Gorsuch and SCOTUS - Take Two

I've been thinking a lot about Gorsuch since my first post on the issue.  In that time, my views have somewhat changed.  And by "somewhat", I mean "very radically".

My initial opinion of Gorsuch and his nomination rested on the assumption that our system of government is still, in principle, hearty and hale.  It may not be perfect, but it functions well enough that we can continue to work within it and maintain or increase the progress we have made towards true equity in our society.  However, since Gorsuch's nomination, the world has continued to turn.  Nominations have been made and confirmed.  I have watched the system begin its slow regression toward a time of open hostility towards any folk considered different, other, not from around here.

In short, I now see the first tiny flames licking at the base of our democracy.  And I am no longer inclined to fight them.  This may be a transitionary phase, a mere vehicle for getting me from my initial post to some final conclusion on the state of our country that is less filled with flame and more buoyed by hope.  But in the meantime, my stance is now decidedly one of destruction.

"When they go low, we go high."  I've tried to use that as my rallying cry, but I just can't do it any longer.  The satisfaction of holding the moral high ground doesn't help when all you can do is watch the world burn from your rosy vantage point.  While I try to be happy with holding to the morals of modern democracy - morals of civility, calm, and equity - I watch as those same morals are trampled into dust by people who don't give a flying fuck about any of that shit.  Civility?  Why bother when it serves as nothing more than a soundbite?  Calm?  Nobody watches the news if things aren't burning down.  Equity?  Not if it means giving up the opportunity for folks already in the catbird seat to get just a little bit more.

This is the atmosphere in which I shout about kindness, and evenhandedness.  But nobody hears, or if they do they just don't care.  What does this have to do with Gorsuch?  My initial position on his nomination was that we should go back to the way things were.  We should treat him like any other nominee.  We shouldn't be the harm that we raged against in the system.  But where has that gotten us?  It has gotten us on the bottom of a very rotten pile, and digging ourselves out is not guaranteed.

Filibuster Gorsuch.  Refuse to meet with him.  Stall the vote in every way possible.  When he does come up for a vote, hold a sit-in.  Vote no and publicly comment on the crap that was done to make him the nominee.  Will it actually get us anything?  Probably not.  But why bother maintaining the illusion of democracy when there's nothing behind it?

The system has failed.  It may be broken, irreparably so.  How do we fix it?  Not sure.  I'm not there yet.  But in the meantime, I'm happy to watch it burn.

Gorsuch and SCOTUS

I typed this out on Facebook this morning, but wanted to present and preserve it in another medium that is more easily accessible after the fact.  Last night, a second candidate was nominated to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States created when Justice Antonin Scalia died.  Here are my thoughts on that nomination.

I feel so very, very torn about this. On the one hand, Gorsuch is qualified for the position. He is, in terms of his view on legal interpretation, a good choice as a successor to Scalia. Given some of the other nominations that have come from the fledgling Presidential administration, this is a surprisingly good one. Do I agree with Gorsuch on his interpretations of things? Not all of them. Not by a long shot. But is he qualified? Yes. Without a doubt, he is qualified. Would he do a good job? I haven't looked into him too much, but what I've seen has shown me that yes, I think he would work well as a Justice. Do I want him to be appointed? There's the sticky part. It should have been Garland going through this process. Scalia's vacancy should be well on its way to filled by now. Instead, vicious obstructionist party tactics kept it open, despite a lawful nomination by a duly elected sitting president. So do I want him nominated? No. No, I don't. But it's for petty reasons. I can't have what I really want (Garland), so I'm inclined to deny the option that has been presented.

But where does that lead us? Can we then only fill a SCOTUS vacancy when there are enough similarly-affiliated folks to shove through a confirmation along party lines? Do we explicitly politicize the Court? There was always a political aspect to the process of nominating and approving a Justice, but not like this. Not a complete denial to even speak with the nominee. But what good does it do to respond to stupidity and disruption with more stupidity and disruption? Where will it end?

Do I like Gorsuch as a nominee? No. Will I like the types of decisions and interpretations he will make? Likely not. So what should we do?

Grill the ever-loving crap out of him during the confirmation. Make him give as many commitments as you can wring from a lawyer that he will follow and uphold the rule of law. I haven't seen anything that says he won't, but make him promise to do it. Then make him promise again. Make him do it publicly and repeatedly and then hold his feet to that damn fire for the rest of his life (or until he retires).

If he's confirmed, I'm going to deal with him as a Justice the same way I dealt with Scalia - viscerally disagreeing with the foundations and conclusions of a lot of his work, but nevertheless in awe of the artistry he uses to get from A to B. But I don't know that I'll ever get over what could have been, and what I see as the theft of a proper nomination in the name of violent partisanship.