Home | About | Donate

Neil Gorsuch Is Not Another Scalia. He’s the Next John Roberts


#1

Neil Gorsuch Is Not Another Scalia. He’s the Next John Roberts.

Ari Berman

When John Roberts was nominated as chief justice of the Supreme Court in 2005, Senator Ted Kennedy asked him: “You do agree, don’t you, Judge Roberts, that the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right?”

“It is preservative, I think, of all the other rights,” Roberts responded. “Without access to the ballot box, people are not in a position to protect any other rights that are important to them.”


#2

With all due respect to Bernie Sanders and his sincere efforts to resurrect that decaying pile of biomass called the democratic party, I have decided I won't vote for the democrats in the foreseeable future. While I perhaps make that statement with a bit of reluctance, all doubt will be removed if the democrats collude to let Gorsuch's nomination stand. Bye, Bye, democrats. Death by self-inflicted wounds and clueless to the end.


#3

I'll second that!


#4

The smug look on the faces of mr oranges ' nominations for his cabal seem to me to tell it all ,,, gak , listening to them talk is fear instilling ,, will a reset be possible ? Will we all be flushed down the rabbit hole ? What's next ? I suspect more of the same Orwellian mumbo jumbo,,,,,


#5

"The Supreme Court would look very different with Garland on it instead of Gorsuch"

The Supreme Court would look BETTER with Ralph Nader on it, than either one of those two.


#6

This is insane. If the election in your congressional district comes down to a Ryan Budget supporting Republican and an anti-Ryan Budget Democrat, you prefer to vote in such a way that maximizes the chances of the Ryan Budget becoming law? Progressives, lean progressives, and moderates are in the minority now. If you want to put a check on Ryan and Trump, maximizing their electoral power seems like the worst way to do it.


#7

What I find most disappointing is that the Democrats allowed Gorsuch to get away with his claim that his politics won't affect his decisions (but, then, I suppose it's no less a fantasy than politicians making the claim that campaign donations and big money won't affect their decisions). Still, after so many years of Scalia, the Democrats surely know better. This was the best they could do?


#8

I don't know what you mean by "allowed Gorsuch to get away with his claim." It ain't over yet, and I saw several Senators (trying not to name them by party affiliation, which should be irrelevant once elected) hold his feet to fire and expose his extremism.

I think Berman is right that Gorsuch is hiding his ideology, but it 's not just far-right, it's apocalyptic. It's a basic tenet of Mormonism, riding right alongside direct revelation. And while he will not raise it any more than Mitt Romney did, remember that he's sitting there in his Temple underwear, a constant physical reminder that he and his will be protected when God comes for the sinners. That's what's behind some of his worst decisions, such as the indefensible Hobby Lobby.


#9

Good point, jneastra, no need for anyone to try to blunt it.


#10

Yes, I would. Ryan and Trump are simply accelerating the rate of decline that would normally happen if the democrats were in charge. Head they win and tails you lose, that's the current duopoly. Rust belt voters went for Trump hoping that he might be able to do something to change the trend. Likewise, while I won't vote republican, I won't vote democrat until they show me they are serious about the flood of corporate cash corrupting politics and proposing serious social reforms. If they have to keep losing, then so be it. I'm not voting out of fear or for republican-lite candidates that lie about their true corporate driven agenda. I'm not alone.


#11

Excellent, super smart. The progressive Left wrecking crew wants to wage war against Democrats for not doing enough by . . . doing everything to help the hard right control the levers of power. Genius move my man.


#12

For not doing enough??? What exactly do you think the democrats have done??? You're living with the false belief that the democrats would actually change direction of the country. You're dreaming of a by gone era, my friend. The level of disrepair present in this country is reflective of the duopoly working in tandem. Corporate forces fund both parties and they call the shots. We only have the illusion of choice. Time to wake up.


#13

What are you talking about? Democrats, including the evil Clinton, opposed Citizens United. The problem you and others here have is the inability to acknowledge what happened in 1980, and more importantly 1984, when the Reagan Revolution took hold and the New Deal coalition was dealt its fatal blow. This was done by the voters themselves, who witnessed a president break a union publicly, staff the NLRB with anti-Labor appointees, and alter tax policy massively. Literally, the 1984 Docratic primary was between a traditional LBJ style Democrat and what we'd call a neoliberal Democrat today--and the neoliberal nearly won! He came much closer than Bernie--won 26 states--in a three way race too. Why? Because New Deal liberalism was no longer selling. That it took a centrist Democrat--who tried to do healthcare and was soundly wrecked by voters for it--to win the White House after 12 years should sort of say something. Democrats didn't sell out, Republicans won.

We've been living in that shadow ever since. That all being said, we've still witnessed the largest expansion of healthcare since Medicare, SCHIP (evil Bill Clinton), and significant investments in green energy by two Democratic Presidents. We've also seen voting rights and a host of other issues defended by Democratic presidents against historically hostile congresses. Have these presidents always been right or made the best decisions? No. But to put it all on them or Democrats without recognizing the larger picture, the role of the voters, and the massive role played by the opposition, is to construct a fantasy history.


#15

I don't understand your comment. Gorsuch was raised Catholic and is now an Episcopalian - not a Mormon.


#16

Just about fell off my seat laughing when you said Clinton opposed Citizen United. There is no other politician (or more correctly political family) that has cashed in so massively in the corporate cash category. The rest of your rant is some sort of post revisionist justification for why the democratic party sold it's sole to the dark side. I simply can't follow your convoluted commentary. In regards to 1992 (which I think you are talking about), Clinton won because of two things.
1) Economy was in a big recession
2) Ross Perot peeled away millions of voters from the republicans

Nobody knew what a centrist democrat was at the time. It is fair to say people thought they were something slightly to the right of New Deal Democrat. Clinton certainly used the language of the new deal democrat as did Obama.

Clinton did a exceedingly poor job on health care (one should say incompetent), put a massive number of blacks in jail, destroyed welfare and public housing, eliminated nearly all banking laws which lead to the biggest economic collapse in 80 years, instituted racist drug laws and on and on and on. Clinton was also put into place the pieces to dismantle social security; thank god the Monica scandal came along to derail that fantasy. As to Green energy, it was certainly not on the radar screen 20 years ago and Obama did the minimum to keep the industry going. Who approved or put into place more laws to promote fracking, off shore drilling and pipelines than any other president in history? That's right, Mr. Obama. Plenty of public opposition.

The larger picture you obtusely refer to is called corporate cash and control. Voters have little impact on the legislative process as shown in study after study. Being a democrat doesn't change anything. Time to wake up.


#17

You don't know what you are talking about, sadly. Clinton did win in a three way race, but why? What was the central issue of concern (hint: the deficit and economy)? Why did Republicans fear him running? Republicans in the Bush administration thought Clinton the scariest to run against for a reason, and it wasn't because he was an old school traditional Dem like Mondale or the one they beat in 1988. I actually know my history very well, much better than you and a lot of progressives who push nonsense.

More to the point, on nearly every issue aside from banking ones--and Bernie voted for the CFMA twice by the way--they were seen as real concerns by voters, many who voted for Reagan and Bush before. In your view, everything was foisted on us by Clinton when that is not what happened. You see no role for voters, or the opposition, in history. Now, maybe it would have been preferable for Clinton to lose in 1996 than deal with the Gingrich Congress that voters swept into office in 1994 after seeing Clinton as too liberal, but that's another debate.


#18

Oops, sorry. Don't know where I got that misinformation. Maybe because I saw his nomination covered approvingly by the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune, and he's certainly well supported by Orrin Hatch. In the CNN article I just scanned to check myself, someone observed that there are only 2 Episcopal churches in Denver, the one the Gorsuches don't attend catering to students. His wife is Church of England Anglican, and was cited as appreciating the liturgy at the church they attend. That says they're "high church," and despite having a female rector, not necessarily liberal. There's a wide range of attitudes in Episcopalianism. He does sure look as though he's got some kind of knickers in a twist.