[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S541-S542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, last night President Trump announced 
an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch of 
Colorado. While Judge Gorsuch has a significant legacy to live up to as 
the nominee for the seat left vacant by the loss of Justice Scalia, I 
am confident his impressive background and long record of service will 
prepare him well for the task ahead.
  Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch understands the constitutional 
limits of his authority. He understands that a judge's duty is to apply 
the law evenhandedly, without bias toward one party or another. He 
understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not 
impose his own viewpoint or political leanings.
  He has also been recognized from people on both sides of the aisle as 
a consistent, principled, and fair jurist. Judge Gorsuch has a stellar 
reputation and a resume to match, with degrees from Harvard and 
Columbia, a Ph.D. in legal philosophy from Oxford, and just about every 
honor, award, and scholarship you can possibly imagine.
  When he graduated from law school, Judge Gorsuch did not just clerk 
for one Supreme Court Justice, he clerked for two. They were Justices 
nominated by Presidents of different political parties--Anthony 
Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, and Byron White, who was nominated by JFK.
  Judge Gorsuch received a unanimously ``well qualified'' rating by the 
American Bar Association when he was nominated to his current position 
on the court of appeals. He was confirmed without any votes in 
opposition. That is right--not a single Democrat opposed Judge 
Gorsuch's confirmation, not Senator Barack Obama, not Senator Hillary 
Clinton, not Senators Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy. In fact, not a single 
one of the Democrats who still serve with us opposed him, including the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and the 
Democratic leader himself, Senator Schumer. In the coming days, I hope 
and expect that all Senate colleagues will again give him fair 
consideration, just as we did for the nominees of newly elected 
Presidents Clinton and Obama.
  This is a judge who is known for deciding cases based on how the law 
is actually written, not how he wishes it were written, even when it 
leads to results that conflict with his own political beliefs. He 
understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not 
impose his own viewpoint. Here is how Judge Gorsuch himself put it: ``A 
judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, 
reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.''
  Some of our colleagues and some others on the left see the role of a 
judge very differently. In last year's Presidential debate, our former 
colleague, Secretary Clinton, stated her view that a Supreme Court 
Justice--now listen to this--ought to look more favorably on certain 
political constituencies than others; that it was the job of the 
Supreme Court to ``stand on the side'' of this group or another over 
that one. Some of our current colleagues seem to share this view. The 
assistant Democratic leader said that what is important to him are the 
political views of a Supreme Court nominee, what or perhaps whom they 
are going to stand for.
  The problem with that approach is that it is great if you happen to 
be the party in the case whom the judge likes; it is not so great if 
you are the other guy. Justice Scalia believed this to his very core. 
He was an eloquent champion of the Constitution who was guided by 
important principles like applying the law equally to all, giving every 
litigant a fair shake, and rulings based on the actual meaning of the 
Constitution and our laws, not what you or your preferred political 
constituency wished they meant. These principles

[[Page S542]]

helped guide Justice Scalia for many years. The record of Judge Gorsuch 
indicates that he will continue this legacy of fair and impartial 
justice.
  Now, of course, that does not much matter to some over here on the 
far left. Despite his sterling credentials and bipartisan support, some 
on the far left decided to oppose Judge Gorsuch before he was even 
nominated. We already know what they will say about him as well. It is 
the same thing they have been saying about every Republican nominee for 
more than four decades. They said Gerald Ford's nominee, John Paul 
Stevens, ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the 
problems women face.'' They said Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy, was 
a ``sexist'' who would ``be a disaster for women.'' They said George 
H.W. Bush's nominee, David Souter, was a threat to women, minorities, 
dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups. So it is not terribly 
surprising that they would say it again this time. What is 
disappointing is that leading Democrats in the Senate would adopt the 
same rhetoric. The ink was not even dry on Judge Gorsuch's nomination 
when the Democratic leader proclaimed that Judge Gorsuch had--you 
guessed it--demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights. I hope our 
colleagues will stick to the facts this time around.
  We know that Justice Scalia's seat on the Court does not belong to 
any President or any political party; it belongs to the American 
people. When it became vacant in the middle of a contentious 
Presidential election, we followed the rule set down by Vice President 
Joe Biden and Democratic Leader Senator Schumer, which said that 
Supreme Court vacancies arising in the midst of a Presidential election 
should not be considered until the campaign ends. It is the same rule, 
by the way, that President Obama's own legal counsel admitted she would 
have recommended had the shoe been on the other foot.
  I have been consistent all along that the next President, Democrat or 
Republican, should select the next nominee for the Supreme Court. I 
maintained that view even when many thought that particular President 
would be Hillary Clinton. But now the election season is over and we 
have a new President who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate 
to fill that ninth seat. So I would invite Democrats who spent many 
months insisting we need nine to join us in following through on that 
advice by giving the new President's nominee a fair consideration and 
an up-or-down vote, just as we did for past Presidents of both parties.