[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S1859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF NEIL GORSUCH
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday, President Trump's nominee to
the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, was introduced in the Judiciary
Committee for opening statements. We all look forward to today's round
of questioning, during which I hope the nominee will be more
forthcoming than he was with me. I am very sympathetic to the fact that
judges should not offer opinions on cases that could come before the
Court lest they bias themselves. Every Senator is aware of that. We
know to ask general questions or questions about cases previously
decided to get a sense of a judge's philosophy.
In our meeting, Judge Gorsuch refused to even answer those questions.
For instance, I asked him a very simple question. I said forget about
the case that was then pending in the Ninth Circuit on the Executive
order. I said: Let's say Congress passed a law: No Muslim could enter
the United States. Would that be unconstitutional?
He even refused to answer that question. So I hope he will be more
willing to answer questions in the Judiciary Committee today,
particularly about his views of important Supreme Court cases of the
past and his own ideology. This idea that judges judge regardless of
ideology is totally belied by the fact that there is a coalition right
now--four judges on one side, four judges on the other. Four appointed
by Democratic Presidents who generally rule one way, four appointed by
Republican Presidents who generally rule the other.
If it was just interpreting the law without any input from a person's
life and thoughts and ideology, we would not have that stark breakdown,
but we do. In my view, the hard right, in trying to populate the bench
with people way over, has adopted this philosophy, starting with Miguel
Estrada: Don't answer the questions because if the American people knew
how you really felt, they would not want you on the bench.
Let's take the case of President Trump. Of course President Trump
considered ideology when he selected Judge Gorsuch off a list culled by
the far-right Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. He did not
pick the judges himself. He went to these extreme groups and said: You
make a list. I promise I will pick people from that list.
Do you think organizations--these organizations--dedicated to a
certain ideological viewpoint, did not consider ideology when building
their list of possible Supreme Court picks? Of course they did.
President Trump said himself, he wanted to appoint a Justice who
would overturn Roe v. Wade. The idea that he selected a judicious,
neutral judge is belied by the selection process, totally and
amazingly. That is how the President considered these judges. So it is
not unreasonable for Senators to consider and question the ideology of
a nominee in committee. President Trump sure did when he came up with a
list. The only way for the Judiciary Committee to do that is if the
nominee is willing to answer specific questions. If he is not willing
to answer specific questions, what is the purpose of even holding a 4-
day hearing?
Before I move on to another topic, I would like to point out that it
is the height of irony that Republicans held this Supreme Court seat
open for nearly a calendar year while President Obama was in office but
are now rushing to fill the seat for a President whose campaign is
under investigation by the FBI.
Even Representative Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, said the investigation, confirmed yesterday by
FBI Director Comey, puts a ``big gray cloud'' over this administration.
You can bet if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic
President was under investigation by the FBI, the Republicans would be
howling at the Moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such
circumstances.
After all, they stopped the President who was not under investigation
from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his Presidency. It is
unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court
Justice with a lifetime appointment while this ``big gray cloud'' of an
FBI investigation hangs over the Presidency.
____________________