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

Fri Mar 24 09:10:31 PDT 2017

I don't know why some of you feel it necessary to characterize the
treatment of the nomination of Merrick Garland as normal behavior, but I
recognize that a lot of people are doing it. Today, there was this tweet:

Retweeted Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF):

"I will not allow the Dems to deny to Trump what every other Pres has been
allowed to do - nominate qualified candidates to SCOTUS."

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
wrote:

> The advice and consent of the senate was declining to confirm Garland. The
> extensive airing of debate on the issue just goes to the idea that somehow
> Garland didn't have a hearing. Nothing in the constitution provides any
> guidance or limitations as to how the Senate may exercise its power to
> refuse to consent. One way it might do that--and in fact has, many
> times--is not to have a hearing or to take any action on a nomination.
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <(614)%20236-6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Bensman, Lina [lbensman at cgsh.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 7:25 PM
> *To:* Smith, Brad; David A. Holtzman
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives.
> Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him
>
> If the goalposts move any farther, we won’t be able to see them anymore.
> Defining the advice and consent of the Senate as a process that includes
> the publication of op-eds is a new one on me.
>
>
>
> —
>
> *Lina Bensman*
>
> Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
> Assistant: namitrano at cgsh.com
> One Liberty Plaza, New York NY 10006
> T: +1 212 225 2069 <(212)%20225-2069> | F: +1 212 225 3999
> <(212)%20225-3999>
> lbensman at cgsh.com <%22Lina%20Bensman%22%20%3clbensman at cgsh.com%3e>  |
> clearygottlieb.com
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.clearygottlieb.com&c=E,1,thyGLiRv5TJ5OKAlwcMmfR0s2uZYfw3ji-Nr9w3djjKhzfrqXHyxIrrSNLa601yQyQNAaOvnWbCJj-UvrB2TBXz865CojQbn_hVkmo1D04PAJ3nOiNVs&typo=1>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Smith, Brad
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 7:11 PM
> *To:* David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] J. Gorsuch Will Be Awful on #SCOTUS for Progressives.
> Democrats Should Not Filibuster Him
>
>
>
> 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=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_-253fp-253d91762-26c-3DE-2C1-2C9c5CuxG-5Fez7XpRjQvs-5Fk8Ja9GEzNa9-5FCHGtzjJNmZHzRyj0FN8qvKJtwFiINboaGOb2sRsIh-2D9ZNmaJIRIeWEij2MjnQ4FkiA4bxuJUv6ACYWy5EwQ-2C-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dEcnZYEft0chk43zMG4SJ1NUYHGlmucOsf00zIjSk4kk%26e%3d&c=E,1,cVe1FbJyetV3MBFcXlgSrwaIyOTcbfBFgCeDgkL_LC2ObAjZLUE1KIv0jnVCK1dfUpWSoqXWVyBh1R617P7OXW9i6hZXId2tAs8Os_MemKUECmut&typo=1>*
>
> Posted on March 22, 2017 9:26 pm
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_-253fp-253d91762-26c-3DE-2C1-2CL49X-5FeYvEtB7Qul-5FNZOqL-2DTIFpHNRJJS04SWucBmvYx0RJ-2DboCLs1r0bYKaPbbDNZMg0EBmoBrZ0GohMc8H-2DG3EyGwInK6zVCzhaHhk-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dWxyKoiLKs1K6LRI-Y_7SAmVPiFj1EIGO5bpMh_BUmok%26e%3d&c=E,1,B1p3LUsbuMofGf2PdY4dKGg0a7VMxIASF3SwJdPrTzWrzGX21McGb1imB9wxKi2fverb-owIuNL4puzriDNkAT1TKz831tebwMlioHQ,&typo=1>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_-253fauthor-253d3-26c-3DE-2C1-2Cgzm7KpFeeAEYIPwDXTpO79FvcivjWI4OT4ZA9hdA1RFWj4oCwBhbzukKiABPRXMZXBvUmX3aEWXyya2rN30N0HrqoxfmOs9UT-5F0M0jtqSLxdink-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dr84rtq0kRgmRyNAELueKYdn-JZgZJyw9Hr96oq46SuY%26e%3d&c=E,1,2umRTJ663Of0iTkhvT3N_BQ5dzfV4bv0u24JPJQgfeGVku8LfG4O2WLW1_IBrK0eO6LdG6G8Or9aS_5JOz5bMi0CDqbDC0tT2vnm3_fqhTQ,&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
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttp-3A__www.cnn.com_2017_03_01_opinions_worry-2Dabout-2Dgorsuch-2Dhasen_%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dwIyYtyxjFfxgs1wqw0O2TqGpDCkJsz_hCM5aFHmhq9I%26e%3d&c=E,1,zqwC4dDBnIBI1IylK3UWRmRDcHuioLb71UDE7D0xCv7HzzKPLee4XR-aHRa5tlSrNYQMVHLtp1xeuXQgKviYz7q81j4lLvvf5aYq4GD_L2UFB3riT94SJ91sUA,,&typo=1>
>  and this blog post
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_-253fp-253d91744-26c-3DE-2C1-2Czw5scHWunDsBGr8Oiyx8478PxHZsc7OaNcU0pKx4cSOfrpzcJlCOYpnQaaBRaxIyPJ04Qmi-5FMWmp1SnmJI8el5I9EegOz3qdWNtJwg-2C-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dlEMskXUbzR2k6oggUfoJmeonynONeKwRYYHeRtuA4Qs%26e%3d&c=E,1,RKcqTMED_8RjAaWoxNMsxD3pNABlVgMOzAKnlk9c7FZZsbdHdbf_Qibf3RZJY01iIBnf4mqNZds2KfZLvgZHh4vqj7m1kmYTP8GiqvzwuAo,&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=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_-253fp-253d91730-26c-3DE-2C1-2CYb6hFflTSmTJpUaUsNig-2Dl8QFJMv-5FbxHBIgtLSCGQpbzFOMqkppLaMeBUkIP-5Ff7IMHiWfPpPc8fzFkfpAUf68gwdm1kmi7lyxIaJeBA-5Fi64-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dnsOlgeNj3iXfAHV3LDGQuga-Cevv0vRIEpQ88EKVbno%26e%3d&c=E,1,Gj6rUFYvrxV12MEVj7qyg7Isrw59jMEB6qLuRcdmVGEQcgh7GppTY8_deWWxrZIkdOpyHHQO-PkiS28bXXw0i4vsYn4DnTuTHfkRmxy71qtxt-SX&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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__www.addtoany.com_share-23url-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Felectionlawblog.org-252F-253Fp-253D91762-26title-3DJ.-2520Gorsuch-2520Will-2520Be-2520Awful-2520on-2520-2523SCOTUS-2520for-2520Progressives.-2520Democrats-2520Should-2520Not-2520Filibuster-2520Him%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dgEiIAp9Sk29Ujg6muXj_drStCtS-zpjyMt7-zF8vqt0%26e%3d&c=E,1,AZkDwBSRuH49Hhqoby1nZ9e4f3L0pBiw27AiS787XE5Oq6bY-awqtygQ6gNjNqUcDKlNfMEvoPC0fe6d67pIoHi6x2DoP8-9eJSoou9iO3SZOtI-H0Yt2Q,,&typo=1>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__electionlawblog.org_-253fcat-253d29-26c-3DE-2C1-2C7OQFh3KQlRgf6rWNRjcTpBDGJGGImwf0MX3zqgbpNJ5LUNhopnz-2DOJ7jPtDHwsXIim0eS4XdcRDqETKbt9iaEWZhALguBrmAfBUAJ5QvHjg-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3dxgJvWBLoQHEyMohrJlAmP40HChlH9bSH6T2kjAz3UBE%26e%3d&c=E,1,V8Q1SsCF3xP4FNLyx8X5o3IdupwwmEyov29B7AJ3iCM0ZB4CnVuKsGMzg1PganzampeZzm9LtHFqa_J0FkiY0R_gsk6Hihln5if9Zh8,&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
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url%3fu%3dhttps-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection-26c-3DE-2C1-2CHYLaCx3uVQvQpkTvef3gq8UJXC-2Dvm-5FoXXSWrWFuwRH4qvEmqiWL7kSrv4vkYBaBgcoeFPU29vtawlJfW6aucA-5FNX91DuD6UCZ5ROTd465g-2C-2C-26typo-3D1%26d%3dDwMF-g%26c%3d6ldJ3EG4a4nVimLYnfpfYA%26r%3dirZoJQRAEpWgqIfKu3nhoeuqWPVCzGADCeta_jGFeYk%26m%3dTnQpiV0eHZjt1-TUVUIifoqj9te72_XHLwWXAwEWYbA%26s%3djf1Npd-FGRJVaUnN_IZ3WeG85NNb74D-RBjRWUufs4E%26e%3d&c=E,1,zr9y6N85Ul649G7NLzWJ7YpRIsp3iahUWcobo0UhtXmMGatgFJtA7LddBKbDzL9WmLoNez1rIGJ_PBhic3HayzzaNa6bzpbdJTlaWgfYtiHmAxXV-w,,&typo=1>
>
>
> This message is being sent from a law firm and may contain confidential or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and
> any attachments without retaining a copy.
>
> Throughout this communication, "Cleary Gottlieb" and the "firm" refer to
> Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and its affiliated entities in certain
> jurisdictions, and the term "offices" includes offices of those affiliated
> entities.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170324/d589fee9/attachment.html>