#WeObject: Colorado spells out resistance to Neil Gorsuch

14 Comments

by: ProgressNow Colorado

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

This morning, community groups including Indivisible Denver, Indivisible Front Range Resistance, and Together We Will Colorado hosted The People’s Filibuster at Denver’s Civic Center Park: an event for Coloradans to stand up and be visually counted in opposition to Neil Gorsuch’s opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hundreds attended this event despite the rain and snow in the Denver area:

During today’s rally, participants spelled out the words “We Object” in the Greek Amphitheater of Civic Center Park, which was captured by aerial video:

It is absolutely critical that Coloradans speak out at this moment to oppose Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Neil Gorsuch is just the latest in a series of horrible choices by Donald Trump. Gorsuch’s fringe views on health care and contraception make him an enemy of Colorado women. On the Supreme Court, Gorsuch would be a vote to roll back women’s rights, environmental protections, and hard-won protections against discrimination in the workplace. Gorsuch has even been endorsed by the founder of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-LGBT extremist group. Gorsuch may hail from Colorado, but his record stands in opposition to Colorado values.

The simple fact is that this Supreme Court appointment was stolen from President Obama last year in a shameful act of political treachery. No Democrat should in any way cooperate with or otherwise enable Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination, including Colorado Democrats. To do so would only hand Trump another undeserved victory.

We will not stand by and allow Donald Trump to steal this Supreme Court seat, and install a Justice who would skew our law toward injustice for generations. We will not be silent while a judge who has a proven disregard for the rights of women, working people, and even the terminally ill–who Colorado voters overwhelmingly voted last year to give compassionate options to ease their suffering at the end of life.

We urge Colorado’s U.S. Senators to reject Gorsuch’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many thanks to our hard-working friends in local grassroots groups Indivisible Denver, Indivisible Front Range Resistance, and Together We Will Colorado for continuing to lead and organize resistance in our community.

14 thoughts on “#WeObject: Colorado spells out resistance to Neil Gorsuch”

RepealAndReplace says:

April 1, 2017 at 5:34 pm

Like Gardner is even remotely considering voting "No" on Gorsuch…

With Bennet, the odds are probably 50/50 at best that he will support the filibuster.

Log in to Reply
Duke Cox says:

April 1, 2017 at 6:42 pm

Bennet needs to do some long term thinking here.

I completely agree with blocking his nomination in any way possible. He is unsuited for the position because he is even considering such an affront to history and the Constitution. He claims to be all the things he is not….

Log in to Reply
1. Zappatero says:
  
  April 2, 2017 at 12:50 pm
  
  absolutely. Man up, Michael Bennet!
  
  Check out the assessment of Der Trumpster by the LA Times – going where Chuck Plunkett would never dare:
  
  “The role of the rational opposition is to stand up for the rule of law, the electoral process, the peaceful transfer of power and the role of institutions; we should not underestimate the resiliency of a system in which laws are greater than individuals and voters are as powerful as presidents. This nation survived Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. It survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will survive again.
  
  But if it is to do so, those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. Protesters must raise their banners. Voters must turn out for elections. Members of Congress — including and especially Republicans — must find the political courage to stand up to Trump.”
  
  Man up, Michael Bennet!
  
  You wanted to be a Senator and you are. You can keep mouthing this inane bullshit that there is some safe middle ground where Democrats can lay down with Republicans in Rainbow-tinted Harmonic Bipartisanship, but it is not here and it is not now.
  
  What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself.
  
  He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation.
  
  His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected.
  
  But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.”
  
  The other fallacy that compels Bennet to be moderate in the face of Radical Republicans who are trashing every institution insight, is that he'll finally be praised by those same Radicals, and they'll see his reaonableness, and they'll join him in the constructive efforts of running government.
  
  That will never happen, and he needs to learn that.
  
  Man up, Michael Bennet!
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Andrew Carnegie says:
    
    April 2, 2017 at 5:17 pm
    
    Zap:
    
    Man up.
    
    You lost.
    
    Deal with it.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. RepealAndReplace says:
    
    April 2, 2017 at 5:31 pm
    
    I'm sure Senator Bennet reads your comments religiously, Zap.
    
    Log in to Reply
JohnInDenver says:

April 2, 2017 at 6:48 am

I haven't read all the testimony from Gorsuch, his supporters and the others. But two things I read this morning sum up some reasons for objecting (and I'll be using them in emails / calls to Bennet and Gardner).

1. Gorsuch would not clarify ANY position on money in politics. And I can't find anyone who clarifies his thinking on the differences (if any) between flesh and blood persons and corporate "persons." His rulings I have seen reference to appear to show him as allowing money to be "speech" and corporations to be able to express religious views.

2. Gorsuch appears to have a particularly limited sense of Congress being able to delegate power to Executive agencies so they can make specific rules. One writer suggests he wants Congress to be very, very specific in the legislation in order to guide the Courts' interpretation of the law. Given the nearly dysfunctional Congress we have now (and seem likely to have for a foreseeable future), chances they would be able to craft legislation that specific is next to nil.

Log in to Reply
Conserv. Head Banger says:

April 2, 2017 at 6:53 am

Who is your alternative to Gorsuch?

Log in to Reply
1. Voyageur says:
  
  April 2, 2017 at 10:26 am
  
  It's a fairly deserate situation. The only viable strategy is to hold this seat and any subsequent ones open until 2020 and hope to elect a non-fascist administration and Senate..
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Powerful Pear says:
    
    April 2, 2017 at 11:06 am
    
    You think Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg is going to last another four years? Not a good strategy. I hope the Democrat leadership filibusters the Gorsuch nomination. The court will go conservative for the next 30 years. To the benefit of my grandchildren and perhaps their children and America.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Voyageur says:
      
      April 2, 2017 at 12:01 pm
      
      If more seats become vacant, let them stay vacant until fascism loses its grip on the white house. Ginsberg will outlast Trump.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Andrew Carnegie says:
        
        April 2, 2017 at 5:22 pm
        
        Guys:
        
        The gig is up.
        
        If you filibuster, they just change the rules and you lose. When Lindsay Graham says he will vote to change the rules if the Dems are successful on the filibuster, it is over.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        RepealAndReplace says:
        
        April 2, 2017 at 5:36 pm
        
        Enjoy it while it lasts, Andy.
        
        When President Elizabeth Warren appoints Kamala Harris to replace Anthony Kennedy or Clarence Thomas in 2021, and she's confirmed by a vote of 51-50 with Vice President Michael Bennet casting the tie-breaking vote, McConnell will be squealing like a pig being butchered.
        
        The nuclear option may actually be good for all of us. Bill Clinton wanted to appoint Mario Cuomo or some other liberal but went with Ginsberg and Breyer (who were moderately liberal) because they were considered confirmable under 60-vote rule. Same with Sotomayor and Kagan.
        
        If only Clinton and Obama weren’t shackled by the 60-vote rule back then.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Voyageur says:
        
        April 2, 2017 at 7:24 pm
        
        I've had much the same thoughts, RandR . The filibuster was long the bulwark of racism and it's time to junk it. I could also live with president lizzy. Face it Hillary has shot her bolt.
        
        Log in to Reply
mamajama55 says:

April 2, 2017 at 5:37 pm

Passing bills on 51 votes might force the Senate to actually govern. It's a risk worth taking, in my opinion. Realistic Republicans will also recognize that the next administration will probably be Democratic, and would certainly govern.

Log in to Reply