CT Blue

I must take issue with this:

Democrats don’t seem to be united on how to deal with the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, which is “no way, no how.” Richard Blumenthal gets it:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said Sunday that he would filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and “use every tool that we have” if Gorsuch fails to disavow litmus tests on abortion and guns, among other things.

     Gorsuch’s multi-day confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. ET on Monday.

Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, began by saying on MSNBC Sunday that Gorsuch would have to tell the committee that a ban on any religion is unconstitutional. Judges have said that religious bias motivated President Donald Trump’s recently blocked travel ban.

“Even if he can’t comment on the specific immigration case, he has to at least show that he respects the principle that the government can’t discriminate on the basis of religion; that a Muslim ban would violate the Constitution,” he said.

Blumenthal said he would hold Gorsuch to the same standard on Roe v. Wade, which set a precedent establishing abortion as a fundamental right, and gun control laws.

via Crooks and Liars

Sorry, if this is an accurate reflection of Blumenthal’s position, then he doesn’t get it.

Gorsuch has a record. He should be judged by that, not by anything he might say at the hearing. Blumenthal is a lawyer. He knows very well that Gorsuch could say that of course we cannot discriminate against Muslims, while leaving himself free to rule that Trump’s orders do not, in fact, discriminate against Muslims, for any of a variety of bullshitty legal reasons. I could write the decision for him if he wants.

Same goes for abortion. He can spout some gibberish that gives Blumenthal cover but still leaves himself wide open to rule to overturn Roe v. Wade. In any event, we know perfectly well that he would vote to overturn Roe, and that’s a fact. Nothing he says during that hearing can outweigh a lifetime record of reaction. If Blumenthal really “got it”, he would be on board with a filibuster with no ifs, ands or buts. And if that means the end of the filibuster, well, it’s no good having it in theory if you can’t use it.

What is wrong with Democrats? Can’t they see that after Merrick Garland, there must be payback? Even if Gorsuch were reasonable they should consider filibustering. But he’s not. He is anti-labor, anti-woman, anti-consumer, pro-corporate and securely in the pocket of the .01%. He’s worse than Scalia and likely to live a long time. No real Democrat would even consider allowing a vote to go forward if they could stop it.