Letter: Garland and Gorsuch
What the GOP Senate did to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland was shameful and should be against the law. When there is an opening on the court, the president should nominate a replacement ASAP and the Senate should have confirmation hearings post haste.
I’m not sure Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch is all bad. He says he is a conservationist, but when the case is conservation versus big money, we’ll see. It is reported Gorsuch is “skeptical about law enforcement.” I’m not sure what that means. If it means a crackdown on police assaults on innocent and unarmed black people, I’m all for it. I do disagree with Gorsuch on most issues, especially his inclination to impose his religious beliefs on those who may have different beliefs.
None of this is really pertinent, anyway. Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices should focus on qualifications, not politics, left or right. Robert Bork was the most eminently qualified jurist of his day. The variety of benches he sat on and the cases he ruled on, put him at the top of the list, but his politics were somewhere to the right of Adolf Hitler, so the Democratic Senate did not confirm. It should have. Gorsuch is thoroughly qualified, as is Garland.
If the Democrats are going to stall Gorsuch’s confirmation out of revenge for what happened to Garland, that is pointless. Tit for tat and an eye for an eye have no place in government or the criminal justice system. I also believe filibustering should be against the law. Just because it serves your purpose, doesn’t make it right.
Let’s get a full nine members on the court and hope the litigators can talk some sense into them.
Fred Malo Jr.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.