Gorsuch Hearings Start Today

The confirmation hearings for Gorsuch will start today. So far, I have been impressed. I doubt I will agree with him on everything, but he seems to have a sharp mind and a strong judicial philosophy.

The Democrats are in a bind here because their base wants them to hold their breath until they turn blue but they don’t really have a reason to oppose him. They’ve been trying to go through his decisions and even some of the legal arguments he made as a lawyer but nothing has stuck. I expect some hysterics. But ultimately, I expect him to be confirmed. Say 65-35.

Comments are closed.

  1. Aussiesmurf

    They do have a reason to oppose him –

    IT IS MERRICK GARLAND’S STOLEN SEAT.

     

    Having said that, the Democratic Senators will probably overlook the abdication by the Republican Senators of their duties in 2016, and allow this religious nutbag onto the US Supreme Court.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Hal_10000 *

    Napolitano is good when he’s commenting on legal stuff.  Anytime he ventures outside of the bailiwick, the crazy comes out.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Hal_10000 *

    So far, I would say the hearings are going very well for Gorsuch. Some Democrats have tried to score hits, but have been solidly rebuffed. I a normal political world, this would be a near-unanimous confirmation.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Slothrop

    I’m curious on Hal’s take on one specific issue, what’s referred to as the Chevron doctrine.  It was raised by Al Franken, which makes the whole issue suspect and may amount to nothing, but I found it interesting and within Hal’s purview.

    As Franken describes it (and he seems to be reciting law at points), he describes the law that, when provided information by bodies that are regarded as experts in their field, that legal entities may not summarily dismiss that information, given that those bodies are considered experts in said field.

    Am I summarizing that correctly, and if so, what are your thoughts on Gorsuch’s statement that we “may need to revisit that”?  Obviously, I may not be aware of the consequences of such a legal agreement, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Iconoclast

    IT IS MERRICK GARLAND’S STOLEN SEAT.

    I suspect that this is mere trolling, but Garland was never in possession of that seat, so calling it “his” seat is meaningless, as is the claim that it was “stolen”.  There is no guarantee (or any real reason to believe) that Garland would have been confirmed if he had been given hearings and a vote.

    Having said that, the Democratic Senators will probably overlook the abdication by the Republican Senators of their duties in 2016, and allow this religious nutbag onto the US Supreme Court.

    Democrats rarely “overlook” anything that results in denying them power, including perceived (as opposed to actual)  abdication of duty by Republicans, and calling Gorsuch a “religious nutbag” only serves to illustrate your own extremism.  Finally, if the Dems “allow” the confirmation to take place, it’ll be due primarily to their having no other choice; it sure as hell won’t be due to any magnanimity on their part.

    Thumb up 1