This
is a stolen seat, as pilfered as any brazen burglary ever was. The
empty chair on the court through virtually the entire last year of the
Obama term was nothing but travesty, as the Republican party, the
believers in the Scalia-like strict construction of our Constitution
created a myth out of whole cloth, spinning a yarn that the open spot
had to remain unoccupied until a new king was crowned. The Constitution
shed a tear.
By all
accounts, Judge Gorsuch has an impressive pedigree, and unlike virtually
all Trump selections for cabinet positions, does not seem as if he was
chosen by picking the most unqualified and inappropriate person
possible. Columbia, Harvard, clerk for two Supreme Court Justices. And
probably opens doors for old ladies.
But
he is 49 and will likely be impacting the course of this nation for
decades to come in crucial ways, different ways then Judge Garland most
certainly would have.
As
we face the reality of aging liberal justices and the strong likelihood
of a court packed during the Trump era with those intent on bending the
arc of this country away from values that many of us hold dear, the
nomination of Judge Gorsuch is a slap in the face.
Somewhere
Merrick Garland is watching and thinking someone is soon to be sitting
in his seat. My hope is that the Democrats in the Senate charged with
review of this nomination do all they can, in word and deed, to convey
to this nation that we have been victims of a felony.
Rather
than having amnesia over the empty chair debacle, it should serve to
give Democrats the heart and courage to oppose this nominee, or any
nominee, of the President. Elections have consequences, or so we
thought, until we learned it meant only if a Republican leader was in
power.
This seat deserved a different occupant. This country deserved a different fate.
2 comments:
This might be the best the nation is going to get by way of nomination and it might not be a bad idea for the Dems to pass on any intended fillibuster.
If I were in the Senate I would ask one question of the applicant, from three separate perspectives: 1) Do you agree or disagree that Roe v. Wade, decided, 44 years ago is and should remain the settled law of the land; 2) do you believe that Roe v. Wade exceeded Supreme Court authority (by invalidating many state laws proscribing abortion) but that due to its subsequent re-affirmance in Webster, that it should remain undisturbed; 3) do you believe that political pressure has any place in the decision-making process of a deliberative body like the Supreme Court.
If he can answer Yes, Yes and No, I would vote for him. All else is dictum.
Understood. But there is a capitulation that is very uncomfortable to me in treating this nomination as if the past did not exist. "When they go low, we go high" does not fit all circumstances. Maybe I am an elephant (not that kind) but the Republican misdeeds should not go without recognition at least, if not retribution.
Post a Comment