Mr. Gor­such’s nom­i­na­tion

The Washington Post Sunday - - SUNDAY OPINION -

The Feb. 2 ed­i­to­rial “Ques­tions for Mr. Gor­such” was cor­rect that Judge Neil Gor­such must be pressed on many is­sues — none more im­por­tant than how he would use a Supreme Court seat to shape our democ­racy.

For four decades, the court’s flawed ap­proach to money in pol­i­tics has gut­ted com­mon-sense pro­tec­tions against the power of spe­cial in­ter­ests and wealthy in­di­vid­u­als. The court has cre­ated a rigged sys­tem that 85 per­cent of Amer­i­cans from across the po­lit­i­cal spec­trum want to fun­da­men­tally change.

At the heart of the court’s flawed ap­proach is the no­tion that we should limit po­lit­i­cal spend­ing only to fight bribery, not to en­sure we all have an equal voice. This logic gave us Cit­i­zens United and more.

So, here’s one more ques­tion Mr. Gor­such must an­swer: Do the peo­ple have the power to en­sure that Amer­i­cans of all in­comes, races and back­grounds can run for of­fice and make our voices heard?

With the court split 4-4 on this and other is­sues, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Mr. Gor­such’s record sug­gests he’s not the per­son to shift the tide to­ward build­ing a democ­racy in which the size of our wal­lets doesn’t de­ter­mine the strength of our voices. Se­na­tors must press for clear an­swers.

Adam Lioz, Wash­ing­ton The writer is coun­sel and se­nior ad­viser at Demos.

Re­gard­ing the Feb. 1 front-page ar­ti­cle “Supreme Court nom­i­nee is Gor­such”:

Colorado fed­eral ap­peals court judge Neil Gor­such de­serves a fair hear­ing and an up-or-down vote. But Sen­ate Democrats should use the same time­line that Sen­ate Repub­li­cans af­forded Judge Mer­rick Gar­land.

Sen­ate Democrats should do ev­ery­thing in their power to pre­vent a hear­ing or vote for the next 293 days, as was the case with Mr. Gar­land. On Day 294, the Sen­ate can take up this mat­ter. But ob­struc­tion­ism can­not be re­warded, and there should be con­se­quences for Repub­li­cans’ treat­ment of for­mer pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s nom­i­nee. Wait­ing 293 days to pro­ceed en­sures con­sis­tency in the treat­ment of both par­ties’ nom­i­nees and still gives Mr. Gor­such some­thing Mr. Gar­land was wrong­fully de­nied: a hear­ing and a vote. Joe Macri, Bal­ti­more

I am as deep blue a Vir­ginian as one is likely to find in Fair­fax County, but I urge my fel­low Democrats not to fil­i­buster the nom­i­na­tion of Judge Neil Gor­such to the Supreme Court. In­ves­ti­gate him thor­oughly to make sure there is noth­ing dis­qual­i­fy­ing in his back­ground, ques­tion him in­tensely at hear­ings and vote “nay” when the time comes, but do not fil­i­buster.

Mr. Gor­such’s place­ment on the Supreme Court will make very lit­tle dif­fer­ence. He may be slightly more to the right of Jus­tice An­tonin Scalia, but not much will change this time.

Sen­ate Democrats should keep their pow­der dry and save their am­mu­ni­tion for the next time, when it will re­ally count. Bon­nie Witlin, Hern­don

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.