[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 34 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1430-S1431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  One of the areas in which I am very excited about our ability to 
effect change will be in considering the President's nominee to fill 
the seat left vacant by the tragic passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. 
It has been a month since President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch 
to that position. As Americans--including Members of the Senate--are 
familiarizing themselves with his incredible record, I have been glad 
to see folks on both sides of the aisle speak so well of him, not just 
his sterling character and his sterling legal career but how he appears 
to be really the role model for the type of person you would want to 
see sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States. Those who know 
him and his work understand that he exemplifies the integrity, 
intellect, and accomplishment we would expect from someone on our 
highest Court.
  Some of our colleagues across the aisle--notably the minority 
leader--have complained that Judge Gorsuch has refused to prejudge 
certain issues he has been asked about that will likely come before him 
as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. I think Judge 
Gorsuch has it right. It is common practice for Supreme Court nominees, 
reflecting the judicial ethics of not deciding cases before they are 
actually presented, to decline to answer those sorts of speculative 
questions. Justice Ginsburg, whom the minority leader clearly respects, 
made this point eloquently, and Supreme Court nominees have adhered to 
the norm ever since. If following the well-conceived practices 
developed by people like Justice Ginsburg of declining to answer 
questions about how they would decide a case if it came before the 
Supreme Court--certainly if that is the rule she would embrace, then 
that ought to be good enough for Judge Gorsuch as well.
  I think it reflects the fact that our friends across the aisle who 
are looking for something to complain about with Judge Gorsuch simply 
can't find anything, and so they are creating this false choice of 
asking him to decide cases before he even assumes the bench on the 
Supreme Court, which clearly is unethical for any judge to do because 
judges are not politicians running on a platform; a judge's job is to 
decide the law according to the law and the Constitution. How can you 
possibly know before the case is presented what the facts might be or 
how the issue might be presented to the court?
  Every ethicist, every legal scholar who has had a chance to comment 
on such things understands that we can't ethically require judges to 
say how they would decide cases before they go on the court. If they 
did, I think they would be disqualified from serving because they would 
really be just a politician wearing a black robe but one who is 
unaccountable to the American people since they serve literally for 
life.

[[Page S1431]]

  Editorial boards across the country and even former Obama 
administration officials have recognized Judge Gorsuch as a man who 
would ``help restore confidence in the rule of law.'' Before he was 
even announced as the nominee, an editorial in the Denver Post, his 
hometown newspaper, encouraged President Trump to select him. They 
called Judge Gorsuch ``a brilliant legal mind and talented 
writer.'' That same paper, by the way, endorsed Hillary Clinton for 
President. But they agree that Neil Gorsuch is a tremendous nominee for 
the Supreme Court.

  Just last week, the Washington Post issued an article titled ``Simply 
stated, Gorsuch is steadfast and surprising.'' Well, that is a very 
concise way to put it, and it is actually a great summary. He is 
steadfast in his belief in originalism; that is, the text of the 
Constitution actually means what it says, not based on some desire to 
see some particular policy affected that has nothing to do with the 
literal text of the Constitution. That is what judges do--they 
interpret a written Constitution, not an evolving Constitution or 
decide cases based on their public policy preferences.
  It is clear that Judge Gorsuch is independent. He interprets the law 
as a judge should--with fairness and without bias.
  To put it another way, Judge Gorsuch is exactly the kind of nominee 
you would hope to see from any administration, and it is gratifying to 
see him nominated to this important seat by President Trump. I am sure, 
because of the qualities I have described, that is why he was 
previously confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate to his current 
position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
  Judge Gorsuch is a tremendous jurist and scholar. He will be 
appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March for 
questioning by members of the Judiciary Committee, and then there will 
be a vote. He has been confirmed by the Senate before unanimously, as I 
said, because he was then and is now a mainstream pick with an 
exceptional legal record. The more we learn about him, it seems the 
more we hear from folks along his journey from childhood, to law 
school, to his professional life, commending his intellect, integrity, 
and his strong sense of character. I believe he is simply the right man 
for the job. I look forward to considering him before the Judiciary 
Committee and to confirming him soon.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.