30,000 FOOT VIEW OF GORSUCH HEARING DAY THREE | Unanimous Ruling On Endrews Case | Gorsuch’s Cold, Cold Heart
March 22, 2017
THREE DAYS IN
|It’s day three of JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH’S hearing, and we’re giving you the 30,000 foot view of the hearing, as it happens, so you won’t miss a thing. Watch the rest of Day 3 LIVE.
IT'S GORSUCH, NOT GARLAND
|Richard Wolf with USA Today outlines seven key takeaways from the hearing as of yesterday, noting that no matter how hard they tried, Democrats couldn’t get JUDGE GORSUCH to give any hints as to his views on specific issues or cases. Referring to him as “the teflon nominee,” Wolf also points out that MERRICK GARLAND was on the minds of many in that room yesterday. At one point, Gorsuch was forced to acknowledge that he’s a runner-up of sorts and said about Garland, “I think he’s an outstanding judge.”
BEHIND THE SCENES
|Carl Hulse with The New York Times reports that although there seems to be nothing but smiles from the SCOTUS nominee during days one and two of his hearing, there’s some serious drama brewing behind closed doors. Different stories and conflicting positions from SENATORS MITCH MCCONNELL and CHUCK SCHUMER seem “to be laying the groundwork for a move to eliminate the 60-vote threshold on Supreme Court nominees if Democrats hold firm.”
SHOW ME THE MONEY
|In a Jerry Maguire-inspired exchange yesterday, SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE questioned the Supreme Court nominee on his views of “dark money.” Whitehouse asked Gorsuch to address the millions of dollars from unidentified donors that have come to a political organization advocating for his confirmation, and it was one of the few moments yesterday in which Gorsuch looked as if he might lose his cool. This afternoon, Senator Whitehouse returned to this line of questioning and asked Gorsuch to respond to the same issue of dark money. Gorsuch said he is “distressed” that the senator sees conservative justices as instruments of the Republican Party, and that if the senator is so upset about the issue, he should “pass a bill.”
DAS COLD
|The now infamous case of “The Frozen Trucker” was the one subject yesterday that seemed to really get to JUDGE GORSUCH, and it was SENATOR AL FRANKEN who used the case to finally pin him down. “It is absurd to say this company 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’s absurd. Now I had a career in identifying absurdity. And I know it when I see it. And it makes me—you know, it makes me question your judgement.” In that moment, Franken pointed out just how cold Judge Gorsuch can be.
CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM
|Both yesterday and today, cameras in the courtroom were the subject of discussion in JUDGE GORSUCH’S hearing. When SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR asked the nominee yesterday of his position on the topic, Gorsuch replied that he would approach the subject with “an open mind.”
THEN
|Yesterday, JUDGE GORSUCH signaled that he could adhere to legal precedence. In a heated exchange with California SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Gorsuch responded to her concern that he wasn’t providing any specific answers about his jurisprudence with general comments about how he will adhere faithfully to precedent, the law and independence. Gorsuch: “I care about the law, I care deeply about the law and an independent judiciary and following the rules of the law. And that’s the commitment I can make to you, I can’t promise you more and I can’t guarantee you any less.”
AND NOW
|Today, SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN kicked off Day 3 of the hearing with another emotional exchange with the nominee, honing in on her concern that his conservatism would set back women’s rights. Her concern was abortion rights, and she noted that although previous SCOTUS nominees promised to keep an open mind on the subject, “every Republican judge is a no vote.”
DRY YOUR EYES MATE
|The exchange between FEINSTEIN and GORSUCH today also turned into a discussion about his opposition to physician-assisted suicide, a subject that has been deeply important to the nominee. They both discussed the losses of their respective fathers, and Gorsuch told the senator, “My heart goes out to you.” It was in that moment that he seemed to well up with emotion when he started talking about the death of his own father. Gorsuch asserted that his personal views would have no role in his duties as a judge.
THE SHOW MUST GO ON
|Putting aside the madness happening across the street, today was a big day at the Supreme Court. The current eight-justice court ruled in favor of a special education student in the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The high court ruled unanimously that school districts must provide students with disabilities the chance to make meaningful, “appropriately ambitious” progress, holding that the standard of education provided to special education students must be more than the bare minimum. NPR’S Anya Kamenetz reports, “Significantly, JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH, currently in confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat, has repeatedly ruled the other way on similar cases.”
C-U-T-E DON'T YOU WISH YOU LOOKED LIKE ME
|SCOTUS also ruled today to uphold an apparel company’s copyrights on its cheerleading outfits in a ruling that bolsters the legal protections for pictures and graphic designs.
OTHER NEWS
How Gorsuch's judicial experience compares with his Supreme Court predecessors
The Washington PostOTHER NEWS
How Gorsuch’s judicial experience compares with his Supreme Court predecessors
The Washington Post
Darla Cameron
“Seven of the eight current Supreme Court justices joined the highest court after holding a seat on an appeals court. To show how nominee Neil Gorsuch’s experience measures up, The Washington Post compared how often the judges published precedent-setting opinions on topics at the appeals level with how frequently cases on the same topics are heard at the highest court.”
What Does Judge Gorsuch Believe?
The Atlantic“Attempts by the Democratic senators on Tuesday to reveal new dimensions of Gorsuch’s ideological beliefs were largely unsuccessful…Giving any forecasts or hints, he repeatedly told the committee’s members, would rob future litigants of any impartial arbiter and violate his oath of judicial ethics.”