Every now and then like the proverbial blind squirrel hunting for an acorn in a snow storm, the Old Gray Lady eventually got this on right.
It must have driven the Editorial Staff up a tree.
Oh well, it sucks to be them, they will be filing for bankruptcy soon.
They have been teetering on the edge since 2013. (Source)
If President Trump is so inclined he will personally bankrupt the NYT for fake news and lies they said about him.
Trump is still a businessman, look for a huge out of court settlement.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch can relax now. After 20-odd hours of Senate questioning this week, the Supreme Court nominee has completed his testimony.
The committee will hold a final session on Thursday featuring expert panelists discussing the judge.
But his job is done.
So what have we learned?
He’s probably going to be confirmed.
Maybe he’ll clear the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, attracting sufficient support from Democrats — particularly those from states that President Trump won. Or maybe skeptics will hold the line and force Republicans to change longstanding Senate rules to elevate Judge Gorsuch on a simple majority vote.
But this much is clear: Nothing that’s happened this week has made much of a difference. Three days of hearings marked by attacks and deflections have left the Senate Judiciary Committee more or less where it started. If the Republicans’ goal was to persuade Democrats of a moral imperative to join them in support, they fell short. (In some cases, the nominee’s sparring with Democrats may have pushed some further away.)
The hearing was not top billing.
Empty seats. Distracted senators. Non-sequitur questions about fly-fishing and duck-size horses.
Despite the stakes inherent in any Supreme Court confirmation hearing, the Gorsuch proceedings often felt like an afterthought. Part of the burden falls on Democrats, who have failed to draw much blood in their questioning or generate meaningful momentum for opposition outside the hearing room, at least so far.
Finding oxygen in Mr. Trump’s Washington can be nearly impossible — amid the Russia inquiries, the health care push, the daily administration squabbling — an exercise in political “mutton busting” of sorts, to name the sheep-riding activity described in great detail by Judge Gorsuch.
This week, Democrats got thrown.
See the entire article below.
He was eager to declare his independence. Generally.
In finely calibrated testimony, Judge Gorsuch declared that he would go where the law took him, even if that required a ruling against Mr. Trump, who nominated him. He made emphatic but vague statements — “No man is above the law,” he repeatedly said, for instance — but avoided saying anything more specific.
Judge Gorsuch also gently rebuked Mr. Trump, again in general terms, for his criticism of judges who had ruled against him. He said all criticism of the honesty and integrity of federal judges, by anyone, was “disheartening and demoralizing.” Did that include Mr. Trump? “Anyone is anyone,” Judge Gorsuch said.
Republicans do not feel sorry for Democrats (or Merrick Garland).
Remember Merrick B. Garland? Democrats wanted to make sure of it.
They began the hearing on Monday with a series of blistering speeches centered on him — and how, they suggested, this hearing should have been his, but for Republicans’ refusal last year to consider an Obama administration nominee during a presidential campaign.
Judge Gorsuch praised his colleague, at the senators’ urging, but declined to weigh in on the partisan fight. By Wednesday afternoon, Judge Garland’s shadow had largely faded from the hearing.
And Republicans expressed no regrets, with some now claiming hypocrisy on the Democratic side.
“On Kagan and on Sotomayor, Republicans respected the president’s authority to appoint a Supreme Court justice, and Republicans did the right thing by moving forward and allowing the confirmation,” Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, said, omitting Judge Garland’s example. “So, I think that we have a moral high ground here that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should take note of.”
Democrats think they found one (small) opening. We’ll see.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a case on students with disabilities that rejected the approach Judge Gorsuch had pursued in another case.
Democrats framed it differently: “President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, was unanimously rebuked today by the Supreme Court,” declared Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader.
But the relationship between the two cases was indirect, and under short-notice questioning at his hearing, Judge Gorsuch argued that he had merely been following precedent.
Democrats could return to the issue before votes by the committee and the full Senate, but absent another twist, it seems unlikely to knock the nomination off course.
He wouldn’t say much about executive authority in national security.
Judge Gorsuch sidestepped questions about his views on national security and presidential power.
Pressed about his participation, as a Bush-era Justice Department official, in internal executive branch discussions related to torture and warrantless surveillance, he emphasized that he had been a lawyer serving a client, not a policy maker.
Asked whether presidents may bypass statutes in national-security matters, Judge Gorsuch said that “presidents make all sorts of arguments about inherent authority — they do — and that is why we have courts, to decide.”
He also refused to commit to recusing himself from Supreme Court cases involving the interests of the Colorado billionaire Philip F. Anschutz, his former client who pushed the Bush White House to appoint him to the appeals court.
In the past, Judge Gorsuch has sought to recuse himself from participating in such cases, but he refused to pledge to continue that practice at the Supreme Court level, saying only that he would study the law, the facts and the practices of other justices.