Neil Gorsuch Shouldn’t Be Confirmed Until Donald Trump’s Presidential Legitimacy Is Proved (Video)
The president needs to come clean on Russia ties, financial conflicts and other key issues before his Supreme Court pick (shown with Trump) is accepted.
Neil Gorsuch shouldn’t be confirmed until Trump comes clean.
Nominating a new justice of the Supreme Court is one of the most important responsibilities of a president. But until we know Trump is a legitimate president, he can’t be presumed to have the authority to make such a pick.
First, we need to be sure Trump didn’t collaborate with Russia to rig the election. The FBI says it has enough “credible evidence” that Trump aides colluded with Russian operatives to affect the outcome of the election, to move forward with a full-scale investigation.
At the least, Gorsuch shouldn’t be considered until that investigation is concluded.
We also need to be sure Trump isn’t motivated by financial conflicts of interest around the world. We need to see his tax records to know he doesn’t owe a bundle to Russian oligarchs or big global banks that would affect his judgement.
And we need to know he’s not violating the Constitution by raking in money from foreign governments. For example, Trump still owns a 77 stake of his luxury hotel in Washington and his children are splitting the rest, even as foreign governments assign their dignitaries rooms at the hotel.
China just granted Trump trademark rights to the Trump brand, potentially worth billions of dollars to Trump and his family. Although it’s normally difficult to obtain brand-name rights in China so quickly, the Chinese authorities apparently saw this as a payback in return for Trump’s backing away from recognizing Taiwan.
Last year Senate Republicans wouldn’t move forward with Obama’s pick of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court on the bizarre theory that a president in his last year of office has no legitimacy nominating a Supreme Court justice.
But a true cloud of illegitimacy now hangs over the presidency of Donald Trump. Unless and until that cloud disappears, the Senate shouldn’t move forward with anyone Trump picks for the Supreme Court.
Your support is crucial...As we navigate an uncertain 2025, with a new administration questioning press freedoms, the risks are clear: our ability to report freely is under threat.
Your tax-deductible donation enables us to dig deeper, delivering fearless investigative reporting and analysis that exposes the reality beneath the headlines — without compromise.
Now is the time to take action. Stand with our courageous journalists. Donate today to protect a free press, uphold democracy and uncover the stories that need to be told.
Courts & Law
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
A new Second Amendment appeal could radically expand the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, handicapping Congress for years to come.
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
And with Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Kavanaugh in tow, the president is well on his way achieving his objective.
The confirmation of President Trump's nominee would mark the culmination of a right-wing legal counterrevolution that has been decades in the making.
The president has chosen a candidate who poses a great threat to progressive values and causes—and one who might shield him from Mueller.