we. >> good morning. did confirmation hearing of judge gorsuch nominated to be associate justice on the

supreme court of the united states. welcome to the senate judiciary committee is a big day for you and your family to be before this committee once for for the confirmation hearing to the tenth circuit where you know, said. i imagine that this hearing may be a little better attended than the last time you were here.e. and before we began you have the opportunity to introduce your family and anybody else spirit this is quite a lot different than it was the last time i was here and i appreciate all of the attention for but my wife louise who stole the show in the east room the debt was nominated and my

brother-in-law and then my nephew and i have my cousin and her daughter and a bunch of family coming my daughters are watching back home and my longtime assistant. there she is like consider her family and all those just stand up for a second double byte to recognize them because i consider them family to. so i am very blessed to have some a family is here with me today. >> and rethink cube we're

delighted to have the family here as well for this important moment in your life. before i give my opening statement to set up some ground rules everyone to watch the hearing if people stand up unblock the view crispy gotta turn it is not fair or consider it toto others because and now i will take a minute to explain how we will proceed. we will of 10 rounds of the opening statements the ranking member and i beg the london or to over but everybody else to limit youran remarks at 10 minutes everybody on both sides will respect that and then we will turn to those that will

formally present the judge then administered the oath and will close today's portion of the hearing with the judge's testimony. tomorrow morning for the opening round of questions then there could be a second round and as i have discussed with the ranking member later today we will have a markup to consider his nomination next monday the 27 in anticipation of his nomination to be held over one week and in any senator has the right to do so we will then go on the nomination the followingno monday on april so that i

turn to reopening statement one of justice glia best opinions begin with the declaration the proudest part of democracy government of lot and not of man but the phrase custer massachusetts constitutionon of 1780 to link the government not of men directly with the separation of powers and justice scalia said the founders' view the principles as the central guarantee of a just government.

and emplane words the desire to preserve and protect liberty and self-governmentent that guided the of framers as they design the constitution. as a founding charter that is a remarkable document them by restricting with the government they do.stitutio with any particular enumerated right the most important feature of the constitution is the design of the document itself. that divides the limited power of government and then

it is tribute horizontal lee is the delicate balance of power and for what to will th due were. and with that mischief for the concentration of political power. and justice scalia understood better than anyone. fond of telling law students every dictator in the world today and every president for life has of bill of rights with the distinctiveness of our government.

so designed around the notion that the people acting through their representatives been through their representatives in to the answer the question by elected representatives elected yes accountable to the voters but as the representatives but the judges by design the resolving those cases judges

are not free to rewrite the statutes to get the resultsge that they believe are more just they're not free tord reorder the regulations to make them more fair to update the constitution that is not their job that powerir is retained by the people and with those preferences for those in the legislative branch what they'd taken the american people the right tohe govern themselves. inch by inch and a carefully

constructed balance of power with that individual liberty is lost. if anything the enormous size with the enormous complex city in recent months and for those who respects the separation of powers some of my colleagues seem to agree and appreciate the need each branch of government and don't question the sincerity of those concerns.

the with the separation of powers. and with the obama administration and then repeated failure in then they unanimously rejected the obama administration made in 40 cases. and then the policies have been changed and must be changed. that these executive overreach with the constitutional order.

been more to undo those that animated the emperor perot and as john adams observed once liberty is lost is lost forever. said the separation of powers is just as critical today as a was during did ministrations and including the separation of powers as it was with the founding charter to be first adopted. and for all of these reasons to be concerned of the constitutional order and most importantly the separation of powers. q. are concerned about theseab things meet judge gorsuchch

fortunately for every american defined by the unfeeling commitment of these principles the separation of powers including judicial independence and that is sustained by nature with the separation among the most liberty protected devicesnstitui about the executives the hard-won experience is the founders have found proof of the wisdom of government ofve separated powers. the judge's job, the nominee n says to deliver on a promise

that all begins cover rich or poor receive equal protection under the law into process the nominee understands to regularly issue the judgments as a matter of policy truth be told deposal anyone who ever takes a civics class that

when you rule for one party and against another that means you must me for the winner and against the loser. senators will cite some opinions to say you are for the big guy and against the little guy. has a few judges write the laws but economists passes a bad lawyer cannot just pretend we passed a good law. it demands to follow it even if you don't like is a few

here and it is an old claim produce as a result that you dislike the and then the m women sitting here with me and it is not their job to fix the law and the democracy the right belongs to the people. for this reason justice scalia said if you're going to be a good and faithful judge resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusion reached and then to see somebody doing something wrong berger look forward to hearing more about your exceptional record with a meeting of the constitution

of the supreme court justice and the constitutional scheme. >> judge gorsuch welcome to you and your family. and one year ago today the president nominated eric garland due to unprecedented treatment was denied a hearing in his vacancy has a been in place over a year. i desantis say i am deeply disappointed it is under these circumstances that we begin our hearing. put mr. garland was regarded as a mainstream moderate nominee however president trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the mold of justice the lea -- sylvia said the nomination of judge

gorsuch illustrates his demand of his word. our job is not to theoretically evaluate this or that legal doctrine or to put his record in to evacuate but to determine if judge gorsuch is a reasonable mainstream conservative or not.our jo for our job is to assess of his decision will impact the american people if he can protect the legal and constitutional rights of all americans for on not just the wealthy and the powerful . we hold the hearings not because the court precedent or story decisiveness -- stare decisis but the united states of pain court has the final word hundred the issues that impact our daily lives.

the supreme court has the final say if a woman will control her own body or decisions of health care is determined by politiciansovernmn and the government and it billionaires' are large corporations can spend unlimited sums of money to buy elections and states and localities can pass laws to make it harder for poor people, people of color, senior said yogurt people to vote this the supreme court to have final word whether corporations can pollute our air and water or the nra and other extreme market visitations can block common sense gun regulation including those that keep the military style assault weapons off the streets.

is headed is the supreme court who will have fields and say whether employers will be held accountable for discriminating against workers or failing to protect workers would harm or kill bob the job. for example, last year judge gorsuch sacked of the case that involved a truck driver stranded in the freezing cold for several hours after his trailers breaks froze if he had no heat and in fact, it was so cold the driver was having trouble breathing he could vat feel his feet despite this his employer directed him to wait for the repair man or drive both the truck and trailer but no one came.. the driver unhitch the trailer to search for assistance because driving with an been frozen breaksh

would have been to derange blood negative dangerous one week later he was fired. case, after hearing the case the administrative law judge thled that firing the driverer was a violation of the health and safety law intended to protect workers united states department of labor administered a review board and the tenth circuit agreed.o chal judge gorsuch dissented with the company and then againcies allowed the agencies to write regulations necessary to implement a the allies that congress passes and the president signs it is called the chevron dr. and. this has been fundamental to how the government addresses real-world challenges to be

in place for decades and if overturned as judge gorsuch has indicated that it has been very difficult that congress relate relies on experts to write the specific rules and regulations and procedures necessary to carry out laws. this is what insurers the clean air act and the clean water act to protect and byron from pollution. specific protections to put emplace and to safeguard the health and safety of our food supply the water and medicine the details needed to support the infrastructure of our communities highways and bridges and dams and airports we rely on they

science and biologist in economist and engineers and other experts to help insure our laws are implemented. order an order to reach the full effectiveness as intended by congress when past four dog frank and judge gorsuch position would take away agencies authorities to address these necessary details in such a change would dramatically affect

how laws passed by congress can be properly carried out. two weeks ago the "washington post" ran the opposite written by a woman who desperately wanted to have a baby and she described how she and her husband went to great lengths for four years trying to get pregnant and were thrilled when they finally succeeded. after 21 week check-up theyic discovered her daughter had kidney disease. it was winter percent fatal in the mother's risk with sevenfold carrying to determine the process they entered to get the medicalre care they needed.

again debate over privacy and roe v wade is notla theoretical. in 1973 the court recognized a woman's fundamental constitutional right to privacy that guarantees access it is repeatedly the finding for the last 44 years i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record and those decisions for it has been reaffirmed by the court. >> without objection.

i dunno what does. but for dozens of cases is not only about presidents but also about a woman'sey are a constitutional rights to ensure that they will decidee what is best for their care care, not politicians. president trump repeatedly promised the nominees would be pro-life and automatically overturn roe v wade and judge gorsuch has not had occasion to rule directly on a case involving this but will raise questions specifically hehe believes there are no exceptions to the intentional taking of a human life by private

persons is always wrong.been this language has been interpreted by both sides to mean he would overturn roe v wade. the supreme court is also expected to decide what type of reasonable regulation to states and localities can implement to protect neighborhoods and schoolss from violence and just last month the fourth circuit became the fifth appellate court to uphold the state's billion on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. these cases taken together enable the enactment of legal legislation to restrict military style weapons now judge gorsuch has not written decisions on the second amendment but he did write opinion to

advocate making order makingur it harder befell and has a gun going against their on president if targe with attempted robbery after pleading guilty people is given probation however he was repeatedly told that possession of a firearm for violated his probation toiletries he could not escape the consequences of his felony conviction. less than one year later hugh was apprehended by the police holding a fully loaded caliber pester with the obliterated serialerial number in clear violation of probation.in clear

later he argued he did not know he was a felon. six circuit courts includingxt the tenth have determined the government does not need to prove a defendant knew appeal was a felon to convict for the crime.his, judge gorsuch wrote two separate opinions arguing in favor hard to convict felonsthag the possess guns and one he p wrote that it requires us to make mistakes i find this concerning following the precedent is not a mistakea misk led to the conviction of a felon who should not have had a firearm. judge gorsuch has also stated he believes judges should look to the original meaning of the constitution when they decide what a provision of the

constitution means.s origin and for judicial philosophy and in essence into have the constitutional right and privileges as they were understood in 1789 but to do so would not only ignored the intent but the constitution would be a framework but is severely limits the genius of what the constitution of polled said they firmly believermly bel american constitution is a living document and in 1789 the population of the united states was under 4 million today 325 million and growing. of the time of the founding african-americans were enslaved.

not so long after women were burned at the stake from witchcraft and the idea of the automobile or internet was unfathomable. said to that original list interpretation we was still have segregated schools and a ban on interracial marriage and women would not be entitled to equal protection and discrimination against elegy bt americans would be permitted so i am concerned when i hear judge gorsuch is an original list in strict constructionist of so the issues we are examining today are consequential with no appointment that is were pivotal to the core of them n this one. this has a real world impact on all of us.

to sit on the supreme court to evaluate theories and a latin phrase is an isolation there must understand to have real-world consequences fon for men and women and children. >> mr. chairman and judge gorsuch will comeback this is more of an ordeal than your previous appointment. live services committee 40 years so some things never change but in general but ended secular with their proper role of judges in our system of government along

believe the senate has presi difference with respect to the qualified nominees. the qualification includes experience which summarizes the past in judicial philosophy which describeshy the present and anticipates the future. he has of highest level of professional qualifications including integrity, the confidence and temperament the judicial philosophy is the more important qualification and most challenging to assess with

the understanding s. it refers to a nominees understanding of the power and proper role of judges in the estimate government. over the last several weeks i've addressed this issue on the senate floor in an opinion pages around the country by contrasting what i have called impartial judges and political judges. an impartial judge focuses on the process of interpreting and applying the law according to objective rules. in this way, the law rather than the judge determines the outcome. a political judge in contrast focuses on a desired result and fashions a means of achieving it. in this way, the judge rather than the law often determines the outcome. in my experience, a supreme court confirmation process reveals the kind of judge that senators want to see appointed. a senator, for example, want to know which side the nominee will

be on a future cases or demands judges to advocate for certain political interests clearly has a politicized judiciary in mind. "the new york times" reported last week at the most prominent lines of attack against the nomination will be that judge gorsuch is quote no friend of the little guy, unquote. something is seriously wrong when a confirmation process for supreme court justice resembles an election campaign for political office. this dangerous approach contradicts the oath of judicial office prescribed by federal law. when taking a seat on the u.s. court of appeals in 2006, judge gorsuch were to administer justice without respect to persons and to impartially discharge his judicial duties. his opponents today demand and the fact that he violated that oath. advocates of such a politicized judiciary seem to think that the

confirmation process seems to require a political agenda and a calculator. when a nominee as a sitting judge, they tally the winners and losers and do the math. if they like the result is thumbs-up on on confirmation. if they don't, it's thumbs down. what if for example, judge gorsuch record an appeals court is as follows. 83% of immigration cases against the defendant and 92% of criminal cases does not guide more than 80% of the time and agreed with other republican appointed judges 95% of the time. i can just hear the cries of protest, accusation that he favors certain parties in this hostile to others and threats of filibuster. that is in fact the record at a u.s. circuit court judge nominated to the supreme court but not the one before us today.

it is the record of judge sonja sotomayor. not only did he championed her nomination, but offered a summary of her record as proof that as he put it, she is in the mainstream, unquote. what a difference an election makes. alexander hamilton wrote about the importance of judicial independence. what chief justice william rehnquist later called the crown jewel of our judicial system. today, in a bizarre twist on that principle, judge gorsuch's appointment say the only way for him to prove his independence is by promising to decide future cases according to certain litmus tests. in other words, judicial independence requires that he be beholden to them and their political agenda.

it simply describing a principled position is not enough to refute it, the confirmation process is in more trouble than i thought. judge, i know that the integrity of the judiciary, fairness to the litigant who come before you in your own oath of office to your highest priorities. you will be in good company by resisting efforts to make you compromise your impartiality. when president lyndon johnson nominated judge thurgood marshall to the supreme court, senator ted kennedy, my friend who would later chair this committee said quote, we have to respect that any nominee to the supreme court would have to be for any comment on any matters which are before the court are very likely to appear before the court, unquote. that was 50 years ago. when justice ruth bader ginsburg appeared before the committee in 1993, she said, quote, judge

sworn impartially could offer no forecast, no hands for the specifics of the case it would be the entire process, unquote. in a speech earlier this year, justice sotomayor said what she wants is for us to tell you how as a judicial nominee we will rule on the important issues you find vaccine. any self-respecting judge who comes in with an agenda that would tell you how they will vote. we don't want is a judge. we are receiving dozens of harvard law school appears. after describing with all political religious, geographical and social stripes, the senators wrote, what unites us as we attended law school

with judge neil gorsuch, a man with known for a quarter-century in the unanimously believe dell possesses the exemplary character, outstanding intellect, steady temperament, humility and open-mindedness to be an excellent addition to the united date supreme court, unquote. i agree with that appraisal by people from all walks of life and different political views, people who agree with you and don't agree with you. i look forward to this hearing, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator from vermont. thank you, mr. chairman. i did find interesting the senator from utah spoke about justice sotomayor saying that these are the reasons in her nomination this speech, these are the reasons republicans did

vote for the democrats against her. senator hatch voted against her. today marks the first time the judiciary committee has met publicly to take on the vacancies as a result of the death 13 months ago. just an hour after we learned of his son's passing, the republican majority declared that the senate would not provide any prices to any nominee selected by president obama. despite president had been nearly a year collective has turned. this is an extraordinary blockade. totally unprecedented in our country's whole history. some liken it to the tyrannical kings who claim they have sole

control as our senators referred to here a few minutes ago. it was a blockade that by then candidate donald trump. the committee republicans behind closed doors declared that they would surrender. the independence of this committee to do the majority leader's bidding in the process. in fact, the unprecedented instruction is one of the greatest things in the 200 year history of this committee. remember, the judiciary committee wants to read against a court packing scheme of the democratic president that would have eroded judicial independence. and that was a proud moment. now republicans on this committee are unpacking schemes and was never grounded in

principle they block the nominee of extreme special interest groups were meeting in private to that potential supreme court nominees for then candidate donald trump. i do not know if any other supreme court nominee who was selected by interest groups in consultation with the senate as required in the constitution. senate republicans made a big show last year about respect and the voice of the american people in this process. now, they are arguing that the senate should stop nominees selected by extreme interest groups and nominated by a president who lost the popular vote they nearly 3 million votes. that president has demonstrated hostility towards our constitutional rights and values. his level of personal attacks against federal judges and career prosecutors who dare to see has promised muslim band for

what it is, unconstitutional. he called her constitutionally protected for a price, quote, the anemia he american people. when the president's chief of staff says the nominee before i sent the vision of donald trump, well, that raises questions for people who have actually read the constitution or cares about the right protects. i expect this nominees will play a central role. judge gorsuch has spent more than a decade, graduated round harvard law school, clerked for supreme court, serve in the department of justice department of justice. he received a unanimous well-qualified rating to the american bar association. all very important to the supreme court nominee. and follow spain's were sufficient nominees to the

supreme court. and she's judge merrick garland who had exactly the same qualifications and research used by the republicans on the court today. that's why the philosophy becomes important. in contrast, nominees like john roberts whose judicial philosophy was not clearly articulated when he appeared before this committee, judge gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy. the approach taken by justice scalia for justice thomas or judge bork. while it's gained some popularity within conservative circles, originally semi-believe remains outside the mainstream moderate constitutional jurisprudence. it has been 25 years since an originalist has been nominated to the supreme court, given what

we've seen from justice scalia, justice thomas and judge gorsuch on record, i believe it would go beyond being a philosophy and an agenda. we know conservatives and the millionaires who fund them have a clear agenda. anti-choice, antienvironment, pro-corporate. and these groups are obviously confident that judge gorsuch shares their agenda. the first person interviewed judge gorsuch in this process explains these groups did not ask who's a really smart lawyer whose been really accomplished? instead, a nominee who understands these things like we do. after all, judge gorsuch has been described by former leader of the republican party is a true loyalist and a good, strong conservative. now, the concerns i have about judge gorsuch's judicial philosophy and the process by which you selected, the views of

the president nominee. i hope and expect that you answer my questions and the questions above the senators as clearly as possible. you know, it is not enough to say in private that the president's attacks on the judiciary are disheartening. i need to know that you understand the roles of the court to protect the rights of all americans. i need to know you can be an independent check and balance on the administration nominated you in on any administration that might follow it. judge cac gorsuch, occurring afr the first opportunity for the american people to hear your views on the role of the court and many of our constitution. like the founders who did not know a legal question be presented in decades to come accept this constitutional process. it's important to understand how

the court has a profound impact on small businesses and workers, online please been a big guns, families and children across america. it is not contrary to the duties and obligations of a supreme court justice to consider the effects of the ruling. the court is aspiration after all is to provide equal justice under law as subscribed at the doorway to the court. judge gorsuch, these hearings will help us conclude if you are -- will you allow the government to include america's personal privacy and freedom will elevate the rights of corporations over those of real people and will you rubberstamp a president whose administration has asserted that executive power is not subject to judicial review.

it is important to know whether you serve as independents or as a surrogate to the president nominates you for special-interest groups that provide the president with your name. now, i approach these hearings with these thoughts in mind as i can honestly say i have yet to decide how i'm going to vote in this nomination. unlike those who block the nomination of merrick garland, i believe it's my constitutional responsibility to fairly evaluate a president's nominee to the supreme court. i voted for supreme court nominees. i voted against others. i recall going on the floor of the senate right after democratic leader said he would vote against john roberts for chief justice. i was the next speech. i said i would vote for him. i will base my determination on the record of the conclusion of these communications, just as

the previous 16 supreme court nomination since i've been in the senate. supreme court is the guarantee of the laboratories of all americans. judge cac gorsuch, when he tooke bench come he spoke the following words. i will administer justice without respect to persons and legal right to the poor and the rich. if confirmed, you have to be a justice for all americans, not for the special interest of a few. in all, i can't think of any time in our nations history when that commitment is more important than it is now. that's what i've been thinking all weekend long. the american people could not be higher. we know that in vermont and america knows that. thank you, mr. chairman. hispanic thank you, senator leahy. now to senator corgan. thank you, mr. chairman.

judge gorsuch, welcome to you and your family. as you can tell this is a much different experience than you had 10 years ago when you were confirmed by voice vote of the entire united states senate to a life tenured position. the senate judiciary committee undertakes no task more important than the one before us considering a nominee to the united states supreme court. as you know, historically these used to be pretty routine. but that is until judges became seen as policymakers rather than as an impartial interpreters and the players of the law. the nation is watching and i think that's a really good game. at a time when fewer and fewer american citizens know our founding story and the principles upon which it is based, this is a wonderful opportunity for a teachable moment. and i would encourage you to

take every opportunity to engage in. we are considering a nominee of course left by the death of justice antonin scalia -- we've heard before, justice scalia was unique. his wit and style brought the constitution to life, for lawyers in their first year of law school and for the american public at-large. he led the most important legal revolution in our lifetimes, tethering judicial interpretation to the written text. what a concept. this is part of the broader project, which the nominee before us, judge neil gorsuch described as, quote, reminding us of the differences between judges and legislators. judges should strive to apply the law as it is, not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions for the policies, consequences they feel might serve society best. in one dissent, justice kolya rode along similar lines but if

our pronouncement of constitutional law rely primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people's attitude towards us can be expected to be quite different. people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school and perhaps better. the framers, i believe, shared justice goliad and your modest view -- justice scalia of your modest view. alexander hamilton wrote the judiciary may be truly said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment. after justice scalia's death, senate republicans decided to let the american people in this last presidential election choose his successor. ..

he went to work for a startup law firm where he spent a decade, as he put it, working in the trenches of the law. as a recovering lawyer and judge myself, i think it's critically important, you understand better than most the impact of your decision, actually having represented real-life clients. the law is not just an academic or intellectual exercise but it has real consequences for real people. i encourage you to talk about the real people you have came in contact with during your career. after serving this country at the justice department, judge

gorsuch was nominated and confirmed for the tenth circuit. not one of our democratic colleagues then opposed him for the tenth circuit court of appeals because there was simply no reason to do so. in the decade sense, he has written hundreds of opinions on the constitution and innumerable laws. he has demonstrated he actually reads the text carefully to get the right result. i am reminded there is a difference between what we loosely call a strict constructionist and a textual list. i encourage you to make that point during your testimony. as you can see here today, his jurisprudence reflects humility of a man committed to the constitution and the law. that body of work is the best guide for this judge that judge gorsuch will be.

answer two questions, we've already heard about specific issues and cannot and should b t be a guide. you are not a politician running for election him a judge. justice scalia warned that they should deteriorate question-and-answer sessions. it should not be the form in which you seek the nominees commitment to support or oppose them. we are not here to ask you how you will vote in specific cases, and it would be wrong for you to prejudge those cases, as you know. that's the same reason why, for example, ruth bader ginsburg said a judge sworn can offer no forecast, no hints because i

would show disregards for the specifics of the case and the display disdain for the entire judicial process. can you imagine what a litigant might think if the judge said before they heard a word how they would decide the case? that is why it is improper for you to prejudge cases in your testimony before the committee. our colleagues know that as we well, but i expect they will ask a few questions nonetheless. lately we have heard from some that they should criticize you for failing to rule for a constituent in one case or another. if you follow the law and the facts wherever it may lead, sometimes it is for the police, sometimes for a criminal defendant, sometimes for a corporation, sometimes for an employee, sometimes for the government or against the

government. that is how the rule of law works and that is good for all americans. one law professor at harvard wrote following the law regardless of the parties, in little guy better than a system rigged to protect one side. because of your qualifications and demonstration of following the law, other than a few special interest groups, i think you have a broad spectrum of people supporting your nomination. one of your colleagues on the left wrote in the washington post that the se there's no reason to vote no. another liberal constitutional's dollar signed a letter that said judge gorsuch has become a nation of character, dedication

and intellect that will make him an asset to our highest court. in the new york times it was wrote that liberals should back him because he would live up to the promises to administer justice with respect to persons and to equal right to the poor and to the rich. the list goes on and on. i'm very pleased the people are about to learn why president trump chose you as his nominee for the supreme court i look forward to hearing from judge gorsuch and i encourage my colleagues to carefully consider the nominee on the merits and nothing else. >> thank you senator cornyn. >> thank you. judge gorsuch welcome to you and your family. i've often read stories about earlier supreme court nominees and how little politics played

any role in the selection and betting of the nominee. those of us on the democratic side, as you can hear, are frequently warned not to let politics be part of this decision. when i consider the path to this historic hearing, this plea rains follow. the journey began with the untimely death of justice scalia in 2016. president obama met his constitutionally required obligation by nominating judge garland to fill that vacancy. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell announced for the first time in the history of the united states senate that he would refuse judge garland a hearing and a vote. he went further and said he would refuse to even meet with the judge. it was clear that senator mcconnell was making a political decision hoping a republican president would be elected. he was willing to ignore the tradition and precedent of the senate so you could sit at this witness table today.

in may and september 2016, republican presidential candidate donald trump released a list of 21 names including yours, that he would consider to fill the vacancy. president trump thanked the federalist society and the heritage foundation, two well-known republican advocacy groups for providing the list that included your name. your nomination is part of a republican strategy to capture our judicial branch of government. that is why the senate republicans kept the supreme court seat vacant for more than a year and why they left 30 judicial nominees who had received bipartisan approval of this committee to die on the senate calendar as president obama left office. despite all of this, you are entitled to be judged on the merits. the democrats of the senate judiciary committee will extend to you a courtesy which senate republicans denied to judge garland.

a respectful hearing and a vote. you have been nominated to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. this court has the final say on the fundamental importance affecting all americans. you have a lengthy record before the tenth circuit and we will ask many questions. we have found in the past nominees try their best to dodge most of the questions. it is our job to seek the truth. at the nomination hearing of ruth bader ginsburg, my friend and predecessor paul simon set forth a standard for supreme court nominees. i have noted this with each nominee i have question. he said, you face a much harsher judge than this committee and that's the judgment of history. that judgment is likely to revolve around the question, did you restrict freedom or did you expand it? let me be clear, when i talk about expanding freedom, i'm not talking about freedom for corporations.

we the people does not include corporations. senator simon could never imagine that the supreme court would give corporations rights and freedoms that were previously deserved only for individuals under the constitution, and yet that is where we find ourselves with the roberts court. it's often said the roberts court is a corporate court because of its tilt. they found the coun court ruledr the chamber of commerce 69% of the time. the court has certainly favored big business on things like forced arbitration, price-fixing, workplace dissemination cases to name a few. the roberts court has gone further than ruling the way corporate america wants. in the 2010 citizens united case, the supreme court held, for the first time, that corporations have the same rights as living breathing people to spend money on elections. that was followed in 2014 by the

hobby lobby decision which allowed for-profit corporations to discriminate against employees based on the corporations assertion of religious belief. i don't recall ever seeing a corporation accused in old saint patrick church in chicago. our founders never bleed corporations had certain inalienable rights but we are seeing the supreme court expand the price of this legal fiction, a corporation, at the expense of the voices and choices of the american people. this strikes at the heart to provide equal justice of the law. judge gorsuch, you took part in the hobby lobby case before the tenth circuit. as i read the case, i was struck by the extraordinary, even painful links the court went to to protect the religious beliefs of the corporation and its wealthy owners, and how little attention was paid to the employees.

to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs, their choices as individuals. the burden the court placed on them. i want to hear from you. in case after case you do missed or rejected efforts by workers and families to recognize their rights or defend their freedoms. cases like trans am trucking which we have already spoken too. we had a chance to sit down with them. he was a truck driver from detroit who was driving around chicago in the middle of january when a malfunction in his trailer froze the brakes and he was forced to pull over on the side of the road. he sat there on his cell phone with the dispatcher for the truck company and said don't leave this truck no matter what and if you do pull the trailer with you. that was a big problem because the brakes were frozen and it would've been a safety hazard.

so he waited and waited. the hours passed and he started feeling numb and sick. there was no heater in the truck and according to his recollection, it was so cold, it was 14 degrees below. not as cold as your dissent, judge gorsuch, that argued that his firing was lawful. you cited a strict argument to make your point but you chose the text that you focused on. thank goodness the majority in this case pointed out that common sense and supported the majority view. another one of your cases, your dissent would've vacated a penalty against an employer who failed to train construction employee christopher carter to avoid the electrocution hazard that killed him. strickland versus ups, your dissent would have kept a sexual discrimination case from going

to his injury even though fellow judges said she provided ample significancevidence that she was outperforming her mail counterparts. i want to hear about individual rights that they are tasked to defend, the right for all to practice their religion and the right to vote, equal protection and the rights of women. the committee has received letters from students that raise some serious concerns. we learned you were an aggressive defender during the bush administration. in june 2004 after the torture scandal, i offered the first bill to ban cruel treatment of detainees. that legislation became the mccain torture amendment which passed in december 2005 by a 95 - 9 vote.

when it was signed into law, he claims he had the authority to ignore the mccain amendment. turns out you were deeply involved in this unprecedented signing statement. we need to know what you will do when you are called upon to stand up to this president or any president if he claims the power to ignore laws that protect elemental human rights. you are going to have your hands full with this president. he will keep you busy. it is incumbent on any nominee to demonstrate that he or she will serve as an independent check or balance on the presidency. there are some warning flags. february 23, chief of staff said neil gorsuch represents the type of judge that has the vision of donald trump. i want to hear from you why he would say that. make no mistake, when it comes to the treatment of workers, women, victims of discrimination, people of

minorities and religious faith, most americans question whether we need a supreme court justice with the vision of donald trump. with my confirmation vote clearly in mind i look forward to hearing from you thank you. now the senator from utah. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you judge gorsuch and welcome to the committee. i also want to welcome your friends, family members and supporters, former colleagues, and people you work with over the years who have come to show their support. i know they are proud of you and they are proud of you not just because of what you've done, what you've accomplished professionally, but also who you are personally. a man of integrity and great accomplishment. a man of character and faith. everyone knows a supreme court confirmation hearing can be dramatic, even emotional at times. the stakes are high. as senators we understand there are few things more important

than the obligation that we are performing here and the duty that we are carrying out in connection with this process. it seems like standing for a confirmation hearing in the united states senate, after being nominated to the supreme court of the united states can appear a little bit like running for political office. as we've seen over the past few weeks, there are interest groups out there, some supporting you and some opposing you, and they are waging campaigns as if they are running a campaign for someone pursuing public office. maybe that's why, especially on the side of the dice it can be easy to forget that a nominee is an ordinary citizen. perhaps not ordinary in the usual sense, but that person is not a politician. you, sir, are not a politician, which means the acrimony, the

ruthlessness of today's hearing are a little foreign to you and unfamiliar to you. i hope they will remain unfamiliar to you. in a former life, when i was a practicing attorney, i had the good fortune of appearing in front of you on the tenth circuit. i know from my own personal experience that you are one of the best judges in the country. you come to oral arguments prepared. you asked fair probing questions that are designed to get at one thing and one thing only which is what the law says and what the law requires in each individual case, depending on the facts and circumstances of that case. you weren't there to promote a personal agenda or political agenda and you're not there to grandstand. you are there to listen to both sides of the argument in the case. you write thoughtful and rigorous opinions. they are careful and well to hes

to the questions we raised to you. >> thank you senator lee. now senator white house. >> judge gorsuch, welcome. as we discussed when we met, the question that faces me is what happens when the republicans get five appointees on the supreme court? i can't help but notice the long array of five -4 decisions with all the republican appointees lining up to change the law to the benefit of distinct intere interest. republicans at the polls and big business pretty much everywhere. let's look at the five -4 decisions. first helping republicans at the polls. they favor republicans at the pole. 16x0. helping republicans gerrymander, paving the way for the republican red map plan that one

the house against the american majority in 2012. helping republican legislatures keep democrat leaning minorities away from the pole with targeted voter suppression laws. shelby county 5 - 4, all the republicans. helping corporate money flood elections and boost republican candidates, mccutchen 5 - 4. all the republicans, and the and from us citizen united decision 5 - 4, all the republicans. in each area they made new law d republicans win elections. at 6 - 0 it's a partisan route. then look at cases that pit corporations against human beings.

all the five -4 republican appointee decisions line up to help corporations against huma humans. citizens united and the political money decisions should again count here. all three of them 5 - 4, all the republicans. then come decisions that protect corporations who have harmed their employees. age discrimination, five -4 all the republicans. harassment cases advanced, 5 - 4. in all the anti- retaliation cases, you guessed it, five -4 all republican. then there are those that protect against class-action lawsuits. the same, five -4 all republican. there decisions that help corporations steer customers away fro.

[inaudible] both 5 - 4 and both republican. all of this helps keep corporations away from juries, the one element of government hardest for corporations to control. indeed, as you know, tampering with the jury is a crime. the court also helps big business against unions. last year friedrichs was teed up as a five -4 body blow against unions when justice scalia died. with the new five -4 court, they will be back. throw in hobby lobby. they have religious rights that supersede healthcare for their employees. 5 - 4, all republicans.

help insulate investment bankers from god claims, why not? chamber of commerce gave corporate polluters and unprecedented victory. again 5 - 4, all republicans. that is an easy 16 - 0 record for corporations against humans. to me, every time seems like a lot. there is no coincidence here. business has groups trolling for cases to get them before the friendly court. the republican political industrial complex piles in and floods to tell the the republicn appointees on the court what i want. republican justices are starting to give hints so big business lawyers can rush to get certain cases up pronto to the court. it's kind of a machine. they set up and fund front groups, the front groups appear before the court, they tell the

court what the special interest wants and the court follows the brief and the decision favors the special interest and they pour more money to the front groups. on it goes, like turning a crank. the biggest corporate lobby of all is winning better than 2 - 1 at the court. this five -4 rampages not driven by principal. over and over, judicial principles are overrun on the court road to the happy result. there were law changing decisions, many of pending a century or more of law and precedent. textualism, the second amendment uses the military term armed and talks about militias, but never mind that when the gun lobby want something. original is on. there is a particularly good one. find me a founding father who plans a big role for business corporations in american elections.

or one who would've counted the steadiest regulation of the jury without so much of a mention of the seventh amendment. the citizens united majority even fiddled with court procedure to get to the decision it wanted to deliver, dodging its way around the record that would have belied their findings of fact, setting aside that their findings of fact were eventually preposterous and the fact that they're not even supposed to make findings of fact. it's not even just us that noticed. jeffrey toobin wrote in 2009, even more than scalia, chief justice roberts have served the interest and reflected the values of the republican party. linda greenhouse in 2014, i'm finding it impossible to avoid the conclusion that the republican appointed majority is committed to harnessing the

supreme court to an ideological agenda. another described what he calls the new reality of the supreme court. it's polarized along party lines in a fashion that we have never seen. studies of the court decisions show it's the most corporate friendly court in modern history with justice robert and justice alito vying to be the most friendly corporate justice. the public know something has gone wrong at the court. a 2014 poll revealed that the majority of americans think a person won't get a fair shake in this court against the corporation. now, where do you fit in? when hobby lobby was in the tenth circuit, you held for corporations having religious rights over an employee's health care. human litigants comes in with one count, 21 - 2 for human

interest. they are spending millions of dollars in a dark money campaign to push her confirmation. we have a predicament. in ordinary circumstances, you should enjoy the benefit of the doubt based on your qualifications. several things have gone wrong that shift the benefit of the doubt. one, justice roberts sat in that very seat, told us he just would call balls and strikes and then led his five person republican majority on that activist five -4 politicals shopping spree. once burned, twice shy. confirmation etiquette has been unhinged from the truth. two republican senators denied due legislative process to our last nominee, one even more qualified than you and that's saying something. why go through the unprecedented political trouble to deny so qualify the judge even a hearing if you don't expect something

more to come down the pike. those political expectations also color the benefit of the doubt. finally, the special interests who have done so wellin that five -4 extravaganza of decisions are spending millions and millions of dollars to push your nomination. they think you will be worth their money. they also supported the republican majority keeping the seat open. i'm afraid that all costs, whoever sits in that seat, the benefit of the doubt to answer this question, will you settle up with the other republican appointees and launch the court 5 - 4 again on another massive special interest and republican election spree customer i hope, whatever we may disagree about on this committee, we can at least agree that we can have a court where litigants in these five -4 decisions can predict

how they will do based on who they are because here is what it looks like now. if they are big republican interest, they will win, every time. if they are corporations against a human being, they will win every time. your honor, every time seems like a lot. >> thank you chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there is a reason i did not do this litany with democratic nominees as it appeared before the committee. i don't think would've made any difference in terms of how other people voted, and i didn't expect them to vote with the republican majority. alayna kagan and sonia sotomayor spent a lot of time talking about how antagonistic they are to the unborn doesn't have much of a chance in their court and

the environmentalist always wins and there is no government to big to be said no too. the reason i didn't do that is because i thought they were qualified. if you believe this has been a great plan to get a trump nominee on the court, then you had to believe trump is going to win to begin with. i didn't believe that. [laughter] obviously, i didn't believe that, saying all the things i said. [laughter] followed closely by then. apparently, what i said didn't matter and that's okay with me. the american people chose donald trump, and here's what i can say about the man in front of us. no matter who had one our primary, no one could have chosen better than neil gorsuch to represent conservatism on the supreme court. donald trump deserves to be congratulated for listening to a

lot of people and coming up, with what i think is the best choice available in terms of nominating someone who will keep the conservative philosophy alive and wellin the court. i doubt if you will be disappointed with judge gorsuch. he is a pretty independent guy from what i can tell. you will probably be more disappointed -- i've never been disappointed with judge so the more your and judge kagan. they are very qualified people. sometimes the court comes together to reject something, but most of the time most of the people break along the lines of where they came from. i think they came from an area of the law i don't except in terms of what i would've chosen

but was well within the mainstream of judicial philosophy from the left. i thought they led exemplary lives, quite frankly. there were a lot of attacks on them that i didn't echo because i thought, give me a break, really, are these the two worst women in the world? they had led exemplary lives and were highly qualified and that's why i voted for them. i thought that is what we should be doing and i'm beginning to wonder how the game is played. i do remember when i voted for them, how many good editorials i got from papers that no one in south carolina read. i miss harry. harry reid is around here somewhere. he said something nice about me, i can't find it, but he basically said i wished more people would follow senator

graham's lead when it comes to voting for highly qualified nominees. he said that on the floor, maybe that will happen in the future. time will tell. as to whether or not this man is highly qualified, i am dying to hear the argument that he is not. you may not like the view he has of law, but i'm dying to hear somebody over there tell me why he's not qualified to be sitting here when a republican president occupies down the street. when you look at the federalists favor, i saw the musical hamilton, it was pretty good. the federalist papers, 78, 87, i can't remember the number. basically what he tells us is the role of the senate is to make sure the president doesn't pick some specially favored for

their state or association with their family, someone with cronyism. most supreme court justices, up until modern times, basically were confirmed with a voice vote. things have changed and we can't lay all the blame on our democratic friends without criticizing the selection process. what i want to say to the public is i am glad people like judge gorsuch are willing to go through this. i am sure the others on the court may have wished they hadn't made it through but they did with flying colors. i would like to ask someone on the other side why you are not qualified. when academic record, the reason

i didn't do all the things you did academically, i couldn't get into the schools you were able to get in two. the way you handled yourself, you should be proud of the way you handled yourself on the court. all of the statements by your colleagues who know you better than anyone else up here say nothing but great things about you. even people who have a different philosophy. i want you to know that from my point of view you are every bit as qualified as justice so the mayor and kagan. i think you are just a good as man as they are, to find women. over the course of the next few days, the american people will get to understand who you are and within limits they will want you to decide every case they don't like here and you will have to say no, and there is a reason i didn't ask them to give

me an opinion as to what they would do when they got on the court because i knew they wouldn't tell me that. i didn't feel comfortable asking the map. as to justice garland, one thing i can say for sure is that when justice scalia passed on february 13, we had already had three primaries on the republican side and the campaign was in swing on the democratic side. i thought long and hard about that. are we doing something unfair by not allowing the current president to nominate somebody and fill a vacancy in the last year of their presidency after the political process had started. when i started looking around at what other people thought, here's what joe biden thought in 92. if someone steps down i would highly recommend the president not name someone and not send up a name.

if bush did send someone up, i would ask the senate to not have a hearing on that nominee. it would be a pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on supreme court nominations must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what my friend joe said in 1992. the bottom line here is, i have no doubt in my mind if the shoe was on the other foot, the other side would have delayed the confirmation process until the next president were elected. in 100 years, when we had the president of one party in power and the senate in the hands of another, i think we had one person confirmed in the last year of the term. i don't feel that any injustice has been done to anybody. the bottom line, when you raise words from the past, they are basically saying what we said. the one thing i can say is that i have been consistent. i have voted for everybody since

i have been here. for of them. alito, justice roberts, justice of the mayor and kagan. i felt all of them had one thing in common. no republican would've chosen them but how could a republican say they were not qualified for the job ahead. they had led an exemplary life, well-qualified and years on the bench. now the shoe was on the other foot. remember, after i voted for ms. kagan, all the headlines were that this will ensure that graham it's primary. they were right. that's not the only reason, to my primary opponents, but that was the main reason. i made it through just fine. i don't know how we got here as a nation. justice scalia had 98 - 0.

ginsburg was 96 - 3. what happened between now and then? how did we go from being able to understand that scalia was a wealth qualified conservative and ginsburg was a well-qualified liberal and recognize that elections matter. i don't know how we got there but here's what i hope, we turn around and go back to where we were because what we are doing will destroy the judiciary over time. >> thank you senator graham. now senator call bashar. >> thank you. welcome judge. we have met once before on our office and we are looking forward to hearing from you and we welcome your family as well. this midi has no greater responsibility than the one before us today. our constitution, laws and values all depend on a court

that is impartial, fair and just. your nomination comes at an interesting time in our history. we are witnessing a moment of constitutional and democratic unease. in recent months, foundational elements of our democracy including the rule of law have been questioned, challenged and undermined. i must look at your view and record in the view of america today. you come before us this afternoon not only as a nominee sitting at a table with your friends and family behind you, but in the context of the era in which we live. from the highest level of government we have heard criticism of journalists. seventeen intelligent agencies has confirmed that russia attempted to influence our most recent election. at the same time, voting rights in the u.s. have been stripped

from far too many while extraordinary sums add up to an estimated 800 million in just six years and continues to have an outside influence, distorting our representative democracy. we saw the president refer to a man appointed to the federal bench by george w. bush as a so-called judge. we have sadly seen hates unleashed toward religious minorities from jews and muslims. then i'm directed at innocent americans. kids in restaurants being told to go back to where they came from to a man gunned down while washing his car in his driveway. the pillars of democracy and constitution are at risk. you are not the cause of these challenges, judge. these challenges to our democracy, but if concerned you

would play a critical role in dealing with them. this is a serious moment in our nations history. as representatives of the american people it is our duty to determine if you will uphold the motto on the supreme court building itself, to help all americans achieve equal justice under law. before i was elected to the senate, i spent eight years leading minnesota's largest prosecutor office. i've seen firsthand how the lot has an impact that extends beyond the walls of the courtroom, whether it's crime victims and their family or people who have seen a sentence and then sent to jail. those living in the 21st century with 21st century problems, although the u.s. constitution and the bill of rights were written in the 18th century, though the 14th amendment guarantee equal protection of the law was written in the 19th century, the decisions made today affect not the lives of our 18th and

19th century ancestors, but of all americans today. judge, these hearings will not just be about your legal experience. they are about trying to understand what you would actually do on the court. the law is more than a set of dusty books in the back of a law library. it is the bedrock of our society. we need to know how you approach the law. after judge garland was nominated, we often heard about how he is a careful jurist who decides cases on the narrowest possible brown, who builds consensus across the ideological spectrum, who doesn't inject political consideration into his ruling. we look forward to hearing what you are judicial philosophy would be on the court. looking at your past decisions, i have questions about how you would approach your work. in a speech last year, you spoke about the differences between judges and ledge fighters. you said legislators may appeal to he their own moral convict

convictions to re- shape a law and judges should be none of those things in a democratic society. judges you said, should strive to apply the law as it is, focusing backward not forward, and looking to text, structure and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be. i want to understand those use of the constitutions and how they square with modern day life. due process, equal perso protecf the law, these are general and sweeping terms and the supreme court which has the power of judicial review has the constitutional duty to be the final arbiter of what the constitution means. rulings that can impact voting rights, civil rights and the rights of people to marry. many of the issues we face are ones that the country's founders never considered, and never could have considered because of all the social change and

innovation that has taken place. we are no longer dealing with plows, bonnets and colony debts in england but instead driverless cars, drone and cybercrime. those were just the topics of the hearings i attended last week. i want to understand how your judicial philosophy, which as you suggest looks backward, not forward, may affect the rights of our fellow citizens. i also want to understand the implications of your views on legal precedent. one example of this occurs in the context of the chevron doctrine. in stating that courts should generally differ to reasonable interpretation of executive agencies, this 33-year-old case guarantees the regulatory decisions, one's judges themselves may have little or no expertise to handle, are made by the scientists and professionals

best equipped to rid rise to the challenges. these include things like rules protecting public safety, requirements against lead-based paint and clean water protection for our great lake lakes. last year in your opinion, you suggested chevron should be overturned, yet this act would have titanic, real-world implications on all aspects of our everyday life. countless rules could be in jeopardy. protections that matter to the american people would be compromised and there would be wide spread uncertainty. if you believe it's really time to overturn chevron, we need to know with what you would replace it. another opinion i want to talk about, in your concurring opinion you suggest court should apply strict scrutiny to laws applying to campaign contributions.

if the supreme court adopted that view it could compromise a few remaining campaign-finance protection still on the books. the notion that congress has little or no role in setting reasonable campaign-finance role is in direct contradiction with the expressed views of the american people. in recent polls, over three quarters of americans have said we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of money and politics. polls are not a judges problem but democracy should be. when undisclosed money floods our campaign, it drowns out the people's voices and undermines our election. other questions about your views in money and politics are raised by your opinion and hobby lobby. you found the corporations were legal persons and could exercise their own religious beliefs. this ruling leaves open the troubling argument that corporations have a right to free speech, equal to that of citizens. that would invalidate the prohibition of corporation

donating. these are the only first amendment issues i will raise. i want to talk about new york times versus sullivan and freedom of the press as well as an area you have great expertise in which is antitrust. justice blackmun once said, surely, there is a way to teach law. strict and demanding as it might be, with some glimpse of its humaneness and basic good. there is room for flexibility and different answers and not all is black and white. you see, there is a reason we have judges to apply the laws to the fact. it's because answers aren't always as clear as we would like and sometimes there is more than one reasonable interpretation. as a prosecutor, i knew every charging decision that we made, every case we chose to pursue had real implications.

it is the same with judges. in the end, it wasn't a law professor or federal jurist who is helped by the eighth circuit reliance on chevron. it was a grocery store worker and his hard-earned pension. when the court stripped away the rules that open the door to unlimited super pack spending, it wasn't the campaign financers or the ab man who was hurt. it was a grandma in minnesota that believed giving $10 to her senator would make a difference. as a granddaughter of an minor, i can tell you it wasn't a ceo whose life was saved by mining safety rules. it was the minnesota iron ore workers like my grandpa who went to work every day with a black lunchbox, 1500 feet underground in a cage. my dad, who ended up as the first kid and his family to graduate from high school, and from there to community college and to the university of minnesota still remembers as a little boy standing in front of the casket of those workers lining saint anthony church.

it was the worker protection, coupled with the ability to organize the union that finally made those minor jobs safe. you have been rightfully praised for your credentials and experience. at these hearings i want to know more than just your record. i want to know how, if you are confirmed, your decision will reflect president and the law. whether your judgments will be good or done in a way to help all americans from their grandmother to the minnesota grocery store worker. that is not politics. that is why we are having these hearings today. thank you. >> thank you senator klobuchar now senator cruise. >> thank you for your decades of service, honorable service, thank you for your family being

here today and thank you for your willingness to endure the spectacle of this confirmation hearing. february 13 of last year, it was a devastating day for those of us who revere the constitution and the rule of law. on that day we lost justice scalia. he was one of the greatest justices to ever sit on the court. he was a trailblazing advocate for the original meaning of the constitution and a shining example of judicial humility. his death left an enormous hole, not only in our hearts, but in the protections of the rule of law. it left enormous shoes to fill. a daunting task that i know ways on you. today there is a sharp disagreement about the very nature of the supreme court. some people view the court as a hyper- powerful political bran

branch. when they grow frustrated with the legislative process and the will of the people, they turn to the courts to try to see their preferred policies in action. for conservatives, we understand the office is true. we read the constitution and see that it imbues the federal judiciary with a much more modest role than the left embraces. judges are not supposed to make law, they are supposed to faithfully apply it. justice scalia was a champion of this modest view of the judicial role. had his vacant seat been filled by barack obama or hillary clinton, justice scalia legacy would have been in great danger. if they had filled the seat, we would've seen a supreme court where the will of the people would have been repeatedly cast

aside by a new activist supreme court majority. we would've seen a supreme court majority that viewed itself as philosopher kings who had the power to decide for the rest of us what policy should govern our nation and control every facet of our lives. we would've seen our democratic process controlled by five unelected lawyers here in washington d.c. that would have been a profound and troubling shift in the direction of the supreme court and our nation's future. that is why, after justice scalia's untimely death, the senate chose to exercise our explicit constitutional authority, and we advised president obama that we would not consent to a supreme court nominee until the people, in the midst of a presidential election, were able to choose. for 80 years, the senate had not filled a supreme court vacancy that occurred during a presidential election year end the senate majority decided it would not become the first in eight decades. the people, therefore, had a choice.

a choice between an originalist view of the constitution represented by justice scalia or a progressive activist view of the represented by rock obama and and hillary clinton. : and very different vision of a supreme court justice put forthby hillary clinton. and in november the people spoke. in what was essentially

referendum on the kind of justice that should replace justice scalia, the people chose originalism, texturism, and rule of law. the people chose judicial humility and chose protecting the bill of rights, free speech, religious liberty, second amendment, rare than handing policymaking authority over to judges on the supreme court. given that history, given the engagement0. the electorate nationally on this central issue, i would suggest that judge gorsuch is no ordinary nominee, because of this unique and transparent process, unprecedented in the nation's history, his nomination carries with it a super legitimacy that is also unprecedented in our nation's history. the american people played a very direct role in helping choose this nominee.

like the renowned justice he is set to replace, judge gorsuch is brilliant and has an impeccable academic record, he has refused to legislate his own policy preferences from the bench. while recognizing the pivotal roll the judiciary plays in protecting the bill of rights. on the night he was nonnamed he channeled scalia when he said a judge who likes every -- stretching for results he prefers, rather than those the law demands. that is exactly right. and those words should give comfort to the american people and to my democratic colleagues. and it's worth recalling that

our friends on them democratic side of the aisle understand this and indeed not too long ago agreed with it. a decade ago, judge gore such was confirmed by this committee for the federal court of appeals by a voice vote. he was like wise confirmed by the entire united states senate by a voice vote without a single democrat speaking a word of opposition not a word of opposition from minority leader chuck schumer, knock from hard are reid or ted kennedy or john kerry, not even from nors barack obama, hillary clinton or joe biden, not a one of them spoke a word against judge gorsuch's nomination, and the question is what has changed?

what has happeninged ten years ago, judge gorsuch was sound objectionable edid not merit even a whisper of disapproval and has had an exemplary record. unfortunately, modern reality suggests that probably not something my democratic colleagues file they can do in today's political environment. many probably believe they have no choice but to try to manufacture attacks against judge gorsuch whether they want to or not just to preserve their own political future and protect themselves from primary back home. we are seeing some of these baseless attacks all right. some democrats tried to slander junior gorsuch as being, quote, against the little guy because

he has dared to rule based on the law, the law that congress has passed, and not on the specific identity of the specific litigants before him. this is absurd. for one thing, many of these same critics spent the last eight years attacking the little sisters of the pooh, catholic charity of nuns for having the audacity to live according to their relation beliefs. you need to take a long look in mirror if one day you find yourselves attacking nuns, the little sisters of the poor and then you find yourself orating on the need to protect the little guy. a judge's job is not to protect the little guy or the big guy. a judge's job and a judge swears an oath to uphold the constitution and follow the law,

fairly, impartially, and equally for every litigant, little or big. the past weeks or as well some of my democratic colleagues questioned judge gorsuch's independence and suggest his needs to answer questions be in actions and statements and tweets of the president who appointed him. i would ask, was justice ginsburg or justice breyer asked about the sexual harassment suit filed again president clinton by paula jones? no. neither was asked about that. was justice kagan asked about president obama's incendiary comments the state of the union attacking the supreme court for a decision he disagreed with. no, of course not. those questions were not asked because they were inappropriate political questions that have nothing to do with the record of the nominee before this committee. justice beginsburg, justice breyer, justice kagan were not asks to the question asks judge

gorsuch should not be either. we should evaluate the nomination on the record, on the merit, and on thatground i have every confidence that judge gorsuch will be confirmed as the next associates justice of the supreme court. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge gorsuch, congratulations on nomination. you're a man after considerable qualifications and experience and i i can say you're a map of strong opinions. but the path before this committize not to determine whether you are a man of convicts, rather, it's incumbent upon us to determine whether the views you espouse andy your interpretation of the constitution take measure of the challenges the american people face every day. they must determine whether your understanding of the founding documents is one that will make

real its promise of justice and equality to all americans, black and white, immigrants, native americans, gays, straight, and transgender. we must determine whether your interpretation of our laws and the constitution will unfairly favor corporate interests or families and limit minnesotans their day in court. the justice us on the supreme court wield enormous power over our daily lives and so before this committees whether to advance your nomination, we have an obligation to fully examine your views on these important issues and to make sure those views are not known to the public. that's the whole purpose of the hearings to allow people of minnesota, the american people, to meet you to decide for themselves whether you are qualified to serve. but judge gorsuch, having reviewed your decisions and

writings i have concerns. in the days ahead i will use this hearing as an opportunity to better understand your views and perhaps to alleviate those concerns. but in order for the hearing to serve its purpose and order for the public to determine whether you should be confirmed, you must answer the questions this committee poses fully, candidly and without equivocation. i hope that's how you approach our exchanges. think it's important to acknowledge just exactly how it is that you came before the -- us today and we talked about this, namely, the committee's failure to fill one of its core functions immediately following the death of justice scalia, and before president obama even named a nominee, my republican colleagues announced they would not move forward with filling the vacancy until after the presidential election. the majorrite leader said, and i quote, the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme

court. this only problem with the majority leader's reasoning is that the american people did have a voice in this decision, twice, nonetheless, when president obama nominated chief judge merritt garland the committee responded by refusing to hold a hearing, truly historic dereliction of duty of the body and the tactic as cynical as it was irresponsible. as a result of my republican colleagues' unpress den obstruction obstructionity. justice scalia's seat has remained empty. then candidate-trump made no secret what kind of nominee he would select. in fact he openly discussed his litmus test. he said that he would, quote, appoint judges very much in the mold of justice scalia, during the final presidential debate then candidate trump said,

quote, the justices i'm going to appoint will be prolife. they will have a conservative bent. justice scalia was a man of great conviction and a man of great humor, but justice scalia embraced a rigid view of our constitution, a view blind to the equal dig nate of lgbt people, and hostile to women's reproductive rights, and a view that o. refused to acknowledge the lingering laws and policies that perpetuate the racial divide. judge gorsuch, while no one can dispute that that late judge schoolie's vote -- love of the constitution, the document he revered looks very different from the one i have sworn to defend and it troubles me that this critical junk tour in our nation's history, when our country is so fixated on things

that divide us, that president trump would pledge to avoid youris white house views of our founding document seek to reinforce those divisions rather than bridge them. this is an important moment in our history. the public's trust in our government and in the integrity of our is students is at an all-time low. but that erosion of trusttake place overnight and didn't happen on its own. the american people's loss of confidence in our public institutions was quickened by the court. a study published the minnesota law review found that the roberts court is more likely to side with business interests than any supreme court since world war ii. time and time again, the roberts court issued decisions that limit our constituents' ability to participate freely and fairly in our democracy. decisions like shelby county, where the court gutted a

landmark civil right laws and removed a crucial check on racial -- race discrimination the ballot box. or like concepcion, the 5-4 decision that allows corporations to place obstacles between consumers and the courthouse door. perhaps most agree just of ash diagree just of all was citizens unitedded which paved the way for individuals and outside groups to spend unlimited sums of money in our election. it's no surprise that during the 2016 election, voters from across the spectrums, democrats and republicans alike, described our system as rigged. that's because it is. and the roberts court bears a great deal of responsibility for that. now, in each one of those 5-4 decisions justice scalia was mook the majority. so this committee sets about the task of evaluating his potential successor, i want to better

understand the extent to which you share justice scalia's judicial philosophy and i will be paying close attention to the ways in which your views set you apart. one of the ways in which your views are distinct is in the area of administrative law. just this past august you wrote an opinion in which you suggested that it may be time to reevaluate what is known as the chevron doctrine. now in broad strokes the chevron doctrine privated the court should be -- not overrule agency experts whan their carrying out missions like when the fda sets standards for prescription drugs. this principle recognized our agencies employ individuals with great expertise and laws they're charged with enforcing like eye biologists the fda and where those experts issued rules in highly technical areas judges

should defer to their expertise. now, administrative law can be an obscure and sometimes complicated area of the law, but for anyone who carrots about clean air, or clean water, or about the safety of our food and our medicines, it's incredibly important. and chevron simply ensures that judges don't discard an agency's expertise without good reason. justice scalia recognized this to be true. but to those who subscribe to president trump's extreme view, chevron is the only thing standing between them and what the president's chief strategist, steve bannon, called the, quote-unquote, deconstruction of the administrative state. which is short hand for gutting any environmental or consumer protection measure that gets in way of corporate profit margins. speaking before a gathering of conservative activists last

month, mr. branyon explained that the president's appointees were selected to bring about that deconstruction and i suspect that your nomination, given your views on chevron, is a key part of that strategy. so this hearing is important. over the next few days you'll have an opportunity to explain your judicial philosophy and i look forward to learning more how you would approach the great challenge lengths facing our country. if of if past is prologue i fear confirming you would guarantee more of the same from the roberts court. decisions that continue to favor powerful corporate interests over the rights of average americans. during your time on the anyone circuit you have sided with corporations over workers, corporations over consumers and corporations over women's health. at this moment in our nation's history calls for is a nominee who is experienced demonstrates

an ability to set aside views -- your record suggest that it if confirmed, you will espouse as ideology that has infected the bench that backs big business over individual americans and refuses to see our country as the dynamic and tie verse nation that my constitute opportunities wake up in every morning. as i said before, i see this hearing as an opportunity to learn more about you views and perhaps alleviate some of my concerns. hope that we're able to have a productive conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the senator from nebraska goes i have not talked to the person sitting there and can't get up and go, but i think when you're done, we'll take five minutes and you can do whatever

you want to do. >> good ahead, senator from nebraska. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge, this is a special moment in the life of our republic. we have an opportunity to stand back for more than 200 years after history to evault civic health and recommit ourselves to a government that is a intentionally limited to powers intentionally ditched and divided. that is what the next few weeks are about. arguably the most important thing the u.s. senate will do this year is confirm the next supreme court justice. i want to focus my opening bet the simple image of a judge's black robe. a strange thing that judges wear robes. you people are odd. isn't something we should look past, we should look right out. it's not some relic from history, so why do the robes exist, unfashion able and unattractive.

the reasons are better summed by a current sitting judge than i might be able to put them. so i quote, donning a robe doesn't make me any smarter bet the robe means something. not just that i can hide the coffee stains on the shirt. it's reminder of what is expected for us, what is called the cold neutrality of an impartial judge and is reminder of the relatively modest station we're meant to occupy in a democratic society. in other countries jumps might ware scarlet, here we're told to buy our own, plain black robes and i can attest to the standard choir jut fit of the local uniform supply store as a good deal. the author of these insightful worths sifts before us, judge neil gorsuch and that statement is an excellent lens through which to view the work of the committee this week and the cork of the court over in the next center andon. want to make three simple overlapping points about the judge's black robe.

one, it change they would way that our eyes see the court. two, it reiterates the calling of a judge to the judge and, three, it gives us a special opportunity to teach our kids something about our, their constitution. the enduring paper that defines what your government can and cannot do. first, then, how does it change the way we see the court? win you look at the nine justices sitting together in their robes they blend in with one another. it's hard to tell them apart if you squint, and thus it calls attention to the office rather than to the person. that's because when the judge puts on his or her robe, it forcees their personalities into the background so we can focus on the important but the modest job they have to do, which is to drill down on facts and law. facting are onsive, evaluate -- objective and evaluated against written laws and not against what the judge wishes the law said.

someone famously said that, quote, empathy, coals clothe, is an essential ingredient in arriving at a justice decision. this belief is well meant but very foolish. for standing before court your gender, your skin, your bank account, cannot decide your fate. in the same way a judge's race, class and gender should not decide your fate. empathy is actually not the role of the supreme court justice. it is in a sense our role for we are men and women who have been hired and can be fired by the american people to empathize. we're to identify with the hopes and struggles of 320 million americans but the judge instead has a different job. to faithfully apply the law to the facts of the particular case. the judge's robe is there to remind the judge and us of that. that if the facts are on your side, it shouldn't matter which judge you are before.

our ideal is where you can trade occupant one judge for another judge and get the same outcome. this is the heart of what we mean when we say that we believe in the rule of law, not of men or of women or of black or white or rich or poor. not to be ruled by a judge's passions or empathy for policy preferences. here's the second thing that the black robe isopod to do, reiterate the calling of the judge back to the judge, bill way of loose analogy miami people across the country sat in church pews yesterday morning and listened to someone preach from behind a big wooden pulpit, wearing a robe. why the pulpit? why the robe? because these things make it harder to see the preacher, they help us all understand that yesterday morning for those in that tradition, knew that it was not about the messenger but that about the message passed on from above. and also to remind the minister of the same cloaking. likewise a good judge on the bench knows that. it's not about you.

so don't make it about you. i said it's only a loose analogy because the job of the supreme court justice is absolutely not to deliver some eternal word from god. it's rather to interpret a man-made written constitution as objective live and faithfully also the. when you put on your robe you're cloaking your personal prefer reins and partisan views that it not a red robe for republicans and a blue robe for democrats. we issue here only black robes. this bring us us to the third and final point which is that the judge robe is also to teach our kids howl they should understand their constitution. as all of us learn in schoolhouse rock, the judiciary is not only a separate branch of government from the president and congress but a coequal one. we have different functions but we have the same responsibility to be upholding and to teach the constitution.

as a coequal, the court can examine whether the actions of the other two branches are in fact unconstitutional. time and again, at important moments in our nation's history, the court has struck down laws passed by the congress or put a stop to a president idea executive actions. here's what that means. the primary job of the supreme court is not to uphold the will of the majority the moment. the primary job of the supreme court justice is not to reflect the popular opinions of the day. that might sound surprising. don't we live in a democracy where the majority supposed to rule? the answer to that question is only a very qualified yes. for there are critical limits to that statement. the constitution is a decidedly and intentionally anti-majorityairan document. the constitution exists to protect our rights and lischs even when we might hold unpapular views and the role of the supreme court, in protecting

rights and liberties, is sometimes precisely to frustrate the will of the majority. think about how the constitution deals with religion and public opinion. the first aimed games at the that every citizen can worship or not worship however their con conscience dictates. if polling showed a 51% popular desire in this country to pass a law making church attendance mandatory or subs die a particular religious denomination the supreme court would rightly strike down such laws this is because in the constitution we decided we would limit our own power. by enacting the constitution we intentionally decided to tie our open hands so that there are certain things that a majority

can never do, like invade someone's conscience. and if the majority in its arrogance should at some point in the future seek to cross that line, the supreme court will rightfully shout, no. when congress passes an unconstitutional law, it is in fact the congress that is violating the long-term will of the people. for the judiciary is there to assert the will of the people as embodied in our shared constitution, over and against that unconstitutional but perhaps temporarily popular law. each branch serves the people but in unique ways. it is the job of the congress and the president to act. it is the job of the court often to react. each branch holds the others in check. each branch faithfully seeks to uphold and teach the constitution. each branch serves the american people. but with distinct offices. when a supreme court justice puts on his or her robe we don't want them confusing their job

with those of other branches. we want them to policing the structure of our government to make sure that each branch does its job, but only its job. today, judge gorsuch is in front of us wearing a suit and tie. before he can put back on the black robe he must answer this committee's questions. and i expect that mr. gorsuch, the citizen, that policy prefer reins and has desired outcomed but i don't know what they are. and that's a good thing. and i expect by the end of this week, it should be clear that judge gorsuch, the will faithfully embody the spirit of the black robe, for the american people deserve the comfort of a judiciary that is cold and impartial, not seeking to be super legislators. for if a judge seeks to be a superlegislator, they should run for office so the american people can choose to hire them or fire them.

but that is not the calling you have before us today. thank you, and thank you to your family for being willing to endure this calling and this service and this hearing. >> four in four minutes i'll call on senator kunes. [inaudible conversations]