Smooth Sailing? Liberals’ Opposition to Gorsuch Weak

(Quin Hillyer, Liberty Headlines) Numerous reports indicate that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will experience relatively smooth sailing towards Senate confirmation.

IMAGE: YouTube

With the Senate Judiciary Committee opening its hearings on Monday to consider his nomination, Politico reports that Democrats still have no clear strategy to defeat – or even significantly delay – his confirmation. Meanwhile legal and political eminences by the score – from all across the political spectrum – line up to support Gorsuch, and conservative defenders rebut criticisms again him, discouraging opponents more with every passing day.

Politico’s headline describes Senate Democrats as strategically and tactically “paralyzed” by the widespread positive response Gorsuch has received. It’s not just that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) “hasn’t begun whipping hard against Gorsuch,” but “the sole strategic decision the Democratic Caucus has made about Gorsuch ahead of his confirmation hearings is to make no decision at all.”

Politico adds that left-wing groups aren’t happy with the reticence:

“There’s a fierce urgency at the grass roots that is not being echoed by the Senate Democrats,” said Ben Wikler, the Washington director for MoveOn, which joined 10 other groups in a letter urging Senate Democrats to, essentially, step it up. “The notion that Democrats should wait until after the hearings to speak their mind is a strategy to win a race by running hard in the last 30 seconds.”

A large part of the Senate Democrats’ dilemma is that Gorsuch seems to have charmed just about everybody he has ever worked with, including numerous liberals with whom he’s maintained respectful and friendly relations, even while opposing them philosophically. At National Review Online, Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center provides virtually one-stop shopping for anybody wishing to follow the nominee’s momentum towards confirmation.

Whelan reported last weekend that 31 distinguished members of the Supreme Court bar – who together have argued more than 500 cases before the nation’s highest court (for just 31 lawyers, that’s a very large number of such cases) – signed a letter expressing “strong support” for Gorsuch’s nomination.

The letter’s key paragraph:

Fairminded, dedicated, smart, and unfailingly polite, Judge Gorsuch is someone all of us would be pleased to appear before. He is principled in his approach to the law, but also keenly aware of practical consequences. He is a thoroughly kind and decent person. Respectful of colleagues and counsel alike, Judge Gorsuch has the unusual combination of character, dedication, and intellect that would make him an asset to our Nation’s highest court.

The signers included not only noted conservatives Miguel Estrada, Peter Keisler, and Michael Carvin (the first two of them former nominees defeated by Democratic filibusters), but also those Whelan describes as “prominent liberal signatories” includ[ing] former Stanford law school dean Kathleen M. Sullivan, Clinton Justice Department veteran David C. Frederick, and Lisa Blatt.

They join such previously announced liberal luminaries as former Obama administration solicitor general Neal Katyal and former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw in singing Gorsuch’s praises, with the latter saying his non-conservative sources assert that “there is not a better judge in the federal circuit right now than him.”

More than 50 of Gorsuch’s former Harvard classmates – again from across the political spectrum – also have written in his support, as have every one of his former law clerks.

And the list of Gorsuch’s supporters goes on and on.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported Monday that leftist groups are scrambling to accuse Gorsuch of being “no friend to the little guy” – supposedly against “workers’ rights” and insufficiently opposed to “big money in politics.” But the ammunition against Gorsuch is so skimpy that many Democrats may try “to make the nomination as much a referendum on Mr. Trump as Judge Gorsuch.” The Times also noted that several cases show Gorsuch siding with, not against, workers, “including sexual harassment claims and black-lung benefits for retired miners.”

Even on the three cases most often cited by critics that supposedly show Gorsuch disfavoring the little guy, NRO’s Whelan provided a ready answer. Writing that those three are thin gruel from amidst the many thousands of cases Gorsuch has decided (not one of his which, by the way, has ever been reversed by the Supreme Court), Whelan noted that in two of the three cases, Gorsuch wrote for unanimous panels that each time included a “very liberal Clinton appointee.” In other words, Whelan says it is almost impossible to fault Gorsuch for somehow dismissing the cases of “little guys” that even liberal judges say were too legally weak to stand.

Bearing out Whelan’s contention that these few cases show no fault on Gorsuch’s part, the American Bar Association’s review panel unanimously gave Gorsuch its highest possible professional rating.

No wonder that Politico reports that at least within the Senate walls, “Democrats can’t seem to land a punch on Neil Gorsuch — and it’s not even clear they want to.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Liberty Headlines

  • Marie Saqueton

    Leave it to Democrats, they will even find fault with Jesus Christ, because they make up LIES…..

  • Gym

    Say hello to the newest Justice on the SCOTUS, Neil Gorsuch. You leftist looney libturds are now powerless, so just F.O.

  • Maxine Albritton

    lets hope Gorsuch does not have a liberal bone in his body. Harvard is a liberal school as most are. Hopefully he will stay focus on the conservative path.

    • Shelly Shannon

      Me too. Since these judges are supposed to uphold the Constitution that shouldnt be a problem for him.

  • Marcy Helton

    Why can’t the Dems leave Trump alone??? I voted Trump this time and I will NEVER vote Democrat EVER again never know they were so so DIRTY

    • nocbsfan

      Marcy that is good advice you are giving yourself

    • Born in the South and proud

      Welcome to the club Marcy, the idiots turned me off 40 years ago. I like to say I didn’t leave the demo party, their idiotic stances left me no choice but to leave the Demo party and I’ve never regreated it for a second.

  • JMH

    Dems have nothing but hate in their hearts. Sad! The people have spoken and the Libs just get over it and put your adult pants on and quit crying like babies.

    • Motorhead

      They are crying because they set their pampers!!!

  • Jeff Z

    Just waiting for the bogus “Russian connection”…..and Pelosi vowing to never vote for Judge Bork.

  • johnwatson

    if Chuck stammer and other idiotic and non patriot liberals and some left wing leaning Republicans thing that going against Gorsuch then it id al their peril for re-election.

  • John

    He’s a great pick, hope President Trump gets to pick 2-3 more soon enough. The federal courts, top down , need an ideological realignment,in order to get them back onto their Constitutional foundation.

  • Shelly Shannon

    All is fine and dandy until they rip the poor guys reputation apart, slander him, slander his family, turn coat on his wife, attack his kids, tear apart his financials, demand he show his tax returns, try to discredit him, and then after they have done all those preliminary things they will ask him a question. Then they will tear apart his answers, accuse him of lying, twist every word he says to mean something different than intended, accuse him of shady business dealings, and use conversations between him and his constituents against him. If this were really that cut and dry he would already be seated on the Supreme Court. There would be no need to question him at all.

  • parthenon1

    I dont worry about this pick for SCOTUS but I do worry about all of these head cases in the district court Judges who keep making waves against the short term refugee ban of Pres. Trumps they are all supposed to have taken oaths to follow the Constitution but these squirrels keep going off course to find wierd reasons to stop the bans. For all of those i only have one irrefutable comment “If I say, “I HAVE A LARGE PILE OF M7M CANDIES APPROXIMATELY 300,000+ OF THEM, NOW ONLY 20 OF THEM ARE DEADLY POISON, TAKE AS MANY AS YOU WANT !”

  • parthenon1

    A correction the candies are M&M’s not M7M’S.