Supreme Court Vacancy Ethics: A Competent Choice, An Unethical Announcement, And An Irresponsible Reaction

gorsuch

You know, if every day is going to set off multiple political ethics controversies, I’m not going to have time to write about lobster hats.

Last night, President Trump selected Colorado federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court nominee.

A. The Choice

Except for those who literally are determined to freak out and condemn anything President Trump does, this was a competent, responsible choice. He would be one of the best of the available choices for any Republican President, more qualified than Obama’s snubbed selection, Merrick Garland, to fill the same vacancy, and Garland was certainly qualified. It’s ridiculous that Gorsuch is one more Harvard grad on a Court that is exclusively Harvard and Yale, but that aside, he adds some diversity of outlook by being from the middle of the country rather than the coasts. He writes clearly, unlike, say, Justice Kennedy, and is not a pure political ideologue, like Ginsberg or Alito.

Before the Democrats’ rejection of Robert Bork shattered the tradition of allowing every President the privilege of having his SCOTUS nominations approved absent real questions about their competence or honesty, a nomination like this one would have garnered bipartisan praise. Trump made a responsible, competent, choice. Really. He did.

B. The Announcement

Turning the announcement into a TV production was unseemly and gross, but fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly. This is how Trump rolls, and all we can do is hope that his undignified proclivities are quickly abandoned by whoever his successors are. If Trump’s critics are going to go nuclear over relative trivia, nobody will be listening when there is something important to criticize. Many believe this is a deliberate strategy by Trump that Democrats and progressives are falling for like lemmings going over a cliff.

Treating the nomination of a Supreme Court justice like the climax of a Miss Universe pageant, however, was more than gross; it was unfair and misleading. Trump announced via Twitter that he had made his decision, then his staff let it be known that two possible choices were on their way to Washington, D.C.: Gorsuch and Judge Thomas Hardiman. If the President’s tweet was correct, then he was making one of the judges come to D.C. to be rejected and embarrassed. If he really hadn’t made up his mind, then the tweet was a lie.

“He likes a contest,” one source  close to the process told the Washington Post. Gee, why didn’t he make the judges wear bathing suits, too?

Apparently, despite contradictory reports, Hardiman wasn’t as mistreated as was original reports suggested. Earlier in the day, sources told CNN that both finalists were being brought to Washington ahead of the live TV announcement, but in fact Hardiman never got to D.C., only getting a few hours east of Pittsburgh by car. Was Judge Hardiman in on the plan to increase suspense and boost the ratings of the SCOTUS Nomination Reality Show? Did Trump promise him that he would be the nominee when the next vacancy opened up? I don’t know, but this is gratuitous abuse of the power of the President. I would have more respect for a judge who refused to participate in such demeaning nonsense, and told the President, “You know what? My self-respect is worth more than your damn nomination. Find someone who’s willing to grovel for it; I’m not.”

C. The Reaction.

Such an excellent nomination presented an opportunity for Democrats to repair the broken SCOTUS nomination process, take the high road, and begin the long journey back to a functioning system. Nah. Better to be petty and prepare for eight years of perpetual warfare. Tit for Tat is the order of the day; revenge, scorched earth stuff. Great.

Never mind that Gorsuch is a fine judge with better credentials than more than half of the current court. The New York Times quickly condemned him as a suitor for a “stolen seat.” Nancy Pelosi, who is the walking, talking embodiment of toxic and mindless partisanship, called this “a very hostile appointment” and “a very bad decision, well outside the mainstream of American legal thought.” That assessment is either ignorant, a lie, or the result of a delusion that all conservative thought is “outside the mainstream.”  In truth, Gorusuch is the best case scenario for progressives. Gorsuch should halt the hysteria about Roe v. Wade or Obergefell (same sex marriage) being overturned. Like most good judges, he  believes in judicial restraint and stare decisus, which means that he believes that SCOTUS cases should be respected and adhered to once they are decided, and not overturned absent extreme circumstances. His appointment makes Roe and Obergefell  safer not more imperiled. Let’s see how many reporters and activists are honest about that.

Indeed, to anyone paying attention, the pick is really a breach of Trump’s promise to “appoint justices who will overturn Roe v.Wade“, which was a fantasy anyway. I assume, and maybe he does too, that the bulk of his unsophisticated supporters believe that “conservative” means “will try to overturn Roe,” and thus the pick will make them happy enough. Nonetheless, most analysts believe that Gorsuch is very unlikely to want to overturn such settled law.

The fact that a terrible political maneuver by the Republicans in blocking Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia worked out better for them than anyone’s wildest dreams does not make the seat “stolen,” and the Times using such an inflammatory description shows how far the paper has gone in abandoning ethical journalism for partisan advocacy. Now Senate Democrats have announced that they will filibuster the nomination of this distinguished and qualified judge, and will do so with any Trump appointment other than Merrick Garland, as if that’s going to happen.  This can only be interpreted as  party-wide determination to appeal to the far-gone extremes of its base, and to abandon any intention of trying to work productively with Trump…even when his goals are within reasonable bounds.

Madness. This is not in the best interests of the nation or the Democratic Party, and continues the headlong rush into chaos and hypocrisy the entire political Left has adopted as its plan of action since Trump was elected. All this is likely to accomplish is to alienate more moderates and drive them to Trump, further divide the nation and cripple the political process, while only ensuring that Gorsuch’s confirmation will be ugly. It isn’t going to stop him from being on the Court.

Ah, but it will feel good to strike back at the GOP for blocking Obama’s pick, futile though it will be. This is playground ethics, not statesmanship.

Pathetic.

 

106 Comments

Filed under Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement

106 responses to “Supreme Court Vacancy Ethics: A Competent Choice, An Unethical Announcement, And An Irresponsible Reaction

  1. Steve

    Jack, I think the faint and pageantry of the announcement is obviously unethical but is there any room for the idea that it was President Trumps Announcement to make and the paparazzi stalking potential nominees were undercutting that? I think if he really wanted to keep it as his own without playing games he could have announced the pick and then had them come to DC.

    • What I do not yet understand about Jack’s post is why he does not call “The Reaction” just another case of “fish gotta swim,” but “The Announcement” is all kinds of unethical in all kinds of ways. I have read and re-read those two parts of his post (I almost totally blew off his first part, because it’s “just ‘Ick'”). “Unfair and misleading,” that announcement? I mean, I can, and do, concede when someone points out to me something I’m missing. But I just do. not. see. what Jack is seeing. I *so* do not see it, that I am concerned that he is “seeing” things that aren’t there.

      • You need to bone up on the Julie Principle. It relates to predictable conduct that is relatively unimportant when compared to the whole, often stylistic choices, because no amount of bitching about them will change them. It doesn’t relate to material conduct that makes continuing the relationship irresponsible all by itself. (How is the first part “ick’? It’s a competent selection.) Julie says, “I love my man, and the way he is can’t change that. I accept that he’s abusive.”

        Trump always has been and always will be a low-brow, classless boor. The Democrats have NOT always behaved in such an irresponsible manner. By definition, The Julie Principle cannot apply to aberrant conduct. It’s like Tippy Hedren saying in “The Birds,” “Well, what do you expect? Bird are going to attack and peck your eyes out”…

        • luckyesteeyoreman

          Thanks for replying, and sorry I am out of time right now to say more. I am not able to follow along with you, when you quote Julie accepting an abusive man, but then say the Julie Principle cannot apply to aberrant conduct.

          • Julie’s principle is sound. Her own application of it was tragically mistaken, but Julie does not have the benefit of 21st Century wisdom. In her era, domestic violence was considered part of the deal, and not just in lower class marriages. See “The Quiet Man”? See Cary Grant push Hepburn by the face onto the floor in “The Philadelphia Story’? The majority of women thought a little abuse was just a minor quirk and a small price to pay for a “good man” or “love.” Today we would never apply her Principle to what Julie did. That doesn’t invalidate the Principle.

  2. Jack said, “This is playground ethics, not statesmanship.”

    I disagree, this is Liberal Critical Thinking at its “finest”.

    Jack said, “Pathetic.”

    I completely agree. These DC Democrats are going to destroy any chance they might have at being successful with the mid-term election.

    • Are you paid to come up with these Urban Dictionary entries?

      I was under the understanding that Urban Dictionary existed to help people understand the meaning of certain slang terms that slowly developed over time like “blumpkin” or “strawberry shortcake”, not as a vehicle to try to push invented terminology…

      • texagg04 asked, “Are you paid to come up with these Urban Dictionary entries?”

        Nope.

        texagg04 asked, “I was under the understanding that Urban Dictionary existed to help people understand the meaning of certain slang terms that slowly developed over time like “blumpkin” or “strawberry shortcake”, not as a vehicle to try to push invented terminology…”

        I think your understanding is both correct and incorrect. There are actually new slang phrases/words popping up all the time, just because you aren’t personally aware of these phrased or words doesn’t mean that they are not being used. The source of the phrases or words really doesn’t matter, what matters is that they are being used.

        I was in an inner city school about 10 years ago talking to some High School students and there were times I felt as if I was in a different country that spoke a different language. Some of the students and I joked back and forth about it.

  3. Rick M.

    I expect the Jacobin’s to react accordingly.

  4. I’m beginning to wonder how much the Clinton machine is driving this upset. She’s now an old woman in a hurry, and these crises have wonderfully distracted from the need to purge the Democratic hierarchy.

    • The Democrats will never, ever run her for anything ever again. Chelsea however….

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        The Democrats don’t rerun candidates who run in the general election and lose. Those who fail in the primaries, yes, but Hillary not only ran and lost, she lost what was supposed to be the easiest general election since FDR. Bernie Sanders might run again in 2020 if his health allows (he would be just shy of 80), since he still has a large following who believe, with some justification, that he was screwed by the DNC.

        Chelsea Clinton would be just a lightweight running on her parents’ name, but they supposedly might run her for Congress. There is talk of running Caroline Kennedy, who was just sent packing as Ambassador to Japan, but I think that’s just Democrats trying to find a new icon.

  5. Michael Ejercito

    Now Senate Democrats have announced that they will filibuster the nomination of this distinguished and qualified judge, and will do so with any Trump appointment other than Merrick Garland, as if that’s going to happen. This can only be interpreted as party-wide determination to appeal to the far-gone extremes of its base, and to abandon any intention of trying to work productively with Trump…even when his goals are within reasonable bounds.

    In other words, they will try to do what they tried to do with Samuel Alito.

    I wonder what happened to those Senators who tried to filibuster Samuel Alito.

  6. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Agreed and agreed. I think most likely Hardiman was told he is next up, most likely when Kennedy or Ginsburg either dies or is forced to retire for reasons of ill-health.

    Unfortunately Jack, I was reminded today by a memory of something I posted a year ago that the reaction is all in keeping with the six basic truths of human nature: people are hateful, biased, partisan, immature, arrogant, and lazy. This applies both to senators and to their constituents, both sides of the aisle. There is very little political hay for the Democratic Party to make by following the process outlined in the Constitution now, even if they ask tough questions during the hearings and make the Republicans fight for every vote to get to 60 (which is not guaranteed).

    There is a LOT of political hay to make by filibustering or even fleeing the Capitol so that no hearings can go forward, and claiming “stolen seat,” “war on women,” “rollback of rights” and all those other sound bites that will please hateful, biased, partisan, immature, arrogant, lazy Democratic voters who see nothing but a chance to stick it to the party who screwed their guy out of the seat that was rightfully his.

    The Democrats have already delayed some of the Cabinet confirmations by simply leaving the Capitol or refusing to show up for meetings, and most of their liberal constituents are perfectly OK with that. Were it the other way around, of course, and McConnell was telling President Hillary “no, I won’t schedule hearings on that nominee, send me someone else,” they’d be freaking out and yelling “do your jobs!” or clamoring for a change to the Constitution putting a time limit on the Senate’s “advise and consent” power, any nominee that is not voted on in 60 days is considered confirmed.

    If the other party is not only not going to work with the party in power but is actively going to try to stop government from functioning by refusal to participate, “government by street mob,” and in some cases outright mutiny (Yates), then maybe it is time to take another look at the proposals for “Calexit,” “Pacifica, (west coast secession)” and maybe even “Altantis” (secession from Boston to Baltimore). Clearly this nation is dividing into two cultures who are not interested in the common good, only in dominating the other, by any means fair or foul. I would hate to leave NJ, but we’ve got property in PA, it’s not as hard to get admitted there, and the cost of living isn’t so ridiculous.

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      “…a change to the Constitution putting a time limit on the Senate’s “advise and consent” power, any nominee that is not voted on in 60 days is considered confirmed.”

      I like that! Makes the President even more of a dictator! I expect Democrats to institute that as soon as they come back into control.

  7. Spartan

    Of course he should be confirmed. However, it was ridiculous to hold open the vacancy for so long, which is why Democrats have every right to be annoyed.

    • Spartan said, “which is why Democrats have every right to be annoyed.”

      Which of Jacks listed rationalizations does that fall in; I think maybe more than one.

      • Spartan

        Are you high? I just said that he should be confirmed. Pointing out that this should have happened months ago is hardly a rationalization.

        • Spartan said, “I just said that he should be confirmed. Pointing out that this should have happened months ago is hardly a rationalization.”

          Spartan,
          An neither one of those points was what I was talking about or quoted – now was it? Never mind, you’ve been smoking something nasty and I don’t want to be part of it.

    • “When they go low, we go high, except when we’re annoyed, then us going high changes a little bit and becomes indistinguishable from being exceptionally petty, but let me assure you, we’re still going high.” War Is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Low is High.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Being annoyed is one thing. Being obstructionist is another.

    • Everyone should have been annoyed. Professionals, however, are supposed to do their duties without allowing emotions to get in the way. Allowing emotions to DICTATE the way is incompetent, and nothing less.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Both sides of the aisle play on emotions, Jack, it’s just another way to morally gloss yourself up while morally tarring your opponent. The Republicans play to patriotism and pride, the pride in being self-reliant, tough on those who break the law, and powerful enough to kick the ass of those who cross you. The Democrats play to license and pride, the pride in being morally superior, conspicuously compassionate, and making others bow to your moral superiority.

        Unfortunately the Democrats drank a bit too much of their own Koolaid during eight years in which they held the executive power and could largely ignore anyone else’s objections. They thought they would hold that power forever, and why not, since they were right anyway. Now they find themselves without it, and still can’t understand why. Well, suddenly dissent is patriotic, when two weeks ago it was racist, and suddenly a powerful executive needs to be held back, when previously everyone needed to step aside and let the president do his job. Like I keep saying, but for double standards, they would have none.

  8. Other Bill

    I suspect this will be today’s “Constitutional Crisis du Jour.” But it’s still early in the day.

    • Spoke too soon. The “crisis” is that the Senate Committee voted on Trump Cabinet nominations without Democrats present, because the latter boycotted meetings.

      The eal crisis is that Democrats are trying to govern by tantrum, and making Trump look mature by comparison. Morons.

      • Jack said, “The real crisis is that Democrats are trying to govern by tantrum, and making Trump look mature by comparison.”

        The truth’s contained in that one sentence are very telling of the current political climate. Well said Jack.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Not to mention filibustering Sessions. Maybe Trump will have to look elsewhere for his AG.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          Actually, strike that, the Judiciary Committee is reconvening to vote as we speak, guess the Finance Committee’s vote jolted the Democrats.

        • No, they won’t filibuster Sessions. If they do, McConnell will kill the filibuster.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            The committee put him through. Tillerson will probably be confirmed today. I hear the sound of a basketball being slamdunked. And Chuck the Schmuck can go fuck himself.

            • Other Bill

              This from the Senator from Wall Street as quoted in the Huffington Post:

              Schumer also suggested that with a man like Trump holding the presidency, and after the chaotic first two weeks of his reign, it would be more important than ever for Democrats to insist on a new justice who divorces his politics from the law.

              “The new administration has violated our core values, challenged the separation of powers, and tested the very fabric of our Constitution in unprecedented fashion,” Schumer said. “It is clear that the Supreme Court will be tried in ways that few courts have been tested since the earliest days of the republic, when constitutional questions abounded.”

              Idiotic hysteria verging on Authentic Frontier Gibberish.

              • Other Bill

                Tim Kaine doubled down on the “these are not normal times!” rationalization:

                The Democrats’ 2016 vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), made a case similar to Schumer’s.

                “The importance of an appointment to the highest court in the land and the duty of upholding and defending our Constitution demand a higher threshold for confirmation than for any other appointee,” Kaine said. “The actions of the Trump administration over the past week raise the stakes to an even higher level.”

        • What’s funny is that they plan on being obstructionist for pure petty partisan reasons and drumming out as an excuse the lamest of reasons.

          Why not oppose him on an actual principle…?

      • Predicted that, in my post below. (I did not know that before now) Republicans will get away with it, too. Why not? The Democrats did the same, and worse.

        This will make the nuke option easier to lob, when the time comes.

        After all, you don’t think the Democrats won’t do this the next time they have a chance. They are pretty much showing that NOTHING is out of bounds, in their minds.

        Even Civil War

        • Oh that’s hysteria. Have democrats ever pushed something to a civil war before?

          • Have democrats ever pushed something to a civil war before?

            Wonder how they think that will turn out, with so many guns in the hands of ‘fly over’ country (and far fewer in liberal strongholds), and most of the military from middle America as well?

            This baffles me. Do they think the last Civil War proved something about Northern Hegemony? Or do they expect their enemies to just lay down and die?

          • Wayne

            Hmm, I think this time we could let them secede. It gets a little
            old watching a grown man weep copious tears over executive orders and watching a bunch of political party leaders threatening to hold their breath until they turn blues in Congress.

            • HEY! I just had a thought… (yes, Chris, I get them 🙂 )

              California says they send more than they get back to the federal government… much of that money is made in the’exports’ they send the rest of the USA. Like movies.

              Trump could run a 20% tariff on Kali exports (including movies) when they leave the union.

      • Michael Ejercito

        Someone should have told them that a quorum only requires a majority present.

  9. Chris

    I agree Democrats should nominate him quickly. However, are Republicans in Congress estopped from criticizing them when they don’t?

  10. With the death of Scalia, the Liberals saw an opportunity to skew the court left for our lifetimes. Then the Republicans, in a extremely rare show of courage (and a not-so-rare show of unethical behavior) reached across the aisle and pulled a page from the progressive playbook, refusing to entertain a somewhat moderate candidate.

    Now the court will be back exactly where it was, right versus left, but the progressives always take a mile when given an inch. The right (alt right?) has had enough of being treated as scum just for existing. Tit for Tat is the new normal, I’m afraid. The (alt?) right has a lot of “just desserts” answers for how they have been treated the past 8 years, and going back over the past 5 decades. (read up on Alito, Thomas, and Bork for examples of hypocritical Democrat behavior and unethical abuse of the process)

    Trump made a responsible, competent, choice. Really. He did.

    Who woulda thunk it? Man MUST be listening to someone else.

    Turning the announcement into a TV production was unseemly and gross…

    There’s our boy! Mr. Showbiz will have his fun.

    All this is likely to accomplish is to alienate more moderates and drive them to Trump…

    Yup. The pendulum historically swings from one side to the other, but the Democrats are really pushing for an extreme swing to the right. This is not always good. (remember the Patriot Act?)

    There is a LOT of political hay to make by filibustering or even fleeing the Capitol so that no hearings can go forward…

    Tit for Tat. With the current mood of their own constituents, the Republicans will just lob the nuke and move on. (They had better, if they want to keep their jobs) Normal people of tired of the shrill liberal tantrums, and feel the ‘adults’ need to just ignore them and get business done. Not right or ideal, but realpolitik will win out unless the Republicans really are RINOs one and all. That won’t go well in 2018.

    • Chris

      The (alt?) right has a lot of “just desserts” answers for how they have been treated the past 8 years, and going back over the past 5 decades.

      You don’t seem to know what the alt-right is. It’s not decades old, and may be even younger than eight years old.

  11. wyogranny

    “Many believe this is a deliberate strategy by Trump that Democrats and progressives are falling for like lemmings going over a cliff.”

    I think it’s only deliberate in the way that a child throwing tantrums is deliberate. Trump has learned over a long lime that he gets his way by behaving the way he does. He’s not changing his tactics just because he saw a shiny object (the presidency) and he got it. That the shiny object will demand that he change his behavior is only in the mix for him as a means of keeping what he has. The traditions and protocols that make government work mean nothing to him. He won and in his mind that’s everything. He’s heedless, but he’s also acquisitive and once he has something he intends to keep it. He won’t change his basic character, but he’ll do what it takes to be a winner. His decent choices and actions since being elected demonstrate that. He knows how to choose good advisors, and that will probably go a long way toward making his presidency work.

    • wyogranny

      I think I got behavior vs tactics wrong in the above. He is not changing his behavior he’s changing his tactics.

    • I think it’s only deliberate in the way that a child throwing tantrums is deliberate. Trump has learned over a long lime that he gets his way by behaving the way he does. He’s not changing his tactics just because he saw a shiny object (the presidency) and he got it. That the shiny object will demand that he change his behavior is only in the mix for him as a means of keeping what he has. The traditions and protocols that make government work mean nothing to him. He won and in his mind that’s everything. He’s heedless, but he’s also acquisitive and once he has something he intends to keep it. He won’t change his basic character, but he’ll do what it takes to be a winner.

      Sorry for the long quote, but substitute ‘Obama’ for ‘Trump’ above and it reads about as true. And that is striking to me.

      • The biggest difference to me is that ,so far at least, Trump is choosing people who know what they’re doing as advisors. Trumps real world economic experience is what makes the difference. His administration is not made up of academic Ideologs who only know how to rouse the rabble.

  12. Rick M.

    To paraphrase Bill from Kill Bill “There are consequences.” Bill also knew exactly what he and Beatrix Kiddo were – so why the surprise by the losers of the last election? Is this a sudden revelation? Trump has responded exactly as he said he would.

  13. Neil A. Dorr

    Jack,

    This post, too, made my day. I awoke this morning to the exciting news that finally, after 229 long years, there might finally be a Neil on the Court (the moon being our current glass ceiling), only to discover that Trump had introduced him like a reality show contestant to a media audience already fuming to tear him apart. Sadly, I fear this Trump action followed by media meltdown cycle we seem stuck in isn’t going anywhere.

    On NPR this morning their were reports of people protesting outside the Court last night with signs reading “#OPPOSE” followed by large blank spaces, which were subsequently filled in with magic marker. I have the feeling Trump could appoint Desmond Tutu as UN Ambassador only to be answered by screams that he’s an “extremist.”

    Needless to say, you articulated everything I could have wanted to say in better words. Despite my constant nay-saying, your blog serves as a perennial bright spot in my travels through the interwebs. I hope this finds you well!

    -Neil

  14. Neil A. Dorr

    * “…there were reports ..”

    Damn it.

  15. Rick M.

    The left is surprisingly slow on their response to the nominee. Usually, Facebook is loaded up with a collection of memes by this time. Has there been a server problem?

  16. Rick M.

    My understanding is there is no constitutional requirement of being a lawyer to be on the SCOTUS. Is that correct? That would open up several interesting possibilities.

  17. Chrissy-Boy

    Of course, the easiest high road option available to anyone would have been for Trump to have nominated Judge Garland. That would have allowed an outcome where the disgraceful behavior toward Judge G was not rewarded.

    • Trump didn’t hold up the nomination, and picking his own Justices is a President’s privilege. Moreover, it would have betrayed those who voted for him specifically because they didn’t want Democrats picking the next round of Justices.

      It wouldn’t have been the ethical move, unless he believed Merrick was the best choice.

      • Chrissy-Boy

        You are prevaricating. When you ask Dems to take a high road in order to heal a contentious situation, you are asking them to compromise things like campaign promises, asking them to risk “betraying” campaign promises to those who voted for them, and you are asking for acceptance of a competent, qualified, acceptable choice rather than a “best” choice. If that’s not unethical, why is it unethical to ask the same of Trump? Who cheered the obstruction, even if he was not its agent? Feels to me like a double standard.

        • That’s not how the system works, my friend. All campaign promises are conditional on reality, and a rational supporter knows that to get any of the loaf, you have to give away some of it. Both Democrats and Republican have one overarching duty, which is to govern, not take absolute stands that accomplish nothing.

          The argument that Trump should appoint what is an anathema to his party and supporters after he has won the Presidency is really disingenuous. The winner wins, and takes all the power. Snubbing Merrick was an unethical maneuver but not an unlawful one, no different from the reconciliation trick that saddled us with Obamacare. A cycle of reveneg for each underhanded move is destructive, but the response is civility and respect going forward, not for each party to pretend to be the other in penance. Be serious.

          Pleas don’t me a liar again. I’m doing honest analyses of difficult issues, trying to get through the crap, including arguments like you just made. I am not always right—just usually–but I do not prevaricate. That’s your kindly warning.

          By the way, Gorsuch is a more qualified and distinguished jurist than Garland, ideology aside.

          Just as I start calling you Christopher, I have to get used to the new handle..

  18. Spartan

    Based on my Facebook feed, liberals aren’t upset about this choice.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      I take it Michael Moore isn’t one of the pages you follow – he issued an ultimatum to all Democratic Senators, as though he were their king: filibuster or we will primary you.

      • Spartan

        No, I don’t follow Moore — and I was referring to my friends. most of whom are attorneys in the DC area.

        • Lawyers get it: they generally just want competent judges, and politics are secondary. My sister appeared before Scalia, and while she didn’t agree with his positions, she respected his knowledge and ability, and felt he was an asset on the Court.

      • Moore is a legend in his own mind. Who cares what he says or thinks? He’s a far left activist self-promoter, like Al Sharpton. If the Democrats let people like him dictate to them, they will be sharing space in the history books with the Whigs and Dixiecrats.

  19. Al Veerhoff

    I agree with the choice of Gorsuch and with what Jack’s sister said about Scalia, whom I respected for doing his homework. I hope Gorsuch is equally good at pithy asides, even if I didn’t like some of them.
    But . . .
    A prime time announcement on TV, forcing all of the networks to cover it. An audience of claques (Was someone holding up cue cards?). A dramatic entry. The only thing missing was searchlights outside and a roll of kettledrums and blare of trumpets. . .
    Did you know the White House knew the next morning exactly how many people watched the announcement?
    I’m praying that we won’t see anything like this again. Or maybe we will, and the nominee will run through a paper screen and a gantlet of cheerleaders like football teams do. The claques could hold up those #1 foam fingers, and there would be a Gatorade dump if the Secret Service would allow it.

  20. Rick M.

    Originally I found the game show shtick to be in poor taste, silly and an embarrassment, but I now retract that.

    What better way to introduce such an important nominee? This bypasses the press completely, but they are still in a comfortable time frame to get it in the AM papers. A nice TV media splash!

    The kissy face with his spouse and the glad-handing – no horns, KKK robe or (visible) tattoo of Lincoln Rockwell. A respected jurist who worked hard and is (gasp) a conservative!

    This appeals to our 21st century way of doing business. Our itty-bitty attention spans demand this. Next the pageant will only increase in intensity – fireworks, music and a “This is Your Life” pre intro show. Maybe a dance number? Dancing Supremes? I love it!

    This is not Roland Freisler

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s