Democrat Senator explains why none of them will vote to confirm Gorsuch

Litmus tests on policy issues, decisions on a certain case and partisan politics have been reasons that senators might vote against the confirmation of a supreme court nominee in the past, but a sitting senator outlined the very reason that 100% of democrats won’t be voting for Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Taking to twitter on Friday, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) outlined her reason for refusing to vote for a “poster boy” supreme court nominee.

Kamala Harris‏  Verified account @SenKamalaHarris

“Judge Gorsuch has consistently valued legalisms over real lives. I won’t support his nomination.”

Judge Gorsuch would likely take Ms. Harris’ comment as a compliment as he made no attempt to hide his opinion that “legalisms” (aka. the law) applies equally to everyone and that justice must be blind.

“When it comes to equal protection of the laws, for example, it matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the 14th Amendment were racists — because they were — or sexist — because they were,” Gorsuch said during his confirmation hearings. “The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws for all persons. That’s what they wrote.”

The law must be applied to all individuals in the same manner. Feelings, emotions, and politics should fall away the moment a judge puts on the robe and decides how the law applies to persons or entities.

Kamala’s remarks are so much more disturbing because she served as a San Fransisco district attorney and the attorney general of California, but they precisely describe the democrat party’s only reason for voting against Gorsuch’s confirmation – they believe that legal decisions should be based on favoritism, not the law.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) spoke negatively of the nominee while alluding to the democrat policy of emotion over objectiveness.

“Will we be a compassionate and tolerant America that embraced my mother, my brothers and me,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and added, ” You consistently choose corporations and powerful interests over people.”

Gorsuch’s decisions bear facts that disagree with Sens. Hirono and Harris.

“I have ruled for disabled students, prisoners, and workers alleging civil rights violations. Sometimes, I have ruled against such persons, too,” Gorsuch told the committee. “But my decisions have never reflected a judgment about the people before me — only my best judgment about the law and facts at issue in each particular case.”

Democrats aren’t opposing Judge Gorsuch because he is unfit for the bench or would be unable to serve as a check on executive power. They oppose him because he would not rule based on emotion and would not favor their politics over the law.