Two principal arguments have emerged for opposing the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. First, because Senate Republicans refused to provide a hearing to Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee, Democrats should use whatever mechanism necessary to prevent a hearing for Gorsuch. The second argument is that Gorsuch is a judicial soul mate of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he would assume, and thus is not in the "mainstream" of American legal thought.

I have known Neil Gorsuch for almost 25 years, although we are not close. Politically, I am a lifelong registered Democrat and have been for almost 50 years.

The first opposition argument amounts to "two wrongs make a right." That is simply a continuation of the shameless schoolyard level of debate that deeply marred the presidential campaign. Tit for tat may be politically tempting, but as a principle of evaluating judicial nominees, it goes nowhere, except as an excuse for all sides to ignore principle altogether.

Read more at The Chicago Tribune