Bitter pro-abortionist reflects on the anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch

By Dave Andrusko

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

Everyone knew that the elephant in the room in the 2016 presidential election was the Supreme Court—specifically who would replace the late Antonin Scalia and more generally who would fill future vacancies. (And that doesn’t even touch on the hundreds of lower court appointments.)

The background was that pro-abortionists and Democrats (but, to quote Chris Plante, I repeat myself) were hopping mad that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had not held hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. They went so far as to insist that McConnell had a “constitutional responsibility” not only to hold hearings but also to have a vote.

This was historical revisionism on steroids. Even Glenn Kessler,the Washington Post Fact Checker, concluded this was not the case. The Senate Democrats’ insistence is “simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.”

So you knew that Democrats and their endless stream of minions in the mainstream media would hate President Trump’s choice[s]. Besides the shock of not having reliably pro-abortion Hillary Clinton making nominations, what was worse for them was that Neil Gorsuch’s hero was Justice Scalia.

So all their bile spews out periodically in just awful, vicious caricatures. The latest (although I’m sure I’ve probably missed an even more current assault) appeared in Slate, by Yuvraj Joshi, ran under the headline, “Neil Gorsuch’s Legacy Is Already Devastating: His nomination fight paved the way for a flood of hyperpartisan lower court judges.”

What was the immediate spur for his over-the-top Jeremiah? This Sunday is the anniversary of Justice Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Of course, what really ticks Joshi off is that President Trump has delivered on his promise to choose jurists who do not believe the Constitution is funny putty to be molded to further whatever legislative goals they may have.

He is angry because Majority Leader McConnell put an end to the ability of Senate Democrats to utilize the filibuster to deny confirmation to Supreme Court nominees of Republican presidents (by employing the so-called “nuclear option”). As NRLC said at the time the decision “ensured that future nominees to the Supreme Court who command majority support in the Senate will be confirmed.”

Joshi is also angry that Republicans less and less willing to allow Democrats to prevent hearings from being held on capable, talented lower court nominees. He laments

The Senate has confirmed 29 of Trump’s judicial nominees, including 14 circuit court nominees. At this stage in their presidencies, Obama had six confirmed circuit court judges, George W. Bush had seven, and Bill Clinton had three.

He wants to blame this on what he euphemistically describes as “the breakdown in the judicial confirmation process that took hold in the Obama years and gained momentum with the Gorsuch fight.”

Pray tell, what was the “breakdown” during the Obama years?

In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid along with fellow Senate Democrats employed the same “nuclear” procedure to eliminate the 60-vote hurdle for all presidential nominations other than Supreme Court.

What about the Supreme Court?

Note that prominent Democrats, including Reid and Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton’s vice presidential nominee, explicitly said in 2016 that Democrats would not hesitate to extend the simple-majority principle to nominations to the Supreme Court, if Republicans ever tried to filibuster the Supreme Court nominee of a Democratic president.

In other words, if Clinton won the election (as almost everyone thought she would), Democrats were already vowing to do what Republicans did in 2017 after they won.

One other thought about Joshi’s drenched –in-hypocrisy argument. He writes “that the end of the Supreme Court filibuster removed any remaining incentive to nominate moderate justices.” At the end of his post, he charges that Trump is not interested in nominated jurists who are concerned with ”bridging social divides.”

Does anyone, and I do mean anyone, including Democrats, believe that a President Hillary Clinton would have nominated “moderate justices”? She would have nominated hard-core pro-abortionists to every level of the judiciary, women and men whose goal would be to continue to rewrite the social contract.

And could Joshi possibly believe that the same woman who when she was confident she would win announced that half of Donald Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables” characterized by “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” views would be interested in “bridging social divides”?

Talk about living in a parallel universe.

We are reposting the story we ran after Justice Gorsuch was confirmed to remind you of how sweet was the victory.