10.132.115.101

Subscribe to our mailing list

What Topic Matters Most To You?
View Privacy Policy

5 Editorial Boards Blasting Democrats for Filibustering Gorsuch

Editorial boards across the country are taking Senate Democrats to task for refusing to give Neil Gorsuch an up-or-down vote

Neil Gorsuch Senate Democrats

Editorial boards across the country, including in states as diverse as North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri and New York, are blasting Senate Democrats for attempting to filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Neil Gorusch.

By refusing to give Gorsuch and up-or-down vote, Democrats—and their leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—are doing exactly what they bemoaned Republicans did to President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

As these editorial boards note, Democrats only have themselves to blame for the situation

Charlotte Observer:

To be sure, Gorsuch holds views that we and many Americans find wrong-headed, including his approach to worker safety and defense of President Bush’s aggressive interrogation techniques.

But Donald Trump won the presidency. Who did Democrats expect him to nominate, a liberal? What Trump nominee would they not filibuster? Democrats – indeed, all senators – have a duty to vet a high court nominee. But they also have to accept that the president is going to nominate someone with ideologically similar views.

Kansas City Star:

Don’t do it, Democrats. Don’t give in to mobocracy by trying to delay a vote on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch this week.

The temptations of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s planned filibuster are obvious. Yes, your justifiably angry base demands tit-for-tat retribution for the disrespect shown President Barack Obama and his final high court nominee, Merrick Garland.

But Gorsuch is going to serve. You are not going to get a better nominee from a Republican president. And that Garland was wronged is no reason to try to block Gorsuch.

USA Today:

As the Gorsuch nomination heads for a vote Monday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, objecting to Republican obstructionism is fair game. So is disagreeing with the nominee’s legal philosophy. But insisting he is unfit for the bench is not.

Overall, Gorsuch is about the best choice the country can expect from this president; in fact, the nomination was one of the least objectionable things Trump has done since taking office.

Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Democrats may well decide to filibuster the nomination, and that is their right. Klobuchar, who has built a reputation for working with both sides, announced Tuesday that she will vote no on Gorsuch because of ongoing concerns about his judicial judgment on several topics.

Every nominee has flaws. But there are significant pluses to Gorsuch as well. His key rulings show a healthy skepticism about the reach of government and law enforcement, and he does not seem inclined to be overly deferential. He has shown keen attention to the value of procedural rules. Moreover, Trump did campaign in part on the notion that he would replace Scalia with someone like-minded. Voters chose him knowing that.

The court needs to be brought back to its full complement. Gorsuch has passed the key competency tests and should be confirmed.

New York Daily News:

Which could well put Republicans in the position of invoking the “nuclear option,” and killing the filibuster, which effectively sets a 60-vote threshold for confirming nominees to the nation’s highest court.

If and when that happens, Democrats will have no right to weep, because it was in the Senate under their former leader, Harry Reid, that the maneuver was killed for all other nominees.

Gorsuch is eminently qualified. In more than a decade on a federal appeals bench, he has carved out an esteemed record. Anyone who honestly followed his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee would be forced to admit that he is an intelligent jurist with a fine temperament.