Warren: Neil Gorsuch Does Not Belong on the Supreme Court
Forums:
Neil Gorsuch Does Not Belong on the Supreme Court
by Elizabeth Warren
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/03/20/neil-gorsuch-does-not-belon...
When Justice Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme Court seat open so that Donald Trump could fill the vacancy. It was only the latest step in their campaign to tilt our courts in favor of big corporations and the wealthy. Now, the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court is their reward. Anyone who believes in a neutral Supreme Court guided by equal justice for all should oppose this nomination.
Over the past three decades — as the rich have gotten richer and middle-class families have been left behind — the scales of justice have been weighted further and further in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. That tilt is not an accident. It’s the result of a deliberate strategy by powerful interests to turn our courts over to the highest bidder.
Its effects have been devastating. Recent court decisions have let giant corporations that cheated their consumers off the hook, unleashed a flood of secret money into the political process, and made it easier for businesses to abuse and discriminate against their employees.
At the core of this strategy is an all-out attack on fair-minded, mainstream judges. A prime example is the unprecedented blockade of Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court — a consensus nominee praised by Republicans and Democrats alike as a thoughtful, intelligent, and fair judge. None of that mattered for powerful right-wing groups that decided that Garland’s record did not reflect a sufficient willingness to bow down to the interests of the wealthy few. So they poured millions into a public smear campaign to stop his confirmation and leave the seat open.
During his campaign, Trump promised to nominate a Supreme Court justice selected exclusively from a list drawn up by far-right groups with ties to these same wealthy interests. As president, Trump kept that promise when he nominated Gorsuch last month to fill the vacancy.
Even before his elevation to the bench, Gorsuch’s right-wing, pro-big business views were clear. For example, he wrote an article arguing that liberals are too addicted to the court system and should keep important social issues like gay marriage, physician-assisted suicide, and school vouchers out of the courts. Notably absent was a similar critique of conservatives who pursue their interests in the court system. And Gorsuch has advocated for making it harder for investors and shareholders to bring lawsuits when companies commit securities fraud.
On the bench, his judicial decisions show a remarkable ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases, when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided with corporations.
Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water, poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of their hard-earned savings.
Big companies and rich right-wing billionaires are spending top dollar to help a judge like Gorsuch get over the finish line. But that’s not how our court system is supposed to work. Our courts are supposed to be neutral arbiters, dispensing justice based on the facts and the law — not the party with the most money or political power.
Gorsuch is charming and intelligent. He has an impressive legal pedigree. But this is not a Miss Congeniality pageant or a contest for the nominee with the fanciest degrees. This is a vote for a justice who will sit on the highest court in our nation for the next generation and decide cases that will touch every human being in this country. Cases about a woman’s right to choose, voting rights, LGBTQ rights, secret spending in our political system, and freedom of speech and religion. The next Supreme Court justice will help determine whether our courts will serve the interests of all of us or bend to the will of the powerful moneyed few who helped place them on the court.
There is only one question that should guide us in that decision: whether the nominee will defend equal justice for every single one of us — rich or poor, black or white, female or male, gay or straight, popular or unpopular. Gorsuch’s record shows that he is not that nominee.
At a moment when the awesome power of the presidency is in the hands of someone who has shown contempt for our Constitution, our independent judiciary, our free press, and the principles that make our nation a beacon of democracy, this decision is more consequential than at any time in recent history. We cannot stand down when the president of the United States attempts to hand our highest court over to the highest bidder. And that is why I believe Judge Gorsuch’s nomination should be blocked.
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: uncmozo
"When Justice Antonin Scalia
"When Justice Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme court vacancy open so that Donald Trump could fill the vacancy".
This suggests that starting in February of 2016 (the month of Scalia's death) corporations starting throwing millions of dollars at some unnamed target, so that Trump could select a Supreme Court nominee. I am no fan of Trump, but back in February of 2016 no one had any idea who would win the Republican primary. Even in late October, Trump was the underdog. So the idea that millions of dollars were being tossed around in early 2016 so Trump could pick the next Supreme Court justice is just patently false. The rest of the 'story' is just an opinion piece. Even though I agree with most of it, the opening sentence kind of sinks the whole thing for me.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
Good luck keeping him off.
Good luck keeping him off.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
GOP kept Garland off on basis
GOP kept Garland off on basis of Obama's "last year".
This is Trumpy's "last year".
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ogkb
^haha. nice.
^haha. nice.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: aiq
The treason of McDonnell and
The treason of McDonnell and his his cronies is unprecedented. Average confirmation period is 57 days.
To refuse a hearing for nearly a year is the worst kind of obstruction and usurpation of the Constitution.
This asshole will likely be confirmed but I hope the process is bloody and long.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: That’s Nancy with the laughin’ face
Who would Pence pick?
Who would Pence pick?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
the problem,is the federalist
the problem,is the federalist society. which is a conservative think tank club/forum for conservative legal wonks funded by ultra conservative corporations and individuals. I do not believe there is a real viable "liberal" alternative as vested monied interests in this country are overwhelmingly "conservative".
this country, no matter how much more liberal, progressive or enlightened socially, movements cannot get traction when the courts at almost every level are basically chosen and hand picked to align with corporate interests....
we're fucked.
enjoy what's left of the usa.
congats thom.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
There is only one question
There is only one question that should guide us in that decision: whether the nominee will defend equal justice for every single one of us — rich or poor, black or white, female or male, gay or straight, popular or unpopular. Gorsuch’s record shows that he is not that nominee.<<<
that's a paddlin'
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jeff
Nice work turtle.
Nice work turtle.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nevermind
> movements cannot get
> movements cannot get traction when the courts at almost every level are basically chosen and hand picked to align with corporate interests
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: New & Improved
He just said he scarfed down
He just said he scarfed down a sandwich over the break.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: always
I dont mind Gorsuch at all.
I dont mind Gorsuch at all.
he just schooled the shit out of Durbin and everyone on the hobby lobby case, showing how the laws congress has passed(and another court case) allowed that reading.
he apologized if they got it(or it seems) wrong, but that congress passed the acts, and laws which allowed that case to be determined in the way it was.
also, yesterday, Lindsey Graham spent 45 minutes boasting about Lindsey Graham.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: always
Whitehouse thought he had him
Whitehouse thought he had him, but Gorsuch again so calm and puts it back on Congress and the laws they write.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
Nice to put a well mannered
Nice to put a well mannered smiley face on the surface of a well funded anti working american agenda.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: always
and strangely Cruz and
and strangely Cruz and Gorsuch talk briefly about the long precedent of corporations being protected under the first amendment.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: always
the TransM trucking case they
the TransAm trucking case they keep talking about it def absurd, as Franken said, yet Gorsuch hits him with the scribners error and the Absurdity Clause.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: always
Franken getting to Trump
Franken getting to Trump/Bannon policy things, and Gorsuch with answers he has used previously, Franken getting ired.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
^^^^^^^This suggests that
^^^^^^^This suggests that starting in February of 2016 (the month of Scalia's death) corporations starting throwing millions of dollars at some unnamed target, so that Trump could select a Supreme Court nominee. I am no fan of Trump, but back in February of 2016 no one had any idea who would win the Republican primary. Even in late October, Trump was the underdog. So the idea that millions of dollars were being tossed around in early 2016 so Trump could pick the next Supreme Court justice is just patently false. The rest of the 'story' is just an opinion piece. Even though I agree with most of it, the opening sentence kind of sinks the whole thing for me.
Mitch McConnell knew a republican would be running and have a 50/50 chance at winning the 2016 election. Last time a checked Trump ran as a republican. The "unnamed target" was the republican party who got that money thinking Ted Cruz or Chris Christy might be the nominee.
Republicans your entitled to your own opinions but not entitled to your own facts (fox news & breitbart). It happened...Deal
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: That’s Nancy with the laughin’ face
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/judge-gorsuch-conf...
Feingold makes a very good point.
>While Russia’s involvement in our elections is unquestionably horrible, and it will likely take many more drip, drip, drips before we know the full extent of it, our democracy is facing an equally devastating threat much closer to home.
On Monday, when Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin, the Republicans will attempt to complete their cynical political takeover of the US supreme court, launched last year when they failed to confirm or to even give a hearing to Judge Merrick Garland.
Never before has Senate leadership so openly and intentionally played political games with our highest court. Already, the legitimacy of the supreme court has taken a severe blow because of it. But, if Gorsuch is confirmed, it would lock in a dangerous precedent from which the legitimacy of our highest court might never recover.
Republican senators abandoned their constitutional responsibilities and blocked Judge Garland’s nomination last year, for 293 days, leaving the court without a deciding vote on critical issues. They offered no legal justification for their actions, fully admitting that their sole intention was to orchestrate a coup of the supreme court by betting that a Republican would win the White House.
Some even pledged to keep the seat vacant for four more years in the event that a Democrat won the White House. The severity of this action and what it will mean for the court if Gorsuch is confirmed cannot be understated.
Confirming Gorsuch would endorse and normalize unconstitutional political games. It would encourage both parties to use and expand this strategy in the future, at the expense of our highest court and its critical role in our judicial system.
This time it was the last year of a president’s term, next it will be the year before midterm elections. It won’t be long before it extends to the whole two-year presidential campaign, amounting to three years of any presidential term where a supreme court seat cannot be filled.
Advertisement
And it is not just the supreme court that will be affected, as the strategy will be used to block appointments to lower courts. This is a slippery slope that ends with decimating the legitimacy of an entire branch of government, and the resulting checks and balances on which our democracy depends.
I have always considered the supreme court our country’s safety valve. When everything else fails, the court is there to protect the constitution and protect our civil rights. But today, the most important safety valve is the US Senate, specifically those senators with the conviction to fight for the legitimacy of the supreme court.
Judge Gorsuch might be qualified. He might be a fine judge. But the vacancy on the supreme court does not belong to him.
Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearing: what you need to know
Read more
When President Trump took office, he had three options for filling the vacancy. He could have renominated Judge Garland, rectifying the wrong committed by the Republican party last year. He could have worked with both parties to nominate a consensus candidate, at least recognizing the need to reaffirm the legitimacy of the court by not validating the Republicans’ coup. Or he could do what he did – nominate a partisan judge, completely validating the Republicans’ coup and locking it in as a precedent.
Preventing this precedent and its resulting slippery slope now falls to the Senate. Democratic and independent senators, and any Republicans who still care about the legitimacy of the supreme court, must filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination.
They must demand that Judge Garland be renominated, or at a minimum, that a consensus candidate be selected with input from both parties – a nominee that will restore confidence in our nomination process, our judicial branch and our system of checks and balances.
Merely delaying Gorsuch’s hearing until after an investigation into Russia’s involvement is completed is not enough. His nomination represents a completely separate threat to our country from Trump’s troubling ties to Russia. The Republicans’ judicial coup spat in the face of our constitution, and a nomination that locks that in as a precedent cannot be accepted under any circumstances.
It is not hypocritical to try to right this wrong. It would be unconstitutional not to. The Senate, specifically Senate Democrats and independents, and any Republicans who care about our constitution, must do everything in their power to block Gorsuch’s nomination and demand the legitimacy of our supreme court be restored through the nomination of a consensus candidate.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
Found a tiny error...
Jerry H is correct I did find a tiny error in the wording...
^^^^^^When Justice Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme court vacancy open so that Donald Trump could fill the vacancy".
What it should have read...
When Justice Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme court vacancy open so that Republicans could fill the vacancy".
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> giant corporations and
>> giant corporations and their right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme court vacancy open so that Republicans could fill the vacancy.
I could have sworn Hillary's campaign outspent Trump's.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
since we are linking stories.
since we are linking stories...instead of giving our own opinions....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-cour...
leonard leo...
look it up.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ltk173
Oaks, you were fun for a
Oaks, you were fun for a while...
But, really, you need to get your own site, your own folder, or just move in with Lizzy.
Although, she might not have room with all the refuges she has living at her house.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
>>> I could have sworn
>>> I could have sworn Hillary's campaign outspent Trump's.
1) How much was Trump's free nonstop Cable coverage worth?
2) How much was the free* Russian hacking worth?
*price to be discovered later...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic
I could have sworn Hillary's
I could have sworn Hillary's campaign outspent Trump's.<<
Um...Citizens United.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
Hank keep with the weak takes
Hank keep up with the weak takes from the Boston Herald known throughout New England as fish wrap. Howie Carr is a hack!
Refugees crisis I think that's #343 on the progressive to do list. Were into solving real problems not fictional propaganda created by FoxBart.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Back to Back
I keep seeing this thread
I keep seeing this thread title and wondering what Warren Haynes has to do with the Supreme Court
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Old Fart Message Board
^Lol. Yeah, hard not thing if
^Lol. Yeah, hard not thing if him when I see the word "Warren" on the zone. Maybe a little sit in with the Supreme Court coming up though?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Has Gorsuch been asked during
Has Gorsuch been asked during the confirmation hearings about his opinion on when the "cut off" is (re: rationale for stonewalling Garland's nomination)?
Likewise, it'd be interesting to hear his opinion on a more pointed question raised by this thread with respect to whether or not an appointment by a sitting President who may have "tampered" with the electoral process ought to be considered valid?
Will Dems press these questions or back off because of "other reasons" (perhaps involving political considerations)?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
>>>>>Has Gorsuch been asked
>>>>>Has Gorsuch been asked during the confirmation hearings about his opinion on when the "cut off" is (re: rationale for stonewalling Garland's nomination)?
Yes but he didn't answer (like with almost every question). He said it's too political a question and as a judge that's not for him to comment on.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
^ seems to me it's very clear
^ seems to me it's very clear such a question is about basic "ground rules" & merely has a political context.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
I watch Al Franken go after
I watched Al Franken go after him. He did a good job. Hearing whispers he might run for president in 2020.