‘Disheartening’? Some liberals warm up to Trump Supreme Court pick.

When Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch said he found attacks on the independence of the judiciary 'disheartening,' many liberals took note. 

Alex Brandon/AP
Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch (left) listens as Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia answers a reporter's question during their meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Feb. 1.

When Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch chose the words “disheartening” and “demoralizing” to describe attacks on the integrity of the federal judiciary this week, many took them to be a cautious but not-so-subtle message to Senate Democrats.

Navigating the nor’easters of Washington’s confirmation process means winning over at least eight Democrats. And with those two words, Judge Gorsuch appeared to be distancing himself from President Trump, carefully asserting his own independence and demonstrating a willingness to stand up to the man who nominated him.

Yet even before the saga over the meaning and original intent of the nominee’s words began to unfold on Thursday – with President Trump arguing that the media was misinterpreting his words – many liberals were already making this case for the deeply conservative jurist, calling Mr. Trump’s nominee one of the most independent-minded judges in the country.

It is a difficult pivot for many Democrats to make. Republican senators’ refusal even to schedule a hearing for President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, last year still rankles. But some are wondering how far to take the fight when Gorsuch, in some ways, presents a relatively attractive conservative option.

“Of all the judges President Trump could have nominated, Gorsuch seems to me as good as anybody, liberal or conservative, who would stand up to unlawful actions by the Trump administration, if need be,” says Daniel Epps, a professor at Washington University Law School in St. Louis, who puts himself on the liberal side of jurisprudence.

“He’s someone who seems to believe in a fairly robust role for the judicial branch in checking the legality of the actions of the other branches,” adds Professor Epps, who, like Gorsuch, once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. “So there’s reason for optimism, I think, in that he’s not going to just be a reflexive vote for conservative opinions in every case.”

Hints of independence

Like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he will take if confirmed, Gorsuch has often ruled in favor of criminal defendants over the government – rulings not uncommon for strict “textualists” and their razor-close readings of the statutory texts.

And unlike many other federal judges, Gorsuch has been a fierce critic of the so-called Chevron doctrine, which holds that judges should generally defer to the executive branch and its agencies when they have any reasonable interpretation of federal statutes.

“That basically gives people comfort that didn't have comfort,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, the conservative Democrat from West Virginia after meeting Gorsuch. “That has helped him” in his quest for confirmation, he said.

Yet Gorsuch has come to Washington at a rancorous political moment and will face vehement Democratic opposition.   

“Certainly, the base of the Democratic party is saying, ‘You absolutely must stand strong against Trump’s nominees, even if you don’t have the numbers,’ ” says F. Michael Higginbotham, the Joseph Curtis Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. “What kind of message does it send to the Republicans, and to the country, if there are then no political consequences, if you believe what the Republicans did to Judge Garland was wrong? And you’re not willing to stand up to that?”

Indeed, many Democratic senators believe the Supreme Court seat was stolen last year, when Senate Republicans refused to even hold a hearing for Judge Garland for 293 days.

“There’s no doubt that Judge Gorsuch is well qualified and a person of integrity,” says David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law in Philadelphia. “But my own personal view is that liberal Democrats who think that’s good enough for him to get a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court are basically rolling over and playing dead in a game in which Republicans are playing in a very dirty way.”  

Or, as Dahlia Lithwick, a senior editor at Slate put it recently, it would be like “holding out a cupcake at a knife fight.”

For them, the perfect scenario would be Democrats blocking Gorsuch’s nomination, forcing Trump to come back with a more moderate nominee – like Garland.   

More battles ahead?

It’s an unlikely gamble, and one with profound risks, however, many experts say.

Republicans could nix the cloture rule, the basis for the filibuster and the 60-vote threshold to hold a vote, allowing Gorsuch to join the high court with only 50 votes. That could fundamentally undermine the Senate’s larger role as a body that demands bipartisan compromise.

Moreover, looking ahead to possible Supreme Court retirements, Trump could easily appoint a much more hard-line conservative, leaving the Supreme Court with a five- to six-seat majority that could last a generation. That is a more important battle, some say.

“This is part of the strategic calculus that makes me think this is such hard question,” says Epps at Washington University. “On the one hand, Senate Democrats can say, ‘What McConnell did with Garland was just ridiculous.’ But you’ve got to be thinking ahead to the next battle. And, yeah, in a world in which the filibuster has been nuked, then maybe it will be a lot easier for Republicans to fill any vacancy with whoever they want.”

Gorsuch is facing a perilous moment in his confirmation. Trump this week lashed out against the judicial branch, demeaning the district court judge who first blocked his travel ban, calling him a “so-called judge” and his opinion “ridiculous.”

Then the president lashed out against the Ninth Circuit court panel hearing his emergency appeal, calling its proceedings “disgraceful” – even before it ruled 3-to-0 on Thursday to continue to block his order.

The White House insisted on Thursday that Gorsuch’s words, “disheartening and demoralizing,” were not referring to the president’s outburst, even though at least two senators and a White House official said they were.  

One of the senators, Nebraska Republican Ben Sasse, even said the nominee “got pretty passionate” about Trump’s attack of the judiciary.

"People all across the political spectrum should love the fact that he's going to be a warrior for a constitutional system of executive restraint and limits," Senator Sasse said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to ‘Disheartening’? Some liberals warm up to Trump Supreme Court pick.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today