President Trump nominated Colorado federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, opting in the most important decision of his young presidency for a highly credentialed favorite of the conservative legal establishment to fill the opening created last year by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuch, 49, prevailed over the other finalist, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, also a federal appeals court judge, and Trump announced the nomination at a televised prime-time event at the White House.

Hopefully the Democrats will find a way keep this candidate from being appointed.  President Obama was at the helm when Justice Scalia died.   Obama was robbed of his Supreme Court appointment.   He chose Merrick Garland, a highly qualified judge.  Garland’s nomination was blocked.  Republican senator leaders announced that they planned to hold no vote on any judge nominated by President Obama, who had nearly a year more in office. What was the justification?  There was none that made any sense.

Turn about is fair play.   I know nothing about Judge Gorsuch but the appointment should go to Merrick Garland.  The Senate Republicans should have at least had the nads to vote no, rather than do nothing.

15 Thoughts to “Federal appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch picked for Supreme Court”

  1. Steve Thomas

    Digging in, just because they said “no” to Obama, would be a huge mistake. This candidate was previously confirmed unanimously to the 10th circuit. He’s obviously qualified, so the only justification the Democrats have is “we’re going to do what Republicans did to Obama, and deny his nominee…” Okay, they can play that game, and then the Republicans can turn around and say “We’ll just play the game by the rules Harry Reid put into place”…and use the “nuclear option”. Simple majority, and the precedent is now set to go this route on all future SCOTUS picks, whether they be “originalists” or more liberal in their philosophy.

    1. There is obviously a higher standard for the Supreme Court.

      Let’s just start the discussion with, was what was done to Obama with his Supreme Court pick the right thing to do? Absolutely not. I also believe in teaching lessons for bad behavior where possible. Shame on the Republican senators that had a hand in denying Merrick Garland the seat on the Supreme Court. He too was a highly qualified candidate. He at least deserved a hearing.

      When you act like a turd, then expect it back in kind.

      1. Steve Thomas


        I am not arguing that those who wanted Obama to have the opportunity to put forth a nominee, and have that nominee voted on, don’t have an axe to grind. They do. The constitution is simple and clear in the “advice and consent” clause.

        What I am saying is if the Democrats want to go “Tit for Tat” here and now, this would be a strategic error. Mitch McConnell will be in a position to “go nuclear”, citing Harry Reid’s previous suspension of normal (arcane) rules of order, suspend the filibuster and that will be that.

        As much as I want a conservative court, I know that Republicans will one day be in the same situation that Democrats find themselves in today: no concrete power to advance their agenda, extremely limited power to resist.

        When the precedent is set, it’s set. Digging in right now on a fight they (the Democrats) will ultimately lose, is a mistake. Better to save this for when one of the liberal justices needs to be replaced, and argue that they should be replaced with someone of similar “temperament”, and dig in then. They might have regained control of the Senate, the “bloom” on the Trump admin fallen off, or both.

      2. Scout

        Steve Thomas,

        always enjoy these occasional moments of agreement with Steve. Garland was an excellent choice. President Obama gave up a chance to appoint a more ideological judge and chose a very competent centrist jurist who had been overwhelmingly, bipartisanly been approved for his Court of Appeals seat. The Rs in the Senate behaved abominably in complete contempt for the Constitution and orderly governance to play for mean political advantage. That is their sin and it should stick to them.

        President Trump made an excellent choice in Judge Gorsuch (whom spell-check tries to convert to “Grouch” – which he is not). He will be an excellent Justice. If the Senate Ds lower themselves to McConnell levels of disrespect for governance, then they have no right to ask people to stand with them in the coming months when President Trump and his inner circle make more grievous errors that threaten the security and economy of the United States like those they have made in the first several days. It would be as childish and irresponsible as being a congressional R to stand in the way of this appointment. Sen. Schumer should be sure, however, to use this as a teaching moment to explain why the Ds, in stark contrast to Sen. McConnell’s anti-American, anti-constitutional, anti-republic, approach, are letting this nomination proceed in normal channels. It is that sort of routine, responsible governance that the Dems have to hold out as an alternative to fact-devoid Trumpism on a going forward basis. If they don’t then there is no reason for the citizens to have any faith in either Party.

        It’s a shame that we couldn’t have both Judge Garland and Judge Gorsuch.

      3. I suppose you are right but I am just not in a “turn the other cheek” mode.

        Choosing one’s battles wisely is an art that comes with maturity. Since I am powerless on this one, I am going to just be a child in my own mind.

      4. Steve Thomas


        Thanks Scout…I think. It’s good to know that two logical individuals can approach something from different perspectives and arrive at the same conclusion. You are looking at this from your area of expertise (Judicial) and me from mine (political strategy).

        Sadly, I don’t think the Democrats, as a whole, are interested in approaching this logically, or strategically. While there are a few isolated voices on the Left advocating for a “thinking pause”, most are reacting to Trump from pure emotion. They are trapped in what Clausewitz called a “Kessell”, or John (40 second) Boyd called a “dilemma”. Any action taken will result in being placed in a position of further disadvantage.

      5. And in the end, what you both propose might actually happen. On the other hand, girl can wish, can’t she? I think what was done to Garland was horrible and unethical.

        We shall see.

      6. Scout,
        Check your email. I also don’t think I like what I am hearing about Gorsuch. I read something he wrote about death with dignity. I did not like it. I think I have every right to check out when I want to. He does not.

  2. kelly_3406

    The political shenenigans that surround the confirmation of SCOTUS justices were greatly inflamed by Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden during Reagan’s terms.

    The results of those shenanigans have historically paid off handsomely for the Ds. It resulted in justices who became swing votes rather than reliable originalists that conservatives want. Kennedy immediately comes to mind.

    When the Rs decided to wait until after the election to confirm a SCOTUS nominee, the response was muted, because it was assumed that the coronation of Hillary was a given.

    My bet is that liberals were okay with the delay because they intended to pressure Hillary into naming a liberal rather than Garland. So the delay was actually a huge gamble by the Senate. It was only after Trump won that the narrative of a stolen seat emerged.

    For the first time, the shananigans started by Kennedy and Biden appear to have favored conservatives. The opportunity for a Republican president to name SCOTUS justices is ~99% of the reason that I supported Trump. So far, he has delivered.

    Now let’s hope that Kennedy and Ginsburg retire in the next year or so.

    1. Reagan appointed Kennedy. Can’t blame liberals for that one.

      Liberals AND moderates were outraged over McConnell refuses to hold a hearing for Garland. I don’t know why you seem to think they weren’t. I would go so far to say that what they did was illegal. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the election was stolen, from the time it was announced.

      Merrick Garland was a highly qualified candidate. He was not an ideologue. It’s a shame that the Republicans found the need to cheat and steal to further their cause.

      If what I see in the White House is their cause, I will fight for the rest of my life to see that no more are elected. I have lived many years and I have never seen anything like this. This is becoming NOT my America.

      1. Kelly_3406

        This is becoming NOT my America.

        That already happened for me with Obama. He is the one that made Trump possible.

        Garland was in response to the abuse heaped on Bork and Thomas by the Ds.

      2. Kelly said, “Garland was in response to the abuse heaped on Bork and Thomas by the Ds.”

        Abuse? Bork wasn’t confirmed by the Senate. THIRTY YEARS ago! He was considered an extremist. His rejection was not just from Democrats. Clarence Thomas? That was not “abuse.” He had some real issues. Even recently, he continued to have conflict of interest issues. Both went through a process, which was more than Merrick Garland got.

        If you believe in retribution, which is basically what you are saying, then you should understand and expect the same treatment for how many years into the future?

        In MY America, the president doesn’t suck up and cater to Russians, just for starters. So far the abuses of power are just too numerous to list. I say that as someone who voted for Richard Nixon, just to let you know where I am coming from.

      3. Kelly_3406

        Moon said: “If you believe in retribution, which is basically what you are saying, then you should understand and expect the same treatment for how many years into the future?”

        I did not say that I believe in retribution. My preference would have been for the Senate to have voted on and rejected Garland. His voting record indicates he would very likely have been anti-2nd Amendment, which belies the perception that he was a moderate.

        Moon said: “He was considered an extremist.”

        Anyone that did not think that Roe vs Wade was brilliant jurisprudence was considered to be an extremist at the time.

        Moon said: “Abuse?Bork wasn’t confirmed by the Senate. THIRTY YEARS ago!”

        Both McConnell and Biden were in the Senate during the confirmation hearings of Bork and Thomas. Biden led the charge against both nominees and then was VP of the Administration that put forth Garland. One would have to be naive to think that payback was not part of the calculus.

        I am sure you were very upset about the decision not to give Garland an up-or-down vote, but you live in the D.C. bubble. The only reason that McConnell could get away with it was that there was not that much angst about it outside of D.C.

        Thirty years is not really all that long. But remember, “revenge is a dish best served cold.” I think we all can agree that it was chilled very nicely.

        Moon said: “In MY America, the president doesn’t suck up and cater to Russians, just for starters.”

        Oh what amnesia we have. Your president was caught on tape in 2012 sucking up to Medvedev and Putin. What did it it get him? The Russians invaded the Ukraine and then excluded Obama from the Syrian ceasefire/cessation negotiations.

      4. No president in my lifetime has sucked up to Putin like Trump. FDR didn’t like him either but I suppose he did suck up to him. (not in my lifetime though.)

        Bork was also hated because of the Saturday night massacre. He was definitely a yes man and had been promised a SCOTUS appointment by Nixon which he never fulfilled because he resigned. The AG and his deputy both resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s orders. Not old Bork. He fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor. This act was later judged to be illegal.

        Bork was just wrong for the country.

        Yes, Garland should have been given an up or down vote. Not sure how he was on 2nd Amendment. Maybe he should have been given a chance to explain his feelings. Not sure he was with the pro-choice people 100% either. He still should have been given a hearing.

Comments are closed.