This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/judge-gorsuch-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 8 Version 9
Partisanship Runs High at Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing Six Highlights From the Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing
(35 minutes later)
■ The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Neil M. Gorsuch has opened with a starkly partisan tenor. One might think it was about the man who might have been: Judge Merrick B. Garland, rather than the nominee. Judge Neil M. Gorsuch gave his opening statement on Monday during the first day of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
■ Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, laid out a schedule for a vote on Judge Gorsuch two weeks from today. That could lead to a floor vote later that week, the timetable Republicans intend to meet. Here are some highlights:
■ Though much of the week will focus on Judge Gorsuch’s parrying of questions from senators, his first day is more of an introduction — a chance to cast himself as a fair-minded and dispassionate jurist and to set the tone for the days that follow. Democrats are trying to supply a counternarrative. ■ Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said he wanted to know what Judge Gorsuch would do when “called upon to stand up to this president.” Mr. Durbin said, “You going to have your hands full with this president.”
Here are the highlights so far: ■ Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, introduced Mr. Gorsuch, his fellow Coloradan, with high praise but stayed studiously ambiguous about how he would vote.
■ Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said, “if you believe this has been a great plan to get a Trump nominee on the court, then you had to believe Trump was going to win to begin with.”
■ Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said Mr. Gorsuch was “selected by interest groups.”
■ Two of the most frequently mentioned people at Monday’s hearing weren’t even in the room: Judge Merrick B. Garland, the Obama administration nominee who never got a hearing, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader who led the blockade of Judge Garland.
■ Republicans are enthusiastic and fully aboard with Judge Gorsuch. Do not expect contentious questioning from them in the days ahead.
■ The hearings reconvene on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m., and will last at least 10 hours.
On the opening day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Gorsuch promised that if he were elevated to the Supreme Court, he would strive for independence and integrity.
“I will do all in my power,” he said, “to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great nation.”
In what may have been an oblique reference to President Trump’s attacks on judges who have ruled against him, Judge Gorsuch thanked “my fellow judges across the country.”
His polished opening statement came after hours of remarks from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed a stark partisan divide on his nomination.
Republican senators portrayed Judge Gorsusch as a highly qualified and independent jurist. Democrats said they were troubled by a judicial record they said was animated by a cold and literal reading of the law and skewed toward business interests.
Judge Gorsuch said he tried to follow the example of Justice Byron R. White, for whom he served as law clerk “He modeled for me judicial courage,” Judge Gorsuch said of his mentor. “He followed the law wherever it took him.”
Pledging to dispense equal justice to “poor and rich,” Judge Gorsuch said the judicial role was “not about politics.”
Rather, he said, a judge’s plain black robes reflect a different role, representing independence. “The robe does mean something to me,” he said, “and not just that I can hide the coffee stains on my shirt.”
Three Democratic senators, three opening statements that began with a focus on the judge who never made it to this room: Judge Garland.Three Democratic senators, three opening statements that began with a focus on the judge who never made it to this room: Judge Garland.
Democrats were always expected to highlight Republicans’ refusal to even meet with President Barack Obama’s nominee last year. But the frequency and ferocity of their attacks were notable out of the gate.Democrats were always expected to highlight Republicans’ refusal to even meet with President Barack Obama’s nominee last year. But the frequency and ferocity of their attacks were notable out of the gate.
Amid the complaints about last year’s process, Democrats on Monday described themselves as taking the high road now. Meeting with Judge Gorsuch and participating in the hearing, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois said, represented “a courtesy which Senate Republicans denied to Judge Garland.” Amid the complaints about last year’s process, Democrats on Monday described themselves as taking the high road now. Meeting with Judge Gorsuch and participating in the hearing, Senator Durbin said, represented “a courtesy which Senate Republicans denied to Judge Garland.”
Gorsuch was introduced by the two senators from his home state, Colorado. The third introduction, though, came from a less typical source: Neal K. Katyal, a well-known liberal lawyer who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration.Gorsuch was introduced by the two senators from his home state, Colorado. The third introduction, though, came from a less typical source: Neal K. Katyal, a well-known liberal lawyer who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration.
“This is a first-rate intellect and a fair and decent man,” Mr. Katyal said of Judge Gorsuch.“This is a first-rate intellect and a fair and decent man,” Mr. Katyal said of Judge Gorsuch.
Mr. Katyal, who represents Hawaii in its challenge to President Trump’s travel ban and argues frequently before the Supreme Court, was an early supporter of Judge Gorsuch. More than 30 members of the Supreme Court bar signed a letter endorsing Judge Gorsuch last month, calling him “fair-minded, dedicated, smart and unfailingly polite.”Mr. Katyal, who represents Hawaii in its challenge to President Trump’s travel ban and argues frequently before the Supreme Court, was an early supporter of Judge Gorsuch. More than 30 members of the Supreme Court bar signed a letter endorsing Judge Gorsuch last month, calling him “fair-minded, dedicated, smart and unfailingly polite.”
Some liberal groups have said such endorsements should be taken with a grain of salt. “The elite legal class has closed ranks around Gorsuch and this is just the latest example,” Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, told CNN. Others have said that it cannot hurt for lawyers to stay on the good side of potential Supreme Court justices.
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, used his remarks to defend his party’s decision to hold open the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, arguing that allowing President Obama to fill the seat would have endangered Scalia’s legacy.Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, used his remarks to defend his party’s decision to hold open the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, arguing that allowing President Obama to fill the seat would have endangered Scalia’s legacy.
Mr. Cruz said the fact that the dispute over the vacancy figured into the presidential election result conferred a “super-legitimacy” on Judge Gorsuch because voters had their say — an unusual idea that would no doubt be strongly disputed by Democrats.Mr. Cruz said the fact that the dispute over the vacancy figured into the presidential election result conferred a “super-legitimacy” on Judge Gorsuch because voters had their say — an unusual idea that would no doubt be strongly disputed by Democrats.
Before the election, Mr. Cruz had been among those Republicans suggesting that they should hold the seat open indefinitely if Hillary Clinton won the election.Before the election, Mr. Cruz had been among those Republicans suggesting that they should hold the seat open indefinitely if Hillary Clinton won the election.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, issued a blistering attack on the United States Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., listing more than a dozen decisions in which the court had voted 5 to 4 to limit voting rights, increase the role of money in politics and favor business interests. In each, he said, the five Republican appointees were in the majority.Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, issued a blistering attack on the United States Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., listing more than a dozen decisions in which the court had voted 5 to 4 to limit voting rights, increase the role of money in politics and favor business interests. In each, he said, the five Republican appointees were in the majority.
It is true the Roberts court has been closely divided along partisan lines. Several studies have also showed that the Roberts court tends to favor business interests.It is true the Roberts court has been closely divided along partisan lines. Several studies have also showed that the Roberts court tends to favor business interests.
If Judge Gorsuch fills the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia’s death last year, he will return the court to a familiar dynamic, with a five-member majority of conservative justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, and a four-member bloc of liberal justices, all appointed by Democratic presidents.If Judge Gorsuch fills the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia’s death last year, he will return the court to a familiar dynamic, with a five-member majority of conservative justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, and a four-member bloc of liberal justices, all appointed by Democratic presidents.
Mr. Durbin also brought up the recent revelation that Judge Gorsuch, as a Justice Department official in December 2005, was involved in internal Bush administration deliberations over a signing statement that President George W. Bush issued when he signed a law tightening restrictions against torture.Mr. Durbin also brought up the recent revelation that Judge Gorsuch, as a Justice Department official in December 2005, was involved in internal Bush administration deliberations over a signing statement that President George W. Bush issued when he signed a law tightening restrictions against torture.
Signing statements are official written pronouncements by the president when a bill is signed into law.Signing statements are official written pronouncements by the president when a bill is signed into law.
The signing statement attracted controversy because Mr. Bush asserted that he had the constitutional power, as commander-in-chief, to disregard the new torture ban. Mr. Bush had threatened to veto the bill, but Congress had passed it so overwhelmingly that lawmakers had the votes to override a veto. So instead, Mr. Bush used a signing statement to undermine it.The signing statement attracted controversy because Mr. Bush asserted that he had the constitutional power, as commander-in-chief, to disregard the new torture ban. Mr. Bush had threatened to veto the bill, but Congress had passed it so overwhelmingly that lawmakers had the votes to override a veto. So instead, Mr. Bush used a signing statement to undermine it.
“Turns out you were deeply involved in this unprecedented signing statement,” Mr. Durbin said. “We need to know what you will do when you are called upon to stand up to this president.”“Turns out you were deeply involved in this unprecedented signing statement,” Mr. Durbin said. “We need to know what you will do when you are called upon to stand up to this president.”
Still, internal Justice Department emails made public late on Friday showed that Judge Gorsuch did not write the line in the final signing statement that essentially claimed that Congress cannot limit what interrogation techniques a president chooses to use in wartime. Instead, David S. Addington, the counsel to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, drafted that line.Still, internal Justice Department emails made public late on Friday showed that Judge Gorsuch did not write the line in the final signing statement that essentially claimed that Congress cannot limit what interrogation techniques a president chooses to use in wartime. Instead, David S. Addington, the counsel to then-Vice President Dick Cheney, drafted that line.
Instead, the documents show, Judge Gorsuch had been pushing for different language that would have essentially claimed that the new torture ban merely codified existing practices and would not require any change.Instead, the documents show, Judge Gorsuch had been pushing for different language that would have essentially claimed that the new torture ban merely codified existing practices and would not require any change.
Mr. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, opened the hearing by suggesting that Democrats’ concern about an independent judiciary under Mr. Trump sound familiar to critics of the Obama administration.
“Some of my colleagues seem to have rediscovered an appreciation for the need to confine each branch of government to its constitutional sphere,” Mr. Grassley said. “I don’t question the sincerity of those concerns. Some of us have been alarmed by executive overreach, and the threat it poses to the separation of powers.”
Mr. Grassley will also praise Judge Gorsuch as a nominee “whose grasp on the separation of powers, including judicial independence, enlivens his body of work.”
In her opening statement, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s top Democrat, turned immediately to the plight of Judge Garland, whose nomination by Mr. Obama languished for nearly 10 months, and never received a hearing.
“We’re here today under very unusual circumstances,” she said. “Merrick Garland was widely regarded as a mainstream moderate nominee,” she added.
Regardless, Ms. Feinstein said, the committee’s task was now “to determine whether Judge Gorsuch is a reasonable mainstream conservative, or is he not?”
She ticked off several areas of interest, including abortion and voting rights, and mentioned a few cases from Judge Gorsuch’s record. These included a case involving a truck driver who was fired after abandoning his cargo for his own safety in subzero temperatures; Judge Gorsuch argued in a dissent that the company was permitted to fire him.
Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, does not have to vote for Mr. Gorsuch just because he will be introducing him at the confirmation hearing. But his presence at the hearing underscores the difficult position Mr. Bennet is in.Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, does not have to vote for Mr. Gorsuch just because he will be introducing him at the confirmation hearing. But his presence at the hearing underscores the difficult position Mr. Bennet is in.
Because of Democrats’ anger over the treatment of Judge Garland’s nomination by Republicans, he is caught in a pincher between pressure to support his fellow Coloradan and his party loyalties.Because of Democrats’ anger over the treatment of Judge Garland’s nomination by Republicans, he is caught in a pincher between pressure to support his fellow Coloradan and his party loyalties.
Democratic senators are facing pressure to mount a filibuster that would force Republicans to change the chamber’s rules in order to confirm Judge Gorsuch. To overcome a filibuster without changing the rules, Republicans need to persuade at least eight Democrats to break ranks with their party — and interest groups on both sides are pushing Senator Bennet. A vote for the nominee could play well with more centrist voters back home, but draw the ire of progressives there and across the country. And Mr. Bennet is seen as someone who could have a future as a national Democratic figure.Democratic senators are facing pressure to mount a filibuster that would force Republicans to change the chamber’s rules in order to confirm Judge Gorsuch. To overcome a filibuster without changing the rules, Republicans need to persuade at least eight Democrats to break ranks with their party — and interest groups on both sides are pushing Senator Bennet. A vote for the nominee could play well with more centrist voters back home, but draw the ire of progressives there and across the country. And Mr. Bennet is seen as someone who could have a future as a national Democratic figure.
Adding to his awkward position, Judge Gorsuch’s career and rise were aided by his ties to Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, and Senator Bennet himself used to work for Mr. Anschutz. Against that backdrop, Senator Bennet has been studiously ambiguous about how he will vote on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination, saying he wants to see what the judge says in his hearing before he decides what he will do. He will be one of the most closely watched Democrats on the nomination.
In recent weeks, Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees have not always seemed entirely prepared for their congressional hearings. That’s unlikely to be the case with Judge Gorsuch.In recent weeks, Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees have not always seemed entirely prepared for their congressional hearings. That’s unlikely to be the case with Judge Gorsuch.
Appraised even by skeptics as gifted and poised, Judge Gorsuch has been in deep preparations for weeks, including meetings with 72 senators, by his team’s count. The centerpiece of Monday’s proceedings will be his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, his first meaningful public remarks since the evening of his nomination.Appraised even by skeptics as gifted and poised, Judge Gorsuch has been in deep preparations for weeks, including meetings with 72 senators, by his team’s count. The centerpiece of Monday’s proceedings will be his opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, his first meaningful public remarks since the evening of his nomination.
That initial speech, delivered from the White House beside Mr. Trump, may offer some clues to his strategy. It included soaring paeans to the judiciary — talk of the need for “impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage” — as well as choice bits of biography and humor.That initial speech, delivered from the White House beside Mr. Trump, may offer some clues to his strategy. It included soaring paeans to the judiciary — talk of the need for “impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage” — as well as choice bits of biography and humor.
He spoke of working for Justice Byron R. White, a fellow Coloradan who was also an all-American halfback at the University of Colorado and a Rhodes Scholar. Judge Gorsuch noted, to laughs, that Justice White was “the only justice to lead the N.F.L. in rushing.”
His opening remarks on Monday are expected to last about 10 minutes.
By nominating a plainly qualified judge, Mr. Trump has forced Democrats to reckon with the kind of obstructionism they long condemned from Republicans. While several members have already said they would vote against Judge Gorsuch, the prospect of an institution-rattling fight has concerned some more moderate Democrats, particularly those who face re-election in states that Mr. Trump won.By nominating a plainly qualified judge, Mr. Trump has forced Democrats to reckon with the kind of obstructionism they long condemned from Republicans. While several members have already said they would vote against Judge Gorsuch, the prospect of an institution-rattling fight has concerned some more moderate Democrats, particularly those who face re-election in states that Mr. Trump won.
If Judge Gorsuch cannot meet the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster, Republicans could change longstanding rules and elevate him on a simple majority vote.If Judge Gorsuch cannot meet the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster, Republicans could change longstanding rules and elevate him on a simple majority vote.
In the hearings, if recent history is a guide, some of the sharpest questioning might come from Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, whose approach at the cabinet hearings produced several memorable moments. (These included coaxing Jeff Sessions, now the attorney general, to say he had not had “communications with the Russians” during the presidential campaign, despite Mr. Sessions’s since-divulged contacts with the Russian ambassador.)In the hearings, if recent history is a guide, some of the sharpest questioning might come from Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, whose approach at the cabinet hearings produced several memorable moments. (These included coaxing Jeff Sessions, now the attorney general, to say he had not had “communications with the Russians” during the presidential campaign, despite Mr. Sessions’s since-divulged contacts with the Russian ambassador.)
So far, objections to Judge Gorsuch — which have gotten little traction to date — have generally come in two forms from Democrats: His record suggests a bias toward corporate interests, they argue, and …So far, objections to Judge Gorsuch — which have gotten little traction to date — have generally come in two forms from Democrats: His record suggests a bias toward corporate interests, they argue, and …
Opening a new line of attack, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said Mr. Gorsuch was “selected by interest groups.” It is true that the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, played a leading role in drawing up Mr. Trump’s lists of potential nominees and in narrowing the list to a single finalist.Opening a new line of attack, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said Mr. Gorsuch was “selected by interest groups.” It is true that the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, played a leading role in drawing up Mr. Trump’s lists of potential nominees and in narrowing the list to a single finalist.
In his Senate questionnaire, Judge Gorsuch was asked to describe who had first contacted him from the White House about the possibility that he would be elevated to the Supreme Court.In his Senate questionnaire, Judge Gorsuch was asked to describe who had first contacted him from the White House about the possibility that he would be elevated to the Supreme Court.
“I was contacted by Leonard Leo,” he said, referring to an exceptionally influential executive vice president of the Federalist Society.“I was contacted by Leonard Leo,” he said, referring to an exceptionally influential executive vice president of the Federalist Society.