Gorsuch is a refreshing departure from that trend. He has eagerly and substantively participated in the national debate over some of our most sensitive issues.
Every president and senator has expressed a commitment to placing the best and the brightest on the court, though few seem to agree on the qualitative measures for such nominees. Historically, the record is not encouraging. The actual members of the court have ranged from towering figures to virtual non-entities. To put it bluntly, we have had far more misses than hits among appointees to the court.
Judge Neil Gorsuch’s three days of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee have yielded praise from media and legal observers.
“He has actual charisma he’s able to give off. His intelligence shone through — his good humor at moments but also he knew when to say he is independent from President Trump,” The New York Times’ Patrick Healy told CNN.
The Washington Post said Gorsuch was the “picture of a cool, calm, self-assured justice.”
NBC’s Mark Halperin said, “The staff that’s handling him and that helped prepare him did a very good job just as the pick was a very good pick politically and substantively. … Gorsuch is doing so well, in part, because he’s so well prepared.”
Maybe he’ll clear the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, attracting sufficient support from Democrats — particularly those from states that President Trump won. Or maybe skeptics will hold the line and force Republicans to change longstanding Senate rules to elevate Judge Gorsuch on a simple majority vote.
But this much is clear: Nothing that’s happened this week has made much of a difference. Three days of hearings marked by attacks and deflections have left the Senate Judiciary Committee more or less where it started. If the Republicans’ goal was to persuade Democrats of a moral imperative to join them in support, they fell short. (In some cases, the nominee’s sparring with Democrats may have pushed some further away.)
No Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.