Sen. Claire McCaskill is in a tough position; I understand that. The left’s vitriol against President Trump is irrational, and so there is no argument that can persuade them to admit that he might do something good.
In the case of the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, their fake outrage is laughable. Even before President Trump had made his pick, they were protesting at the Supreme Court with signs printed with “Stop” on the top and a blank space where they could write the name of whomever the president nominated – never mind the qualifications of a nominee.
With the same intellectual dishonesty, they are threatening Sen. McCaskill and other senators up for re-election, demanding they, too, act irrationally and oppose Gorsuch, no matter the evidence before them.
I sincerely hope Sen. McCaskill understands that this is exactly what Missourians hate most: the irrational partisanship that is the cause of the never-ending gridlock in Washington. Try as you may, there is simply no rational reason to oppose Judge Gorsuch.
Longtime Democratic lawyer who served in the Clinton Justice Department David Frederick wrote just that for theWashington Post recently. He said there is “no principled reason” to vote against Gorsuch. Frederick admits he will disagree with some of Gorsuch’s opinions, but he knows he has an impeccable record, and he cannot be opposed as a nominee just based on that. He concluded saying, “[M]y hope is to have justices on the bench such as Gorsuch and Garland who approach cases with fairness and intellectual rigor, and who care about precedent and the limits of their roles as judges.”
Those who are bent on opposing Gorsuch were bent on opposing him before they knew who he was. His record is not what they are challenging. It’s not that they haven’t tried. Some have actually tried to paint him as outside the mainstream. It’s just that they have failed miserably.
Just last week, the left-leaning American Bar Association gave Gorsuch its highest rating: unanimous well qualified.
In a recent letter of support, more than 50 of his classmates at Harvard Law School, spanning the political spectrum, expressed their unwavering support for Judge Gorsuch. They wrote:
We are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and independents; progressives, conservatives and moderates; religious and non-observant; married, single and divorced; men and women; straight and gay. … What unites us is that we attended law school with Judge Neil Gorsuch … and we unanimously believe Neil possesses the exemplary character, outstanding intellect, steady temperament, humility and open-mindedness to be an excellent addition to the United States Supreme Court.
In another letter supporting his nomination, more than 150 of his Columbia classmates sung his praises. This was also an incredibly diverse group ideologically, but they stood “united in [their] belief that [Gorsuch] would serve our country with honor and distinction on the Supreme Court.”
Those are the facts. And we know they are true, because we can see that same bi-partisan support in the U.S. Senate records. In 2006, Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (the second highest court in the land) was approved by a unanimous voice vote. That means that not a single Democratic senator objected to any aspect of the life and record of Judge Gorsuch.
Among those present at the time supporting Judge Gorsuch: then-senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, and current senators Chuck Schumer, Ron Wyden, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Patty Murray, and Dick Durbin.
So, there is just no credibility to the left’s arguments against Gorsuch today. Supporting this nominee is as noncontroversial as any other vote in the Senate. And Sen. McCaskill should not give in to the faux pressure from those intent on opposing anything even remotely related to President Trump, just because, you know, Trump.
