SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch

Earlier this week, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This move was largely expected. He’s mentioned Gorsuch on the campaign trail, as well as finding someone in the direction of Antonin Scalia.

I’m going to keep this short since there’s no shortage of opinions out there. There’s two issues going on here. First is his actual qualifications and opinions. He was approved to the Appeals Court in 2007 by a bipartisan 95-0 vote, which included both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

He wants to keep an independent judiciary, which means keeping it out of politics.  He’s spoken a lot about the politicization of the bench and the harm it does.  He also errs on the side of religious freedom, which in the extreme can blur the line of church and state.  But overall, a relatively moderate guy.  The Economist has a good even handed review of him with more details.

But this leads to the second issue.  And it almost seems like the 95-0 vote was a major reason in picking him.   One wonders if picking him was to show just how rabidly partisan the Democrats have become.   See, the New York Times does not have such a favorable view of him.

It would be one thing if they went with Gorsuch’s actual record.  It would be another thing if this was an independent columnist.  Instead, the entire editorial board put “Stolen Seat” right in the headline, and say the Republicans “took a seat hostage”.

Bollocks.

I was still hanging on to my Democrat credentials when the GOP refused to confirm Obama’s replacement.  But even in my most Democrat days, I was aware of what advantage the other side has and respected them for using it.  It doesn’t work in your favor, and you lose a battle, but to practically imply they’re traitors for it?

This is emblematic of what has become of the entire established left.  Which is really too bad, because they raise some issues about Gorsuch which could be discussed in society as a whole.  Even though they are consensus in the GOP.

Instead they buried their arguments in partisan rhetoric.  If the Democrats’ arguments in the confirmation mirror the New York Times, they will only hand the GOP the ideological victory.  And therefore a judicial victory – to match their victories in the executive and legislative branches.