Editorials and Opinion
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch should not be confirmed (Citizens Voice [Wilkes-Barre, PA], 02/20/17)
John Wills: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch should not be confirmed for many reasons, but primarily his record suggests he will be a real threat to the legal protections for women, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, working men and women, broadly applied religious liberty and limits on money in politics.... In any case, no Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed until Merrick Garland is confirmed.... Democrats should insist that Trump nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court before they will vote to confirm a nominee. If they block Gorsuch, perhaps they can leverage Trump into doing so.
Should Judge Gorsuch Answer? [Letter to the Editor] (New York Times, 02/20/17)
DAVID F. TAMANINI: refusal to answer questions about issues that might come before the court is a sham.
Supreme Court justices are each entitled to the final say on whether or not to recuse themselves from a case. If a justice has a notion that he can remain impartial, he is the only arbiter of the question. Therefore, the demand is fair; answer the questions, please.
We need a court nominee who can be a justice for all (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 02/20/17)
KADIDA KENNER, Letter to the editor: President Donald Trump won only 46 percent of the vote — far from a mandate to make lifetime appointments of extremist judges in a judicial system for which he has shown little respect.
As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said ahead of the election, “The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice.” The answer was clear: More Americans voted for Mr. Trump’s opponent than they did for the president himself. Because of that, a consensus nominee for the Supreme Court makes the most sense.
Judge Neil Gorsuch is not that nominee. On the bench, Judge Gorsuch repeatedly sided with insurance companies wanting to deny disability benefits, and with employers who wanted to cut pension benefits....They should resist extreme nominees like Judge Gorsuch and demand that only nominees with bipartisan support be confirmed and only with a supermajority of at least 66 senators in support.
Letter: Should Judge Gorsuch Answer? (New York Times, 02/20/17)
JAMES NEUPERT: Judge Neil M. Gorsuch would not describe his views on a Muslim travel ban, executive power, voter fraud versus voting rights, Citizens United, the Bush v. Gore ruling or the Emoluments Clause in an hour discussion with Senator Charles E. Schumer.
Should we assume that Judge Gorsuch had the same nonanswers when he talked with President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Stephen K. Bannon before his nomination to the Supreme Court? Absolutely not.
Letter to the Editor on Suprem Court justices (New York Times, 02/20/17)
ERIC LUKINGBEAL: Supreme Court justices first define the strike zone, and then they call a ball or a strike. Umpires don’t get to vary the strike zone, at least not to get a particular result. But Supreme Court justices do get to tinker with the legal strike zone to suit their judicial philosophies. And they get to do it in every case.
Real People, Real Lives: The Harm Caused By Judge Gorsuch (People For blog, 02/19/17)
Paul Gordon: it is no surprise that Judge Gorsuch has a history of regularly finding ways to put corporations and the powerful first. ... Below are some of the cases Judge Gorsuch has been involved with and the people who have been affected by them—people who have been victimized outside the courtroom and, to the extent Gorsuch’s view prevails, are victimized again.... When Gorsuch’s view carry the day right now, the damage he does is limited to the states covered by the Tenth Circuit; he has also been limited by Supreme Court precedent he may disagree with. Were he to be elevated to the High Court, however, he would be in a position to overrule precedents that have gotten in his way over the past ten years, and the damage he would impose would be nationwide and unreviewable.
Former Sen. Gary Hart [on Supreme Court nominations] (Denver Post [CO] , 02/18/17)
Gary Hart, former U.S. senator from Colorado: Scott Gessler seeks to instruct Sen. Michael Bennet on the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch without a sense of irony or a mention of the highly partisan, unstatesmanlike behavior of the Republican Senate majority in refusing even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland throughout the entire year of 2016. To demand high non-partisan, statesmanlike behavior, it is helpful to exhibit it first.
Letter to the Editor: Re: “In Neil Gorsuch vote, will Michael Bennet be a partisan or a statesman?” (Denver Post [CO] , 02/18/17)
Bruce Driver: What the court desperately needs is not an ideologue like Scalia but a mainstream thinker, one who can see both sides of the issues and who will not take us back decades or more simply because the founders could not have conceived of all the issues that arise in modern America. I’ve read several of his opinions, and I do not believe that Gorsuch, unlike Merrick Garland, fits that bill.
So, if Bennet votes against Gorsuch, he will not be an obstructionist but someone who resists the easy and flawed dichotomy suggested by Gessler.
Letter: Burden of proof is on Gorsuch (INFORUM [ND], 02/18/17)
Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center: the independence of Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is essential.
Does he read the Constitution not just as it was written in Philadelphia, but also as it's been amended over the centuries to extend "the Blessings of Liberty" to ever greater numbers of people? Does he protect the interests of the powerful or the interests of everyone? Will he stand up to President Trump, if necessary?
The burden is on Gorsuch
Letter: Luke Messer distorts truth (Star Press [Muncie, IN], 02/18/17)
ROGER O. SHERWOOD: Rep. Luke Messer wrote a paean to the Republican administration’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch. ... One, he denies that Gorsuch’s appointment is a stolen nomination. But, it is exactly that. ... Second, Messer states that the voters “voted for President Trump.” Well, some did, but in truth almost 3 million more people voted for Secretary Clinton than voted for Trump. Clearly, the majority of American voters want a Democrat appointing the next Supreme Court justice. Judge Gorsuch clearly is not the peoples’ choice.
Supreme Court nominee: People or companies first? (Tampa Bay Times [FL], 02/17/17)
Patty Pate, Letter to the Editor: Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court nominee, ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. He based his ruling on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He said that it was legal to violate a federal law when that law obstructed religious freedom.
What if an employer would not hire women because his faith holds that it is sinful for women to work out of the home? ... Don't we deserve a Supreme Court justice who will be unbiased when interpreting the law?
Why the ad campaign touting Gorsuch as justice? (Bozeman Daily Chronicle [MT], 02/16/17)
Lorraine Ekegren: While the ad touts his wonderful background growing up, it never once mentions his ultra-conservative views (and what impact they will have on us and future generations).... And remember, unlike a voted position that has a specific time limit, this powerful Supreme Court position is a lifetime appointment.
Gorsuch's ruling should disqualify him: Letter to the Editor (Cleveland Plain Dealer [OH], 02/16/17)
Greg Coleridge, Director
Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee: While on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch ruled in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case that a corporation, not its owners but the corporation itself, has religious beliefs and rights.... Gorsuch claims that judges should interpret the words of the Constitution at the time they were written. Corporations were not mentioned in the First Amendment
Column: Why I oppose Gorsuch for Supreme Court (Detroit News [MI], 02/15/17)
Cortney Sanders: Time and time again, Gorsuch has put conservative ideology above fidelity to our core constitutional values — elevating ideology over the rights and well-being of those materially affected by his rulings.... I urge Stabenow to make her voice heard on my behalf and that of all Michiganians.
The worst case scenario if Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is confirmed: A child-exploiting, racist, security state hellscape. (Think Progress, 02/15/17)
Ian Millhiser: What we do know about Judge Gorsuch, however, should trouble anyone who believes that America’s legal landscape is better today than it was 100 years ago. Despite his professed admiration for Justice Scalia, Gorsuch’s record is more consistent with Scalia’s much more conservative former colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas combines an extraordinary skepticism of the American regulatory state — he embraces the same reading of the Constitution that the Supreme Court once used to strike down child labor laws — with a broadly permissive view of the president’s power to curtail civil liberties in the name of national security.
Nominee a danger to democracy (Missoulian [MT], 02/15/17)
Katie Carlson and Tyler Gernant, letter to the editor: As parents of two young children, proud Missoulians and attorneys who value the rule of law, we strongly believe that the United States must have an independent judiciary to serve as a check on extreme and unconstitutional policies that threaten our democracy. We urge U.S. Sen. Jon Tester to strongly oppose Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch.... We are not convinced that Gorsuch would be able to put aside partisan ideology to dispense equal justice and serve as an independent check on the types of discriminatory attacks we’ve seen in the first two weeks of the Trump administration
Letter: 6 reasons to oppose Gorsuch (Coloradoan, 02/15/17)
Bob Hoffert: Third, Gorsuch will be a real threat to the legal protections for women, reproductive rights, LGBTs, working men and women, broadly applied religious liberty, and limits on money in politics....
Neil Gorsuch could be the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court (Washington Post, 02/15/17)
Analysis by Profs. Ryan Black and Ryan Owens: Our analysis suggests that if confirmed, Gorsuch might be the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court. To determine this, we looked at the opinions decided by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals since 2006, when Gorsuch joined that court. ... To make an apples-to-apples comparison between Gorsuch and the current Supreme Court justices, we examined cases where the justices reviewed decisions coming from the Tenth Circuit. ... We find that Gorsuch may be more conservative than Justice Clarence Thomas has been.... Gorsuch’s actual voting behavior suggests that he is to the right of both Alito and Thomas, and by a substantial margin. The magnitude of the gap between Gorsuch and Thomas is roughly the same as the gap between Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kennedy during the same time period. In fact, our results suggest that Gorsuch and Justice Scalia would be as far apart as Justices Breyer and Chief Justice Roberts.
Conservative Supreme Court justices are only concerned about calling balls and strikes, except when they are striking out (Washington Post, 02/14/17)
Tom Toles, The Washington Post editorial cartoonist's blog: The Clean Air Act defines pollution as a substance emitted into the air that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” But for Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., this rather stark black-and-white definition is a definition he doesn’t like. ... he manages to overlook the entire — and I mean just about entire — body of scientific work on climate change .... Then he goes on with what apparently he considers compelling logic to say that carbon dioxide can’t be a pollutant because humans produce carbon dioxide naturally, and plants like it! By the same logic, it would not be pollution for people to pipe their toilets directly into lakes and rivers or neighbors’ gardens.
And now we all are supposed to relax and be confident that the next “conservative” high court appointee will also only be showing up to call balls and strikes. After all, it wouldn’t be fair to nominee Neil Gorsuch to expect him to tell us if he understands this portion of the Clean Air Act the same way Alito does, which also is likely to be shared by the president who nominated him.
Because, after all, to preserve the decorum and deference due to Supreme Court nominations, the stability of the climate of planet Earth is not too large a price to pay.
Letter: Resist Gorsuch (Post Independent [CO], 02/14/17)
John Hoffmann, letter to the editor: The editors of the Post Independent want the Democrats to play nice after the right refused to even vet Merrick Garland ... I would say be mad as hell and resist the carnage of the right anyway we can.
Democrats must insist on 60 votes for Gorsuch (Herald-Palladium [MI], 02/14/17)
Melissa Clapper, letter to the editor: There should be tough questioning in Judicial Committee hearings on all of Judge Gorsuch’s positions, especially those pertaining to First Amendment rights (commitment to freedom of the press, protecting the rights of people of all faiths or no faith, and protection of LGBT rights), civil rights, and voter rights. Then, when full vetting has taken place, Democrats must filibuster to force a 60-vote approval on this nominee.
This course of action follows standard Senate rules, unlike the egregious manner in which the Republican leadership ignored Obama’s nominee. McConnell and his Republican allies rejected Garland without so much as a Judicial Committee hearing, and essentially stole this appointment.
Our country deserves a 60-vote threshold for approving this Supreme Court nominee. If Neil Gorsuch can get 60 votes he should be approved; if not, he should be rejected.
Dems should filibuster SCOTUS nominee (Mount Airy News [NC], 02/14/17)
Andy Winemiller, column: The U.S. Senate’s failure to act on Garland’s appointment is the greatest injustice of all these recent failed nominees. ... It’s time for Democrats to head to the trenches and filibuster."
Wednesday's letters: Troubling nominees (Tampa Bay Times [FL], 02/14/17)
Elton Fowler: while almost all of our elected Republicans are blindly acceding to Trump's wishes, including Marco Rubio, I urge both of Florida's senators, Rubio and Bill Nelson, to vote down Neil Gorsuch — a judge who believes a person's religious beliefs should supersede following the law of the land.
Letter: GOP’s partisan behavior (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [WI], 02/14/17)
Dawn Anderson: I would ask this letter writer to imagine how enraged she would feel if Democrats controlled the Senate and refused to even hold a hearing for a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee put forth by a Republican president — for nearly a year — until they could get a new, Democratic president, in office.
What about calls from the Republican Senate to never hold a hearing to fill that vacant seat if Hillary Clinton were to win the presidency? Was that not “partisan behavior”?
The Readers' Forum: Wednesday letters: Originalism (Winston-Salem Journal [NC] , 02/14/17)
Gary Bolick: Rendering a judgment in the 21st century based on the perceived perspectives of the 18th is not a manner through which one honors the Constitution, it is a way to subvert it. Neither Scalia nor Gorsuch could or can possibly know the world from which they claim to be rendering judgment. Original interpretation of what, exactly? When an individual claims he alone knows the intent, it is a manner through which his own particular view is forced onto the majority.
Lessons from the podium (Salisbury Post [NC], 02/14/17)
Post Opinion by Rob Schofield: For the denizens of the American far right — especially the religious right — the Gorsuch nomination is the vindication of their hypocritical and cringe-inducing embrace of Trump. It is their ultimate victory and the payoff they demanded for their essential assistance in electing a president whose personal character even they abhor.
Commentary: Originalism’s Constitutional Imaginary; Gorsuch's originalism cannot be divorced from its historical biases. (Guernica magazine, 02/14/17)
Derek Palacio: Scalia’s methods—and ergo Gorsuch’s—undoubtedly originate from a psychology of disenfranchisement, a mindset born within racist, sexist, and elitist cultural norms.
If the goal of Gorsuch’s originalism is to interpret “legal provisions as their words were originally understood,” then, as Rankine, Loffreda, and Cap make clear, this is an exercise in adopting the mentality of an 18th-century, landholding, slave-owning white male. It is an exercise in reading the Constitution as a person of extreme privilege and without regard for citizens and rights not originally or directly addressed by our founding documents. It is to think like Senator Jefferson Davis, when he proclaimed on the senate floor in 1860 that “this government was not founded by negroes or for negroes, but by white men for white men.” ... the fight this time is about preventing the return to the bench of a perspective that understands the Constitution as a document drafted by and solely created for an insular community of privileged white males.
Article was biased toward Supreme Court nominee (St. Louis Post-Dispatch [MO], 02/13/17)
Susan Cunningham: Democratic senators who have done a thorough vetting of Gorsuch’s record on the bench. ... have found that Gorsuch’s rulings favor corporate interests over average Americans and almost always give Republicans electoral advantages. His decisions on matters of social policy are way out of the mainstream and certainly don’t reflect an understanding of the needs of ordinary citizens.