[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2027-S2029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week the Senate Judiciary Committee 
held hearings on Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. 
Everything we heard from this nominee confirmed what has been clear 
from the beginning: Judge Gorsuch is the kind of judge all of us should 
want on the Nation's highest Court.
  Judge Gorsuch obviously has a distinguished resume. He graduated with 
honors from Harvard Law School and went on to receive a doctorate in 
legal philosophy from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall 
scholar.
  He clerked for two Supreme Court Justices--Byron White and Anthony 
Kennedy--and he worked in both private practice and at the Justice 
Department before being nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, where he has served with distinction for 10 years.
  He is widely regarded as a brilliant and thoughtful jurist and a 
gifted writer whose opinions are known for their clarity. Most 
importantly, however, Judge Gorsuch understands the proper role of a 
judge, and that role is to interpret the law, not make the law; to 
judge, not legislate; to call balls and strikes, not to rewrite the 
rules of the game.
  It is great to have strong opinions. It is great to have sympathy for 
causes or organizations. It is great to have plans for fixing society's 
problems, but none of those things has any business influencing your 
ruling when you sit on the bench. Your job as a judge is to apply

[[Page S2028]]

the law as it is written--and here is the fundamental thing--even when 
you disagree with it.
  ``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad 
judge,'' Judge Gorsuch said more than once. Why? Because a judge who 
likes every outcome he reaches is likely making decisions based on 
something other than the law. That is a problem. Equal justice under 
the law, equal protection under the law--these principles become 
meaningless when judges step outside of their role and start changing 
the meaning of the law to suit their feelings about a case or their 
personal opinions.
  Judge Gorsuch's nomination has attracted support from both sides of 
the political spectrum. I think the main reason for that is because 
both liberals and conservatives know they can trust Judge Gorsuch to 
rule based on the plain text of the law, irrespective of his personal 
opinions. Here is what Neal Katyal, an Acting Solicitor General for 
President Obama, had to say about Judge Gorsuch:

       I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will help 
     to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the 
     bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence--a record 
     that should give the American people confidence that he will 
     not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed 
     him.

  The Colorado Springs Gazette recently highlighted a letter signed by 
96 prominent Colorado lawyers and judges and sent to the senior Senator 
from Colorado. Here is what those individuals had to say about Judge 
Gorsuch:

       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. We know Judge Gorsuch to be a person of 
     utmost character. He is fair, decent, and honest, both as a 
     judge and a person. His record shows that he believes 
     strongly in the independence of the judiciary.

  A former law partner and friend of Judge Gorsuch--a friend who 
describes himself as ``a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates 
and progressive causes''--had this to say about the judge:

       Gorsuch's approach to resolving legal problems as a lawyer 
     and a judge embodies a reverence for our country's values and 
     legal system. The facts developed in a case matter to him; 
     the legal rules established by legislatures and through 
     precedent deserve deep respect; and the importance of 
     treating litigants, counsel and colleagues with civility is 
     deeply engrained in him. . . .
       I have no doubt that I will disagree with some decisions 
     that Gorsuch might render as a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, my 
     hope is to have Justices on the bench such as Gorsuch . . . 
     who approach cases with fairness and intellectual rigor, and 
     who care about precedent and the limits of their roles as 
     judges.

  Again, that is from a self-described ``longtime supporter of 
Democratic candidates and progressive causes.''
  During his years on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has had a number of law 
clerks. On February 14, every one of Judge Gorsuch's former clerks, 
except for two currently clerking at the Supreme Court, sent a letter 
on his nomination to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. Here is what they had to say:

       Our political views span the spectrum . . . but we are 
     united in our view that Judge Gorsuch is an extraordinary 
     judge. . . . Throughout his career, Judge Gorsuch has devoted 
     himself to the rule of law. He believes firmly that the role 
     of the judge in our democracy is to apply the laws made by 
     the political branches--that is, to adhere to our 
     Constitution and statutes our elected representatives have 
     enacted, and not to confuse those things with a judge's own 
     policy preferences.
       As law clerks who have worked at his side, we know that 
     Judge Gorsuch never resolves a case by the light of his 
     personal view of what the law should be. Nor does he ever 
     bend the law to reach a particular result he desires.
       For Judge Gorsuch, a judge's task is not to usurp the 
     legislature's role; it is to find and apply the law as 
     written. That conviction, rooted in his respect for the 
     separation of powers, makes him an exemplary candidate to 
     serve on the nation's highest court.

  That is the unanimous opinion of 39 of Judge Gorsuch's former law 
clerks, whose political views in their own words ``span the spectrum.'' 
Unfortunately, no amount of testimony in favor of Judge Gorsuch will 
ever be enough for some Senate Democrats.
  The Senate minority leader took to the floor last week to announce a 
determination to oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination. He also announced 
his determination to push for a filibuster of Judge Gorsuch's 
nomination. The minority leader's reasons? Well, for starters, the 
minority leader apparently doesn't trust that Judge Gorsuch will use 
the bench to implement the leader's preferred policies. He disagrees 
with some of Judge Gorsuch's decisions, and he apparently considers 
that sufficient grounds to bar Judge Gorsuch from the Supreme Court. 
The minority leader demonstrated little interest in whether Judge 
Gorsuch's legal interpretations were correct. For the minority leader, 
judging is about getting one's preferred outcome, irrespective of what 
the law actually says.
  The minority leader also mentioned another reason for opposing Judge 
Gorsuch: He doesn't trust the judge to be independent or impartial, 
even though liberals and conservatives alike have praised Judge 
Gorsuch's independence and impartiality as two of his defining 
characteristics.
  The minority leader also made the laughable claim that Judge Gorsuch 
is somehow out of the judicial mainstream. Well, let me quote what the 
Wall Street Journal said on this subject. In February, the Journal 
wrote:

       Judge Gorsuch has written some 800 opinions since joining 
     the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006. Only 1.75 percent 
     (14 opinions) [out of 800] drew dissent from his colleagues. 
     That makes 98 percent of his opinions unanimous even on a 
     circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were appointed by 
     Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans.

  Let me repeat that last line: ``That makes 98 percent of his opinions 
unanimous even on a circuit where seven of the 12 active judges were 
appointed by Democratic Presidents and five by Republicans.''
  Well, I wonder if the minority leader intended to suggest that the 
entire Tenth Circuit is composed of extremist judges or that all of the 
judges on the Tenth Circuit lacked impartiality or independence, 
because, logically speaking, if you are going to suggest that Judge 
Gorsuch is an extremist, then you would have to argue that his 
colleagues who agreed with his opinions 98 percent of the time are 
extremists too.
  The truth is, Democrat opposition to Judge Gorsuch has zero to do 
with whether Judge Gorsuch meets the qualifications of a Supreme Court 
Justice. It is obvious that the judge has all the qualifications one 
could want in a Justice. Democrats are opposing Judge Gorsuch because 
they are mad. They are mad that their party didn't win the Presidential 
election, they are mad that their party doesn't have control of 
Congress, and they are mad that they are having to consider a judge 
nominated by a Republican President. It doesn't matter how qualified 
Judge Gorsuch is, how impartial he is, how independent he is, some 
Democrats are just going to oppose him anyway.
  This isn't the first time Judge Gorsuch has been before this body. 
Back in 2006, the Senate considered Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the 
Tenth Circuit. At that time, the judge's nomination sailed through the 
Senate. Both of his home State Senators--one a Republican and one a 
Democrat--supported his nomination, and he was confirmed by unanimous 
vote. Then-Senator Obama could have objected to the nomination, but he 
didn't. The current minority leader, who was serving in the Senate at 
that time, could have objected to the nomination, but he didn't. 
Senators Biden or Clinton could have objected to the nomination, but 
they didn't. Why? Presumably because they saw what almost everybody 
sees today: that Judge Gorsuch is exactly the kind of judge we want on 
the bench--supremely qualified, thoughtful, fair, and impartial. It is 
incredibly disappointing that some Democrats are now planning to oppose 
this eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee simply because they 
can't deal with losing an election.
  The Senate has a 230-year tradition of approving Supreme Court 
nominees by a simple majority vote. There has never been a successful 
partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in 230 years, and the 
only ones who have ever attempted one are the Democrats. Well, some 
Democrats may follow the minority leader in opposing Judge Gorsuch. I 
am hopeful that others will listen to the many voices, liberal and 
conservative, speaking out in support of his nomination.

[[Page S2029]]

  There is no good reason to oppose Judge Gorsuch, and there is every 
reason to support him. It is time to confirm the supremely qualified 
judge to the Supreme Court.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Expressions of approval will not be permitted 
by the gallery.
  The Senator from Minnesota.