"Conservative presidents,"argued host of GOP News Sunday Chris Wallace, "are going to nominate conservative jusges and liberal presidents are going to nominate liberal judges, as long as they are in the judicial mainstream. Isn't that what an election is for?"
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer countered
Well, both The New York Times and Washington Post hired independent experts to rate where Gorsuch would be. The Times said he would be to the right of every judge but Thomas, the most conservative judge we’ve had in history, and The Post analysis said he’d be to the right of that. So, this is not a mainstream judge.
Schumer pointed out also
The average middle-class person, the only recourse they have is the courts. Gorsuch repeatedly on issue after issue has been far to the right. In one case, he even went against what Thomas and Alito said on education of special kids.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected legal reasoning used by President Donald Trump's high court nominee Neil Gorsuch in his role as an appellate judge, ruling in favor of an autistic student who said he was denied an adequate education.
The 8-0 ruling, authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, was issued at the same time Gorsuch was facing questions during his Senate confirmation hearing about a 2008 case in which he ruled against an autistic child who sought a public education more tailored to his needs.
The Supreme Court ruled that public schools must offer disabled students a special educational program sufficiently ambitious to ensure they make progress.
Democrats called the Supreme Court ruling a rebuke of the Republican president's nominee and suggested Gorsuch was not a mainstream judge.
That's quite a judicial mainstream, in which Judge Gorsuch's view is validated by exactly zero of eight judges.
Nonetheless, that wasn't the only preposterous argument made in favor of Justice Gorsuch, deftly handled by Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse during confirmation hearings (below). Wallace contended also
Conservative presidents are going to nominate conservative judges and liberal presidents are going to nominate liberal judges, as long as they are in the judicial mainstream. Isn't that what an election is for?
It's hardly likely that the election was used by voters to decide upon a Supreme Court nominee, given that the high court was not a major election issue. Additionally, if that is "what an election is for," we need to consider the following numbers: Evan McMullin, .53%; Dr. Jill Stein, 1.06%; Gary Jonson, 3.2%; Donald Trump, 45.94%; Hillary Clinton, 48.03%.
If that is what "an election is for," a plurality of voters opted for the vision and values of Hillary Clinton, not those of Donald Trump. But of course, Americans do not vote for a Supreme Court Justice when they vote for President. Just ask Merrick Garland.