Ep. 274 - Trump's Judicial Pick Shines

Political Strategy

The political strategy surrounding Supreme Court nominations is a complex game, as illustrated by the handling of Neil Gorsuch's nomination. Ben Shapiro highlights how the Republicans' refusal to vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee, has led to a contentious atmosphere. He suggests that Democrats are using this as an opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of Gorsuch's nomination, comparing it to a basketball play where Trump is trying to "stuff his nominee through the hoop" 1.

Gorsuch is a great nominee, but he can't be put through because the Republicans refuse to vote on Merrick Garland, who is President Obama's nominee, to fill Scalia's slot.

--- Ben Shapiro

Shapiro believes this situation could backfire on the Democrats, allowing Trump to gain political advantage 1.

   

Democratic Reactions

Democratic reactions to Gorsuch's nomination focus heavily on judicial precedent and the role of personal views in judicial decisions. Ben Shapiro discusses the concept of stare decisis, which refers to the respect given to precedent in judicial rulings. He points out that while some cases, like Roe v. Wade, remain contentious, others have been overturned when deemed wrongly decided, such as Plessy v. Ferguson 2.

Stare decisis is really a way for judges to pick and choose.

--- Ben Shapiro

Shapiro urges conservatives to question Gorsuch on how he determines when to uphold or overturn precedent, noting that Clarence Thomas is known for dismissing stare decisis if a case was wrongly decided 2.