I know I should not blame Trump for this since he had to do what he believed to be right which is to name a conservative like Scalia to Scalia’s vacant seat on the Supreme Court. But having done he’s brought back to light the friend of Alan Epstein the sexual abuser of little girls, the little professor (little P) , accused himself by one young girl to be a dirty little old man. To think he was assaulting the impeccable reputation of Bill Bulger while he was getting massages at Alan Epstein house of horror.
So Little P is back without shame even though he should be off hiding somewhere thanking his lucky stars he is still on the street. He wrote about Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch. He says that Gorsuch should be asked if he thought the treatment of Merrick Garland by the Senate was “constitutionally and properly” in not putting Garland up for a vote.
He didn’t tell us what the Constitution said about appointments so let me. It reads: ” [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court, . . . “
It has nothing to do with proper. It is simple that without the consent of the senate the president cannot appoint a judge to the Court. Little P imputes into that the idea that the Senate has to vote on the appointment. It doesn’t. It can ignore it as it did. That is consistent with its constitutional obligation.
He went on to suggest there was no reason not to vote for Gorsuch stating he was in the mainstream. He belongs to “part of a growing school of constitutional scholarship, as represented by the Federalist Society.” He noted his appointment “is unlikely to tip that balance” of the Supreme Court. He warns though that: “The next vacancy, if it were of a liberal seat, might well change the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in a way that denied fundamental rights to the most vulnerable Americans. If the nominee to fill that vacancy would dramatically shift the current balance, an ideological confirmation battle might well be justified — and would likely occur.”
In other words Gorsuch won’t do anything other than Scalia would have done but if a liberal judge steps down or dies and Trump tries to appoint a conservative that might deny “fundamental rights to the most vulnerable Americans.” Which, of course, is nonsense.
He then tells a story of how President Hoover was thinking of making an appointment to the Supreme Court and was hesitant to appoint Benjamin Cardoza because he was from New York and Jewish. There was one Jewish judge on the court at the time. A senator told Hoover: “the question of race is unfit to advise you concerning so important a matter.” Cardoza was nominated and appointed. The little professor said: “there is much to be said for the approach taken by President Hoover and Senator Borah.”
I disagree with him on that. I think the appointments have to consider other factors than mere legal scholarship since there is no one brilliant person who must be nominated. Many men and women are eminently qualified for that position and the balance of race and religion on the Court is important. It now has five Catholics and three Jews; to appoint another from that group would be a disservice. I was pleased to see Gorsuch is from neither group.
I expect that Gorsuch’s actions as a freshman in high school in having founded the Fascism Forever Club will be raised at his nomination hearing. One reason I never wanted a judicial position is that I did not want anyone going back through my high school days. It would not be pretty. No one should have to account for actions back then unless they resulted in criminal charges.
I’m happy with Trump’s appointment. I would not vote for Hillary because I did not want a liberal into Scalia’s seat. That would have brought drastic changes to America. I prefer judges who are not activists and feel bound by precedent and not their feelings.
I read that the last time Gorsuch was before the Senate was in 2006 and he was confirmed unanimously to the Court of Appeals. Nothing has changed since then other than he has become wiser.
Little P wrote: “It is tragic that the constitutional process for nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices has become so politicized.” It is interesting to see how it developed in the votes. Thomas is an outlier because he was a black conservative and black appointments were supposed to be liberal and Ted Kennedy was acting up about pubic hairs.
Anthony Kennedy (1988) 97 – 0; Clarence Thomas (1991) 52 – 48; Ruth Ginsburg (1993) 96 – 3; Stephen Breyer (1994) 87 – 9; John Roberts (2005) 78 – 32; Samuel Alito (2006) 58 – 42; Sonia Sotomayor (2009) 68 – 31; Elena Kagan (2010) 63 – 37. The last four had significant opposition from the other side. I have to say that is how it will be for the near future considering each major party is slipping to its extreme edges.
As far as Gorsuch, as I said there is nonesuch as him and even so he will be lucky if he squeaks by.