[EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him

Thu Mar 23 18:52:24 PDT 2017

Really, it seems silly to say his nomination was extensively debated. The
Republican leadership refused to schedule hearings on his nomination. They
argued that the President of the United States did not have the right to
nominate someone to the Court. It was wildly inappropriate, and I think the
Democrats did not fight it in part because they expected to win the
election (so much for that), and in part because they have been very poor
strategists in standing up to Republican obstructionism.

Let's not pretend that was normal.

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> republicans didn't need to filibuster Garland--a majority of the senate
> opposed his nomination. I am not sure what you mean when you say he was not
> "considered"--his nomination was discussed at great length, was it not, and
> indeed became a major campaign issue. Hundreds of editorials were written,
> and numerous biographies and backgrounders. The nomination was debated at
> great length. And every Republican senator-- a majority of the whole
> Senate--agreed they would not confirm him before the election. He was not
> "considered" in the particular way you wanted, but was there any reason to
> do so given the majority opposition?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:52 PM, David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> Wouldn’t it be fair to filibuster Gorsuch for 10 months, to retaliate for
> Congress’ refusal to consider President Obama’s nominee during 10 months of
> Obama's presidency?
>
> On 3/22/2017 9:36 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> *J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives. Democrats Should
> Not Filibuster Him
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fp%3d91762&c=E,1,9c5CuxG_ez7XpRjQvs_k8Ja9GEzNa9_CHGtzjJNmZHzRyj0FN8qvKJtwFiINboaGOb2sRsIh-9ZNmaJIRIeWEij2MjnQ4FkiA4bxuJUv6ACYWy5EwQ,,&typo=1>*
>
> Posted on March 22, 2017 9:26 pm
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fp%3d91762&c=E,1,L49X_eYvEtB7Qul_NZOqL-TIFpHNRJJS04SWucBmvYx0RJ-boCLs1r0bYKaPbbDNZMg0EBmoBrZ0GohMc8H-G3EyGwInK6zVCzhaHhk,&typo=1>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fauthor%3d3&c=E,1,gzm7KpFeeAEYIPwDXTpO79FvcivjWI4OT4ZA9hdA1RFWj4oCwBhbzukKiABPRXMZXBvUmX3aEWXyya2rN30N0HrqoxfmOs9UT_0M0jtqSLxdink,&typo=1>
>
> I have no doubt that a Justice Gorsuch will be awful for progressives on
> the issues that they care the most about: abortion, affirmative action,
> campaign finance, voting rights, environmental protection, gun rights, and
> everything else. I’m even more convinced watching the hearings that Judge
> Gorsuch fancies himself an originalist and textualist in the mold of
> Justice Scalia. This means he is likely to be more conservative than Chief
> Justice Roberts, and could be as conservative if not more conservative than
> Justices Alito and Thomas. (I wrote about where he is likely to stand on
> campaign finance and voting rights in this CNN piece
> <http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/opinions/worry-about-gorsuch-hasen/> and this
> blog post
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fp%3d91744&c=E,1,zw5scHWunDsBGr8Oiyx8478PxHZsc7OaNcU0pKx4cSOfrpzcJlCOYpnQaaBRaxIyPJ04Qmi_MWmp1SnmJI8el5I9EegOz3qdWNtJwg,,&typo=1>.
> I also think we need a bit more clarification on his views. based on misstatements
> at the hearing
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fp%3d91730&c=E,1,Yb6hFflTSmTJpUaUsNig-l8QFJMv_bxHBIgtLSCGQpbzFOMqkppLaMeBUkIP_f7IMHiWfPpPc8fzFkfpAUf68gwdm1kmi7lyxIaJeBA_i64,&typo=1>
> .)
>
> So should Democrats try to filibuster him? Right now it takes 60 votes to
> bring Gorsuch’s nomination to the floor. If Democrats hang together, they
> could filibuster him. That would likely cause Senator McConnell to trigger
> the nuclear option for Supreme Court appointees (just like Senator Reid,
> for the Democrats, went nuclear a few years ago for all appointees aside
> from the Supreme Court). He may have some reluctant Republicans to do that,
> but my bet is he’d get it through.
>
> So why shouldn’t Democrats do it now, to get attention and to protest the
> shameful failure of Republicans to consider Judge Merrick Garland for the
> Supreme Court when nominated by President Obama? I’ve struggled with it but
> now think it better not to filibuster.
>
> Democrats hold a pair of twos.  They don’t have much they can do.
> Triggering a fight over the filibuster will gain attention, but Democrats
> can only do it once. The Gorsuch nomination restores the balance of power
> on the Court to the position it was in before Justice Scalia’s death.
>
> Imagine if in a year or so Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, or Kennedy leave the
> Court. Then things get MUCH worse from the point of view of progressives.
> Then Roberts becomes the swing voter and there goes affirmative action,
> abortion rights, etc. If you think things with the Supreme Court are bad
> for progressive now they can get much, much worse.
>
> Better to save the firepower for that fight. It is possible that Senators
> like Susan Collins would be squeamish about such a nominee, and they might
> not vote to go nuclear. At that point, people can take to the streets and
> exert public pressure. At that point, the left will perhaps realize what
> they lost when they lost the 2016 election and how bad things will be.
>
> Another thing. Lots of Trump state Democratic Senators are coming up for
> reelection in 2018. Democrats need to hold those seats. Democrats and their
> allies have not done a good enough job painting Judge Gorsuch as a danger
> to the rights and issues people care about in those states. They would be
> put to tough votes if they are put in the position to filibuster. They may
> not do it, and if they do it could make the more vulnerable in 2018.
>
> So while I’ve vacillated, I now don’t think Democrats should trigger the
> filibuster now.
>
> The future is uncertain. It won’t buy much now. It might buy more in the
> future. Maybe in the future Democrats will have better than a pair of twos.
>
> <mime-attachment.png>
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D91762&title=J.%20Gorsuch%20Will%20Be%20Awful%20on%20%23SCOTUS%20for%20Progressives.%20Democrats%20Should%20Not%20Filibuster%20Him>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/%3fcat%3d29&c=E,1,7OQFh3KQlRgf6rWNRjcTpBDGJGGImwf0MX3zqgbpNJ5LUNhopnz-OJ7jPtDHwsXIim0eS4XdcRDqETKbt9iaEWZhALguBrmAfBUAJ5QvHjg,&typo=1>
>
> []
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
> and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
> please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://department-
> lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election&c=E,1,
> HYLaCx3uVQvQpkTvef3gq8UJXC-vm_oXXSWrWFuwRH4qvEmqiWL7kSrv4vkY
> BaBgcoeFPU29vtawlJfW6aucA_NX91DuD6UCZ5ROTd465g,,&typo=1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
*Margaret Groarke*
*Associate Professor, Government*
Riverdale, NY 10471
Phone: 718-862-7943
Fax: 718-862-8044
margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu <name.name at manhattan.edu>
www.manhattan.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170323/dbd772c1/attachment.html>