It was a painful executive meeting at the Senate Judiciary Committee today where Judge Neil Gorsuch was voted favorably out of committee 11-9 on a straight partisan vote. Democrats struggled to justify voting against such a well-qualified nominee, and they failed miserably.
Penny Nance, CEP & President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:
In a time of extreme political dysfunction and gridlock, the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch should be a point of unity. Judge Gorsuch has garnered widespread, bipartisan support for his confirmation due to his character, sharp intellect, jurisprudence, and impartiality. He is the embodiment of an ideal justice – one who is faithful to adhere to the text of the law when making decisions, regardless of his personal or political views.
Judge Gorsuch is now one step closer to making 1 First Street his new permanent office address.
The procedure in the Senate is very simple, despite what you hear from the biased media. Democrats have already confirmed they will try to filibuster Judge Gorsuch, which only means that Sen. McConnell will have to do what Sen. Reid did back in 2013. He will move to use the “nuclear” or “constitutional” option that will simply ensure a nominee can be confirmed by a simple majority, bypassing the 60 votes that were needed to end the debate on a topic before Sen. Reid changed the rules back then.
After that procedural vote to do away with the 60 vote threshold is passed, the Senate will finally vote on the substantive nomination where Judge Gorsuch already enjoys bipartisan support.
Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) have already committed to do the honorable thing and vote for Judge Gorsuch. They should be commended, along with all Republican senators who have shown strong support for the nominee all along.
Once again, Judge Neil Gorsuch showed why he is such a stellar choice for the Supreme Court. He was graceful, poised and patient with all members and had prepared a thoughtful opening statement that captivated the audience.
Here are some excerpts:
My Mom was one of the first women graduates of the University of Colorado law school. As the first female assistant district attorney in Denver, she helped start a program to pursue deadbeat dads. And her idea of day care sometimes meant I got to spend the day wandering the halls or tagging behind police officers. She taught me that headlines are fleeting – courage lasts.
My Dad taught me that success in life has little to do with success. Kindness, he showed me, is the great virtue. He showed me too that there are few places closer to God than walking in the wilderness or wading a trout stream. Even if it is an awfully long drive home with the family dog after he encounters a skunk. …
When I put on the robe, I am also reminded that under our Constitution, it is for this body, the people’s representatives, to make new laws. For the executive to ensure those laws are faithfully enforced. And for neutral and independent judges to apply the law in the people’s disputes. If judges were just secret legislators, declaring not what the law is but what they would like it to be, the very idea of a government by the people and for the people would be at risk. And those who came to court would live in fear, never sure exactly what governs them except the judge’s will. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “Liberty can have nothing to fear from” judges who apply the law, but liberty “ha[s] every thing to fear” if judges try to legislate, too. …
As a student many years ago, I found myself walking through the Old Granary burial ground in Boston where Paul Revere, John Hancock, and many of our founders are buried. I came across the tombstone of a lawyer and judge who today is largely forgotten — as we are all destined to be soon enough. His name was Increase Sumner. Written on his tombstone over 200 years ago was this description —
As a lawyer, he was faithful and able;
as a judge, patient, impartial, and decisive;
in private life, he was affectionate and mild;
in public life, he was dignified and firm.
Party feuds were allayed by the correctness of his conduct;
calumny was silenced by the weight of his virtues,
and rancor softened by the amenity of his manners.
These words stick with me. I keep them on my desk. They serve for me as a daily reminder of the law’s integrity, that a useful life can be led in its service, of the hard work it takes, and an encouragement to good habits when I fail and falter. At the end of it all, I could hope for nothing more than to be described as he was. If confirmed, I pledge that I will do everything in my power to be that man.
2)Democrats want to debate Donald Trump’s record, not Gorsuch’s
It started with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) setting the stage, “We are here today under very unusual circumstances.” Because “President Trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the mold of Justice Scalia.” The horror!
Someone should have told her speech writer that that was one of the main reasons why President Trump won the election! But I digress.
It continued with almost every other Democratic senator. Here is Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota):
You come before us this afternoon not only as a nominee sitting at a table with your friends and family behind you but in the context of the era in which we live. From the highest level of government, we have heard criticism of journalists. Seventeen intelligent agencies have confirmed that Russia attempted to influence our most recent election. At the same time, voting rights …
She continued to complain about President Trump for a while, until she finally admitted, “You are not the cause of these challenges, Judge.” Then why are you talking about that? Have a hearing on President Trump, if you like. But this will be a recurring theme.
A theme that will ultimately fail, but they’ll push it nonetheless.
3)Sen. Whitehouse should be ashamed of himself
Sure, no one but legal geeks like me pays close attention to Senate Judiciary Committee Members’ statements, but Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D- Rhode Island) opening statement should be highlighted and decried (by senators from both parties) as the worst form of partisan chicanery.
He essentially accused conservative justices (and conservative judges in general) of being bought by corporations. You can watch his shameful statement here:
“There is no coincidence here,” he said, “Business has groups trolling for cases to get them before the friendly court. … It’s kind of a machine. They set up and fund front groups, the front groups appear before the court, they tell the court what the special interest wants and the court follows the brief and the decision favors the special interest and they pour more money to the front groups.”
In other words, conservative justices are beholden to big businesses because they give money for them to get them elected and selected. He even insinuated that was the case with Judge Gorsuch. Those same groups, he told Gorsuch looking straight at him, “are spending millions of dollars in a dark money campaign to push your confirmation.”
Gorsuch is a humble, respectful man. And frankly, almost all senators-Republican and Democrats- were at least dignified in their statements, even as they expressed some apprehension to Gorsuch’s nomination. But not Sen. Whitehouse.
He dishonored the Senate and insulted an honorable man to score cheap political points. He should be ashamed of what he did, and he should apologize to his Senate colleagues, the nominee, and the American people.
He, above all, should apologize to Chief Justice Roberts for whom he reserved most contempt.
Sen. Whitehouse’s conspiracy theories are typical of the most fringe groups of the radical left. But for him to bring them into a confirmation hearing as important as this, is simply reprehensible.
We’ve all seen how furious the radical left is about losing the election. I can understand their frustrations. What I can’t understand is their mind-numbing push to denigrate anyone and anything even remotely associated with President Donald Trump, ignoring the particular merits of every situation.
President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is the perfect example. By all accounts, this is a judge of impeccable character with the highest of qualifications. And he is being opposed by some in the Democratic leadership because of Trump.
On March 5, at the University of Southern Maine, 600 people showed up for a listening session held by Sen. Angus King to voice their opinions on the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Sixty affirmative votes are needed to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch in the Senate, and Sen. King could be the key vote. Among the crowd were several CWA members joined with Maine’s CWA state director, Penny Morrell, and CWA National Communications Coordinator Janae Stracke.
Sen. King shared that he hadn’t decided which way he was going to vote, but stated he met privately with Gorsuch last week to better understand his judicial philosophy and temperament. The first session lasted two hours, and Sen. King determined that was not enough and added two more hours to the session in order to hear as many Mainers as possible.
The opposition had surely mobilized, but CWA of Maine was your voice to cut through the liberal talking points.
CWA’s own Penny Morrel said, “Antonin Scalia was a strict constitutionalist. He didn’t make laws. … Judge Gorsuch will do the same.” Others joined with her to explain that Gorsuch will be bipartisan and see both sides. Members held signs and wore stickers that represented CWA’s support for Gorsuch.
CWA Communications Coordinator Janae Stracke was also present to represent CWA members and spoke on their behalf.
Special thanks to the members of CWA of Maine for coming out and speaking up at the listening session! We’re confident that Sen. King heard our voices, and we will pray that he ensures Mainers get the U.S. Supreme Court Justice they deserve and America needs.
— Samantha Stohlman is part of Concerned Women for America’s 2017 Ronald Reagan Memorial Internship class.
“I was an acting solicitor general for President Barack Obama; Judge Gorsuch has strong conservative bona fides and was appointed to the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush. But I have seen him up close and in action, both in court and on the Federal Appellate Rules Committee (where both of us serve); he brings a sense of fairness and decency to the job, and a temperament that suits the nation’s highest court.”
That is the simple truth. But now Democratic senators that are up for re-election, including Nelson, are being pressured by the radical left to forget about the facts and oppose Gorsuch out of spite for the election. I hope they do not give in to the political assault of this honorable nominee.
Floridians don’t care much about Washington politics and “payback.” We care about what is happening in our communities and our hurting families.
This is a good judge by every account who will follow the law and respect our senators’ role in enacting laws. He should be confirmed swiftly so our senators can get back to the task of fixing the rising cost of our health care, getting our economy back on track, and protecting our state and nation from terrorism.
President Donald Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is the perfect example of a simple, nonpartisan issue that has become a battle simply because of politics. Playing politics on issues such as this is what disgusts Americans when it comes to Washington.
By all accounts, Gorsuch is a man of impeccable character and the highest of qualifications. Yet, he is being opposed strongly by the radical left because of, well, Trump. Ridiculous.
It gets tiring writing about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s inappropriate politicking. Reading about it, one wishes she would have finally taken the DNC Chair position and been done with it. But alas, we are still stuck with her at the Supreme Court.
Still, she’s not happy about President Trump, and she wants the world to know. In an interview with the BBC, Ginsburg said, “We’re not experiencing the best of times.” You see, her worst nightmare has come true. Remember, she told the New York Times, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” Well, she doesn’t have to imagine anymore, and she is reeling.
But she is hopeful, she told the BBC: “A great man once said that the true symbol of the United States is not the bald eagle; it is the pendulum, and when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it will go back.” One day, President Trump will be out of office, and another Democrat will be in the White House, and she will be happy again.
This is one of our nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices speaking this way to an international audience. Unbelievable.
She goes on to say how hopeful she felt with the Women’s March. And, of course, the free press. Anything that can stand in the way of Trump. We are left assured that she will, of course, fully stand against him at the Supreme Court, so we are covered.
Ginsburg also offered public praise for Judge Neil Gorsuch, even though he is President Donald Trump’s choice. “I’ve worked with him, and I think he’s very easy to get along with,” the Associated Press quotes her saying at an appearance at George Washington University, “He writes very well.”
For someone so set against President Trump to praise Judge Gorsuch is something worth noting. Her comments would otherwise be innocuous, but given the context, no such deference can be given.
Any hope Ginsburg would show proper respect for her role as a Supreme Court Justice is long gone. So, this is simply her latest attempt at meddling with the political processes, as she did in the case of Merrick Garland. And it is, regrettably, yet another example for all other judges of how not to behave.
Time waits for no one. One year ago today, the great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. His absence in the Court has been noticeable, and yet, his legacy continues to influence our judicial system in very significant ways.
It is a great testimony to his legacy that, as we look for his replacement at the Supreme Court, the highest compliment we can pay is to say we want someone that is “Scalia-like.”
This was the promise President Donald Trump made during the campaign trail that got him so much support from the conservative base.
Now he has followed through in that promise by nominating Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Gorsuch espouses the same type of commitment to the text of the Constitution and the limited role of a judge. They both approach the judicial role with a certain humility that gives deference to the other branches of government and allows for “We the People” to struggle through the difficult issues and policies we want to adopt.
This is good for our judiciary and vital for a healthy constitutional republic as ours.
Judge Gorsuch has shown great respect for Justice Scalia throughout his career. He spoke very movingly at his announcement at the White House, saying, “Justice Scalia was a lion of the law. Agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the bench shared his wisdom and his humor. And like them, I miss him.”
It was a powerful moment, considering also that the widow of Justice Scalia was present for the solemn occasion.
It would be worth your time to watch his full speech at Cave Western Reserve University School of Law, titled “Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators: Some Reflections on the Legacy of Justice Scalia.”
Judge Gorsuch’s embrace of Justice Scalia is a great testimony to his judicial acumen, and we can only hope that it helps to promulgate the idea. A Supreme Court, indeed a judicial branch, full of Scalia-like judges might just be the thing that can help us return to the founding principles that established our nation as the freest in history.
Look, I know the pro-life issue is an emotional one. The sanctity of human life and the intrinsic value of every human being as created in the image of God demand no less of us, so I would not expect anything less. But in assessing a judge’s record, we must be conscious of what we are looking for in making that assessment.
We do not need a judge who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade. That hideous case has been the focus of pro-lifers’ ire ever since it was rendered, because of the enormous impact it has had (almost 60 million lives lost now), but the fact is that it is just one part of the pro-life work.
The anti-slavery movement was a pro-life movement. Efforts against embryonic stem cell experimentation are part of the pro-life cause. In recent years, a troublesome pro-euthanasia movement has awakened, and that is something we will continue to fight vigorously.
Certainly, the fight for the value of every human life will continue and perhaps intensify when Roe is finally overturned.
So what we must look for in a judge is someone committed to the law and the Constitution as written — committed to our country’s founding principle that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Those principles will guard life in all areas. Read More