There is plenty of commentary on Judge Neil Gorsuch, the President’s nominee for the Supreme Court. I won’t repeat it here. The President has had a rough couple of weeks, but last night he stopped the bleeding, even if only temporarily. Judge Gorsuch appears to be an excellent, if rather conventional, choice. Chalk one up for the hated Establishment.
Now the fun part begins. Democrats are already promising a filibuster, which will no doubt prompt Republicans to consider the Nuclear Option against which they so aggressively argued in the past. Hypocrisy will be alleged on each side. We have seen this movie repeatedly.
But be on the lookout for the following term: “mainstream.” Democrats will likely say that they are concerned with whether Judge Gorsuch’s views and decisions are outside of the “mainstream.” And this will become a convenient rhetorical tool for opposition on the merits. But, “mainstream” as compared to what? As compared to the views of Liberals? As compared to the decisions of William Brennan or Ruth Bader Ginsburg? As compared to all circuit judges? As compared to other judges on his circuit?
Federal appeals court judges do not have the same law development function that Supreme Court Justices do. Except when addressing issues of first impression, federal appeals court judges are typically bound both by Supreme Court precedent, and the precedent of their circuits. Moreover, circuit precedent can vary from one circuit to another. What is the accepted rule of law in one circuit may not be the rule followed in another circuit. There is no question that Judge Gorsuch has reached results with which the Left will disagree. But that cannot possibly be the test of whether a judge’s views are extremist or radical. Very often legal precedent dictates, or at least points strongly in the direction of, a result that will be contrary to the preferred views of the legal Left. So if the “mainstream” is important (and, as I say, we must determine what that means), then it is important to ask, among other questions, whether Judge Gorsuch’s work is within the “mainstream” of existing decisional law from the Supreme Court and his own circuit.
Furthermore, this hardly seems like a standard that Senate Democrats would follow faithfully. For example, Thurgood Marshall held the view that the death penalty was in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment. That view was so far outside of the mainstream of American legal thought, only one other Justice in the history of the Supreme Court at the time actually agreed with it (Brennan). Of course, over time, the view has gained greater adherence, but is still a minority view in the judiciary. Are we to believe that Senator Schumer, for example, would have opposed Thurgood Marshall’s nomination to the Court?
Other Democrats may oppose Judge Gorsuch as simple revenge for the Republican-controlled Senate’s failure to consider Merrick Garland last year. I covered that ground after Garland’s nomination, here and here and here. Of course, Democrats may forget that it was their Party that was complicit in a similar act earlier in the Court’s history. Justice Robert Trimble died in 1828, and President John Quincy Adams nominated Whig U.S. Attorney John Crittenden to replace Trimble. But before Crittenden could be confirmed, Adams lost re-election to Democrat Andrew Jackson, and the Jackson supporters in the Senate refused to confirm Crittenden during the lame-duck period. Instead, President Jackson eventually filled the seat in 1829 with Postmaster General John McLean (and to add insult to injury, removed Crittenden as U.S. Attorney; McLean would later write a famous dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford). That historical note aside, however, it is hard to see how one can oppose Judge Gorsuch now simply by arguing that the seat should have been filled by Judge Garland last year. And if the result on this nomination process angers Democratic voters, perhaps they will remember that the next time they have to decide whether to get to the polls on Election Day.
Finally, beware the “Robert Bork’s America” attack. This refers to Senator Edward Kennedy’s notorious slander of Judge Bork on the Senate floor, and represents a now all-too-conventional method for opposing a nominee: recite a hyperbolic litany of horrific results for vulnerable people if the nominee is confirmed, not the least of which will be a return to “back-alley abortions.” (Of course, it is hard to see how the “back-alley abortions” claim works here, as there would still be a 5-vote majority on the Court for abortion rights; Justice Scalia’s death did not affect the Court’s alignment on that issue). This kind of rhetoric is among the lowest forms of political dissent from a nomination, and it is this kind of rhetoric that should be considered out of the mainstream. But don’t count it out this time.
Given the anger and impressive mobilization of the political Left in light of President Trump’s ascendancy, Senate Democrats will likely slouch toward any argument they can muster to oppose Judge Gorsuch, who surely knows of the bloody battle that is coming. None of it is his fault, and he is likely to survive it anyway. But “out of the mainstream”? Hardly.