President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday night to fill the seat on the Supreme Court of the United States left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia. CNN contributors and analysts offered these assessments of his choice. The opinions expressed in these commentaries are solely those of the authors.
Jeffrey Toobin: Three lessons from Gorsuch’s nomination
Three quick lessons from President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court:
Obstruction works. When Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, immediately announced the Senate would refuse even to consider President Obama’s nominee to the seat. This was an unprecedented obstruction of a President who had nearly a full year remaining in his term. In the elections last November, Republicans paid no penalty at the polls for this decision; the GOP retained control of the Senate and, of course, Donald Trump was elected President and won the chance to name a replacement for Scalia. Instead of a Democratic majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in decades, there will be a reinvigorated conservative majority.
No surprises. There is a pervasive mythology that justices of the Supreme Court turn out to surprise the Presidents who appointed them. This myth dates to the Eisenhower administration, when the President was indeed surprised by how liberal Earl Warren and William Brennan turned out to be. But in recent decades, presidents have gotten what they wanted with their Supreme Court appointments. Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Ronald Reagan) and David Souter (George H.W. Bush) are only modestly different from what they appeared to be. President Trump wanted a strong conservative voice, and he’ll get one with Gorsuch.
A message to Justice Kennedy. Kennedy is 80 and weighing when and whether he will step down from the court. Trump has now paid Kennedy the high honor of appointing one of his former law clerks to serve alongside him. This will inspire confidence in Kennedy that Trump will leave the court in good hands — and give the President another opportunity to shape the Supreme Court for decades to come.
Jeffrey Toobin is CNN’s senior legal analyst and author of “The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court.”
Ilya Shapiro: An inspired choice
This was an inspired choice, and the fulfillment of a most important campaign promise. President Trump showed doubters that, even if he doesn’t know originalism from origami, he understands the importance of the Supreme Court and of getting this nomination right. And he could hardly have picked someone more fitting to fill the large robe left by the legendary Justice Antonin Scalia.
Neil Gorsuch is a brilliant jurist who knows his originalism well — and textualism — and has a penchant for going to dictionaries and history books to find the right answer. Just like Scalia. He takes constitutional structure seriously, not as an academic matter but as a means to secure ordered liberty. Just like Scalia. And he’s an elegant writer, with clear and memorable turns of phrase to illustrate complex points. Just like Scalia, though not as punchy.
Unlike Scalia, from the get-go Gorsuch is willing to question the scope of administrative agencies’ power. This is a looming issue in both legal and political circles, and I predict that he’ll make his name on it. All in all, a great choice — and one the Democrats will be hard-pressed to gain traction in attacking
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Laura Coates: Save your battleships, Democrats
Unsurprisingly, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has all the trappings of a Washington insider nestled in the mold of the traditionally pedigreed justice. And while a Supreme Court justice is neither required to agree with the President’s beliefs nor carry out his campaign promises, Gorsuch’s views align with those promises.
He has been outspoken for the right to religious freedom and his disdain for the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate; he also advocates a clear separation of powers and wants to curb judicial deference to bureaucrats’ interpretation of laws. Although he hasn’t directly ruled on abortion rights, his pro-life views are apparent from his condemnation of euthanasia.
Like his predecessor, Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch is an originalist and textualist. Replacing a conservative icon with his ideological equal will merely restore the status quo that existed during Scalia’s tenure, not shift the ideological composition of the court. As such, Gorsuch’s presence will barely move the needle, let alone guarantee the reversal of Roe v. Wade, a case that escaped reversal even when Scalia was presiding.
Democrats hoping to preserve Roe v. Wade would be wise to save their battleships for the second (and perhaps third) judicial vacancy that will arise during Trump’s term.
Laura Coates is a CNN Legal Analyst, host, commentator and best-selling author.
Kayleigh McEnany: A victory for conservative voters
Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy continues in the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump fulfilled his promise to conservatives in choosing a textualist and originalist who will uphold the text of the Constitution and the literal words of statutes. Moreover, with a long track record of conservative opinions like the Hobby Lobby decision upholding religious liberty and a book arguing against euthanasia, conservatives can be certain Trump has selected a nominee who will not forsake his originalist roots. In fact, “Judicial Common Space” places Gorsuch to the right of Scalia. Conservative voters were not only victorious in the election of Donald J. Trump for President but also in the nomination of Neil Gorsuch for the next Supreme Court justice of the United States.
Kayleigh McEnany is a CNN commentator.
Jonathan Tasini: ‘Mitch McConnell doctrine’ should guide Democrats to filibuster
A United States senator once said, “It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent.” Indeed — and the doctrine of Mitch McConnell should guide the Democratic Party to block every Donald Trump nominee to the high court at least until 2018, including Neil Gorsuch.
At every level, this is an overtly political argument, which Democrats, unlike Republicans, seem hesitant to make historically. Donald Trump did not win the popular vote and does not govern with a majority; millions of Americans do not support his assault on civil and economic rights. Though he will, as just the first week of his administration demonstrated, cause significant damage in the short term by exercising the powers of the executive branch, he will eventually be gone from the Oval Office.
That isn’t true about the Supreme Court: By the pure nature of a lifetime appointment, Neil Gorsuch could shape our world for several decades. So, without reservation, Democrats should block Trump from the ability to leave us with the ugly stain of his actions long after he leaves office. Republican unity that blocked Merrick Garland from even getting a hearing should clearly set the standard for Democrats to follow with this nominee.
Jonathan Tasini (@jonathantasini) has been a frequent commentator on CNN and is the author of “The Essential Bernie Sanders and His Vision for America.”
