Democrat Chuck Schumer has announced that he will vote No on Gorsuch (what a surprise), and will try to get Senate Democrats to invoke the 60-vote supermajority rule in an effort to block the confirmation vote.
He also threw in a hint of how radicalized he has become: The reason he will oppose Gorsuch, is not because the man is unqualified. In fact, Gorsuch's qualifications are immaculate. But Schumer will oppose him since he is
conservative.
Schumer is trying to pretend this is a
bad thing, and is somehow separate from the requirement that a judge follow the law and apply it impartially.
The fact is,
the Constitution is conservative. It gives only limited powers to the Fed govt, and bans all others, reserving them to the states etc. And any judge or justice that wants to support it (there are some that don't, despite their oath) will be doing the work of small-govt conservatism, whether they like it or not.
Gorsuch himself has pointed out that judges don't have to personally agree with the law they are interpreting and enforcing. They merely have to enforce it as it says. Gorsuch said recently that any judge who finishes the year liking every decision he had handed down, probably isn't a very good judge. But a judge who finishes the year convinced that every decision he has handed down, conforms correctly to what the law meant as it is written, IS a good judge, even if he doesn't like some of the decisions he had to hand down.
Senator Schumer clearly disagrees with that. To him, a good judge is one who twists the law and injects liberal big-govt bias into his decisions where no existed in the law.
Radicalized liberals such as Schumer will lose. If the Republicans have to change Senate rules and eliminate the 60-vote supermajority requirement to bring the confirmation to the floor for a vote, they will do it.
We need more truly impartial judges like Gorsuch, on the Supreme Court as well as on lower courts.
It's not Gorsuch's fault the Constitution was written in a distinctly conservative way. But is
is his responsibility to render decisions reflecting exactly what the law (incl. the Constitution) say and means.
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. News & World News - Chicago Tribune
Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination
Ed O'Keefe, Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marinow
Washington Post
As the
Senate Judiciary Committee was hearing from witnesses for and against Judge
Neil Gorsuch, his
Supreme Court nomination was delivered a critical blow: Senate Minority Leader
Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., announced he would oppose Gorsuch and join other
Democrats in filibustering the nomination, making it likely that the judge will struggle to find the support needed to clear a 60-vote procedural hurdle.
Gorsuch "was unable to sufficiently convince me that he'd be an independent check" on President
Donald Trump, Schumer said in a Senate floor speech. Gorsuch is "not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology," Schumer added.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Schumer vows to filibuster Gorsuch. Good idea?
Radicalized liberals threaten to filibuster Gorsuch BECAUSE he's conservative
