judge gorsuch has said more than once. why? because a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is likely making decisions based on something other than the law. and that's a problem. equal justice under the law, equal protection under the law, these principles become meaningless when judges step outside of their role and start changing the meaning of the law to suit their feelings about a case or their personal opinions. mr. president, judge gorsuch's nomination has attracted support from both sides of the political spectrum. i think the main reason for that is because both liberals and conservatives know that they can trust judge gorsuch to rule based on the plain text of the law irrespective of his personal opinions. here's what neal katyal, an acting solicitor general for president obama had to say about judge gorsuch and i quote. i have no doubt that if confirmed, judge gorsuch will help to restore confidence in the rule of law. his years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence, record that should give the

you can't compare judge gorsuch with judge garland because unlike judge garland, judge gorsuch does not share the same evaluation of being able to be a consensus, mainstream candidate who would receive a 60 vote threshold. for all these reasons, if the majority leader is going to pursue the cloture vote on the gorsuch nomination, i will not vote in favor of cloture. i would hope that we would be able to return to what is important in the united states senate, we recognize there are times you should have a 60 vote threshold, when the president of the united states goes outside the norm and the process is employed by the republicans i urge my colleagues to rethink the course we are on. with that i would yield the floor. >> madame president. >> senator from hawaii. >> when our country was founded, corporations were on the minds of no one. they aren't mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights and when the topic came up in the supreme court chief justice john marshall called corporations the creature of the law. people have certain inalienable rights. corporations do not. we establ

neil gorsuch was on that list. so it should be no surprise that an analysis in "the new yorkeme times" concluded that neil gorsuch would be the second most conservative member of the current supreme court. in an analysis in the "washington post" concluded he would be the most right-wing member of the court. and once president trump select did neil gorsuch, the right wing money machine went into action. since that moment, money has flooded our airwaves within $10 billion has supported this nomination. never before has our country witnessed in multimillion dollars campaign to the supreme court. when pressed, judge gorsuch said he had no idea who or why anybody would spend that much buying to make sure you set on the highest court. i think we now live from looking on his record. they want someone who consistently rules in favor of large corporate special interests against the rest of us. mr. president, there's a better way. typically the white house will consult with members of both parties, republicans and democrats

this is what gorsuch -- judge gorsuch said. quote, often the law -- often the law can be an ass, an idio idiot -- quoting, of course, charles dickens -- and there is little we judges can do about it, for it is or should be emphatically our job to apply, not rewrite, the law enacted by the people's representatives. indeed, a judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels. now, that statement, mr. president, came from the second case i referenced. it was a case called a.m. holmes. in a.m. holmes, a 13-year-old seventh grader was arrested for fake burping repeatedly in class. now, the majority said it was okay for him to be arrested and that when his family sued the police officer, the police officer n enjoyed qualified immunity. judge gorsuch dissented. this time he ruled for the little guy, literally and figuratively judge gorsuch said, in my opinion, reading the statutes passed by the legislature, this young man's family can file this lawsuit

in 2006, judge gorsuch, neil gorsuch, was nominated to serve on the tenth circuit court. a dozen sitting members of this chamber didn't object to his nomination then. they didn't oppose him. they didn't come and renal ster their no -- and register their no vote. they didn't even show up at his confirmation. lindsey graham was the only one. either a couple of things have happened. nobody did their work then to find out what kind of a judge he was going to be or they have decided that the politics have changed. and to me, that's the most egregious part of this debate is the politics of the time are demanding that there be absolute obstruction. for the first time in over 230 years of a supreme court justice, trying to defeat a supreme court justice with a partisan filibuster for the first time in two centuries. of a judge who votes -- excuse me. a judge who agreed 99% of the time with the opinions of his -- of the court. 99% of the time his 3-7bs were made with the -- his opinions were made with the majority of the court. 97% of the time they were made unanimously. this is a

judge gorsuch disagreed. instead, he argued in his dissent that the term operate should be interpreted by the oxford dictionary's definition, that operate should include only operating the cab of the truck, and maddin's employer could fire him with impunity. i find this striking. first, judge gorsuch's argument ignores the reality that mr. maddin was given an impossible choice -- risk your own life or the life of others on the road. secondly, it ignores the fact the judges are not evaluating cases and interpreting law in a vacuum or a law school classroom, but rather, cases are about real people and real life. in fact, the majority of his own court on the tenth noted that judge gorsuch's narrow interpretation of the word operate was based on one dictionary, while they had found a different dictionary definition that supported their reading of the statute. simply put, which dictionary a judge happens to select should not and cannot determine whether a just outcome is achieved in a case. the second case that re

but gorsuch did not -- returning to the article. but gorsuch did not stop there. he dissent interested a decision by the entire tenth circuit not to rehear the case, which included several additional republican-appointed judges, this time also claiming that the effect of the court's ruling was to overturn the later jury verdict that had found williams guilty. one of the republican-appointed judges, the original panel, made short shrift of gorsuch's argument in a concurring opinion. it was an oklahoma appellate court that found williams lawyers conduct highly improper -- found that williams' lawyers conduct highly improper and deficient and that williams had indeed suffered prejudice by his trial counsel's action. gorsuch's view, the concurrence explained, was impossible to square. with the supreme court and court of appeals rulings on effective assistance of counsel. the supreme court denied review of the case, so the supreme court sided with the majority in essentially saying gorsuch got it wrong. and this a concept of effective assistance of counsel is fundament

neil gorsuch was on that list. so it should be no surprise that analysis that appeared in "the new york times" concluded that neil gorsuch would be the second most conservative member of the current supreme court. analysis in "the washington post" concluded he would be the most right wing member of the court. and once president trump selected neil gorsuch, the right hng wing money machine went into action. since that money money has flooded our airwaves, more than $10 million spent in support of this nomination. never before has our country witnessed a multimillion dollar campaign for the supreme court. when pressed, judge gorsuch said he had no idea who or why anybody would spend that much money to make sure he sits on the highest court. i think we know why from looking at his record. they want someone who consistently rules in favor of large corporate special interests against the rest of us. mr. president, there's a better way. typically the white house will consult with members of both party, republicans and de

neil gorsuch ishe

confirm gorsuch or change the rules. not so. just not so. the idea that if judge gorsuch can't get 60 we must immediately move to change the rules is a false narrative. if the majority chooses to go that route, they do so at their own volition.

neil gorsuch is the man donald trump urgently wants on the supreme court. that should give many americans pause. it certainly gives pause to me. i cannot support the nomination of kneel gorsuch i'll vote no when his nomination comes before the committee next week. i will ale vote no on cloture l. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor again today to express my strong support for a very mainstream, well qualified nominee for the united states supreme court judge neil gorsuch. last week this country got to watch the united states senate judiciary committee carry out days of hearings questioning, probing judge gorsuch's legal approach, questioning his temperament to the bench, his suitability to be on our nation's high court. i believe every member of the senate judiciary committee had at least an hour to question judge gorsuch to provide lengthy opening statements, to have an extended period of time to have a back and forth with judge gorsuch, to go over his judicial philosophy, h

his choice was judge neil gorsuch. on the campaign trail candidate donald trump made clear he was pro-life and would appoint pro-life judges to the supreme court. in one interview he was asked about his pro-life position as follows -- here is the question posed to him -- so how important is that issue to you now when president trump picks the supreme court justices, would there be a litmus test? trump responded, quote, it is. it is. during the second presidential debate, candidate trump doubled down on this issue. he was asked specifically about roe v. wade, the longstanding supreme court precedent establishing a woman's right to choose. the question to candidate trump was, quote, do you want the court, including the justices that you will name to overturn roe v. wade? trump responded that he would, quote, be appointing pro-life judges. adding, well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on that will happen. meaning roe v. wade will be overturned. so we know from donald trump's own words that he had a litmus

judge gorsuch disagreed. in stead he argued in his dissent that the term operate should be interpreted by the oxford dictionary's finition, that orate would include only operating the cab of the truck. and madden's employer could fire him a impunity. i find this striking. first, judge gorsuch's argument ignores the reality that mr. madden was given an impossible choice, risk your own life or the life of others on the road. secondly, it ignores the fact that judges are not evaluating cases and interpreting law in a vacuum or a law school classroom, but rather cases are about real people and real life. in fact, the majority of his own court, on the 10th, noted that judge gorsuch's narrow interpretation of the word "operate" was based on one dictionary while they had found a different dictionary definition that supported their reading of the statute. simply put, which dictionary a judge happens to select should not and cannot determine will a just outcome is achieved in a case. the second case that really stood

judge gorsuch, of course, had a chance. most of us waited until after the hearings because at the hearings, he had a chance to distance himself from these views, but he refused to substantively answer question after question. so if judge neil gorsuch fails to reach 60 votes -- which, by the way, the american people believe is the appropriate standard for a supreme court nominee -- it's not because democrats are being obstructionists. it's because he failed to convince 60 senators that he belongs on the supreme court. in that event, the answer is not to permanently change the rules and traditions of the senate. the answer is to change the nominee and do what president clinton and president obama did before they nominated people, consult the other party so there would be some semblance of bipartisanship. the majority's trying to make this a binary choice, confirm gorsuch or change the rules. not so. just not so. the idea that if judge gorsuch can't get 60, we must immediately move to change the rules is a false narrative. if

judge gorsuch understands that.his deep understanding of the separation of powers and livens his opinions. by faithfully enforcing the boundaries among the branches of government and the power of the federal government in our lives , this justice will ensure that the law protects our liberties. and here's the other thing that's important about a judge who respects the separation of powers. we know that he will be independent . he told us that he is his own man , that no person speaks for him. he's not beholden to the president who appointed him. and his testimony shows that he's not beholden to us in the congress either. he wouldn't compromise his independence to win confirmation votes. he passed the test . this is a man of integrity. and his qualifications for the bench are exceptional. you know the story. columbia university , vespers. harvard law school, doctorate. oxford university , partnership at a prestigious law firm and high level justice department service for the people of our country. most importantly, a

so i oppose judge gorsuch's nomination. i urge my colleagues to take a close look at his record of siding with powerful corporate interests over average americans and consider carefully how he stands to impact the court and to reject his nomination. thank you, mr. president. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i'd ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, confirming a supreme court justice, it's really one of, if not the most important responsibilities that we have as u.s. senators. it's a vote that we cast full well knowing that the tenure and the influence of the nominee that's before us will likely be greater and much more long lasting than our own in the senate. after meeting with judge gorsuch and reviewing hours of his testimony befor

in 2006, judge gorsuch, neil gorsuch, was nominated to serve on the tenth circuit court. a dozen sitting members of this chamber didn't object to his nomination then. they didn't oppose him. they didn't come and renal ster their no -- and register their no vote. they didn't even show up at his confirmation. lindsey graham was the only one. either a couple of things have happened. nobody did their work then to find out what kind of a judge he was going to be or they have decided that the politics have changed. and to me, that's the most egregious part of this debate is the politics of the time are demanding that there be absolute obstruction. for the first time in over 230 years of a supreme court justice, trying to defeat a supreme court justice with a partisan filibuster for the first time in two centuries. of a judge who votes -- excuse me. a judge who agreed 99% of the time with the opinions of his -- of the court. 99% of the time his 3-7bs were made with the -- his opinions were made with the majority of the court. 97% of the time they were made unanimously. this is a

gorsuch has to be blocked. cheers and applause] >> please welcome the national gbtq task force. >> good morning, beautiful people. thank you so much for coming out here and telling everyone, including those behind here, he senators, that we object. my name is candice, and i'm the reproductive health rights and justice policy counsel for the national lgbtq task force. and as an organization we object. we understand how important a lifetime position is to the supreme court. lifetime. 40-year plus term that judge gorsuch could have on the supreme court. and that is detrimental to all of us. all of us who really believe in justice, who believe in the rights of workers over the rights of corporations. and we're here to show that we object and we resist. [cheers and applause] we know that judge gorsuch has ruled terribly for women's reproductive rights. and the rights of all people who can become pregnant, including transfolks and gerned nonconforming folks who can also become pregnant. we know that neil gorsuch is t

judge gorsuch disagreed. instead, he argued in his dissent that the term operate should be interpreted by the oxford dictionary's definition. that operate should include only operating the cab of the truck and maddon's employer could fire him with impunity. i find this striking. first, judge gorsuch's argument ignores the reality that mr. maddon was given an impossible choice. risk your own life or the life of others on the road. secondly, it ignores the fact that judges are not evaluating cases and interpreting law in a vacuum or a law school classroom but rather cases are about real people and real life. in fact, the majority of his own court on the 10th noted that judge gorsuch's narrow interpretation of the word operate was based on one dictionary while they had found a different dictionary definition that supported their reading of the statute. simply put, which dictionary a judge happens to select should not and cannot determine whether a just outcome is achieved in a case. the second case that really s

neil gorsuch understands that. he served on a court, the tenth circuit court that is housed in denver that represents 20% of the land mass of our state. judge gorsuch's family, as i mentioned, really does show the grit and determination of those who built the west. his grandfather is somebody who worked in union station, somebody who grew up driving trolleys back in the time when denver was a trolley town. his other grandfather, of course, was a physician, both of whom had -- experts in their field, medicine. one grandfather helped found a law firm, gorsuch-kirgis. very prestigious firm in denver. but it's judge gorsuch's experience, his high qualifications of academics that he brings to the court. having received degrees from columbia, oxford, harvard. as i mentioned previously, the most important academic experience being the university of colorado where i think he spent at least some time in the summer attending and also teaching, of course, as a professor at my alma mater, the university of colorado school of l

now he is trying the same strategy with judge gorsuch. he repeatedly cites a quote by a friend of the judge who, of course, said there is no principled reason to oppose this nomination. it must be, politics. that is what the majority leader concludes. i respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with the majority leader on this point. there are several principled reasons to oppose judge gorsuch's nomination. first, judge gorsuch was unable to sufficiently convince me that he would be an independent check on the president, who has shown almost no restraint from executive overreach. he could not point to a single thing in his record to guarantee independence, and he refused to publicly condemn what the president did after the three-judge panel and said if they do not decide my way, they will begin to terrorism. i have never seen anything like that in all my years in politics, and judge gorsuch refused to publicly condemn. he said privately he was disheartened. gorsuch shrugged his shoulders, going along with what the president said. second, h

judge gorsuch is the opposite of that. that's the kind of judge america needs right now in the supreme court, and that's why later on this week, on friday, judge gorsuch will be confirmed. but in spite of all the evidence and support of the nominee's intellect and qualifications without regard to the bipartisan chorus urging his confirmation, the democratic leader has decided to do everything he can to prevent us from even having an up or down vote on his nomination. unfortunately, he will be making history in urging his democratic colleagues to engage in a partisan filibuster against a supreme court justice. there's never been in our nation's long rich history a successful partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee. some people want to talk about back in 68 which was totally different, but there's never been a partisan successful partisan filibuster of a supreme court justice until apparently this week on thursday.eek. not one of my republican colleagues noted a filibuster when president obama nominated justice sotoma

i don't think democrats think they are going to stop neil gorsuch. i don't think they have any hope of preventing the nuclear option. but they recognize that this is something their base is demanding and also recognize that the filibuster is probably an endangered species already. i think this is them being put in a position that maybe they prefer not to be end, but they recognize they are going to do what they feel they have to do even if it leads somewhere that is not going to be advantageous to them. >> jon: neil gorsuch neil gorsuch was handily confirmed by the senate to become an appeals court judge, what happened in the meantime to make him unqualified for the supreme court? >> you heard senator coons just say it, but democrats are saying is you handled the merrick garland process so badly last year, this is base of the just trying to get back at the republicans. so you have a qualified judge, someone who is widely respected, someone who democrats are saying they will support, if you democrats saying they will support, majority of democrats, 40

judge neil gorsuch. so during my question, i asked judge gorsuch a very simple question: what he would do -- what he would have done if he had been the truck driver, if he had been driving that truck. which would you have chosen, which would you have done, i asked. and here's judge gorsuch's response: oh, senator, i don't know what i would have done if i were in his shoes. now, is there anyone here who would not have done what that driver did? i don't think so. of course you would unhitch the trailer to find someplace warm as quickly as possible. of course. but judge gorsuch said he didn't know what he would have done? is that possible? i asked him if he even thought about what he would have done if he were maddin. he had heard the case. he didn't answer, so i asked him again. i asked him given the choice of sitting there and possibly freezing to death or going on the road with an unsafe vehicle or doing what mr. maddin did, judge gorsuch responded, senator, i don't know. i wasn't in the man's shoes.

i have met with judge gorsuch. i've watched his confirmation hearings. and what i have seen and what most americans agree, judge neil gorsuch has been incredibly transparent. he's been accessible. he is the right man for the mais position. he is mainstream. he's a westerner. he's committed to judicial independence. he has a brilliant legal mind. that's without dispute. he's exceptionally qualified. in fact, the american bar association unanimously, unanimously rated judge gorsuch as well qualify. that's its highest ratings. he has met with nearly 80 senators. prior to his hearing he provided the judiciary committee over 70 pages of written answers, about his personal record. he provided 75,000 plus pages of documents, including speeches, case briefs, opinions and written works going as far back as his college days. the white house archives produced over 180,000 pages of e-mail and paper records related to judge gorsuch's time at the department of justice. judge gorsuch sat for three rounds of questioning, totaling nearly 20 hours in committee. and as the

neil gorsuch understands that. he served on a court, the tenth circuit court that is housed in denver that represents 20% of the land mass of our state. judge gorsuch's family, as i mentioned, really does show the grit and determination of those who built the west. his grandfather is somebody who worked in union station, somebody who grew up driving trolleys back in the time when denver was a trolley town. his other grandfather, of course, was a physician, both of whom had -- experts in their field, medicine. one grandfather helped found a law firm, gorsuch-kirgis. very prestigious firm in denver. but it's judge gorsuch's experience, his high qualifications of academics that he brings to the court. having received degrees from columbia, oxford, harvard. as i mentioned previously, the most important academic experience being the university of colorado where i think he spent at least some time in the summer attending and also teaching, of course, as a professor at my alma mater, the university of colorado school of l

these details do not stump gorsuch. he writes thoughtfully, incisively about how the supreme court has been unclear about exactly which lef level of scruy applies to equal protection objections to individual campaign contributions. in the end he concludes that whether the standard restricts scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, the colorado law cannot justify allowing major party candidates to raise twice as much as minor party candidates. gorsuch also deserves credit for crafting his opinion narrowly and taking the time to note the limits of the case holding. as he wrote, having said this much, it is worth pausing to emphasize what isn't said in these pages. nothing what i suggested or what the court holds intimates that colorado must adopt a pro pro-election cycle rather than a pro-election approach to the campaign contributions. this limited language appears to display sensitivity to the fact that colorado has great latitude to choose its own means of election and campaign finance. this shows judicial incrementalism and

judge gorsuch disagreed.ued in his defense that the term operate should be interpreted by the oxford dictionary's definition that operate should include only operating the cab of the truck and his employer could fire him with impunity. i find this striking. first, judge gorsuch's argument ignores the reality that mr. madden was given an impossible choice. risk your own life or the life of others on the road. secondly, it ignores the fact that that judge's are not evaluating cases and interpreting laws in a vacuum or law school classroom but rather cases are about real people and real life. in fact, the man -- majority of his own court noted his narrow interpretation of the word operate was based on one dictionary while they had found a different dictionary definition that supported their reading of the statute. simply put, which dictionary a judge happens to select should not and cannot determine whether a just outcome is achieved in a case. the second case that really stood out and the father testified befor

that is judge gorsuch. i encourage all of my colleagues to give him their consideration and to advance his nomination to an up-or-down vote. i'll be voting to confirm him and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back the balance of my time. madam president, i have one request for committees to meet before today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the minority and majority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted mr. flake: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: is there a quorum call, mr. president? the presiding officer: there is. mrs. mccaskill: i would ask it can set aside. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, today -- the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: thank you. today i rise asking my colleagues to support the bill in front of us, senate bill number 89 whic

judge gorsuch is an accomplishek mainstream jurist. i look forward to helping make sure he can receive the boat here in the senate or. in the weeks since hisni nomination has spoken at length about his qualifications to serve on the supreme court. i've recognized him as a conservative champion of religious liberty, a defender of the separation

judge gorsuch. that was an overreach, that the $5,500 fine for that man's death was an overreach and he sided with the company. an assistantnst professor at kansas state , who wasy, grace wong fired after 15 years on the job because she needed more time to recover from breast cancer. [booing] >> it was too accommodating for , too much, asking too much of the university to give her some more time to recover. employeeinvolving compensation, he has ruled over 90% of the time for the employers, 20 one out of 23 cases he has sided with the employers. courtnot afford a supreme who will tip the scales of justice even further in favor of the wealthy and the powerful. every day i see members of our union and dedicate public service employees serve their communities, people like mental health workers, teachers, social workers, bridge inspectors, public safety officers. it means a work and lot to me and it means a lot to their communities and neighbors, such as you. an honest days work, surge her community, an

gorsuch is sworn in as the justice. oath. y kennedy gave the justices and the widow of scalia attended the ceremony. this is 20 minutes. gentlemen, the president of the united states, accompanied by justices kennedy and gorsuch. trump: thank you very much. thank you very much. guests and distinguished , we are here for the swearing-in of a soup dream court justice. everyappy to welcome sitting justice on the court. welcome. thank you. and hellojustice justices, it is a privilege to have you here on this beautiful spring day in the rose garden. perfect backdrop for this joyful get the ring of friends. we are in a process of reviewing, renewing, and rebuilding our country. land.optimism sweeps the faith inerica -- america. i would like to recognize cory gardner and mike lee. crapo.ke thanks. thank you. ithough he could not be here, want to express gratitude to mitch mcconnell for all that he did -- i want to express gratitude to mitch mcconnell for all that he did. give myalso like to thanks to chairman grassley. where is grass

is neil gorsuch qualified? really, can anyone contest that he is highly qualified, perhaps one of the most qualified people to ever to have been nominated by a president for the high court. he has degrees from columbia, harvard law, from oxford university. he has received the american bar association's highest rating, the gold standard that we look at when it comes to judging nominees for the federal bench up to and including the high court, and he served for ten years with distinction on the tenth circuit court of appeals. and so, clearly, he's got the qualifications and clearly he is among that group of qualified individuals that the president promised to look at back during the campaign. and promised to send that type of individual over to the supreme court. so i -- i really don't think there's much that can be said to contradict the fact that neil gorsuch is qualified and highly qualified. so now let's ask is neil gorsuch somehow out of the broad judicial mainstream? and again, i think it is clear that base

justice gorsuch -- judge gorsuch was not a compromise. he was solely chosen without any consultation. so it's not that there's a merrick equivalency. as my friend, the majority leader, has said, quote, i think we can stipulate that in the senate it takes 60 votes on controversial matters. if anything is a controversial important matter, it's the selection of the supreme court. and senator mcconnell has repeatedly stood for the need, the rightness of 60 votes on important and controversial issues. if senator mcconnell wants to change his view on the 60 votes all of a sudden and republicans decide to go along with him, it won't be because democrats started it, because that's not true. it won't be because democrats won't confirm any president trump nominated justice because that's not true. it will be because they choose to do so and they will have to bear the unfortunate consequences. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: captain captain mr. president, i rise to express the urgent

they agreed with judge gorsuch. so, look, i don't know whowkd -- who you could find out there among judges who's got a stronger record. in every case somebody wins and somebody loses. but think about this, out of judge gorsuch's 180 written opinions only one has ever been appealed to the supreme court. wow. and they agreed with his ruling. he made it clear that he makes decisions not based on the outcome he likes, but based on what the law says. he thinks his job on the court for the last decade and going forward is to actually look at the law and decide what the law says and what the constitution provides, not what he wants. i think that's the kind of judge that we would want particularly those of us who are lawmakers. we are the ones writing the law. we would hope that would be respected and judges wouldn't try to legislate. this is what he said in his testimony, quote, a judge who likes every outcome he or she reaches is likely a bad judge. i watched my colleagues spending long days poring over cases. sometimes t

anthony scalia -- antonin scalia who judge gorsuch hopefully will soon be justice gorsuch was confirmed by the senate 98-0. ginsburg, ruth bader ginsburg 96-3. i would argue you could not find two more polar opposite people when it comes to philosophy than justice ginsburg and justice scalia and they became very dear friends. but nobody in their right mind would say there's not a difference in their judicial philosophy. strom thurmond, my predecessor, very conservative man from south carolina, voted for miss ginsburg. clearly a conservative would not have chosen her because she was the general counsel of the aclu. i can tell you that ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisle would not have voted for antonin scalia based on philosophy. something's happened in america from 1986 and 1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed. and i think the politics of the moment have taken the founding fathers' concept, turned it up side down, that from the time scam was put on the court, ginsburg was put on the court, everything has changed. so i was here when t

finally, a profound thank-you to louise gorsuch and to all the gorsuch family. thank you. [applause] president trump: louise, i have heard it first hand, i know what a total inspiration you are to your husband into your entire family, so thank you very much. fantastic. thank you very much. [applause] trump: we're here to celebrate history, the taking of the judicial oath by the newest member of the united states supreme court, neil gorsuch. i just want to, congratulate you and your entire family. it is something so special. in fact, i have always heard that the most important thing that a president of the united people,oes is appoint hopefully great people like disappointment, to the united states supreme court, and i can say this is a great honor. [applause] itsident trump: and i got done in the first 100 days. that is even nice. [laughter] president trump: you think that is easy? this ceremony has special meaning, as justice gorsuch is filling the seats of one of the greatest supreme court justices in american history, and that is antonin scalia up, who was a terrific ju

judge gorsuch understands that. his deep understanding of the separation of powers enlivens his opinions. by faithfully enforcing the boundaries among the branches of government and the power of the federal government in our lives, this justice will ensure that the law protects our liberties. and here's the other thing that's important about a judge who respects the separation of powers. we know that he'll be independent. he told us that he is his own man, that no person speaks for him. he's not beholden to the president who appointed him. and his testimony shows that he's not beholding to us in the congress either. he wouldn't compromise his independence to win confirmation votes. he passed the test. this is a man of integrity, and his qualifications for the bench are exceptional. you know the story. columbia university, bachelor's. harvard law school, doctorate. oxford university, partnership at a press siegous -- prestigious law firm and high level julz department -- justice department service to our country but

is neil gorsuch qualified? really, can anyone contest that he is highly qualified, perhaps one of the most qualified people to ever to have been nominated by a president for the high court. he has degrees from columbia, harvard law, from oxford university. he has received the american bar association's highest rating, the gold standard that we look at when it comes to judging nominees for the federal bench up to and including the high court, and he served for ten years with distinction on the tenth circuit court of appeals. and so, clearly, he's got the qualifications and clearly he is among that group of qualified individuals that the president promised to look at back during the campaign. and promised to send that type of individual over to the supreme court. so i -- i really don't think there's much that can be said to contradict the fact that neil gorsuch is qualified and highly qualified. so now let's ask is neil gorsuch somehow out of the broad judicial mainstream? and again, i think it is clear that base

i, neil m gorsuch do solemnly swear -- justice gorsuch: icom and neil m gorsuch do solemnly swear that i will -- and to equal rights. andthat i will faithfully -- discharge and perform all of me asties incumbent upon associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. under the constitution and laws of the united states. so help me god. congratulations. [applause] metice gorsuch: i see before so many to whom i owe so much. i know i would not be here today without your friendship and support. bottom ofall from the my heart. i want to thank the president for nominating me. and for the great confidence and trust he proposed in me. i want to thank the vice president for his constant encouragement and friendship throughout this process. it is not possible to mention here everyone i should mention. that i would be remiss if i did not think the president's counsel don mcgann and the vice and everys council single person in the white house counsel's office for their tremendous and tireless route -- support. i want to thank kelly ayotte for .y day-to-day team for the humor, sage advice

it is all about neil gorsuch. and it is about the constitutional crisis that may well be looming, as a potential threat to our democracy. the fbi director has revealed that his agency is investigating ties between president donald trump associate and russian meddling in our election. the independence of our judicial branch has never been more threatened or more important. the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president of the united states is far from idle speculation. it has happened before in united states versus nixon. president donald trump has launched a campaign of vicious and relentless attacks on the credibility of our judiciary. his disparaging comments have attempted to shape the foundations of respect for judicial rulings, the credibility and trust that is so essential to our supreme court, and all our courts. and it is a respect that is why withholding the president himself accountable to the people and our constitution. president trump's disrespect for our judi

judge gorsuch is fully qualified. they're searching real hard to find a reason to vote no and it's very difficult based upon the qualities of this outstanding jurist and they're filibustering, that's what they say they're going to do and in the final analysis, this will be the first partisan filibuster and since you can't have one rule for democrat presidents and another rule for republican presidents, this judge will be on the supreme court sometime friday night. >> neil gorsuch is monument alley qualified to be on the supreme court. you watched the hearings, he's a man of intelligence and integrity. all you need to do is read his long history of rulings. he's a man that's independent as well. so we're all going to be asked to cast a consequential vote coming up of a justice who will apply the law and not legislate from the bench. this filibuster moving forth is truly historic and even the "the washington post" in their editorial this morning made that comment. they say democrats are preparing to filibuster a well-qu

gorsuch wants to become a member of. before i go on to discuss some ases, i'm going to ask my good friend, donald payne jr., representative donald payne jr. from new jersey's 10th district, if he would say a few words at this time. mr. payne: thank you, mr. speaker. and to my colleague, the gentlelady from the district of columbia, we appreciate her leadership throughout the years , on many of these issues around the judicial and the law. . speaker, confirmation of judge gorsuch to the supreme court would be detrimental to the interests of working americans, particularly african-americans and other vulnerable communities. just as president trump's agenda prioritizes special interests, judge gorsuch's record shows that he favors the interests of business and the powerful over regular people. his hostility to class action lawsuits would threaten protections for workers, especially african-americans nd other minorities. what is particularly of concern to me is gorsuch's opinion in what is known as the frozen trucker case. g

he chose judge gorsuch. if hillary clinton had been elected president today, i have no doubt that her choice for the supreme court would be confirmed by a majority vote. in the same united states senate. notice how we deliver on the promise that we made to the american people and confirm neil gorsuch to the supreme court. madam president. >> i had not planned to speak his money but my friend in texas decided to give his version of history at that well, maybe i ought to have my version.it is slightly different. justice antonin scalia passed away in february of last year. president barack obama, president of the united states of america had a constitutional responsibility under article 2 section 2 to nominate a person to fill the vacancy on the supreme court as every other president had. and he did. he came up with the name merrick garland. the chief judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. a man who was widely respected. unanimously well mollified by the american bar association. president obama submitted

neil gorsuch squirm and his seat. she put his feet to the fire and she is now saying not only will she vote against him, but she will stand with the people and filibuster his nomination. [applause] welcome the senator from the great state of hawaii. [applause] a loja everybody -- aloha everybody. how many of you watch all four days of the gorsuch hearing? you,e to hand this to after but we referred to as the --nt and we kind of had to the event, the election. what was going to happen to our country, what happened was the very next day, he you had the march on washington and that started with a retired attorney of molly -- maui. a day, 10,000 people have said they were going to do something. activism has not stopped since. it is because of you guys that all of us who have worked with trumpcare.e stopped was the labor secretary nominee dropped out. i have heard from more of my constituents in the time that the president has been in office than in the entire years that i have served in the house and senate. hawaii, 4000,

his choice was judge neil gorsuch. on the campaign trail, he made clear if he was pro-life and would appoint pro-life judges to the supreme court. in one interview, he was asked about his pro-life position as follows. here's the question posed to him. how important is that issue toic you now and then he picks the supreme court justices would there be a litmus test. trump responded it is, it is. during the second presidential debate, he doubled down on this issue and was asked specifically about roe v. wade, the long-standing supreme court precedent establishing a woman's right to choose. the question was do you want the court including the justices that evil name to overturn roe v. wade?ointin trump responded he would be appointing pro-life judges perhs adding well, if we put another two or three justices on, that will happen.ro meaning rove v. wade will be overturned.hat so we know from his own word that he had a litmus test for supreme court nominees on a woman's right to choose, and that is that he will appoint only

, they are both -- neil gorsuch was. actually, they are both at the same level because they are circuit appeal judges. i want to make that clear so that our democrat and independent constituents also understood that. host: thank you for clarifying on that. next caller, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, one of your callers said they wanted a judge who was empathetic. i do not know if we want judges who are empathetic. i think we want judges who will follow the law. we want all editions who are empathetic, and we want a president who is empathetic, but that is why we have a three-part government. our judges should always follow the law. whether or not they agree with the law, or if they find with the person they are ruling against has unfortunate circumstances -- empathy and a judge do not mix. could note gorsuch answer a lot of the questions asked of him because of the ethics required as a judge. he cannot say what he feels about a particular law or issue that may or may not come before the court

antonin scalia, who justice judge gorsuch, hopefully will soon be justice gorsuch, was confirmed by the senate 98 to nothing. ginsburg, ruth bader ginsburg, 96-three. i would argue that you could not find two more polar opposite people it comes to philosophy then justice ginsburg and justice scalia, and they became very dear friends. but nobody in the right mind would say there's not a difference in their traditional p philosophy. strom thurmond, my predecessor very conservative man from south carolina, voted for ms. ginsburg. clearly i conservative would not have chosen her because she was the general counsel for the aclu. and i can tell you that ted kennedy and other people on the progressive side of the aisleed would not have voted for antonin scalia based on philosophy. something has happened in america from 1986-1993. the constitution hasn't changed. something has changed, and i think the politics of the moment have taken the founding fathers concept, turned it upside down that from the time scalia was put on the court and ginsburg was put on the court, everything has changed. so i