Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Trump Nominates Neil Gorsuch into Supreme Court, Giving Convservatives the One-Up


Summary:
On January 31st, 2017, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch into the Supreme Court to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in February, 2016. If Gorsuch is inducted, this can mean a lot of different things for future of the court because he is conservative. Following Scalia's death, there had been a 4-4 split in democrats versus republicans in the Supreme Court system. This caused many setbacks, as judgments often would result in ties on various cases. However, with the possible addition of Gorsuch, he supplies conservatives and republicans alike with the power to overrule democrats' votes, and ultimately win many cases in favor of the right wing.
Connection:
This connects to when we studied the aspects of the three different branches of government. The Supreme Court is a part of the Judicial Branch; the branch of government that interprets the laws. This nomination, and possible induction, will directly impact how the laws will be interpreted in the future based off of this man's opinion, as he can sway the court since he will supply the conservatives with one extra vote to possibly win over future decisions.
Questions:
  • How do you think democrats and liberals will react to this? (Will they support or disagree with this decision?)
  • How do you think republicans and conservatives will react to this? (Will they support or disagree with this decision?)
  • How do you think having this "one-up" in favor of republicans will play out in the future of the Supreme Court and in the future of America?
  • Why do you think Trump wants this "one-up" within the Supreme Court?

5 comments:

  1. Trump's decision to nominate in alignment with his political beliefs and agenda is by no means a new phenomena. Just like Obama and many presidents before him, Trump wants a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, and this nomination clearly reflects that. I think we can expect to see a deadlock similar to that of Obama's nominees, as appointed justices must be approved by the Senate. As for laws being "based off of this man's opinion," I think you misinterpret how the Supreme Court works. The ruling process is not a simple, non-informative polling of opinion. Justices must provide a detailed explanation (called "judicial opinion") that shows how their decision is based on law and not personal influence. While you are correct in saying party alignment effects interpretation, be aware that there are laws that must be followed. Furthermore, Neil Gorsuch is an interesting choice from Trump. No where in the constitution does it state that a nominee must have outstanding legal experience, yet Trump nominated an experienced judge. This choice is somewhat mild when compared to some nominations in his cabinet...

    Overall, for better or (most likely) worse, Supreme Court justices have for a long time been used for party influence, and Trump is no exception to this history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know it's not solely based off of his opinion...

      Delete
    2. My point was that "opinion" and "law" shouldn't be interchanged but unfortunately they are. Don't take that as a personal attack... It's a comment on the political system not your post.

      Delete
  2. I think Donald Trump should not be president, even though he is, and I think he is going to create a bad, unorganized country.

    ReplyDelete