Letters to the Editor

‘Nuclear option’ on Supreme Court confirmation raises questions about Constitution

President Donald Trump watches as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy administers the judicial oath to Justice Neil Gorsuch, accompanied by his wife Marie Louise, during a public swearing-in ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Monday, April 10, 2017.
President Donald Trump watches as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy administers the judicial oath to Justice Neil Gorsuch, accompanied by his wife Marie Louise, during a public swearing-in ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Monday, April 10, 2017. AP

We have a new Supreme Court judge in Neil Gorsuch. The previous 60-count approval in the Senate seemed quite sensible, as it meant that a judge would need support from both sides of the aisle and would not be extremely right or left. The real problem as I see it is that the U.S. Senate could change the long-established law so easily, with a simple majority vote, doing away with 200 years of history. I had no idea that this could be done so quickly, and would have presumed that such a change would take a long time to debate and have required at least a 60-count vote to be approved.

This so-called “nuclear option” is a truly terrible idea because it shows that our Constitution — and its relationship to our Congress — is not the solid document I have hoped it to be.

Clement Salvadori, Atascadero

  Comments