You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.


  • ePAPER

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks


Welcome to

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on

Opinion: To defend rule of law, Dems must filibuster Gorsuch hearing

Hearings on President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee begin this week. By all accounts, his choice, Neil Gorsuch, is highly qualified for the position. Those on both the right and left speak to his intelligence, his considerate approach to legal analysis, and the care with which he approaches each case. Under normal circumstances, he might sail to an easy confirmation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court appointment process has become anything but normal.

The initial break can be traced as far back as 1987 — when Democrats rejected Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork. Over the following decades, the appointment process to the high court grew tenser and more partisan, but even with mutual bruised feelings, nominations managed to proceed reasonably smoothly.

Last spring, conditions changed dramatically. To fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia, President Obama chose Merrick Garland — a “consensus nominee” in the words of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Like Gorsuch, Garland was eminently qualified and highly regarded by all sides. Moreover, unlike Gorsuch — who would be among the most conservative judges on the Court — Garland is near the middle of the ideological spectrum.

However, Senate Republicans refused to even consideration Garland’s nomination, creating a vacancy that has now lasted over a year. This was within their power, since no codified rules exist to ensure a vote. But it was a sharp break from centuries of tradition, in which presidents have been granted the courtesy of a vote on their nominations.

Now, Democrats are faced with a dilemma.

Should they model the behavior they asked Republicans to employ last year and allow a vote on Gorsuch? Or should they utilize their own tool of resistance — the filibuster — to protest the boundary-breaking behavior of the Republicans? The maxim that two wrongs do not make a right urges in one direction. But as tempting as this logic may be, it should be rejected.

If it was purely a matter of vindictiveness, or of power politics, a filibuster truly would be just another wrong. But it would instead be an effort to hold Republicans accountable for breaking the basic norm: that sitting presidents have a right and responsibility to fill vacancies that arise during their terms in office

That tradition is essential, and is worth defending. Its chief function is to protect the legal realm from the full brunt of partisan battles. The work of the Supreme Court is, of course, political in nature. It would not instill such deep feelings on both sides of the political divide if it were not. But the Court carries a special obligation to safeguard the rule of law. In that task, its independence from the political branches is essential. And such independence is precisely what the breaking of these norms endangers. In the world envisioned by the Republican blockade of Merrick Garland, qualifications for the job are reduced exclusively to partisan interests, and the Court becomes nothing more than one more football to be kicked around in the search for political dominance.

Now, more than ever, Democrats should refuse this logic.

The presidency of Donald Trump poses significant questions about core principles of American democracy: checks and balances, and the separation of power. A number of lawsuits have already been filed challenging his expansive interpretation of executive power and his administration’s apparent willingness to resist direct court orders. At a moment, when our core Constitutional values may soon be trusted to the care of the Supreme Court, Democrats must challenge the idea that long-standing normative protections against abuse of power can be broken without consequence.

Judge Gorsuch is an excellent jurist, and deserves a fair hearing. If another vacancy opens on the Court, Democrats should give him all the respect and due consideration that he deserves. Until that day, however, they cannot and must not permit a vote.

Olney is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the editor: April 27, 2017
Letters to the editor: April 27, 2017

U.S. Rep. Roger Williams launched an attack on consumer financial protection by attempting to block an important rule for prepaid debit cards. The rule, issued in October by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, provides safeguards for those who use prepaid cards to make purchases and manage their money. In addition to protections against loss...
Nowrasteh: SB4 aimed at ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ is wrong for Texas
Nowrasteh: SB4 aimed at ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ is wrong for Texas

President Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement has filtered down to the state-level in Texas. The State Senate passed Sen. Charles Perry’s (R-Lubbock) controversial bill, Senate Bill 4, in February. SB4 would penalize every so-called “sanctuary jurisdiction,” which includes cities, counties and universities who do not honor...
Misguided faith in government is unlearned lesson of LA riots

This weekend marks 100 days of the Trump administration. This milestone also coincides with a very important anniversary. Twenty-five years ago, riots exploded in Los Angeles after four policemen were acquitted in the violent beating of Rodney King. Sixty-three lives were lost in the riots, with the estimated total economic cost pegged at $1 billion...
U.S. Rep. Williams: CHOICE Act would have toughest penalties for fraud
U.S. Rep. Williams: CHOICE Act would have toughest penalties for fraud

Economists at a prominent think tank based in Washington, D.C. last week reported that a full repeal of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act would boost the economy by 1 percent and generate $340 billion in federal revenue over a 10-year period. Dodd-Frank, as it is called for short, was passed by the Democrat controlled Congress...
Letters to the editor: April 26, 2017
Letters to the editor: April 26, 2017

I get it. We like blowing stuff up. It’s a primal attraction. Explosives are powerful — but indiscriminate. Fourteen states are using cyanide bombs to kill wildlife — and Texas leads the country in animal deaths by sodium cyanide M-44s. Thousands of coyotes, foxes, possums, raccoons and skunks meet their end this way in our state...
More Stories