After much intense debate, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer finally declared that Democrats will indeed filibuster Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch. The decision still rankles many, however, who feel that Democrats should have held their fire over this nominee in order to prevent a more unqualified, even more extreme justice later on. The argument against filibustering Gorsuch is misguided–but first let's play devil's advocate.
The anti-filibuster side marshals the following arguments: 1) Gorsuch, while an ideological conservative, is at least qualified to serve on the bench; 2) the seat he would fill is a replacement for the late conservative Antonin Scalia, and thus does not shift the balance of the court in the way that a replacement for another justice might; 3) filibustering Gorsuch would mean that Republicans will kill the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, blocking any future attempts by Democrats to hold the line now and in the future. With those arguments in mind, some Senate Democrats pursued deals with the GOP to allow Gorsuch through for now, but to preserve the option of filibustering later.
None of these arguments are persuasive.
Read Full Article »