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

[Terry Martin]

Re "McCain and others" I recall hearing somewhere that what is true of the
part is not necessarily true of the whole. And of course, as nothing in the
document directs the manner of exercising the "advice and consent" power,
had such individuals successfully executed that (likely difficult) plan
during a hypothetical Clinton presidency, it would be for the people to
decide if it was the right move. We'll see who loses their seat over the
Garland/Gorsuch issue.

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bensman, Lina <lbensman at cgsh.com> wrote:

> This was a plausible story about what happened right up until McCain and
> others started floating the idea that if Clinton won, her nominees would
> also not receive a hearing.
>
>
>
> —
>
> *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 <http://www.clearygottlieb.com>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Terry Martin
> *Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 3:18 PM
> *To:* Laslavic, Kenneth <Kenneth.Laslavic at ucsf.edu>
> *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
>
>
>
> With all the charges that our legislative leaders were apparently
> motivated by distaste of the former 44th president, let's not obscure that
> ideological balance on the court is the critical issue, and came into play
> at a time when Americans were literally months away from selecting their
> new chief executive (potentially signaling a different ideological
> preference). As was pointed out above, the text of the Constitution directs
> the "advice and consent" to the Senate, and does not specify how this will
> be carried out, much less command that the Senate give full hearing to a
> particular nominee or even that it be completed during the term of a
> particular president, any more than it tells the president the ideological
> position of the nominee he must select. Had President Obama selected a
> nominee in the mold of the late Justice Scalia, perhaps their advice would
> have been "great choice" and proceeded to consent. It is possible also that
> they genuinely wanted to see how the election would turn out and decided to
> exercise their powers in such a way out of a desire to reflect the popular
> will in the judiciary. The question will now be resolved through the
> political process, as it should.
>
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170324/e190abae/attachment.html>