Supreme Court Showdown in the Senate | FRAY 002

The Supreme Court Showdown a Year in the Making

With President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the left and right prepare for a contentious consideration process.

The Facts:

• Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13, 2016, leaving a vacancy on the Court, the third during Barack Obama’s presidency (CNN).
• Majority Leader Mitch McConnell led Senate Republicans in statements that President Obama should not fill the Court’s vacancy due to the proximity of the election. Democrats responded that, with 11 months remaining in Obama’s term, the Senate had a responsibility to hold a hearing on his eventual nominee (Washington Post).
• On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the Supreme Court (NY Times).
• Senate Republicans, along with the front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination, asserted that the citizens should have a say in the nominee by their 2016 vote. Senate Republicans kept their word, refusing a hearing for Judge Garland (NPR, NY Times, Politico).
• Then-candidate Donald Trump released a list of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees on May 18, 2016 and a final list of 21 on Sept. 23, 2016, vowing to choose from those candidates should he be elected (DonaldJTrump.com).
• Following through, on Jan. 31, 2017, President Trump chose Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, for the Supreme Court (White House).
• So far, the reaction has been mostly along party lines, with Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., vowing to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination in line with some Democrats’ perception that the Supreme Court seat was stolen from Barack Obama. McConnell, on the other hand, promised that Gorsuch would be confirmed (The Hill).
• The Senate hearing for Judge Gorsuch has been set for Mar. 20, 2017 (NY Times).

And that’s where we stand today. Now, our opinion writers weigh in.

PROGRESSIVE OPINION

by Alexis Cole

This Supreme Court seat was stolen from Barack Obama. Following Justice Scalia’s death, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a hearing for Obama’s supremely qualified nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. This Republican-led obstruction left the Supreme Court crippled, unable to issue binding decisions as many votes broke 4–4.

Senate Republicans attempted to justify their unprecedented blockade, claiming the people should have a voice in the choice of the justice. Per the Constitution, the people elect a president who, in turn, appoints Supreme Court justices when vacancies arise. The people had a voice when they twice-elected Barack Obama to fulfill the presidential duties, including appointing Supreme Court justices, for four full years. The Senate’s constitutional responsibility, which it abdicated, is to hold a hearing and vote on the nominee.

In response, Democrats should filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. McConnell could invoke the so-called “nuclear option” to allow a filibuster to be broken by 51 votes instead of 60, but McConnell expressed hesitancy to do so; he was unhappy when then-Majority-Leader Harry Reid did the same for other nominations. Democrats should hold their ground and filibuster against any nominee for this stolen seat on principle

Many tout Judge Gorsuch as a “replacement Scalia” who won’t shift the makeup of the Court. However, his jurisprudence indicates that he’d be even more conservative. Most glaringly, Gorsuch does not support the decades-old doctrine of Chevron deference. Under Chevron, when Congress’s drafting of a law is unclear, the Court defers to an agency’s reasonable interpretation. Scalia viewed Chevron as a restraint on activist courts. In addition, Judge Gorsuch has shown animosity toward discrimination claims, workers’ rights, women’s health, and disability rights (to name a few), providing a not-so-pretty picture of his future jurisprudence.

CONSERVATIVE OPINION

by Kevin Hedrick

“A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.”
– Judge Neil Gorsuch

These are profound words when viewed through the lens of modern politics. Countless judges have used their positions to reach for results they prefer, or for power they do not legally wield. These judges have altered the American political landscape and have fractured her people. There are several such examples of judicial tyranny, the ACA ruling being a recent example. See also Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. U.S., and Roe v. Wade.

A foundational principle of government is that it must work as it was designed at its founding. We want judges who rule within the bounds of the Constitution and with original public meaning. We believe that liberty is preserved for everyone when the federal government is kept to its limited powers. For the SCOTUS, this means staying within Article III.

For many, the SCOTUS issue was the single discriminator in voting for President Trump. Judge Gorsuch self-identifies as an originalist and a “textualist” and fits the mold desired by Trump’s supporters. His rulings show that he cares about the separation of powers (e.g. against judicial activism and not deferring to executive agencies through Chevron deference). He has adhered to the principle that lower courts are subject to legal precedent, even when the outcome is unfavorable. He is a human, not a god. His history of measured and thoughtful opinions lead us to believe that he will honor the unique principles of our government and rule admirably.

More to Broaden Your Mind and Widen Your Perspective

To Read:

The U.S. Constitution
You have probably made an argument before based on the constitutionality of an action. It’s a good idea for you to read the document. If it helps, rap it like you’re Hamilton.

To Watch:

13th (Documentary) a film by Ava DuVernay
The director of Selma widens her lens to trace the history of racial injustice in America from slavery to mass incarceration in a succinct and scorching 100 minutes.

To Listen:

Civics 101 by NPR
The civics class you never took. Learn about political processes that you should know about, but might not.

To Do:

Find Your Representative | Find Your Senators
While you’re online, go to these sites, find the phone numbers for your Senators and your Representative in the House, and save them to your phone so next time you want to let them know how you feel, you’ve got their numbers handy.

*Some links in the Broaden Your Mind section may contain affiliate codes.