The nomination of Neil Gorsuch presents the Senate with a constitutional dilemma: Is this nation prepared to have Eddie Haskell serving a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?
The most noteworthy thing to emerge from Gorsuch’s testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee wasn’t his judicial philosophy (conservative), his credentials (considerable), nor even the likelihood of confirmation (virtually certain). What stood out was his aw-shucks, good-golly manner: Gorsuch played a folksy sycophant straight out of the 1950s.
No fewer than eight times he punctuated his testimony with “Leave It to Beaver” exclamations of “goodness” — “goodness, no!” “oh, my goodness!” — and, though only 49 years old, spoke in archaic phrases: “since I was a tot,” “a fair and square deal,” “doesn’t give a whit.”
Gorsuch made groan-inducing attempts at humor (“they haven’t yet replaced judges with algorithms, though I think eBay’s trying”) and proffered self-deprecating demurrals: “I don’t want to waste your time. … I can’t claim I’m perfect, but I try awful hard. … I wouldn’t count myself an expert.”