[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 18 (Thursday, February 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S609-S610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF NEIL GORSUCH

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was surprised by a statement my 
friend the Democratic leader made right here yesterday. I am glad he 
came back to the floor to correct himself, though. I think we all 
appreciated the Democratic leader making clear that Republicans did 
not--let me repeat, did not--insist on 60-vote thresholds for either of 
President Obama's two first-term Supreme Court nominees. Did not. We 
thank the Democratic leader for clearing that up. His statement also 
reminds us that both of the Supreme Court Justices President Clinton 
nominated got straight up-or-down votes as well. There is no reason 
someone like Judge Gorsuch, who has received widespread acclaim from 
both sides of the aisle, should be treated differently now.
  When he was nominated to his current seat on the court of appeals, 
Judge Gorsuch received the American Bar Association's highest possible 
rating--unanimously ``well qualified.'' At his confirmation hearing, no 
one had a single negative word to say about him--not a single negative 
word. At his confirmation vote, no one cast a negative vote against 
him--not then-Senator Obama, not then-Senators Clinton, Biden, or 
Kennedy, and not my good friend Senator Schumer, either. Judge Gorsuch 
was confirmed in exceptionally fast time for a court of appeals 
nominee--just 2 months. So you have to wonder, if this nominee was so 
noncontroversial in 2006 that a rollcall vote was not even required, 
what could possibly have changed since to justify threats of 
extraordinary treatment now? What has happened in the last 10 years? If 
the Democratic leader or anyone else in his conference did not raise a 
concern in committee or cast a single negative vote then, let alone 
even ask for a rollcall vote, what could possibly justify these so-
called grave concerns--grave concerns--he claims to have now?
  Professor Laurence Tribe, President Obama's law school mentor, called 
Judge Gorsuch a ``brilliant, terrific guy who would do the Court's work 
with distinction.'' This is Laurence Tribe, the President's 
constitutional law professor, one of the best-known liberal professors 
in the country.
  Neal Katyal, President Obama's top Supreme Court lawyer, lauded Judge

[[Page S610]]

Gorsuch as ``one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have 
served our nation over the last century.'' Over the last century. That 
is President Obama's Supreme Court lawyer.
  The left-leaning Denver Post recently highlighted Judge Gorsuch's 
reputation as a ``brilliant legal mind'' who applies the law ``fairly 
and consistently.''
  I am happy to report that we have even been assured by liberal talk 
show host Rachel Maddow that Gorsuch is ``a relatively mainstream 
choice.'' Rachel Maddow.
  Turns out, in the years since Judge Gorsuch's unopposed Senate 
confirmation, he has shown himself to be the very kind of judge 
everyone hoped he would be, one who demonstrates a ``sense of fairness 
and impartiality'' that Democratic then-Senator Salazar lauded him for 
in 2006, which Salazar called a ``keystone for being a judge.'' That 
was the Democratic Senator from Colorado when he was confirmed in 2006.
  That was Judge Neil Gorsuch's reputation back then, and it is his 
richly deserved reputation still, as those in both parties who have 
known and worked with him continue to tell us. As one Democrat and 
Denver attorney put it, Judge Gorsuch is ``smart [and] he's 
independent.'' The things we have heard from so many about Judge 
Gorsuch--smart and independent, fair and impartial, thoughtful and 
brilliant--are just the qualities we should expect in our next Supreme 
Court Justice. They are the same qualities I am confident Judge Gorsuch 
will bring to the Court.

                          ____________________