Neil Gorsuch is Trumps Nominee.

Well, the guy is amply qualified. I do not, based on what I know now, see grounds for not confirming him.

Of course, I also saw no grounds for not confirming Merrick Garland.

ETA:

BTW, that quote about the mother's life vis a vis the child's is out of context.  Here's what Gorsuch said in his book:



In other words, Gorsuch didn't say that there's no constitutional basis for putting the mother's life ahead of the child's.  What he did was (correctly) paraphrase the Roe v. Wade court.  That court explained that it did not find a fetus to be a person for purposes of the 14th amendment, and notes that if a fetus were a person for purposes of the 14th amendment, the court couldn't have created a right to abortion.


ETA:

Frankly, my initial reaction is that this is a much better pick than I expected Trump to make.  I feared he'd pull some alt-right yahoo with sketchy qualifications and shady connections to Trump or Bannon.  That's not this guy.  He's a pretty classic establishment pick with sterling credentials. Some of his clerks have gone on to clerk for liberal supreme court justices -- which means he isn't using a political litmus test to choose them.  He was confirmed to the 10th Circuit without objection.

Yes, Garland should be on the damn court. I think he was perfect -- a superlatively qualified moderate.

What happened with him was disgusting and inexcusable.

That's the trouble.

Exactly the same things could be said about Garland. Gorsuch is amply qualified (though not more so than Garland); had the Garland thing not been so outrageous, I would very much be wagging a finger at Democrats and telling them they should not be obstructing this nominee.

But the Garland thing WAS that outrageous. And it's not some ancient outrage; it just fucking happened.

As it stands, giving Gorsuch the easy confirmation he, in himself, probably deserves (as did Garland), is sending a message to Republicans in Congress that they win by being assholes, and Democrats will just roll over.

I actually agree with Neal on Gorsuch's merits, but after sleeping on it -- and I really, really fucking hate to say this -- I not only won't blame Democrats for blocking him, but I almost think they must do it.  At the very least, Republicans are in no position to wag a finger.

I really, really hate that's where we are, but I think it is.

My big fear is that if Gorsuch is blocked, we end up with someone far worse. I agree with Katyal in Gorsuch's merits, and as I said, my first reaction to the nomination was relief.

My second reaction -- I rather wish Trump HAD picked some yahoo. Then I could wholeheartedly cheer the Dems blocking him.

As it stands, I can't condemn them blocking (assuming they do), I do understand, but I'm shaking my damn head that we've arrived at this pass, and I can't cheer.

Bork and especially Thomas were much more controversial picks than Garland. (I actually thought Bork was a stronger pick than Thomas, which probably will have liberals descending on my head.)

I didn't like the way Bork went down, since I don't really like the partisan shit when it comes to well-qualified candidates (which Bork, IMO, was), but at least it was more about blocking that particular candidate, rather than any candidate a president might pick. (Anthony Kennedy was then confirmed unanimously for the seat, if I recall correctly.)

Thomas is a different kettle of fish entirely. For one, he was ultimately confirmed, and for another, there was a reason for him to be grilled besides a mere political blockade. (And frankly, he hasn't particularly impressed me since he got on the court. Mostly, he sits there. Love Scalia or hate him, one could never say that about him, and IMO hard to deny his brilliance, even if you don't like his decisions.)

Garland was a moderate and an impeccably qualified, noncontroversial pick. And they refused to even consider him -- for a goddamn year -- simply to spite Obama and the Democrats. (A president is not a "lame duck" for the entire last quarter of his term, sorry.)

That, IMO, was a good bit more ridiculous than what happened to Bork and certainly what happened to Thomas.

And it set up what is likely going to happen with Gorsuch. Despite my agreeing he's a well-qualified candidate, I'm just not going to be able to sympathize with any Republican outrage over attempts to block him. Garland was just too recent, and too ridiculous.

I will also agree that it's sad we're here. If I thought Dems would gain a damn thing by taking the high road here, I'd be calling for it. But alas. I think they won't. We shall reap what has been sown.

This particularly saddens me because I think pretty much anyone else Trump is likely to pick will not be as good all round.  That's not to say "oh, best pick ever" (as Trump keeps trumpeting) -- he's certainly not better than Garland -- but he's well-qualified and from what I know of him, I won't lose sleep over him being on the court.  

The trouble is, when one side acts like grownups, and the other side dies nothing but blockade, the blockading side wins it all. To even things up, the Dems almost have to do the same thing.

I say this as someone who profoundly hates such antics and would like to see things move in a more grownup direction. If I thought that Dems, by being grownups and compromising, could moderate Trump and more extreme Republicans and make them more reasonable, I'd be all for it. But frankly, I think the opposite would result. Pulling the same tactics might be the only way for Dems to keep things somewhere near the center.

We voters can work to get more moderates into Congress -- people who can actually work with one another and agree on reasonable things -- people who are more devoted to their country than their party. That's the best hope, IMO.