so i mention this to judge gorsuch. i wanted to know whether gore u gorsuch was bothered by the s l shelby county decision. he said section 2 is still available. i responded by bringing a challenge to section 2 could take time. and in the time it takes to bring one of those challenges people are robbed of their right to vote. we went around the barn a few times. on this. he told me that voting is a fundamental right. i know that. but didn't answer my question. ms. clark, i was not reassured by my conversation with judge gorsuch. now i understand that he can't weigh in on certain policies or proposals but as a judge, who makes decisions based on the facts and the law alone, as he says, it is prnt know whether he takes proper measures of facts and the fact of the matter is section 2 is not adequate on its own. do you agree? >> thank you for the question, senator franken. section 2 of the voting rights act is no adequate substitute for the strong protections that have long been provided by the section 5 preclearance provisi

first, judge gorsuch the judge. judge gorsuch brings to the bench a powerful powerfule gors intellect, combined with a probing an analytical approach to every issue. int he brings each case the strong commitment to limit his analysis to that case. it's a fax, the records, and the law cited and applicable. he does not use his judicial t role as a vehicle for anything s other than deciding the case before him. a the quote case or controversy requirement for jurisdiction is for judge gorsuch i guiding principle for his judicial role. he is a student of constitutional structure and of the federalist papers, and ithe takes very, very seriously the appropriate roles assigned each of the three branches of government. he is an elegant and accessible writer. in my judicial writing classes i assigned some of his opinions to demonstrate the importance of narrative to every case before the courts. his jurisprudence is informed by textualism, a regionalism andur precedent, but not in a formalistic or rigid way. only as the lense

now on the subject i wish to speak about this morning at length, and that is judge gorsuch. well, mr. president, i've had the opportunity these past three days to watch judge neil gorsuch in the judiciary committee, to review his credentials and record on the tenth circuit, and before that. i would particularly like to recognize the outstanding work done by every democratic member of the judiciary committee. they were just outstanding in questioning judge gorsuch despite his lack of candor and desire to answer. and i'd like to particularly call out our exceptional ranking member, senator feinstein, who's done a wonderful job leading that committee. now i've thought long and hard about this nomination and what it means for the future of the supreme court and the future of our country. what is at stake is considerable. the decisions we make here in the senate over the next few weeks about judge gorsuch, as on any supreme court nominee, will echo through the lifetime tenure of that judge through a generation of americans. discussions of the supreme court can get wonky and techni

this is unfair to judge gorsuch. judge gorsuch didn't decide citizens united. he didn't decide hobby lobby or any other case my colleagues didn't like tracy made clear in no uncertain terms that no one speaks on his behalf but him. now they may dislike some of the cases which he offered opinions but in those cases they are not dealing with the way he interpreted the law. no one has attacked his interpretation of the statute, his approach to statutory construction. they are quibbling with the fact that they wish it would have turned out different on policy grounds that have everything to do with the policymaking arms of the government and not with the jurisprudential of the government. with these types of statements are damaging to our judiciary. if you don't like a judicial decision engage in the decision on its own terms and engage in discussion of how the decision turned out wrong or where it is that it departed from what the law requires. make a legal argument in other words. the courts announced reasons for their decisions. there is plenty of material to di

judge gorsuch is a refreshing departure from that trend. he has a record of well considered writings both as a judge and as an author so this is not a blind date. we have a very good idea of who judge gorsuch is and the type of justice he will be. in my written testimony i focus on two aspects of the nomination. first i have addressed the criteria often used to evaluate a nominee and i have looked at cases by judge gorsuch with particular emphasis on power and chevron. every present senator expressed commitment to placing best and brightest on the court though few agree on qualitative measures needed to guarantee that. historically the record is not encouraging. our respect for the court blinds us with the fact that justices have ranged. to be blunt we have had more misses than hits. top candidates are often rejected due to writings and views that might attract opposition. the result is a preference for nominees with clean records that have no public thoughts challenging conventional theories, not even raising interesting ideas. that is not

first, judge gorsuch the judge. judge gorsuch brings to the bench a powerful, powerful intellect combined with a probing approach to every issue. he brings to each case a strong commitment to limit his analysis to that case. it's facts, the records and the laws krooicited and politicable. he does not use his judicial role for a vehicle for anything other than deciding the case before him. the quote requirement for injur jurisdiction is a guiding principal. he's a student of the constitution and federalist papers and he takes very, very seriously the appropriate roles assigned to each of the three branches of government. he is an elegant and accessible writer. in my writing classes i assigned some of his opinions to demonstrate the importance of narrative to every case before the courts. he uses originalism and precedent, but not in a formalistic or rigid way. only as the lenses through which to seek an appropriate resolution of an issue or a case. judge gorsuch is a case by case by case judge whose dedication is to

well, judge gorsuch passes that test, and the american bar association, the organization revered as the gold standard for evaluating judges by the democratic leader himself and the former judiciary chairman, certainly agrees. it said based on the writings, interviews and analysis, we discern that judge gorsuch believes strongly in the independence of the judicial branch of government, and we predict that he will be a strong and respectful voice in protecting it. in addition to independence, the democratic leader talked about his concern that judge gorsuch has earned the support of conservatives. well, that's true. judge gorsuch has earned the support of republicans just as he received praise from many on the left as well, like president obama's former solicitor general neal katyal and president obama's legal mentor professor laurence tribe and left leaning law professor e. donald elliot, so many others. the democratic leader talked about the need for the nominee to offer assurances about how he'd rule on a certain case and assurances that he'd stand up for certain groups. but as judge g

president i rise to speak on the nomination of judge neil gorsuch to serve on the u.s. supreme court. the core port and to reflect her mom that we have reached this moment.he it's been more than a year since the untimely passing of justice antonin scalia and bev morey of 2016. under article ii, section 2 of the united states constitution make president barack obama had a duty to make a nomination to fill that vacancy. he met that obligation by

president, i rise today in support of the nomination of judge neil gorsuch of the supreme court of the united states. last week the judiciary committee heard testimony from the judge. after listening to the judge's flawless testimony and after lang to him answer questions from my colleagues for days on end, i am even more convinced than ever that he is exactly the kind of jurist we need on the supreme court of the united states. i want to briefly explain my support for the judge and then respond to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against him. first and foremost, judge gorsuch understands the proper and necessarily limited role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic. last week over and over again judge gorsuch affirmed, even against great criticism, criticism that at times can be difficult to understand in its entirety, but responded time and time again to criticisms by pointing out that it's his judge as a judge to interpret and apply the law and not to make it, not to establish policy, but to apply that policy which has been placed into law by the legislative br

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

judge gorsuch has shown none. senators on the judiciary committee rightly asked judge gorsuch direct questions about this issue. i did so myself in my meeting with the judge. and while the judge repeatedly asserted his independence he could not point to anything in his record to guarantee it. judge gorsuch or for the judiciary myriad platitudes of this point, no man is above the law, he said. he said he was disheartened by the president's attacks on the judiciary. the president for his sake said that judge gorsuch didn't mean him. and everyone left it at that. if judge gorsuch had an ounce of courage, had shown a scintilla of an ability to be independent he would have said no mr. president, mr. trump i did mean you, instead he just tells us in general he is demoralized, disheartened. telling us is not the same as showing us, he is asking us to take him at his words but his record suggests he is someone long -- to assertions of broad presidential power. that leads me to my second point mr. president, that judge gor

judge gorsuch is a refreshing departure from that trend. he has a record of well-considered writings, both as a judge and as an author, so this is not a blind date. we have a very good idea of who judge gorsuch is and the type of justice he will be. in my written testimony, i focused on two aspects of the nomination. first, i've addressed the criteria often used to evaluate a nominee and second, identi've looked at the cases by judge gorsuch with a particular emphasis on separation of powers, agency review, and chevron. every senator has expressed a commitment to placing the best and the brightest on the court so few would qualitative measures needed. historical historically, the record is not encouraging, to be frank. often blinds us to the fact our justices have ranged from towering figures to virntual nonentities. to be blunt, we've had more misses than hits when it's come to appointments on the court. top candidates are often reje rejected due to writings and views that might attract oppositi opposition. the result is a preference for no

judge gorsuch, mr. president, told us that he is not god, and that is true, but his humanity does not excuse him from the attribute of mercy. instead, his humanity should require it. mr. president, alphonse maddin sought the mercy of the law. the wong family sought the mercy of the law. luke, the autistic child whose school was failing him, sought the mercy of the law. and the man who had the power to see plain sense in their cases, who could rule in their favor and right the wrongs that had been done to them, as other judges did in each of those cases, that man, judge neil gorsuch, said no. i'm voting no on gorsuch for alphonse maddin and workers across the country, for the wong family and for others who don't want to choose between their health and providing for their children, and for the perkins family who loved their children just as they are and want them no less than the opportunities afforded to every other child in america. the american people deserve someone who sees average litigants as more

moreover, as a sitting federal judge, judge gorsuch is bound by the code of conduct for united states judges, one of the canons of which prohibits a judge from making, quote, public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. unquote. in light of this long-standing, necessary and in judge gorsuch's case, legally mandated practice, i have found it extraordinarily disappointing to hear some of my colleagues try to turn onts head judge gorsuch's admirable efforts to protect his indendence. for example, the minority leader has repeatedly castigated judge gorsuch for refusing to take a definitive stand on the legality of the new administration's policies accusing him of, quote, avoiding answers like the playing. unquote. mr. president, for those of us of all political stripes that want a supreme court justice that decides cases on the basis of what the law commands rather than whether the results serves a particular political or policy agenda, be it republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, pro-trump or anti-trump, judge gorsuch's refusal to prejudice his ap

inde judge gorsuch believes in the court as an organic and flourishing entity. these, the background and the perspective of all the judges on the court are important to thees quality of his work.f finally, judge gorsuch, the person. neil gorsuch is my friend. he has been from the day he took his role as my colleague in 2006. i want to say that again and said advisedly. because, it means something. despite the many differences in our life experience, and our background, and art education and interest, judge gorsuch immediately and always affirmed me, both as a person and as a ar colleague. i have watched them with all kinds of people in the courthouse, in social settings, and in the rough-and-tumble of judicial travel and duty. tumblo he is unfailingly kind.di his thoughtful, he is empathetic to all people. the his is the kind of dignity that reflects the dignity he records to all people. judge gorsuch lives according to his values, for him, faith, for family, community, nation, and his beloved colorado, define who he is. he is, for me, the gold standard in public

judge gorsuch: i can talk about my record as a judge. i tried to uphold the dignity of the judicial offices and the controversies brought before me. >> i have appointed lawyers in those cases. that's my record as a judge and i can assure you i am nobody's rubber stamp. ms. hirono: when you were speaking about certain comments being disheartening and demoralizing, you were merely speaking broadly? judge gorsuch: i don't mean i was speaking broadly. i'm speaking about anyone. ms. hirono: you were speaking broadly. sean spicer just tweeted regarding your comments on trump's attacks on judges which you say were disheartening and demoralizing and sean spicer said you were speaking broadly. let's move on. in your 2006 book, you argued that casey should be read more as a decision based merely on respect for precedent rather than on constitutional protections for personal autonomy and that is in quotes or for intimate decisions. so you also wrote in your book, but since that time -- before that time, the court relied on the protection for person

judge neil gorsuch. on the first telephone call judge gorsuch received about his nomination was not from the white house.se it was from the federalist society. one of those republican advocacy groups. eventually judge gorsuch it to the interview stage with president trump's inner circle meeting with steve bannon, reince priebus and president trump himself. those men each took the measure of judge gorsuch gave him theire approval to study for a lifetime appointment on the highest couro in the land to president trump who had announced numerous litmus test for judicialap nominations appeared area satisfied with neil gorsuch as his nominee. i the present chief of staff reince priebus said and i quote neil gorsuch represents the type of judge that has the vision of donald trump closed quote. there is certainly no political certainty and that the dilation but after judge gorsuch's phoneician with amounts dark money shifted. national campaign costing at least $10 billion was launched to support the gorsuch thee

moreover, as a sitting federal judge, judge gorsuch is bound by the code of conduct for united states judges, one of the canons of which prohibits a judge from making, quote, public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. unquote. in light of this long-standing, necessary and in judge gorsuch's case, legally mandated practice, i have found it extraordinarily disappointing to hear some of my colleagues try to turn on its head judge gorsuch's admirable efforts to protect his independence. for example, the minority leader has repeatedly castigated judge gorsuch for refusing to take a definitive stand on the legality of the new administration's policies accusing him of, quote, avoiding answers like the playing. unquote. mr. president, for those of us of all political stripes that want a supreme court justice that decides cases on the basis of what the law commands rather than whether the results serves a particular political or policy agenda, be it republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, pro-trump or anti-trump, judge gorsuch's refusal to prejudice hi

think judge gorsuch's opinion shows just that they judge gorsuch ezra paisley reminded uy that while we as legislators may appeal to our own moral convictions in shaping the law judges in a democratic society should not preside cases based on their own moral convictions of their policy preferences. with judge gorsuch i think the shows we can be confident he will read the law as written and not legislate from the bench with regard to the separation of powers judge gorsuch as cautions against the governmental encroachment on the people's liberties which could occur should the political majorities of the legislative and executive branches be permitted to decide cases in the political unresponsive judiciary ranch be allowed to create or executeit policies. for my part i'm excited to confirm a justice who repairs the separation of powers is a central principle of our constitution. judge gorsuch is demonstrated his support for religious liberties. our country has valued the right of individuals to practice their faith according to the date tapes of their own conscience. he once wrote that

they have insisted that judge gorsuch is a straight, down-the-middle guy, someone who will just call the balls and strikes. the majority leader even likes to cite the letter of a friend of the judge who says there is no printed reason to oppose his nomination. of course, there are several printed reasons to object to judge gorsuch. today i'd like to focus on one in particular. judge gorsuch's long career ties to conservative interests and conservative ideological groups. the idea that judge gorsuch would simply be a neutral mainstream justice is belied by his career, his judicial record and perhaps most of all the manner with which he was selected to serve on the supreme court. he was culled from a list of -- from a list hand-picked by the federalist society and the heritage foundation. conservative organizations that have spent the last few decades systematically trying to shift the balance of the courts way to the right. most of my colleagues on the other side know how far right even the heritage foundation is. and they often grumble at how they are pulling the party too far over. b

because what it means to justice -- judge gorsuch, soon to be justice gorsuch is this. to be a good and faithful judge. it seems to me that the separation of legislative and judicial powers isn't just a formality dictated by the constitution. neither is it just about ensuring that two institutions with basically identical functions are balanced one against the other. to the founders the legislative and judicial powers were disfint by nature -- distint by nature and their separation is one of the most important liberty devices of constitutional design, an independent right ever the people essential to the preservation of all other rights, later enumerated in the constitution and its amendments. now consider if we allowed the judge to act like a legislator unconstrained by the bicameralism and presentment hurd hims of article one, the judge would need only his own vote or those of just a few colleagues to revise the law willy-nilly in accordance with his preferences and the task of legislating would become a relatively simple thing. notice how hard it would be to revise th

judge gorsuch has shown none. senators on the judiciary committee, rightly asked judge gorsuch direct questions about the issue. i did so myself in my meeting with the judge. and while the judge's repeatedly aasserted his independence, he cuckoo -- could not point to anything is in record to prove n it. myriad plat -- platitudes. no plan is above the laugh. he said he was disheart ended by the president otherwise tacks -- attacks on the jew dish 'er, the president said judge gorsuch did not mean him and everybody left him at that. if judge gorsuched a an ounce of courage, a scintilla of ability to be independent, he would have season said, no, president trump, i did mean you. instead, he just tells news general he is demoralize, disheartened. telling us is not the same as showing us. he is asking to us take him at his word. but his record suggests that he is long been someone who has had advocated deference to presidential hour. that leads me to in my second point. judge gorsuch was unable toe convince me he would

the think judge gorsuch's opinions show that. he decided cases based on what the law sauce, not who the parties are. the judge has remindes us that while we as legislators may appeal to our own moral convictionness shaping the law, judges in a democratic society should not decide cases based on their own moral convictions on policy preferences. with judge gorsuch is thing the record shows we can be confident he will read the law as written and not legislate from the bench. with regard to the separation of powers judge gorsuch has cautioned against, quote, governmental encroachment on the people's lischs which could occur should the political majority of the legislative and executive branches be per midsted to decide cases and the political unresponsive judiciary branch bev allowed to create our execute policies. for my part, i'm excited to confirm a justice who reveres the separation of powers as a central principle of our constitution. judge gorsuch has demonstrated support for religious liberties. our country has always valued t

judge gorsuch: there's a lot to unpack there, mr. chairman. many begin by saying that i respect all the work that this body does and a good judge takes , andusly everything you do reads everything put before him .r her you don't close your mind to any argument. you put on the road and you open your mind. i think the case illustrates some issues along the lines of what you would ask me to discuss. the statute there says -- simplifying, that it is a crime to knowingly be a felon in possession of a gun. based on the, interpretation of legislative history that was right long in case, extremely long, the statute goes back to the 1940's and has been revised many times, so one could read a lot of history in that hatchet, and it could be argued both ways, there is good history and both sides of this. on the basis of its reading of history, our court took the view that the government need only prove that the defendant is a felon who is knowingly in possession of a gun. instruction inry that case. the defendant said -- hold on a second, the word knowingl

why not let judge gorsuch -- senator schumer: well, judge gorsuch, we believe, does not belong on the bench. and we also believe that there are -- we believe there are republicans who are reluctant to change the rules and we hope they won't do it. they're free actors and so to assume they're going to change the rules is not actually correct. and if they were going to change the rules on this one, why wouldn't they just change them on the next one afterwards anyway. reporter: and if i may very quickly -- senator whitehouse: to chime in on this. we're dealing with some history here. we're dealing with a history of 5-4 decisions where all the republicans on the court posse up and ride out and by 6-0 make decisions that help republicans at the polls and by 16-0 make decisions that help corporations against humans. they have a track record of what happens when you let that fifth justice on the court. so this actually is the moment of decision, and if they get five, off they go, perhaps, and the failure of judge gorsuch to recognize that this pattern exists, that this pattern is a legitimat

judge gorsuch rejects that approach and rightly so. indeed, how could a judge claim to bear allegiance to the constitution if he doesn't actually start in interpreting the constitution by reading the text of the words? what would a judge decide on if not the text and the original meaning? well, to that effect, i received a letter from a friend of mine and an expert in this area, brian garner last week. brian is a well known writer and lawyer and is a distinguished research professor of law at southern methodist university in dallas, texas. brian's written extensively on judging and appellate advocacy and the law generally. he was in attendance at the hearings last week, and as i said, he's written a number of books, including with judge gorsuch on judicial precedent and with justice scalia on reading law. but in a recent letter, brian echoed the same point made by both of these men at different times, that adherence to the text is essential to our system of government. he said the very fact of having a written constitution meant that we

judge gorsuch is a remarkable man and a remarkable judge. we know he will be a justice of whom all americans would be proud. we hope the senate takes swift action on his nomination. thank you. senator grassley: questions of any of my colleagues or the clerks? inaudible] senator lee: threshold to require to close debate to achieve cloture on a nominee. rule 21 of the senate rules requires to close debate you have 3/5 of the senators sworn and serving in order to close debate, what you have to do, normally to get to a final vote. senate rules can be changed by precedent and sometimes they are. in november, 2013, then-democratic majority in the senate, chose to take the nuclear option on the executive calendar. they invoked the nuclear option on the executive calendar in order to appeal the ruling of the chair to say that as we were considering some judges to the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit that 51 votes rather than 60 should be sufficient. once precedent is changed, precedent controls. precedent trumps when it's inconsistent wit

i want to say is judge gorsuch, i've known him for 13 years, he is the kind of judge ms. phillips and jesse would want on the bench and that applies the law fairly and evenhandedly to all litigants before him.andedl the kind of judge that doesn't rule based on a policy preference for an outcome but as it is written by this body. o the constitution the framers wrote. he applies the law in the way we want it to be applied, he is the judge's charge. i've known him as a private practice attorney at washington, d.c.. i then followed him to the justice department in ai's different office. i then went with him to the a tenth circuit when he was confirmed to the bench and spend the first four months as he became a judge. i watched him transform to a strong advocate into a passionate advocate for part of the rule of law. he was the kind that cares about people and his family and friends. he feels that the litigants before him feel and applied the law to each and every one of them. today we've heard from a lot of individuals on the panel about what the judge if confirmed may or may

judge gorsuch rejects that approach and rightly so. indeed, how could a judge claim to bear allegiance to the constitution if he doesn't actually start in interpreting the constitution by reading the text of the words? what would a judge decide on if not the text and the original meaning? well, to that effect, i received a letter from a friend of mine and an expert in this area, brian garner last week. brian is a well known writer and lawyer and is a distinguished research professor of law at southern methodist university in dallas, texas. brian's written extensively on judging and appellate advocacy and the law generally. he was in attendance at the hearings last week, and as i said, he's written a number of books, including with judge gorsuch on judicial precedent and with justice scalia on reading law. but in a recent letter, brian echoed the same point made by both of these men at different times, that adherence to the text is essential to our system of government. he said the very fact of having a written constitution meant that we

the judge was neil gorsuch. amy: as confirmation hearings continue for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch, we will look at one of his most controversial cases when he ruled against a truck driver who got fired after he abandoned his broken down trailer in order to avoid freezing to death in subzero temperatures. we will hear from the trucker and senator al franken. companysurd to say this is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. that is absurd. amy: we will also look at neil gorsuch's views on citizens united and the $10 million spent in dark money to push his confirmation. then we speak to two victims of racial profiling in the nation's airports. when is a former nororth carolia police chief, the other is a lawyer suing the trump administratition over its targeting of sanctuary cities. both men were recently detained and questioned. we will find out what happened. all that and more, comi

let's look at how judge gorsuch got to this point. he was recommended for the federal bench by a hard right special interest billionaire. then he was handpicked for the supreme court by the right wing special interest relate laden he foundation and federalist society. now millions of dollars in undisclosed special interest donations are being used to prop up his nomination. american deserve to know who is funding this effort to get judge gorsuch on the highest bench in the land. especially if these secretive funders are pushing his nomination because they believe judge gorsuch will vote their way. judge gorsuch had a chance to distance themselves from these groups when he was asked question after question by my colleagues on the judiciary committee and, he refused to answer them. raising the suspicion further that he is not a balls and strikes guy, but rather represents the hard right special interest wing of american politics. that's why he is having trouble earning 60 votes. there was a seismic change after his hearing. there was su

that brings me back once again to my support of judge gorsuch. s a judge, he is the judiciary independence. even those who disagree with him can see the judges decisions are meticulously crafted and grounded in the law and in our constitution. when the judge believes the president has overstepped his power, he will rule against it. it's difficult to make the transition to justice. it's not just a mass of power all of a sudden it's also the glare of the spotlight, awareness of becoming part of history and most important, getting along with eight new colleagues will be at your site for decades. to do this well is hard. heart. it requires equal parts and serving of humility, and train and ability. got to make a word, judge purchased has humility. judge gorsuch and i come from different sides of the political spectrum, we disagree about many things but we agree on the important things that all people are equal before the law and that a judge's duty is to uphold the law and uphold the principles and the constitution above all. the judge has done that d

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 nonethel

what an outstanding nominee judge gorsuch is. it leads me to wonder looking at the democratic comments during the opening statements yesterday as to who was before them. there's a lot of discussion about the president, a lot of discussion about mayor garland in an attempt to obviously avoid to the extent that they could the subject matter of the hearing which is this particular nominee. i understand, i haven't watched today, but i understand understand he's doing a great job today. yes i haven't seen a single democrat, unless they are one you've observed, indicate they were prepared to either vote for closure or vote for him. leading you to ask the following question: if judge gorsuch can't achieve 60 votes in the senate, could any?judge appointed by a republican president be approved with 60 or more votes in the senate? i can only take you back to the first two years of clinton, ginsburg and breyer were confirmed without closure. this was at the beginning of a term, obama had to without closure. apples and apples. beginning of t

judge gorsuch, mr. president, told us that he is not god, and that is true, but his humanity does not excuse him from the attribute of mercy. instead, his humanity should require it. mr. president, alphonse maddin sought the mercy of the law. the wong family sought the mercy of the law. luke, the autistic child whose school was failing him, sought the mercy of the law. and the man who had the power to see plain sense in their cases, who could rule in their favor and right the wrongs that had been done to them, as other judges did in each of those cases, that man, judge neil gorsuch, said no. i'm voting no on gorsuch for alphonse maddin and workers across the country, for the wong family and for others who don't want to choose between their health and providing for their children, and for the perkins family who loved their children just as they are and want them no less than the opportunities afforded to every other child in america. the american people deserve someone who sees average litigants as more

and i think judge gorsuch got it right and the tenth circuit judges on the other side were essentially redefining what the little sister's religious beliefs are or at least what they ought to be. >> as i indicated. judge gorsuch does not have any significant rulings that i'm aware of directly on the free exercise clause. this raises the question of how he would approach the scope of the employment versus smith perhaps even the survival of employment division versus smith going forward. we shall see but again i think what you see in the rulings under rifra and alupa is dedication to applying text very carefully. some of the opinions under the establishment clause i think what you see here is a justified skepticism on his part of the continued vitality of the supreme court's so-called lemon test, that five or six justices have ridiculed in different ways but still is managed to seem to survive. that lemon test among other things has an endorsement prong that purports to look how a reasonable observer would regard the action as being challenged on a establishment clause grounds. this reas

here is what judge gorsuch had to say when asked about those comments. >> when you intact -- attack thentegrity or honesty or independence of a judge, their hear,s, as we sometimes senator, i know the men and women of the federal judiciary, a lot of them. i know how hard their job is, how much they often give out to do it, the circumstances in which they do it. it is a lonely job too. i am not asking for crocodile tears but i'm just saying i know these people and know how decent they are. when anybody criticizes the honesty and integrity, the motives of a federal judge, i find that disheartening. i find that demoralizing because i know the truth. anyone including the president of the united states? >> anyone is anyone. no person is above the law including the president of the united states? >> that is right, senator. host: we are hearing from you asking whether judge gorsuch should be confirmed, asking that for our first hour. brian is on the line for republicans, lafayette, louisiana. did you watch the hearings? go ahead, brian. caller: yes, i did watch it. good morning, america. yes,

again, judge gorsuch did not go that route. lobbyhe question of hobby is whether the contraceptive mandate under obamacare requiring an employer to provide help plants that include contraceptive drugs and devices infringes on the religious object of employers that to being complicit in contraceptives in some cases and drugs in devices and the case of some other employers. many on the other side are judge to present gorsuch's vote here as though it is a direct statement of his view on abortion or contraception. no. he is enforcing the statute that congress by overwhelming numbers enacted and he is saying that it means what it says. exactly as he said in yellow bear. little sisters of the poor, just last year, i'm sorry, in 2015 he joined a powerful dissent in that case, again from rehearing en banc. a panel in the 10th sort -- ruled an accommodation supposedly letting religious nonprofit organizations to escape the burden of the mandate. even though it subjected them to massive fines for refusing to sign their names to a documen

well, judge gore gorsuch passes association, the gold standard for evaluating judges by the democratic leader himself,as certainly agrees.nd it said, based on the writings, interviews and analysis, we scrutinize to reach our rating, we discern that gorsuch believes strongly in the independence of the judicial branch of government and we predict he will be a strong and respectful voice in protecting us. in addition to independence, the democratic leader talked about his concern that he has earned the support of conservatives. well, that's true, he has earned the support of republicans just as he received praise from many on the left as well. like president obama's former solicitor general and legal mentor and law professor elliott among so many others. the democratic leader talked about the need to offer assurances about how he would rule on a certain case and assurances that he would stand up for certain groups. but as gorsuch pointed out, they are to offer no hints come in no forecast, no previews on how they would rule in certain cases. f : ces. and finally, the democratic leader tal

i'm a former clerk to judge gorsuch and i'm speaking on behalf of all the judges former clerks including the clerk standing behind me. the recent hearing before the senate judiciary committee confirms several things that we, judge gorsuch former clerks know first hand. there's no question of his intelligence. throughout the hearing he displayed profound command of the law in response to the committee's questions on a breath of legal topics but there's no question of his temperament. while answering questions into the evening hours over several days, the judges deep respect for the members of the committee never waned in his commitment to carefully listen to the points raised before him never faltered. this is the man of integrity and decency that we all know. third there is no question that the judges great respect and empathy for the litigants that appear before him. colleagues on the bench, log professors, former clerks and friends with lyrical views that span the spectrum all testify to this before the hearing. the american bar association, which gave judge gorsuch the strongest endor

the approval of judge gorsuch, mr. president, was also in addition to a few other colleagues who have since left. we were joined at that time, judge gorsuch was supported at that time by then-senator barack obama, by then-senator joe biden, by it then-senator hillary clinton, and at that point senator john kerry, all of whom participated in the confirmation process of judge gorsuch 11 years ago, all of whom who did not oppose his nomination on the floor of the united states senate. but it shouldn't come as a surprise if you've been paying attention to the confirmation process to watch a mainstream consensus pick for the supreme court answer questions. and when the hearings began, of course just a couple of days ago, i think since then we've seen overwhelming bipartisan support emerge publicly in the senate once again, and we will see that emerge over the next several weeks. several of our colleagues from across the aisle have already indicated that they believe judge gorsuch deserves an up-or-down vote. and i hope that

judge gorsuch: well, again, it goes to our separation of powers. udges would make the report legislators -- would make a very poor legislators. we are not equipped for it. we are not responsive to the people. you can't get rid of us. you are stuck with us. and we don't have the opportunities to talk to people, to have hearings like this one in places like this. for permitted 4 law clerks one year at a time. right out of law school. kind of an evanescent crowd. replenishes itself every year. now, if you were to make laws, i don't think you would design a letem where you would three older people with 4 young law clerks straight out of law school legislate for a country of 320 million. that is not how anybody would design the railroad. those are some of the problems i see, senator. sen. hatch: thank you -- judge gorsuch: with all respect to my law clerks. i love them very much. they are like family. but they are not the same as your staff and the investigative powers you have. sen. hatch: they are lucky to be with you is all i can say. in that "nationa

on all of these metrics, judge gorsuch is off the charts qualified. when the good judge comes before the judiciary committee, listen to the answers he gives. ask yourself whether what he says is consistent with the separation of powers and the system the framers designed. compare his measured demeanor and thoughtful responses to the histrionics you see from his opponents on the left. i have full confidence that when the hearing is over and the last question has been asked, judge gorsuch will have shown the senate that he is unquestionably qualified and fully prepared to serve our nation on the supreme court. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, good afternoon. good to be with you and the chairman of our senate finance committee. and i am pleased to say a few words about the president's nominee for the lady who is going to, if confirmed, lead us in the centers for medicaid and medicare, somebody from indiana who from the folks i know in indiana