Re: “” Jan. 31 news story.
As he promised voters when he was a candidate, Republican President Donald Trump has brought forth a very qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. That is why Democratic U.S. senators should take the high road and not go out of their way to try to block the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch from Colorado.
To oppose a nominee is one thing, but to try to reject their appointment solely on the grounds of partisan differences in ideology is neither a thorough judicial review nor fair to the nominee nor fair to the confirmation process nor fair to taxpayers.
Of course Judge Gorsuch is a conservative — President Trump is a conservative! President Barack Obama nominated two liberal judges to the high court. Nonetheless, both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were approved by the full Senate and with bipartisan support.
This is no time for Democrats to become thwarters of democracy. Instead, good government and ethics should prevail to fill the vacant seat of the highest court in our land.
Jeffery Moser, Aurora
Judge Neil Gorsuch seems a fine nomination for the U.S Supreme Court, but that nomination is but another defeat for our so-called democracy. Republican senators refused, for nearly a year, to even hold hearings for any nominee presented by President Obama. That disgrace is now almost forgotten due to almost the daily misdeeds of our new president. Our citizens remain confused of where we, as a nation, are going. Meanwhile, well over 100 other nations are totally uncertain as to the intentions of our leaders. When are we going to make corrections to the distorted course of our our national ship?
Ron Vander Kooi, Arvada
Democrats should corner Judge Neil Gorsuch on his siding with Hobby Lobby’s right to proselytize its employees as a condition of their having health insurance. His record as a jurist has its high points, but his stand on civil rights is poor, as he often complained that rights were being expanded, not contracted, by the courts that conservatives wanted.
Justice Antonin Scalia was a bigot whose personal faith masked an intolerance towards civil rights that was missing all but a burning cross behind him. Replacing him with a duplicate cut from the same cloth is a step backwards for the United States and its citizens, who expect equality not prejudice, from the law in the 21st century.
Richard L. Mattingly, Denver
There’s no doubt that the treatment of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee by the Republican leadership was a shabby piece of business. Now many on the Democratic side argue the use of similar tactics to block an otherwise well-qualified judicial appointment by the Trump administration. The rationale for using similar tactics against the Republicans is tempting. These tactics can include asking your senator to sit out required committee hearings and invoking arcane rules that only Washington insiders can appreciate.
I would argue that itap best to remember that one of the principle strategies of anarchists is to discredit our institutions, particularly the free press and a properly functioning government. To the extent that our democracy fails to work, itap in the interest of those who seek more control by demonstrating how poorly our institutions work. When these systems fail to operate, there’s always a strong man standing by in the wings who will argue that only he can fix it, if we only grant more power to him.
So letap get on with the Senate hearings in a manner that respects the system and remember that shining a light on the qualities of the nominees by asking them questions that the American public expects to be addressed is part of the process. Itap what President Barack Obama asked of the Republicans when he nominated Merrick Garland and what Democrats who care for our institutions should ask as well.
Phil Overeynder, Aspen
Republicans refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing after he was nominated by then President Barack Obama to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. Their reasoning was that the nomination came during an election year, that the “people” should be allowed to “speak” via the upcoming election, and that the seat should therefore remain vacant until a new president was elected. (Never mind that they also made it clear that if the “people” “spoke” by electing Hillary Clinton, Republicans would do everything in their power to block her nominees.).
We now have a new president who has made a nomination to the Supreme Court. Democrats are exploring ways to block to nomination, and Republicans are crying foul. Well, let’s see what the “people” say: Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, he was elected with only 46 percent of the vote, his victory in the Electoral College ranks 46th in the last 58 Electoral College votes, and his approval rating is at a historic low for a new president. It seems to me that the “people” have spoken and are speaking, loudly and clearly: they do not support this president. Using the logic the Republicans used for most of 2016, doesn’t that mean that Trump’s nominee should not be confirmed? Perhaps what the “people” say is sacrosanct only when Republicans agree with what they say.
K. Packard, Livermore
The argument that Justice Antonin Scalia should be replaced by someone with a similar judicial philosophy is at best a specious one. Scalia replaced Chief Justice Warren Burger, who had supported Roe vs. Wade and the civil-rights decisions by the Warren court. Thus, from a historical perspective, a more centrist choice for Scalia’s replacement would be more appropriate.
Vic Viola, Golden
I don’t know if there is anything bad to be said about the new Supreme Court nominee. But I’d advise Democrats to hold their noses, if necessary, and confirm. Otherwise, they are backed into a political corner and easily labeled as “obstructionists.”
If Neil Gorsuch is another Antonin Scalia (which I doubt), that may not be the worst nightmare in Washington. The worst would be the Democrats falling on the sword handed them by the GOP and failing to get their show together for a turnaround in 2018. That is more important.
Gregory Iwan, Longmont
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
