Elizabeth Warren Torches Trump's SCOTUS Pick on the Senate Floor

Democrats have been mostly silent since Donald Trump named Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, with some members of the Senate confessing their unwillingness to engage in the kind of obstructionism Republicans demonstrated over the past eight years. But if Elizabeth Warren is any indication, Trump's SCOTUS pick may be in for a protracted fight. 

Warren began her address on the Senate floor Thursday by explaining how a "rigged" justice system has devastated working people and "made it harder for people who have been injured or cheated" to get a fair hearing.

"The best example was the unprecedented blockade of Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court," argued Warren. "Judge Garland was an obvious consensus nominee and a straight shooter who followed the law, so why block it? The problem was that Judge Garland's career didn't reflect a sufficient willingness to bend the law to suit the needs of the rich and powerful and for that sin, far-right groups financed by big business interests spent millions of dollars attacking him to torpedo his nomination and keep that seat open."

A GOP-controlled Senate refused to give Garland a hearing or a vote, yet Trump is now threatening to "go nuclear" should Democrats oppose Gorsuch, a judge who has sided with corporations throughout his career.

"Judge Gorsuch has shown a truly remarkable insensitivity to the struggles of working Americans and an eagerness to side with businesses that break the rules over workers who are seeking justice," Warren continued. "Even before he became a judge, Judge Gorsuch argued in favor of limiting the ability of investors and shareholders to bring lawsuits when companies commit fraud, whining about how annoying it is for billionaire corporations to have to face their investors when they cheat them."

Warren is convinced that Trump's pick will not be a "neutral arbiter" of the law should he be confirmed, and that he represents the president's "hostility" to an independent judiciary. 

"This is exactly the type of Supreme Court justice that giant corporations want, but they have never been quite so brazen about it—spending millions to slime a consensus, straight-shooter nominee like Merrick Garland, steal a Supreme Court seat, then drawing up a public list of acceptable alternatives and handing it over to a billionaire president so he can do his buddies a favor. That's bold," she argued. "And that is not how America is supposed to work."


Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.