Casey’s opposition to Gorsuch is misguided

As the PG reports, Sen. Bob Casey has stated his refusal to vote for — and presumably will also filibuster — Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court (“Casey to Oppose Gorsuch Nomination,” March 24).

In his statement of opposition, Mr. Casey admits he has found “nothing in the record [including 2,700 opinions and a distinguished academic record] that would disqualify [the judge] based on his character, temperament or experience.”

Instead Mr. Casey grounds his opposition inaccurately — falsely, I say — on the judge’s alleged “rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy ... that employs the narrowest possible reading of federal law” — manifest, says Mr. Casey, “in a number of opinions.”

Mr. Casey mentions — and grossly misstates — only a handful of Gorsuch opinions. The Democrats at the judge’s 20 hours of testimony mentioned and mischaracterized these opinions over and over.

Mr. Casey ignores Judge Gorsuch’s nuanced, scholarly, detailed and informative testimony, which was given with the patience of Job in the face of the strident, untruthful attacks by all of the Democratic senators at the hearing.

As a lawyer with broad experience in complex matters working with prominent lawyers in the U.S. and internationally, I have never seen a better lawyer than Judge Gorsuch. I have read the cases, am familiar with the relevant law and listened to all of the judge’s testimony at the hearings.

Mr. Casey — particularly in his strident, misconceived and often false statement in opposition to the judge — does extreme disservice to his Senate office, his position as a lawyer, his constituents, the courts and, most important, the cause of justice. MATTHEW A. McLAUGHLIN Upper St. Clair the basis of his promises to working-class voters in the “Rust Belt,” he falsely asserted that his was the largest Electoral College victory since the elections of Ronald Reagan.

Then followed his baseless accusation that Mr. Obama had wiretapped him during the election campaign, which the director of the FBI refuted categorically at a congressional hearing on March 20. The director also testified that the FBI has, since at least July 2016, been investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election.

Whether that investigation will result in a criminal prosecution of members of the Trump campaign or the impeachment of Mr. Trump obviously will not be determined for some time. The issue for thinking Americans now is how best to deal with a pathological liar in the office of the presidency. PAUL A. MANION

Ross

Regarding Brian O’Neill’s March 16 column (“Taking Blight Into Your Own Hands”): I am the attorney handling the 45 conservatorship cases referenced in the column. It was well written but readers should know the statute was broadened in 2014 so neighbors within 2,000 feet of an abandoned property can seek to become conservators.

We welcome your opinion

In Allegheny County, at least four or five properties have gone through the conservatorship process and have been brought to closure; the Manchester property in Mr. O’Neill's column was not the first. The first conservatorship was brought by the borough of Dormont several years ago. We should all expect the conservatorship statute to create some impactful change in Pennsylvania neighborhoods. WAYNE B. COBB II

Monaca