Liberals have at their disposal three kinds of arguments against confirming Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
They can say that the mainstream judicial conservatism that he undoubtedly represents is dangerously wrong. A lot of liberals probably believe this. But most people find that argument unreasonable, so few liberals make it.
They can say that Gorsuch should not be confirmed to keep Republicans from being rewarded for their refusal even to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for the same seat on the Supreme Court.
This leaves door No. 3: Liberals can pretend that Gorsuch is a far-right extremist. Many liberals are rushing right in.
"Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch has proven to have a judicial philosophy outside of the mainstream and time and again has subjugated individual rights to those of corporations," says Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
She cites Gorsuch's ruling that the Hobby Lobby craft-store chain should be able to refuse to offer employee health coverage for contraceptives that its evangelical Christian owners oppose. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio also claims that Gorsuch proved he was "far outside of the judicial mainstream" in treating corporations as people.
Yet only two of the nine justices on the Supreme Court sided with these senators in denying that corporations could qualify for protection under religious-liberty statutes. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, both Democratic appointees, voted against Hobby Lobby. So who's really out of the mainstream?
Nan Aron, the head of an influential liberal organization called the Alliance for Justice, sent out an email after Gorsuch's nomination saying: "He is critical of laws that ensure workers' rights and safety, guarantee equal opportunity, safeguard consumers and investors, ensure the safety of food and drugs, and protect our environment."
No, he isn't. He has, however, said that when federal agencies issue regulations for those and other purposes, courts should make sure those regulations are authorized in laws passed by Congress. Aron would have you believe that enforcing a law is the same thing as undermining it.
Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, says, "What saddens me the most as a mom and a grandmother, though, is his hostility towards children in school, children with autism." She claims that Gorsuch ruled that the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act "doesn't apply to them."
Pelosi will be much happier when she realizes Gorsuch never ruled that way. He did rule that the law did not entitle the parents of a child with autism to the specific assistance they sought. It was a unanimous decision of three judges, including one appointed by Clinton, and it expressed sympathy for the family.
I don't mean to paint all liberals with the same brush. Some of them are noting that he is exactly the reasonable and judicious pick he appears to be. Others are working hard to distort his record--and in the process discrediting only themselves.
Editorial on 02/06/2017