Gorsuch not qualified for Supreme Court

Ellie Speedling, Social Media Reporter

On April 7, Neil Gorsuch was confirmed as the 113th Supreme Court justice, filling the vacant seat left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia who died in Feb. 2016.  Gorsuch wasn’t fairly nominated due to the “nuclear option” and the Senate Republicans were biased in not allowing Merrick Garland, President’s Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, to have a hearing.

Gorsuch was nominated by President Donald Trump on Jan. 31, a logical choice given that Gorsuch has a philosophy similar to Scalia’s. It is also believed that he will offer a different perspective since he will be the only judge from a Western state and the only judge who practices Protestantism.

On April 6, the Senate met to advance Gorsuch’s nomination. In order to advance, Gorsuch needed to secure 60 votes, but the Democrats were fixed on their votes and denied Gorsuch of the 60 votes he needed to advance, resulting in “the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee” according to biography.com.

The Republicans countered with another historic move, implementing the “nuclear option”, which lowered the number of votes Gorsuch needed to get from 60 to 50, thereby eliminating the filibuster.

Since the Republicans lowered the number of votes needed, it shows the extreme bias and unfair approach to get their nominee to win. Gorsuch did not fairly win; he needed 60 votes and he didn’t achieve it, therefore he should not have been confirmed. Both parties have become more polarized in recent years, but a lifetime appointment to the highest court shouldn’t be decided by the minimum number of votes.

“[Gorsuch is] The first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.””

— Biography.com

On March 16, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for a Supreme Court seat, a fair choice given that Garland is well-respected among his peers, a highly experienced federal court judge and moderate. Garland was not given a hearing among Senate Republicans, even though he was extremely qualified for the job, because the Senate was waiting to see who would be elected. If Clinton won, Garland would most likely be nominated again, if Trump won, then a Republican nominee would be nominated.

Trump was elected and Gorsuch was nominated, then confirmed to the Supreme Court. This ensured a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and prevented a shift of ideological balances.

Denying a hearing to a candidate because they don’t have the same political beliefs is not fair and extremely biased towards a certain political party. Garland should have gotten a hearing even though he wasn’t affiliated with Republicans since he was respected by both political parties and was qualified for the position.

Neil Gorsuch may be qualified for the position, or at least more qualified than Trump’s choices for other positions, but the way he achieved it was dishonorable.