[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 41 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1716-S1718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Judge 
Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully, we will see his 
confirmation in the weeks to come.
  As I have come to the floor and talked about before, Judge Gorsuch is 
a fourth-generation Coloradan who serves on the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, which is the U.S. circuit court that is housed in Denver, CO. 
It is the circuit court that oversees about 20 percent of the land mass 
in the States of Colorado, Oklahoma, and places in between. Once he is 
confirmed to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch will become the second 
Coloradan to have served on the Court.
  We have a great history of another Supreme Court Justice who served 
on the highest Court. Associate Justice Byron White had the distinction 
of being the only Supreme Court Justice to lead the NFL in rushing, and 
he was also from Colorado.
  If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, Justice Gorsuch will join Byron White 
as another Coloradan on the High Court. Justice Rutledge also received 
his bachelor's of law degree from the University of Colorado. So we do 
have a great history of Colorado westerners joining our Nation's 
highest Court.
  Mr. Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court a little over 10 
years ago--11 years ago--in 2006, by a unanimous voice vote. He was so 
popular and so well supported that there was not even a rollcall vote 
taken in this Chamber. It was a simple acclamation by a voice vote. In 
fact, Gorsuch's nomination hearing was deemed so noncontroversial that 
the last time, Senator Graham was the only committee member to attend.
  One may ask oneself what made and continues to make Judge Gorsuch 
such a mainstream nominee. I do not think we need to look any further 
than his original Judiciary Committee questionnaire to see that Judge 
Gorsuch possesses the right temperament and the right view of the role 
of judges.
  I thought it was important that I read this from 11 years ago when 
Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court. The 
questionnaire he filled out for the Judiciary Committee included then-
Neil Gorsuch's--trying to be Judge Gorsuch--response to judicial 
activism and what it meant to Neil Gorsuch prior to his confirmation to 
the Tenth Circuit Court.
  Here is what he replied to the Judiciary Committee in that committee 
questionnaire:

       The Constitution requires Federal judges to strike a 
     delicate balance. The separation of powers embodied in our 
     founding document provides the judiciary with a defined and 
     limited charter.
       Judges must allow the elected branches of government to 
     flourish and citizens, through their elected representatives, 
     to make laws appropriate to the facts and circumstances of 
     the day.
       Judges must avoid the temptation to usurp the roles of the 
     legislative and executive branches and must appreciate the 
     advantages these democratic institutions have in crafting and 
     adapting social policy as well as their special authority, 
     derived from the consent and mandate of the people, to do so.
       At the same time, the Founders were anxious to ensure that 
     the judicial branch never becomes captured by or subservient 
     to the other branches of government, recognizing

[[Page S1717]]

     that a firm and independent judiciary is critical to a well-
     functioning democracy.
       The Constitution imposes on the judiciary the vital work of 
     settling disputes, vindicating civil rights and civil 
     liberties, ensuring equal treatment under the law, and 
     helping to make real for all citizens the Constitution's 
     promise of self-government. There may be no firmly fixed 
     formula on how to strike the balance envisioned by the 
     Constitution in specific cases, but there are many guideposts 
     discernible in the best traditions of our judiciary.
       A wise judge recognizes that his or her own judgment is 
     only a weak reed without being fortified by these proven 
     guides.
       For example, a good judge recognizes that many of the 
     lawyers in cases reaching the court of appeals have lived 
     with and thought deeply about the legal issues before the 
     court for months or years. A lawyer in the well is not to be 
     treated as a cat's paw but as a valuable colleague whose 
     thinking is to be mined and tested and who, at all times, 
     deserves to be treated with respect and common courtesy.
       A good judge will diligently study counsels' briefs and the 
     record and seek to digest them fully before argument and then 
     listen with respectful discernment to the arguments made by 
     his or her colleagues at the bar.
       A good judge will recognize that few questions in the law 
     are truly novel, that precedents in the vast body of Federal 
     law reflect the considered judgment of those who have come 
     before us and embody the settled expectation of those in our 
     own generation.
       A good judge will seek to honor precedent and strive to 
     avoid its disparagement or displacement.
       A good judge will listen to his or her colleagues and 
     strive to reach consensus with them. Every judge takes the 
     same judicial oath; every judge brings a different and 
     valuable perspective to the office.
       A good judge will appreciate the different experiences and 
     perspectives of his or her colleagues and know that reaching 
     consensus is not always easy but that the process of getting 
     there often tempers the ultimate result, ensuring that the 
     ultimate decision reflects the collective wisdom of multiple 
     individuals of disparate backgrounds who have studied the 
     issue with care.
       Throughout the process of adjudicating an appeal, a good 
     judge will question not only the positions espoused by the 
     litigants but also his or her own perceptions and 
     tentative conclusions as they evolve.
       And a good judge will critically examine his or her own 
     ideas as readily and openly as the ideas advanced by others.
       A good judge will never become so wedded to any view of any 
     case so as to preclude the possibility of changing his or her 
     mind at any stage--from argument through the completion of a 
     written opinion.
       Pride of position, fear of embarrassment associated with 
     changing one's mind, along, of course, with personal politics 
     or policy preferences have no useful role in judging; regular 
     and healthy doses of self-skepticism and humility about one's 
     own abilities and conclusions always do.

  This is the response that then-Neil Gorsuch, prior to his becoming 
Judge Gorsuch, gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in response 
to a questionnaire about judicial activism and about what makes a good 
judge in his talking about fidelity to precedent, talking about the 
ability to reach a conclusion that may be in disagreement with one's 
own personal opinions, making sure that we respect the different 
branches of government, making sure that one listens to one's 
colleagues who are arguing a case and who have spent years in their 
getting to know the case and its every detail, and scrubbing your mind 
to question the positions that you thought you had to make sure that 
they mesh with the law, not with opinion.
  Judge Gorsuch, when he was introduced at the White House when being 
nominated by the President, said that a judge who agrees with every 
opinion he reaches is probably a bad judge.
  The institution we serve has that fidelity to the Constitution that 
we must preserve, that we must guard. Guardians of the Constitution, 
which judges represent, is something we confirm. It is our job to make 
sure the kind of judges we place on courts represent the kind of judge 
Neil Gorsuch truly is.
  It is this temperament, this fidelity to the Constitution, this 
appropriate temperament, and remarkable humility that has made Judge 
Gorsuch a consensus pick in the past and, I believe, that could be a 
consensus pick in the near future.
  It is reflected in the fact that, on February 23, Senator Bennet and 
I, along with the Judiciary Committee, received a letter from 
Colorado's diverse legal community in support of Judge Gorsuch's 
nomination to the Supreme Court.
  The letter reads as follows:

       As members of the Colorado legal community, we are proud to 
     support the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be our next 
     Supreme Court Justice. We hold a diverse set of political 
     views as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Many of us 
     have been critical of actions taken by President Trump. 
     Nonetheless, we all agree that Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally 
     well qualified to join the Supreme Court. He deserves an up-
     or-down vote.
       We know Judge Gorsuch to be a person of utmost character. 
     He is fair, decent, and honest, both as a judge and as a 
     person. His record shows that he believes strongly in the 
     independence of the judiciary. Judge Gorsuch has a well-
     earned reputation as an excellent jurist. He voted with the 
     majority in 98% of the cases he heard on the 10th Circuit, a 
     great portion of which were joined by judges appointed by 
     Democratic Presidents. Seven of his opinions have been 
     affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--four unanimously--and 
     none has been reversed.
       We ask that Colorado's Senators join together and support 
     this highly qualified nominee from Colorado. Regardless of 
     the politics involved in prior confirmation efforts, 
     including what many consider to be the mistreatment of Judge 
     Garland's nomination, a filibuster now will do Colorado no 
     good.
       Judge Gorsuch deserves a fair shake in the confirmation 
     process. Please vote against a filibuster and vote for Judge 
     Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

  This letter from James Lyons is another such letter talking about the 
importance of the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. I couldn't agree more 
with this letter and the letter that I read.
  Judge Gorsuch is an exceptionally qualified jurist, to use their 
words, and he deserves a fair shake in the confirmation process that 
includes a timely up-or-down vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 February 7, 2017.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I write this letter in strong 
     support of the nomination and confirmation of Judge Neil 
     Gorsuch for Associate Justice of the United States Supreme 
     Court.
       Judge Gorsuch has been known to me professionally for over 
     twenty years, and his family even longer. In the mid-
     nineties, we were counsel together in successfully 
     representing co-defendants in a major securities matter 
     involving class action and derivative lawsuits in several 
     jurisdictions across the country as well as SEC and 
     Congressional investigations. Over the course of that complex 
     representation in the following years, I came to observe 
     first-hand his considerable lawyering skills, intellect, 
     judgment and temperament. He was one of the finest trial 
     lawyers with whom it has been my pleasure to be associated in 
     my career. We also became personal and good friends which 
     continued during the following years at his firm, later 
     during his time at the Department of Justice and since 
     returning to Denver to serve on the bench.
       I was delighted by his appointment to the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the Tenth Circuit based here in Denver. (He 
     honored me by having me be one of two lawyers to introduce 
     him to the court at his formal investiture.) Over his years 
     of service on that court, he has distinguished himself with 
     his work ethic, keen and thorough understanding of the case 
     under review, his formidable analytical ability, and the 
     clarity of his opinions. I have read many of his opinions and 
     watched him in oral argument. He is engaging, courteous to 
     counsel and demonstrates a full and unusual appreciation for 
     the human impact of his decisions on the people involved. 
     These are the qualities of an outstanding jurist.
       Judge Gorsuch has been active and an important voice in the 
     legal community and academy. He has written extensively, 
     lectured and taught in continuing legal education seminars 
     and served on the important federal Rules Committee, among 
     others. He also has found time to sit on student moot courts 
     and teach both ethics and federal jurisdiction at the 
     University of Colorado Law School. He is regularly regarded 
     by his students as one of their very best law professors--
     effective, challenging and personable.
       Judge Gorsuch's intellect, energy and deep regard for the 
     Constitution are well known to those of us who have worked 
     with him and have seen first-hand his commitment to basic 
     principles. Above all, his independence, fairness and 
     impartiality are the hallmarks of his career and his well-
     earned reputation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James M. Lyons.

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues across the aisle to make sure we fill this vacancy on the 
Supreme Court with one of this Nation's truly brilliant legal minds.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S1718]]

  

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.