Two of my favorite journalists of all-time are Barbara Crossette and Linda Greenhouse. If you ever wanted material on world affairs you turned to Barbara. If you needed the arcane world of the law explained with expertise, you turned to Linda. You will do well to search them out in the archives of the New York Times. Today, thankfully. Greenhouse delivered a scathing analysis of the Gorsuch hearings.
You can access all of it in the tweet below.
Embarrassing
Greenhouse says that the Gorsuch hearings are empty and an embarrassment. In essence, he is less forthcoming than Siri and worse even than Scalia who refused to answer some 2000 questions. Greenhouse says Gorsuch answered every question about any case with a single response -- that it was a precedent. He never said what his attitude was and no one insisted that he do so. When he said the same thing about Bush v. Gore he slipped up because it isn't a precedent. No one called him on it.
Denting the nominee
It remained for Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois to pursue a time when Gorsuch was openly critical of pro bono work by very good lawyers on behalf of those first detained on terror charges at Guantanamo.
When Durbin confronted him, Gorsuch said it was not his finest moment. The dent is an almost certain sign that Gorsuch will be exactly the sort of justice Trump wants, farther to the right of Roberts than the moon is from the earth.
No dice
Sorry to say this but the hope Linda Greenhouse expresses at the end of her article is in vain. Gorsuch will not be one of those who disagrees with Trump when the president criticizes the decisions of independent judges on the atrocious Muslim ban. Greenhouse reminds us that such decisions are the reason we are respected around the world. It is sobering to think that this is so. The state of human rights generally is yet another reason for supporting a democratic revolution globally, a change based on the values of tolerance, helpfulness and rights-based constitutional democracy. Gorsuch should be opposed and defeated.