Skip to comments.It's not Neil Gorsuch's fault, but we can't support his ascension to a stolen Supreme Court seat
Posted on 03/25/2017 4:41:57 PM PDT by Trump20162020
A decade ago, The Times urged the Senate to confirm John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court even though he was a conservative judge nominated by a conservative president and was likely to pull the court to the right for decades to come. We backed him, despite our disagreements with his judicial philosophy, because we believe that presidents Democrats and Republicans alike are entitled to significant deference when they nominate justices to the high court, so long as the nominees are well qualified and scandal-free, respect precedent and fall within the broad mainstream of judicial thinking.
Under normal circumstances, that same reasoning would lead us to support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Like Roberts, he is conservative but competent, with more than a decade of experience on the appellate bench and a well qualified rating from the American Bar Assn.
But these are not normal times.
Not after the outrageous obstruction of Judge Merrick Garlands nomination for 10 full months by Senate Republicans. That debacle began in March 2016, when President Obama nominated Garland, a moderate and well-respected appeals court judge, to fill the seat on the court that had become vacant with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Instead of doing what the Constitution requires and offering their advice and, if merited, their consent, Senate Republicans refused even to engage in the process. They denied Garland a confirmation hearing and in many cases wouldnt even meet with him on the hastily fabricated pretext that a president in his final year of office shouldnt be allowed to name a new justice because
well, it was never really clear what the supposed principle was behind this self-serving position.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
We won, elections have consequences. Deal with it.
PS. Nobody really cares what the LA Times editors think.
Was it advise and consent, or b*tch and whine?
The hack Kagen and the wide Latina are plenty of legacy from Hussein.
So they planning on leaving it open for 4 to 8 years?
No one owns scotus seats.
Reject the libtard premise.
No, forever, until the Great Garland is given it. It's his seat alone, apparently.
The SCOTUS seat belonged to Scalia. I would bet the RATS had him whacked in order to tilt the court before Obozo left office.
I regard it as Robert Bork’s seat.
I think Gorsuch might be more moderate than the Lala Times thinks.
It must be painful to be that stupid.
All of this fighting over the SCOTUS just proves that Jefferson was right. The judiciary has assumed power out of all proportion to what it should. It is now a super-legislative branch.
So they are going to deny appointments for 4-8 years?
What a whiny ignorant crybaby.
The peaceful transfer of power from Democrat to Republican ended sometime in the 1950s.
The LAtte Times espouses unAmerican activities.
But you supported Hillary who stole a nomination through corruption, lies, and deceit.
Leftards aren’t dumb. They just have bad luck when they try to think.
So now the LA Times disagrees with Joe Biden, who said that SCOTUS nominees should not be considered in a President’s last year in office. It must be nice to be a liberal. You never have to worry about hypocrisy.
A Bogus argument. JOE BIDEN AND Another Democrat at the moment I can not recall their name said back I believe when Bush was President that a President should not appoint a Justice in their last year in office. IT is a fact the Democrats can not be trusted anymore than Satan himself. I honestly believe terrorist tell the truth more than Democrats.I watched the Democrats destroy Judge Bork and they tried the same on Justice Thomas. Anyone that has been around for 50 years or more that has any knowledge of the system knows Democrats are Evil. I hate to admit it but I thought LBJ was trying to help Back folks only when I wised up I found he destroyed the black and white families in America. WAKE UP AMERICA.
When people write about respecting precedent they mean being against overturning Roe vs. Wade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.