Democrats should filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination: Erwin Chemerinsky

Reason

07-17-2021

If they don’t do so, he gets confirmed, and if they do filibuster and the Republicans eliminate the filibuster, he gets confirmed. This is a seat on the Supreme Court that Republicans stole by their refusal to consider President Obama’s nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland. If that were to happen, there would be a radical change in constitutional law. In 1987, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected Robert Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court entirely because of his originalist approach to constitutional law. The Democrats should do whatever they can, even if it ultimately fails, to keep someone with Gorsuch’s ideology from being on the Supreme Court.

READ ARTICLE

47.73% objective
56.77% positive

Related:

THE JERUSALEM POST - Court's refusal to nix Israel's Nation-State Law is dangerous - opinion
32.81% MORE objective
-7.12% LESS positive

Legally, the Knesset can enact a basic law tomorrow modifying the 1992 Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty to exclude the principle of substantive “equality” from the basic law. CONSISTENT WITH its new fiat, the court went out of its way to claim that the 2018 basic law is consistent with the 1992 basic laws, and to announce that the provisions of the new basic law will be interpreted to comply with the earlier basic law. The Basic Law: Israel-the Nation State of the Jewish People does not delete or amend either of the 1992 basic laws, nor were any of its drafters interested in doing so. What the Supreme Court has now asserted has never been asserted by any court in a democratic country since democracy first appeared. No one is above the law, especially not the courts, which are created by law, subject to the law and are there to enforce it.

REASON - A Qualified Immunity Compromise Is Crumbling. You Can Thank the Law Enforcement Lobby.
21.06% MORE objective
-15.66% LESS positive

Central to that debate is qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that makes it onerously difficult to hold government officials accountable in civil court when they violate your constitutional rights. Yet qualified immunity reform is now the flashpoint of those negotiations. Some Republicans are reportedly proposing an alternate option: Instead of reforming qualified immunity, they want it to be codified in the law. Any movement on qualified immunity was seen as a nonstarter when Donald Trump was president, but a group of Republicans led by Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.) Qualified immunity protects misbehaving state actors from federal civil suits unless the precise way they misbehaved has been ruled unconstitutional in a prior court ruling.

THE HILL - Breyer says he's undecided on Supreme Court retirement
32.56% MORE objective
-0.62% LESS positive

Supreme Court Justice Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerNo reason to pack the court Breyer says he's undecided on Supreme Court retirement Schumer: Democrats 'ready to expeditiously fill' any Supreme Court vacancy MORE told CNN in a new interview that he is undecided on retirement. The 83-year-old justice said “no” when CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic asked if he has decided when he will retire. Liberals have been urging Breyer to step down while the Senate and White House are under Democratic control so a younger, liberal justice can replace him. However, Breyer is happy with his position as the top liberal justice on the court and can influence private discussions between his colleagues, CNN noted. It "has made a difference to me," Breyer told the network.

NBC NEWS - Supreme Court justices shouldn't get lifetime appointments. It's time to impose term limits.
15.57% MORE objective
-4.51% LESS positive

We have arrived at the end of another Supreme Court term. The politicization of the Supreme Court does a great disservice to the judicial system and the nation as a whole. The concerns have become so acute that a presidential commission was formed in April to review options for Supreme Court reform. We know, of course, that state court judicial selection is far from perfect. This is a stark contrast to Supreme Court justices, who have no enforceable ethical constraints.