SUPREME COURT BATTLE
Senate’s debate over Neil Gorsuch
Re: “Gorsuch battle lines drawn,” March 21 news story.
After watching hours of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Senate hearing concerning his potential appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was very impressed with his qualifications. I noted that many comments and questions asked by Democrats addressed the failure of Republicans to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. I had hoped that Democrats would base their vote upon his legal competency and judicial independence. Instead, Democrats will be voting based on the Mafia standard: “You mess with me and I will mess with you.” I would urge our Colorado’s Sen. Michael Bennet to vote “yes” after considering the real qualifications of Judge Gorsuch. Susan Mueller, Boulder
The real issue regarding the appointment of Neil Gorsuch is not about his qualifications, just as it was not about those of Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Barack Obama. It is about the Republican Senate refusing to even conduct hearings for Garland, much less vote on his nomination. They claimed that the appointment should be made by the next president almost a year later, even though the chance that it would be a Republican was thought to be slim. To now permit such behavior to be rewarded by quickly confirming this appointee invites future bad behavior. The Senate should delay confirmation of Gorsuch for a similar period of time. It seems the probability that we will have a different president by then is at least as great as was the probability that a Republican would be elected in 2016. And it is wise to await the outcome of the current investigations by the FBI of Donald Trump’s involvement with Russia. Jeff Haley, Lakewood
Re: “Senate should confirm Neil Gorsuch’s nomination,” March 19 guest commentary.
Bill Ritter and John Suthers say it’s time “to rise above the political fray” and support Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Why? The Republicans never did this during the eight years of the Obama administration. On the contrary, they created and stoked the fray. So why should Democrats be patsies and take the high road? It is a very lonely trail that goes nowhere.
That Gorsuch may be qualified is of no matter. Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, was also qualified, yet the Republicans didn’t even give him a hearing. There is no rising above the fray with Donald Trump. Besides, Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy is too extreme. He thinks corporations should have the same rights as people. He can’t tell the difference. Peter F. Munger, Arvada
Re: “Hickenlooper: Dems would be justified in delay tactics,” March 22 news story.
I was surprised and disappointed that our governor would suggest that Democrats would be justified in delaying or blocking the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court in retaliation for the Republican denial to have a Senate hearing on President Barack Obama’s selection.
I would have expected a more professional approach to filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States, whether it was our governor’s first choice or not.
Had it been the other way around, the Democrats would have done the exact same thing. Lawrence E. Barnes, Littleton
As they say, may you live in interesting times. Maybe right now, a little too interesting, what with Judge Neil Gorsuch being grilled in the Senate while, simultaneously, the Trump apparatus is under intense investigation by the FBI, both houses of Congress and who knows where else for its alleged ties to Russian intelligence efforts in the 2016 election. From what one reads and hears, Gorsuch’s qualifications for a Supreme Court seat are not in question, and in my view he should be confirmed as soon as possible. My thinking is that, in our present situation, very possibly with a constitutional crisis in the offing, it would be nice — and reassuring — to have at least one branch of our government running according to specifications. At some point soon, so it seems now, the Supremes may be called upon for some really vital constitutional decisions, thus best to have the court operating with nine votes, not eight. Bernard Leason, Denver