SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
More than a decade ago, many Democrats still in office now went along with Gorsuch as he was unanimously confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2006. Things are different today, ahead of his hearing for the highest court in the land.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed deep doubts during a press conference last Wednesday about the nominee and asserted Gorsuch "may act like a neutral, calm judge," but "his record and his career clearly show he harbors a right wing, pro-corporate, special interest agenda."
[...] Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy said he would demand "real answers" to questions he has about Gorsuch's judicial philosophy.
"I hope next week, when the president's Supreme Court nominee will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he provides transparent, truthful answers to Senators' questions," Leahy said in a statement. "I will insist on real answers from Judge Neil Gorsuch, because there are real concerns about his record and his judicial philosophy."
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
The real problem here is that liberals are less represented now in government than would be democratically fair. They are simply seeking any power they can maintain to reflect that.
Well, that and probably a bit of revenge over Garland. None of that is new either -- it's sort of like the Abe Fortas nomination debacle that occurred in the closing years of the Johnson presidency, which was undoubtedly a factor in the strong opposition of Dems to some of the early nominations by Nixon.
The difference, of course, is that Fortas was actually given a hearing, and there were "questionable" aspects raised of some speaking fees he had taken (which simply fell in a gray era under ethics standards of the time). The refusal of the Senate to even give Garland a hearing was crazy and without precedent. Ultimately, I doubt the Dems are going to be able to do much to block anything here, but if they don't respond in kind to the insane Republican tactics that denied a hearing for a legitimate and well-qualified nominee, they "lose face" within the political arena.
But of course you're right that this is also a huge power struggle given the "legislative" function of the judiciary nowadays.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:56PM
I was more referring to the growing legislative slant of the judiciary as a response to gerrymandering. The fight right now is about expressing rage over the whole Garland debacle, knowing that they have no power to actually do anything.
The difference is that Congress no longer appears to have any respect for itself, or any other government entity, as an institution. Everything is partisan. The elitists who are most interested in maintaining their ivory tower can't do it anymore by maintaining the institution. They must instead appeal directly to the kind of voters that get most riled up about silly things, and in many cases they don't even have to do that. They just get to live their unaccountable power trip.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?