Article will continue after advertisement

America’s self-appointed newspaper of record has weighed in on President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. I’m sure you’re shocked but the New York Times is not happy with the selection. They’re still butt-hurt over the fact that Antonin Scalia is being replaced by Trump, not Barack Obama.

Here’s the first paragraph of the Times editorial, titled “Neil Gorsuch, the Nominee for a Stolen Seat”:

It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.


Actually, what Senate Republicans did was simply refuse to confirm Barack Obama’s choice to the Supreme Court. They didn’t “take an empty Supreme Court seat hostage,” though they did play politics. They took a risk that Republicans would win the White House and hold the Senate. It was a risk no one thought would pay off, but it did.

In fact, far from stealing a Supreme Court seat (as if seats belong to any particular party), the American people gave this seat to the Republicans. How do we know this? From the 2016 election, which elevated a Republican president and returned a Republican Senate. I realize the New York Times doesn’t think America’s democracy is as enlightened as Cuba’s, but there has to be something said for that whole “will of the people” thing.

RELATED: Neil Gorsuch, foe of the bureaucracy, is a worthy heir to the Scalia seat

In addition to stealing a Supreme Court seat, the Times is also accusing Gorsuch and other Republican-appointed judges of banning contraception and destroying the environment. Begin the parade of horribles:

If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, the court will once again have a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents, as it has for nearly half a century. For starters, that spells big trouble for public-sector labor unions, environmental regulations and women’s access to contraception. If Trump gets the chance to name another justice, the consequences could be much more dire.

The Times is also horrified that Gorsuch is an originalist, meaning he believes the Constitution should be applied as written and he’s unlikely to discover constitutional rights to free health care and abortion.

Even worse for the Times, Gorsuch doesn’t show deference to executive branch agencies. After all, those who work for the EPA and other regulatory bodies know better than the rubes. Shame on Gorsuch for applying the Constitution in those cases!

There are real downsides to originalists, most notably that they’re too deferential to the legislative branch, a flaw Gorsuch unfortunately shares. The Times, though, is only upset because they believe judges should write new laws so liberals can get what they want. The ends justify the means.

The Times closes its hissy fit with this:

[B]ut Mr. Trump’s failure to choose a more moderate candidate is the latest example of his refusal to acknowledge his historic unpopularity and his nearly three-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton. A wiser president faced with such circumstances would govern with humility and a respect for the views of all Americans.

RELATED: Trump’s Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch has a solid record of defending the Fourth Amendment

Trump is simply taking his cues from his predecessor Barack Obama. Obama told a meeting of GOP congressional leaders just two words after his first inauguration: “I won.”

Now Trump has won and he owes the New York Times nothing. The left needs to get over it and figure out a way to oppose Trump without resorting to temper tantrums.

Kevin Boyd About the author:
Kevin Boyd is a general correspondent for The Hayride and an associate policy analyst at the R Street Institute. His work has been featured at IJ Review, The National Interest, Real Clear Policy, and the Washington Examiner. You can follow him on Twitter @kevinboyd1984
View More Articles
Tags