law. he was headed for a notable career as a trial lawyer. and a lucrative one at that. but he was still a pretty young rising lawyer when he left the practice at age 38 or 39. and went into public service. that said, mean nothing disrespect to the eight current sitting justices, i think it's fair to say that neil's deep and lengthy engagement with our civil justice system exceeds that of any nominee to the united states supreme court since john paul stevens in 1975. do the math. that's 42 years ago. we've gone 42 years since when he a supreme court nominee with as much -- we had a supreme court nominee with as much experience in our system of advocacy, our system of litigation, as neil gorsuch. our supreme court is comprised today of distinguished lawyers, most of whom have never tried a civil jury case to verdict. those of us who try cases would argue that deep experience with the thing that we use it resolve our disputes is absolutely of pivotal importance to those on the bench. facts m

the law can frustrate. in black and white it is start and change come slowly and often deliberately, just as our forebears designed. law that can change in a moment and capriciously is inherently destabilizing. an activist judge who makes law plants insecurity in our system. rather, our constitution provides for law to be enacted legislatively with the sanction of the american people through the ballot box. policy changes advanced by judges can be reversed. and reversed again. law properly grounded in the democratic and political process cannot. equal protection under the law. justice is blind. these are just catchy phrases that a backdoor time in civic classes. these are guiding principles of our republic and reaffirmed in the 14th amendment to our constitution. fundamentally, each of us should know courts will find for us when the law is on our side. whether we are rich or poor, strong or weak, or a big guy or a little guy, that's principled justice. some may not like a particular law. that's fair and not

it's the law. whether it's binding or not, it's you law. if i start saying i like an opinion or another opinion -- >> all right, i'll let you off the hook. in d.c.v. heller, the opinion recognized that of course the second amendment was not unlimited, end quote, justice scalia wrote, for example, laws restricting access to guns by the mentally ill or laws forbidding gun possession in schools were consistent with the limited nature of the second amendment. justice scalia also wrote that, quote, weapons that are most useful in military service, m-16 rifles and the like, may be banned, end quote, without infringing on the second amendment. do you agree with that statement, that under the second amendment, wednesdayoapons thatt useful in military service, m-16 rifles and the like may be banned? >> heller makes clear the standard whether we are supposed to apply. the question is whether it a gun in common use for self-defense and that may be subject to reasonable regulation. that's the test as i understand it. there's lots of ongoing tigation ab

the judge's job is to go where the law leads the judge not to correct the law. over and over again judge gorsuch affirms the importance of precedent in our system. it's clearly a topic that he takes very seriously having co-authored a treatise on that very subject and while president is not always absolute in a clear conflict with the text of judge gorsuch testified that he started with the quote heavy presumption in favor of precedent. he described president as the anchor of the law. over and over judge gorsuch explained that judges are not partisans in boats. they are different. they are different from politicians. they are basically different than the politicians who make the law or the politicians in the executive branch to enforce and execute the laws. they are unfailingly independent when they are doing their jobs. they are devoted to the rule ofo law and they do their best to decide cases on the basis of the law and the facts rather than on the basis of achieving whatever outcome they or others might coe desire. some of my colleagues view of judge gorsuch

good law. the oath you take demands that you follow the law, even if you dislike the result. so if you hear that you are for some business or against some plaintiff, don't worry. we've heard all that stuff before. it's an old claim from an even older playbook. you and i and the american people know whose responsibility it is to correct the law that produces a result that you dislike. it's the men and women sitting here with me, good judges understand this. they know it isn't their job to fix the law. in a democracy, that right belongs to the people. it's for this reason that justice scalia said this, quote, if you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going to like the conclusion you reach. if you like them all the time, you are probably doing something wrong, end of quote. judge, i look forward to hearing more about your exceptional record, and i look forward it to the conversation we will all have about the meaning of our con

my job is to write the law, senator. it is to apply the law. and if congress passes the law saying a trucker in those circumstances gets to choose how to operate his vehicle, i will be the first one in line to enforce it. i've been stuck on the highway in wyoming in a snowstorm. i know it is involved. i don't make light of it, i take it seriously. but, senator, this gets back to what my job is, and what it isn't. and if we pick and choose cases out of 2700, i can point you to so many in which i have found for the plaintiff an employment action or affirmed a finding of an agency of some sort for a worker or otherwise. i point you to, for example, wd sports, or casey, energy west, crane, simpson versus cu, just a few that come to mind that i've scratched down here on a piece of paper. >> judge, we up here are held accountable for our votes. and i have been in congress for a while and i've cast a lot of them. some of them i'm not very proud of. i wish i could do it all over again. i made mistakes. but your accountability is for your decision as ou

no women were teaching in law school when i went to law school. no living teaching in the arts college in cornell -- no women teaching in the arts college in cornell. at harvard, i was captivated by the way the class was conducted. there was a woman i met much later. she was a southern graduate and her ame was shirley. she was a judge on the u.s. court of appeals, ninth circuit, the second in history. she was appointed by president johnson and then-president carter made her the first ever secretary of the department of education. she launched that department and did an excellent job. it was more than rumored that if carter had a vacancy on he supreme court she would fill it. she was such a great lady when it turned out that carter would not have a supreme ourt seeking to fill. he did have a reception in her and he invited all the women he had afforded, over 25 to district courts and 11 to courts of ppeals and he said at that reception that he hoped he would be remembered in history for changing the complexion of the federal judiciary. he did and n

that this looks to existing law and i wonder, when is thatlook at the law, existing, all law leading up to the law, interpreting constitutional law, what do you mean when you say, "he looks to the law?" in any given case, you have a law that tested at the time and the law will be to the case before and he is not a politician in a robe. on the conservative and the liberal side of the spectrum, only do not get the outcome we want, we go to the courts and we want them to fix the law. view of the judge's judiciary is that this is not the job of judges. for --s a political process. if you have a problem with the law, you can vote the official out of office. when you have a case before the judges look with no bias or predisposed notion or importation of their own personal policy. is, "what is the right answer under the law?>" such as what makes gor 's judge. i think that is the kind of justice he would be. >> everybody is familiar with the friendship of ginsburg and scalia. you clerked for supreme court justices. do you see any of them becoming friends? known as being a friend with everybo

, the federal tax laws, the maritime laws, or the immigration laws. that is the job of the federal government. their well-known constitutional limits on the ability of the federal government to withhold fund to the states. state and local officials know their communities and how to keep them safe better than the federal government. the constitution's long-standing principles apparently are either ignored or seen as an impediment by some people. in the recent executive order on interior enforcement, president trump a polished the prior administrations and force of priorities to go after all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the united states, just as president trump promised he would do. and while this may satisfy most extreme elements in our country, it is not smart. it does not make our country safer. it does not make our country stronger. it has created a culture of fear. there are videos of parents taken from their u.s. citizen children by armed ice officers wearing the word "police" on their best. there are stories of mothers living in this co

at the law first, is that existing, all laws leading up to the existing law, is it the way he would interpret constitutional law? what world view does he come to the table when you talk about he looks to the law? >> i think matt talked about a little bit, you know, i think the judge looks at the law that is applicable to the parties. so in any given case, you have a law that existed at the time the parties' conduct took place. he's going to apply that law, right, based on the arguments made by the parties before him to the case before him. as janie mentioned, he's not looking to be a politician on a rope. that's an important thing. today, i think in our country, both on the conservative side and liberal side of the spectrum, too often, we don't get the outcome we like in the political process, we run to courts and we say you solve this for me. you fix the law. this is the problem on both sides of the aisle. i think judge gorsuch's view of the judiciary and correctly based on the framer's judiciary is that's not the job of judges. that's the political process. a problem with the laws

who posted laws, the abient emporer that posted laws so high that nobody could tell what the law was. better to keep the people on their toes. sorry. that's a problem, too. right? for due process. fair notice. the truth is like so much else in life, we're aiming for the golden mean. not too much, not too little. a point where people have enough fair notice but overwhelmed. that's what i spoke about. >> and i agree with you. it's a significant problem. one this committee has addressed multiple times. i'm reminded of a legal thinker who said in heaven, there's no law and the lion lies down with the lamb. in heaven, there's nothing but law and due process is meticulously obeyed. living in a situation where the account you just shared, there's over 300,000 potential crimes in a regulatory sense. at some point makes it exceedingly difficult for honest citizens to conduct himself or herself in a way that doesn't run afoul of the law. that is something that should concern all of us. you know, i would note when you gave this speech, would you say it's fair to say that not every one at the fed

fidelity to the law. the task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law. and it is clear, i believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms, and congress' intent, and huing faithfully to precedents established by the supreme court and by my circuit court. in each case i have heard, i have applied the law to the facts at hand. the process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged. that is why i generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. that is how i see -- seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our judicial system. my personal and professional experiences help me to listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case. since president obama announced my nomination in may, i have rece

pa -- be need for the law. without respect to persons that i would do equal right to the port and to the rich to carry out my duties under the constitution and the allies the the united states. that is why have tried to do for the past 15 years of confirmed a pledge that is a level do on the supreme court. >> our program continues with president barack obama first appointee justice under my your -- previously on the second circuit cour of appeals the first spanic to serve on the supreme court we will sre your briefing portion of justice sotomayor opening statement. >> aca antibodies we strive for as american citizens rely think career is not about race or class or gender paul glass for all of this these are important parts of sushi is. first dory is about how race and class at the end of the day is not to predetermine in america about what matters is hard-working and education and they will pay off matter who you are exactly what each of us once for our children and for ourselves with this shared vision is why

i care about the law. i care deeply about the law. and an independent judiciary, following the rules of the law. that's the commitment i can make to you. i can't promise you more and i can't guarantee you any less. sen. feinstein: what worries me is that you have been very much able to avoid any specificity. like no one i have ever seen before. maybe that's a virtue, i don't know, but for us, knowing where you stand on major questions of to aay is really important vote. so, that's why we press and press and press. , because you mentioned the number of cases that you sat on. and the percent that was unanimous, i think, was 97%, you said. we realize that these are few cases on which the distinction is made and it is hard to make that distinction. so, you know, when one sees a lot in this country -- and i just want to say this -- for me i sat on 5000 cases. these were women convicted of felonies in the state of california. i did it for six years. i saw the inside of this whole issue. that is one of the reasons why i feel so strongly, par

, the federal tax laws, the maritime laws, or the immigration laws. that's the job of the federal government. there are well-known constitutional limits on the ability of the federal governments to withhold funds to the states. state and local officials know their communities and know how to keep them safe better than the federal government. the constitution's long-standing principle is apparently either ignored or seen as an impediment by some people. in the recent executive order on interior enforcement, president trump abolished the prior administration's enforcement priorities to go after all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the united states just as candidate trump promised he would. while this agenda my satisfy the most extreme elements in our country it isn't smart. it does not make our country safer and it does not make our country stronger. and it has created a churl of fear. there are videos of parents taken from their children by armed i.c.e. officers. there are stories of mothers who lived in this country for decades being deported af

the judge's job is to go where the law leads the judge, not to correct the law. over and over again judge gorsuch affirmed the importance of precedent in our system. it's clearly a topic that he takes very seriously, having coauthored a treaty on that subject. while precedent isn't always abc liewt in so far -- abc absolute that you have a -- absolute. he described precedent as the angelinaor of the law -- as the anchor of the law. over and over judge gorsuch explained that judges are not partisans in robes. no, they are different. they are different from politicians. they are meaningfully different from the politicians that make the laws or the politicians in the executive branch who enforce and execute the laws. they are unfailingly independent when they are doing their jobs right. they are devoted to the rule of law and they do their best to decide cases on the basis of the law and the facts rather than on the basis of achieving whatever outcome they or others might desire. now, some of my colleagues' view of judge gorsuch's record is different and i want to a

that existing, all law leading up to the law, is it the way he would interpret constitutional law, whatyou mean when you say, "he looks to the law?" >> in any given case, you have a law that tested at the time and -- existed at a and the law will be to the case before and he is not a politician in a robe. that is important. they are country on the , conservative and the liberal side of the spectrum, only do we do not get the outcome we want, we go to the courts and we want them to fix the law. axis -- this is the problem on both sides of the aisle. i think this judge's view of the judiciary is that this is not the job of judges. the judges law is to hear cases, and use the law. there is a political for -- process. if you have a problem with the law, you can vote the official out of office. you must run to the courts and have them solve the problem for you. when you have a case before the courts, the judges look with no bias or predisposed notion or importation of their own personal policy. it doesn't matter what the judge thinks the answer should be, the question is, "what is the right

president, how many law law-abiding americans -- innocent, law-abiding americans are getting swept up in these searches? and it will be an increasingly important issue, as the nature of telecommunications companies continues to change because it is now a field that is globally rconnected. we don't have telecommunications systems just stopping at national borders. so getting the number of americans whose communications have been collected in the first place is the prerequisite to doing real oversight on this law and doing our job at a time when it is being reauthorized and the american people want both security and liberty and understand that the two are not mutually exclusive. so, mr. clap, director clapper then suggested reviewing the classified number of targets that were later determined to be located in the united states. but the question has never been about the targets of section 702, although the mistaken targeting of americans and the people in our country is another serious question. the question that democrats and republicans have been asking is about how many americans are

existing, all law leading up to the law, interpreting constitutional law, what do you mean when you say, what worldview, when you say "he looks to the law?" >> in any given case, you have a law that tested at the time and the law will be to the case before and he is not a politician in a robe. that is a really important thing. today i think in our country and this is true on the conservative and the liberal side of the spectrum, only do not get the outcome we want, we go to the courts and we want them to fix the law. because i did not get what i wanted out of these political process. this is true on both sides of the aisle. i think judge gorsuch view of the judiciary and is that is not the job of judges. that is the political process. if you have a problem with the law, you can vote the official out of office. you don't go running to the court to have the courts of the problem for you. now, when you have a case before the courts, the judges look with no bias or predisposed notion or importation of their own personal policy. it does not matter what the judge thinks the right answer shoul

, including our immigration laws. those laws require us to properly remove aliens when they are convicted or detained of certain crimes. the vast majority of american people support this comment se requirementnse. according to one recent poll, 80% of americans believe that cities that make arrests, that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate this enforcement of immigration laws. this includes refusing to detain non-felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws. for example, the department of homeland security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor ice detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime. the charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against

law that -- and you go to the language of the law, you talk about that. i go to the law. a person may not discharge an employee who refuses to operate a vehicle because the employees has reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public, because of the vehicle's hazardous safety or security condition. that's the law. and you decided that they had the right to fire him, even though the law says you may not discharge an employee who refuses to operate a vehicle because he did operate the vehicle. is that right? that's your -- that's how you decided, right? mr. gorsuch: that's the gist of it. mr. franken: no, is that how you decided? mr. gorsuch: there are a lot more words in the opinions, both in the majority by my colleagues and in dissent. but i'm happy to agree with you. that's the gist of it. mr. franken: right. that's what you've said. i'm not a lawyer but i've been on this committee for about eight years and i've paid some attention. so i know that what you're talking about here is the plain meaning rule. here's what the rule means. plain meaning

congress ass a law, a lawsuit's -- passes a law, a lawsuit's brought, a record's maned, a fact finder makes facts, a ruling is issued, congress responds and the cycle continues. and, senator, that's our history. in this area and so many others, our founders were brilliant. they didn't give me all the power. i don't wear a crown, i wear a robe. they didn't give you all the power -- >> when it comes to the determination to state what the law is particularly in constitutional matters, they actually did give the supreme court the power. and that's why it's important to us to ask these questions now before you go on to the supreme court and we have no accountability left. and so the values that you bring to that this those areas where you're not just implementing congress' will, but are bringing your own values to the constitutional document that we treasure, that is why i think these questions are important. let me ask something slightly different. you said you knew judge garland. >> i do. i wouldn't claim him as my closest personal friend, but someone whom i admire greatly. >> and would

law.esterday, theresa may described britain's departure from the eu as "an historic moment from which there can be no turning back". eleanor garnier reports. cometh the hour, cometh the moment, in westminster, belfast, edinburgh and cardiff — the exact moment the uk took a new and different course. this is an historic moment from which there is no turning back. the letter, hand—delivered by our man in brussels, telling the eu we are on our way out. written in a deliberately conciliatory tone. but a hint, too, of the steel in mrs may's stance. no overt threat to walk away, but a serious warning, as she wrote "a failure to reach an agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. we must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome." a sentence that certainly raised eyebrows, here, and across the eu, too. but despite all the difficulties, mrs may promised our relationship with the rest of the continent will be just as good after brexit. what we ar

the law, they said, a law that works, a respect and reverence to the rule of law.hese goals were as key at the founding of our great republic as the need to satisfy our thirst for freedom and religion in assembly and a free and unfettered media that we keep hearing so much about today. and so it was to the challenging first century leading to the great upheaval of the civil war when the very survival of this republic was at issue. the great emancipator harkined back to jefferson's words, spurring his congress to action, asking his generation whether they might be as brave and bold as adams and jefferson and madison, as willing to risk and win or risk and lose at the same level. abraham lincoln said let every american, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country and never to tolerate their violation by others. lincoln said that as the patriots of '76 did, in support of the declaration of independence, so to the support of the constitution and laws, le

phi beta kappa, distinguished professor of law at yale law school, and respected author. his experience is extraordinary, in academia, as ageneral practitioner, as solicitor general, and as a judge for the united states court of appeals for the district of -- for the d.c. circuit, felt by many to be the second most important court in this country. judge bork has a long-standing reputation for integrity and judicial temperament. on two occasions, judge bork has had his professional qualifications and personal character specifically examined and carefully scrutinized by the american bar association. on both occasions, the aba has given judge bork the highest possible rating for his professional competence, integrity, and temperament. judge bork is not a new or unknown quantity. he has been before this committee twice previously, and both times the committee and the full senate have deemed him worthy of confirmation to be solicitor general and to be a judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. it is also worthy of note that both times judge bork was confirmed b

get through law school. and the third thing i pointed to was our legal educational system. where we have three years of post graduate education for everybody who wants to -- who have anything to do with lawyering. the best lawyer in the country in this history came from your state, senator durbin, he didn't ever go to law school. and he always said the best way to become a lawyer, read the books. still true. and other countries around the world don't have three years of post graduate legal education. this is where justice scalia and i -- a disagreement, he thought three years was necessary for everybody. i'm not convinced. in england where i studied, you could become a lawyer through three years of an undergraduate degree or one year as a post graduate degree followed by a lot of on the job practical training. i wonder whether all that debt is worth it. whether it induces people to pick jobs they have to pick to pay their debt ranger than serve the people they like to serve. those are the problems i talk abo

but my job isn't it write the laws. it is to apply the laws. and i try to do that and that enough is enough for a day's work, and it is enough for a life's work. >> and in my opening remarks yesterday, i mentioned the letter we received from dozens of your peers at harvard law school. and, mr. chairman, i ask consent this letter be included in the record at this point. >> without objection it will be included. >> the signers were of all parties and ideologies and represented many different faiths, lifestyles and views. they all support, strongly support your nomination. the letter said that you personified disinterested philosophy that respects judicial modesty, combined with compassionate appreciation of the lives impacted by your decisions. how can you do both? >> senator, i'm just a person. and i remember how hard it is to be a lawyer. i remember what it was like to represent clients who had problems. told my kids when they asked me what my job was when i was young, to help people with their problems. and as a judge, i have to resolve their

of what the law intended.i assumed my colleagues understood what the department was doing to implement our law in an open and collaborative way, and it is very concerning to me to hear such partisanship and false representations of our bipartisan law. this rule does not dictate to states what they have to do with struggling schools. it balances the goals of essa, flexibility with federal guardrails, and provides important clarity for our states. so, mr. president, a vote for this resolution is a vote to run away from the bipartisan nature of the every student succeeds act. it is a blunt instrument and a significant step in the wrong direction and will have serious impact on our students, our schools and districts across the country. i am disheartened, by the way, to see my republican colleagues jamming this partisan play through in the same fashion they did with secretary devos' nomination. over the past few months, millions of students and parents and teachers have made their voices heard about the importance

we pass laws. your job is to interpret them as a judge and i believe that you responded to me that you fully understood that your role fell squarely within article iii and mine fell squarely within article i and you saw the very bright line between the two. i think you are doing too good to a great job. i think your nomination acceptance your quote was it is for congress and not the courts to write new laws. it is the role of judges to apply, not alter the work of the people's representatives. there've been some comments today made about cases you have taken up and i think probably in some cases they relate to the instance, the instances where you weren't really happy about the outcome and i look forward to getting to some of those. i think two or three have been mentioned at an part of my review of your summary of jurisprudence. their number of samples were you interpret it a lot. did not become an activist.didnu you didn't allow your empathy or your sympathy for a case to influence what your job

laws across the country? prof. mccrary: in texas and north carolina, they have been struck down by the courts as in violation of section ii of the voting rights act. and with current construction of the supreme court with only eight members, the decision of the courts of appeal is we think practically, for practical purposes, final. so both of those laws will not go into effect as a result of successful litigation by the department of justice and minority plaintiffs, combining efforts against those laws adopted by the republican majorities in texas and north carolina. there are other states where such laws are adopted and have been challenged in court is in -- as in wisconsin. where the pattern is still mixed in terms of how the courts are going to handle it. so, it depends on the state as to where the situation is with regard to those laws. host: professor burton, what is the most recent supreme court ruling or decision on the voting rights act? prof. burton: this is very important because peyton worked at the jus

the law you don't get a pass on that.ol if you don't follow the rules as a law enforcement officer you should not get it passed about that so it's really about accountability. thank you so much for your call. >> host: jane in massachusetts, republican.ve evy >> caller: yes i believe everything that donald trump's doing -- these people that are marching in protests and causing all this chaos 90% of them don't even belong here. they don't even vote. they are used to getting all the freebies. all these criminals and office stuff is going on the countryof today making it impossible for the taxpayer. one third of the population is paying taxes and the other two-thirds coming over here getting everything for nothing. low income housing free everything. it's terrible. they get food stamps. everything they get for nothing is coming out of the taxpayers money and the taxpayers are getting tired of it. >> guest: i appreciate your calls and your comments to one of the beautiful things about this country is the right to protest and the right to addition your government even when you may not necess

is not a perfect law. but the fact of the matter is, judge gorsuch in his opinion shrank and minimized the requirements of the i.d.e.a. such that they trivialized this law. and as the opinion yesterday characterized current law, provides much more significant protection to disabled children than judge gorsuch's ruling offered. >> but it doesn't provide enough. and it's because of a failing of legislators and congressmen, not the courts. thank you, mr. perkins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge taha, in your testimony, you were talking about judge gorsuch as a judge. and you said his attention to the views of his colleagues informs his work. he has an acute sense of identifying those circumstances, reading from your testimony, where consensus is the highest value. and on the other hand, those decisions were personal conviction and reasoned judgment and independent decision making. personal conviction. >> that is about whether consensus should be built on a decision or whether the judge should write independ

if it was a securities law case a securities law expert read those opinions. additionally practitioners which include those who regularly appear before the supreme court, that was 14 additional. if you add all that up if my math is up i would say that is about 55 people or something like that, all very distinguished lawyers and academics. >> these 55 attorneys, are they all republicans? >> no, sir. >> are they all democrats? >> no, sir. very varied, big firms, small firms, democrats, republicans. in fact, we don't get into political filiations. >> good for you. is it a gender diverse group? >> very gender diverse. every kind of diverse you can imagine. >> and it is racially diverse? >> yes, sir. >> you probably don't ask this question but in terms of religion is your sense that it is diverse? >> our sense is but we don't ask that question. >> and this group together gave judge gorsuch an a? well qualified? >> yes, sir. >> some asked to give him an a plus? >> yes. >> i just want to say for the record i don't know ms. edwards, i just had the pleasure of meeting

so it was a securities law case, a security law expert read those opinions. and additionally, practitioners which include those who regularly appear before the supreme court, that was 14 additional pixelated at all that up, if my math is right on with it that's about 55 people or something like that. and all very distinguished lawyers and academics. >> these 55 attorneys are that all republicans? >> no, sir. >> are the all democrats? >> no, sir. varied. big firms, small firms, democrats, republicans.varied, in fact, we don't even, we don't get into political affiliation, senator. >> good for you. is it a gender diverse group? >> very gender diverse. gen thdiverse, every kind of diverse you can imagine. >> okay. and it is racially diverse? >> yes, sir. >> you probably don't even ask but in terms of religion, is your sense that it is a diverse? >> our sense is but we don't ask that question. >> okay. and this group together gave judge gorsuch and a time well-qualified? >> yes, sir. >> all right. and some as to give him and a+,e am i right? >> yes. >> well, i ju

it is to apply the law. if congress passes a law saying a trucker in those circumstances gets to choose how to operate his vehicle, i will be the first one in line to enforce it. i have been stuck on the highway in my back wyoming in a snowstorm. i know what is involved. i do not make light of it. i take it seriously, but senator, this gets back to what my job is and what it is not. if we are going to pick and choose cases out of 2700, i can point you to so many in which i have found for the plaintiff and in employment action or a firm or an agency for a worker or otherwise. i point you, for example, did you do sports or kc energy west, crane, simpson versus cu. just a few that come to mind that i scratched down here on a piece of paper. >> judge, we up here are held accountable for our votes. i've been in congress for a while and cast a lot of them. some of them i am not very proud of. i wish i could do it all over again, i have made mistakes. but your accountability is for your decisions as our accountabil

i don't think that's what a life in the law is about. as a lawyer for years working in the trial court renctrenches, i striving every day to fairly decide the cases i put to them. as a judge now for more than a decade, i watched my colleagues spend long days worrying over cases. sometimes, the answers we reach aren't the ones we personally prefer. sometimes, the answers follow us home at night and keep us up. but the answers we reach are always the ones we believe the law requires. and for all its imperfections, i believe the rule of law in this nation is truly a wonder and no wonder it's the envy of the world. of course, once in a while, we judges do disagree. but our disagreements are not about politics but about the law's demands. the first divided 5-4. affirmed my support with justices thomas and sotomayor, with justices stevens and scalia in dissent. now, that's a line-up some might think unusual but exactly the sort of thing that happens quietly, day in and day out in the united states supreme court and in the courts across this co

that's the law. and you decided they had the right to fire him, even though the law says you may not discharge an employee who refuses to operate a vehicle because he did operate the vehicle. is that right? that's your -- that's how you decided, right? >> that's the jest of it. >> well no, is that how you decid? that's what you decided -- >> senator, there are a lot of words and opinions both in the majority by my colleagues and in disscent, but i'm happy to agree with you, that's the jest of it. >> right well that's what you've said, and i -- look, i'm not a lawyer, but i've been on this committee for about eight years. and i've paid some attention. so i know that what you're talking about here is the plain meaning rule. here's what the rule means. and the plain meeting of a statute is clear on his face. when it's meaning is obvious, courts have no business looking beyond the meaning to the statute's purpose. and that's what you used, right? >> that's what was argued to us by both sides, senator. >>

and the law is the law. it's what we do day in and day out, and the discussions about the judiciary, i think, often miss the fact that judges agree overwhelmingly on the disposition of cases. tiny percentage of the cases go to the supreme court of the united states. 70, 80 cases a year, a fraction of a fraction of a percent, and even then, even then, the justices of the united states supreme court are unanimous in their decisions 40% of the time. think about that. you have not just three judges who have to agree as on the court of appeals, generally speaking, but nine. nine justices who are appointed by five different presidents right now. and people say the world's changed. but in some ways, it hasn't. because that 40% number has been remarkably steady since the second world war. that's pretty incredible thing when you think about it. >> it is. >> that's a testament to our rule of law. it's human. it's imperfect. but it's sure better than anything else anybody's ever devised. >> that commitment to interpret

not change the law. or change 40 years of the law. but that's what reince priebus said this is about. when the white house chief of staff is talking to his friends at cpac, he says a justice' job, that your job, is to change 40 years of law. yet my colleagues and you say it is to follow the laws as written. well, can't be both. so which is it? >> senator? it's to be a judge, to be fair, to follow the law. to apply it to the facts and circumstances of each case. and to live out my judicial oath on whichever court i serve on, there it is the tenth circuit where i've served for the last ten years. >> okay. >> and where my opinions have been unanimous 97% of the time. >> i know. >> senator. >> i understand. again, you've given many times this -- that answer so, if you'll indulge me. mr. priebus went on to say your nomination was central to president trump fulfilling his policy objectives. "neil gorsuch represents a type of judge that has a vision of president trump, and it, refer to your nomination, fulfills the promise that he made to al

it's the law.i start saying i like one opinion or like another opinion -- >> all right. ite -- i'll let you off the hook. >> thank you. >> in heller the majority opinion written by justice scalia recognized that of course the second amendment was not unlimited end quote. justice scalia wrote laws restricting access to guns by the mentally ill or laws forbidding gun possession in schools were consistent with the limited nature of the second amendment. justice scalia also wrote that quote, weapons most useful in military service, m-16 rifles and the like may be banned, end quote, without infringing on the second amendment. do you agree with that statement that under the second amendment weapons that are most useful in military service m-16 rifles and the like may be banned? >> senator, heller makes clear the standard that we judges are supposed to apply. the question is whether it's a gun in common use for self-defense. that's the test as i understand it. there's lots of litigation on which weapons q