"Anything less than a complete and utter rejection of Trump's Cabinet appointees and of their Supreme Court appointees is absolutely unacceptable." (Photo: Elvert Barnes/flickr/cc)
Feb 01, 2017
Senate Democrats say they are preparing to filibuster President Donald Trump's pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court--federal judge Neil Gorsuch--and Trump's opponents are ready to hold them to it.
Gorsuch, a Colorado federal appeals court judge known for opposing reproductive rights--specifically in the Hobby Lobby case that protected religious freedom above women's healthcare--and supporting the death penalty, "represents a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have fundamental Constitutional rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pledged to oppose him.
"If you breathe air, drink water or eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision--well outside the mainstream of American legal thought," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, another Oregon Democrat, promised the same, saying ahead of the announcement Tuesday, "This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat," referring to Senate Republicans' successful obstruction of former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
As Lucia Graves wrote at the Guardian, Democrats now have the chance to "return the favor by pushing Republicans to the legal limit, including making Republicans eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations."
Graves writes:
Gorsuch's record is surely as objectionable to any good Democrat as Scalia's textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution ever was. But in fighting Gorsuch, Democrats have a chance to highlight more than that.
They have a chance to shed light on the fact that not only have Republicans successfully used gerrymandering and voter ID laws to skew electoral outcomes in their favor--they've also used every partisan trick in the book to get one more of their own in on the court that's supposed to stand above partisan warfare.
Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, likewise toldVox in an interview, "As long as the president is in flagrant disregard for the basic underpinnings of our republic, it is no time to consider a Supreme Court nominee. The next election is a while away, but what Senate Democrats do here and over the next few months will be seared into the memory of every Democratic voter."
In the lead-up to Trump's announcement, many described Gorsuch as the nominee most likely to follow in Scalia's legislative footsteps.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned in a statement Tuesday night that "Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent justice on the court."
"The Senate must insist upon 60 votes for any supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees," Schumer said. There are 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and two left-leaning Independents currently in the chamber.
Trump has instructed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to invoke the "nuclear option" that eliminates the filibuster as a tool to block Supreme Court nominees if Democrats launch a formidable resistance; while McConnell has stopped short of agreeing, he has suggested that Democrats seek less than the full 60 votes.
"But Schumer is right to require them," Graves continued, "and what's more, his fellow Democrats should hold the line."
The notion "that Democrats should hold their fire in case Trump has the opportunity to fill another, more pivotal, seat down the road is naive given recent history," Graves wrote. "It's not an inconceivable or even unlikely scenario that Trump will have such an opportunity. But Democrats would be fools to stand down now in hopes that Republicans, admiring their magnanimity and bipartisan spirit would somehow reward them at some unspecified future date."
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, added to Vox, "We want to see our leaders in Congress standing up as strongly to the Trump administration as we are in the streets and in airports across the country. Anything less than a complete and utter rejection of Trump's Cabinet appointees and of their Supreme Court appointees is absolutely unacceptable."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
aclubarack obamachuck schumerdeath penaltydemocratic partyneil gorsuchpeople powerrepublican partytrump resistancetrumpismus senateus supreme courtwater
Senate Democrats say they are preparing to filibuster President Donald Trump's pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court--federal judge Neil Gorsuch--and Trump's opponents are ready to hold them to it.
Gorsuch, a Colorado federal appeals court judge known for opposing reproductive rights--specifically in the Hobby Lobby case that protected religious freedom above women's healthcare--and supporting the death penalty, "represents a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have fundamental Constitutional rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pledged to oppose him.
"If you breathe air, drink water or eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision--well outside the mainstream of American legal thought," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, another Oregon Democrat, promised the same, saying ahead of the announcement Tuesday, "This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat," referring to Senate Republicans' successful obstruction of former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
As Lucia Graves wrote at the Guardian, Democrats now have the chance to "return the favor by pushing Republicans to the legal limit, including making Republicans eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations."
Graves writes:
Gorsuch's record is surely as objectionable to any good Democrat as Scalia's textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution ever was. But in fighting Gorsuch, Democrats have a chance to highlight more than that.
They have a chance to shed light on the fact that not only have Republicans successfully used gerrymandering and voter ID laws to skew electoral outcomes in their favor--they've also used every partisan trick in the book to get one more of their own in on the court that's supposed to stand above partisan warfare.
Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, likewise toldVox in an interview, "As long as the president is in flagrant disregard for the basic underpinnings of our republic, it is no time to consider a Supreme Court nominee. The next election is a while away, but what Senate Democrats do here and over the next few months will be seared into the memory of every Democratic voter."
In the lead-up to Trump's announcement, many described Gorsuch as the nominee most likely to follow in Scalia's legislative footsteps.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned in a statement Tuesday night that "Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent justice on the court."
"The Senate must insist upon 60 votes for any supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees," Schumer said. There are 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and two left-leaning Independents currently in the chamber.
Trump has instructed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to invoke the "nuclear option" that eliminates the filibuster as a tool to block Supreme Court nominees if Democrats launch a formidable resistance; while McConnell has stopped short of agreeing, he has suggested that Democrats seek less than the full 60 votes.
"But Schumer is right to require them," Graves continued, "and what's more, his fellow Democrats should hold the line."
The notion "that Democrats should hold their fire in case Trump has the opportunity to fill another, more pivotal, seat down the road is naive given recent history," Graves wrote. "It's not an inconceivable or even unlikely scenario that Trump will have such an opportunity. But Democrats would be fools to stand down now in hopes that Republicans, admiring their magnanimity and bipartisan spirit would somehow reward them at some unspecified future date."
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, added to Vox, "We want to see our leaders in Congress standing up as strongly to the Trump administration as we are in the streets and in airports across the country. Anything less than a complete and utter rejection of Trump's Cabinet appointees and of their Supreme Court appointees is absolutely unacceptable."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
Senate Democrats say they are preparing to filibuster President Donald Trump's pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court--federal judge Neil Gorsuch--and Trump's opponents are ready to hold them to it.
Gorsuch, a Colorado federal appeals court judge known for opposing reproductive rights--specifically in the Hobby Lobby case that protected religious freedom above women's healthcare--and supporting the death penalty, "represents a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have fundamental Constitutional rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pledged to oppose him.
"If you breathe air, drink water or eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision--well outside the mainstream of American legal thought," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, another Oregon Democrat, promised the same, saying ahead of the announcement Tuesday, "This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat," referring to Senate Republicans' successful obstruction of former President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
As Lucia Graves wrote at the Guardian, Democrats now have the chance to "return the favor by pushing Republicans to the legal limit, including making Republicans eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations."
Graves writes:
Gorsuch's record is surely as objectionable to any good Democrat as Scalia's textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution ever was. But in fighting Gorsuch, Democrats have a chance to highlight more than that.
They have a chance to shed light on the fact that not only have Republicans successfully used gerrymandering and voter ID laws to skew electoral outcomes in their favor--they've also used every partisan trick in the book to get one more of their own in on the court that's supposed to stand above partisan warfare.
Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, likewise toldVox in an interview, "As long as the president is in flagrant disregard for the basic underpinnings of our republic, it is no time to consider a Supreme Court nominee. The next election is a while away, but what Senate Democrats do here and over the next few months will be seared into the memory of every Democratic voter."
In the lead-up to Trump's announcement, many described Gorsuch as the nominee most likely to follow in Scalia's legislative footsteps.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned in a statement Tuesday night that "Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent justice on the court."
"The Senate must insist upon 60 votes for any supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees," Schumer said. There are 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and two left-leaning Independents currently in the chamber.
Trump has instructed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to invoke the "nuclear option" that eliminates the filibuster as a tool to block Supreme Court nominees if Democrats launch a formidable resistance; while McConnell has stopped short of agreeing, he has suggested that Democrats seek less than the full 60 votes.
"But Schumer is right to require them," Graves continued, "and what's more, his fellow Democrats should hold the line."
The notion "that Democrats should hold their fire in case Trump has the opportunity to fill another, more pivotal, seat down the road is naive given recent history," Graves wrote. "It's not an inconceivable or even unlikely scenario that Trump will have such an opportunity. But Democrats would be fools to stand down now in hopes that Republicans, admiring their magnanimity and bipartisan spirit would somehow reward them at some unspecified future date."
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, added to Vox, "We want to see our leaders in Congress standing up as strongly to the Trump administration as we are in the streets and in airports across the country. Anything less than a complete and utter rejection of Trump's Cabinet appointees and of their Supreme Court appointees is absolutely unacceptable."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.