Re: “” Feb. 11 Scott Gessler column.
I had to laugh when I read Scott Gessler’s column warning Sen. Michael Bennet not to be on the “angry, bitter side” of his party and vote “no” on Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court — as if Gessler and the Republican Party have any standing, ethical or otherwise, in the matter of such appointments. When Sen. Mitch McConnell refused to even allow Merrick Garland a chance to be considered based on a non-existent Biden “rule,” the Republicans forfeited any and all high ground in the present situation. They stole the nomination from President Barack Obama, and now want Bennet to play nice. I say no way.
Garland was in every way the equal of Gorsuch. Turnabout is not only fair play, it is necessary to teach Gessler and the Republicans that their miserable and dishonest obstruction is not going to go unanswered. Will the Republicans then take the low road and go “nuclear” if they don’t get Bennet and seven other Democrats to cave? This is the party of gerrymandering and voter suppression: need you even ask?
Mark Moe, Denver
Scott Gessler contends that Sen. Michael Bennet has to choose between being a pragmatist or an obstructionist in deciding his vote on Neil Gorsuch. That’s ridiculous.
Judge Gorsuch is a smart man and a good writer, but he is very conservative. He appears to be an “originalist” in the mode of Justice Antonin Scalia. What the court desperately needs is not an ideologue like Scalia but a mainstream thinker, one who can see both sides of the issues and who will not take us back decades or more simply because the founders could not have conceived of all the issues that arise in modern America. I’ve read several of his opinions, and I do not believe that Gorsuch, unlike Merrick Garland, fits that bill.
So, if Bennet votes against Gorsuch, he will not be an obstructionist but someone who resists the easy and flawed dichotomy suggested by Gessler.
Bruce Driver, Boulder
To many open-minded and thoughtful Coloradans, Scott Gessler’s column makes good sense and demonstrates how difficult Michael Bennet’s vote will be regarding Neil Gorsuch. Many Americans view Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy as opposed to women’s, workers’, minority and gay rights.
Although never a guarantee, Gorsuch has been promoted to conservatives as a Scalia disciple and follower. That is a valid concern. Some see Chief Justice John Roberts as a less predictable foe to many social issues. Will Gorsuch be more similar to him?
But while Gessler is up for impassioned oratory regarding statesmanship and working in a more positive political manner, please invite him to address Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman about being honest and responsive to Coloradans’ views related to the Affordable Care Act, tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and legislation to limit a woman’s right to choose. That would more genuinely demonstrate his sincerity.
Mark Zaitz, Denver
Scott Gessler seeks to instruct Sen. Michael Bennet on the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch without a sense of irony or a mention of the highly partisan, unstatesmanlike behavior of the Republican Senate majority in refusing even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland throughout the entire year of 2016. To demand high non-partisan, statesmanlike behavior, it is helpful to exhibit it first.
Gary Hart, Kittredge
The writer is a former U.S. senator from Colorado.
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
