Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 58 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2303-S2307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Neil Gorsuch is eminently qualified to
serve on the Supreme Court. He was confirmed by the Senate to his
Federal judgeship with no Democratic opposition at all--none. He
participated there in more than 2,700 cases, writing in the majority 99
percent of the time and enjoying unanimous support 97 percent of the
time.
He received the highest possible rating from a group the Democratic
leader called the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judicial
nominations--the American Bar Association. He has earned high praise
from across the political spectrum, with Democrats and Republicans
alike attesting to his qualifications, his fairness, and his
impartiality. He also enjoys the support of a bipartisan majority of
the Senate. Yet the Democratic leadership is now determined to block
his confirmation with the first successful partisan filibuster of a
Supreme Court nominee in American history. They proved that in
yesterday's procedural vote.
Judge Neil Gorsuch is one of the most impressive nominees we have
ever seen. If a widely appraised nominee like this can't get past a
Democratic filibuster, then no nominee of a Republican President can.
Democrats would filibuster Ruth Bader Ginsburg if President Trump
nominated her. We all know why. The Democrats are bowing to hard-left
special interests who can't get over the results of the election and
thus are demanding complete Democratic opposition to everything--
everything this President touches. As the Washington Post just
reported, the Democratic leader ``seemed ready to endorse every
argument activists made.''
It seems some Democrats made up their minds long ago to oppose
whomever this President nominated. The Democratic leader himself
indicated as much before Judge Gorsuch was even selected. He even mused
on a liberal talk show about holding the seat open indefinitely. So it
doesn't really matter whom this President nominates; a Democratic
minority is determined to successfully launch an unprecedented partisan
filibuster regardless. Perhaps that is why Democrats still have yet to
put forward a cogent rationale to oppose him--not that that would be
easy, you understand.
As a longtime Democratic board member of the left-leaning American
Constitution Society put it, ``The Senate should confirm [Judge
Gorsuch] because there is no principled reason to vote no.''
Well, if there is no principled reason to vote no on this nomination,
then there is certainly no principled reason to prevent the Senate from
taking a vote on it at all. But that is just what a partisan Democratic
minority of the Senate is threatening to do--for the first time in the
nearly 230-year history of the Senate.
Let me remind colleagues of something I said yesterday. When
President Clinton nominated Justice Ginsburg, I voted to confirm her.
When President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer, I voted to confirm
him. When President Obama nominated Justice Sotomayor and Justice
Kagan, I led my party in

[[Page S2304]]

working to ensure that they received an up-or-down vote--in other
words, not a filibuster. I knew I would often disagree with their
opinions on the Court, and I certainly wasn't wrong about that, but I
thought it was the right thing to do.
I understand that our Democratic colleagues are currently under a
great deal of pressure from special interests on the far left. I think
everyone in elected office can empathize with this situation they are
experiencing. Listening to these hard-left special interests may seem
like the politically expedient thing for Democrats to do for their
party today, but I would ask them to make their decision based on what
they know is right for the country tomorrow.
There is still time for them to make the right choice. There is still
time for them to support a nominee who even longtime Democrats have
praised--or, at the very least, to not block him with the first
successful partisan filibuster in American history.
So I hope Democrats reevaluate their position before the important
vote we will take tomorrow. I hope they will consider what their
actions would mean for future Supreme Court confirmations. I hope they
will consider what their actions could mean for the future of this body
more broadly, too, because, as we all know, the American people will be
watching. History will record the decision Democrats make, and there is
simply no principled reason to oppose this exceptional Supreme Court
nominee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are continuing to debate the
nomination of Judge Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said that
this is an important moment for the Senate. I couldn't agree more.
I think it is important to reflect on why we are here and how we got
here. Before I turn to the Supreme Court and the current debate, let me
take just a few minutes to talk about lower court nominees and provide
a little bit of history and context, especially for the benefit of some
of the Senators who weren't here over the last few years.
I am going to start way back in the spring of 2001. President George
W. Bush had just been elected President. As we all know, it was a close
election, and it was hard fought. The Senate was closely divided, with
the Republicans in control. Given how close the Presidential election
was, there were elements of the hard left who refused to accept the
results of that election. Some blamed Ralph Nader, others blamed
Governor Jeb Bush, and still others blamed the Supreme Court. Many on
the hard left claimed that President George W. Bush wasn't a
``legitimate'' President. Liberal interest groups were egging on the
Democratic leadership to fight the new President at every turn.
That still sounds very familiar for this year we are in.
At the same time, one major concern for the hard-left liberal
interest groups was that President Bush, who they claimed wasn't
legitimate, would be able to nominate conservative judges. Again,
doesn't that sound familiar?
Senator Cornyn went over some of this same subject yesterday, but it
deserves discussion now, and it serves as a reminder of where we have
been before because sometimes the past predicts the future.
So in the spring of 2001, the hard-left interest groups went to the
Senate Democratic leadership with a plan. According to the New York
Times, ``42 of the Senate's 50 Democrats attended a private retreat . .
. where a principal topic was forging a unified party strategy to
combat the White House on judicial nominees.'' Thinking about 2017,
doesn't that sound a little familiar?
At that meeting--Cass Sunstein, Marcia Greenberger, and Laurence
Tribe spoke at the retreat and pitched to the Democrats who were
present their idea of how this crusade could proceed.
According to one attendee, ``They said it was important for the
Senate to change the ground rules, and there was no obligation to
confirm someone just because they are scholarly and erudite.''
Well, let's think about that for a moment. Why do you suppose they
believed they needed to ``change the ground rules'' for confirming
judges? It is because up to that point you didn't filibuster judges.
You just didn't. You heard the majority leader speak to that point in
his short remarks this morning about how things have changed after more
than 200 years.
Well, as it happened, less than a month after the caucus retreat,
Senator Jeffords from Vermont switched parties and began caucusing with
the Democrats. That threw the majority to the Democrats for the next 18
months. Then they lost the election of 2002, and in the spring of 2003,
Republicans were back in the majority.
Now back in the minority, Senate Democrats went ahead with the plans
that were enunciated at that retreat to ``change the ground rules.''
For the first time in the history of the Senate, they began to
systematically filibuster circuit court nominees--not because they
believed the nominees weren't qualified. The nominees were qualified.
And it was not because they believed the nominees didn't have the
necessary experience. The nominees did have the necessary experience.
They filibustered those nominees because they believed they were
conservative judges.
So with respect to appellate court nominees, Senate Democrats, at the
behest of the far left, took the unprecedented step of using the
filibuster in a very systematic way for the first time in Senate
history. At the time, there was a lot of debate about changing the
rules, dubbed the so-called nuclear option, so that nominees would be
afforded an up-or-down vote, consistent with the Senate's history and
practice.
Well, Republicans exercised restraint and agreed to step back. Then
President Obama became President. Our side didn't like the use of a
filibuster for judges, but we also didn't think there should be two
sets of rules--one for a Republican President and one for a Democratic
President. Common sense tells you that is a legitimate position to
take.
We defeated two circuit court nominees, one to the Ninth Circuit and
one to the DC Circuit. Then President Obama nominated three individuals
to the DC Circuit. Our side denied cloture on those three nominees to
the DC Circuit.
Well, at that point, their side didn't like playing by the rules they
wrote, so then-Majority Leader Reid took another unprecedented step. In
November of 2013, he utilized the so-called nuclear option to eliminate
the very tactic they pioneered. The nuclear option becomes effectively
the regroup.
So that is how the filibuster was first used on lower court nominees
and later eliminated. Senate Democrats took the unprecedented step to
utilize that. Then when it no longer benefited them, they used
unprecedented means to eliminate it.
This brings me back to where we are today and the rest of this week--
talking about a Supreme Court nominee, Judge Gorsuch.
Everyone knows we had a big debate last year about whether to proceed
with the Garland nomination. There were 52 Republicans who believed we
should follow Senate history and tradition and not proceed with the
nomination in the middle of a heated election year.
I know it frustrates my colleagues to hear me say it, but fact is
that in 1992, when then-Senator Biden was chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, he announced that he wouldn't hold a hearing to fill a
vacancy in the last year of President Bush's term. So last year, we
followed the precedent that then-Senator Biden described in 1992 for
all of the same reasons he discussed.
You get back to this commonsense principle: Can you have one rule for
Republican Presidents and another rule for Democratic Presidents? We
didn't feel you could. And, of course, everyone in this Chamber knows
that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would have done
the same thing, because they said they would. In fact, President
Obama's former White House Counsel admitted as much. She said she would
have recommended the same course of action if the tables were turned.

So now here we are, April 2017, with the nominee before us. Just as
in 2001, we have just had a very contentious Presidential election. It
was close. It was hard fought, and frankly, some on

[[Page S2305]]

the hard left refused to accept the results of the election. Once
again, leftwing groups are egging on the minority leader to take
another unprecedented step with respect to judicial nominations. Only
this time they want him to lead the very first partisan filibuster of a
Supreme Court nomination in U.S. history. Based on the vote we had
yesterday, it appears 44 Democrats are prepared to follow the minority
leader on this fool's errand. No Supreme Court nomination in our
country's entire history has ever failed because of a partisan
filibuster. There is no getting around that fact.
Abe Fortas, whom I have referred to, was subjected to a bipartisan
filibuster over ethical concerns when President Johnson tried to
elevate him to be Chief Justice.
Justice Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48. I was here for
that nomination. A single Senator--any Senator--could have demanded a
cloture vote, but out of 100 Senators, none did. Why? For the simple,
commonsense fact and 200 years of history that you don't filibuster a
Supreme Court nomination.
But today is entirely different. The minority is committed to
filibustering this fine nominee in the first partisan filibuster in
U.S. history.
So here we are. The President has nominated an exceptionally
qualified judge to take Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. The
Democrats will break new ground again by conducting a partisan
filibuster of the nominee. Republicans aren't the ones breaking new
ground here. As a matter of fact, the Democrats' own Vice Presidential
nominee last year emphatically promised that the Democrats would
further change the rules to make sure an expected-President Clinton's
nominees couldn't be filibustered.
So at the end of the day, the fact is that if Democrats insist on a
filibuster, the Republicans will insist on following the practice that
Senators have followed for more than 200 years, and that is not to have
a partisan filibuster for somebody going to the Supreme Court. We don't
conduct partisan filibusters of Supreme Court nominees, and we
certainly are not going to start with this highly qualified nominee.
I hope those that think back 16 or 17 years--when this meeting of
Democrats in retreat came to the conclusion that you had to break new
ground--realize that they have poisoned the well of the comity
traditional of the Senate. I think maybe a lot of them realize that was
a mistake, as we realized that was a mistake, and it would be nice to
get back to the comity of the Senate that existed on judges prior to 15
or 16 years ago. But that is going to take people on their side who
were present at that same retreat who are still in the U.S. Senate to
drill a new well, because the present one is poisoned, and we need to
get back to the comity that we have had.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because we are
at a decisive and consequential moment in the Senate. We are here to
consider the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Will Democrat Senators vote to have a well-qualified, mainstream
Justice who stands for the rule of law, or will the extreme leftwing of
that party continue to try to call the shots? That is a decision
Members are going to have to make.
America needs judges who can follow the law, apply the law, have the
highest ethical standards, and value the independence of our courts. To
me, that is a description of Judge Gorsuch. That is him in a nutshell.
We saw it throughout his career, and we saw it again at his
confirmation hearings in the Judiciary Committee.
Democrats on the committee asked him to answer hypothetical
questions. They asked about issues that are probably going to be coming
before the Supreme Court of the land. There are ethics rules that say
that judges and nominees cannot answer those kinds of questions and, of
course, Judge Gorsuch followed the rules. That is exactly what other
nominees have done in the past who were nominated by Republican
Presidents and Democratic Presidents.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg did so in her confirmation hearing in 1993. She
said: ``A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no
hints.'' She said this would display disdain for the entire judicial
process. Of course, she was confirmed and sits on the Court today. It
has been known as the Ginsburg standard, and every nominee since her
nomination hearing has followed that same standard. That is what
Justice Gorsuch did.
The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to criticize Judge
Gorsuch for some of his opinions that they didn't like. They talked
about a couple of cases where the person who was on the losing side in
the case was sympathetic. They suggested that the Court should have
ignored the law and sided with ``the little guy'' in the involved
cases. Judge Gorsuch pointed out that judges are absolutely not
supposed to consider what they think is sympathetic. They are supposed
to rule on the law. Federal judges actually swear an oath ``to
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to
the poor and to the rich.''

Most Senators recognize that judges should be impartial. The minority
leader, Senator Schumer, has actually spoken about how important this
is. At the confirmation hearing for Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009,
nominated by President Obama, Senator Schumer praised the way she put
the ``rule of law above everything else.'' He said that she followed
the texts of statutes, ``even when doing so results in rulings that go
against so-called sympathetic litigants.'' That was in 2009. Now it is
2017, and that is the identical standard Judge Gorsuch has continued to
follow.
Judge Gorsuch pointed out that it is his job to apply the law, not to
write the law. Writing laws is the job of Congress. We are not here to
select the 101st Senator; we are here to select a Justice for the
Supreme Court. We are selecting a Justice for the most important Court
in the land, and it is important and imperative that we take this
decision seriously and that we set aside any partisan grudges.
Democrats who want to filibuster this judge are not arguing any
principle here. Reasonable individuals know this nominee deserves to be
confirmed.
One lawyer wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on March 8, a board
member of the very liberal American Constitution Society. He wrote that
``there is no principled reason'' to vote against Judge Gorsuch. Well,
he is exactly right.
I listened to the arguments Democrats made in the confirmation
hearing. I was not convinced. If any of my colleagues on the Democratic
side of the aisle are undecided about how to vote, I suggest they go
back and look and listen to the hearings as well and look at what other
people have said about this nominee.
A Chicago Tribune editorial said that confirmation hearing revealed
``unassailable assurances by Gorsuch that he would decide each case on
the merits, based on the law as written, applied to the world as it is
today.''
The Detroit news agreed. It said that Judge Gorsuch showed that he is
a ``deeply knowledgeable nominee who should be confirmed by the
Senate.''
On Monday, USA TODAY had their own headline. It said, ``On the
Merits, Gorsuch Merits Confirmation.''
The American Bar Association surveyed 5,000 people who have worked
with Judge Gorsuch over the years. These people described him using
words like ``brilliant,'' ``thoughtful,'' and ``really, really, really
smart.''
The Bar Association also found that ``Judge Gorsuch believes strongly
in the independence'' of the judiciary. This is the Bar Association.
The American Bar Association predicted that ``he will be a strong but
respectful voice in protecting it.'' The group ended up giving him its
highest possible rating. Interestingly, Senator Schumer once called
this group ``the gold standard'' for evaluating judges--``the gold
standard,'' he called it--and they have given him their highest
possible rating. So why does the minority

[[Page S2306]]

leader think the gold standard is not good enough anymore?
Judge Gorsuch was even introduced at his confirmation hearing by a
former top lawyer for the Obama administration. Neal Katyal is a
Democrat. He served as Solicitor General of the United States under
President Obama. He called Gorsuch ``one of the most thoughtful and
brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century.'' Let
me repeat. This is someone who served as Solicitor General of the
United States under President Obama calling Judge Gorsuch ``one of the
most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the
last century.'' He even wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that
predicted that Judge Gorsuch would ``help to restore confidence in the
rule of law.'' Help to restore confidence. Isn't that what we want as a
nation--confidence in the rule of law?
I think that any Democrat who has looked at this nominee's record
will find it is an easy decision to confirm him. If there is a Democrat
who reaches the opposite conclusion, I say come to the floor of the
Senate and explain why you think our judges should go into a case
favoring one side over another because one side is more sympathetic
than the other. If there is a Member who thinks that a judge should
make promises about how they will rule just to win a confirmation vote
of a given Senator, I say come to the floor and make your case. If
there is a Member who thinks a Justice on the Supreme Court should rule
based on that Justice's own preferences and not based on the law, I
would say please come to the floor of the Senate and say so.
I don't think that is what the American people want. The American
people do want Justices who are smart. They want Justices who are
principled, who are fair, and who know that their job is to follow the
law, not to write the law and not to legislate from the bench. The
American people know that Neil Gorsuch is exactly that kind of judge.
He is the kind of judge we should have on the Supreme Court, we need on
the Supreme Court, and we need on every court in the land. That is why
I am committed to vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, like several in this Chamber, I was
asked for my input to the President on whom to nominate to the U.S.
Supreme Court. After much reflection, I recommended to the Vice
President that Judge Neil Gorsuch of Denver, CO, should fill the Scalia
seat on the Supreme Court.
I am, of course, very pleased that my advice was considered. I
offered that recommendation before I had an opportunity to sit down
one-on-one with Judge Gorsuch, although, in fairness, we had an
opportunity in the Senate to review Judge Gorsuch and his credentials
in 2006 when this body voted to confirm him by voice vote to the U.S.
Court of Appeals where he now sits. After spending time with this
exceptionally talented jurist and after reviewing his performance
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, my level of respect for him has
only grown.
Judge Gorsuch checks the box on every measure of what I am looking
for in a Supreme Court nominee. Intellectual capacity, experience,
independence, integrity--he has all of these. There is no question that
he has the intellectual capacity to meet the challenge. Yes, we
acknowledge he is an Ivy League graduate from Columbia and Harvard Law,
and that actually describes many people at the top of the legal
profession, but that alone is not what makes Judge Gorsuch exceptional.
Judge Gorsuch did something that most practicing lawyers don't do. He
went on to earn a doctorate in legal philosophy at Oxford. I think this
is one of the many illustrations of Judge Gorsuch's tremendous depth.
And whatever else my colleagues will have to say about Judge Gorsuch in
this contentious confirmation debate, there is no question that he is
an intellectual heavyweight.
I next look to those who mentored Judge Gorsuch along the way, and
one really cannot have better mentors than the late Justice Byron White
and sitting Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy, we all know, has
carved a niche for himself as the swing vote on the Supreme Court.
There is a great deal of debate about whether a Justice Gorsuch will be
more of a Scalia than a Kennedy or a White or whether, instead, he will
be a Gorsuch. I suspect that he will be a Gorsuch, and that is fine by
me.
What really matters is that Judge Gorsuch will come to the Supreme
Court with a strong understanding of its dynamics, and there is no
question that he will be effective from day one. There is no question
that he will be his own man. I want to emphasize that point.
Judge Gorsuch made it very clear to me when we met that he has made
no commitments to the President or his team. And he made it clear at
the hearings that if any commitment were sought, he would have gotten
up and walked out. After spending time with Judge Gorsuch, I believe
him. I believe him on that. His commitment to an independent judiciary
is resolute, and I think on this issue he will not bend to political
expedience, as he should not.
He is not the President's man, not the party's man, nor will he
represent an ideological movement on the Court. Judge Gorsuch will be
his own man, following the law where it leads. That is what we should
want in a Supreme Court Justice. Judge Gorsuch's unshakable integrity
explains why he has earned the unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from
the American Bar Association.
I am also enthusiastic about Judge Gorsuch because he brings a
western perspective to a Court that is desperately in need of
diversity. Mr. President, you would surely agree with that--that making
sure we have those who are knowledgeable based on their experience, of
what is like to live in the West is important. Six of the eight sitting
Supreme Court Justices have spent their entire professional careers in
the Boston-Washington corridor--six of the eight. The only sitting
Justice who came to the Supreme Court from someplace other than the
Boston-Washington corridor is Anthony Kennedy, who was elevated from
the Ninth Circuit. Judge Gorsuch has, of course, done the ``Washington
thing,'' but his home is in the West, and he served for a decade on the
Tenth Circuit in Denver. I think that makes a real difference, at least
in my book.
Appellate judges in the East rarely hear cases involving Federal
Indian law and Native American issues. Among the hundreds of cases that
Judge Gorsuch has heard, dozens involve Indians and Indian law. In
deciding those cases, he has demonstrated great sensitivity to the
unique role of Indian Nations under our Constitution.
I think that explains why Judge Gorsuch has been enthusiastically
endorsed by the National Congress of American Indians as well as the
Native American Rights Fund. NCAI is the umbrella organization for the
Nation's federally recognized Tribes. NARF is an independent, highly
respected public interest law firm which advocates for Native Americans
nationally. Neither of these organizations--neither NCAI nor NARF--
could ever be characterized as right-leaning. Yet they have endorsed
Judge Gorsuch after reviewing his track record on cases involving
Native rights. I think it is also important to recognize that the
Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska has also
endorsed the Gorsuch nomination, which is important for Alaska Natives.

Another example: The Federal government controls vast amounts of land
in the West and, of course, that includes our home State of Alaska.
Public lands cases tend to originate in the West, not in the East. It
is tremendously important that somebody on the Supreme Court have a
familiarity with these issues, and Judge Gorsuch clearly does.
Along with the pervasive Federal presence in the West comes a huge
Federal regulatory influence. Mr. President, you and I know that
Alaskans

[[Page S2307]]

talk about the extent of Federal overreach in our State like other
people talk about the weather. Alaskans will be interested to know,
perhaps excited to know, that one of Judge Gorsuch's top intellectual
interests is regulatory overreach. He has publicly questioned the
proposition that Federal courts must defer to agency interpretation of
the law when regulations are challenged. That is a very good thing
because when a homeowner has to go to court to litigate the question of
whether the pond in the back of his house is regulated wetland, the
last thing that the homeowner wants to hear is that the scales of
justice are somehow tipped in favor of the agency on accord of a
principle known as Chevron deference.
I understand--and we all know--that there are some interest groups
that suggest that Judge Gorsuch's views on Chevron deference means that
somehow or another he stands for big business and against the little
guy. To those organizations, allow me to introduce you to an Alaskan
named John Sturgeon.
Mr. President, you and I know him well. Mr. Sturgeon was prohibited
from taking his hovercraft, his boat, up a river in northern Alaska
adjacent to National Park Service land. Mr. Sturgeon had to go all the
way up to the Supreme Court to vindicate that right, and, against many
odds, he won.
I think it is clear that Federal agencies can and do trample on the
rights of the little guy. I will tell you, I find Judge Gorsuch's views
on the question of deference highly refreshing at this point in time.
I should point out that I don't agree with all of the opinions
written by Judge Gorsuch, but I don't expect that from a nominee. That
is almost an impossible standard. In fact, Judge Gorsuch himself has
acknowledged that. I do expect that the nominee be always true to the
law, as Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated throughout his career.
Finally, from everything I know, Judge Gorsuch is a good and a decent
man. He is a husband. He is a father of two girls. He is an outdoor
person. He is a person who gives back to the next generation. In
addition to his judicial duties, he regularly teaches legal ethics and
professionalism at the University of Colorado Law School. In the
classroom, he is known to have great respect for his students and their
diverse views.
In endorsing Judge Gorsuch's elevation to the Supreme Court, the
Denver Post suggested that ``While Democrats will surely be tempted to
criticize the nomination of anyone Trump appoints, they'd be wise to
take the high road and look at qualifications and legal consistency.''
That is an editorial from the Denver Post, published on January 16 of
this year, 2017. Those are pretty wise words. Again, ``Democrats would
be wise to take the high road and look at his qualifications and legal
consistency.'' That is what we should be looking at. And I think it is
so unfortunate that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle
have failed to heed this advice laid down in the Denver Post earlier
this year.

I have seen judicial nominees come and go over my 14 years in this
body, but I will tell you, I haven't seen anyone more intriguing than
Judge Gorsuch with his qualifications. He has had a stellar legal
career. He is brilliant. He is a rock star among Federal judges. And
that kind of judge is the one law students would compete to clerk for.
If this body could step back from the politics of all this, he should
be confirmed with upwards of 80 or 90 votes, not subjected to a
filibuster. That is the caliber of the person we are considering. I
honestly cannot fathom why an individual of Judge Gorsuch's stature
would be drug through the mud. I just don't believe that reflects well
on this body.
I am known within the Senate for my independence in evaluating
judicial nominees. While I was not a part of the Gang of 14 back in
2005 who proposed the standard for Federal court nominees, I have
pretty much chosen to live by it. Except in the most extraordinary of
circumstances, I do not believe judicial nominees should be denied a
straight up-or-down vote. I just don't believe they should be denied
that. I have practiced that. If one were to examine my record, it is
clear that I have walked that walk. Sometimes it has been a walk
accompanied by my friend the Senator from Maine. In the case of Goodwin
Liu's nomination to the Ninth Circuit, I was the sole Republican to
stand up for this principle and vote against a filibuster. I would not
have voted to confirm Mr. Liu, but I felt very strongly that he had the
right to an up-or-down vote.
So we are at this place today in considering not a nominee to the
Ninth Circuit but a nominee to the Supreme Court. I would ask my
colleagues on the Democratic side to give the same deference to Judge
Gorsuch.
I also pride myself as one who believes in the traditions of the
Senate, but it is not the tradition of the Senate to filibuster a U.S.
Supreme Court nominee.
I do not believe that Judge Gorsuch is getting a fair shake in
today's Senate, and as deeply as I care about bipartisanship in this
body, I will not acquiesce to an effort to deny Judge Gorsuch a seat on
the Supreme Court.
I acknowledge my friends on the other side of the aisle who have
indicated that they will not support a filibuster, and I implore those
of my colleagues who have indicated that they will filibuster the
nomination of Neil Gorsuch to reconsider that position.
After spending time with Judge Gorsuch, after studying his life
story, I am left with the undeniable impression that Neil Gorsuch has
been nominated to a position that he has prepared his whole life to
assume. He is not merely a good choice, in my book, he is the best
choice. He will not merely be a good Justice; I believe he will be a
great Justice, perhaps a Justice of historic proportion.
So today I offer Judge Gorsuch my most enthusiastic endorsement. I
have no doubt that before we leave for Easter recess, he will be
confirmed as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.