I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.
That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.
I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.
I agree with this. The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court. McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it. Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term. That is shameful. But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is. Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied. That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric. Bernie had was a natural in that. The Democrats need other naturals.
Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad: I actually disagree.
I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance. Showing the opposition for what they are? There is plenty that has been shown already. Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.
I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful. But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.
The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform. If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.
The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check. On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window. Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.
Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done. It's how democracy works.
You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.
That's the ONLY way democracy can work. If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down. But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.
There is no other way this story ends.
Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run. But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.
Mike -- I tend to generally agree with your sentiments. My initial reaction to the Trump victory was that power shifts more quickly than people think -- Congressional campaigns will be in full bloom in about 18 months and this mid-term has a chance to be a powerful referendum on Trump's first 2 years in office. Trump earned his term fair and square and has every right to steer the country in his chosen direction(s). The difference with Trump, which has become a fear for some and perhaps a curiosity for others, is his sanity. Is his narcissism an act/game, evidence of inner strength, or evidence of a delusional and fragile character disorder? If it is the latter, which I am not sure it isn't, the fragility behind the narcissism should scare everyone. That is because in order to protect a fragile core, a narcissist can become quite desperate in efforts to sustain the ego and rationalize one's grandeur. The fall from narcissism, when it occurs, is also precipitous.
So my hope as an American is that the behavioral evidence of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder is actually a conscious fašade, and a tactic of leadership fostered to instill confidence and promote "followship". This explanation wouldn't make me like him much better, but would at least mitigate my worry that we've elected a mentally unstable man.
Among my biggest worries is his selection of Bannon as his chief strategist and advisor, and Bannon's quick rise in power within the administration and within the national security construct. Bannon is just the type of brilliant manipulator who could take a narcissist, continually feed the narcissism, and coax the implementation of a democratically disruptive, nationalist, extremist agenda -- which Bannon unabashedly identifies with .
I am not worried enough yet to be among (or even all that supportive of) the protestors. I despised the republican obstruction and I am not in favor of blind obstruction and protest. Mitch McConnell is not a role model. But, with each seemingly uninformed, or impulsive, or grandiose-sounding decision, I get just a little more worried about this POTUS. Which makes this power cycle a little different (possibly) than previous cycles.