Skip Navigation
Judging the Environment judicial nominations photo
 

A project tracking federal judicial nominations and courts.


Editorials and Opinion

 

Issue
Nominee
Publication
Opinion Type
 

 

Items 181 - 210 of 9999  Previous12345678910Next

Michael Bennet’s decision to not join Neil Gorsuch filibuster (3 letters) (Denver Post [CO] , 04/04/17)
Gayle Lieban: Until an independent investigation into allegations of President Donald Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia and Russia’s interference in our election have been concluded, no lifetime nominee should be considered. For Republicans to use the “nuclear option” to confirm Gorsuch, forever changing the rules of the Senate, is shortsighted and irresponsible.

[Editorial] The Senate is on the brink of an historic mistake (Washington Post, 04/04/17)
"As Mr. McConnell has often noted, eliminating minority rights in the Senate means that when the political tables are turned, Republicans will be the ones with minimal influence on the future of the court. Just as Democrats should recoil at filibustering Mr. Gorsuch, undercutting decades of tradition, Republicans should recoil from the thought of permanently curbing minority prerogatives."

Benson: Take the Gorsuch bull by the horns (Arizona Republic, 04/04/17)
Steve Benson, Arizona Republic cartoon: He may act coy, but Democrats see the real Neil Gorsuch: ... Republicans have threatened to go nuclear to put their raging bull into the Supreme Court's china shop.

Change the nominee (The Hill, 04/04/17)
Mark Mellman; Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) could not be more right: “When a nominee doesn’t get 60 votes, you shouldn’t change the rules, you should change the nominee,” he said.... A supermajority of the electorate clearly backs a supermajority to confirm a Supreme Court nomination.

Letter: A question hangs over Neil Gorsuch: Is he fair? (Chicago Tribune, 04/04/17)
Joe English: There is no question Gorsuch is conservative. But thoughtful? Of the seven judges who ruled in the case of Alphonse Maddin, only one — Gorsuch — ruled against him. ... Is it fair to expect a truck driver to freeze to death? Is it thoughtful? Gorsuch does not have the judgment to sit on our nation's highest court.

GOP Gorsuch strategy unacceptable (Morning Call [PA], 04/04/17)
Bruse J. Ogilvie, Letter to the Editor: Previously, not only was Merrick Garland qualified for the job and nominated by President Obama, but he also never received a hearing by the Senate. Now, Sen. Toomey and his reckless GOP members are tube feeding Americans an idle threat of "changing the rules" to confirm Gorsuch.

Commentary: Maine Sen. Angus King must oppose Gorsuch confirmation to Supreme Court: Judge Neil Gorsuch comes from the corporate world and has long demonstrated a pro-corporate bias.. (Portland Press Herald [ME] , 04/04/17)
ROBERT A.G. MONKS: three out of four voters (77 percent) want the Senate to reject any Supreme Court nominee who will help the wealthy and privileged wield more power in our elections. Every indication is that President Trump’s nominee for the nation’s highest court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, will do just that. Gorsuch comes from the corporate world and has shown a consistent pro-corporate bias cloaked in a cold judicial calculus that would make cost-benefit ratios the language of the land, with little place left for human concerns. It’s no wonder then that dark money groups, financed by secretive billionaires, have spent $17 million to blockade Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination and ram through Gorsuch – a man pre-selected by the right-wing, billionaire-backed Federalist Society.... I’m glad King is taking on this important issue through legislation, but if he wants to act right now to make sure our elections are transparent and accountable, his best opportunity is to oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and support a 60-vote standard for his approval. Both Gorsuch’s record on money in politics and his answers during his confirmation hearing reveal a troubling disregard for common-sense campaign finance laws, especially in the area of transparency in political spending.

Letter: No trust for Trump, and by extension, Gorsuch (Coloradoan, 04/04/17)
Jack Shepard: After Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia passed away on Feb. 13, 2016, Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s choice to succeed him, even though Obama had nearly a year left in his presidency. There was no question of President Obama’s legitimacy, yet Republicans denied him his constitutional duty to pick a successor. They even threatened to boycott any of Hillary Clinton’s nominees, should she have won in November. Now we have a president whose legitimacy is being questioned by people of all stripes, whose tenure is tenuous at best.... Would a Justice Gorsuch always be known as the man the Russians placed on the court?... The country would be better served by postponing this nomination until confidence is restored in the president

Letter: Gorsuch has record against rights of people (Coloradoan, 04/04/17)
Mary Roberts, NOCO NOW: Neil Gorsuch’s judicial record shows he has a long history of hostility towards the claims of workers, consumers, children, immigrants, LGBTQIA people, incarcerated people, people with disabilities, and others seeking protection from the privileged and powerful.

[Editorial] Keep the filibuster. Give Gorsuch an up-or-down vote. (Denver Post [CO] , 04/04/17)
"[W]e would be willing to lose this incredible opportunity if it meant stopping the significant and dangerous rule change in the Senate that Republicans are threatening. Forever ending the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees would launch the chamber on a journey destined to stoke partisanship and gridlock in Congress that reasonable people are and should be sick to death of.... the filibuster has kept the Senate a more deliberative body. Ending it now risks further erosion of our system of checks and balances.... Republicans, meanwhile, ought to do right by Senate tradition and the nation and step away from their rule change.... Better to have an eight-member high court until cooler heads prevail."

How Gorsuch Could Pull the Eight Other Justices Rightward (New York Times, 04/04/17)
Justin Wolfers: If Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will become not only the ninth vote in a divided court but also a new colleague with the potential to move his eight peers in a conservative direction. A compelling new analysis suggests that this kind of peer effect may even be more consequential than a justice’s own vote. This means that the stakes over who fills the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia are higher than is widely understood.

How to End the Politicization of the Courts (New York Times, 04/04/17)
David Leonhardt, Op-Ed Columnist: Republicans have taken a much more aggressive, politicized approach to the courts than Democrats. The evidence: Republicans have been bolder about blocking Democratic nominees than vice versa.... The gap between the parties would be even larger if Democrats hadn’t eliminated the filibuster on lower-court nominees in 2013, allowing Barack Obama finally to fill more judgeships. Even so, Trump has inherited a huge number of vacancies.... Republican nominees have been less centrist than Democratic nominees.... The Republicans’ strategy has been straightforward. They have tried to deny Democratic presidents a chunk of judgeships, hoping the nominations will roll over.... The strategy reached its apex last year, when the Senate blocked Obama from filling a Supreme Court vacancy, even with the highly qualified, and notably moderate, Garland. It was unprecedented. Republicans set out to flip a seat and succeeded. Now the Senate is preparing to confirm Gorsuch, likely to be another historically conservative justice.... Democrats are right to force McConnell to be the one who takes the partisan step of eliminating the Supreme Court filibuster. Likewise, Democrats should be aggressive in blocking Trump nominees to lower courts.... The country won’t return to a less politicized judiciary until both parties have reason to want it.

Letter to the editor: For many reasons, Judge Gorsuch deserves to be filibustered (Portland Press Herald [ME] , 04/04/17)
Toby Hollander, Esq. I write to support a filibuster of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, both because a filibuster is appropriate and because, in my view, Judge Gorsuch is not qualified .... First, this nomination was “stolen” from the previous president by Sen. Mitch McConnell, who refused to even give Judge Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote.... Neil Gorsuch is also a judge who obviously lacks even an ounce of compassion. In the “frozen trucker” case, he justified the firing of a trucker who drove himself to safety in subzero (i.e., life-threatening) temperatures .... He did the same thing with disabled children, ignoring the intent of a statute that is designed to provide a reasonable education for children with disabilities.

The Underrated Reason Republicans Will Regret The Nuclear Option (Huffington Post, 04/04/17)
Christopher Kang: Retaining the 60-vote threshold would preserve the unique nature of the Senate that encourages broader consensus and less extremism. There also is a concern—on both sides—that reducing the confirmation threshold to a simple majority could lead to more ideological Supreme Court Justices and a more polarized Court. Those are compelling reasons in themselves, but there also is a far more practical question that Republicans must consider: How will Senate Democrats respond to this historic power grab? If Democrats follow the Republican response in 2013, it will freeze the Senate for thousands of hours, preventing Republicans from advancing their agenda. In November 2013, Senate Democrats invoked the nuclear option to lower the confirmation threshold for lower court and executive branch nominees. In response, over the next 13 months, Republicans forced Democrats to file cloture on 154 nominees, and they forced 131 cloture votes.... if Senate Democrats simply responded to the nuclear option in the same way that Republicans did in 2013—forcing cloture votes on 131 nominations—that would use nearly 4,000 hours of floor time. And given the higher stakes of applying the nuclear option to the Supreme Court, you could imagine their response may be even greater.... Democratic Leader Schumer instead is focused on avoiding the nuclear option through a reasonable path forward: encouraging President Trump to seek the advice of Senate Democrats and Republicans in finding a mainstream nominee. As he has said repeatedly, don’t change the rules, change the nominee.

A broken process worsens: Democrats may filibuster Neil Gorsuch — but Mitch McConnell broke the Senate when he ignored Merrick Garland: Democrats will filibuster and Mitch McConnell will ram Gorsuch through anyway — this game ends badly (Salon.com, 04/04/17)
Bob Cesca: McConnell established a new precedent for confirming (or not) Supreme Court nominees. And now he plans to worsen the impact of last year’s Garland fiasco by invoking the “nuclear option” and killing the filibuster. This is how democracy slowly suffocates — by the deeds of power-hungry leaders whose only allegiance is to political expedience, rather than doing what’s right, what’s legal and what tradition demands.

Michael Bennet’s decision to not join Neil Gorsuch filibuster (3 letters) (Denver Post [CO] , 04/04/17)
Jim Schrant: I am very disappointed in Sen. Michael Bennet’s decision to not join in the filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. President Barack Obama’s nomination was literally stolen by the Senate Republicans

Planned Parenthood exec: Gorsuch is a poor choice: Be Fearless (Colorado Springs Independent, 04/04/17)
Sarah Taylor-Nanista: Our opposition is on behalf of our clients – as a health care provider to tens of thousands, we believe that Judge Gorsuch has taken active stands that give corporations religious rights over individual’s access to birth control (Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell). He has refused to answer crucial constitutional questions or elaborate on his judicial philosophy during his hearing in the Senate.

Maine Sens. Should Oppose Gorsuch (Times Record [ME], 04/04/17)
Lisa Wesel, Letter to the Editor: I am writing to strongly urge senators Collins and King to vote against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. We need a Supreme Court justice who will defend the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves—students with disabilities... While Gorsuch was testifying at his own confirmation hearing, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned one of his most egregious rulings: that public schools need only provide disabled students with educational progress that is “barely more than de minimis,” meaning slightly more than none at all.

Letter to the editor: Sixty-vote rule on court nominees provides essential balance (Portland Press Herald [ME] , 04/04/17)
Sharon McDonnell: Given the deeply partisan judicial record of Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, our senators, Susan Collins and Angus King, should reject his nomination and call for a new nominee or consider Judge Merrick Garland. King should join a filibuster, and Collins should, at the very least, reject efforts to change the cloture rule requiring 60 votes to end debate on Supreme Court nominations.... Gorsuch ruled that a company was in its rights to fire a trucker because he made a choice to avoid potentially freezing to death; he denied the right of a student with autism to get the educational support he needed; and he’s argued for a judicial philosophy that would make it harder for agencies to enforce environmental laws and other statutes. Given this record, Senate Democrats are warranted in their plans to filibuster.... the moderate thing for Collins to do would be to vote against this “nuclear” rule change.

Filibuster Gorsuch, for children’s sake (Sacramento Bee [CA] , 04/04/17)
Linda Ellis, Letter to the Editor: Past articles and interviews showed him to be quite opinionated about corporate proceedings and the Constitution; however, in the congressional interviews he was evasive to the point that he did not relay a sense of nonpartisan honesty.

Letter to the editor: Sen. Collins ought to look elsewhere for legal advice (Portland Press Herald [ME] , 04/03/17)
Nicole Boucher & Karen Burke: Rather than coming forward as the moderate voice she claims to be, Maine Sen. Susan Collins recently took to the Senate floor in generous support of Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch, buttressing her position with this remark: “I have also received a letter signed by 49 prominent Maine attorneys with diverse political views, urging support for Judge Gorsuch’s nomination.” Mainers for Accountable Leadership has looked into those 49 lawyers and can report on just how diverse their views are:...Finally, and importantly, only five of these 49 attorneys are women. In a weak effort to support her own endorsement of an ultra-conservative to the Supreme Court, Collins provides us with an obviously solicited letter signed by a very small group of partisan lawyers.

The Senate should reject the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 04/03/17)
Rachel Schlosser, Letter to the Editor: Judge Gorsuch ruled, over the disagreements of an impartial hearing officer, an administrative law judge and a lower federal court, that the school district had to provide Luke only a minimal education, despite the law requiring that children with disabilities must have access to a meaningful education. At the very moment Judge Gorsuch was testifying, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous rebuke to Judge Gorsuch’s narrow approach, ruling in a similar case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, that “it cannot be right.”

Republicans Threaten To Use Nuclear Option On Gorsuch, Media Blame Democrats (Media Matters for America, 04/03/17)
Research by Timothy Johnson: Media figures, many of them conservative, are pushing the false talking point that Senate Democrats are to blame for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s threat to change the rules and allow Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority vote. In fact, past Senate rule changes effectuated by Democrats have not applied to Supreme Court nominees, and they were made in response to historic GOP obstruction of noncontroversial Obama nominees. Gorsuch, on the other hand, is considered to be a highly ideological nominee who falls to the right of Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuch filibuster would be good for Democrats (CNN, 04/03/17)
Prof. Julian Zelizer: Senate Democrats have good reason to move forward with a filibuster. Indeed, this could turn out to be a defining moment for the party in its struggle against the Trump presidency. Simply in terms of principle, Democrats could rest assured that they would not be the party responsible for breaking the Supreme Court nomination process. That already happened when Republicans refused to even hold confirmation hearings for former President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland on the bogus grounds that the "next president," who would start his term many months later, should decide whom to pick.... If anyone was capable of making sure the process did not break down beyond repair it was President Trump. Had he demonstrated some genuine independence and sent a moderate nominee to the Senate, instead of a right-wing judge who pleased the evangelical right and anti-regulatory business conservatives, he could have made it difficult for Democrats to refuse the confirmation.

Judge Gorsuch is more dangerous than he appears (Boston Globe, 04/03/17)
Column by Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge & professor at Harvard Law School: He is Judge Neil Gorsuch and he may soon be on the Supreme Court. Don’t be fooled. His approach is not neutral, not required by the law, andfar out of the mainstream. ... his approach could gut health and safety and antidiscrimination laws.... if Congress hasn’t directly addressed the precise question, courts are not supposed to invent their own. Expert agencies fill the gap. But Gorsuch rejects all that.... If this approach were accepted by other justices it could gut major health and safety and anti-discrimination legislation. Worse, Judge Gorsuch would be doing this with the false patina of neutrality, claiming it was based on a restrictive view of judging rather than precisely the opposite.

Senate Republicans Are Inventing Some Wild Excuses to Justify Their Supreme Court Hypocrisy: The filibuster is on, and Mitch McConnell and friends are already trying to avoid accepting any responsibility for it. (GQ, 04/03/17)
Jay Willis: To deal with the discomfort that presumably results from knowing that one is a disingenuous hypocrite, some legislators are resorting to impressively tortured reasoning to justify this logically untenable position.... the Republican refrain that the Senate never confirms Supreme Court nominees in presidential election years is demonstrably false, so Hatch adds a new prong to his test ... both sides have to agree that a nomination should go forward before the Senate acts. In other words, because Republicans didn't want to give Garland a hearing, it was therefore somehow not an unjustified, politically-motivated act for them to do so.

A Supreme Mistake in the Making: By breaking the Democrats' filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, Republicans would hurt the country and themselves. (U.S. News & World Report, 04/03/17)
Robert Schlesinger | Managing Editor for Opinion: last year Republicans stopped a qualified nominee – Judge Merrick Garland – simply because they had the power to do so. They conjured up ridiculous excuses, but it was a simple power play: The GOP didn't want to confirm President Barack Obama's nominee .... Removing the filibuster for the high court reduces the incentive for presidents dealing with a Senate controlled by their own party to ever nominate a moderate justice.... the time will come again when they control neither the White House nor the Senate and they are virtually guaranteeing that a future Democratic president will put someone far more liberal on the court than if the filibuster remains in place.... If only there was some way that Republicans Corker and Graham could do something to stop the filibuster from being ended. Oh wait, there is: Vote to keep it and persuade one other Republican to do so; then work to get a majority bloc of senators to acknowledge that the Garland precedent was a major blunder which cost both parties and should not be repeated. And then wait for Trump to nominate a milquetoast moderate to the Garland seat.

Valdez: How Democrats can win by losing on Gorsuch (Arizona Republic, 04/03/17)
Linda Valdez, column: So what if Senate Majority Leader Mitch “make Obama a one-term president” McConnell pushes the nuclear button? McConnell is the same guy who announced within hours of the death of Antonin Scalia that he would refuse to hold Senate hearings on any Supreme Court nominee from President Obama. Any nominee. ... What happened to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland was shameful and unjustified. Garland was highly qualified. He was moderate.... The seat was stolen from Obama just as surely as any bully steals the younger kid’s lunch money. Democrats shouldn’t let that go....Democrats should not change their opposition.... you can’t be empowered without a spine. Nor is there any reason to think Republicans won’t use the nuclear threat again if it works this time.... those objections matter. Principles matter.

Gorsuch Can't Be Independent While Connected to Conservative Supporters (People For blog, 04/03/17)
Sarah Lobe: Regardless of how reluctant Gorsuch is to talk about his connection to right-wing, conservative groups, Gorsuch is connected to them because they chose him as the Supreme Court nominee through an outsourced selection process and because they launched a multi-million dollar campaign to support his confirmation. Gorsuch, however, avoided important questions about how, as a Supreme Court justice, he would make decisions independently from those supporters.

Mitch McConnell’s Nuclear Trigger Finger (New York Times, 04/03/17)
Adam Jentleson, Op-Ed: Going nuclear, or changing Senate rules to make a Supreme Court confirmation possible with a simple majority, would be a hugely disproportionate response to reasonable Democratic opposition and will expose Mr. McConnell’s much-ballyhooed “institutionalism” as the fraud it has always been.... when Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations — going nuclear themselves — in 2013, they did so in the face of obstruction on a far greater scale than anything Mr. McConnell has faced as majority leader. ... Second, even after Republican obstruction had become a sad fact of Senate life, Senator Harry Reid tried for years to avert the nuclear option.