WATCH: Day 2 Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings, Morning Session
Senators will question Gorsuch in 30 minute intervals.
Yesterday, we heard opening statements from the Senate Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Today, Gorsuch will face questions from the senators in 30-minute intervals. The hearing should last 12 hours.
Will Democrats soften their stance on Gorsuch? As CBS pointed out, the Democrats “stressed that Gorsuch has impeccable credentials” and everything needed to serve on the Supreme Court. They want to make sure he “will maintain his independence” when situations “are particularly divisive.” The Democrats also brought a few cases Monday that they will probably address today, including the infamous Hobby Lobby case by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 10th Circuit. Gorsuch ruled with the majority that allowed the Green family, owners of the popular craft shop, to object “covering birth control for their employees.”
Day 2 of the Gorsuch confirmation hearing begins. pic.twitter.com/vBVV8i0mj3
— Matthew Bunson (@MattBunson) March 21, 2017
Gorsuch Responses to GOP
Gorsuch promised to look at facts and acknowledges there are no Republican or Democrat judges. He claimed he will keep an open mind and make a decision “based on the facts of the law.” He pointed out that he has dissented with judges appointed by presidents of both parties. Gorsuch noted that he has never made any promises on how he would rule on cases nor did anyone ask him for voting commitments.
Neil Gorsuch: “There's no such thing as a Republican judge or Democratic judge. We just have judges in this country” https://t.co/j9fAiLDG0N pic.twitter.com/Xy9TDnOzvA
— CNN (@CNN) March 21, 2017
Gorsuch continued to comment or give his opinion on past precedents because he believes it deprives him of his independence.
Gorsuch acknowledges he took a hit when he ruled with Hobby Lobby, but reminds Hatch that he applies to religious freedom to all. He also applied it to Little Sisters of the Poor, who also sued over birth control coverage. But Gorsuch also took the side of a Muslim prisoner in Oklahoma when the prison denied him a Halal meal.
Gorsuch continues to show that he will not tell anyone how he would rule on probable future cases, even if it comes to President Donald Trump:
Neil #Gorsuch tells @LindseyGrahamSC that if President Trump had asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade, "I would have walked out the door." pic.twitter.com/49w8a3YJdR
— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) March 21, 2017
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has asked about wiretapping when President George Bush pushed through wiretapping of U.S. citizens. She also asked him about enhanced interrogation tactics from President George Bush’s administration when he worked in the DOJ. Feinstein has asked about firearms, including Heller and if the 2nd amendment is ambiguous.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Durbin about accusations thrown at him about maternity leave and family plans.
Gorsuch Responses to Democrats
Gorsuch said that he does not believe that the president has authority to wiretap U.S. citizens that cannot be legislated away. He also could not answer some questions she asked until he reads the emails and documents she holds. Despite Feinstein’s pushes on firearms, Gorsuch reminds her that the law is the law and it does not matter if he agrees with it. It is the law and he will uphold it. It’s his job to follow the law.
Again, Gorsuch said he will not comment on former precedents because it may give away his future decisions. It will strip him of his independence.
Here is Gorsuch’s response to Durbin about the maternity question:
Gorsuch clarified that he asked students how many of the females faced questions by employers if they wanted to start a family. He couldn’t believe how many raised their hands and finds the question from employers inappropriate. Gorsuch discussed the complications his own mother had to go through as a young lawyer because she wanted to start a family.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I’m sure the Dems are furiously hunting for a woman they can pay/bribe to start making accusations against the Judge about things that supposedly happened decades ago. It’s their usual 11th hour tactic when the facts fail to support the conclusion that they want.
One already swung past – but was revealed to be a former staffer for a Dem senator and accounts contrary to her claim surfaced at the same time.
They might still try for a less public manufactured incident.
The ‘rats just have no shame, none at all. They are just plain evil.
I watched a bit of the questioning, the part where Durbin was asking Gorsuch (slightly paraphrased) “Did you know that your favorite University Professor made some slightly unkind remarks about LGBT rights back in 1993?”
I give credit to Gorsuch for keeping his cool and giving a remarkably calm answer to such an idiotic question. But that was it for me, helped me decide that this spectacle is just too stupid to watch.
Next thing you know is that Gorsuch will be accused of being in Russia and knows about Gold Showers. Wait a minute, that has already been tried.
Remember Souter? The man who had no known opinions on anything.
That didn’t work out too well.
Bush’s huge mistake was to think that since Souter had a reputation as being pro-prosecutor and hard on criminals, then Souter would have a conservative bent.
I think Souter’s lifetime record shows that he in fact had a very simple legal philosophy – the Government is Always Right. If a policeman, acting as an agent of the government, wanted to search someone without a warrant, fine with Souter. If a Prosecutor wanted to cut corners to make his case, fine with Souter. If the Feds said they needed to ignore the 2nd Amendment in the name of Law and Order, fine with Souter. If some local government wanted to seize people’s homes to give it to a developer who’d bought them off, (Kelo vs. New London) Fine with Souter! The Government is Always Right!
Souter is easily the WORST Supreme Court Judge in my lifetime. Even Ginsburg tried to put some real legal thought into her opinions, although she’s fading now. Souter was never more than a small town hack who inexplicably got elevated to a far higher level then he ever deserved to be at.
My favoroite Souter case was a 4A case. Police wanted to search a residence without warrant. Boyfriend & tenant said no, Girlfriend/ visitor said yes. He based his opinion on applicable state law as to who had authority to give permission. He concluded that girlfriend had authority to consent to search based on state law.
Problem was that he got basic state law wrong.
I think you are exactly right. And in my experience, there are MANY judges exactly like this.
If a judge worked for the government before becoming a judge, and think of themselves as part of the government (which they in fact are) then they tend to rule for the government.
I think the Washington Supreme Court (the state where I practice) can properly be characterized not so much as liberal or conservative, but as pro government (and correspondingly anti ndividual rights against the government).
Made fool of unprepared Feinstein. Check
Made fool of moron Turban Durbin. check
Just watched the sparring between Judge Gorsuch and Senator ‘Leaky’ Leahy. The question: “Is there a ‘religious test’ for entry into this country?” Judge Gorsuch says the Constitution provides equal protection for all persons in this country. The Constitution does not prohibit entry based on any criteria. 8 USC Section 1182(f) gives the President power to prohibit anyone.
I’ve not heard of a case where that particular section of the US Cade has been challenged.
You should post a link to Feinstein’s ‘question’ and Gorsuch’s answer.
Seriously. This is one of the most epic public takedowns you will ever see, and its delivered politely and factually by Gorsuch.
OMG! Franken’s on trying to beat a dead horse.
I’m reasonably sure that Franken IS a dead horse.
I wanted to go through my TV screen after Durbin and Franken.