Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    NY Times Editorial Board Emits Primal Scream Over Neil Gorsuch

    NY Times Editorial Board Emits Primal Scream Over Neil Gorsuch

    Still bitching and moaning over the “theft” of Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat.

    For the Editorial Board of the NY Times, these are not the best of times, but the worst of times.

    But more than anything, for the Times Editorial Board, it is the age of foolishness and the season of Darkness. [h/t Charles Dickens] Trump *literally* has driven them insane.

    The Editorial blaming Sarah Palin for the Gabby Giffords shooting was pure emotion spewing forth, a guttural lashing out, a primal scream. It also was blatantly and knowingly false.

    If the Editorial about Palin was infuriating, the Times has an Editorial about Neil Gorsuch that will bring a smile to you, from ear to ear. A smile, that is, if you enjoy watching the Times Editorial Board suffer.

    On July 1, 2017, the Editorial Board lamented Trump’s greatest success to date, Justice Gorsuch Delivers:

    Justice Gorsuch, who was confirmed less than three months ago, has already staked his claim as one of the most conservative members of the court.

    So far, so good, but that’s not the primal scream. Here’s the primal scream (emphasis added):

    … [H]owever many setbacks [Mitch McConnell] might suffer over health care reform or other parts of the Republican agenda, he knows he has already won the biggest fight of all: the theft of a Supreme Court seat from President Obama, the installation of Justice Neil Gorsuch and the preservation of the court’s conservative majority for years to come.

    The problem isn’t so much Justice Gorsuch’s judicial ideology, which is so far unsurprising. Presidents choose justices who they believe will rule in a way that aligns with their own views, and right-wing groups had long ago flagged Justice Gorsuch as a reliable conservative. He would surely have been a top choice of many Republican presidents. The problem is that he’s sitting in the seat that by rights should be occupied by Judge Garland. Had Mr. Garland been confirmed, the court would have had a majority of Democratic-appointed justices for the first time in almost half a century….

    Mr. Trump will be out of power by 2025 at the latest. But thanks to Mr. McConnell, Justice Gorsuch, and whoever else might join him in the next couple of years, will entrench a solid conservative majority on the court for far longer.

    Let’s unpack that, or as progressive professors like to say, let’s deconstruct that.

    Nothing was stolen from anyone. Republicans controlled the Senate. They had the power and the right to stall a nomination, just like Democrats had done in the past. Because Republicans controlled the Senate, they didn’t need to “filibuster” a Supreme Court nominee the way Democrats just tried with Gorsuch. Regardless of whether Garland was going to get a hearing or a vote, Democrats didn’t have the votes to get him confirmed. Because elections have consequences, and Republicans took back the Senate in the  2014 elections.

    Jay Caruso at Redstate notes this disconnect in Times Editorial Board logic:

    What’s particularly galling here is the language. It’s as if the Times editorial board gave way to interns from Daily Kos and Think Progress to write this column after the board signed off on it.

    “Theft.” “Installation.”

    Hold it right there, Jay. How do you know the Times didn’t “give way to interns from Daily Kos and Think Progress to write this column”? They are so short staffed at theTimes, staffers are walking picket lines chanting “no editors, no peace.”

    Caruso continues:

    They’re behaving as though Garland was confirmed, went to sit down and Mitch McConnell shouting, “Neener, neener!” pulled the chair back and pushed Neil Gorsuch into the seat. McConnell then cackled as Garland fell embarrassingly to the floor, left to sit there, broken and stunned with the “stolen” seat now occupied by the Gorsuch The Usurper….

    It’s fair to argue Garland should have received at least a hearing. But the votes were not there, and President Obama knew this….

    That’s how it works. Elections do have consequences, and President Obama nominated and had confirmed, two of his Supreme Court nominees. When his party lost control of the Senate in 2014, it came with the knowledge he’d have difficulty getting his agenda through the legislative branch. Following the death of Justice Scalia, Mitch McConnell made clear a fight over a Supreme Court justice was not going to take place in a presidential election year.

    President Obama thought McConnell was bluffing. He was wrong.

    Caruso put it more succinctly on Twitter: “It’s almost as of the Times editorial board doesn’t know how things work in the Senate.”

    The Times Editorial Board certainly does know how the Senate works.

    They just are very, very angry people right now. And primal screaming seems to be their preferred method of communication.

    [Featured Image: Hon. Neil Gorsuch Investiture Ceremony]

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     13
    JimMtnViewCaUSA | July 3, 2017 at 3:54 am

    “the “theft” of Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat”

    Is this like when Scott Brown “stole” Sen Ted Kennedy’s seat in the US Senate?
    Who knew these things were privately owned!


     
     0 
     
     4
    MadisonS | July 3, 2017 at 4:04 am

    From above:

    …Presidents choose justices who they believe will rule in a way that aligns with their own views …

    Eisenhower said of his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as being the worst mistake he ever made. Ike chose Warren for his conservative politics, but once on the bench he became a liberal Chief Justice.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Milhouse | July 3, 2017 at 4:34 am

    Actually there is a hypothesis that could explain this editorial’s strange claim. Rather than assume the NYT editors have gone literally insane, let me suggest what may be going on in their minds that makes them think the seat should rightfully be Garland’s.

    It’s quite simple, really: Suppose they assume, for whatever reason, that had McConnell allowed Garland’s nomination to come to a vote he would have got enough Republican votes to be confirmed. In other words, suppose a majority of senators actually supported the nomination, and would have consented to it had they been given the chance. But the majority of the majority, by exercising its right to control the senate’s agenda, denied their colleagues that opportunity, and thus “stole” the seat.

    Given that supposition, the editors’ claim doesn’t sound insane. The fault is not in their ability to reason from a premise, it’s merely in picking the wrong premise to reason from. Their supposition, if indeed I’m correct in divining it, is not known to be true, it’s not solidly derived from known facts, it’s just wild speculation, unfounded guesswork. Sure, it’s possible, but there’s no reason to suppose it to be true. Many things are possible, but most of them are not true. Congress could vote next week to ban the immigration of all Moslems; but I’m willing bet that it won’t. And I’m reasonably certain that had Garland come up for a vote he would not have been confirmed.


       
       0 
       
       0
      tom swift in reply to Milhouse. | July 3, 2017 at 6:53 pm

      “Advice and consent of the Senate” doesn’t imply that a mob of individual Senators would do the required consenting. The Senate is a structure and set of procedures, not just an arbitrary assemblage of persons.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | July 3, 2017 at 8:40 pm

        The senate is made up of individuals, and whenever a majority of senators want something but a minority, whether it’s the minority party or the leadership of the majority party, frustrates their will, it’s an act of piracy — a filibuster. It’s fair to call a seat obtained by such measures “stolen”. That’s not what happened in this case. It is what happened, for instance, when the Democrats prevented Miguel Estrada from joining the federal judiciary, and thus by now being “supremabile”, so to speak.


     
     0 
     
     6
    xtron | July 3, 2017 at 7:35 am

    if only Hillary had won….merrick would be on SCOTUS…if only…
    darn russians


     
     3 
     
     3
    artichoke | July 3, 2017 at 10:08 am

    Someone should tell those self righteous jerks that when Scalia was assassinated, something was stolen. It’s right that his replacement is a younger and hopefully even more conservative version of the same.

    Next time, don’t try to get away with murder.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend