[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 56 (Thursday, March 30, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2119-S2120]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF NEIL GORSUCH

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, many Members came to the floor 
yesterday to debate the Gorsuch nomination. We will have all of next 
week to continue the debate. I encourage my colleagues to continue 
discussing this important nomination.
  Two months ago today, before Neil Gorsuch had even been nominated, I 
spoke on the Senate floor about the rhetoric we could expect to hear 
from the other side after the President's nominee was announced.

[[Page S2120]]

  I predicted then that we would see many on the left ``[try] to paint 
whomever is actually nominated in apocalyptic terms.'' It ``doesn't 
matter who this Republican President nominates,'' I said then. It 
``doesn't matter who any Republican President nominates, really,'' I 
continued. No matter the nominee, I said back before we had the 
nominee, ``we can expect to hear a lot of end-times rhetoric from the 
left . . . [and] [i]n fact, we already have.''
  I was alluding then to the fact that, sight unseen, we had already 
begun hearing from those on the far left who vowed to oppose anyone--
anyone the President nominated. The Democratic leader even joined in, 
saying he would oppose anyone from the President's list of candidates 
and would ``fight it tooth-and-nail, as long as we have to'' in order 
to keep Justice Scalia's seat open, even for the entirety of the 
President's term.
  Remember, that was before Judge Gorsuch was even selected, before we 
knew his credentials, before we had heard from the current and former 
colleagues of his, before we had examined his judicial record, and well 
before his hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
  Our friends across the aisle made it clear then that their opposition 
to this nominee would have nothing to do with the nominee himself. In 
fact, I said we could expect to hear a number of convoluted excuses as 
to why they wouldn't support the President's yet-to-be named nominee--
excuses that would amount to little more than their dissatisfaction 
with the outcome of the election.
  Sure enough, that is just what we have seen over the past few weeks. 
They are opposing this well-qualified nominee despite his impressive 
credentials, bipartisan support, and excellent testimony before the 
committee.
  Judge Neil Gorsuch is such an outstanding candidate, so 
noncontroversial, so well-esteemed by people across the political 
spectrum that Democrats have been forced to talk about pretty much 
anything: President Trump, think tanks, you name it--anything but the 
nominee himself.
  Yesterday's comments by the Democratic leader are a good example. He 
gave a lengthy speech about why he wouldn't support Judge Gorsuch, but 
when you boil it down, his remarks had little to do with Judge Gorsuch 
at all.
  Essentially, he concluded that because Judge Gorsuch had earned the 
praise of legal groups like the Federalist Society, Democrats should 
not support him. By the way, all current sitting Justices have 
participated in events with this same organization. Let me say that 
again: All current sitting Supreme Court Justices have participated in 
Federalist Society activities. That includes Justices who were 
nominated by Democratic Presidents, including President Clinton and 
President Obama.
  So, yes, Judge Gorsuch has received high praise from a number of 
conservatives--he certainly has--just as he has earned the support of 
centrists and leftists as well.
  As I have pointed out on several occasions, many long-time Democrats 
you might not expect have even complimented Judge Gorsuch--people like 
President Obama's former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, 
President Obama's legal mentor, Professor Laurence Tribe, President 
Carter's district court appointee, Judge John Kane, President Clinton's 
appointee to the Tenth Circuit and former chief judge of that court, 
Judge Robert Henry, and liberal Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, and 
so many more.
  Judge Gorsuch has such a proven record of judicial independence and 
impartiality that people from the left to the right and everywhere in 
between have voiced their confidence in his fitness to serve on the 
High Court. That would explain why the American Bar Association--which, 
according to the Democratic leader and former Democratic Judiciary 
chairman, is the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judges--gave Gorsuch 
its highest rating possible: unanimously ``well qualified.''
  So let's be clear. The support for Judge Gorsuch is anything but one-
sided.
  The Democratic leader also noted his concerns yesterday about the 
process by which we arrived at this point. As we all know, this Supreme 
Court nominee process has been historically transparent. Here is what I 
mean. Months and months ago, then-Presidential Candidate Trump took the 
unprecedented action of compiling a list of potential nominees he would 
consider nominating to the Supreme Court. These potential nominees were 
made public for the American people, including every Senator, to 
review.
  Before making his selection, now-President Trump's White House 
consulted on a bipartisan basis with each and every Democrat on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as numerous other Senators. The 
President followed through with his pledge, selecting from that public 
list Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado, who we can all agree is well 
qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and whom the Senate confirmed 
to his current position without a single vote in opposition.
  Since being nominated, Judge Gorsuch has continued this transparent 
process by meeting face-to-face with nearly 80 Senators--from both 
parties, obviously.
  So you see, this process has been as straightforward and bipartisan 
as possible from the very beginning--before we even knew that the 
President would, indeed, be making this nomination.
  Only in the upside-down world of my Democratic colleagues is telling 
the entire world months before one is even elected President the list 
of people he would choose from, if he became the President, a 
``secret'' process. I can't think of anything less secret than putting 
out that list in the middle of a hotly contested Presidential election 
process.
  So, look, it is time to move beyond this hollow rhetoric and get back 
to the serious business of governing. Confirming Judge Gorsuch would 
mark a significant step in that direction. He has proved himself a 
worthy successor to the Supreme Court. He has earned high acclaim along 
the way from various news publications and lawyers and judges and 
clerks who represent all walks of life and all political ideologies.
  People like David Frederick, a long-time Democrat and board member of 
the left-leaning American Constitution Society, may have summed it up 
best in a recent Washington Post op-ed. Here is what he said: ``The 
Senate should confirm [Gorsuch] because there is no principled reason 
to vote no.''
  No principled reason to oppose him, none.
  As this American Constitution Society member says, there is not one 
single principled reason to oppose Judge Gorsuch, so it makes sense 
that Democrats can't come up with a single substantive reason to oppose 
him either.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________