Sign up for one of our email newsletters.
Updated 37 minutes ago
President Trump made a well-reasoned case for nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The question now is whether Judge Gorsuch will get a reasonable hearing from Senate Democrats, who shouldn't allow their anger to color their judgment.
Within hours of Mr. Trump's prime-time Tuesday announcement, Democrats dug in and dished out all manner of vitriol, which can be traced to a single name: Merrick Garland. But whereas President Obama a year ago passed off a “moderate” Supreme Court nominee in name only — for whom the Republican Senate majority refused a vote — Trump makes no such pretense over his nominee.
Gorsuch, who serves on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, has consistently advocated for judicial restraint, has questioned excessive overregulation, and has challenged judicial deference to federal agencies. Judge Garland, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, has been more than a bit squishy on Second Amendment gun rights and overly deferential to the authority of executive branch agencies. Garland was passed off as something he wasn't; Gorsuch is as billed.
Nevertheless, whining Democrats already are lining up to oppose Gorsuch's nomination. And liberal pundits already are taking potshots — at his mom. Anne Gorsuch Burford served as President Reagan's administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. So much for relevance.
No less than Republicans, Democrats, too, should demand an originalist, Anton-Scalia-like Supreme Court nominee — a jurist who will uphold the Framers' principles and rein in any unconstitutional executive diktats.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.