Look, Judge Neil Gorsuch seems like a lovely person. I would gladly let him be the spokesman for my travel website. He possesses a sharp jurist’s mind (framing the sentence that way sounds as if he has it in a jar somewhere, but I do not mean that he has it in a jar), and those who know him seem to like him. He has a groovy last name that I am stunned does not appear anywhere in the Harry Potter series as the name of a winged creature that lives in a cave. He says that a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is not a good judge, and if he is willing to subject himself to the constant misery of making decisions he does not like, I will not stand in his way.
But how can we in good conscience allow the appointment of a new justice to the nation’s highest court when we have not yet had the results of a democratic election?
“I believe that awaiting the result of a democratic election, rather than having a nomination fight in this partisan election-year environment, will give the nominee more legitimacy and better preserve the Court’s credibility as an institution,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), once, and I agree with him.
We should nominate someone once we have the results of a democratic election, and not a second before. President Trump of all people should be fighting to stop this immoral process. As he keeps reminding us with his accounts of millions upon millions of fraudulent votes cast, this was apparently no democratic election. How can one possibly proceed?
It is important to stand on principle regardless of the merits of the nominee, which may well be substantial.
Besides, we are still in the throes of a campaign. In fact, Trump has already gathered enough funds to begin his 2020 reelection bid — more than $7 million. The fundraising has begun. The sloganing has begun. He has sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission and everything.
In such a harshly partisan election environment, we cannot possibly proceed.
It is a simple matter of principle. Without the results of a democratic election blowing their strong wind at our back, it would be a great disservice to the Supreme Court, as an institution, for the current president to nominate anyone whom the people may not want and who may, indeed, not represent a majority of voters’ beliefs at all. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) once famously observed, “our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.”
“This has never been about who the nominee is,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement, long ago. “It is about a basic principle. Under our Constitution, the president has every right to make this nomination, and the Senate has every right not to confirm a nominee.”