blowing.
Gorsuch also understands that the constitution is a living document with a defined way to change it's original intent or purpose. That process is the ability of elected representatives and citizens to amend the constitution. Gorsuch understands that the constitution can not be changed or altered by judicial fiat. This fact should make both the laft and right happy.
12
Yes laws were broken . The republicans refused
to even consider a perfectly qualified candidate
and it was President Obama's perogative to nominate him. perhaps you need a class in civics and government.
to even consider a perfectly qualified candidate
and it was President Obama's perogative to nominate him. perhaps you need a class in civics and government.
9
Maybe using the word "theft" is hyperbole.
But there was no precedent for what McConnell did to Garland. Even if its not theft, it was an effort to subvert the constitutional process, which you seem to think is very important.
Oh, and if you have a chance ask Gorsuch if he thinks the Constitution is a 'living document'--because Scalea is on record that its not, and Gorsuch is strong devotee of his.
But there was no precedent for what McConnell did to Garland. Even if its not theft, it was an effort to subvert the constitutional process, which you seem to think is very important.
Oh, and if you have a chance ask Gorsuch if he thinks the Constitution is a 'living document'--because Scalea is on record that its not, and Gorsuch is strong devotee of his.
7
If there are still those believing in America and the Constitution and especially the Ballot Box then you must read this aloud every morning.....
“One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’ ” Mr. McConnell told a political gathering in Kentucky last summer."
Ballots mean little in America today...
“One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’ ” Mr. McConnell told a political gathering in Kentucky last summer."
Ballots mean little in America today...
4
During the hearing for Justice Gorsuch, Ted Cruz falling all over himself to suck up to Gorsuch was telling. It informed me about the general choice of candidate for justice. I wondered if Gorsuch was a dominionist. The questioning about the freezing truck driver decision Gorsuch made told me what I needed to know about the man. He's not about protecting people. He will take rights away and say it's for textual reasons, but the reality is the decisions will fit his ideology. In his case, justice is not blind.
5
If Garland had a "right" to the seat, he'd be a sitting justice now. The Senate majority did what it's eminently entitled to do: it changed the Senate rules. The authors seem to forget that Harry Reid started the ball rolling when he eliminated the filibuster for all but SCOTUS nominations. The Republicans merely went a step further. Anyone who cares to look back will find that NYT has tried to have it both ways: it's written numerous editorials decrying the filibuster, only to defend it when it suits it's purpose.
12
No, Harry Reid did not start any ball rolling. Not holding hearings for a presidential nominee was completely unprecedented.
6
Bryan
Harry Reid was the first to use the nuclear option on judicial nominees. Joe Biden publically stated that no Supreme Court seats should be filled during an election year. Deal with it.
Harry Reid was the first to use the nuclear option on judicial nominees. Joe Biden publically stated that no Supreme Court seats should be filled during an election year. Deal with it.
5
This Supreme Court pick wasn't so much 'stolen', as it was given away by the Democrats, progressive, and liberals who didn't vote in 2014.
7
There needs to be a law that any and all vacancies on the Supreme Court must be filled within 45 days
3
That would require a Constitutional amendment, as that document imposes no such requirement.
5
There need to be a lot of laws. But we basically live in two different countries today, and law making requires some type of consensus and compromise. That's what makes the refusal of the senate to hold a hearing on Garland all the more egregious.
1
I've found myself wondering what kind of person Mr. Gorsuch must be to let himself go down in history with an asterisk next to his name--for filling a seat stolen from the previous administration.
Is the glory worth such self-abasement?
Is the glory worth such self-abasement?
6
McConnell saved gun rights in America. Garland voted against gun rights every chance he had, and would have voted with the four hard leftists to overturn the Heller decision, eviscerating the 2nd Amendment. Freedom minded people owe him a great deal of gratitude.
5
It doesn't matter what he saved or did not save. Every nominee to the supreme court by the President has a right to a hearing in the senate and an up or down vote. When was this ever not the case?
6
What this editorial fails to recognize is that Senator Harry Reid started this process in 2013 by eliminating the filibuster for most presidential nominations. Senator McConnell only took it a step further. It is also, as I see it, blatantly incorrect to assume the seat belonged to Judge Garland. He was merely nominated. Whether or not he would be confirmed is another matter. President Obama had an opportunity to appoint him in a recess appointment and chose not to do so. I think because he thought Hillary Clinton win, perhaps even appoint him. This is another example of left-wing spin.
10
Eliminating the filibuster and refusing to hold a hearing are not the same thing.
And no one but a fool thinks anyone has a right to a supreme court seat.
What he a right to has a fair hearing by the senate.
And no one but a fool thinks anyone has a right to a supreme court seat.
What he a right to has a fair hearing by the senate.
9
And so will Trump's next two appointments to the Supreme Court deliver. The 2nd Amendment is safe now.
5
Indeed, While I don't care at all for Ted Cruz as a Senator, he'd make an excellent justice. Undergraduate degree from Princeton, law degree from Harvard, and a lock to be a reliably conservative vote; no chance of another Souter.
4
The 2nd Amendment was NEVER unsafe. This is all nonsense. An Amendment cannot be altered by anything other than its repeal by another Amendment.
What you are talking about--unlikely also--is a different INTERPRETATION of the second Amendment, which even if it were to happen, would never ban anything other than assault weapons.
The whole hysteria over a danger to the 2nd Amendment is simply that--hysteria!
What you are talking about--unlikely also--is a different INTERPRETATION of the second Amendment, which even if it were to happen, would never ban anything other than assault weapons.
The whole hysteria over a danger to the 2nd Amendment is simply that--hysteria!
6
Or Roberts.
2
Thanks for ruining my holiday weekend.
3
The seat was not "stolen". McConnell only applied the Reid and Schumer rule. Check your history.
10
What history"? There is no such rule. This never happened before. it was a completely outrageous and unprecedented abuse of power, and McConnell should have been impeached for it.
7
They're not the same thing.
4
Thankfully, he delivers.
3
Gorsuch may be a good judge but because of McConnell and the GOPs unconscionable treatment of Garland, and what I will always view as racial prejudice toward President Obama he will forever have an asterisk by his name.
5
Gorsuch sure seems like a reliable conservative vote on the SC. So there is probably not a lot of questions about how he is going to vote on any particular case.
You know who else will always vote the same way on any paritcular case?
Justice Elena Kagan
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Be honest for a minute. You have never wondered how Kagan, Ginsburg or Sotomayor will vote. They are reliable liberal Democrat votes that you can bank before the arguments even begin.
So if you don't like that about Gorsuch I guess you must have an equal dislike that about the others, right?
You know who else will always vote the same way on any paritcular case?
Justice Elena Kagan
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Be honest for a minute. You have never wondered how Kagan, Ginsburg or Sotomayor will vote. They are reliable liberal Democrat votes that you can bank before the arguments even begin.
So if you don't like that about Gorsuch I guess you must have an equal dislike that about the others, right?
9
That is simply not true, and you have clearly not bothered to check their records of decisions. yes, one can detect general patterns in their votes; bit they do not vote predictably and each of them has taken positions considered conservative on certain cases, and has voted with the conservatives.
7
Justice Gorsuch may be the first of three appointments President Trump may
make. Absorb that.
make. Absorb that.
7
This will get interesting when non-Christian religious schools start asking for the same favors.
6
"Theft"? There is no end to the whining of the purveyors of Fake News, is there? I got news for you, Trump's greatest legacy is going to be shifting the court from its present 4-4 split with Kennedy as the swing vote to a solid Conservative majority. No doubt you'll find some equally lunatic choice of words to describe that when it happens. McConnel didn't steal anything. He simply exercised the powers given to the majority party. Something the Times never complained about when the Dems ran the show under Obama.
12
Liberals and the New York Times need to get over, after the way the Liberals, especially Senators Kennedy and Biden treated Bork during his confirmation hearing only to be ended up with Justice Souter, who is now one of the most reliable liberal votes on the courts...Republicans need to start fighting like Democrats do. I am glad we have Donald Trump as president and Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court
10
Unlike Garland, Robert Bork got a fair hearing and a vote. He was rejected because he was a crazed extremist. Nothing wrong with that decision, and the Democrats treated him just fine. The judge who took that seat eventually was Kennedy, not Souter (they weren't even nominated by the same president: Bork was chosen by Reagan, Souter by George H W Bush.) And Souter was never an ideological "liberal." And he retired from the court years ago.
9
Yes, absolutely. Conservatives will make false comparisons like this until the cows come home. But what McConnell did in unprecedented!
9
The biggest tragedy is that McConnell won't live long enough to reap the inevitable rewards of his craven injudiciousness. I was thinking Dick Cheney was as evil as it got.
1984 was a hopeful view of our future.
1984 was a hopeful view of our future.
1
You say the McConnell decision was either "the height of courage" or "the depths of cynicism." I certainly don't see it as courageous in any sense, nor even as cynical. It was just a rational, if admittedly amoral, political calculation: Republicans get a slight chance of the SCOTUS appointment if they win the Presidency; and if a Democrat wins, they probably get someone much like Garland, and possibly Garland himself. Republicans would either win, or not lose anything.
2
Move on. There are new battles to fight. Quit litigating the ones that are over.
6
I don't understand how the Democrats let this happen. Why didn't Obama get just as unethical as Republicans and appoint a justice during a congressional recess and let the Republican's fight to remove him or her? That's the problem with Democrats; they fight fair.
8
Probably because the Supreme Court had already eliminated his ability to make such recess appointments with the 2014 decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning. For once, Obama steered clear of violating the Constitution.
2
And the very reason why the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in the world. The Democrats must not allow Trump and McConnell to fill another seat and the Democrats must retake the Senate.
8
Of all the terrible things McConnell has done as Speaker, stealing the Supreme Court seat was the most egregious.
8
Senate Majority Leader, not Speaker [of the House - no such office in the Senate.] But yes.
2
First, it starts with the liberal Harry Reid opening the door by junking the 60 vote rule for some appointments. That's okay, but, even though he was warned not to do it, he did, and Pandora's box was open. Now, liberals blast and moan about a mythical "McConnell" doctrine, putting the mess they made on Republicans. This is an example of the decline and decay that will ultimately end our country IMHO. Pathetic! Try honesty in your editorials, much blame everywhere.
10
Thinking is work. Work harder.
2
This is such a monumental joke. They were following "The Biden Rule" which made it clear that it is EXACTLY what the democrats were going to do had a nomination come up during GWB's last year in office.
Harry Reid changed the rules and the dems made it clear that they would eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations when they won. (HRC didn't live up to her end of the deal)
I totally applaud the Republicans for finally having the guts to play by the same rules the Dems play by!
To the editorial board of the NYT's, in the immortal words of Artie Lang.. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Harry Reid changed the rules and the dems made it clear that they would eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations when they won. (HRC didn't live up to her end of the deal)
I totally applaud the Republicans for finally having the guts to play by the same rules the Dems play by!
To the editorial board of the NYT's, in the immortal words of Artie Lang.. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
12
There's no such thing as the "Biden rule." McConnell took an idea of Biden's (that was never implemented or acted upon) completely out of context and called it a "rule." it was nothing of the kind, it was never done, and in any case it DID NOT mean denying a hearing to any presidential nominee. McConnell, shameless liar that he is, made that up.
8
When Master Obstructionist and Constitutional Cherry Picker Mitch McConnell learned of Judge Gorsuch's ruling that found the life a truck driver as containing less value than the trailer full of of corporate cargo he was carrying, he knew he had his man...
McConnell's approach to the health of every American is exactly the same... That killing a few million struggling citizens is a fair price to pay for a trillion dollar tax break for the millionaires and billionaires who pay his bribes.
These are two peas in the Republican pod... And, unfortunately, these two awful human beings reflect the "values" of the entire corrupt party.
The term "Justice Gorsuch" is an oxymoron.
McConnell's approach to the health of every American is exactly the same... That killing a few million struggling citizens is a fair price to pay for a trillion dollar tax break for the millionaires and billionaires who pay his bribes.
These are two peas in the Republican pod... And, unfortunately, these two awful human beings reflect the "values" of the entire corrupt party.
The term "Justice Gorsuch" is an oxymoron.
8
July 2, 2017
Sign sealed and delivered the new ultra conservative Highest Supreme Court and its progeny children of justice; as in the breath and the nature of our national infancy. All given by the patriarchs of hardliners and rulers of inequity with injustice for absolute monetary milking Mother liberty to its insatiable appetite offering stunted maturation for the proper growth of we the people with justice for all…….
JJA Manhattan. N.Y.
Sign sealed and delivered the new ultra conservative Highest Supreme Court and its progeny children of justice; as in the breath and the nature of our national infancy. All given by the patriarchs of hardliners and rulers of inequity with injustice for absolute monetary milking Mother liberty to its insatiable appetite offering stunted maturation for the proper growth of we the people with justice for all…….
JJA Manhattan. N.Y.
3
"Courageous" ?? since when does courage = viciousness + strategy?
5
Fake Judge.
And he knows it.
And he knows it.
6
This editorial is absolutely silly. Garland wasn't "by rights" needing to be confirmed! The Senate has the right to reject any candidate it wants. Can we say "Bork"? I know you can. There is nothing in the constitution that says a candidate must be given a hearing. In fact, JOE BIDEN said during Bush's nomination of a SCOTUS appointment that NO PRESIDENT IN THEIR LAST YEAR SHOULD BE ABLE TO APPOINT A JUSTICE. Why? Because an election is around the corner and a new president might nominate someone else. JOE BIDEN said that...this is just whining by a Newspaper who doesn't like the result of the bonafide election. Fake Editorial.
8
That is not what Biden said and he never denied anyone a hearing. Republicans were not obligated to vote for Garland but they were obligated to give him a hearing (just as Bork got a hearing.) Republicans could have refused to confirm Garland, as the Democrats rightly refused the extremist Bork; but McConnell wasn't interested in simply voting down Garland. His intention was to delegitimize Obama, to deny him the exercise of his constitutional powers. and for that McConnell should have been impeached.
7
Since 1950 there have been USSC 26 appointments, 19 (R) 7 (D), since 1970 it's 13 (R) 4 (D) and since 1980 8 (R) 4 (D) But still the so-called conservative, so-called movement cannot win.
Other than perhaps some mild tactical victories here and there. And they know it. There world view is fundamentally flawed because it promises a world that used to exist and never will again.
The US is a fundamentally progressive country and the Supreme Court, no matter how many (R) selections can only function as a temporary tourniquet for inevitable bleeding out of the so-called "Conservative Movement" err --Reactionary Stats Qou.
Other than perhaps some mild tactical victories here and there. And they know it. There world view is fundamentally flawed because it promises a world that used to exist and never will again.
The US is a fundamentally progressive country and the Supreme Court, no matter how many (R) selections can only function as a temporary tourniquet for inevitable bleeding out of the so-called "Conservative Movement" err --Reactionary Stats Qou.
1
But still the so-called conservative, so-called movement cannot win.
======================
You bet. It's losing so badly it's now in complete control of the federal government, most governorships and most state governments.
======================
You bet. It's losing so badly it's now in complete control of the federal government, most governorships and most state governments.
2
Galrand was no more entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court than Hillary was to a seat in the White House, yet entitled Liberals continue to delude themselves into believing this. Nothing was stolen from either of them.
8
Without doubt McConnell is the most despicable human beings in the Senate, he is the leader in the GOP's tyranny of the minority that has taken control of our country.
7
Clinton choke, not McConnell manipulations, is the cause. The crybaby wing of the Democratic Party in full control. I can only imagine the excuses in the pipeline for 2018.
8
I agree that Democrats if they are ever to win again, must recognize and match the scorched earth politics that Republicans have embraced.
I do wonder that the NY Times (and WaPo, reddit, etc) comments sections have become filled with so many conservative voices since the start of the 2016 election cycle.
How many of them must be, as has been much reported, paid trolls and foreign operatives? Why are so many right-wing keyboard warriors paying their hard-earned wages for NY Times subscriptions?
I do wonder that the NY Times (and WaPo, reddit, etc) comments sections have become filled with so many conservative voices since the start of the 2016 election cycle.
How many of them must be, as has been much reported, paid trolls and foreign operatives? Why are so many right-wing keyboard warriors paying their hard-earned wages for NY Times subscriptions?
5
I do wonder that the NY Times (and WaPo, reddit, etc) comments sections have become filled with so many conservative voices since the start of the 2016 election cycle.
==========================
Elections show Democrats mostly losing lately. There are a lot of conservative voices out there.
==========================
Elections show Democrats mostly losing lately. There are a lot of conservative voices out there.
3
Anytime Judge Gorsuch* is written about his name should be followed by an asterisk noting his seat was stolen.
6
Two more seats to go. The leftist weeping and gnashing of teeth is like sweet music.
8
There was never any doubt that Justice Gorsuch would be a superb jurist, a strict constructionist if you will, in the mold of a Scalia. Democrats and this editorial page cannot suffer this because without the Supreme Court stepping in and usurping the legislative process, their radical leftist agenda would never be passed. One man, Anthony Kennedy, threw thousands of years of Western civilization tradition and the Constitution in the toilet and single handily redefined marriage because of his own notions of what constitute a fundamental right. This is scary. One man, John Roberts, decided that the penalty of the Obamacare mandate was enforceable as a tax, even though Obama said it was never a tax.
Seven men in robes with the slight of a pen decided that ripping a baby from its mother's womb to murder it was a "privacy" right of the woman as long as it was done in the first 6 months of term. These same people decided that beginning a school day with a non sectarian prayer was an endorsement of "religion." After Kennedy retires and hopefully Ginsberg soon thereafter, POTUS will have 2 more appointees that will hopefully restore sanity to this once great institution.
Seven men in robes with the slight of a pen decided that ripping a baby from its mother's womb to murder it was a "privacy" right of the woman as long as it was done in the first 6 months of term. These same people decided that beginning a school day with a non sectarian prayer was an endorsement of "religion." After Kennedy retires and hopefully Ginsberg soon thereafter, POTUS will have 2 more appointees that will hopefully restore sanity to this once great institution.
6
I am very afraid.
1
It's way past time for the Democrats to stop bringing a tennis ball to a gun fight. The Dems haven't even tried using a knife! The Republicans have changed the rules to favor themselves for generations to come...and since the rules are now changed, the Dems have to realize that and fight back fiercely and they have to start using the same street-thug methods that Republicans have been successfully using. I don't like it either, but the choice is either fight their way or succumb to a fascist, corporate-owned and operated nation.
6
Let churches spend their tax-free wealth on their infrastructure. If they want to use tax dollars, then make them pay taxes. Enough of this "all for me and none for thee" nonsense they keep pushing. It's a completely upside conversation when the courts institutionalize their right to discriminate, let them remain tax exempt and then tell us we have to pay for their upkeep.
5
I very much appreciate this editorial revisiting what, in the future, will be considered a key pivot directly downward in the history of the USA. McConnell's action declared open season on well conceived norms and conventions essential for a democracy to function. McConnell declared that all-or-none, winner-take-all politics would be the new norm. And just enough voters said, OK, sounds good to us.
Ruth, please keep eating your kale and quinoa, but I fear that both Kennedy and Ginsburg will not serve through 2020 - or perhaps 2018. If either of them is replaced by a Gorsuch-wannabe, the first thing to go will be reproductive rights. If that happens, I will take perverse pleasure in seeing GOP-voting communities of rural WI, MI, and PA deal with the consequences. They, apart from the traditional southern red states, should have known better.
Ruth, please keep eating your kale and quinoa, but I fear that both Kennedy and Ginsburg will not serve through 2020 - or perhaps 2018. If either of them is replaced by a Gorsuch-wannabe, the first thing to go will be reproductive rights. If that happens, I will take perverse pleasure in seeing GOP-voting communities of rural WI, MI, and PA deal with the consequences. They, apart from the traditional southern red states, should have known better.
2
I understand the hand wringing and agonizing over Sen. McConnell's "Stealing" President Obama's SCOTUS pick. but while the Constitution states the Senate must confirm the pick the Article does not say in what time frame such a process must occur. In other words this is a political problem and not a legal one. McConnell was within his right to do this, he took a gamble and it paid off. If voters were so concerned about this then maybe 88,000 more voters for Hillary in Pennsylvania , Wisconsin and Michigan would have shown up and punish electorally a Party that does such a brazen act.
5
I have never understood why Obama did not fight the GOP strategy. Actually I was stunned. What a reckless chance he took with our lives ans a thing we used to think about - fairness. Under the present circumstances I would never allow a case to go to the SCOTUS. Whenever there is a case of one person or a small number of people vs a corporations or large institution it goes against them. So what's the point?
An other thought is why do these very smart and legal geniuses allow themselves to be led around by a new justice. Weird. But Scalia led them to many bad decisions as Gorsuch is doing now. I watched the Senare hearings on Gorsuch and he is as tight and rigid as anyone I have ever seen. So much hubris that I fear for the country's future on all directions.
An other thought is why do these very smart and legal geniuses allow themselves to be led around by a new justice. Weird. But Scalia led them to many bad decisions as Gorsuch is doing now. I watched the Senare hearings on Gorsuch and he is as tight and rigid as anyone I have ever seen. So much hubris that I fear for the country's future on all directions.
1
We will probably never have another Colossus like Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court or an LBJ as Majority Leader.. Small minded minions are the order of the day and we are a lesser nation. LBJ was my first president when I arrived here a 7 year old Scottish immigrant. I stood near the steps of the Supreme Court in 1980 hoping to see Justice Marshal. Where we once had giants who fired the imagination of young immigrants we now have walls.
1
Despite my full sympathy over the situation, all I can say is that elections have consequences. Real, long-term consequences, and this is one of them. Democrats and Independents who though HRC was a "flawed" candidate, an "uninspiring" candidate, had, "too much baggage" and most of all "but .... her e-mails", are responsible for this. McConnell took a gamble. I detest him for it, but it was quite obvious from his earlier behaviour, that this action was not beyond him. Republicans - holding their noses in many cases - voted for Trump, and with that, got Gorsuch. The options were clear as day and night, and Progressives who could not get fired up for HRC (plus Russians, Facebook, CNN, Comey etc) are responsible for this catastrophe. Of course, there are other consequences that the election of Trump will have. I hope to be proven wrong, but Americans may have hammered one of the final nails into their country's coffin.
4
Garland never had the votes to confirmed. Gorsuch's seat is no more his than it is mine. And the fact that Garland allowed himself to be used by Obama in a cheap election year political stunt demonstrates that he was uniquely unqualified for the Court.
6
As many of us pleaded during the presidential campaign, the most important reason to vote for Clinton was to make sure the Democrats had a 5-4 majority on SCOTUS.
Thanks to a brilliant analysis by The Times of Gorsuch's opinions when compared to those of other SCOTUS justices, we already knew he was only just barely to the left of the most far right conservative on the Couet, Clarence Thomas. Our nation is now going to be stuck with Gorsuch for at least a generation.
Thanks to a brilliant analysis by The Times of Gorsuch's opinions when compared to those of other SCOTUS justices, we already knew he was only just barely to the left of the most far right conservative on the Couet, Clarence Thomas. Our nation is now going to be stuck with Gorsuch for at least a generation.
2
American democracy is overrated.
3
Gorsuch should be ashamed of sitting on a stolen Supreme Court seat that came his way with extreme travesty of justice. There is no issue with his qualifications, its just the manipulative manner in which he was appointed to the highest court in the land. Any self-respecting judge, in spite of his or her eminent qualifications, or precisely because of the qualifications and reputation, would have rejected the position. In the history of Supreme Court in front of Gorsuch's name there always be an asterisk and a foot note on his appointment.
2
In the history of Supreme Court in front of Gorsuch's name there always be an asterisk and a foot note on his appointment.
=====================
Which will mean absolutely nothing here in the real world
=====================
Which will mean absolutely nothing here in the real world
2
We see ourselves increasingly polarized and disunited. Our political system, reliant on two parties governing TOGETHER, is, if not in tatters, threadbare. Mutual respect and cooperation are today considered quant, at best.
The Republicans' refusal to give Judge Garland a hearing is perhaps the single most telling instance of our federal government's broken-ness. The people responsible were, and are, putting party above country; they think governing is ruling.
It seems increasingly clear that, as a country, we're headed for the trash heap. All good things must come to an end. But must we, as country, come to such a self-imposed and ignominious one?
The Republicans' refusal to give Judge Garland a hearing is perhaps the single most telling instance of our federal government's broken-ness. The people responsible were, and are, putting party above country; they think governing is ruling.
It seems increasingly clear that, as a country, we're headed for the trash heap. All good things must come to an end. But must we, as country, come to such a self-imposed and ignominious one?
3
In the election this past November, there were many democrats who could not see any difference between trump and Clinton and there were many, who would typically vote democratic, who did not go to the polls. When liberals and democrats start crying about Gorsuch and Sessions, they have nobody to blame but themselves. If the democrats had shown up at the polls in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Hillary would be in the White House. She would have still faced a republican congress, but she would have picked different people for the courts (not just Supreme Court but also for district and appeals courts) and cabinet.
They can have protests and marches till the cows come home but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Winning an election is what counts.
They can have protests and marches till the cows come home but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Winning an election is what counts.
1
The premise of Merrick Garland being denied the seat on the SCOTUS is lacking in factual data. It has been the tradition of filling a vacant seat on the Supreme Court during the last term of a President, especially when the President is in his last of two terms, doesn't happen. It hasn't happened in the last 50 years. President Obama knew it was a long shot but took it anyway, hoping that the Republicans would fold.
2
I blame the people of this country who continually vote for the extremely rich. All the power brokers have to do is claim the identity of a white Christian even if they aren't and they get the vote. The Russians who have made millions influencing our opinions are now running our country along with the long list of billionaires involved with taking an axe to all that is good about our country to increase their profits.
5
I agree with Rick. No one stole a seat. Your editors should be more politically neutral. R Sherwood
5
That the editors say that the seat was 'stolen' constantly, in complete denial of a century of political history, and then categorize Justice Gorsuch's opinion on freedom of religion as being, in some way, radical (even though his statement is verbatim consistent with the Constitution) is but another glaring example of how slanted and one-sided the Times has become. I keep wondering how low you can go; obviously you're not nearly there yet.
4
It's a tie between Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell for the most evil man holding office in the history of the United States.
4
Religion and Civilization are incompatible...
4
While I disagree with the failure to give a hearing to Judge Garland, I am over it. The whining of the NYT Editorial board is old and not relevant to the decisions ahead.
2
Typical self-victimized NYT: doer/ done to, something was taken away from someone who had a right to it. Before you know it they'll be intersectionalizing this to other causes of the "oppressed". NO. Gorsuch took Scalia's seat, not Garland's; he replaced one staunch conservative with another, maintaining the balance we have had on the Supreme Court at least since Thomas was confirmed almost three decades ago. The US as a nation is not NYT-liberal and the current make-up of the court reflects that. "We're not in Kansas anymore."
4
The seat was not Scalia's, it is the people's. And the decades-long conservative tilt of the court is not a reason to appoint Gorsuch - the court is more conservative than the overall population is.
3
Mitch McConnell says that one of his proudest moments is when he denied Barack Obama his Supreme Court nominee. Those who respect democracy would describe this as his most shameful moment. Followed by many more shameful moments in which he enabled an incompetent and unstable man to sit in the White House. Clearly, Mr McConnell takes more pride in his tactical political skills than in doing what is ethically right. Perhaps for him, "to do the right thing" means screw the nation to suit your own party's interests. He should realise he will go down in history as the Dark Villain in this unfolding drama of a nation's failing democracy.
4
Judge Gorsuch is illegitimate - just like the "president" who installed him.
3
The Editorial Board - "After a couple months of Justice Neil Gorsuch, it's clear Mitch McConnell's theft of a Supreme Court seat is paying off in spades."
It's the comedic writings or should I say musings of the NYT Editorial Board that keeps me coming back laughing each time. I'll bet you even believe that Trump stole the election!
It's the comedic writings or should I say musings of the NYT Editorial Board that keeps me coming back laughing each time. I'll bet you even believe that Trump stole the election!
6
Excellent article deserves a title reflective of the Times' negative opinion of Gorsush
I just watched the video of Donald Trump rolling around on the floor, beating up on a faux CNN.
Gorsuch: You must be just so proud of who put you on the Bench.
"I can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and never lose a vote!"
"Grab 'em in the *****!"
You like that?
I've never seen a more revolting display in my life from a President of the United States of America.
You have nothing to be proud of.
Gorsuch: You must be just so proud of who put you on the Bench.
"I can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and never lose a vote!"
"Grab 'em in the *****!"
You like that?
I've never seen a more revolting display in my life from a President of the United States of America.
You have nothing to be proud of.
5
McConnell will down in history as one of the most corrupt, amoral and treasonous politicians in US history. Trump will be his equal on that front with Paul Ryan a close second.
Where is the GOP call for DT to do his job and have a plan to deter Russia from doing any more hacking?
Simple answer: since DT benefitted from this crime- he's happy to do nothing and hopes they do it again in 2020.
Even if DT did not collude with Russia prior to the election ( which, by the way, I think he certainly did)- he should be impeached on the fact he has done nothing since taking office to prevent this from happening again. I feel like I am living in the twilight zone with this insane idiot in the WH.
Where is the GOP call for DT to do his job and have a plan to deter Russia from doing any more hacking?
Simple answer: since DT benefitted from this crime- he's happy to do nothing and hopes they do it again in 2020.
Even if DT did not collude with Russia prior to the election ( which, by the way, I think he certainly did)- he should be impeached on the fact he has done nothing since taking office to prevent this from happening again. I feel like I am living in the twilight zone with this insane idiot in the WH.
5
American women...prepare yourself for a return to the 19th Century. It's what the white "Christian" men want for you, and a majority of you voted for it.
4
Where is the NYT Pied Piper leading Disgruntled Dems?
Probably somewhere really great right?
Probably somewhere really great right?
4
McConnell is a traitor.
4
SCOTUS “packing” has been a long tradition. FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court to get Republicans to support his New Deal. Political bias has divided America throughout its history, more so now than ever before. The Gorsuch-Garland Supreme Court election won by a Republican dominated Senate, is a case on point.
When the legislative and executive branch are determined to unwind regulations designed to pre-empt a Financial crisis or similar costly systems failure, the SCOTUS is often called to hear disputes. Likewise, it will be the ‘Supremes’ that will decide on complex technology issues that involve ‘national security’.
It may seem convenient to place the duty to protect citizens on the shoulders of the Supreme Court, but the SCOTUS has become the final arbitrar of important Court decisions. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) was decided by Republican Supremes (5-4) in favor of wealthy political action committees. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy who was nominated to the SCOTUS by President Reagan.
The Republican dominated SCOTUS decided Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that authored the infamous “separate but equal” doctrine. The Plessy decision was won by Ferguson (7-1) and the majority opinion was written by Associate Chief Justice Henry Billings Brown, who was a Republican.
The Republicans gave the African slaves the “Civil War Amendments” (13, 14 and 15) but denied Black Americans equality before the law for 50 years after Plessy’s decision.
When the legislative and executive branch are determined to unwind regulations designed to pre-empt a Financial crisis or similar costly systems failure, the SCOTUS is often called to hear disputes. Likewise, it will be the ‘Supremes’ that will decide on complex technology issues that involve ‘national security’.
It may seem convenient to place the duty to protect citizens on the shoulders of the Supreme Court, but the SCOTUS has become the final arbitrar of important Court decisions. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) was decided by Republican Supremes (5-4) in favor of wealthy political action committees. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy who was nominated to the SCOTUS by President Reagan.
The Republican dominated SCOTUS decided Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that authored the infamous “separate but equal” doctrine. The Plessy decision was won by Ferguson (7-1) and the majority opinion was written by Associate Chief Justice Henry Billings Brown, who was a Republican.
The Republicans gave the African slaves the “Civil War Amendments” (13, 14 and 15) but denied Black Americans equality before the law for 50 years after Plessy’s decision.
2
The Republicans gave the African slaves the “Civil War Amendments” (13, 14 and 15) but denied Black Americans equality before the law for 50 years after Plessy’s decision.
======================
You are pointing the finger the wrong way. Democrats were always the party of Jim Crow and the KKK after the Civil War
======================
You are pointing the finger the wrong way. Democrats were always the party of Jim Crow and the KKK after the Civil War
3
There are likely both Democratic and Republican voters in the Hell's Angels, but none will likely be eligible for nomination to the SCOTUS. The Plessy decision solidified Jim Crow - made ad hoc rules legal - much as apartheid laws in South Africa.
I welcome your point of view. But I think the chasm between Dem and GOP - between an Old South and New Northern industrial entreprenurial class, had more to do with culture clash that rallied around emancipation as the rationale to advance war. I suggest that political party loyalty may be familial while politics - conservative or liberal, may be dependent on the district/state political machines and opportunities o be elected, rather than idealism.
I welcome your point of view. But I think the chasm between Dem and GOP - between an Old South and New Northern industrial entreprenurial class, had more to do with culture clash that rallied around emancipation as the rationale to advance war. I suggest that political party loyalty may be familial while politics - conservative or liberal, may be dependent on the district/state political machines and opportunities o be elected, rather than idealism.
The Republican Party is rapidly becoming the party of religious extremists, anti public education, science deniers, who no longer care about governing.
Much like some of the ideologies, in countries where we have gone to war against.
Much like some of the ideologies, in countries where we have gone to war against.
5
His real soul mate is the other sleeper saboteur, Justice Alito, groomed since Freshman Week at Princeton in the racist, sexist Concerned Alumni cabal of extreme revanchism against all progressive movements, and coddled from connection to connection to be delivered to the warehouse of clones straight out of "Boys from Brazil," awaiting activation via nomination to a federal court; and then seething, patiently and chastely, to leap lethargic scrutiny by a cynical, clubby Senate to the highest echelon of the betrayal of jurisprudence.
10
Republican intransigence and lawlessness has delegitimized Congress, and with the confirmation of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the judiciary is fatally politicized.
And, yes, I mean lawlessness. The voter suppression, gerrymandering, and destruction of political norms and traditions pursued by this rogue party are threats to American democracy.
Race-baiting, the overt white supremacy of Bannon and his ilk, incessant lies, blistering hypocrisy, demeaning of the press, and the continuous attack on intellectuals and more generally a wholesale assault on truth are what characterize the Republican party now.
None of that party's po-faced paragons of virtue has done more than written a sternly worded tweet at the majority-vote loser in the Oval Office, all the while they in their ever so Christian hearts prepare to strip healthcare from 22 million in the next 10 years and millions more after that.
Joe Biden has said that he called his former colleagues in the Senate to argue for hearings to take place for Garland. Everyone he spoke to admitted such hearings should take place, a vote should be taken, but none, not a single one, had the courage to say so or to work to make it so.
That is what the Republican party is now: a bunch of cowards in thrall to the Koch-funded right led by a deranged charlatan.
And, yes, I mean lawlessness. The voter suppression, gerrymandering, and destruction of political norms and traditions pursued by this rogue party are threats to American democracy.
Race-baiting, the overt white supremacy of Bannon and his ilk, incessant lies, blistering hypocrisy, demeaning of the press, and the continuous attack on intellectuals and more generally a wholesale assault on truth are what characterize the Republican party now.
None of that party's po-faced paragons of virtue has done more than written a sternly worded tweet at the majority-vote loser in the Oval Office, all the while they in their ever so Christian hearts prepare to strip healthcare from 22 million in the next 10 years and millions more after that.
Joe Biden has said that he called his former colleagues in the Senate to argue for hearings to take place for Garland. Everyone he spoke to admitted such hearings should take place, a vote should be taken, but none, not a single one, had the courage to say so or to work to make it so.
That is what the Republican party is now: a bunch of cowards in thrall to the Koch-funded right led by a deranged charlatan.
29
Amen to that....
1
Political "norms and traditions" aren't laws, and changing them isn't "lawlessness." Was Harry Reid lawless when he eliminated the filibuster for all but SCOTUS nominations?
2
The voter suppression, gerrymandering, and destruction of political norms and traditions pursued by this rogue party are threats to American democracy.
========================
I always find it interesting that those who pound the table about "voter suppression" never seem to come up with the name of a single real person who has been denied the chance to vote.
========================
I always find it interesting that those who pound the table about "voter suppression" never seem to come up with the name of a single real person who has been denied the chance to vote.
3
Editors of NYT: Is this editorial statement the best you can do for a stolen seat that has already shifted the court to the right and will do deep damage next year and for years to come? You seem to sadly applaud McConnell's "gambit" when, in reality, it was really pure, unadulterated, outright thievery by a man who is proving to be a traitor to the constitution for Republican political gain. You are correct that "this will change history" but in the wrong way and to the extreme detriment of "We The People."
4
Once again Obama lost a simple battle because of late start then chickening out. Nothing new here.
3
By omitting highly relevant facts (for example, that both Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer both indicated that lame-duck presidents should not nominate Justices), a case can be made that this editorial violates the standards of journalism readers expect from the Times, a suggestion that must be tempered by the fact that this piece is an editorial.
In the past, I would have written a letter to the Times’ Public Editor. But I can’t do that any more. A month ago, the Times dismissed its Public Editor and closed her office. This was a major mistake. At a time when the mainstream media in general, and the Times in particular, is coming under increasing scrutiny and often seems to be losing credibility in the eyes of much of the public, the media more than ever needs to assure its readership of its trustworthiness. Ending the role of Public Editor was bad optics, and a just plain wrong move by the Times’ leadership.
A few days ago, Sarah Palin filed a lawsuit against the Times for an allegedly defamatory editorial. Regardless of one’s opinion of Ms. Palin, her lawsuit makes valid points; read, for example, Erik Wemple’s column in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/27/sarah-pal...
Now, more than ever, the Times, and the media in general, needs Public Editors and ombudsmen. The Times should reconsider its decision and reinstate the role of Public Editor.
In the past, I would have written a letter to the Times’ Public Editor. But I can’t do that any more. A month ago, the Times dismissed its Public Editor and closed her office. This was a major mistake. At a time when the mainstream media in general, and the Times in particular, is coming under increasing scrutiny and often seems to be losing credibility in the eyes of much of the public, the media more than ever needs to assure its readership of its trustworthiness. Ending the role of Public Editor was bad optics, and a just plain wrong move by the Times’ leadership.
A few days ago, Sarah Palin filed a lawsuit against the Times for an allegedly defamatory editorial. Regardless of one’s opinion of Ms. Palin, her lawsuit makes valid points; read, for example, Erik Wemple’s column in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/06/27/sarah-pal...
Now, more than ever, the Times, and the media in general, needs Public Editors and ombudsmen. The Times should reconsider its decision and reinstate the role of Public Editor.
7
Proof positive that you can get what you are willing to pay for.
Yea, well, this is what happens when people don't vote. All this handwringing over McConnell (& Lyin' Ryan for that matter) would be moot if people voted in every election. The 2010 midterms were a seismic change - repugnant-cans not only took over the house, the killed it at the state level allowing for all kinds of fun and games with gerrymandering, abortion rights, voter suppression, state budgets, environmental policy, yada yada. If Texas voters participated at even the dismal national average, it would be a blue state. For all the whining about 2016, millennials need to get off the couch and vote. That decision to stay at home will cost them and us dearly. Not more complicated than that.
5
And this whole steaming pile sits at the feet of the African Americans, millennials, Bernie Bros, and Jill Steiner's who either didn't vote or withheld their vote from the candidate that would have beaten Trump. Trump, McConnell and the Republicans will continue to do evil, horrible things unless we stop them.
6
No, the problem is Gorsuch, and it is Congress, and it is America. Gorsuch is a medium stupid overeducated fellow, as anyone with a logic chip who read his book would discover. Senators didn't read his book and don't have a logic chip. They did hear about some of Gorsuch's decisions and approved him nonetheless, which shows that they don't have a morality chip either.
8
Neil Gorsuch sits in no seat that "by rights" was Obama's to fill, and the claim he is part of "stealing" a seat is calumny. Clearly, on the latter point, the New York Times has had no hesitation. The Constitution is clear: the President chooses, the Senate disposes. It disposes by voting, not voting, ignoring. Barack Obama chose; the Senate disposed by ignoring. No theft, no Constitutional foul. The fact that, despite Hillary's incessant attempt to make an issue of this, the American electorate was unpersuaded to rally to Merrick Garland's cause, while many voters chose precisely to vote for Donald Trump because he would pick the Supreme Court justice and not pick a clone of the Beyer-Ginsburg-Sotomayor-Kagan-Garland school. Enough of these lies.
10
Mitch McConnell will be reckoned with; perhaps when Kentucky voters turn
theirwant to be identified with Donald J. Trump....
one mean and double dealing; the other demented and double dealing...
Both will stab the voter in the back...given every chance the get.
At least Trump has the valid excuse for his actions: he is mentally ill.
McConnell is just a very callous and very nasty man.
theirwant to be identified with Donald J. Trump....
one mean and double dealing; the other demented and double dealing...
Both will stab the voter in the back...given every chance the get.
At least Trump has the valid excuse for his actions: he is mentally ill.
McConnell is just a very callous and very nasty man.
9
The U.S. has a long way to go before it can be called a civilization, if one judges it by the leaders it has been selecting and electing in recent times. McConnell and Ryan, the congressional leaders, are cold calculators, practitioners of an uncaring and inhumane public policy. Pence and Gorsuch are Christian fanatics in a land that constitutionally does not tolerate religious fanaticism. The president obviously is an uneducated bully whose behavior and limited intelligence are frightening and dangerous. He lacks both curiosity and a sense of fairness. So who are the citizens who have placed these people in positions of authority that are corrosive, persistently racist and overtly against the principles of the Enlightenment? The lack of education by the base and the greed of the super rich who are orchestrating this deplorable situation are causes that cannot be denied. The great democratic experiment of this nation which along with the French Revolution has been crafting a better future for humanity is obviously in peril. The Obama presidency slowed down these extremists and brought some joy and hope both to this country and the world. But for the class that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are concepts without meaning - health, education, prosperity for all, fraternity, the caring and the respect for the Other - this class and its tenets are the cancer of the Republic.
15
Given Mr. Pruitt's work dismantling the EPA, DeVoss's actions in education, Gorsuch*'s bromance with Thomas, and on and on, the right-wing coup long sought by the Birchers (aka Kochs) is nearing its' end game. Now the NRA has come out with a video basically urging for "action" to be taken against all those evil "elites" who seek to deny freedumb from all right-thinking, god-fearing "Muricans. This is the real meaning of draining the swamp.
The damage being done will take decades to reverse. Especially when one considers that the authors of this debacle will be around, lurking in the boardrooms and country clubs.
*Not legitimate, stolen seat.
The damage being done will take decades to reverse. Especially when one considers that the authors of this debacle will be around, lurking in the boardrooms and country clubs.
*Not legitimate, stolen seat.
14
Actually, the spread is four conservative and four liberal Justices, with Kennedy as the swing vote (for now), just as it was when Scalia was still serving. Thank heaven we are moving toward a majority on the court who understand that the Constitution is their master, not the other way around. One can only hope that the rest of President Trump's appointments are half as stellar. It is also a pity that more decisions were not "stolen" from President Obama. The country would be in far better shape if the grownups had taken stronger stands during his unfortunate tenure.
6
Although I am far from approving anything that Trump has tried, is trying, and will try to do, I am not averse to a conservative vote in the Supreme Court. The Court should be politically neutral and act as a Council of Sages. But, given its mixture of outspoken conservatives and leftist radical Democrats, its does not hurt to have one more of the former.
2
Republicans merely followed the Biden Rule. We all know what would have happened had the shoe been on the other foot.
The role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent for a SCOTUS nominee. It withheld its consent by not holding hearings or a vote on Garland. If a vote had been held and Garland not approved we would still be hearing this "stolen seat" nonsense.
Democrats wouldn't be having these problems if they could win elections. After the electoral debacles for Dems since 2010 it is clear that they can't. They are in denial of the fact that they have lost ca. 1200+ seats at the state and federal level since 2010
The role of the Senate is to provide advice and consent for a SCOTUS nominee. It withheld its consent by not holding hearings or a vote on Garland. If a vote had been held and Garland not approved we would still be hearing this "stolen seat" nonsense.
Democrats wouldn't be having these problems if they could win elections. After the electoral debacles for Dems since 2010 it is clear that they can't. They are in denial of the fact that they have lost ca. 1200+ seats at the state and federal level since 2010
6
There was no Biden Rule. If there is, post to a link where the rule was approved by the Senate.
7
And there was the coup.
As the Godfather of Puzzo use to say; a lawyer with a briefcase can do more than the a mob with guns....
For all those Democrat voters who didn't vote because they didn't like Hillary, this is what you get.
3
Why do we permit Kentucky, one of the most backward states in the union, to hold so much power?
And just desserts certainly await Mr. McConnell's sense of fair play.
And just desserts certainly await Mr. McConnell's sense of fair play.
2
"Theft" -- good choice of words by the "Editorial Board." We don't have enough overblown speech in modern discourse.
4
Indeed. The truth is that elections have consequences. If Hillary Clinton had won I expect we'd have a liberal justice and a change to liberal activism by the Supreme Court, similar to the Earl Warren days. And the NY Times editorial board would be applauding. Instead they keep repeating the ridiculous idea that the seat was "stolen," when in fact it was determined by a national election. That's how democracy works.
3
The sad and frustrating fact about President Obama was his inability to engage the bullies of the Senate and go directly to the people to make his case. His lack of appetite for direct engagement leaves us stuck with the worst among us. Too bad he the former President did not tweet. It is what the idiot American public responds to.
2
Courage? really?
If only George Washington had the courage to become king...
If only George Washington had the courage to become king...
1
If Ginsberg would only retire, we could have a fair SCOTUS. Why do Liberals dislike being fair, so much? Methinks it has to do with lack of maturity!
4
Lets be realistic about this. Scalia was a conservative judge who died in an election year with a radical left President in power. What do you expect to happen? That conservatives roll over giving the Marxist another chance to shape the country? They probably would have if not for the rise of populism indicated by Trump ascent. Nytimes characterizes this political machinations as "Theft from a black man" and wonders how political discourse became uncivil. Did it ever occur to you that the real theft is transfer of taxpayer paid monies to Medicaid from Medicare? That the great O was playing Robinhood? Did it ever occur to you that the real theft is line cutting by illegal immigrants pushing legal immigrants to the back of the line? The the great O was again an enabler there?
6
Why do liberals lie? Neither Obama nor Garland had a "right" to the court vacancy, and the Gorsuch confirmation was not a "theft." A court appointment requires Senate approval. Garland did not get it. Finis.
8
The use of the word theft in this opinion should be below the dignity of the NYT
editorial board. This kind of hyperbole does nothing to help the nation come together, it only exacerbates the partisan rhetoric.
editorial board. This kind of hyperbole does nothing to help the nation come together, it only exacerbates the partisan rhetoric.
6
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it is a duck. Same concept applies to stolen Supreme Court seats...
1
Actually, Richard Goodell of Louisiana, though I agree with you that the Court seat wasn't stolen--the deed, after all, was merely a typical piece of McConnell flimflam--I'm overjoyed at the Times' hyperbole, since the last thing I want is for the nation to come together.
The two halves of the nation disagree profoundly on everything important; there is no common ground, nor should there be. You fight for your beliefs, I'll fight for mine, and whoever wins rules. Right now, you have won, so you rule. That won't last, because in politics nothing ever does. Unlike you, I look forward to the battle, the bloodier the better.
The two halves of the nation disagree profoundly on everything important; there is no common ground, nor should there be. You fight for your beliefs, I'll fight for mine, and whoever wins rules. Right now, you have won, so you rule. That won't last, because in politics nothing ever does. Unlike you, I look forward to the battle, the bloodier the better.
Mitch McConnell, the cynical and borderline sociopathic Republican leader, will love this article.
McConnell may look like Jimmeny Cricket but apparently he loves the role of being the Dark Knight.
Go figure.
McConnell may look like Jimmeny Cricket but apparently he loves the role of being the Dark Knight.
Go figure.
1
It's also worth pointing out that by the time it's said and done, it's possible we'll know that Gorsuch will have been appointed by a *president who colluded with foreign agents to steal the election.
6
As I've said before, McConnell is the most perfidious politician ever. He has no morals or sense of ethics.
6
"The problem is that he’s sitting in the seat that by rights should be occupied by Judge Garland. "
Oh, baloney. The only "problem" is that the Democrats didn't pull this off.
Or maybe the NYT Op-Ed Page would be howling over an entrenched solid liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next half century?
Oh, baloney. The only "problem" is that the Democrats didn't pull this off.
Or maybe the NYT Op-Ed Page would be howling over an entrenched solid liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next half century?
6
Point in fact McConnell is a Traitor the the Constitution and the founding fathers Republicans always love to bring up. He is a Traitor to the very office he holds in the Senate. He is a Traitor to the American people. This appointment will set the country back at least 30 years. Gorsuch will break the principal of Separation Of Church And State. Trinity Lutheran was only the beginning. The criminality of the Republican Party knows no bounds as seen by their acceptance of the man who is President now. I will never again vote for A Republican anywhere any place.
8
Theft? Stolen? A stolen Supreme Court Justice ought to be reported to the FBI. This is also something serious to tweet about.
3
Thanks a lot, Mitch. I look forward to the day when the Democrats are in a position to return the favor--in spades.
5
The Democrats should invite Gorsuch to resign, stating the plain truth that he is the recipient of an illegitimately obtained office. They should also say that as soon as a Democrat next becomes president every 5-4 Supreme Court decision in which he was a member of the prevailing faction will be flagged for immediate review as an improperly decided case. In short, Gorsuch should be stigmatized as long as he remains on the Court. His disfavored position should bear the name The McConnell Stigma. Only something that drastic would keep this kind of outrage from happening again.
5
Flagged for review by whom? Neither of the other branches has the authority to overrule a Supreme Court decision, apart from Congress revising legislation while conforming it to the Constitution? Do you understand how our government works?
And what exactly is "an improperly decided case"? One whose outcome you disagree with?
And what exactly is "an improperly decided case"? One whose outcome you disagree with?
4
The Supreme Court is just as partisan as the other two branches of our government because it is staffed with human beings. The problem as I see it is the fact that Supremes are appointed for life. That is a problem and it should change. I think it would be reasonable to appoint a SC justice for a 10-year term; at that point he or she must be reconfirmed by the existing Congress or the current President must appoint a new justice for confirmation. There is a reason we have term limits for Presidents and require that Senators and Representatives be re-elected; no one should be allowed or required to serve for a lifetime.
3
Despite the circumstances that surrounded the appointment of Judge Gorsuch, I am hoping to maintain my belief that he is a good and honest person who will, at the end of the day, go about his duties for the good of the country.
What truly worries me is the fact that he is where he is now because his appointment was engineered by a high stakes gambler who has the personal predilection for winning for winning's sake. Senator McConnell has been rolling the dice for the GOP. His leadership has enabled his band to cozy up to lobbies and influential patrons; to blur the lines between private and public interests; and to entrench a murderous partisan political arena from which our democracy, national pride, common wealth and goodwill might never recover from. His like-minded colleagues hail him. Others who may think differently in certain issues are slammed. He has been the jolly party bagman who effectively apportions the graces from their patrons, so, why alienate him? So, they win political battles and we lose. Senator McConnell's winning hand has accounted for losses that jeopardize the public good. Why does he continue to champion on--- if not for the personal intoxication from raw power? His power makes things happen.
So much of the malaise that afflicts the country is being blamed on the president. Maybe the media should start shedding light on the power that put the president in his position and keeps him there.
What truly worries me is the fact that he is where he is now because his appointment was engineered by a high stakes gambler who has the personal predilection for winning for winning's sake. Senator McConnell has been rolling the dice for the GOP. His leadership has enabled his band to cozy up to lobbies and influential patrons; to blur the lines between private and public interests; and to entrench a murderous partisan political arena from which our democracy, national pride, common wealth and goodwill might never recover from. His like-minded colleagues hail him. Others who may think differently in certain issues are slammed. He has been the jolly party bagman who effectively apportions the graces from their patrons, so, why alienate him? So, they win political battles and we lose. Senator McConnell's winning hand has accounted for losses that jeopardize the public good. Why does he continue to champion on--- if not for the personal intoxication from raw power? His power makes things happen.
So much of the malaise that afflicts the country is being blamed on the president. Maybe the media should start shedding light on the power that put the president in his position and keeps him there.
4
Further proof that The United States Constitution and accompanying Amendments are dead. Modern Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers, and their ilk have no use for them.
It's only a matter of time until blood streams down the nation's streets.
More blood, actually. After all, law enforcement is murdering innocent unarmed people at an increasing rate with immunity.
Eventually the increasing number of those homeless, hungry, w/o medical care or other social safety will have nothing left to lose by fighting back.
Of course, it doesn't have to be that way, but it will be.
Good luck.
Of course, there are better countries to raise children. Far better.
It's only a matter of time until blood streams down the nation's streets.
More blood, actually. After all, law enforcement is murdering innocent unarmed people at an increasing rate with immunity.
Eventually the increasing number of those homeless, hungry, w/o medical care or other social safety will have nothing left to lose by fighting back.
Of course, it doesn't have to be that way, but it will be.
Good luck.
Of course, there are better countries to raise children. Far better.
2
I have carefully read Justice Gorsuch's book on the future of assisted suicide. While he is a well trained lawyer and scholar, that's the bad news, as it was with Robert Bork: Gorsuch uses his considerable skills to try to mask the dishonesty apparent upon a close reading of his book.
Beyond conflating physician assisted suicide with euthanasia throughout the book, for example, and consistently running together other issues that are quite distinct, he argues for an "inviolability of life" principle that would forbid physician assisted suicide even for someone mentally competent and confirmed to be within six months of death, as a number of states now allow. Indeed, he all but condemns the liberty to control the circumstances of one's death as a burden we cannot allow because some, like the disabled and elderly, can not be trusted to use it properly, even with appropriate procedural safeguards in place. Up is down, day is night, paternalism trumps freedom, and Orwell lives. A basic liberty must be shut down for all because some might misuse it. Beyond its implications for the right do die cases that the Court will, in various forms, hear in coming decades, this suggests to me that Gorsuch would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade given the chance. Fasten your seatbelts.
Beyond conflating physician assisted suicide with euthanasia throughout the book, for example, and consistently running together other issues that are quite distinct, he argues for an "inviolability of life" principle that would forbid physician assisted suicide even for someone mentally competent and confirmed to be within six months of death, as a number of states now allow. Indeed, he all but condemns the liberty to control the circumstances of one's death as a burden we cannot allow because some, like the disabled and elderly, can not be trusted to use it properly, even with appropriate procedural safeguards in place. Up is down, day is night, paternalism trumps freedom, and Orwell lives. A basic liberty must be shut down for all because some might misuse it. Beyond its implications for the right do die cases that the Court will, in various forms, hear in coming decades, this suggests to me that Gorsuch would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade given the chance. Fasten your seatbelts.
4
If Obama had spent his last years working to better the country rather than pushing the boundaries of what Congress would accept in his quest to build a legacy, McConnell et al may have considered an appointee with a similar motive.
As it stands now, Obama will be remembered chiefly as the president who elected Donald Trump.
As it stands now, Obama will be remembered chiefly as the president who elected Donald Trump.
5
What, specifically, should President Obama have done? Or have you (conveniently) forgotten the obstructionism and hate he faced from Congress?
2
First, the GOP refused to allow President Obama to fill Justice Scalia’s Supreme Court seat. Then, before the elections, Sen. John McCain vowed to block, for 4 or 8 years, ANY Supreme Court nominations by a President Hillary Clinton. GOP Sens. Richard Burr, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz publicly agreed with McCain on the subject. Thus, Senate Republicans showed their disdain for Constitutional appointments to the SCOTUS. They only had to put up the Garland nomination for a vote, but they never even had preliminary committee hearings on the nomination. Many on the political right, including the evangelicals, voted for Trump because they wanted a conservative-dominated SC that would rule favorably on issues dear to conservatives. ALL who profess to be progressives should read this editorial. They should have been as pragmatic as conservatives. The cynical treatment of Judge Garland, the threats about blocking Clinton court nominations and the huge importance of the SC, should have energized progressives to vote to ensure that progressive issues would fare well in the next WH. But progressives (Progs) fractured themselves and forgot that elections have far-reaching consequences. Progs need a spread sheet synopsis of their issues. For each one, they should HONESTLY compare what Trump’s done so far, versus Hillary’s policies. Progs' Resistance is exciting; but it came too late.
3
Yes, Garland's seat was stolen in broad daylight. The question I've had for a long time is why Obama rolled over on this most critical of issues. One article by an attorney that was published in The Washington Post in 2016 argued convincingly that the Senate should have been deemed to have waived its right to advise and consent when it refused to even consider Garland's nomination. That analysis must be correct, because if Congress consistently refused to consider SCOTUS nominees, the Court would eventually disappear altogether as justices died or retired, despite the guarantee in the Constitution that there are to be three branches of government in our country.
Now we are burdened with Gorsuch, whose opinions as a lower court judge (analyzed by The Times) clearly showed that he is as right-wing as it gets, with the exception of Clarence Thomas.
Now we are burdened with Gorsuch, whose opinions as a lower court judge (analyzed by The Times) clearly showed that he is as right-wing as it gets, with the exception of Clarence Thomas.
5
It is a rule in politics, that one must be prepared to see the political weapon he uses at the hands of his oponents. Liberals used the SC to achieve political gains. Even if the end was desirable, the means were wrong. Now the SC has political gravity that is was never intended to have, and everything else are the unintended consequences.
6
McConnell's Gambit was not in any way courageous. It was, purely and simply, an act of sedition against the country and the very Constitution to which he swore an oath. We need to amend the Constitution to prevent partisan bad actor of any stripe from having the incentive or the means to do this again. To wit:
1. Supreme Court justices should be on rotating 18-year terms with one term expiring every 2 years. This eliminates the incentive to pack the court.
2. Presidential appointments must be voted on within a fixed time frame, say 120 days, otherwise they stand. This forces the Senate to do its job and vote up or down.
1. Supreme Court justices should be on rotating 18-year terms with one term expiring every 2 years. This eliminates the incentive to pack the court.
2. Presidential appointments must be voted on within a fixed time frame, say 120 days, otherwise they stand. This forces the Senate to do its job and vote up or down.
16
McConnell is the worst and most viciously anti-democracy politician I have seen in my lifetime. Nixon was a petty criminal compared to the turtle man (mcdonnell looks like a turtle and clearly has a giant turtle shell attached to his skin that can fend off any attack on his anti-democratic methods). hence, the turtle man.
I don't understand how McConnell's STAFF can live with themselves. His Staff. Probably hundreds. Did McConnell's staff realize the Turtle was violating his oath to protect the constitution? did they agree? shameful.
I don't understand how McConnell's STAFF can live with themselves. His Staff. Probably hundreds. Did McConnell's staff realize the Turtle was violating his oath to protect the constitution? did they agree? shameful.
1
McConnell won because of the unbelievable triumph of white rage and corporate impunity. But in matters in which McConnell's humanity will be measured he is absolutely devoid of decency. He will not walk away from the health care travesty he is promoting. He will keep after it with bull dog tenacity. By offering largesse to his colleagues, as in the 200 billion slush fund. Medicaid is a welfare program to him. Trying to fix the ACA is like making a deal with the devil.
6
Medicaid IS a welfare program! Yes, continue to blame electoral loses on RACISIM. It will continue to be a WINNER for you.
2
Roberts is too clever by half. He knows full well that the trinity ruling erodes the wall between church and state. The goal of bringing this seemingly innocuous case to SCOTUS was to begin the process. Roberts so-called scholarly words re. the narrowness of the decision will not make a bit of difference when case after case will bring us to a nation based on christian sharia law.
13
Let's not forget this long game's beginning of the SCOTUS tilt to the right: when Bush1 nominated Clarence Hill to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat in 1991. The Senate Judiciary Committee split its vote seven to seven, and the nomination went to the Senate without a clear recommendation. What followed was Anita Hill's coming forward. Despite her testimony, the Senate confirmed him 52-48. He remains.with Scalia's death, the most conservative member of the Court to this day.
6
I think you mean Clarence Thomas. It's funny not because there's anything about his being a sad excuse for a jurist, but because you fused his name with Anita Hill, whom he almost certainly sexually harassed.
The stolen seat charge is overwrought. I'm a liberal. I liked Garland. I wish Obama had had a Democratic Senate to confirm Garland in 2016. But the refusal of the GOP Senate to do so was just power politics, not a moral wrong or a violation of the Constitution.
If a liberal justice had died in February 2008, I'm sure Senate Democrats would have refused to have confirmed a replacement until after the election nine months later. And they'd have been within their rights to do so. It would have been absurd for George W Bush to have replaced, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the summer of 2008 with the connivance of a Democratic Senate.
Both parties have previously argued that after a certain point in the electoral cycle, Supreme Court appointments should get deferred to after the next election. If a liberal justice keels over in August 2020, I for one don't think Trump (or Pence) should get to name their successor. One can argue over how far back to push this point, and the farther back one pushes the no-appointment zone, the more strained it becomes. But that's just haggling over the specific application of a general rule that both parties have supported.
If a liberal justice had died in February 2008, I'm sure Senate Democrats would have refused to have confirmed a replacement until after the election nine months later. And they'd have been within their rights to do so. It would have been absurd for George W Bush to have replaced, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the summer of 2008 with the connivance of a Democratic Senate.
Both parties have previously argued that after a certain point in the electoral cycle, Supreme Court appointments should get deferred to after the next election. If a liberal justice keels over in August 2020, I for one don't think Trump (or Pence) should get to name their successor. One can argue over how far back to push this point, and the farther back one pushes the no-appointment zone, the more strained it becomes. But that's just haggling over the specific application of a general rule that both parties have supported.
8
Why wait for the next president to nominate a Supreme Court justice just because it's toward the end of his (or her) term? that just causes an open seat, possibility for months.
6
You are grievously wrong. McConnell's actions usurped the power of the people to have the president they voted for 3 years ago, thus disempowering them. This went against precedent, tradition and all common sense and decency. It was a power grab by an ascendant neo-fascist party set to dominate and control the nation for decades to come.
Their goal, and Trumpy's, has always intransigence, stalling, misrepresenting, lying, smearing, and spreading disinformation. For decades the GOP has tried to push/promote the idea of vouchers, for example. Local communities, states, and the federal government have been resisting and voting against almost Every proposal that came before them, what ever level of government. Now they have the bit between their teeth. Betsy DeVos, a rightwing evangelical shill, like Pence, is overturning decades of settled policies. You cite no information.
Whoever is president in 2020 from the GOP will insist that they have the right and obligation to name a GOP extremist to the SCOTUS. (Have we forgotten Robert Bork, the kind of patently ideological candidate but without Gorsuch's people skills??) The GOP thinks when they do something it's automatically right and Constitutional. Their blind ideology is ruining the party--and the nation. Please don't defend the indefensible.
Their goal, and Trumpy's, has always intransigence, stalling, misrepresenting, lying, smearing, and spreading disinformation. For decades the GOP has tried to push/promote the idea of vouchers, for example. Local communities, states, and the federal government have been resisting and voting against almost Every proposal that came before them, what ever level of government. Now they have the bit between their teeth. Betsy DeVos, a rightwing evangelical shill, like Pence, is overturning decades of settled policies. You cite no information.
Whoever is president in 2020 from the GOP will insist that they have the right and obligation to name a GOP extremist to the SCOTUS. (Have we forgotten Robert Bork, the kind of patently ideological candidate but without Gorsuch's people skills??) The GOP thinks when they do something it's automatically right and Constitutional. Their blind ideology is ruining the party--and the nation. Please don't defend the indefensible.
1
There is no basis in law or precedence for your argument. A presidency has a defined term. It starts on a particular date and ends on another. To say that certain functions of the job should be phased out 9 months before a term ends is just absurd. You could just as easily say that a retiring senator or one up for reelection should abstain from voting because their term would soon be up. How far should we take this argument?
1
This saddens me no end, to see what is happening to our country's Supreme Court. When the court-of-last-hope is politicized and bought off by the big-money special donors who are controlling our country through or politicians, we are in big trouble and people need to wake up and speak up. I used to call the courtroom (not the US Supreme Court) to order with the ending words "God bless the United States and this Honorable Court." I would change that now to say "God HELP the United States and this Honorable Court."
13
While I agree that what McConnell did was disgraceful, it would not have been possible without the failures of the Democrats who, even when they had a majority, proved incapable of organizing so much as a rock fight most of the time.
Obama's refusal to work with his own party's leaders, and vice versa, will go down as one of the biggest missed opportunities in political history. We're seeing the consequences now.
Obama's refusal to work with his own party's leaders, and vice versa, will go down as one of the biggest missed opportunities in political history. We're seeing the consequences now.
9
No. What we're seeing now is the slow and deliberate destruction of Democracy in America, thanks to the right-wing white racists and conservatives who couldn't get rid of Obama fast enough. Time to call it like it is.
Get the facts right.
Get the facts right.
1
What a sad little country we have become.
14
What a GREAT COUNTRY WE ARE BECOMING FOR THE SWATH OF NON-COASTAL US.
WE WON YOU LOST
BOOYAH!
WE WON YOU LOST
BOOYAH!
2
It was the act of a self centered ignoramus. Courage is not a quality that such people posses. They are good a back stabbing, lying, power playing when they have the power. Weasel is a term that comes to mind when ever I see images of him in the news. Betrayal is the correct term.
9
If Democrats continue to insist on identity or inclusion politics as the be-and-end all of leadership and decision-making, they will continue to get roomful after roomful of angry white-head males passing down edict after edict. Likewise, if the various identities of this so-called inclusion can't GENUINELY cast themselves as second in priority to constant and overarching issues of much broader relationships, thereby convincing the media that the greater public good actually does outweigh controversy and the media's bottom line, the RIGHT choice as opposed to the right wing will wallow in irrelevance...The object of all of this is obvious even though the lasting and devastating impact only now seems uncertain, and that's business and industry dictating thought and behavior at all levels of society, government and governance especially, as the be-and-end all of the economy. In the last century it was called fascism. Now it's a mouthful of "authoritarian capitalism".
4
Barry appeared to be in cruise-control the last a couple of years of his presidency. Instead of here's my nominee, take it or leave it, he should have put the pedal to the metal. If I were Judge Garland, I'd be more upset with him than the Republicans.
5
The jig was up when Dems allowed theft of the Presidency without a recount in the Gore - Bush debacle. It was then the Rs figured they could roll the Dems every time. The Dems have not yet proven them wrong.
17
The fault is entirely with the Democratic Party. They rolled over, completely unable to think of anything to do about this outrageous theft. They are, for all intents and purposes, dead. Like a beached whale.
After a lifetime of voting for Democrats the only thing left to wonder is how long before we can clear the carcass and get on with the job of governing the nation.
After a lifetime of voting for Democrats the only thing left to wonder is how long before we can clear the carcass and get on with the job of governing the nation.
9
How I long for the days when major newspapers strove to be objective and did not use words like "theft" to describe the legitimate political machinations of the United States Senate.
13
Theft is a very accurate word, unless, for instance, you consider fist fights to be legitimate power machinations of the school yard.
Confidence in justice is at a low since the reigning ethos seems to be "because I can."
Confidence in justice is at a low since the reigning ethos seems to be "because I can."
1
I feel hopeless about the compkete takeover of our democracy by a minority of right wing operatives along with the tons of money that supports it all...it's not going to change probably ever!!
7
In 2013, then senate majority leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for federal appointments for judges to the lower courts allowing President Obama to fill these courts with the nominees of his choice. Mitch McConnell then eliminated the filibuster of Supreme Court justices because he knew it would be impossible to elect any of the justices nominated by President Trump. It was imperative to fill the vacant seat left by the death of Antonin Scalia so important cases could finally be heard and decided upon.
One of the reasons President Trump was elected by the people was because they wanted the Supreme Court to turn away from its left-leaning decisions and become more conservative. They felt the country was heading in the wrong direction and wanted to see a more conservative justice decide the cases that were pending in the court. They were correct in not wanting the country turning any more progressive than it had become with Obama appointing some of the most liberal justices we had ever seen. Once the country had gone far left it would be difficult to stop this liberal progression. The people were concerned about this happening and decided the best candidate to prevent this was President Trump. Smart move on their part. Who knows how much more liberal the country would have become under a President Clinton? Perish the thought. This is frightening to those of us of a conservative bent. For now, we are pleased with Neal Gorsuch and are very happy.
One of the reasons President Trump was elected by the people was because they wanted the Supreme Court to turn away from its left-leaning decisions and become more conservative. They felt the country was heading in the wrong direction and wanted to see a more conservative justice decide the cases that were pending in the court. They were correct in not wanting the country turning any more progressive than it had become with Obama appointing some of the most liberal justices we had ever seen. Once the country had gone far left it would be difficult to stop this liberal progression. The people were concerned about this happening and decided the best candidate to prevent this was President Trump. Smart move on their part. Who knows how much more liberal the country would have become under a President Clinton? Perish the thought. This is frightening to those of us of a conservative bent. For now, we are pleased with Neal Gorsuch and are very happy.
8
You have conveniently forgotten that a majority of voters in this country did NOT elect Trump. By a margin north of 3 million. And the majority of those who voted for him did so out of visceral hatred for Clinton or a base desire to simply up-end the existing "order". If you think that a majority of Trump voters --who were a decided minority of voters in any event -- engaged in a thoughtful analysis of the effect their vote would have on the Supreme Court, then you are living in the world of alternative facts.
10
Exactly. I can only speak for myself, but I am sure many voted for Trump for the same primary reason I did: because a further plunge left on the SC was unthinkable. Stopping this was the paramount issue for me.
If Trump does nothing but put 2 or more conservatives on the SC, I'll be dismayed and surprised, but not unsatisfied.
If Trump does nothing but put 2 or more conservatives on the SC, I'll be dismayed and surprised, but not unsatisfied.
3
That is a pretty spectacular rewrite of history and basic reality.
For starters, the court has been conservative for the past 4 decades so where exactly are all those liberal decisions? Second, Scalia's seat had been vacant for almost a year, so if an urgency in filling his seat was paramount to Mitch McConnell, he would not have stolen the seat the way he did and prevented judge Garland from being confirmed.
You can try to put a bow on it and pretend that somehow what McConnell did was justified or honorable, but the truth is obvious and the door has now been opened to retaliation down the road.
If democrats take the senate next year and refuse to vote on a Trump nominee, I can guarantee that both you and McConnell and the entire republican spin machine will howl in manufactured outrage and lament over how those terrible democratic stole a rightfully republican nomination.
Nobody plays victim better than the republicans.
For starters, the court has been conservative for the past 4 decades so where exactly are all those liberal decisions? Second, Scalia's seat had been vacant for almost a year, so if an urgency in filling his seat was paramount to Mitch McConnell, he would not have stolen the seat the way he did and prevented judge Garland from being confirmed.
You can try to put a bow on it and pretend that somehow what McConnell did was justified or honorable, but the truth is obvious and the door has now been opened to retaliation down the road.
If democrats take the senate next year and refuse to vote on a Trump nominee, I can guarantee that both you and McConnell and the entire republican spin machine will howl in manufactured outrage and lament over how those terrible democratic stole a rightfully republican nomination.
Nobody plays victim better than the republicans.
Just when you think the --- can't pile any higher we get this. Our country faces monumental problems in one party rule and for a democracy that could be fatal to all we believe in for many years.
4
Why should McConnell stop cheating when it so obviously works? Once again the Democrats brought a knife to a gunfight and predictably lost.
7
'Why should McConnell stop cheating when it so obviously works?'
In order to 'stop cheating', one must first cheat. McConnell followed the Constitution.
In order to 'stop cheating', one must first cheat. McConnell followed the Constitution.
2
The hyperventilating Editorial Board keeps hitting new lows. If this editorial appeared in the comments, it would need to be marked "inflamatory".
If there was really a "theft" of the seat or if was "stolen" then surely, it should be illeagal and you could bring a suit to have it overturned. Since you can't do that it clearly wasn't "theft" and it wasn't "stolen".
Instead of being a voice of reason, the Editorial Board is prime evidence of Trump's claim about media bias.
If there was really a "theft" of the seat or if was "stolen" then surely, it should be illeagal and you could bring a suit to have it overturned. Since you can't do that it clearly wasn't "theft" and it wasn't "stolen".
Instead of being a voice of reason, the Editorial Board is prime evidence of Trump's claim about media bias.
10
" ... installation of Justice Neil Gorsuch ... " One would think we could come up with a description of this event that distinguishes a justice of the Supreme Court from a washer and dryer.
1
Courage? Are you kidding? This was self-serving Republican dirty politics as usual, putting their political self-interest over the interest of the country.
5
So McConnell is proud of himself for getting away with a heist. That puts him up there with DB Cooper. Whatever happened to the finest deliberative body in the world?
3
This editorial seems to neglect simple fact that Gorsuch replaced the most conservative member of the court (Scalia). As such, his appointment maintains the status quo. Classic NYT editorial style to make this sound somehow shocking.
The Republicans used strategy to avoid changing the makeup of the court. What they did was not illegal, so stop calling it "stealing". As it has been since McConnell announced his plans, this piece is sour grapes. Get over it.
The Republicans used strategy to avoid changing the makeup of the court. What they did was not illegal, so stop calling it "stealing". As it has been since McConnell announced his plans, this piece is sour grapes. Get over it.
9
@Paul
Completely wrong. The fact that Scalia died doesn't mean another conservative had to be appointed in his place. Obama had the unequivocal constitutional right to nominate a justice to his liking -- liberal, conservative or otherwise. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that conservatives must have a 5-4 majority on SCOTUS in perpetuity.
And, yes, by refusing to advise and consent on Garland, the Senate was in direct violation of the Constitution. Please read the plain language of the Constitution and then tell us where it says the Senate can abdicate its duty to advise and consent whenever it feels like it.
Completely wrong. The fact that Scalia died doesn't mean another conservative had to be appointed in his place. Obama had the unequivocal constitutional right to nominate a justice to his liking -- liberal, conservative or otherwise. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that conservatives must have a 5-4 majority on SCOTUS in perpetuity.
And, yes, by refusing to advise and consent on Garland, the Senate was in direct violation of the Constitution. Please read the plain language of the Constitution and then tell us where it says the Senate can abdicate its duty to advise and consent whenever it feels like it.
3
I assume you will have no complaints if democrats were ever able to get a commanding majority in the senate and they impeach all the conservative justices? That too would be legal and there would be nothing stopping one party from doing so.
For democracy to survive and be meaningful, we need leaders (and voters) who pay the norms behind it more than simple lip service. We can't have a president who doesn't give a crap about ethics, or believe he can't have a conflict of interest just because there is no law that bars him from doing so (and if there were, I'm sure Trump would be looking to see how big the penalty was before deciding if he was going to comply).
For democracy to survive and be meaningful, we need leaders (and voters) who pay the norms behind it more than simple lip service. We can't have a president who doesn't give a crap about ethics, or believe he can't have a conflict of interest just because there is no law that bars him from doing so (and if there were, I'm sure Trump would be looking to see how big the penalty was before deciding if he was going to comply).
Ho-hum. On to the impeachment.
1
I sometimes think that ignorance played a great role in the rise of people like Trump and his Republican House and Senate. Trump's appeal to fear, to race, to religion and his obsession with autocrats like Putin and Xi, is simply counter to what I have always was so unique about the United States and its Presidents.
The Republican Congress's absolute willingess to live with a Donald Trump in exchange for enacting its agenda of continued wealth shifting is nothing short of cowardice and hypocrisy—and even treasonous.
McConnell's behavior since achieving the majority leadership completely lacks in anything which can be called "public service." Rather, he serves a small coterie of immensely wealthy and powerful men bent on shredding federalism itself—unless it directly benefits them alone. Why the people of Kentucky, a relatively poor state dependent on federal largesse, don't send him packing is beyond me.
The theft of Obama's appointment to the Court was outrageous and of course countenenced by his Republican peers. The Democrats should have physically walked out on the Senate in protest.
McConnell has finally dropped any pretense at bipartisanship with his health care bill.
The Republican Congress's absolute willingess to live with a Donald Trump in exchange for enacting its agenda of continued wealth shifting is nothing short of cowardice and hypocrisy—and even treasonous.
McConnell's behavior since achieving the majority leadership completely lacks in anything which can be called "public service." Rather, he serves a small coterie of immensely wealthy and powerful men bent on shredding federalism itself—unless it directly benefits them alone. Why the people of Kentucky, a relatively poor state dependent on federal largesse, don't send him packing is beyond me.
The theft of Obama's appointment to the Court was outrageous and of course countenenced by his Republican peers. The Democrats should have physically walked out on the Senate in protest.
McConnell has finally dropped any pretense at bipartisanship with his health care bill.
8
This happened in ancient Rome - the shift of power from a republican (small "r") minded senate to an imperial autocracy (dictator for life) supported by small minded cowards like McConnel and fawning brown-nosing lackeys like Pence.
I am not wealthy, nor am I big Trump fan. I voted for him for one reason, the Supreme Court. He is keeping his promise. As far as I am concerned I am fine with a President Pence. You are already seeing the knives coming out for him with the Commedian from Minnesota villifying him as a zealot. My 2020 campaign slogan for Pence. Same policies less baggage.
2
Its wonderful to get somebody like Gorsuch on the court.
The Democrats know perfectly well how to overcome his vote. Its
straightforward and has been available for 230 years, and has been used
many times.
Simply amend the Constitution to say what the Democrats want it to say.
To start with 6 words will do "The 2nd Amendment is hereby repealed".
Next would be "The 10th Amendment is hereby repealed. All power not reserved to the states lies in the Federal Government".
The problem with that, of course, is that they need support of the people
and the states.
The Democrats know perfectly well how to overcome his vote. Its
straightforward and has been available for 230 years, and has been used
many times.
Simply amend the Constitution to say what the Democrats want it to say.
To start with 6 words will do "The 2nd Amendment is hereby repealed".
Next would be "The 10th Amendment is hereby repealed. All power not reserved to the states lies in the Federal Government".
The problem with that, of course, is that they need support of the people
and the states.
2
McConnell's refusal to even allow hearings on Merrick Garland was essentially a criminal act, definitely not his first, and very likely not his last. He denied all voters, not just Democrats, the right to give Garland the fair hearing that every qualified Supreme Court nominee deserves. As far as I am concerned, McConnell belongs in federal prison.
4
Mitch McConnell is NOT an honorable human being. He and other people like him are what's wrong in America. McConnell looks straight into the camera and spews outright lies. He is a dreadful role model for young and old alike.
As for Neil Gorsuch, it's a shame that he didn't have the integrity to turn down the nomination to the Supreme Court. If he had one ounce of morality, he would have stated publicly that Judge Garland should have received the nomination and selection to the Supreme Court. That would have been fair in our democracy.
As for Neil Gorsuch, it's a shame that he didn't have the integrity to turn down the nomination to the Supreme Court. If he had one ounce of morality, he would have stated publicly that Judge Garland should have received the nomination and selection to the Supreme Court. That would have been fair in our democracy.
275
Integrity and Republicans have always had a strange relationship. Since Nixon and then Reagan the relationship hit upon rocky times, with W it continued it's decline. When Obama was elected, twice with substantial majorities, any pretense with integrity vanished with McConnell's vow to make him a one term president. Obama's second term drove them to more vitriol to the point where McConnell abandoning any pretense of integrity, refused a hearing for Merrick Garland.
5
Gorsuch's came across as such a weak and empty man in Al Franken's questioning of him in Senate hearings. Doubt if he will ever rise to judgehood.
what seems to always missed in these discussions of the Supreme Court decisions is that it the Court is by design an anti democratic institution. Its members serve for life and are accountable to no one. The role of an Ayatollah in Iran or the existent of philosopher king is similar. That said it would seem natural that court should defer to the elected institutions. A reversal of a legislative mandate should be infrequent and well thought out. This might force people (as it should) to exercise more accountability over their elected institutions. Unfortunately the opposite has really occurred. Politicians look to the courts to save the people from the politicians. It is a disaster for effective and democratic government
2
When historians debate, years from now, how America either fell or came near falling, the name of McConnell will loom large, and all will wonder why the man decided that party power and dogma was more important than the welfare of his country and its citizens.
13
Unfortunately his drummer is the man with the money. Behind every politician
is a wallet belonging to a greedy self interested individual who professes Christian love.
It is the welfare of those with the bucks that are his country and his citizens.
is a wallet belonging to a greedy self interested individual who professes Christian love.
It is the welfare of those with the bucks that are his country and his citizens.
The senate withheld consent. That's as legal as the president nominating. Our own fault since we let the insiders choose our nominee.
2
You can spend your political juice on Bathroom Bills or on Supreme Court Justice nominations.
Choose wisely.
Choose wisely.
5
This is is why the GOP sticks with Trump, for now. They will suffer the fool, as long as they get their agenda rammed through.
And for them the best is yet to come. They will allow Trump to get removed from office if it starts to stink too much in DC. Because they have Pence, a true Conservative Republican, waiting in the wings.
Who cares if they have to thank Putin for the election, they solidified their hold on the government for decades.
Hopefully, the American voters will rebel in 2018. But considering the Dems lack of participation in the national conversation, let's not hold our breath.
And for them the best is yet to come. They will allow Trump to get removed from office if it starts to stink too much in DC. Because they have Pence, a true Conservative Republican, waiting in the wings.
Who cares if they have to thank Putin for the election, they solidified their hold on the government for decades.
Hopefully, the American voters will rebel in 2018. But considering the Dems lack of participation in the national conversation, let's not hold our breath.
4
As an independent, that action alone will keep me from voting republican, ever again.
16
Then you were hardly "independent."
1
I'm not sure the Framers would be proud of what the children are doing to their Constitution
3
Yeah, all rewriting by the left and ignoring what you don't like would kill em.
James Madison commented that he could put a finger on any part of the Constitution that enabled taxes to be given away as welfare (paraphrased). But, sure enough, the socialists not only love it, but want to continue to bankrupt the U.S. by pumping out more!
James Madison commented that he could put a finger on any part of the Constitution that enabled taxes to be given away as welfare (paraphrased). But, sure enough, the socialists not only love it, but want to continue to bankrupt the U.S. by pumping out more!
1
Is there any greater travesty than something (in this case justice) that pretends to be one thing (blind) and is actually its opposite?
The invocation of the Constitution and "Originalism" as a transparent ruse (paper thin as a matter-of-fact) and howling masque for a completely partisan agenda only serves to brand these folks as naked hypocrites.
Are there really people that believe this puerile nonsense? The pretense of validity only makes their advocates appear besotted with arrogance and foolishness. In a society of haves and have nots the simpler/truer story is that you are on one side or... the other.
As the deck becomes more and more stacked there will come a point when the American people will simply refuse to play.
The invocation of the Constitution and "Originalism" as a transparent ruse (paper thin as a matter-of-fact) and howling masque for a completely partisan agenda only serves to brand these folks as naked hypocrites.
Are there really people that believe this puerile nonsense? The pretense of validity only makes their advocates appear besotted with arrogance and foolishness. In a society of haves and have nots the simpler/truer story is that you are on one side or... the other.
As the deck becomes more and more stacked there will come a point when the American people will simply refuse to play.
5
Unless Justice Kennedy can become a more consistent humane SCOTUS member, Mitch McConnell's disgusting, disgraceful action ensures that this nation's highest Court will be as embarrassing and inhumane as our Executive Branch and Republican controlled Congress. I have never been so ashamed of being an American citizen as I am these days.If it were not for the fact that my adult children work and live in the USA, I'd give up my citizenship in a heartbeat and remain here in Canada, where I'm now vacationing. Canadians pity us these days more than ever before. We think we Americans are such a great people, but we long ago lost any claim to greatness when the country turned to the stupidity, meanness and inhumanity of the Republican Right. How can any country ever become great again when it produces politicians like Trump and McConnell and judges like Gorsuch, Thomas and Ritter? We are truly one messed up country.
13
While the plot is not nearly the same as Grisham's "Appeal" with its horrifically sad ending, it still is possible that one or more of these Justices will, during his life-time appointment, suffer a tragedy that will run contrary to his right-wing decisions. I do not wish a tragedy on any of the justices.
And while not likely, it is possible that one of the Justices will break rank and become sympathetic to the human condition, and vote against the corporations who bought and paid for them. It has happened before.
And while not likely, it is possible that one of the Justices will break rank and become sympathetic to the human condition, and vote against the corporations who bought and paid for them. It has happened before.
3
The number of Supreme Court justices is not set by God or the Constitution. It is set by Congress in the Judiciary Act, as amended. In the first half of the 19th Century, the number of justices ranged from six to ten, finally coming to rest at nine in 1869 (when the U.S. population was about 39 million). In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt took a lot of grief for trying to increase the Court to as many as 15 justices (he was vilified for trying to "pack" the Court), but it would have been better for the country if he had succeeded.
When (not if) we Democrats, liberals, progressives, the resistance, Bernie's revolution, etc., regain the presidency and Congress, in order to rectify the Republican's theft of the seat that should have been filled by an Obama nominee, to prevent a bunch of right-wing ideologues from controlling us for decades, and to reflect the fact that the current very diverse U.S. population is about 325 million, we should feel free to demand that the number of justices be substantially increased.
When (not if) we Democrats, liberals, progressives, the resistance, Bernie's revolution, etc., regain the presidency and Congress, in order to rectify the Republican's theft of the seat that should have been filled by an Obama nominee, to prevent a bunch of right-wing ideologues from controlling us for decades, and to reflect the fact that the current very diverse U.S. population is about 325 million, we should feel free to demand that the number of justices be substantially increased.
3
Even better, lets ratchet up the number of justices to 15 now and put an end to leftist tyranny for decades to come.
Perhaps we shouldn't worry too much about the past and start thinking about other ways to prevent discrimination.
I call Mitch's theft a temporary setback.
I call Mitch's theft a temporary setback.
Here's food for thought: why didn't Obama voluntarily concede the appointment to his successor? Because he had no clue who he was going to be, only his fervent hope that it wouldn't be Hillary, please pretty please no.
And that's where McConnell had Obama in a corner. McConnell saw Garland as the nominee of a president who no longer believed in himself, or for that matter, his party, as carrying forward the mantle of the people aka "legacy".
In other words, Garland was not a genuine nominee in the true sense of the word, but the first in a series of final last acts of a president facing his very own Ben Ghazi. The sad, even tragic, transformation, from rhetorical, ideologue of a president, to mine-laying rebel, now reduced to chasing chickens "because they had gone someplace else".
Yes, there's a story that needs to be told, but Merrick Garland has very little to do with it. Except, perhaps, for his eager willingness to carry the SCOTUS nomination backpack on instructions of devoted leader, the same leader who of late reduced to shooting blanks from White House rooftop.
All that on part of Garland arguably brave and honorable, also arguably plain crazy, but unarguably not the stuff of a Supreme Court justice, sorry.
But this editorial still has flashes of gold, most notably conceding the likelihood of a full eight years of Trump presidency. The question for the NYT and the rest of us should then be, where will the Democratic Party be in 2025? Ask Mitch, he knows.
And that's where McConnell had Obama in a corner. McConnell saw Garland as the nominee of a president who no longer believed in himself, or for that matter, his party, as carrying forward the mantle of the people aka "legacy".
In other words, Garland was not a genuine nominee in the true sense of the word, but the first in a series of final last acts of a president facing his very own Ben Ghazi. The sad, even tragic, transformation, from rhetorical, ideologue of a president, to mine-laying rebel, now reduced to chasing chickens "because they had gone someplace else".
Yes, there's a story that needs to be told, but Merrick Garland has very little to do with it. Except, perhaps, for his eager willingness to carry the SCOTUS nomination backpack on instructions of devoted leader, the same leader who of late reduced to shooting blanks from White House rooftop.
All that on part of Garland arguably brave and honorable, also arguably plain crazy, but unarguably not the stuff of a Supreme Court justice, sorry.
But this editorial still has flashes of gold, most notably conceding the likelihood of a full eight years of Trump presidency. The question for the NYT and the rest of us should then be, where will the Democratic Party be in 2025? Ask Mitch, he knows.
2
Mitch McConnell would rather sell out his country to a treasonous rat pretender to the presidency than do what's right. Let's not make him out to be clever - he's good at one thing: subverting everything that countless people have fought for over the generations. It's despicable, and I look forward to his place in history as an enabler and sympathizer to the undermining of democracy.
7
I can’t help but wonder if the Democratic Party and by extension liberals in general aren’t partly responsible in this? Specifically, for example the New York Times, and its editorial board.
What was painfully obvious in the lengthy article on FBI Director Comey’s decisions in election 2016 was fear of retribution from Republicans. No one ever has anything to fear of Democratic retributions. We roll over again and again. That we do it “for the good of the country” might sound good and at some level be the better decision but all that actually happens is it makes Republicans all the more brazen.
The biggest mistake Democrats have made in the recent past was in 2006 when we said “impeachment is off the table.” The Republican Party had just spent years in bogus investigations with the sole aim of finding something, anything with which to impeach Bill Clinton. Where was the indignation of New York Times editorial board? About as meek as possible, if not downright collusion.
And did the Democratic Party’s decision not to impeach buy any goodwill? No, the Republican Party turned right around and did everything possible to damage first Obama and then the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Unless and until the Democratic Party lets the Republican Party know it can hit back, expect an ever increasing series of brazen power plays by conservative leaders.
What was painfully obvious in the lengthy article on FBI Director Comey’s decisions in election 2016 was fear of retribution from Republicans. No one ever has anything to fear of Democratic retributions. We roll over again and again. That we do it “for the good of the country” might sound good and at some level be the better decision but all that actually happens is it makes Republicans all the more brazen.
The biggest mistake Democrats have made in the recent past was in 2006 when we said “impeachment is off the table.” The Republican Party had just spent years in bogus investigations with the sole aim of finding something, anything with which to impeach Bill Clinton. Where was the indignation of New York Times editorial board? About as meek as possible, if not downright collusion.
And did the Democratic Party’s decision not to impeach buy any goodwill? No, the Republican Party turned right around and did everything possible to damage first Obama and then the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Unless and until the Democratic Party lets the Republican Party know it can hit back, expect an ever increasing series of brazen power plays by conservative leaders.
3
"Mr. Trump will be out of power by 2025 at the latest."
We're really thinking sooner.
We're really thinking sooner.
2
“One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’ ” Mr. McConnell told a political gathering in Kentucky last summer.
What a legacy.
What a legacy.
3
The fact that the United States Senate can be manipulated in such a blatantly partisan way speaks volumes about our democracy. In good times, it is easy to be proud of our government, our institutions, our (archaic) constitution (that can be played with like an elastic band), and our civil society. One determined senator managed to keep hostage a whole nation some years ago. His name was McCarthy. Now we have another strong willed zealot named McConnell. It is time to be critical of our institutions and perhaps laws, regulations and constitution in general. This is no longer the 18th century. We cannot afford the mistakes we have been making recently anymore.
2
Obama should have played hardball and simply stated: "The Senate has 90 days to fulfill their duty of advise and consent. If the Senate does not vote to reject Garland within that time it will be understood that they have consented to the nominee and he shall be seated on the Court."
I can't believe he let them steamroll him (and US!) the way they did.
I can't believe he let them steamroll him (and US!) the way they did.
5
Yeah, I see that, and for a good while now.
They want all to be civil, and show us every day that the nice guys, honest reasonable people and the facts, do consistantly finish last.
It is frustrating to see the truth that sets all free be made irrelevant. Where will that take us?
They want all to be civil, and show us every day that the nice guys, honest reasonable people and the facts, do consistantly finish last.
It is frustrating to see the truth that sets all free be made irrelevant. Where will that take us?
McConnell did exactly what Democrats ( Harry Reid ) would have done, for anyone to think otherwise is ridiculous. It appears the progressives and far lefts vision for this country is still too out of the mainstream to win 'flyover country' as they call it. Run better candidates and they might win something or stick with the move to the left plan and watch Trump appoint 3 more like Judge Gorsuch
5
The shame of it all is that it exposes the SCOTUS as the political hacks that they have truly become. They are no longer a separate, equal, third branch of our government, but political stooges (albeit with decrees from top shelf universities).
2
Theft is what the Republicans have become really good at, whether we talk about elections or the Supreme Court.
2
The scariest thing about all of this is the lack of concern for repercussions. When people finally wake up and realize we've been hoodwinked by Republicans there would traditionally be a period of retribution that could and probably should involve the removal of Gorsuch. The incredible thought is, that the oligarchs that control our country have no intention of ever handing power back to the other side, whatever that may be. They've successfully killed their Neoliberal spawn. Neoliberals were never progressives, so the rich white supposed social identity progressives have no where to turn for representation. I guess they'll go back to being the Republicans in name as well. The build up of the police state tends to point to this as well. The recruitment of vigilante groups by police is also a symptom of this disease becoming a full fledged plague. I fear that there will never be a fair election here. It makes me wonder if there ever was? If Gorsuch is never removed it will be a sign that the game of democracy is over.
1
"In each instance, he sided with Justice Clarence Thomas, who, at least until now, has been the court’s most conservative member."
The court's rubber stamp conservative would be a better description.
The court's rubber stamp conservative would be a better description.
4
It's a shame they had to win by cheating.
5
I'll assume you are talking about the Democrats eliminating the filibuster for Presidential nominations.
"Hoisted on our own petard" should be the new Democrat slogan.
"Hoisted on our own petard" should be the new Democrat slogan.
4
"Theft?" I realize this is an editorial, but the editors should still make some attempt to appear measured and objective. We have a political process that governs how judges are chosen. Obama stuffed the various courts with liberals, and Trump will stuff them with conservatives. That's not "theft." It's politics.
6
This red state blue state thing is a challenge to the Constitution, though definitely not for the first time. As with Donald Trump's utterly pathetic whine that he has been treated worse than any other President in US history, one can always turn to our Civil War period to find more dramatic examples of any effect we talk about with respect to how our Constitution structures our government and the people. But, now that I think about it, I can see state rights as a potential solution: le'see here....yeah, I'll take NY, CA, MA and let KS, MS, and ID go off on their own approach just as far as they want.
“One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’ ”
And President Obama should have looked him in the eye.....and spit in it.
And President Obama should have looked him in the eye.....and spit in it.
5
The sky is falling! A Justice, sworn to uphold the Constitution, is actually applying the law as opposed to what he "wishes" the law would be!
4
Stolen - That is certainly accurate. Mitch McConnell is a blight on the Senate - a man with no conscience - only ambition.
2
McConnell will go down in history as one of our most corrupt politicians.
7
This is how you destroy an independent judiciary.
3
First, liberals need to move on. Getting on the Court is always very political and CINOS (conservatives-in-name-only) won this fight. The problem is not Mitch McConnell; it's not winning elections. That's all.
Second, Gorsuch is eminently qualified to be a justice.
Third, it's complicated. Justices are not one flavor on every issue. Justice Scalia, who Gorsuch replaced, was very conservative on social issues, but quite good in restricting the government on its power to enforce the criminal law. Some of Gorsuch's concurrences have hinted that he may be of a similar mind.
Last, give the man some time. Justices frequently and famously evolve. Remember Earl Warren? We just don't know yet. And we also don't know how Merrick Garland would have turned out.
Let's stop the fruitless hand wringing and move on.
Second, Gorsuch is eminently qualified to be a justice.
Third, it's complicated. Justices are not one flavor on every issue. Justice Scalia, who Gorsuch replaced, was very conservative on social issues, but quite good in restricting the government on its power to enforce the criminal law. Some of Gorsuch's concurrences have hinted that he may be of a similar mind.
Last, give the man some time. Justices frequently and famously evolve. Remember Earl Warren? We just don't know yet. And we also don't know how Merrick Garland would have turned out.
Let's stop the fruitless hand wringing and move on.
29
"Let's give the man some time" ???
Guess what? Neil Gorsuch is possibly going to be around a lot longer than you'll be...or at least, his decisions will be.
Another thing.
In his case, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree -- we already know where he's going.
Guess what? Neil Gorsuch is possibly going to be around a lot longer than you'll be...or at least, his decisions will be.
Another thing.
In his case, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree -- we already know where he's going.
Your comment is beneath contempt, but I will stoop to point out that what McConnell did in denying even a hearing to Obama's nominee during the entire final year he was in office was absolutely unprecedented, and was an outright theft. Do you think Republicans will never pay any consequences for their outrageous misrule and desecration of our constitution and democratic norms?
You are evidently a fascist, if you think what is happening is par for the course, or "just politics." It is not. It is a coup we are witnessing. An authoritarian coup by the minority of people in this country, the extreme right-wing, to enforce their views on the majority. That is not democracy, and it is not America.
You are evidently a fascist, if you think what is happening is par for the course, or "just politics." It is not. It is a coup we are witnessing. An authoritarian coup by the minority of people in this country, the extreme right-wing, to enforce their views on the majority. That is not democracy, and it is not America.
We have not been a true "nation of laws, not men" for some time.
Newt Gingrich's failed attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office was the clear beginning of the mainstream GOP as a party of obstructionists & "dirty tricksters."
The 2000 election didn't have a "legal" outcome. Watch the tape of George W. & Jeb Bush laughing that W. "will carry Florida." "Great man" James Baker cynically helped Bush steal the election when there was clearly vote tampering in Florida. The Bushes are corrupt. Al Gore was the only decent actor, putting stability of the country before himself.
We have reason to believe 2016 wasn't a legitimate election. We must wait for Muller's investigation to learn if Trump colluded w/ Russia. But the Fourth Estate did not exercise due diligence in exposing Trump's shady past dealings w/ foreign countries like Azerbaijan. The press should have done then what Rachel Maddow is doing now exposing Trump's criminality. Instead the press further abandoned it's role as advocates for democracy by focusing on Hillary's 'emails' - a largely hysterical issue obsessively pushed by right wing operatives - instead of exposing Trump's obvious unfitness for office. The media was blinded by the novelty of Trump's candidacy & it's entertainment value.
If the courts won't protect the integrity of our elections when the candidates themselves are corrupt & the media are bound to false equivalency & ratings in covering our elections, we're lost.
We're lost.
Newt Gingrich's failed attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office was the clear beginning of the mainstream GOP as a party of obstructionists & "dirty tricksters."
The 2000 election didn't have a "legal" outcome. Watch the tape of George W. & Jeb Bush laughing that W. "will carry Florida." "Great man" James Baker cynically helped Bush steal the election when there was clearly vote tampering in Florida. The Bushes are corrupt. Al Gore was the only decent actor, putting stability of the country before himself.
We have reason to believe 2016 wasn't a legitimate election. We must wait for Muller's investigation to learn if Trump colluded w/ Russia. But the Fourth Estate did not exercise due diligence in exposing Trump's shady past dealings w/ foreign countries like Azerbaijan. The press should have done then what Rachel Maddow is doing now exposing Trump's criminality. Instead the press further abandoned it's role as advocates for democracy by focusing on Hillary's 'emails' - a largely hysterical issue obsessively pushed by right wing operatives - instead of exposing Trump's obvious unfitness for office. The media was blinded by the novelty of Trump's candidacy & it's entertainment value.
If the courts won't protect the integrity of our elections when the candidates themselves are corrupt & the media are bound to false equivalency & ratings in covering our elections, we're lost.
We're lost.
4
The United States is in deep trouble. The country is run by politicians who, for the most part, are less than mediocre. Moreover, so many are mean spirited and not terribly bright. Such a calamity for a country filled with so many buoyant, brilliant and inventive persons. Where are your best and brightest.
2
If Gorsuch had integrity and the quality of being impartial, he would have refused the seat in the first place.
Republicans are committed to playing dirty, so what's left for the American people? Anarchy?
Republicans are committed to playing dirty, so what's left for the American people? Anarchy?
2
Seriously? Who, exactly, would turn down the opportunity to be on the Supreme Court regardless of who nominated him/her?
1
McConnell's offense is to the those who voted in the m a or its for president in the 2008 and 2012 elections. He stole the supreme court seat, not from Forsyth, not from Obama, but from the voting citizens of this country, an impeachable offense.
To quote a Betty Davis. "We are in for a bumpy ride."
NYT- Crying over spilled milk isn't going to fix things now- Unless the Democrats throw a net over their runaway party and stand on a unified message- Get ready for more of the same and Trump AGAIN in 2020.
1
I'm a Democrat so like Obama, but 1 of his weaknesses was that he was too nice. He should have appointed Garland when the Senate went into recess last December. Yes the Neoconservatives would have screamed bloody murder, but they then turned around and did the same thing to us.
3
The Senate was never in recess.
1
My question is this. Why did then President Obama take McConnell's threat lying down? Yes, he might have thought Clinton was a sure fire winner so what the heck, but that's not a good enough answer for me.
A judge's impact on the court can last for generations. He should have taken this issue to the country and barnstormed until he dropped.
Perhaps his handlers advised him that the country actually didn't care that much, and politically it was a no win situation for him.
Regardless, it is a stain on his presidency. Much like the mortgage backed securities fraudsters who continue to walk the streets, uncharged.
A judge's impact on the court can last for generations. He should have taken this issue to the country and barnstormed until he dropped.
Perhaps his handlers advised him that the country actually didn't care that much, and politically it was a no win situation for him.
Regardless, it is a stain on his presidency. Much like the mortgage backed securities fraudsters who continue to walk the streets, uncharged.
1
Republicans are ruthless. Democrats are not.
Republicans don't care about rules or propriety.
All they care about is winning.
And they are winning.
America is not winning.
The American people are not winning.
But Republicans are winnng.
Democrats need to recognize the nature of their enemy
and fight it on its own terms.
And yes, today's Republican Party is the enemy.
In war, our military adjusts its tactics to the nature of the enemy.
And that is what Democrats need to do.
Republicans don't care about rules or propriety.
All they care about is winning.
And they are winning.
America is not winning.
The American people are not winning.
But Republicans are winnng.
Democrats need to recognize the nature of their enemy
and fight it on its own terms.
And yes, today's Republican Party is the enemy.
In war, our military adjusts its tactics to the nature of the enemy.
And that is what Democrats need to do.
2
I think any honest student of Constitutional law would say that the Supreme Court, painfully often, enshrines in law the worst passions of Americans.
I often broke down in despair, both in law school and later, in Constitutional Law class. The horror of the conservatism and intellectual dishonesty, of litigants, and sometimes of the justices themselves, was just too much for a sensitive and kindly intelligence like mine.
But this immoral drag preserves the feelings of so many unimaginative, traditional, conservative ... and often very decent ... American people. I don't think our Democracy can survive without a conservative anchor. Change has to be incremental; to some significant extent, it even has to be slow.
The Warren Court delivered so much of value; I wish it was back, but it did not deliver a conservative sense of being moored and planted in a familiar ethical reality. As it turned out, this was a big deficiency. I hate it, but I think it's true.
And so we have the Darkness of Mitch McConnell, and Neil Gorsuch on the Bench. Lights are probably going out, all over America, and they probably will not be back in McConnell's generation. My only solace is that he will have to live with that much more than I will; I at least fought his worst instincts and I am very likely to survive him, so that's something. For the rest ... Save Yourselves, and if you ARE safe, protect the vulnerable.
I often broke down in despair, both in law school and later, in Constitutional Law class. The horror of the conservatism and intellectual dishonesty, of litigants, and sometimes of the justices themselves, was just too much for a sensitive and kindly intelligence like mine.
But this immoral drag preserves the feelings of so many unimaginative, traditional, conservative ... and often very decent ... American people. I don't think our Democracy can survive without a conservative anchor. Change has to be incremental; to some significant extent, it even has to be slow.
The Warren Court delivered so much of value; I wish it was back, but it did not deliver a conservative sense of being moored and planted in a familiar ethical reality. As it turned out, this was a big deficiency. I hate it, but I think it's true.
And so we have the Darkness of Mitch McConnell, and Neil Gorsuch on the Bench. Lights are probably going out, all over America, and they probably will not be back in McConnell's generation. My only solace is that he will have to live with that much more than I will; I at least fought his worst instincts and I am very likely to survive him, so that's something. For the rest ... Save Yourselves, and if you ARE safe, protect the vulnerable.
3
It is exceedingly sad that this article describes an action by one of the highest elected officials that effectively says "the rule of law no longer applies" When an individual's ego/agenda comes before the law you are operating in a land of lawlessness. I genuinely offer my sympathies to the American people, you are good people and deserve much, much better than this.
2
It's easy to be cynical about politics as the game is played today -- funding the government, defense spending, Dodd-Frank, medical insurance, our current president's "personality" -- but in my view those are all POLITICAL issues where the people's majority gets to call the shots. Sometimes you're in, sometimes you're out; sometimes you have to play nice with the other team, sometimes you get to kick them where it hurts.
However, the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices is a CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility of the Senate; it is not a political football. Merrick Garland should be sitting in that chair right now. Period. The Republican Party has not just broken the rules, they have broken their oath to uphold the ultimate law of the land. They have disgraced their office and betrayed their country. I don't think "treason" is too strong a word.
Mitch McConnell is not my senator. He is a scoundrel. I can do nothing about him except shake my head at the sorry state of "leadership" in Washington. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander are my senators, whom I did formerly respect, despite some differences on issues, until they broke their oath of office and deliberately undermined the United States Constitution. They are not scoundrels, I believe, but men of intellect, patriotism, and moral courage. How can they now look themselves in the mirror?
However, the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices is a CONSTITUTIONAL responsibility of the Senate; it is not a political football. Merrick Garland should be sitting in that chair right now. Period. The Republican Party has not just broken the rules, they have broken their oath to uphold the ultimate law of the land. They have disgraced their office and betrayed their country. I don't think "treason" is too strong a word.
Mitch McConnell is not my senator. He is a scoundrel. I can do nothing about him except shake my head at the sorry state of "leadership" in Washington. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander are my senators, whom I did formerly respect, despite some differences on issues, until they broke their oath of office and deliberately undermined the United States Constitution. They are not scoundrels, I believe, but men of intellect, patriotism, and moral courage. How can they now look themselves in the mirror?
1
We Americans are plagued with Gorsuch's extreme conservatism literally for decades of our lives.
Trump is a disaster but his chances of re-election are slim. Gorsuch pushes the (usual) 5-4 to a 6-3 and that is chilling.
Trump is a disaster but his chances of re-election are slim. Gorsuch pushes the (usual) 5-4 to a 6-3 and that is chilling.
1
The emotional appeal of this editorial is based on the false insinuation that anything was stolen from President Obama. Although it was the President's nomination to make, it was his, and the Democrat's own political failures that kept him from following through in putting his nominee in the seat. Don't cast the Republicans as criminals for playing the electoral game successfully, and then using their majority to good effect. When an objective examination of President Obama's Presidency is made eventually, the inability to maintain his party's majority even though he was reelected will cast a giant shadow over his administration, as it does here.
42
The problem with this point of view is that though it is correct in form, it is incorrect in substance. Democracy has written rules, which assume many unwritten behaviours. Any rule that is only followed to the letter, and then interpretations of what it allows are pushed to the extreme, leads to a perversion of democracy. Simply, it will not work, and will not be enforcable. Now it is difficult to defend the proposition that the party (and individuals belonging to it) that have pushed rules to the extreme, bending them as much as possible in its favor, has been the republican party. This is visible both in the declarations and in the outcomes. Were the democrats to really adopt the same tactics, a complete breakdown would obtain: in fact it is the breakdown we are facing and going to face. Garland has for now demonstrated he is an extreme right wing puppet. Period. I believe in the years to come the democrats will end up relying on Justice Roberts, who is yes, rightwing, but has demonstrated at least a partial streak of independent thought.
1
D. Godinez,
Anyone who knows much about politics knows that the winning president of either party will often lose his party's majority in Congress, especially if he wins two terms. Many Americans prefer to have both parties represented in government; they feel it's fairer that way. The three branches of government provide checks and balances on each other.
Mitch McConnell thinks that checks and balances as well as laws don't apply to him and his party. He has outlived his political usefulness, many think.
Anyone who knows much about politics knows that the winning president of either party will often lose his party's majority in Congress, especially if he wins two terms. Many Americans prefer to have both parties represented in government; they feel it's fairer that way. The three branches of government provide checks and balances on each other.
Mitch McConnell thinks that checks and balances as well as laws don't apply to him and his party. He has outlived his political usefulness, many think.
2
Sorry, but this reeks of blaming the victim. If McConnell's ploy was an isolated dirty trick, then I might agree with you. But the Republicans have done everything possible to undermine the Obama Presidency, and grab power at the cost of the well being of the American people and their political system.
By your logic, if I am walking down the street and someone punches me in the face, it must be because of my own failure to protect myself. I can't buy that as consistent with justice. Sorry.
By your logic, if I am walking down the street and someone punches me in the face, it must be because of my own failure to protect myself. I can't buy that as consistent with justice. Sorry.
If you look at the popular vote winners by party since 1980, the Republicans won: Reagan 2 times, Bush Sr. 1, and Bush Jr. 1 time for a total of 4 wins. The Democrats won: Bill Clinton 2 times, Al Gore 1 time, Obama 2 times, and Hillary Clinton 1 time, for a total of 6 wins. Over the last 40 presidential years, the Democrats captured the popular vote 60% of time, yet the Supreme Court reflects an electoral college that awarded two terms to GOP candidates: Bush and Trump, giving the GOP a 60% to 40% advantage.
The court does not reflect the majority, nor does it reflect the will of the people. Instead it reflects the minority, and an electoral college that was intended to protect slave owning states from their more populous states in the union when it was created.
With decisions like Citizen's United, separation of church and state, as well as many other issues, it's easy to see why many feel the court does not reflect them, but instead reflects a minority that uses an antiquated system to levy their own power and opinion on the masses.
The court does not reflect the majority, nor does it reflect the will of the people. Instead it reflects the minority, and an electoral college that was intended to protect slave owning states from their more populous states in the union when it was created.
With decisions like Citizen's United, separation of church and state, as well as many other issues, it's easy to see why many feel the court does not reflect them, but instead reflects a minority that uses an antiquated system to levy their own power and opinion on the masses.
7
Agreed, SCOTUS is nothing but an unelected anti-democratic judicial oligarchy whose members pursue a purely partisan political agenda for life.
One need look no further than Gore v Bush and Citizen's to see the destruction.
One need look no further than Gore v Bush and Citizen's to see the destruction.
3
I take issue with this piece's final paragraph: His decision was neither an expression of cynicism nor courage, but rather a direct breach of public trust.
the Senate is obligated to approved -- not to obstruct.
Senator McConnell, in selecting this course of action, chose at that moment to step beyond the line of loyal opposition into the murky waters of treacherous opposition unbecoming the position to which he was elected.
The impact of his dishonorable choice has only been magnified by actions set in motion by his implicit permission for others to follow and build upon his shameful example.
In years to come, his moment in time will be recorded and understood as a key acceleration point in the downfall of American politics.
the Senate is obligated to approved -- not to obstruct.
Senator McConnell, in selecting this course of action, chose at that moment to step beyond the line of loyal opposition into the murky waters of treacherous opposition unbecoming the position to which he was elected.
The impact of his dishonorable choice has only been magnified by actions set in motion by his implicit permission for others to follow and build upon his shameful example.
In years to come, his moment in time will be recorded and understood as a key acceleration point in the downfall of American politics.
12
"Mr. McConnell’s decision that day in February 2016 represented either the height of courage or the depths of cynicism — or perhaps both."
It doesn't take courage to ignore the Constitution; or to openly avow to make the then President a one-term resident of the Oval Office; or to silence a vocal colleague because she "persisted," or to avoid working across the aisle on a critical piece of legislation.
It takes someone who routinely places party over progress and the narrow, monied interests of a few over the needs of many.
That's not courage; it's callousness.
It doesn't take courage to ignore the Constitution; or to openly avow to make the then President a one-term resident of the Oval Office; or to silence a vocal colleague because she "persisted," or to avoid working across the aisle on a critical piece of legislation.
It takes someone who routinely places party over progress and the narrow, monied interests of a few over the needs of many.
That's not courage; it's callousness.
9
You can thank McConnell, and you can thank Clinton for running such a poor campaign, throwing away the opportunity not only to replace Scalia but Ginsburg and Breyer as well, whom progressives now have to hope stay healthy.
4
Here's what I simply do not understand regarding liberal gripes. The article accepts that though Gorsuch is conservative, his selection is pretty consistent with what any Republican President would have chosen. Instead, the Editorial Board's issue is that the seat should never have been open for Trump to fill.
"The problem is that he’s sitting in the seat that by rights should be occupied by Judge Garland." Look, I understand that liberals are livid that Garland didn't get a hearing. That may have violated established norms. But the argument against hearings was that they would have been "political theater" with every contentious question being used on a youtube spot for liberal fund raising. Thanks, but no thanks.
But what I do not understand is the expectation that Garland would have been confirmed. Remember the context. Republicans held a 56 - 44 seat advantage in the Senate. The Supreme Court had held a conservative majority for over 30 years. Had Garland been confirmed, that would have ended.
In that environment, can you really expect that you would find 16 Republican votes (to overcome a certain fillibuster) ? Now add to that an election set for just months after Garland was nominated. And add a history of Obama repeatedly spurning the Republican Congress (e.g. Clean Power Plan which the court struck down). It would simply have been very unlikely to find 16 Senators ready to cross party lines in that situation.
"The problem is that he’s sitting in the seat that by rights should be occupied by Judge Garland." Look, I understand that liberals are livid that Garland didn't get a hearing. That may have violated established norms. But the argument against hearings was that they would have been "political theater" with every contentious question being used on a youtube spot for liberal fund raising. Thanks, but no thanks.
But what I do not understand is the expectation that Garland would have been confirmed. Remember the context. Republicans held a 56 - 44 seat advantage in the Senate. The Supreme Court had held a conservative majority for over 30 years. Had Garland been confirmed, that would have ended.
In that environment, can you really expect that you would find 16 Republican votes (to overcome a certain fillibuster) ? Now add to that an election set for just months after Garland was nominated. And add a history of Obama repeatedly spurning the Republican Congress (e.g. Clean Power Plan which the court struck down). It would simply have been very unlikely to find 16 Senators ready to cross party lines in that situation.
5
Which really only became an issue after Ralph Reed and his progeny.
The argument that won the day in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer is that churches are impeded in their freedom to exercise religion and spread the Gospel if the state government does not allow them to compete for taxpayers' money to improve their houses of worship. We can properly think of this Supreme Court ruling as exposing what conservatives have allowed themselves to become: Christians in hot pursuit of Caesar's coin instead of God's will.
23
Maybe it is time for the justices to have term limits, along with the representatives of our government. The president must be elected every four years, with a limit of two terms. This should apply to justices and to elected officials. All of them.
14
And which member of either Congress or the Judiciary is really going to limit their own power?
2
Judge Garland had no "right" to that seat, nor did anyone else. It's the Senate's job to advise and consent. It advised the president it would not consent to Garland's appointment. As you're so fond of reminding us, elections have consequences. If you wanted different results, you should have fielded better candidates.
14
It makes no difference whether or not you have "better candidates" when you still have an ineffective Senate.
11
No, it advised the President that it would not consent to any appointment he made -- after all, they would not even hold hearings to judge Merrick's qualifications (which, by the way, had been heretofore unassailable even by conservatives like Orrin Hatch). Had they given Garland a hearing and then turned him down based on concerns they may have had about his qualifications. But they did nothing of the kind. McConnell, though elected by his Kentuckian, is a despot. And a despicable human being for the way he has manipulated the Senate and the will of the American people.
3
Is this really the hill that we live or die upon? The idea that partisanship outweighs all else? Sound like a very long walk on a very short pier to me.
It isn't only McConnell. The Republicans could have repudiated him.
The United States is in decline.
When will it fall?
The United States is in decline.
When will it fall?
13
It stepped off the cliff long ago and is now well on its way down.
2
Lincoln said, "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." A twice democratically elected president who received the highest vote count in the history of this country was denied a Supreme Court nomination so that another president who lost the popular vote by over 2 million votes and was aided by a foreign government could nominate a justice. The party of Lincoln has drifted substantially.
43
Was there ever any doubt that Neil Gorsuch would be the poster-boy of Mitch McConnell, or this administration?
The fix for that was in, as surely as the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland was out.
And the nomination of Neil Gorsuch is sure to be the beginning of a long line of Republican appointees who, with the help of Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, are going to shape the future of the country, to the advantage of the very few, while making it inhospitable to everyone else.
The fact that a seat on the Supreme Court is a life-long position was not lost on many Americans during the last election -- nor was the obvious Republican agenda of Mitch McConnell, who swore to obstruct President Obama from Day 1 of his administration.
But with the less-than-majority election of Donald Trump as president, and Republican control of all three branches of government, this country is starting to resemble the kind of undemocratic one-party state, that we, as a nation have long sought not to emulate.
And unlike a presidential term, which is defined by a finite amount of time, a Supreme Court Justice can extend for several decades.
Those who didn't realize it before, will realize it now.
The fate of this country has already been cast.
The fix for that was in, as surely as the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland was out.
And the nomination of Neil Gorsuch is sure to be the beginning of a long line of Republican appointees who, with the help of Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, are going to shape the future of the country, to the advantage of the very few, while making it inhospitable to everyone else.
The fact that a seat on the Supreme Court is a life-long position was not lost on many Americans during the last election -- nor was the obvious Republican agenda of Mitch McConnell, who swore to obstruct President Obama from Day 1 of his administration.
But with the less-than-majority election of Donald Trump as president, and Republican control of all three branches of government, this country is starting to resemble the kind of undemocratic one-party state, that we, as a nation have long sought not to emulate.
And unlike a presidential term, which is defined by a finite amount of time, a Supreme Court Justice can extend for several decades.
Those who didn't realize it before, will realize it now.
The fate of this country has already been cast.
27
Why was there no consequence for the Republicans' deliberate refusal to do their jobs? Why were they simply allowed to commit this theft (well put, NYT) from President Obama and the country that elected him? Congress should be required to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominees within a month of their nomination. Simple, obvious, and non-partisan.
35
There was no consequence because, as we have belatedly realized, the Constitution was built on the assumption that people of good will would be in office and would be mindful of the fact that they have a high calling to serve the American people. We have elected officials whose only concept of office is to deliver things that advantage their donors and political party members. Fealty to the US as a whole, even those who aren't of the same party and economic class, does not exist in most Republican office holders in the Senate.
3
'Congress should be required to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominees within a month of their nomination.'
So change the Constitution.
'Simple, obvious, and non-partisan.'
There's nothing 'simple, obvious, and non-partisan' about changing the Constitution.
So change the Constitution.
'Simple, obvious, and non-partisan.'
There's nothing 'simple, obvious, and non-partisan' about changing the Constitution.
Forgive me for asking, SRF, please tell us where in the Constitution or the Rules of the Senate that a nominee to any position subject to the advice and consent of the Senate is the requirement that the Senate hold hearings or a vote?
Isn't the Senate entitled to withhold their "consent" in any way that is consistent with the Rules and the strictures of the Constitution?
Your argument fails on a detailed analysis of both documents when read with the plain English requirement for reading any law or other legal document?
Your self-righteous indignation is frightfully self-serving.
Isn't the Senate entitled to withhold their "consent" in any way that is consistent with the Rules and the strictures of the Constitution?
Your argument fails on a detailed analysis of both documents when read with the plain English requirement for reading any law or other legal document?
Your self-righteous indignation is frightfully self-serving.
(Gorsuch) wanted much more: “The general principles here,” he wrote, “do not permit discrimination against religious exercise — whether on the playground or anywhere else.”
I would like Justice Gorsuch explain how not having the State fund playground equipment or "anywhere else" interferes with the free exercise of religion by any religion.
There should be separation of church and state, otherwise how do you determine which religious schools get nice playgrounds, school vouchers, books, etc., and which do not? Will Muslim schools be as well funded as Christian schools? This is a wrong unconstitutional decision by Justice Gorsuch, and he is just warming up his compartmentalized conservative mind full of injustices for many.
I would like Justice Gorsuch explain how not having the State fund playground equipment or "anywhere else" interferes with the free exercise of religion by any religion.
There should be separation of church and state, otherwise how do you determine which religious schools get nice playgrounds, school vouchers, books, etc., and which do not? Will Muslim schools be as well funded as Christian schools? This is a wrong unconstitutional decision by Justice Gorsuch, and he is just warming up his compartmentalized conservative mind full of injustices for many.
67
It interferes in the same way that refusing to send the fire department to a burning mosque would.
Gorsuch is setting the stage for the funneling of public tax dollars away fro public schools and into private and religious schools through Betsy DeVos' voucher program.
The essential problem here is that you use the word “conservative” when you really mean “judge”.
A “judge” reads the law and applies it to the facts of the case, going where the law dictates, leaving policy decisions to the people or the Legislature. You do not really object to a “conservative majority” on the court; you object to judges doing their jobs.
The left adores RBG precisely because she is not actually a judge; she is a leftist politician who believes that her position entitles her to impose her whim on the public.
In short, political conservatives and leftists differ on the role of the judiciary. Conservatives see it as bound by the text and history of the law. Leftists see it as a means of securing leftist policy objectives without the bother of winning elections.
Leftists cannot fathom that the law might not actually require imposition of their policies, nor that anyone might permit anything as trivial as the law to thwart said policies. As they regard the courts as political instruments, they cannot conceive of the possibility that conservatives don’t share their perspective, and won’t simply do to them what they would do to us.
Here’s to hoping that the judiciary is, in short order, populated with actual judges -- whom you call "conservatives" -- and that all those who consider the courts as means of imposing leftist orthodoxy on an unwilling populace go on to retirement in well-warranting anonymity.
A “judge” reads the law and applies it to the facts of the case, going where the law dictates, leaving policy decisions to the people or the Legislature. You do not really object to a “conservative majority” on the court; you object to judges doing their jobs.
The left adores RBG precisely because she is not actually a judge; she is a leftist politician who believes that her position entitles her to impose her whim on the public.
In short, political conservatives and leftists differ on the role of the judiciary. Conservatives see it as bound by the text and history of the law. Leftists see it as a means of securing leftist policy objectives without the bother of winning elections.
Leftists cannot fathom that the law might not actually require imposition of their policies, nor that anyone might permit anything as trivial as the law to thwart said policies. As they regard the courts as political instruments, they cannot conceive of the possibility that conservatives don’t share their perspective, and won’t simply do to them what they would do to us.
Here’s to hoping that the judiciary is, in short order, populated with actual judges -- whom you call "conservatives" -- and that all those who consider the courts as means of imposing leftist orthodoxy on an unwilling populace go on to retirement in well-warranting anonymity.
15
RBG is not a "leftist," not in her interpretation of the law, not in her actual rulings, and not in her conception of her role as a judge. And to the extent that judges allow their ideology to sway their interpretations of the law, conservative judges do it at least as much as "liberal" (a fraught term) judges do. Indeed, as far as the Supreme Court goes, even a casual glance at the ideology-infused rulings of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will suffice to show that they do it much, much more.
It is merely the ideological blindness of conservatives that allows them to believe that conservative judges rule with no regard to ideology, and merely follow the law, whereas "liberal" judges are legislators. The fact is that the law is often ambiguous or obscure in its intention; and judges bring their own life history and experience to bear on it. Part of conservative ideology is the conscious withholding of empathy from anyone who does not belong to the perceived socioeconomic class of conservatives; "liberals", whose life experience generally has brought them to the cultivation of empathy, may be more inclined to interpret any legal ambiguities to the general social benefit.
It is merely the ideological blindness of conservatives that allows them to believe that conservative judges rule with no regard to ideology, and merely follow the law, whereas "liberal" judges are legislators. The fact is that the law is often ambiguous or obscure in its intention; and judges bring their own life history and experience to bear on it. Part of conservative ideology is the conscious withholding of empathy from anyone who does not belong to the perceived socioeconomic class of conservatives; "liberals", whose life experience generally has brought them to the cultivation of empathy, may be more inclined to interpret any legal ambiguities to the general social benefit.
22
Perfectly said.
Well that's your interpretation of law, obviously from what you wrote you would be labeled ' conservative ' other people would say what RBG does is judging.
What the editorial was addressing is Republicans robbing the Democratic President of his Supreme Court nominee.
Gee is that judging or legislative?
To me it's robbery maybe the justices can 'judge' that.
What the editorial was addressing is Republicans robbing the Democratic President of his Supreme Court nominee.
Gee is that judging or legislative?
To me it's robbery maybe the justices can 'judge' that.
1
Its time to accept the fact that there is no non-partisan judiciary in this country.
7
Never has been a non-partisan judiciary in the country, dAVID, from the very beginning.
Judges are nominated by the Executive, a political figure, and confirmed by the Senate, populated by popularly elected politicians.
The Supreme Court is designed to be the slowest moving, most conservative element in our government to assure that, through the laws of the land, the values and morals of the past, as embodied in the law, are respected.
Judges are nominated by the Executive, a political figure, and confirmed by the Senate, populated by popularly elected politicians.
The Supreme Court is designed to be the slowest moving, most conservative element in our government to assure that, through the laws of the land, the values and morals of the past, as embodied in the law, are respected.
1
@Owl
The role of the Supreme Court is to check that the actions of the President and Congress are in accordance with contitutional law.
The Court's ONLY duty is to abide by the U.S. Comstitution.
You can Google it.
The role of the Supreme Court is to check that the actions of the President and Congress are in accordance with contitutional law.
The Court's ONLY duty is to abide by the U.S. Comstitution.
You can Google it.
Democrats need to get over Gorsuch.
He's just a replacement for Scalia, and does not change the ideological balance on the court.
Replacing Kennedy or Ginsburg should be of much more urgency to Democrats.
He's just a replacement for Scalia, and does not change the ideological balance on the court.
Replacing Kennedy or Ginsburg should be of much more urgency to Democrats.
13
Gorsuch is more than qualified for the position he holds. If the NY Times had its way, all nine Supreme Court Justices would be left leaning. Balance is a good thing.
11
His qualifications are not at issue, and there are no "left-leaning" justices. What's at issue is that McConnell, in a naked show of partisanship, usurped and denied the powers of the president. For those conservatives who claim to have a devotion to the law - and especially constitutional law, where the procedures for nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices are laid out - this should be worrisome. It is a measure of the cynicism and
intellectual bankruptcy of, precisely, conservative ideology that it is not.
intellectual bankruptcy of, precisely, conservative ideology that it is not.
15
'For those conservatives who claim to have a devotion to the law - and especially constitutional law, where the procedures for nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices are laid out - this should be worrisome.'
Conservatives should be worried because McConnell followed the Constitution? I doubt many are, nor should they be.
Conservatives should be worried because McConnell followed the Constitution? I doubt many are, nor should they be.
1
There are "no left leaning justices?" LOL and Wow!
1
The shame of it all, is that Mitch McConnell has no respect for the role of the Senate, nor for the American people. For McConnell, it's not about the good of the country, it's about concentrating his power; it's all about McConnell.
28
Mitch McConnell has no concern for fairness or the institutions of this country. He is only concerned with amassing and protecting his power. I can only hope he is not as successful with the demolition of the ACA. That would be a victory for the American people--for once!
1
Mitch looked over at Barack, Joe and Harry and thought to himself "I can take these chumps in my sleep". And he was right.
"It's all about McConnell."
No--it's all about his wealthy puppet masters.
No--it's all about his wealthy puppet masters.
1
McConnell was no brilliant strategist, but a knee-jerk anti-liberal who got lucky. Nobody expected Trump to win, including Trump. Obama offered Garland as a moderate, acceptable to both sides. Rational conservatives would have taken that bird in hand, but Republicans regard reason as a form of sacrilege.
29
The Dems thought they were going to win the presidency and didn't fight hard enough for the Senate to do its constitutional duty. The lesson is that a party needs to be governed by values and not by winning. The Dems should have shut down the government because the Republicans were dishonoring the constitution.
13
It's sad that conservatives, who love to spout about their fealty to the constitution and the principles it embodies, are the first ones to run roughshod over it or any semblance of fair play. (It does mandates that the senate "advise and consent" but doesn't say, "only if you feel like it.")
McConnell will go down in history as a serially dishonest, hypocritical politician who did tremendous damage to our democracy and its institutions.
McConnell will go down in history as a serially dishonest, hypocritical politician who did tremendous damage to our democracy and its institutions.
25
Can you show me the section of the constitution that outlines how Supreme Court Justices are appointed in the last year of a presidency? I must have missed that section. Agree or disagree with Senate Republican actions, but stick to the facts please.
1
Elections have consequences. Millions of voters held their nose and voted for Trump because they realized his Supreme Court appointees will determine the future of the United States. His tweets about obscure cable channel TV hosts are meaningless to us as we await his next nominee
9
Perhaps his impeachment will come before his next nominee? Millions of voters may be anticipating that.
I don't think you have the correct definition of conservative when you label Gorsuch. Re-read the work of Burke and other traditional conservatives. Gorsuch, and other contemporary "conservatives" would best be described as ideologues.
12
Wah, wah, wah.
There was no 'theft' of a Supreme Court seat. The Democrats simply overplayed their hand when they had a Senate majority- thank you, Harry Reid- and the tactics they used came back to bite them when they lost the majority. In the heady days on 2009 when the Dems controlled 59 Senate votes they never imagined that a mere six years later they would only control 46 votes. Or that after an election in which the open Supreme Court seat was a major campaign issue they would lose the White House and only pick up two Senate votes. Some 'theft'.
As a famous, if not so wise, politician once said: "'Elections have consequences".
There was no 'theft' of a Supreme Court seat. The Democrats simply overplayed their hand when they had a Senate majority- thank you, Harry Reid- and the tactics they used came back to bite them when they lost the majority. In the heady days on 2009 when the Dems controlled 59 Senate votes they never imagined that a mere six years later they would only control 46 votes. Or that after an election in which the open Supreme Court seat was a major campaign issue they would lose the White House and only pick up two Senate votes. Some 'theft'.
As a famous, if not so wise, politician once said: "'Elections have consequences".
13
You'd be amazed at how many Americans would prefer that "famous, if not so wise politician", over the one who is now tweeting obscenities out of the White House.
“One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,’ ” Mr. McConnell told a political gathering in Kentucky last summer.
What more to say about this man who refused to do his job? He serves the perfect president for someone so lacking in every moral principle.
Harriet
What more to say about this man who refused to do his job? He serves the perfect president for someone so lacking in every moral principle.
Harriet
69
'What more to say about this man who refused to do his job?'
But he did do his job. He just didn't do it the way you'd have liked him to.
But he did do his job. He just didn't do it the way you'd have liked him to.
That Gorsuch accepted the nomination knowing it belonged to Garland casts grave doubt on his integrity, regardless of his political views.
303
Courageous? What an inappropriate word for a despicable action that undermined the very foundations of our government. How about evil, or arrogant, or an abuse of power? If Gorsuch were a man of character instead of a heartless ideologue, he would have refused the appointment. Apparently, he can be bought, just like the rest of the GOP.
21
The truth is the democratic has long been the party of cowards they KNEW before december 2016 that this is what McConnell would do and the allowed it to happen. this is after the republicans had already changed the rules twice before to benefit themselves. the dems want to play politics like its a brunch. it's not. having most people agree with you on the issues doesnt matter if you cant convert that into policy. the dems need to learn to play like McConnell.
2
GOP strategy is hatched in board rooms and think tanks across the country. They have adopted several tried and true approaches over the years which are obviously effective. They are premised on Republicans withdrawing from the social and political contract that made the USA great. Opting out of these unwritten norms was so easy. It was finally an open declaration of war on our Democracy. Democrats, refusing to see the threat, seem to believe that everyone is good-hearted and open to doing what's best for the USA. Obama thought that by appointing Republicans to the key positions in his government, like FBI, he could avoid conflict because the GOP would be mollified by the capitulation. But the more he moved in a conservative direction, the more they moved towards totalitarianism. They won. But they still need an enemy to keep their base from voting for their own good. They are not planning to be good winners. They are going to strip away everything they can, confuse us with their schizophrenic, "black is white" rationales and do everything to keep the scales of justice from getting back into balance. The 2016 election was not a fair election. We can be sure that the tampering was worse than made public yet, bad as that was. Let's face it though. We got shafted. So why do good people still believe that 2018 won't be openly worse? Irrational hope. Now that our Supreme Court is "officially" a political entity again and more than ever an enemy of the people.
16
Trump is not a legitimate president.
Gorsuch is not a legitimate Justice.
McConnell is a traitor.
Republicans cannot hold power through an open democratic process. Therefore, they lie to a desperate, undereducated portion of the electorate, gerrymander to give those voters outsize power, collude with foreign enemies, subvert the Constitution and break the law, all to gain personal advantage.
It's time for patriotic Americans to remember the promise of the Fourth of July and the personal peril the signees to the Declaration willingly accepted to advocate for a democratic republic. Americans rejected rule by force, rule by fiat and rule without representation, and we need to do it again.
McConnell should be thrown out of the Senate for refusing to do his Constitutionally mandated job. We need term limits, prohibition on outside contributions of any kind, and the end of political gerrymandering.
Gorsuch is not a legitimate Justice.
McConnell is a traitor.
Republicans cannot hold power through an open democratic process. Therefore, they lie to a desperate, undereducated portion of the electorate, gerrymander to give those voters outsize power, collude with foreign enemies, subvert the Constitution and break the law, all to gain personal advantage.
It's time for patriotic Americans to remember the promise of the Fourth of July and the personal peril the signees to the Declaration willingly accepted to advocate for a democratic republic. Americans rejected rule by force, rule by fiat and rule without representation, and we need to do it again.
McConnell should be thrown out of the Senate for refusing to do his Constitutionally mandated job. We need term limits, prohibition on outside contributions of any kind, and the end of political gerrymandering.
47
The only bright star on the horizon over all of these whiny shenanigans by the GOP is that an extremist conservative fires up progressive crowds. Crowds, not individuals, have the power to make changes.
As we saw in Russia, 1905.
As we saw in Russia, 1905.
8
Add to that the cloud of illigitimacy of Trump's election. If Gorsuch has a shred of decency, he would resign when it's proven Trump came to power through collusion with Russia.
10
One thing that we do know about Neil Gorsuch is that he lacks honor. An honorable individual would never have taken the seat that Mitch stole.
8
Mc McConnell was never a politician who represented the idea of courage, as I've defined courage all of my life, so I'll go with cynicism! What he did, and ultimately got away with, should have been scorned by all people, democrats and republicans alike. Further, he should have been thrown out of congress for obstruction of, dare I suggest it, justice.... since there's so little of it left in this " exceptional" country!
90
McConnell held this seat hostage at a time when all of the polls and prognostications clearly showed Hillary Clinton would be the next president.
In light of everything we now know - and worse, everything we don't - this was an extremely suspicious and reckless political gamble. After all, polls were also showing Democrats would likely re-take the Senate.
From fake news to Bush-v-Gore to Citizens United to gerrymandering, the GOP has gradually stolen democracy away from American citizens for the last few election cycles: if not literally, then by proxy. And there's been no consequences except spoils to the victor.
This is how you end up with a failed representative democracy that operates more like an oligarchy. This is how you end with someone like Donald Trump as President.
In light of everything we now know - and worse, everything we don't - this was an extremely suspicious and reckless political gamble. After all, polls were also showing Democrats would likely re-take the Senate.
From fake news to Bush-v-Gore to Citizens United to gerrymandering, the GOP has gradually stolen democracy away from American citizens for the last few election cycles: if not literally, then by proxy. And there's been no consequences except spoils to the victor.
This is how you end up with a failed representative democracy that operates more like an oligarchy. This is how you end with someone like Donald Trump as President.
18
McConnell subverted the constitution and should have been called on it. But Obama was too wedded to the idea that he could find middle ground, that nominating Garland would be enough to start the rusty mecanism of the senate. The left will only get back to parity in the political sphere when it takes a few well considered steps that might fail. The left needs to be known for its active failures before the populace understands what's at stake and what has been lost. The Garland thing was a passive failure and passivity in the face of bullies is weakness.
3
No surprise here. Gorsuch isn't a jurist. He's an ideologue posing as a jurist, which is exactly what McConnell wanted. Neither he, nor Thomas, believe the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should be taken seriously.
12
Putting politics aside for a moment, I think it's safe to say Justice Gorsuch is an excellent jurist. After two sub-par nominations by President Obama to the Supreme Court, I shudder to think where we'd be as a country had he an opportunity to nominate a third. Yes, it was dirty pool, but such is politics.
4
A very real concern arises when five percent of American lawyers belong to the Federalist Society, but five members of the Supreme Court do.
Republican reliance on the most conservative outliers in the judiciary to fill the federal bench is, like skewed gerrymandering and vote suppression, an unbalanced approach to governance.
Sadly, the result will be for Democrats to be just as nasty. Politics by stealth.
Republican reliance on the most conservative outliers in the judiciary to fill the federal bench is, like skewed gerrymandering and vote suppression, an unbalanced approach to governance.
Sadly, the result will be for Democrats to be just as nasty. Politics by stealth.
5
Whither debate, compromise, reflection. Ensure the deal is made to benefit the ideology. McConnell was bent on denying President Obama anything and everything. And with Justice Gorsuch on the bench, the stool of federal government now has three Republican legs. It will be interesting to watch what happens, to say the least.
1
With the Republican party in total control of the government, it would be a futile gesture, but Mitch McConnell should nonetheless have the charge of sedition brought against him. Was it not sedition for him to declare that the newly elected president would fail and that he would do all in his power to assure that outcome? Was it not sedition for him to institute a new process for the consideration or rather non consideration of the nominee for the supreme court by the sitting president? The kind of hatred displayed towards every aspect of Obama's presidency transcends political conservatism. The only reasonable explanation is raw racism. Now racism might not qualify as sedition but it is a far more accurate barometer of intent than any the Republican party has put forth to explain its actions for the past eight years. A small group of white males hammering out a health insurance policy behind not merely closed but barred doors may not be sedition either but it is equally deplorable.
7
How in the world can you possibly make a case of sedition against a sitting senator of ANY party when the members of Congress have immunity from arrest or even charge when they are traveling to or sitting in a session of that body.
Your premise is flawed right from the start, Mr. Klosty, and is typical of someone trying to achieve by other means that which he could not achieve at the ballot box.
THAT is FAR MORE SEDITIOUS than the unfounded allegations your are putting to Senator McConnell.
Not even Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would go along with your thesis.
Your premise is flawed right from the start, Mr. Klosty, and is typical of someone trying to achieve by other means that which he could not achieve at the ballot box.
THAT is FAR MORE SEDITIOUS than the unfounded allegations your are putting to Senator McConnell.
Not even Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would go along with your thesis.
Betrayal of county, a somewhat abstract concept really. What the republican senators did, with the endorsement of the republican voters in November, was nothing less than betrayal to their countrymen, through naked disenfranchisement of the American people that elected Pres. Obama. This is not normal disagreement that is natural in politics. This is theft. This is violation. This is contempt of democracy. This is contempt of republic. This may even result in the end of any validity of American law - are we really going to accept SCOTUS rulings given a seat has been stolen and we will probably seeing retirements soon? Yeah maybe for a while, but its going to feel like tyranny to more and more over time.
3
All you have to recognize is that billionaires (Republican) have spent millions over a decade or more planning for Mr. Gorsuch's ascension to the Supreme Court. Republicans like to say it's the Democrats who want to control the court/s, but it is completely the opposite. With the Bork hearings they went off wounded -- still claiming that Bork would have been a good justice -- not admitting that that is just not true -- ever since Bork they have been trying to move the court to the hard right and now they are realizing their "nasty" destructive vision of this country. What they have forgotten is that all their cheating and gerrymandering will not help them -- look at Mr. Trump's approval rating. They are setting up a dynamic which, I believe, will be the end of their party as we know it. The one percent cannot control the "tired, the poor, the huddled masses who are free... The majority of Americans will, as always, control the narrative again -- after all it is the government of the people -- and when they wake up -- it will not be good for the Republican party who seem to think that they can be the puppet masters of the poor...
3
This is an important example of how the Republican Party has worked, and is continuing to work, to destroy our democracy and undermine the separation of powers. I will never consider Mr. Gorsuch's appointment legal, not because of my disagreements with him, but because, as the article stated, he occupies a stolen seat that came to him through the ignoring of the Constitution. Mitch McConnell has earned the disdain of every American who cares about the future of democracy in the United States, a future that is not looking very bright.
6
Whatever happened to the Constitutional idea of Blind Justice? and Equal Protection under the law? Justices were supposed to be non-partisan, not walking in the footsteps of the party. What happened to the USA that so many people fought and died for? Such a farce.
Mitch McConnell's assertion to President Obama that he will continue to obstruct the President as he did from Day One is something which should shame him. Instead he believes it emboldens him. Like Trump, these men of what they perceive as machismo because in a real fight these men would cower, are the bane of this nation's existence. Playing King of the Hill with the fate of three hundred million plus people is outrageous. When the citizens of a country condone this behavior with their vote it makes the outrage even worse.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
6
And what makes it even more outrageous (if that's at all possible), is the fact that it was only a minority of citizens in this country, whose votes made this all possible.
2
It may be outrageous to the people who did not vote for Trump, McConnell, or the other Republicans in state and federal elections, but...
Vote Republican they did, and vote Republican in sufficient numbers to turn blue states red, and to install more than 900 Republicans at the political tables in lieu of the Democrats and liberals who opposed them.
That is a fact, as outrageous as you might see it to be.
And what is the take-away from this indisputable fact, Dennis D?
Is it not that The People are no longer interested in YOUR people playing King of the Hill or any other office that you have managed to lose over the past eight years?
Take solace, sir, the hegemony of the Republican is transitory just as your hegemony was but temporary, This is the normal course of political affairs as political parties grow closer or further away from the political consensus of the day.
The disaster that you now perceive was one of your own making...made through arrogance, division, dismissal, and disparagement.
Your message, sir, resonated. It resonated in ways that you were too self-assured to see.
Come up with better, more reasonable ideas that will play in Peoria, because it is in Peoria and its cousins across of grand nation that political hegemony will be established.
Are you up for the challenge?
Vote Republican they did, and vote Republican in sufficient numbers to turn blue states red, and to install more than 900 Republicans at the political tables in lieu of the Democrats and liberals who opposed them.
That is a fact, as outrageous as you might see it to be.
And what is the take-away from this indisputable fact, Dennis D?
Is it not that The People are no longer interested in YOUR people playing King of the Hill or any other office that you have managed to lose over the past eight years?
Take solace, sir, the hegemony of the Republican is transitory just as your hegemony was but temporary, This is the normal course of political affairs as political parties grow closer or further away from the political consensus of the day.
The disaster that you now perceive was one of your own making...made through arrogance, division, dismissal, and disparagement.
Your message, sir, resonated. It resonated in ways that you were too self-assured to see.
Come up with better, more reasonable ideas that will play in Peoria, because it is in Peoria and its cousins across of grand nation that political hegemony will be established.
Are you up for the challenge?
Allowing the president to choose the supreme court justice is the height of absurdity because it obviously leads to a biased court. This is a flaw that must be remedied by giving the job of selection to a bi-partisan congressional committee. Why we keep playing this game is beyond me.
1
What a horrible thing it was that McConnell was allowed to steal a seat on the Supreme Court and help install a judge who will for decades, likely, hurt the people who voted for Trump.
McConnell's really the consequence, though, of a society that lacks integrity in so many ways and which allows such things to happen.
McConnell's really the consequence, though, of a society that lacks integrity in so many ways and which allows such things to happen.
4
Our Democracy with a written Constitution, a Government of checks and balances, a Land of Laws and Civility where Citizens have inherent Rights, Justice which is blind, Land of milk and honey, a moral Leader of the World with animus towards none and .... so on goes our truly virtuous Country.
But on this July 4th, let's be honest and ponder. Is there the smallest shred of that glory and greatness? I cannot seem to wish ourselves a, " Happy Birthday ".
But on this July 4th, let's be honest and ponder. Is there the smallest shred of that glory and greatness? I cannot seem to wish ourselves a, " Happy Birthday ".
I will never get over being angry about the stolen Supreme Court seat. Add to that a compromised presidential election, and it feels like Democracy has been totally usurped by powerful interests. The system is rigged. If Republicans want something and must change the rules to get it, so be it. We currently have a feckless, dangerous, moronic, immature president. Looks like we'll be stuck with that too. This is all just plain wrong.
5
Not sure what you mean by 'conservative' in your constant characterization of Gorsuch as such. If by conservative you mean someone who isn't legislating from the bench, then that doesn't describe him. If by conservative you mean someone who claims to be a strict interpreter of the Constitution, but in fact is someone who would make of our Constitution a document more fitting for the Dark Ages rather than one that reflects the intent of our Framers -- namely, to make ours a republic with an ever more intimate form of democratic representation and inclusiveness, even if and as our republic grew more vast -- then that describes our latest Justice to a tee.
1
With the advent of Mitch Mc Connell's theft of President Obama's nomination, the SCOTUS is no longer a beacon of hope that impartial justice will be done from here on out. Judge Neil Gorsuch has started to show his habit of extremism like Judge Clarence Thomas. There's little chance of balanced and fair decisions coming out of this Court. I'm afraid the highest court in the land is now just a partisan tool.
What ever allowed Mitch Mc Connell the power to label the POTUS a "lame duck" with nearly a year left in office and deny him of his right to have his nomination a hearing needs to be changed. It's goes against our country's values of fairness and in my mind, the desecration of the Supreme Court.
What ever allowed Mitch Mc Connell the power to label the POTUS a "lame duck" with nearly a year left in office and deny him of his right to have his nomination a hearing needs to be changed. It's goes against our country's values of fairness and in my mind, the desecration of the Supreme Court.
1
Remember, according to Gorsuch... "there are no Democrat [sic] judges; no Republican judges; only judges or words to that effect. Of all the lies Gorsuch told during his confirmation hearings, and there were many, this was the worst. As Democratic senators pointed out, if his statement were true, then Merrick Garland would be on the SCOTUS, not Gorsuch. Of all the things about Gorsuch that are bad, his religious zealotry may be the worst. His opinions will repeatedly attack the separation of Church and State. If Kennedy retires and Trump names his replacement, the separation of Church and State will likely be history.
5
Obama too often lacked resolve....and yielded for the sake of comity. Those compromises bought him zero good will from the Republicans.
1
Part of Barack Obama's legacy ...He could not maintain his hold of the Senate either from his arrogance or allowing his party to veer too much to the left thereby alienating the middle ground.
Now we have Trump, a government that has been bought by big money.
More subsidized healthcare for the poor is good and doable but not by taxing individuals more...poor execution.
Now we have Trump, a government that has been bought by big money.
More subsidized healthcare for the poor is good and doable but not by taxing individuals more...poor execution.
The Supreme Court should be devoid of political opinions. Judges should be appointed because they are non partisan servants of the people. Women and men who see the entire picture, are real analysts, understand the law thoroughly and do not vote by their own views.
Recent events have destroyed my confidence in the Supreme Court as a fair arbiter of important issues.
2
Clearly Republicans don't believe in democracy. Neither do the 10s of millions who didn't vote. We deserve what we get.
1
It is plain to me that I will not live to see an America where equality, be it racial, sexual, social, or God forbid, wealth is the norm of the land. The key work in my starting sentence is "God."
This "God" that millions on millions "know" "made" this Universe, and this sand grain we find ourselves on. Many of these people believe that this was all accomplished thousands of millennia after the last dinosaur's demise. Their explanation for the fossils? God put them there, or that fossilization takes only a matter of weeks, months tops.
I don't know Gorsuch's particular position on evolution and geological time frames, but I think it safe to say he is more partial to the crowd just described and their freedoms to attempt to force their beliefs into the educational systems of the states than he is to the human rights of those Americans whose gender identities do not strictly adhere to the "Me Tarzan, you Jane" school of thought. I fear challenges to environmental laws will meet the same fate at this justice's hands.
Mitch McConnell is as much responsible, more so, than is Donald Trump for the radioactive fallout of a hard right Supreme Court. If ever there were a more clear-cut case for term limits, I have not seen it.
This "God" that millions on millions "know" "made" this Universe, and this sand grain we find ourselves on. Many of these people believe that this was all accomplished thousands of millennia after the last dinosaur's demise. Their explanation for the fossils? God put them there, or that fossilization takes only a matter of weeks, months tops.
I don't know Gorsuch's particular position on evolution and geological time frames, but I think it safe to say he is more partial to the crowd just described and their freedoms to attempt to force their beliefs into the educational systems of the states than he is to the human rights of those Americans whose gender identities do not strictly adhere to the "Me Tarzan, you Jane" school of thought. I fear challenges to environmental laws will meet the same fate at this justice's hands.
Mitch McConnell is as much responsible, more so, than is Donald Trump for the radioactive fallout of a hard right Supreme Court. If ever there were a more clear-cut case for term limits, I have not seen it.
1
The GOP will use any means necessary or available to trample on established political precedents. Mitch McConnell will go down in history as the Senator who denied the legitimate exercise of a President's right to nominate a member of the Supreme Court.
No doubt, turnabout will be fair play sometime in the future. And the GOP will suffer as a result.
But we will all be the poorer for the fact that under Mitch McConnell the Senate simply refused to consider a nominee on entirely despicable grounds of refusing to allow a president to move forward.
Oh, and it was a Black President that the GOP (via Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump) vilified from the first possible opportunity!
History will not forget.
No doubt, turnabout will be fair play sometime in the future. And the GOP will suffer as a result.
But we will all be the poorer for the fact that under Mitch McConnell the Senate simply refused to consider a nominee on entirely despicable grounds of refusing to allow a president to move forward.
Oh, and it was a Black President that the GOP (via Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump) vilified from the first possible opportunity!
History will not forget.
2
It appears the Court has saddled up. Another reason to prepare for anything and everything, Democrats.
This country has turned in an ominous direction. The values and freedoms we have long counted on, including truth, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to travel, are being eviscerated by the rich and powerful . We are now following in the footsteps of the world's worst dictators and authoritarians. Our new leaders are bringing ruin to our country and to our planet. Woe is us.
4
Mitch strikes again! I shudder to think how much damage this man will have done to this country before he retires from the national scene. What a truly mean person this man is. He is not worthy of the privilege of shining Mr. Obama's shoes.
2
When I think of veterans, those who bravely volunteered and those who couldn't get out of the draft and those for whom military service is the only way out of poverty, I wonder: Is this this new America what they put their lives on the line for? Is this why they killed and were killed, maimed and emotionally destroyed?
Veterans did and do all this for a country taken over by a cruel Republican Party that corrals their big hearts with the American flag as a ruse to protect the interests of people with so much money they literally play with it on the stock market and celebrity card games on television, and leave them behind. The Republican Party spits on Semper Fi and lathers up the wealthiest who already enjoy the best health care plans and best schools.
Lincoln was right: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Let's hope the last part proves true.
Veterans did and do all this for a country taken over by a cruel Republican Party that corrals their big hearts with the American flag as a ruse to protect the interests of people with so much money they literally play with it on the stock market and celebrity card games on television, and leave them behind. The Republican Party spits on Semper Fi and lathers up the wealthiest who already enjoy the best health care plans and best schools.
Lincoln was right: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Let's hope the last part proves true.
1
Why does everyone overlook the undeniable fact that Gorsuch is the is the Product of a family of right wing hacks. His mother had to resign from a cabinet post (rewarded via Reagan) due to her incompetence within a matter of months. The photograph of her swearing in, with the dorky 14 year old Gorsuch by her side reveals the privileged and sheltered existence within which he was raised. He claims to be a rugged because he would ski the pampered slopes of Aspen while growing up. He wouldn't last ten minutes in the real world. How could he be anything else but a manifestation of the Republican Corporate shill hypocrisy.
McConnell on the other hand is a ruthless street fighter. Belying his benign physical appearance is a person who had to overcome the challenges of polio as a child. He knows how to spot weakness, and he spotted it in Obama who backed down from every meaningful legislative challenge as President. This is why we are where we are on Healthcare. Obama caved to McConnell on the Public Option and therefore abandoned the opportunity to expose the injustices built into the private insurance racket.
When will the Press start treating McConnell like the mean spirited menace that he is instead of allowing him to hide in plain site. His Kentucky constituency, who he has sold out, doesn't seem capable of figuring this out on this own.
McConnell on the other hand is a ruthless street fighter. Belying his benign physical appearance is a person who had to overcome the challenges of polio as a child. He knows how to spot weakness, and he spotted it in Obama who backed down from every meaningful legislative challenge as President. This is why we are where we are on Healthcare. Obama caved to McConnell on the Public Option and therefore abandoned the opportunity to expose the injustices built into the private insurance racket.
When will the Press start treating McConnell like the mean spirited menace that he is instead of allowing him to hide in plain site. His Kentucky constituency, who he has sold out, doesn't seem capable of figuring this out on this own.
3
The religious right have finally obtained what they always wanted ,a Christian theocracy, & the blurring of the line between Church & State.The era of progressive liberalism is gone.Justice Ginsberg who has been ailing for quite some time will eventually leave the Court only to be replaced by another Gorsuch.Don’t be surprised if the Statue Of Liberty will be replaced by a Statue of Jesus, & the constitution replaced by the King James Bible.Impossible you say, so was the election of Trump.
3
When we rewrite the Constitution to reflect the realities of the 21st Century, terms of the Supreme Court should be visited. Life expectancy in 1790 was about 45 (though for rich, white males, 60 was common, 80 was outlier). I would think something on the lines of a 12-year term, with option for one 6-year reappointment by Senate, or perhaps not the Senate, some other apolitical committee. Probably, they won't select me for this imaginary rewrite Constitutional Convention.
2
Excellent news. An originalist interpreting the law and Constitution as our founders expected. Enough of "evolving" justice and legislating from the bench.
3
If Gorsuch were ethical, he would not have been willing to be appointed to this stolen seat. Keep that in mind as we watch him spend years rolling back modernity.
History will not be kind to Mitch McConnell. He apparently doesn't care that much of the country views him with disgust.
History will not be kind to Mitch McConnell. He apparently doesn't care that much of the country views him with disgust.
2
With the Republican party in total control of the government it would be a futile gesture, but Mitch McConnell should nonetheless have the charge of sedition brought against him. Was it not sedition for him to declare that the newly elected president would fail and that he would do all in his power to assure that outcome? Was it not sedition for him to institute a new process for the consideration or rather non consideration of the highly qualified nominee for the supreme court by the sitting president? The kind of hatred displayed towards every aspect of Obama's presidency transcends mere political conservatism. The only reasonable explanation is raw racism. Now racism might not qualify as sedition but it is a far more accurate barometer of intent than any the Republican party has put forth to explain its actions for the past eight years. A small group of white males hammering out a health insurance policy behind not merely closed but barred doors may not be sedition either but it is equally deplorable.
1
A few months ago I remember most "liberal" media outlets softening their opinion on Gorsuch. It was an "it probably won't be so bad" takeaway. Nothing has changed - it's the overly-optimistic bubble that has enclosed Democrats' political strategies lately that has burst.
The GOP-controlled Senate exercised its Constitutional duty to advise and consent. It advised President Obama that it would not consent to the Garland nomination.
1
Lawyer Gorsuch's exchange with Senator Leahy told you everything you needed to know as to why lawyer Gorsuch could never be a reliable judge or even credible justice of the Supreme Court. Like lawyer Scalia before him he is an advocate for a preconceived position and will never be able to listen fairly to the evidence.
Lawyer Gorsuch is a superb advocate but justices need to evolve their opinions in the light of truth and lawyer Gorsuch learned all he was willing to learn before he even left home.
Real justice has only one parent and that is truth.
Merrick Garland was not a liberal choice nor was he a conservative choice he was a choice for those that still believed that truth was not subjective but needed respect for facts , evidence and truth. If you again get back to truth justice and the American way and escape the United States of Cynicism will depend on recognizing that winning is not nearly as important as how you play the game.
Lawyer Gorsuch is a superb advocate but justices need to evolve their opinions in the light of truth and lawyer Gorsuch learned all he was willing to learn before he even left home.
Real justice has only one parent and that is truth.
Merrick Garland was not a liberal choice nor was he a conservative choice he was a choice for those that still believed that truth was not subjective but needed respect for facts , evidence and truth. If you again get back to truth justice and the American way and escape the United States of Cynicism will depend on recognizing that winning is not nearly as important as how you play the game.
1
Hillary Clinton was imperfect.
Raise your hand if you are perfect.
Yeah, no hands.
So, next presidential election remember the rule.
We typically get one of the two major party candidates as the president when all is settled. Watch the polls. If some very appealing third party candidate is doing well, and close in polls, consider that person if so inclined.
Otherwise, block and reject the more patently horrible choice.
The saying is, "Support an, admittedly, imperfect friend of your main views ahead of a dangerous enemy of your views."
Don't be a purist.
Or, you'll get an extremist.
Raise your hand if you are perfect.
Yeah, no hands.
So, next presidential election remember the rule.
We typically get one of the two major party candidates as the president when all is settled. Watch the polls. If some very appealing third party candidate is doing well, and close in polls, consider that person if so inclined.
Otherwise, block and reject the more patently horrible choice.
The saying is, "Support an, admittedly, imperfect friend of your main views ahead of a dangerous enemy of your views."
Don't be a purist.
Or, you'll get an extremist.
3
Anyone willing to fill the Garland seat as the result of an unprecedented abuse of power and disrespect for constitutional integrity necessarily disqualifies himself as someone to rely upon as a good-faith arbiter of the Constitution and the rule of law. Gorsuch should be profoundly ashamed himself. The fact that he clearly is not speaks volumes about where we are as a country.
1
In a political season full of shame, perhaps the most shameful reality is that Barack Obama did not fight hard enough in the final year of his presidency. He passively accepted the political tradition of the lame duck president. I think we can all agree that the Republicans will not ever return that favor. Like other American presidential traditions, that one will be gone forever. President Obama signaled that Hillary Clinton should be his successor. That's not a signal that a sitting president should send. How about letting Democratic voters decide? The President also did not fight nearly hard enough to draw attention to the travesty of the McConnell move on Garland. Finally, we are left with a decision not to sound the alarm about Russian interference in our 2016 election process. The reason? An assumption that Secretary Clinton was going to win. We are a bit tired of the vacation pictures, Mr. Obama. We are enduring a dismantling of every prize piece of our federal infrastructure. People have worked and died for the rights that McConnell and Ryan and co. are gleefully dismantling. And, I won't even mention Trump and Bannon in the Oval Office.
Machiavelli Mitch is one of the most partisan and destructive forces in American politics. Its surprising that Democrats haven't demonized him the way the Reps have demonized Pelosi. He embodied the party of "no"; it is now the party of nothing. The man is a disaster for America.
1
Whether courageous or cynical is a matter of one's point of view, but McConnell's hatefully proud moment shall stand as a testament to his own bitter partisan view, totally disregarding his duty to constituency, Congress and country. He has demonstrated multiple instances of failure to govern as an elected official. Let him be proud to have served to the best of his ability.
The day the term ended I had lunch with a lesbian friend (I'm gay) and we both breathed a sigh of relief that Mr. Justice Kennedy did not retire. The LGBTQ community made so many strides under Obama (for that alone he is a great president to our way of thinking). Kennedy's vote was crucial in cases involving the dignity of all people.
Now with the "wedding-cake" case coming before the court, we're glad Kennedy still sits on the bench, but it won't last forever. And we find Gorsuch ominous in his opinions and dissents. Because LGBTQ people still have battles to fight. Yes, we won marriage equality. But most states and the federal government do not bar discrimination against us. It's a sad thing to realize that one can lose one's job, not be able to buy a house where one wishes, might not have equal access to services just because of whom one chooses to love.
Now with the "wedding-cake" case coming before the court, we're glad Kennedy still sits on the bench, but it won't last forever. And we find Gorsuch ominous in his opinions and dissents. Because LGBTQ people still have battles to fight. Yes, we won marriage equality. But most states and the federal government do not bar discrimination against us. It's a sad thing to realize that one can lose one's job, not be able to buy a house where one wishes, might not have equal access to services just because of whom one chooses to love.
81
Yes, Judge Gorsuch delivers...in a time, and in a land, when "delivering" are all that remains of what looked to be a hopeful experiment in government called democracy...an experiment in the notion that "All men are created equal"...a wonderfully "enlightening" stance by people who themselves owned other people...and now a stance hated by those who profess to love democracy, but who really would rather just go back to owning other people - literally, figuratively, or metaphorically.
Congratulations, Mr. McConnell, you have single-handedly rescued the American dream of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" from becoming a reality, and have faithfully served in returning us to our "historical roots" of slave labor and white supremacy...and congratulations to Judge Gorsuch, who has so swiftly shown the power of the law to support the older human notion of "might makes right" - perhaps when humanity has recovered from this gigantic step back, others with vision will once again pose the proposition that in order to "serve God" we should "love our neighbors as ourselves", as quaint as that may seem to those who profess they do just this.
Congratulations, Mr. McConnell, you have single-handedly rescued the American dream of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" from becoming a reality, and have faithfully served in returning us to our "historical roots" of slave labor and white supremacy...and congratulations to Judge Gorsuch, who has so swiftly shown the power of the law to support the older human notion of "might makes right" - perhaps when humanity has recovered from this gigantic step back, others with vision will once again pose the proposition that in order to "serve God" we should "love our neighbors as ourselves", as quaint as that may seem to those who profess they do just this.
Federalist 77 clearly says that the President fills the seat. Indeed, it says that the Senate has a disincentive to reject the Presidential nominee, because the 2nd nomination he makes may be even less to his liking. The wording is along the lines of: the seat is the President's to fill. It is not clear to me whether Gorsuch has read the Federalist papers; if he hasn't, he shouldn't be on the Court. If he has, I really don't know how he can't even acknowledge the historical theft that took place here. Indeed, I can't see how he references anything about the Founding and still sleeps well at night.
1
I support Justice Gorsuch. Senator McConnell did the nation a great service by blocking Obama's choice. We had had enough of Obama. Hopefully Trump will have more opportunities to appoint two or three more Supreme Court Justices. I support Trump. Thank you.
1
When Neil Gorsuch accepted a nomination to a stolen Supreme Court seat, he confirmed that he is unfit for the appointment. He turned himself into a political pawn and endorsed the cynical, destructive machinations of Mitch McConnell and the Republican congress. With Mitch McConnell, Neil Gorsuch has asserted greater power for the legislative and judicial branches of our democracy, introducing a new imbalance to the powers established in our constitution. Neil Gorsuch has proven himself a man with no integrity.
1
In 2012, President Obama's margin of victory over Mitt Romney was more than 4,000,000 votes. In 2016, the margin of victory was ...
Whether it's imposing Neil Gorsuch on us, after declaring that he shouldn't allow the SC seat to be filled in 2016 but rather should wait for the will of the people expressed in that November's election, or crafting a "health care" bill that's so toxic that even go-along-to-get-along Republican Senators have rebelled, Mitch McConnell has made himself the de facto face of GOP America.
While Trump fumes and fusses a la the man in the ad who says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV," McConnell and his right-wing visionaries aim to not only radically change America but craft a Court that will affirm their voter suppression, environmental pillage, and destruction of the wall between church and state. When those who have been kept alive or vital by the ACA eventually bring suit against the GOP "health care is a commodity" bill, they will lose. McConnell might look like a cross between the Joker and the Penguin, but he has a much better plan.
So, for those of you who have enjoyed living in a country in which corporations trying to save a few bucks can't poison your well without consequences, take a selfie to remember.
And for those of you who didn't vote in 2016 (or 2014, or 2010) because what's the use or they're all the same, a special thanks for the creeping fascism that favors profit over people and religion over freedom.
Really. Thanks.
Whether it's imposing Neil Gorsuch on us, after declaring that he shouldn't allow the SC seat to be filled in 2016 but rather should wait for the will of the people expressed in that November's election, or crafting a "health care" bill that's so toxic that even go-along-to-get-along Republican Senators have rebelled, Mitch McConnell has made himself the de facto face of GOP America.
While Trump fumes and fusses a la the man in the ad who says, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV," McConnell and his right-wing visionaries aim to not only radically change America but craft a Court that will affirm their voter suppression, environmental pillage, and destruction of the wall between church and state. When those who have been kept alive or vital by the ACA eventually bring suit against the GOP "health care is a commodity" bill, they will lose. McConnell might look like a cross between the Joker and the Penguin, but he has a much better plan.
So, for those of you who have enjoyed living in a country in which corporations trying to save a few bucks can't poison your well without consequences, take a selfie to remember.
And for those of you who didn't vote in 2016 (or 2014, or 2010) because what's the use or they're all the same, a special thanks for the creeping fascism that favors profit over people and religion over freedom.
Really. Thanks.
203
Really, you're welcome!
Politicization of Scotus is another nail in the coffin of our democracy. We do not have three equal branches of government any more. We have a used care salesman seeking to be a demagogue. We have a Republican-led Congress bent on nothing more than tax cuts while destroying our international alliances, our trade relationships, our environment, our education and our health care. And a Supreme Court supremely indifferent to the wishes of a majority of Americans. History tells us empires come and go and ours is going to the dogs.
3
Judge Gorsuch is a wonderful addition to the Supreme Court. I am so proud of our Country and President Trump. Will not get tired of Winning. God Bless America!
Happy Birthday to our Beautiful Country.
Happy Birthday to our Beautiful Country.
Throughout the hearings, I was particularly troubled by the fact that Neil Gorsuch appeared to have no qualms whatsoever about filling a stolen seat on the High Court. And even more disturbing was this: Nobody on the judiciary committee asked him if it was ethical for Republicans to (A) refuse to hold a hearing for a sitting President's nominee, and, at the seeming behest of the Republican presidential nominee; and (B) how such a violation of our Constitutional norms has undermined our democracy.
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA
1
Gorsuch is going to make Thomas and Scalia, and Alito and all the other "conservatives" on the court, look like far, far left liberals. Thanks again to all those third party voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania who just could not vote for Hillary Clinton.
3
As long as the majority of American voters refuse to educate themselves on the issues, this will our government.
What we need to remember is that only 30 percent or so of Americans graduate from college, and the majority of that 70 percent of high school graduates aren't going to take the time to educate themselves through legitimate news organizations.
Hence, they rally to Trump's "fake news," because they have no idea what news is supposed to be. And they vote on their values: racism, sexism, ethnocentrism and fear of anyone different from them.
If we don't turn this around, the U.S. will just become another has-been nation with leadership only interested in enriching themselves.
What we need to remember is that only 30 percent or so of Americans graduate from college, and the majority of that 70 percent of high school graduates aren't going to take the time to educate themselves through legitimate news organizations.
Hence, they rally to Trump's "fake news," because they have no idea what news is supposed to be. And they vote on their values: racism, sexism, ethnocentrism and fear of anyone different from them.
If we don't turn this around, the U.S. will just become another has-been nation with leadership only interested in enriching themselves.
326
Democrats win plenty of voters that haven't graduated from college too. Look at their majorities in poor, urban districts, or the people that put Hillary over the top against Bernie.
And of course all those college graduates have done such great, selfless work.
Because a college education is necessary to understand what you believe in? And once again, this attitude is why the man won. Keep up the good work.
Lifetime appointments in any job are an anachronism especially in view of the increasing life-expectancy. There must be a sunset clause or term limit even for supreme court justices who are becoming disgracefully political and a detriment to democratic values. 10 year term limits with the possibility for renewal by at most one more five year term would serve our country better.
9
This is one of the major consequences of losing the election, perhaps the major one because there are likely to be more retirements and replacements under this Republican administration even if somehow Trump is not a part of it.
To all those Democrats, progressives, independents, and Republicans concerned about their parties actions who just could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton, to all those who justified sitting out because both candidates were flawed and didn't fire them up, and to all those who perennially don't vote but may have benefited greatly by progressive policies, does the election matter now? Wake up.
Be smart with your one vote. Be engaged if only because you can at least discern major differences between two candidates. Take the time to register and vote. What could possibly justify sitting on your hands? Too much effort?
To all those Democrats, progressives, independents, and Republicans concerned about their parties actions who just could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton, to all those who justified sitting out because both candidates were flawed and didn't fire them up, and to all those who perennially don't vote but may have benefited greatly by progressive policies, does the election matter now? Wake up.
Be smart with your one vote. Be engaged if only because you can at least discern major differences between two candidates. Take the time to register and vote. What could possibly justify sitting on your hands? Too much effort?
16
This has NOTHING to do with losing an election. The seat was STOLEN.
1
It is not a question of whether McConnell's decision to deny Judge Garland a hearing and a vote is "the height of courage" or "depth of cynicism" but a matter of how his boneheaded decision has set a bad precedent for future Senators to deny the sitting president the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice with nearly a year left on his term.
If the past is any guide, the Republicans will not retain a majority in the Senate forever. Just as likely, there will be an opening in the Supreme Court in the last year or so of a Republican president's term and the Democrats, if they are in the majority, can use the McConnell doctrine, so to speak, to deny the Republicans president the right to appoint a Supreme Justice.
Just as elections have consequences, so do the actions of the majority party in the Senate to do away with certain Senate rules. Republicans, while they were in the minority, did their best to hold up Obama's nominees that forced Harry Reid to go nuclear which paved the way for the Republicans to go nuclear on the Supreme Court nominee.
Thanks to the partisan efforts over the last few years by both parties to deliberately deny the other side even common courtesy, the Senate is no longer the "world's greatest deliberative body," but a collection of partisan hacks deliberating among themselves to advance their agenda, most of which are detrimental to the people who elected them.
What a sad spectacle and disservice to the country.
If the past is any guide, the Republicans will not retain a majority in the Senate forever. Just as likely, there will be an opening in the Supreme Court in the last year or so of a Republican president's term and the Democrats, if they are in the majority, can use the McConnell doctrine, so to speak, to deny the Republicans president the right to appoint a Supreme Justice.
Just as elections have consequences, so do the actions of the majority party in the Senate to do away with certain Senate rules. Republicans, while they were in the minority, did their best to hold up Obama's nominees that forced Harry Reid to go nuclear which paved the way for the Republicans to go nuclear on the Supreme Court nominee.
Thanks to the partisan efforts over the last few years by both parties to deliberately deny the other side even common courtesy, the Senate is no longer the "world's greatest deliberative body," but a collection of partisan hacks deliberating among themselves to advance their agenda, most of which are detrimental to the people who elected them.
What a sad spectacle and disservice to the country.
192
Very well said.
I simply cannot write another indignant comment with regard to the desecration of our country's institutions at the hands of the ultra-right MINORITY and the utterly grotesque administration currently seated in Washington. Trump, Ryan, McConnell - what is there to say that hasn't been said? As a person who, 2000 election and subsequent Supreme Court decision awarding the election to Bush notwithstanding, never thought I'd see the day when a complete lack of decency would be considered not only acceptable but admirable. I've also followed the votes of Gorsuch and, as is always the case with these ideologues, he does not interpret the Constitution as it was meant to apply so that the rights of ALL Americans should be safeguarded (Justice Breyer being the strongest advocate for fair-mindedness and non-biased decisions) but, in the vein of Scalia, he has already twisted and distorted the law to advance his personal perfidious beliefs. Our country is hopelessly deadlocked. It is unreasonable to believe that the Supreme Court will impose democratic values on those states that seek to block them. I am glad to live in New York and I am not optimistic that our "United" States will last the century. Honestly, I don't know anyone here who believes that the foul Republicans currently in power represent our progressive values. If after 240 years of independence we can only say we've arrived at THIS, our system of government has been an abject failure, of that I have no doubt.
35
This comment pretty much sums it up.
For 227 years, this republic, while suffering through several notable setbacks, has grown through the compromise, dignity, and nurture of many of good-will and vision. In the 228th year, we have the fruits of Trump and McConnell, which have been the antithesis of all of that. Stoked by right-wing talk radio and ideologues, the actions of Trump and McConnell have served and are serving to destroy the real underpinnings of the nation. Celebrate Independence Day, as it may be one of our last as a united nation.
18
Now try some research on Harry Reid and his opening Pandora's box by junking the 60 vote rule! Also, the growing overreach of Presidents Dem and Rep use of executive orders, and finally, the nullification of the constitutional amendment process for change by judicial reading of things into the constitution that simply aren't there, aka, the "living document" liberals love (when they are in control).
We'll unite again, but we need another civil war to do so.
In reading your reply and many of the comments, it is so disappointing and sad that our discourse is a juvenile tit for tat. This is not a sports contest. Democracy is not an eye-for-an-eye exercise, and where has "he started it first" gotten anyone past kindergarten.
Yes, I'm a liberal, and proud, like JFK, of having an open mind, trying to seek solutions, reaching out - which define liberalism. I'm also proud of conservatives in the past - during the dark times such as Watergate and the McCarthy - that came together to put country ahead of party. I have seen no courage or patriotism from Trump and McConnell, or his minions, to date.
Yes, I'm a liberal, and proud, like JFK, of having an open mind, trying to seek solutions, reaching out - which define liberalism. I'm also proud of conservatives in the past - during the dark times such as Watergate and the McCarthy - that came together to put country ahead of party. I have seen no courage or patriotism from Trump and McConnell, or his minions, to date.
With the present direction of American politics it would perhaps be better to institute term or age limits on Supreme Court judges so they better reflect the ongoing American political body. At the present direction of political intolerance where one party can block even the nomination of a justice we are drifting to a time when Supreme court packing will look like the only alternative to add flexibility to the court. And there goes the SC as having even a semblance of independence.
3
The fact that no one rightfully elected by the entire body of eligible electors can occupy the Oval Office for longer than two consecutive terms of 4 years duration has always seemed more than sensible to me. On the other hand, I could also understand a president, so long as he or she was rightfully elected by the voters every 4 years, serving an indefinite number of terms. What I do not understand however is the appointment of a Supreme Court justice FOR LIFE by a sitting president. The broader electorate having nothing whatsoever to do with the naming of this justice is fine but surely, as long as that broader electorate has nothing to do with which person is to be named, the best strategy would be to apply an appropriate term limit, say 10 years, to serving on the Supreme Court.
If there is anyone reading this comment who knows just why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, I'd be very grateful to be educated.
If there is anyone reading this comment who knows just why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, I'd be very grateful to be educated.
4
It was Hamilton, Charles, believed that Justices appointed for life and paid a decent amount, would be less corruptible.
I concur. Lifetime appointments are inappropriate. Case in point...Justice Ginsburg is clearly too old and too feeble minded to continue. Her staff does all the work. The timeframe could be worked out, 10,12,14 years or some such length of time but jurists do get long in the tooth and new blood is required.
It's time to stop whining about Merrick Garland. How would the court have been different if the Democrats hadn't viciously and unfairly attacked Robert Bork? Would the Republican Senate have dropped the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if the Democratic Senate had not done so for other nominees? Get over it. Nobody "stole" a Supreme Court appointment. The political branches of government acted politically - as they always do - and the electorate chose sides in 2016 by electing Donald Trump and ratifying what Senator McConnell did. If the country wanted Merrick Garland it could have elected Hillary Clinton.
14
There were lengthy and extensive hearings surrounding the Bork nomination. It was determined that Bork, while possessing the necessary requirements to become a Supreme Court Justice also held such extreme and outspoken partisan positions on points of law that his nomination was rejected. But no one stopped the hearings from taking place. And as it turned out, Scalia was next in line, also with strongly held views that were in contrast to the sitting majority in congress, but was unanimously confirmed. As for the idea that if the country wanted Merrick Garland that it could have elected HRC, first or all she did get three million more votes than Trump, but more importantly, the constitution states clearly that the sitting president has the duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when there is a vacancy and the congress has the duty to confirm or reject that nomination. They refused their duty. If you actually are an attorney as your moniker suggests, you should know this to be true. So, the appointment was stolen if by nothing else the the refusal of congress to follow due process of law.
2
Robert Bork's appointment was opposed at least in part because as the hastily appointed Solicitor General he did Nixon's bidding in firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the "Saturday Night Massacre" - which was the nadir of Nixon's criminal obstruction of justice that led to his resignation. Bork was not fit to sit on the Court.
4
Enough of the Bork syndrome.
If you're really an attorney of any stripe, you would already know that Bork HAD confirmation hearings and there was NEVER a thought of blocking those hearings.
What you claim is vicious and unfair as regards to Bork's background was, in reality, FAIR GAME FOR QUESTION AND CRITICISM, i.e. his legal background, history, and opinions.
One more thing. Presidential elections are not elections for Supreme Court justices. They are elections for President where voters vote for President, not for who sits on the Supreme Court.
If you're really an attorney of any stripe, you would already know that Bork HAD confirmation hearings and there was NEVER a thought of blocking those hearings.
What you claim is vicious and unfair as regards to Bork's background was, in reality, FAIR GAME FOR QUESTION AND CRITICISM, i.e. his legal background, history, and opinions.
One more thing. Presidential elections are not elections for Supreme Court justices. They are elections for President where voters vote for President, not for who sits on the Supreme Court.
1
What I still do not understand is, how was the majority leader of the Senate allowed to dictate a "no vote" on the sitting President's appointee?
13
It's "allowed" because it's the Senate's job to advise and consent. It advised the president that it did not consent.
The Senate is the body which holds the hearings. They simply refused to hold them. First time ever. And the backlash isn't going to be nice.
He had the votes.. we call it Democracy.
If the situation had been reversed, i.e. a Republican president with a Democratic controlled Senate, in an election year, and a seat (liberal or conservative) on the court had been vacated, the Democrats would have blocked the Presidents nominee, no matter how qualified.
Let's stop crying over spilt milk.
Let's stop crying over spilt milk.
18
Not true. The GOP is working beyond the bounds of tradition or decency.
3
No. You don't get to construct a false equivalent situation that did not happen, assign to the "other side" the actions you THINK they would take, and then use that false reality to justify the actions your "side" did in actual Reality. That's a logical fallacy of the highest order. There's no justification for what McConnell did, and defending it only shows that some people are willing to flush integrity if it means "winning". I put that in quotes along with the "sides", because sadly, this process has meant that none of us are winners in the long run...
3
Prodigal Son: "If the situation had been reversed, ie a Republican president with a Democratic controlled Senate, in an election year, and a seat on the court had been vacated, the Democrats would have blocked the Presidents nominee, no matter how qualified.
Let's stop crying over spilled milk."
That is ridiculously flawed logic, misplaced apathy, no foresight (or hindsight), and false assertion.
In reality, the situation WAS reversed, and Democrats did NOT do what Mitch and his party did. And IF that was such, why would one wrong justify another? What Mitch and republicans did was definitely unprecedented, and no trivial matter concerning the direction of an entire branch of our own government long into the future. It is clearly an assult on equitable and merited representation.
If you think that's as trivial as "spilled milk", then that is an extremely shallow view and you are simply wrong. This issue is not settled, and it will not be forgotten, nor go away as you wish. I predict it will haunt us until it is fixed.
Let's stop crying over spilled milk."
That is ridiculously flawed logic, misplaced apathy, no foresight (or hindsight), and false assertion.
In reality, the situation WAS reversed, and Democrats did NOT do what Mitch and his party did. And IF that was such, why would one wrong justify another? What Mitch and republicans did was definitely unprecedented, and no trivial matter concerning the direction of an entire branch of our own government long into the future. It is clearly an assult on equitable and merited representation.
If you think that's as trivial as "spilled milk", then that is an extremely shallow view and you are simply wrong. This issue is not settled, and it will not be forgotten, nor go away as you wish. I predict it will haunt us until it is fixed.
1
that decision was the height of courage or the depths of cynicism or both `the editorial stated. Wow now we can call Mitch' s decision to not allow the President of the United States to fulfill his constitutional duties to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court courageous. Effective way to enable what many would say was a constitutional abuse of power. Words matter actions count. I am disheartened by this statement. Guess the new normal is here . The worst behavior in Government can be depicted as laudable. The Conservatives will have a great time with that quote the next time around.
18
elaine: I think the editors meant that it could be interpreted by some as courageous because McConnell was risking losing the chance to have Merrick Garland, a moderate rather than a far-left liberal, placed on the court. He instead took a risk (for him) and held things up hoping for a Republican win so that a far-right candidate could be placed. The move could be seen as cynical because Obama offered an olive branch in the form of a compromise - a moderate choice - but McConnell did not care because he has always been driven by extreme ideology, obstructionist tactics (going way back in his history), and an extra measure of bile directed at Obama. One might well question what drives the latter, but I think I know.
I totally agree. Both of these written options given by the NY Times will definitely come back to haunt them. Ridiculous options to be sure...
Why is it that democracy in the U.S. is so vastly different to the West European model? How can laws in the U.S., and interpretations or reinterpretations of the Constitution, have become subject to the whims of a Supreme Court dominated by Conservatives for the past 50 years?
It is not just a question of Supreme Court Rulings, but the cases the Court refuses to hear (such as civil rights lawsuits and gun control), that seem today to suggest the U.S. has become victim to one-party rule.
It is not just a question of Supreme Court Rulings, but the cases the Court refuses to hear (such as civil rights lawsuits and gun control), that seem today to suggest the U.S. has become victim to one-party rule.
22
Why? History and Political Science.
By definition, the Conservative interpretation is closest to the original intent of the Constitution, particularly with regard to gun control.
There are vast numbers of highly independent Americans who scoff at Europe's governments. We created the first constitutional republic and our system is under constant revision. It's an experiment Hamid. Most European governments are incredibly unfree socialist/communist massive bureaucracies, Germany is a police state for all intents and purposes, and all of them steal from the people with the implied threat of a muzzle of a gun. The European people largely are unarmed and can't fight back from tyranny. Europeans can stick it.
1
It took the election of Donald Trump for progressives/liberals to understand and advocate for the importance of the 10th amendment. Now, it looks like the left is finally starting to understand why Conservatives/Originalists have objected to judicial activism for years. You applauded when the Court injected itself into abortion and other social issues. Now you are finally learning that what the Court gives it can take away (which is why the Legisltative and Executive branch should handle these issues). Hopefully, the day will come when the Court has gone so far that the left will also accept the Supreme Court must be limited to a very narrow set of cases. Congress could limit judicial review, but it is unlikely until several cases cause such an outrage that both sides agree to limit the courts to what the Constitution actually provides.
5
Why is it that regressives think they and only they have the "correct" interpretation of the constitution?
2
Times have changed. For the foreseeable future, it's unlikely that any nominee will be confirmed unless the President and the Senate majority are of the same party.
5
This indeed creates a dangerous precedent in an already hyper-partisan process of appointing judges to the highest court. Let's say that Justice Kennedy and a liberal Justice both retire in the next 4 years and the President and Congress appoint 2 members of the John Birch society to the bench. Let's also say that in a decade, the people finally elect a genuinely strong New Deal Democrat that doesn't suffer fools, and a Democratic Congress. If the GOP think that an extreme right wing Supreme Court is the ultimate break on social progress, they have it very wrong. That Democratic President and Congress will pack the Court, as FDR proposed, and they will get universal healthcare, free education, a living wage and other important reforms through. After all, after the Court-packing episode, the Supreme Court's right-wing fundamentalists were fully nullified. Take note Roberts et.al.
4
FDR's court-packing scheme failed, though he did manage to turn the Court into an unamerican rubberstamp for a number of years.
While we can agree that Gorsuch's seat on the Court was stolen, and worry about his conservative judicial views, it is specious to use the playground decision as a liberal vs. conservative weathervane. The old adage "hard cases make bad law" can be extended here as: Hard cases are not good measures of partisan leaning.
The playground funding issue is a hard case. All the judges saw that. Consider a number of like-issues: Should religious schools be barred from receiving federal funds for school lunches for poor children? Funds to improve facilities for children with disabilities? For desegregation? These and many other questions are about whether to fund improvements that have nothing to do with religion. The gist of Gorsuch's dissent is that the basic principle behind funding playgrounds extends to these cases as well. So the decision is wrongly circumscribed by being limited to playground funding.
This does not settle the constitutional issue though, because funding such universally recognized needs, in these cases, involves giving federal funds to religious institutions. If you fund a little, based on universal needs, then to be consistent you need to fund a lot, which entails quite a lot of federal support for basic operational needs of religious institutions, contrary to separation doctrines.
The dilemma is difficult to resolve. Gorsuch can be forgiven, on non-partisan grounds, for insisting on consistent use of principle.
The playground funding issue is a hard case. All the judges saw that. Consider a number of like-issues: Should religious schools be barred from receiving federal funds for school lunches for poor children? Funds to improve facilities for children with disabilities? For desegregation? These and many other questions are about whether to fund improvements that have nothing to do with religion. The gist of Gorsuch's dissent is that the basic principle behind funding playgrounds extends to these cases as well. So the decision is wrongly circumscribed by being limited to playground funding.
This does not settle the constitutional issue though, because funding such universally recognized needs, in these cases, involves giving federal funds to religious institutions. If you fund a little, based on universal needs, then to be consistent you need to fund a lot, which entails quite a lot of federal support for basic operational needs of religious institutions, contrary to separation doctrines.
The dilemma is difficult to resolve. Gorsuch can be forgiven, on non-partisan grounds, for insisting on consistent use of principle.
Could not the issue be resolved by taxing religious institutions who receive money from the state?
11
Making up principles and sticking to them is no virtue. People constantly talk like it is though.
It doesn't seem that difficult to me. You want kids to get federal funds for school lunches, facilities for disabilities etc, then they can go to public school where my tax dollars are not being used to indoctrinate children into religions I do not support. The only thing that will sharpen peoples' understanding of this issue is when we have Muslim schools in great number, rather than Christian schools, applying for Federal dollars-then watch how fast right-wing Christians backpedal on this issue.
2
"The problem is that [Justice Gorsuch is] sitting in the seat that by rights should be occupied by Judge Garland." What "rights" is that? Why do you assume that the Senate would have confirmed Judge Garland? There is no reason to believe that the same partisanship that dominates health care and other major issues would not have determined the outcome of a vote on whether to confirm Judge Garland. In fact, the entire process of nominating justices to be appointed to the Supreme Court is a game of chance. Depending on how many Justices choose to retire or pass away, one President may get to nominate several justices while another President may have no opportunity to nominate anyone. That, along with the ability of the Senate to reject a qualified nominee, is our Constitutional system, like it or not. So please stop the whining.
7
The point is that in no time in all of U.S. history did a seat go so long without being filled. Nor has there EVER been a case when a nominee was refused even a hearing. This is where the 'Originalists' have always had it wrong. Our Constitution is as much a document of tradition and evolving precedent as it is text. Were this not the case, our government would never have been set up with the concept of review between the branches, nor would there even exist the concept of amendments; that review of separation would be written in proverbial granite, rather than being subject to review. Furthermore, the 'original intent' of the founders isn't so easily discerned either. Every one of them changed his mind multiple times over this lifetime. Jefferson as an example switched from a warmonger to an extreme pacifistic and back several times. Which body of original intent are you going to cherry-pick to support your opinion. In the end, it comes down to current intent, not original intent when interpreting the Constitution. Admittedly, even this is an overly simplistic model, but it's generally worked well using established tradition. Getting back to Gorsuch, given that McConnell broke a 220 year tradition, I'd argue he was out of bounds and regardless of who was nominated (or even confirmed), Gorsuch sits in a stolen seat. Switch the roles and parties and tell me you'd feel the same as you just defended, and you'll see your position is incorrect.
4
My impression is that our so-called Supreme Court is not really a court concerned with administration of justice. It is a third legislative body composed of party-loyal "doges" appointed for life. The party with most the seated "Justices" at any point in history thus has the power to alter the meaning of any legislation passed in Congress by the opposition party, should that party gain control of Congress. Perhaps, being honest, that is how the Supreme "Court" should be explained in civics classes.
19
We should dismantle the whole court, revise the constitution and be rid of lifetime appointments. It's pretty obvious in my lifetime the court has been filled with quirky characters, not such great ones, that DO NOT deserve lifetime appointments.
2
Civics classes? Looking at Americans' ignorance about the workings of their government, it seems there are few, if any, civics classes anymore.
2
Looking up, Scalia must see
How much he owes to Mitch McC
One had to expect
Total disrespect
And that's how Gorsuch came to be.
How much he owes to Mitch McC
One had to expect
Total disrespect
And that's how Gorsuch came to be.
27
Judge Gorsuch is beyond qualified for this job
Mr. McConnell's decision in 2016 is neither the height of courage nor the depth of cynicism; it is the epitome of nastiness. First, he orchestrates a stonewall of a highly qualified justice only because the nominee was put forward by President Obama. Second, he pulled the reverse tactic by pushing forth Trump's nominee.
I think it is time for Mr. McConnell to leave the Senate.
Many are more than sick of McConnell's prune-faced "lost my teeth" determination look and his gotcha smirk.
I think it is time for Mr. McConnell to leave the Senate.
Many are more than sick of McConnell's prune-faced "lost my teeth" determination look and his gotcha smirk.
136
You're right - courage is not even on the horizon when talking about McConnell's stand on Judge Garland.
1
You might try to talk to people who aren't already in your ideological camp or watch shows which weren't commercials for Obama and Clinton and you'd learn there is another side. There are pols on both sides who are nasty, but McConnell isn't a tenth as nasty as Harry Reid. You probably just happened to agree with Reid and not with McConnell. Likely you yourself and those who vote for the more ideological politicians on both sides are why we have this bitter fight. I mean look at you physically shaming McConnell just b/c you disagree with him. Isn't that nasty? I hear people do the same with pols on the left too. It's all nonsense. When America wakes up and at least a plurality refuse to go along with the left-right ideological playbook, it will be much better for everyone. Whether that ever happens I can't say, but I doubt it. Seems this back forth never ending battle is more likely.
Good one JW!
McConnell is the embodiment of what is wrong with Washington today. It's a good thing that his wife is in Trump's cabinet praising the Beloved Leader because without her, he'd be fired by the Don for failing at getting anything important done...
As for the courts, don't despair... Whatever idiotic decisions they take, we - in Canada - will keep our borders open and help out during this period of folly...
McConnell is the embodiment of what is wrong with Washington today. It's a good thing that his wife is in Trump's cabinet praising the Beloved Leader because without her, he'd be fired by the Don for failing at getting anything important done...
As for the courts, don't despair... Whatever idiotic decisions they take, we - in Canada - will keep our borders open and help out during this period of folly...
1
There is a reason, in the mind of the Republican party, and to a lesser degree, the Democratic party, but still there, why the Supreme Court is used as a bulwark.
The quality of life in the United States is adversely affected by population growth, projected to be 438 million by 2050, and worldwide 9 billion by 2050.
Consequently our limited resource pool will be severely burdened by exploding demand, as everyone vies for their slice of the pie, a pie that the very wealthy will jealously guard, and apportion as they determine.
As populations explode, Democracies regress to authoritarianism, garnering increasing support from the disenfranchised, who see the danger outsize demand poses to their wellbeing, consequently they acquiesce to whatever it is their masters propose as solutions, (rarely understanding how their perceptions are being managed), themselves not having the wherewithal and organization necessary to develop solutions.
This is why Trump won, and this is why the Justices on the Supreme Court are selected as they are.
From where I sit, I see a life and death game being played out, a game rigged so beautifully even those who consider themselves well informed, fail to understand the masters never ever contemplate the possibility of losing.
Justice decided and delivered by a Supreme Court, selected by the rulers, or other authoritarian group, in service to the ruling class, is the direct opposite of the idea of Justice, which is Injustice.
The quality of life in the United States is adversely affected by population growth, projected to be 438 million by 2050, and worldwide 9 billion by 2050.
Consequently our limited resource pool will be severely burdened by exploding demand, as everyone vies for their slice of the pie, a pie that the very wealthy will jealously guard, and apportion as they determine.
As populations explode, Democracies regress to authoritarianism, garnering increasing support from the disenfranchised, who see the danger outsize demand poses to their wellbeing, consequently they acquiesce to whatever it is their masters propose as solutions, (rarely understanding how their perceptions are being managed), themselves not having the wherewithal and organization necessary to develop solutions.
This is why Trump won, and this is why the Justices on the Supreme Court are selected as they are.
From where I sit, I see a life and death game being played out, a game rigged so beautifully even those who consider themselves well informed, fail to understand the masters never ever contemplate the possibility of losing.
Justice decided and delivered by a Supreme Court, selected by the rulers, or other authoritarian group, in service to the ruling class, is the direct opposite of the idea of Justice, which is Injustice.
42
While you present a good premise, that some parties, (usually wealthy or backed by armed forces) have more control, and influences then those without, you put too much weight on it being well orchestrated. Thereby falling victim to the fever of conspiracy theory syndrome.
Are perceptions managed, or at the very least diddled enough to spark movement (in say votes, or public anger) that can be capitalized on...? Yes. Trump is a good example. Public perceptions ('round the world, thru history) have always been subject to influences they don't necessarily notice, even the better informed and savvy to those influences.
But its always a stretch to say that party X or Y has a firm grip and/or control over the actual perception being processed and formed by the public they are aiming to influence. Trump again being a good example. Except while he might still have support of his core base, its anyone's guess what the swing voters, etc, are thinking right now, or next year, or the next...
He certainly has not gained support by the larger population. And short of a honest miracle (like a complete character swap) he wont change that. Nor will the GOP at large. Not if they continue down the path they seem stuck on, and led down by McConnell.
There is no indication at this stage that Trump will fulfill any of his campaign promises, outside of our cowardly retreat from various treaties, and perhaps building a few sections of a wall. He will not fulfill the Jobs pledge, nor much else
Are perceptions managed, or at the very least diddled enough to spark movement (in say votes, or public anger) that can be capitalized on...? Yes. Trump is a good example. Public perceptions ('round the world, thru history) have always been subject to influences they don't necessarily notice, even the better informed and savvy to those influences.
But its always a stretch to say that party X or Y has a firm grip and/or control over the actual perception being processed and formed by the public they are aiming to influence. Trump again being a good example. Except while he might still have support of his core base, its anyone's guess what the swing voters, etc, are thinking right now, or next year, or the next...
He certainly has not gained support by the larger population. And short of a honest miracle (like a complete character swap) he wont change that. Nor will the GOP at large. Not if they continue down the path they seem stuck on, and led down by McConnell.
There is no indication at this stage that Trump will fulfill any of his campaign promises, outside of our cowardly retreat from various treaties, and perhaps building a few sections of a wall. He will not fulfill the Jobs pledge, nor much else
Garland was the start of the unraveling of America. A justice was then appointed by a president supported by a minority of the country. If we believe in this experiment, either we elevate a vision where everyone has input, or we devolve into a point where a minority, through gerrymandering and the electoral college, control the majority. That was the exact situation that lead to our independence, and no one should employ violence at any point to re-tip the scales, but maybe the US needs to disengage into two halfs or separate commonwealths with a trade agreement only.
Having the minority of the country dictate policy is never what the founding father's intended, but that is what is happening.
Having the minority of the country dictate policy is never what the founding father's intended, but that is what is happening.
64
Actually Garland was just a recent stop along the road. The unraveling began in the 70's when middle-class incomes stagnated, while the political (GOP) path was mapped out and made doctrinal in the 80's with Gingrich's strategy for the future of all GOP campaigns. Compounded by Norquist's founding of Americans for Tax Reform group and the subsequent must-pledge No-Tax pledge if you want to stay in the GOP club, along with the creation of the Reagan deity status, and the GOP's acceptance of his economic plan - Trickle-down, which isn't actually an economic theory - as Republican dogma.
Ever since the GOP has been held on target to what we have today. Trump, but anyone like him, was never the exact Who they expected to win the WH at the convergence, but they got him, because they helped to create the situations that he was able to exploit.
Ever since the 80's the GOP has been focused on how to gut the Democrats, stall their initiatives, make them work 3x's as hard to pass anything, and with Obama it culminated in absolute opposition.
Garland was what we could call the last rock thrown by the GOP at the last remaining intact window the Dems had. It was a gamble when looking at polling data; re HRC's likely win, and lack of GOP support for Trump at the time, but like all risky bets, sooner or later one pays out.
The only problem and perhaps saving grace, is with all that opposition strategic maneuvering, the Repubs forgot how to govern and broke off into disparate parts.
Ever since the GOP has been held on target to what we have today. Trump, but anyone like him, was never the exact Who they expected to win the WH at the convergence, but they got him, because they helped to create the situations that he was able to exploit.
Ever since the 80's the GOP has been focused on how to gut the Democrats, stall their initiatives, make them work 3x's as hard to pass anything, and with Obama it culminated in absolute opposition.
Garland was what we could call the last rock thrown by the GOP at the last remaining intact window the Dems had. It was a gamble when looking at polling data; re HRC's likely win, and lack of GOP support for Trump at the time, but like all risky bets, sooner or later one pays out.
The only problem and perhaps saving grace, is with all that opposition strategic maneuvering, the Repubs forgot how to govern and broke off into disparate parts.
You might want to look at how many states Trump won compared to Hillary. You might also want to look at the counties won by the two. Hillary won overwhelmingly in the areas of high crime etc. Hardly, the places where the rest of us would seek guidance. You might also want to look at how many states have Republican governors and legislatures. Democrats are almost entirely a coastal party. California, New York etc and what are their deficits? How have major cities run by Democrats for years faired? Poorly!! Need a riot go to a major city. In the suburbs we understand and implement responsible government.
And, in 90-plus percent of the counties and electoral precincts in the country, Democrats are in the minority. Only, mostly, in cities do Democrats rule, and it would be wildly unjust to allow that tiny fraction of the country to impose urban law on a hugely predominate non-urban country.
"The conservative majority will grow even stronger if more justices retire during Mr. Trump’s term"
This is exactly why the Democrats must win back the Senate in 2018. That would kick the regressive McConnell out of the Majority Leader's seat, and would ensure that the Democrats would, once again, have their Constitutional voices heard in these key cases coming up.
It would be a major sacrifice for Ginsberg to stay on the bench until then, given her age and health history. But America should pray for her well being, until then, and for long after. Kennedy is needed as well. Even as a Republican appointee, he has shown a rational perspective in many key rulings, and it is likely that he would counterbalance the far right wing of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and now the truly terrible choice of Gorsuch.
It is preposterous for the Supreme Court to not reflect the demographics of the country. America is well past the time when bowing to the smaller states (read: slave states) is needed to keep them from being overwhelmed by the larger states, as the Electoral College was structured to provide. America needs to move forward toward using the popular vote for the Presidency, and do away with the Electoral College altogether.
Get the vote out, America. Win back the Senate, and restore the country to sound and rational governance. For all our sake, please make this so.
This is exactly why the Democrats must win back the Senate in 2018. That would kick the regressive McConnell out of the Majority Leader's seat, and would ensure that the Democrats would, once again, have their Constitutional voices heard in these key cases coming up.
It would be a major sacrifice for Ginsberg to stay on the bench until then, given her age and health history. But America should pray for her well being, until then, and for long after. Kennedy is needed as well. Even as a Republican appointee, he has shown a rational perspective in many key rulings, and it is likely that he would counterbalance the far right wing of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and now the truly terrible choice of Gorsuch.
It is preposterous for the Supreme Court to not reflect the demographics of the country. America is well past the time when bowing to the smaller states (read: slave states) is needed to keep them from being overwhelmed by the larger states, as the Electoral College was structured to provide. America needs to move forward toward using the popular vote for the Presidency, and do away with the Electoral College altogether.
Get the vote out, America. Win back the Senate, and restore the country to sound and rational governance. For all our sake, please make this so.
118
"America needs to move forward toward using the popular vote for the Presidency, and do away with the Electoral College altogether."
You and others need to stop wasting breath on this pipe dream. An Amendment requires 3/4 of the States to ratify it. Too many small states would lose clout. Ain't gonna happen, EVER.
You and others need to stop wasting breath on this pipe dream. An Amendment requires 3/4 of the States to ratify it. Too many small states would lose clout. Ain't gonna happen, EVER.
1
Americans might as well drink more milk, for all the good praying will do to keep Justice Ginsberg healthy. Praying isnt the answer, opposition to the GOP is the ONLY answer. From the local on up the ladder, Dems need to win.
With the very real chance of another Trump appointment to the bench, that one likely ultra-conservative, Dems are faced with fighting uphill the entire time. Even if they win a fair number in 2018, its still gonna be a difficult fight.
Made more daunting by the fact that they are currently - for all intents and purposes - leaderless and rudderless. As it stands now, a California Liberal and a NY liberal (Pelosi/Schumer) don't appear to have the chops to take on this weighty task.
I dont think, as of yet, they have come to grips with the reasons why HRC and other Dems have lost so often, so recently. And its not because the ideology stinks, or as some critics claim its too much Identity politics - but rather because the Dems s/ck at getting the core and fundamental messages out. Or that they truly comprehend those core values themselves. That fighting for the ONE, or the minority means winning for the whole.
There are some younger fresher voices in the Dem Party, in office, who get that - but they are not being heard by the old guard...as far as I can tell.
With the very real chance of another Trump appointment to the bench, that one likely ultra-conservative, Dems are faced with fighting uphill the entire time. Even if they win a fair number in 2018, its still gonna be a difficult fight.
Made more daunting by the fact that they are currently - for all intents and purposes - leaderless and rudderless. As it stands now, a California Liberal and a NY liberal (Pelosi/Schumer) don't appear to have the chops to take on this weighty task.
I dont think, as of yet, they have come to grips with the reasons why HRC and other Dems have lost so often, so recently. And its not because the ideology stinks, or as some critics claim its too much Identity politics - but rather because the Dems s/ck at getting the core and fundamental messages out. Or that they truly comprehend those core values themselves. That fighting for the ONE, or the minority means winning for the whole.
There are some younger fresher voices in the Dem Party, in office, who get that - but they are not being heard by the old guard...as far as I can tell.
I never said it would be easy or immediate. But as an American, don't you think it's time to end the tyranny of the minority?
One thing that is needed is a change in attitude. Much media space is dedicated to "red" state versus "blue" state arguments, or large state versus small states. The reality is that none of this is true. Instead, America has urban versus rural politics. Urban is largely liberal, and rural is conservative. Factor this into the Electoral College debate, and it's easy to see that a rural person's vote is worth more than an urban person's. Look at Wyoming, with a population of 585,000 people. Why should they have the same number of Senators as California, which has 39 million? That is extraordinary disenfranchisement for Californian voters. In today's world, that is grossly unfair and entirely undemocratic.
The work must be started to get to a popular vote if America is to remain a democracy. It may take a generation or even more to get there. But for the good of the country, it needs to be done.
One thing that is needed is a change in attitude. Much media space is dedicated to "red" state versus "blue" state arguments, or large state versus small states. The reality is that none of this is true. Instead, America has urban versus rural politics. Urban is largely liberal, and rural is conservative. Factor this into the Electoral College debate, and it's easy to see that a rural person's vote is worth more than an urban person's. Look at Wyoming, with a population of 585,000 people. Why should they have the same number of Senators as California, which has 39 million? That is extraordinary disenfranchisement for Californian voters. In today's world, that is grossly unfair and entirely undemocratic.
The work must be started to get to a popular vote if America is to remain a democracy. It may take a generation or even more to get there. But for the good of the country, it needs to be done.
3
it is an error to consider Justices as "liberal" or "conservative" both of which are in themselves terms eliciting judgement.
If our members of the Court consider themselves followers of a particular philosophy they are not judging rather responding and if we consider this acceptable we no longer have a judicial rather a "pre" judicial body.
If our members of the Court consider themselves followers of a particular philosophy they are not judging rather responding and if we consider this acceptable we no longer have a judicial rather a "pre" judicial body.
9
All modern justices are appointed in part based on their history of being supporters/working for the party of the president who appointed them. If there was any evidence that Gorsuch was anything else but a life long conservative Republican, Trump would not have appointed him, no matter how qualified he is. Same is true for Democratic appointees.
The current federal court system consists of strong majority of judges who were appointed by Democratic presidents, primarily Clinton and Obama, despite the fact that Republican presidents have been in power for 21 of the last 37 years (or 57% of that time), since Ronald Reagan became president and when most of those judicial appointments were made. One of the few good reasons to have voted for Donald Trump was that by the end of a potential two term Hillary Clinton presidency, over 75% of the federal bench would have been Democratic appointees.
Democrats achieved predominance on the federal bench by exactly the same type of tactics the NYT is now decrying in the Gorsuch affair, by leveraging their Senate majorities to block or defer Republican nominees. As a result the federal courts are overwhelmingly liberal, as their specious, and now overruled, rulings on Trump's travel ban demonstrate.
The Times can hardly be legitimately outraged that McConnell has now turned the tables on Democrats by the use of their own tactics.
Democrats achieved predominance on the federal bench by exactly the same type of tactics the NYT is now decrying in the Gorsuch affair, by leveraging their Senate majorities to block or defer Republican nominees. As a result the federal courts are overwhelmingly liberal, as their specious, and now overruled, rulings on Trump's travel ban demonstrate.
The Times can hardly be legitimately outraged that McConnell has now turned the tables on Democrats by the use of their own tactics.
14
There is a huge difference between what Mr. French claims that the Democrats have done with the federal bench (i.e., working within Constitutional boundaries, however stretched) and what McConnell did, which was to proudly violate the Constitution. Violate. It.
What is specious is to compare the two, as though they were equivalent in magnitude. But, I suppose that false equivalence is the only card Republicans have left to play these days.
What is specious is to compare the two, as though they were equivalent in magnitude. But, I suppose that false equivalence is the only card Republicans have left to play these days.
10
Only a part of the travel ban has been stayed, not overruled. And Garland is the only nominee for the court who has ever been denied a hearing.
Well, Garland would have been an excellent choice and I feel badly about what happened, although the Senate majority was well within its constitutional rights. We have a mutli-ethnic, multi-ideological country, in which non-partisans are rare and becoming rarer in office. But, Gorsuch also has a long and distinguished record. I probably will disagree with him on many religion cases, but that doesn't mean I think he shouldn't have been confirmed.
And if people don't want DT as a president, don't put up people like him and H. Clinton for president. Choose Kasich and Webb or some other relative moderates who aren't panderers and ideologues. I blame you - if you voted for Trump or Clinton.
And if people don't want DT as a president, don't put up people like him and H. Clinton for president. Choose Kasich and Webb or some other relative moderates who aren't panderers and ideologues. I blame you - if you voted for Trump or Clinton.
5
They were not within their constitutional rights, which are to advise and consent. They did neither.
9
Neither you, sir, nor the Editorial Board of this publication, must have taken Constitutional Law in your first-year of law school. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 is quite clear: The President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court." The President's power is limited to nomination of SCOTUS justices; should s/he not receive the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, then the President cannot appoint his nominee. It is a simple as that. Should the Senate withhold either its Consent or its Advice--as it has the right to do under the terms of the Appointments Clause--then the President must return to the proverbial drawing board and nominate a different candidate whose nomination will elicit the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate needed for such an appointment. You may not like this balance of power, but it remains the Law despite your (and this Editorial Board's objections). The Democratic Senate has both withheld and threatened to withhold both its "Advice and Consent" long before McConnell and his band of brash conservative brothers decided to block Garland. (See, for example, Judge Bork in the 1980s and Biden's threats in 2007 re GWB's 3rd SCOTUS nomination in his final year in office.) While you and this Editorial Board might not like the Rules of this Nomination/Appointment Game, you are both wrong and self-deceiving to claim that the Republicans broke the Rules. They did not.
3
Hillary Clinton was a good candidate. Not excellent, in a nation that values charisma above all else, but good. And she would have likely been an excellent president. "I blame you - if you voted for Trump or Clinton" - that, right there, is representative of the attitude, borne of insidious lies woven throughout the campaign, that handed control of our government to a party bent on destroying it. Blame? Look in the mirror.
1
It also shows the inability of Democrats to gain political capital from obstructionist behavior of GOP players like McConnell then and Trump now. Where was the grass root movement that would have put pressure on the Republicans in Senate to give Garland at least a hearing? Where are the demonstrators now to object against the ACA? As long as Democrats are not able to turn better arguments into stronger pressure, into more votes they will keep filling editorial pages in their favour but no vacant seats anywhere.
30
Um, I think people are demonstrating all over the country against the ACA. See, e.g., https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/colorado/articles/2017-06-29/sit.... The problem is that in spite of the epic unpopularity of much of what the Republicans are advancing, a combination of gerrymandering, disproportionate power for states with low populations and big money driving policy has left moderates and progressives powerless. Republicans are aware of this and that's why we have a president who does things on a daily basis that no previous president could have ever gotten away with, and why the Republican Congress continues to act with impunity. Until the systemic problems are resolved -- and there's no incentive for those in power to resolve them -- things will continue as is.
3
There was pressure on the Republicans; they ignored it. Demonstrators are there to protest against the republican plan for health care,which is not the ACA. We are them at ever town hall meeting a republican member of Congress holds. Stop trying to blame democrats for the mess that the republicans are making.
There have been many demonstrations all over the country to protect the ACA. They are demonstrating against the health plan of Trump and republican congress. They are demonstrating outside the offices of congressmen and women and senators. It's been in most newspapers and newscasts. Do you read them?
1
Mr Obstructionist has won big. This win has the potential to change the course of this country for a generation. If republicans hold majority in the senate for a longer period, Mr. Obstructionist will cause more damage. Hope his strong hold on senate can be broken at least for an election cycle.
13
Lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court seem unreasonable. How about consideration of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting terms to, say, 12 years?
28
Mitch McConnell might be one of the most evil men on the planet. How does one decide to be so evil? I wonder if he knows - or cares - that he has single-highhandedly set America on a course of civil unrest at a level never seen in the world before.
WE have worked diligently to create an America with Social and Economic Justice for ALL Americans since Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. That is the kind of America the vast majority of us want. WE will fight like hell, and do whatever is necessary, to stop this destruction of OUR United States of America. WE will not allow OUR country to become a destructive ultra-christian nation. WE will not help destroy the lives of average people and the world.
This Will Not Stand. Not today. Not ever.
WE have worked diligently to create an America with Social and Economic Justice for ALL Americans since Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. That is the kind of America the vast majority of us want. WE will fight like hell, and do whatever is necessary, to stop this destruction of OUR United States of America. WE will not allow OUR country to become a destructive ultra-christian nation. WE will not help destroy the lives of average people and the world.
This Will Not Stand. Not today. Not ever.
116
The boat already sailed.
I've read that McConnell revels in his reputation as the evil bad guy. He's one twisted man.
Jerks like him are easily identifiable throughout history but because they are jerks, they are always unaware of their own behaviors. The GOP seems to have spent the past 35 years collecting people of this character. No one with any integrity would do the things that someone like McConnell would do. We have entered a new Dark Age not just here but globally as the very worst of humanity now control the leadership in much of the world. We are repeating the same mistakes as before the two world wars.
Interestingly, no one objects to the four left-wing justices always voting in lock-step with leftist ideology. Their votes are as close to a sure bet as possible, and everyone here seems to be ok with that. (It's always the conservatives who have to "reach across," and never such an expectation of the four lefties.)
Also, can we once and for all stop pretending? Behind the veneer of scholarly jurisprudence, they are ALL political hacks, when it really comes down to it.
Also, can we once and for all stop pretending? Behind the veneer of scholarly jurisprudence, they are ALL political hacks, when it really comes down to it.
18
You know why no one objects? Because they all agree with those four justices. Maybe that should tell you something.
Seeing how things are developing in this regard makes it that much more important that we do not wait until 2020 to restore sanity to our nation's governance. In 2018 we have the opportunity to reject republican majorities in both the Senate and the House. No matter that both of these dynamics favor the sitting majorities. All those who are currently reading this paper - and this applies even more to those taking the time to read comments such as this one - cumulatively represent a significant demographic that combines wealth, education, and no small amount of privilege. It is time for the readers of this publication to stop the whining, the protestations of helplessness, and the accusations of fecklessness among the Democrats. Volunteer. Organize. Donate. Better yet: run for a position on your local school board or state assembly. It is not enough to vote. Our country is in a free fall toward utter insanity. It's time for us to step up. I look forward to seeing you all there at the barricades ...
16
Amen- doing all of the above except run for office- Democrats are in good standing in my neck of the woods
It should be remembered that we wouldn't have Obamacare today if not for the vote of "conservative" Justice Roberts. I also can't quite see this conservative majority you speak of on the Court. From what I can see, we have pretty much a 4 - 4 tie, with No. 9 being Justice Kennedy, almost always considered a swing vote. Many, if not most of the recent decisions have not been 5 - 4, so some liberal judges must be siding with Justice Gorsuch in their opinions. I imagine the Times editors believe there is not a conservative majority on the Court only when the score is 9 - 0 liberal.
26
There is a legal mechanism called a writ of mandamus (Latin: "we command") by which a superior can be forced to command his or her inferior to perform his or her duties. The writ is only applicable to people in government.
Scalia died in February, ten months before the end of Obama's term. McConnell clearly stated on several occasions that he had no intention of performing his constitutional duty to submit Garland for an up or down vote. It would have been an easy case to prove. It would have been heard by an 8 Justice Supreme Court missing one of its radical conservatives.
It would have been easy for democrat Senators to apply to the D.C. District Court to order McConnell to initiate the process. If McConnell fought it, there are mechanisms for expedited appeals to the Supreme Court for matters such as this. McConnell had no reason other than politics for failing to perform a ministerial duty clearly imposed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not want to get involved in political questions, but the issue here is the performance of a duty.
The Founders (so beloved of the right wingers) assumed that the government would be administered by people like them, moral men who were bound by a strong code of honor. The thought that the majority leader of the Senate would refuse to "follow the rules" would have been inconceivable.
I think that the Democrats need to get much more aggressive and use all the tools in their arsenal to force the Republicans to do their duty.
Scalia died in February, ten months before the end of Obama's term. McConnell clearly stated on several occasions that he had no intention of performing his constitutional duty to submit Garland for an up or down vote. It would have been an easy case to prove. It would have been heard by an 8 Justice Supreme Court missing one of its radical conservatives.
It would have been easy for democrat Senators to apply to the D.C. District Court to order McConnell to initiate the process. If McConnell fought it, there are mechanisms for expedited appeals to the Supreme Court for matters such as this. McConnell had no reason other than politics for failing to perform a ministerial duty clearly imposed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not want to get involved in political questions, but the issue here is the performance of a duty.
The Founders (so beloved of the right wingers) assumed that the government would be administered by people like them, moral men who were bound by a strong code of honor. The thought that the majority leader of the Senate would refuse to "follow the rules" would have been inconceivable.
I think that the Democrats need to get much more aggressive and use all the tools in their arsenal to force the Republicans to do their duty.
283
"...missing one of its radical conservatives". Really? Scalia a radical? Ask the other justices if they thought so. As for "The Founders (so beloved of the right wingers)", that wording would lead me to believe that they are not so beloved by Nora Webster, while she is using them to support her point. Surprise, surprise.
2
Utter nonsense. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and consent. The courts have no authority to tell the Senate how it must go about fulfilling its Constitutional duties. In any case, the Senate fulfilled its duty to advise and consent by advising President Obama they would not consent to the Garland nomination.
There is no Constitutional duty to hold hearings or even a vote. The Dems amply demonstrated this by blocking votes on numerous GWB nominees to the Circuit courts. In fact, Sen. Obama voted to deny Justice Alito a vote by voting to filibuster his nomination.
The GOP-controlled Senate played by the rules. As a President once said, "Elections have consequences." The Dems could have prevented this by winning more Senate seats.
There is no Constitutional duty to hold hearings or even a vote. The Dems amply demonstrated this by blocking votes on numerous GWB nominees to the Circuit courts. In fact, Sen. Obama voted to deny Justice Alito a vote by voting to filibuster his nomination.
The GOP-controlled Senate played by the rules. As a President once said, "Elections have consequences." The Dems could have prevented this by winning more Senate seats.
"The Founders (so beloved of the right wingers) assumed that the government would be administered by people like them, moral men who were bound by a strong code of honor."
It was a Founder who once said, "If men were angels there would be no need for government".
You hold mankind to a higher light than the Founders did.
It was a Founder who once said, "If men were angels there would be no need for government".
You hold mankind to a higher light than the Founders did.
Face it. Even if Garland were on the court today, Trump will likely have at least two nominations during his term, so the trend of the court will be conservative into the future.
But in any case, liberals will be bemoaning this "theft" just as they have bemoaned the "theft" of the presidency in 2000. Moaning seems to be a habit of liberal losers as opposed to organizing to win.
But in any case, liberals will be bemoaning this "theft" just as they have bemoaned the "theft" of the presidency in 2000. Moaning seems to be a habit of liberal losers as opposed to organizing to win.
14
Good grief. Like the right wingers don't constantly moan and complain? It's a human condition, and the right is just as human as the left. Though I'm not sure the same can be said of the current White House occupant. He's just a sad loser.
Gloating may change to mourning if Trump is impeached. Happy the day ...
1
I've decided the only way to respond to this unprecedented break of tradition, is to return to what FDR tried to do in the 30s. Stack the court. Show that there are consequences for violating norms.
5
The Times and others are greatly changing the meaning of "conservative". The word means "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc." from The American College Dictionary. Another definition from the sam source is: "pertaining to a political party whose characteristic is opposition to change in the institutions of a country". Clearly, preventing holding a hearing and vote on a supreme court nominee for a year is the opposite of conservative. So are many of the actions and policies of the present congress. I urge the Times not to use the word conservative when the opposite is meant. I hope and pray that the Times is not yet in a brave new world.
8
Good points, Marcus.
However, I believe the NYT uses the term "conservative" in relation to old-time traditional social values, not political. "Obstructionist" is the term I see the NYT use more in regards to your comment.
Just my two cents.
However, I believe the NYT uses the term "conservative" in relation to old-time traditional social values, not political. "Obstructionist" is the term I see the NYT use more in regards to your comment.
Just my two cents.
8
The Dems must take back the Senate next year. It will be sweet to watch Trump and Mitch squirm if another seat should be vacant in 18 months.
13
A pox on Senator McConnell. Between Merrick Garland and Trumpcare, which the CBO will throw 35 million off of healthcare, I really don't know how he looks himself in the mirror.
However, even though I like President Obama, he never figured out a strategy to deal with McConnell. To the bitter end Obama tried to reason with this unbelievably feckless, unreasonable man.
All the Democrats still haven't figured out how to deal with this moral quisling, McConnell.
However, even though I like President Obama, he never figured out a strategy to deal with McConnell. To the bitter end Obama tried to reason with this unbelievably feckless, unreasonable man.
All the Democrats still haven't figured out how to deal with this moral quisling, McConnell.
378
He can look himself in the mirror because he sees dollar signs. Can you image the money that will roll into his personal bank account once he leaves the Senate and starts working for those whose water he I now carrying? I suspect that is why his wife refuses to stand up to Trump when he trashed women.
1
QUISLING. I thought I knew the definition, and I did to a point! Good word.
But the good citizens of Kentucky know how to deal with him.
But the good citizens of Kentucky know how to deal with him.
Perhaps Obama's greatest mistake was not to challenge Mitch McConnell before the Supreme Court on the grounds that he was not performing his constitutional duty to provide "advice and consent". It was the perfect opportunity to establish Constitutional order in the confirmation of Presidential appointments.
352
Obama's greatest mistake was not appointing Garland to the court while the Senate was out on recess. Democrats continue fighting using historic rules of engagement while their Republican opposition street fight, no holds barred. When will the Democrats realize they will have lost the ability to make the rules merely by playing by the rules for far, far too long?
2
Honestly, as far as I can see Obama "gave up" in his second term after sincerely trying and failing to create compromise in the first term. His fewer press conferences and less speaking out on anything "domestic" in his second term says it all. Obama's greatest mistake is that he was not a great leader. Smart and thoughtful for sure. Leader no. Obama could run light years around bizarre Trump but it doesnt matter if one cannot successfully stand at the fore, pick one's battles carefully, and then lead. We all wanted Obama to be great, but he was admirable and that's about it.
Actually, McConnell had advised the President that he would not consent to his selection. Pretty basic, that one.
The turtle's organized-crime like takeover of the process marked the end of a very long and usually commodious era for the Senate. But, as this Editorial points out, the much sadder development is what is beginning to our country. The courts are our last, best defense against the forces of fascism, corporatism, and totalitarianism. That defense will crumble much faster under Trump. Many intelligent observers thought our nation's slow decline began with Reagan; it's clear now we're speeding up the process. May the universe help us, because there's simply no one else left who will.
76
The scary thing is that there is no rescuer. We Americans must help our country ourselves. We've got to find a way to rouse all those sleepers who never vote. Maybe voting should be required, as it is in some countries. We are provided with many advantages here; it should be an adult's obligation to vote.
1
The Times would have us believe that only the evil Republicans would do somethings as dastardly as deny a good man such as judge Garland a vote and thereby steal a seat needed by the radical left to legislate and make law they favor. Here's a novel idea, "Win Elections" Anyone who thinks that the Democrats would have acted any differently if the roles were reversed is living in a fantasy world. We have a political system based on a constitution that like it or not, involves the appointment of Supreme Court justices. If the Times wants justices to their liking, then they should be more persuasive and work harder to get candidates of their liking elected and not back seriously flawed candidates like Hillary Clinton. As Barack Obama once stated, "Elections have consequences"
37
We "know" they would do the same from previous statements of Reid, Schumer, Biden, etc. That's the problem with partisanship. It blinds everyone to the faults of their own side and exaggerates those of the other.
13
except the republicans didnt do this by winning 60 seats. they did this CHANGING THE RUNS. it is impossible to say that the dems would have done the same thing had they had 50 votes and the presidency, because they DID and they did not do this nonsense.
1
The fact is that Democratic majorities have never refused a hearing to a nominee. And they have certainly never stated publicly that they would refuse a hearing to ANY candidate out forward by the president. That isn't what the constitution requires of them.
5
Mr. McConnell’s abdication of duty and disdain of President Obama should not be mistaken as an act of courage when courage is considered a desirable quality. It was the “height of courage” only when courage is defined as audacity.
46
McConnell's action was outrageous and a complete denial of the Adams concept of a 'nation of laws, not of men.' The Senate as a whole should have risen against McConnell and refused to go along. As it is we now have a situation in which Democrats have won six of the last seven presidential elections and do not have the corresponding representation on SCOTUS.
87
it is possible that Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsberg will remain sufficiently healthy long enough to see Trump out of office. It is also possible that the uber conservative positions taken by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito will drive the practical and reasonable Chief Justice to join the less ideologically driven other justices. Roberts may be a conservative, but he is mindful of his legacy.
25
he is mindful of his legacy... FOR NOW! and those are the operative words... for now.
Mr. Scott you are a willingly self deceived lib. Roberts had his one "lib act" with Bambicare. That was it. Why should five unelected people in robes decide the fate of the American people. Judicial review is an assumed power. Since WWII the court has increasingly behaved as a person super legislature. That's not their Constitutional role. The Supreme Court should never act as a legislature, ever...
Thanks to men like Justice Gorsuch I look forward to Catholic health insurance companies some day. Today we have Catholic hospitals, universities, life insurance, credit unions, etc. but the government has patched together a wide range of laws and regulations that have prevented the establishment of health insurance companies with a religious conscience when it comes to health care. Religious institutions should have a right to define what it means to “do no harm” and to decline to offer elective procedures. No congress or legislature should restrict any individual or business from purchasing health insurance that promotes life and family values. The opportunity to develop health insurance with a conscience, could give the GOP some political cover for the delay in replacing Obamacare.
15
Umm, Mr. Devany, you are out of your mind. Religion has no place in health insurance! Have you read the Constitution? I myself am a good "de facto" Catholic, and I like the Catholic church overall, despite some disagreements on policy. I certainly like Pope Francis. But all Catholics don't think alike. By the way, cannot an individual Catholic already deny ("not use or accept") his/her health care insurance for, say contraceptives, or something else he/she is against?
11
Mr. Devaney,if you don't like abortions, for any reason, religious or not, don't have one. There are no "forced" procedures but you would force restrictions on
"elective" procedures. Where is there liberty in that?
"elective" procedures. Where is there liberty in that?
17
My father and his uncle co-founded a Catholic hospital with the Sister's of Mercy that was based on serving people of limited means. This well before there was any form of health insurance so in many ways it was, and remained, a charity hospital. The policy was 'to do no harm' and it would never have refused service to a person practicing a religion, or holding beliefs, contrary to those of the sisters.
Your proposal is insulting to doctors and all those who work in hospitals and devote their energy to the better health of our communities. It is also profoundly ignorant of the tenets of the insurance business.
The problem with your idea, and with Judge Gorsuch's general sensibility, is that you both err in thinking that your beliefs, if they can be verified by twisting a law, can hold a moral high ground and therefore be imposed on others. This is a form of Shariah---I'm certain that wouldn't appeal to you with that label, now would it?
Your proposal is insulting to doctors and all those who work in hospitals and devote their energy to the better health of our communities. It is also profoundly ignorant of the tenets of the insurance business.
The problem with your idea, and with Judge Gorsuch's general sensibility, is that you both err in thinking that your beliefs, if they can be verified by twisting a law, can hold a moral high ground and therefore be imposed on others. This is a form of Shariah---I'm certain that wouldn't appeal to you with that label, now would it?
6
As McConnell correctly noted when declaring that Hillary would never see one of her nominations sit on the Court even if she were serve two terms, there is nothing in the Constitution fixing the number of justices at nine. Eight is enough, said Mitch.
Fine. But when the Dems take the White House and the Congress...
If eight is enough, eleven is better. The Dems can embrace the Republican example and pack the Court. And given today's political climate, the Dems will embrace that. FDR's experience simply will not apply today.
Remember, Mitch, what goes around comes around.
Fine. But when the Dems take the White House and the Congress...
If eight is enough, eleven is better. The Dems can embrace the Republican example and pack the Court. And given today's political climate, the Dems will embrace that. FDR's experience simply will not apply today.
Remember, Mitch, what goes around comes around.
293
But as my mother always said "Two wrongs don't make a right." We need a return to comity and reasonableness on both sides of the aisle. A country with a legislature that obstructs the candidacy of someone as fine and supremely well qualified as Merrick Garland has gone seriously off the rails.
Let's hope the democrats are that clever and are capable of fighting back effectively for a change. As for Gorsuch, his presence on the court will a constant reminder of its illegitimacy.
1
Mitch did remember what happened when Harry was in control.
1
I think Bloomberg has it right by helping fund cities. The long march toward theocracy and mediocrity is in full culmination in the US. The educated among us will live in cities and work locally and with states' rights. This will be a flip from the democratic focus on central, federal power during 20th century.
14
And because we will have become small city states, we will doubtless be swallowed up by larger countries that don't fragment themselves. If we all want to be all powerful states instead of one country, fine, but the power and liberty we enjoy comes from a strong cereal government.
The unwillingness of the two parties to work together and compromise, especially on the Republican side can in large part be traced directly back to the court decision that money in politics is equivalent to free speech and therefore not to be restrained. This allowed large donors like the Koch brothers to essentially force elected officials to walk in lock step. It also opened the flood gates of propaganda confusing truth and falsehood. This decision may lead to the slow but inevitable destruction of our democracy, and it doesn't seem like Justice Gorsuch will help.
159
Yes, that was a terrible decision, Mr. Haber. However, I'm reading "Edge of Eternity" by Ken Follett right now and it covers recent history from Hitler through a few years ago. In his coverage of the Kennedy years Mr. Follett points out that JFK had to fight the same battles Presdient Obama and Jimmy Carter faced. When it looked like JFK would pass some kind of civil rights act he was murdered - then they got rid of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy.
WE gave control to the sons of the mafia who ran things then. How stupid are we? If this isn't a wake-up call to vote only for socially conscious democrats and independents - preferably qualified women - I do not know what is.
WE gave control to the sons of the mafia who ran things then. How stupid are we? If this isn't a wake-up call to vote only for socially conscious democrats and independents - preferably qualified women - I do not know what is.
4
You are correct as to the effect of the Cituzens United decision. However, our current partisan divide can be traced further back. When Gingrich led the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress and became speaker, he instituted a policy of no compromise or working with Democrats, and insisted that the GOP begin demonizing the Dems. In my opinion that's when we really started going downhill.
3
And Soros and Steyer don't "force" leftist politicians to walk in lock step?
Will the NYT please not fall into the same trap as, unfortunately, most observers of the Supreme Court, both Republicans and Democrats alike. I am as liberal as they come, but I refuse to talk about the Court in politicized terms. Of course, we all can and do interpret the Court's decisions in the light of our own political leanings, but for whatever its flaws may be the Supreme Court is an absolutely essential element in our system of separation of powers and we must treat it as such!
14
If you refuse to acknowledge the obvious politicization of SCOTUS, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Consider, e.g., Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, no hearing for Merrick Garland, just for starts. Not criticizing SCOTUS "whatever its flaws" is not a reasonable perspective when the Court's flaws extend – thanks to the Republican Senate – to stolen seats on the bench.
4
OK, but....my point is that we should aim for a Supreme Court that is not politicized, as much as possible. Yes, it's the Republicans who are doing this, not the Democrats. Yes, there is definitely a problem, but what we need to do foremost is preserve an independent court, not a liberal or conservative one. The Republicans are indeed the villains in this piece, shameless, power crazed and worse.
Obama's error here was that he thought he was making a judicial appointment, instead of making a political one. It was easy for conservatives to rally against a nominee like Garland who is well-known inside legal circles (and maybe inside the Beltway), but not well known on a national level. If he had been slightly more sly about it, it probably would have been better to nominate Kenneth Feinberg to the post. Though not a constitutional scholar, as the administrator for the 9/11 compensation, BP oil disaster relief, and a multitude of large scale legal distributions, it would be hard to argue against Mr. Feinberg's knowledge of justice. His fame from those landmark deals would have made him nearly invulnerable politically, and would have diversified what even Scalia derided as a hopelessly insular court comprised overwhelmingly of coastal/Ivy Law/prestigious clerkship/Circuit Judge-careers.
14
The Republicans would have blocked Jesus if Obama had picked him for the Supreme Court- it did not matter who it was, they wanted to maintain control of the Court through any means necessary. Democrats, and anyone else who did not want a Court that would turn the clock back to 1930 should have realized how important the situation was and voted in November. Now reproductive rights and civil rights are in peril.
12
I am not sure Feinberg would have been unassailable - his handling of the BP settlement has gained him well-earned scorn and despite from many victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, whose legitimate claims were delayed for egregious lengths of time or denied altogether. I know a number of such victims, many of whom have lost their former livelihoods entirely, thanks to Mr. Feinberg (who was, despite the misleading publicity, actually working for BP).
1
We need to re-think our system of judicial review. Life tenure is supposed to insulate judges from political pressure, but the current system rather clearly creates a political court with enormous consequences. In a more innocent time when we could pretend that legal opinions reflected a "finding of the law" our system perhaps made sense. Now, when we are all acutely aware that judges make decisions based on their own prejudices and perspectives, maybe we need to come up with a new approach.
201
Maybe get rid of human judges and replace them with algorithms, or do away with our common law system altogether? No judicial discretion anywhere? Let the law itself determine what the law says?
Call up the Watson's of the world. Machines have a more common sense approach than humans.
Thank God and the Constitution we have not "re-thunk" our system of Checks and Balances. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, deriving its force and legitimacy from our consent. The People may amend change or abolish it but until that time it, not the president, not any factions or ideology, is what we abide by.
Garland would never have been confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. For once, you are right about one thing - Garland should have received a hearing and a vote. It would have been a futile exercise, however.
24
After Garland's defeat, should that have happened, there would have properly been another Obama nominee, and another until the will of the voters of 2008 and 2012 became manifest.
16
Why waste time on a vote when the outcome is already known?
1
If Trump remains in office until January 2025 he is likely to replace several justices including Kennedy, Ginsburg, Thomas and perhaps Breyer. If so, Kagan and Sotomayor will be sole liberal justices on the court, essentially a token minority. Jurisprudence will be ruled by conservative Republicans until far into the future. All the reason for the Democrats to mobilize every ounce of political will to regain the White House in 2020.
174
We would have a Supreme Court that plays it's Constitutional role not the super legislature the Court has made itself since WWII.
The Constitution does not even give the Court the power of judicial review. This is an assumed power after Marbury vs Madison. The American people are tired of five people in black robes deciding the fate of the nation rather than their elected representatives and themselves.
The Constitution does not even give the Court the power of judicial review. This is an assumed power after Marbury vs Madison. The American people are tired of five people in black robes deciding the fate of the nation rather than their elected representatives and themselves.
11
Know what we are tired of? Corporations deciding the fate of the nation, rather than our elected representatives. Might be nice to elect those representatives without the distorting effect of gerrymandering, too.
17
If only Democrats would get out there and vote for a viable candidate instead of going off on tangents and voting 3rd party. We vote for the good of the country, not each of our selfish whims. Yes, their right, but if affects the rest of us.
2
McConnell's lament, left the people decide in the Presidential election year was a terrible disservice to our country.
Remember when the liberal lion of the court, William O. Douglas, stepped down in 1975? Only to be replaced by a very conservative John Paul Stevens.
The Democrat controlled the Senate 68-32.
President Ford, an unelected Vice Presidet and an unelected President President, was given not only the opportunity to have his nominee appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his nominee was confirmed in less than eight weeks by a a Democrat controlled Senate.
Not once did I see any mention of this during the time McConnell held Garland hostage in a state of Senate limbo.
McConnell has single handily destroyed the comity that was once The United States Senate. And the credibility of that once august body.
Remember when the liberal lion of the court, William O. Douglas, stepped down in 1975? Only to be replaced by a very conservative John Paul Stevens.
The Democrat controlled the Senate 68-32.
President Ford, an unelected Vice Presidet and an unelected President President, was given not only the opportunity to have his nominee appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his nominee was confirmed in less than eight weeks by a a Democrat controlled Senate.
Not once did I see any mention of this during the time McConnell held Garland hostage in a state of Senate limbo.
McConnell has single handily destroyed the comity that was once The United States Senate. And the credibility of that once august body.
440
John Paul Stevens turned out to be one of the Court's most liberal members ever.
4
And isn't it ironic that John Paul Stevens will be remembered as a liberal. He was an incredibly brilliant Supreme Court justice.
3
For what it's worth, a big difference here is that for decades Stevens wound up being a pretty reliable vote for the Court's left, while there appears to be no reason to think the same will happen with Gorsuch.
5
Doing everything the GOP wants is the height of bipartisanship
13
Ultimately the people will decide and this too will pass.
4
Sounds good, but in reality the Supreme Court can move against the peoples wishes.
Just look at how they moved the country forward with civil rights. The people were not ready – the courts needed to help move things along.
It looks like now I will be moving backwards.
Just look at how they moved the country forward with civil rights. The people were not ready – the courts needed to help move things along.
It looks like now I will be moving backwards.
28
The people did decide - they voted for Clinton.
4
And Obama should have nominated Garland the following morning, rather than waiting until March 16, as he did. The delay gave the Republicans ample time to develop a counteroffensive that would effectively stop any nomination until after the election--which was in fact a Hail Mary play, given the electoral landscape which strongly favoured Clinton.
110
perhaps. More importantly, I think he should have appointed Garland anyway. The Constitution doesn't spell out what the Senate's "advise and consent" function consists in. It says nothing about hearings or votes. It doesn't say the Senate has the power to veto an appointment. All of this is simply customary, and is to be respected as such; I'm not saying we should just ditch the protocol that has grown up over the years. But Obama invited the Senate to "advise and consent," the only thing the Constitution obliges him to do. He waited patiently for them to do so; they declined. I think he should have said, after a few months of this, "Ok, the Senate apparently does not wish to exert its privilege to advise on this appointments. I take this as tacit consent. Thank you Senate. Mr. Garland, congratulations on your appointment."
83
It certainly seemed a Hail Mary pass at the time. I fear that time will show that McConnell had good reason to believe that Trump would win despite the polls, which until Comey reopened the HRC email morass indicated that Hillary would win handily. Then again, maybe McConnell planned to hold the SCOTUS seat open for years if necessary to put another hard-right justice on the bench.
5
That's supposing he had a prepared list of justices to nominate. I doubt, however, that it would have made a difference.
4
The whole process of judicial selection became politicized with Bork. Now people lie at the confirmation hearings. Roberts said a judge should be an umpire calling balls and strikes. Since he threw the curve ball on Citizens United, asking them to brief an issue not even appealed leading to dark money that is shrouded in so-called free speech, we have been doomed .