Neil Gorsuch is no Robert Bork—to the great chagrin of the Senate Democrats who are trying to block his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thirty years ago, Senate Democrats derailed Bork’s nomination, claiming the judge’s judicial philosophy of “judicial restraint” was well beyond the mainstream. Today, Democrats are looking for any reason at all to oppose the 10th U.S. Circuit Court judge’s nomination to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat.
True, many of our progressives are still bellyaching over Merrick Garland, the D.C. Circuit judge who had the misfortune of being named to the high court in the final year of a lame-duck presidency. That’s politics, friends. The Constitution says the Senate may “advise and consent,” not simply “nod and approve.”
Apart from the sour grapes over Garland, the case against confirming Gorsuch seems to boil down to a sharp difference of opinion about what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.
The best that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee could do is accuse Gorsuch of being a constitutional “originalist.”
Well, yes. Yes, he is. So what?
California’s own senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, illustrated brilliantly this week why the “charge” of originalism is hardly a condemnation, and certainly not a reason to keep Gorsuch off the court.