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]


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    kenoshamarge | July 3, 2017 at 10:19 am

    Does the NYT intend to whimper and whine it’s way through the Trump presidency? When it’s not attacking him with innuendo, rumors and anonymous sourced nonssense? Because I would think that even their loyal foolish readers would find it tiresome after a while.

    Although some #NeverTrumpers, of whom I was one, are still whining about Cruz so…

    MadisonS | July 3, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    The editorial cartoon in the July 3 edition of the San Jose Mercury News (sorry, it is behind a paid subsubscription firewall) shows a workman carrying a toolbox. The workman takes on the appearance of an elephant. A dialogue balloon has the elephant saying “My election toolkit.”

    A large screw sticks up and out of the toolkit. The screw is labeled ‘voter suppression’ A sickle and hammer are arranged to depict the symbol of the former Soviet Union and is labeled ‘Russia.’

    The jaws on a pair of tongue and groove pliers (aka Channel Lock) are spread wide open. The handles of the pliers are labeled ‘Gerrymandering’ and apppear as a long narrow gerrymandered district. With judicious use of bends in the gerrymandered handles, the pliers clearly form a Swastika.

    Common Sense | July 3, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    Thank You President Trump! 🙂

    Just wait till the next vacancy. There will be many heads exploding across liberal TV!

    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.)

    Send this to a friend