Neil Gorsuch nominated for SCOTUS

He is a circuit court judge from Colorado, and former clerk for Justices White and Kennedy (and if confirmed will be the first justice to serve with another justice for whom he clerked).  In any other circumstance I would say he’s qualified and the process should proceed, but this time there is the significant matter of his name not being Merrick Garland, so nothing personal Judge Gorsuch, but…

Recommended by jconway, terrymcginty.


25 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. A laughed out loud...

    …when Trump says we need someone who respects the law and Constitution, to which I thought, OK pal – you first!

  2. Another example of media attention.

    I had a hard time finding a channel at 8PM that was not carrying this announcement live. I don’t recall SCOTUS announcements from previous President’s cutting into regular programming:(

    • this is where sports can save you :)


      • Indeed

        I purposefully had the Bruins game on to avoid giving him any more eyeballs.

      • Not quite the point

        I’m not a sports fan and of course nobody made me have the TV on at all. What’s bothering me is that the media is continuing the practice from the campaign, which I still say is largely responsible for his getting the GOP nomination, of constantly giving him air time. OTOH, part of me also believes these significant presidential announcements should be aired and if it had been the practice to do so for previous Presidents I would not complain about that continuing.

        • That's a tall order

          Asking the media not to cover the President. I would agree this malpractice from the campaign helped contribute to his rise, especially since people didn’t take him seriously until it was way too late. But-they should ask tough questions and not allow him to treat these announcements as reality stunts. It’s a hard line to hold.

  3. At the risk of stating the obvious

    This will be a test of Dems’ unity. I am not optimistic.

    • that time is passed...

      At the risk of stating the obvious(4+ / 0-) View voters

      This will be a test of Dems’ unity. I am not optimistic.

      At the risk of being just as culpable as any other, the time for Democratic unity was the day Obama nominated Merrick Garland and Republicans started making noise about not confirming him.

      But we all made a calculation based upon the presumption of winning the presidency in Nov. You might say were were united in that belief.

  4. Fascinating. I had never heard of him. I will have to read some of his decisions

    After all, I am an appellate lawyer who has completed appeals, start to finish, more than 180 times and I have strong opinions as to judicial writing and analysis. My first pass is that at 49, he could be on the bench 40 years and per his life history, appears not to be a “tame” or “biddable” or easily pushed personality, but rather a very strong ego.

  5. Is there any legal reason that prevents

    Senators from treating the Garland nomination as still active? I’m sure there is a tradition that the nomination expires with the President’s term. But is there any language in the Constitution? Or any precedent?
    If nothing else, it might make a good question to ask Trump’s nominee.

  6. I feel so warm inside when ClintonDNC says

    we have to vote Democratic because SCOTUS!!!, but when Republicans outright steal an open seat they do little more than to tell The Left to grow up.

    Sensible adults.

    • Who's telling the left to grow up here?

      Agree we saw a lot of “moderate” Democrats make this argument during Roberts and Alito, but I don’t see anyone making it today.

      • Here you go

        I don’t see a “Grow up,” but this argues for support.

        • Disclaimer

          It would be nice if Katyal mentioned that he’s representing major corporate interests in a couple cases before the court this year.

          Also, the argument he lays out that Gorsuch is smart and serious is actually what makes him scarier. I’d rather have another Thomas than another Scalia – or worse, someone potentially to the right of Scalia who has the political talents of Roberts to come off as reasonable. Someone like that could really shift things. I’d rather have an extremist oddball just signing on to opinions and writing quirky but rather meaningless concurrences and dissents.

        • Fair article-for another era

          One where Garland got a fair vote and hearing and got seated. If a vacancy arose under Trump after that, this would be a good pick. A friend who clerked for Hardiman also vouched for his good character and independence. I always thought this fight wasn’t about these nominees but about relitigating the injustice of the Garland nomination

          • Also, nobody's arguing he's not qualified...

            …and it might be worth noting that the Justice he is succeeding was confirmed unanimously (or nearly so IIRC), but there is a huge procedural principle at stake here.

        • That looks like a "he" rather than a "they"

          Some dude I never heard of before thirty seconds ago says the nomination might not be so bad because the nominee– notwithstanding what is likely a long list of crappy unpalatable views– seems to be on the right side of the executive over-reach issue, which is likely to be an issue with the Tweeter in Chief.

          And that makes what was until October the majority of the party assholes arguing to grow up?

          I am in favor of filibustering everything because fuck them, but the argument in that piece is not “grow up” and certainly is not without its merits.

        • Sorry jimc

          I should have read your comment, instead of just jumping to the link. Also missed that you weren’t the one using the “grow up” line. Mea culpa.

  7. The test for anyone who is supposedly and "originalist"

    Have him read the second amendment, and compare it to the almost identical language from the Articles of Confederation.

  8. I'm sorry, did you type Merrick Garl...

    … oh? You didn’t? Never mind then.

  9. Charles Pierce on Twitter

    “Please state your name”
    “Neil Gorsuch?”
    “It’s not Merrick Garland?”
    “Mr. Chairman, I yield back.”

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fri 28 Apr 3:54 PM