March 22 2017
There's a lot of hot contention in the conservative media right now about which Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee looked most like an idiot while quizzing 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch about his fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.
LifeZette seemed to think it might have been Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar:
The question: “So when the Constitution refers, like, 30-some times to ‘his’ or ‘he’ when describing the president of the United States, you would see that as, well back then, they thought a woman actually could be president of the United States even though women couldn’t vote?”
Klobuchar didn't seem to realize, like, that up until about twenty years ago, the pronouns "his" and "he" were uniformly agreed by grammarians and grade-school English teachers to refer to members of both sexes.
Legal Insurrection appeared to cast its vote for Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin:
“Do you believe that there are ever situations where the cost of maternity leave to an employer can justify an employer asking only female applicants and not male applicants about family plans?” Sen. Durbin asked.
To which Gorsuch sternly replied, “those are not my words and I would never had said them.”
“I didn’t say that,” said Durbin, “I asked you if you agreed with this statement.”
“And I’m telling you I don’t...."
Apparently some female former law-school student of Gorsuch's had accused Gorsuch of making the statement--an accusation that other students who had taken the class had strongly disputed--but that Durbin fell for like a sea bass for chum.
The Washington Examiner went for Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse:
The senator was trying to smear the judge by raising the issue of "dark money." Nonprofits on both sides have poured cash into the fight for months. But Tuesday morning, Whitehouse pushed Gorsuch to answer for the conduct of a bloc of conservative 501(c)4 groups....
In one particularly sharp and illuminating back-and-forth, Whitehouse demanded Gorsuch explain the motives of the conservative group, Judicial Crisis Network. "Why'd they spend $17 million to beat Garland and confirm you?" the senator asked. "Ask them," the judge shot back.
But my own vote goes to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her efforts to get Gorsuch to say whether he would or would not overturn the Supreme Court's famous 1973 abortion decision:
Feinstein asked if Gorsuch considered Roe v. Wade “super precedent”....
Um, Dianne, there's no such thing as a Supreme Court "super-precedent." Where did you go to law school--oh, you didn't, but didn't any of your staffers? As Twitchy commented in a post titled "WTF is a SUPER-precedent?"
Dianne is trying to make Roe v Wade some super law that if confirmed, Gorsuch wouldn’t be able to overturn. Of course she’s absolutely wrong but hey, whatever helps her sleep at night.
Gorsuch put Feinstein in her place with utmost dignity:
“I have offered no promises on how I'd rule, in any case, to anyone and I don't think it's appropriate for a judge to do so,” Gorsuch said.
Yup, in my opinion Feinstein gets the prize. But you might make a different call.