Opinion: Payback for stonewalling Merrick Garland is no reason to oppose Neil Gorsuch

To the editor: The Times’ righteous indignation is an example of why our government is paralyzed. (“It’s not Neil Gorsuch’s fault, but we can’t support his ascension to a stolen Supreme Court seat,” editorial, March 25)

Although it acknowledges that Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch is qualified, The Times urges a refusal to move this process along simply “to stay focused on what the GOP did” despite the fact such refusal will accomplish little but increased rancor. This petulance is simply unacceptable from leaders who must ensure that the electorate’s needs are addressed.

We need a Supreme Court that is not split for our system to work. If the nominee is qualified, then political payback should be of no concern.

Our leaders need to grow up and deal with the realities of our current government and try to work within those parameters for the benefit of the American people.

Rena Kreitenberg, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Democrats must not back Gorsuch and should fight this nomination even if it results in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) invoking the anti-filibuster “nuclear option.”

Gorsuch shouldn’t get a vote until Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, gets one. We cannot allow Republicans to subvert the Constitution and steal this seat.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected president with the help of a foreign power, would the GOP have allowed her to fill this seat? Absolutely not. I am tired of the Democrats always being the grown-ups in the room.

Coleen Barker, San Juan Capistrano

..

To the editor: The reason that you can’t endorse Gorsuch, an eminently qualified candidate, is payback for a slight given to Obama?

Our current president is Donald Trump. No matter how much you dislike him, you should be able to recognize that he has nominated a fine, highly qualified candidate to the Supreme Court.

Unless you can find something lacking in his qualifications, you should either support Gorsuch or withhold comment.

Larry Hart, Tarzana

..

To the editor: While it could turn out that Gorsuch will ally himself with the court’s conservatives, resulting in more 5-4 decisions that Democrats abhor, I see another strong possibility supported by how similar his career is to that of retired Justice John Paul Stevens.

When he was nominated in 1975, Stevens was ensconced firmly in the Republican establishment. His main opposition came from the National Organization for Women, which was certain he would oppose women’s movement for equality. Upon his retirement 35 years later, he was celebrated by NOW.

Given his erudition and character, Gorsuch could very well turn out to be a bulwark against the blind partisanship that is at the root of our country’s current existential crisis.

Al Rodbell, Carlsbad

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook