You know (… and for the record, I know “you know” isn’t the wisest way to begin a blog post…), but you know, I don’t mind talking about politics. Granted, I don’t always like politics, but I don’t mind talking about it. I don’t mind talking about politics or even the icky, sticky, controversial issues, as long, of course, as it’s done respectfully.
What I do mind are (1) the inability to talk about political issues — when ignorance, intolerance, or some other attitude or emotion shuts down all other points of view — and (2) playing politics.
In that context, I’d like to “talk some Gorsuch” today. While I often chuckle with the proper noun sounding more like some foreign, foreign language to me, I instead speak of Neil Gorsuch, the 49 year old federal appellate judge and current candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Before we can “talk some Gorsuch,” we need to address two additional, relevant aspects. First, we need to remember the procedure for affirming a Supreme Court justice. Second, we need to acknowledge the judicial ongoings of the past year.
First, as set forth by the Constitution, candidates for the high court are nominated by the President, with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” necessary for appointment. Note that the Constitution does not set forth any actual qualifications for service; therefore, the President may nominate the person of his choice.
While not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate, a nominee’s confirmation may be prolonged via the filibuster. Regardless, the Senate typically confirms the President’s nominee unless there exist serious, outstanding questions and concerns. Ideological differences or dislike for the nominating President are characteristically not enough to deny confirmation. (ie. Pres. Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed in ’88 by a vote of 97-0; Pres. Bill Clinton’s nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was confirmed in ’93 by a vote of 96-3; and the last nominee to be rejected was in 1987.)
Second, remember what happened solely one year ago. Justice Antonin Scalia was considered as “the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court’s conservative wing,” but he passed away unexpectedly in February of 2016. As is his purview, President Obama then nominated appellate judge Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia. Noting that ideological differences are not disqualifiers, Garland was fully qualified to be the next member of the Supreme Court. Senate Republican leadership denied him both hearings and a vote; they denied Garland’s mere consideration as a justice, proclaiming the next president should make the choice… a president, who would be inaugurated almost a year later.
In the Intramuralist’s semi-humble but honest opinion, the Senate Republican leadership played politics. There were no serious, outstanding concerns regarding Garland.
Now to “talking Gorsuch”…
Like Scalia, Neil Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism and originalism of the Constitution. His fairness and temperament have been raved about from all sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle. By all accounts, Gorsuch is also fully qualified to be the next member of the Supreme Court. The Senate Democratic leadership, however, has decided this week to oppose him.
In the Intramuralist’s again semi-humble but honest opinion, the Senate Democratic leadership is taking its turn, playing politics.
So now the Republican leadership in the Senate plans to change the rules in lowering the threshold for the number of votes necessary for confirmation. Before the immediate grimace at the obvious, partisan rule manipulation, note that the Democratic leadership changed the threshold rules three years ago when they were in the majority. Unfortunately, though, too many of us only jeer or cheer based on who is doing the rule changing. If it was wrong for one, it’s wrong for both, and thus, neither party can claim to be handling the confirmation process with total honesty, integrity, and even semi-humility.
Friends, I have no desire to be harsh; it’s simply that the Intramuralist so desires what is good and true and right. The challenge is when either the Republicans or Democrats play politics, they each engage in something less than that.
Let me be clear: both parties too often engage in something less than what is good, true, and right.
Wanting something more… wanting something better… always, regardless of party…
Respectfully…
AR