Gorsuch Sails Through First Day Of Questioning

Day One of the questioning of Judge Neil Gorsuch went very well, and it suggests that his path to confirmation is basically clear of serious obstacles.

Neil Gorsuch

Judge Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, sat through more than ten hours of hearings yesterday during which he was questioned by every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and by and large had what can be characterized as a very good, albeit contentious at times, day:

Judge Neil Gorsuch prepared for a third day of confirmation hearings for a seat on the Supreme Court Wednesday after a grueling day answering questions during which he stressed his independence and defended the integrity of the federal judiciary as senators pressed him about his judicial philosophy and what one senator called “the elephant in the room” — President Trump.

From the first question from a friendly Republican to a grilling by a Democrat hours later, Gorsuch was called upon on the second day of what is expected to be four days of hearings to state his impartiality and reassure senators that he would not be swayed by political pressure if he wins confirmation, which appeared even more likely after his marathon session.

Gorsuch reiterated in public what he had told many senators in private — that he is offended by attacks like the ones leveled by President Trump against federal judges who have ruled in the past year in cases involving him.

“When anyone criticizes the honesty or the integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening. I find that demoralizing — because I know the truth,” Gorsuch told Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

“Anyone including the president of the United States?” Blumenthal asked, who had made the elephant-in-the-room comment.

“Anyone is anyone,” Gorsuch said.

Gorsuch declined, however, to comment specifically on Trump’s various criticisms about federal judges, including an Indiana-born judge of Mexican descent who handled a federal court challenge to an online university bearing Trump’s name, or the “so-called” judge who ruled against the president’s first attempt to ban travelers from Muslim-dominant countries from entering the United States.

“I’ve gone as far as I can go ethically,” Gorsuch told Blumenthal.

It was a dramatic moment in a day that for the most part lacked color. Gorsuch refused to be pinned down on most of the issues that Democrats raised: his allegiance to Roe v. Wade, his views on money in politics, the extent of the Second Amendment.

He portrayed what Democrats saw as controversial rulings in his 10 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver as authentic attempts to interpret the laws that Congress writes.

“If we got it wrong, I’m very sorry, but we did our level best,” he said about a decision criticized by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), but added: “It was affirmed by the Supreme Court.”

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) questioned Gorsuch’s ruling in what has become a celebrated case of a trucker who was fired after unhitching his trailer in subzero weather and driving away in search of warmth and safety. Gorsuch was the lone dissenter in saying a federal law did not protect the driver, but Franken said the judge could have ruled that a strict interpretation of the law would lead to an absurd result.

“I had a career in identifying absurdity, and I know it when I see it,” Franken said.

Republican senators did little more than set up Gorsuch, 49, to display an encyclopedic knowledge of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, and to allow him to stress his roots as an outdoorsy Westerner.

“What’s the largest trout you’ve ever caught?” asked Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

Gorsuch will be at the witness table again Wednesday as well as the fourth and final day of hearings scheduled for Thursday

Gorsuch seemed happy at the outset of the hearing to take what even he called the “softball” question offered by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) about whether he would have any trouble ruling against Trump, the man who nominated him.

“I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other than based on what the law and the facts of a particular case require,” Gorsuch told the panel. “And I’m heartened by the support I have received from people who recognize that there’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge — we just have judges in this country.

“My personal views … I leave those at home,” he added later.

The Columbia-Oxford-Harvard graduate employed a homespun tone — “gosh,” “golly” and “nope” punctuated his answers. Corny dad jokes fell flat, especially with the Democratic senators.

They pressed him on abortion, gun rights, privacy and the protracted 2000 presidential campaign recount. As other Supreme Court nominees have, Gorsuch explained that it would be improper to give his views on cases that might come before him or to grade decisions made in the past.

He had a tense encounter with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who sparred with him on issues of campaign finance and “dark money,” including a $10 million campaign by the group Judicial Crisis Network to advocate for Gorsuch’s confirmation.

Whitehouse said the group’s donors do not have to be disclosed, and he wondered what they saw in Gorsuch that would warrant such an expenditure.

“You’d have to ask them,” Gorsuch said.

“I can’t because I don’t know who they are,” Whitehouse shot back.

Democrats questioned him about his work at former president George W. Bush’s Justice Department and whether he’d rule against Trump’s travel ban.

Gorsuch declined to express his views on Trump’s move to ban travelers from several Muslim-majority countries because “that’s an issue that is currently being litigated actively.”

When Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) mentioned that a Republican lawmaker recently suggested that Gorsuch would uphold Trump’s ban if it came before the court, Gorsuch snapped: “Senator, he has no idea how I’d rule in that case.”

Other senators quizzed Gorsuch about several of Trump’s past statements. During the presidential campaign last year, Trump said that he would nominate people to the Supreme Court who would overrule Roe v. Wade and return decisions on abortion back to the states.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) asked Gorsuch whether Trump had asked him to do that during his interview before his nomination.

“Senator, I would have walked out the door,” Gorsuch replied.


Gorsuch also forcefully rejected claims by one of his former law school students that he had suggested that women take advantage of maternity leave policies by not telling the truth in job interviews about their plans to have families. Democrats had seized on the accusations when they surfaced Sunday and vowed to ask Gorsuch about them.

When Durbin asked about the topic, Gorsuch explained that he has taught ethics classes at the University of Colorado Law School for several years. Based on his years of teaching young law students, he said that the corporate world, particularly law firms, continue to treat women poorly and often ask inappropriate questions in job interviews that are used to weed out female applicants who plan to have children.

Republicans intend to move quickly on confirming Gorsuch. Those on the Judiciary Committee hope to refer him to the full Senate on April 3 so that he can be confirmed before Easter.

But Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Republicans on Tuesday that his party would attempt to slow down consideration of Gorsuch because Republicans last year blocked then-President Barack Obama’s attempts to fill the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, and because Trump’s presidential campaign is the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation.

From beginning to end, Gorsuch handled himself very well throughout the course of yesterday’s hearing notwithstanding its length and the fact that there were a paucity of breaks during the course of the day, with the only major ones coming at lunchtime and when Senators needed to take time to vote on several matters on the floor of the Senate. This led to several examples of the kind of joviality that one sees during long days like this on Capitol Hill, with even Democratic Senators who were tough in questioning the nominee seeming to be warmed to a nominee that was relatively unknown at the time that he was selected by the President shortly after Election Day. As expected, Democratic Senators were much tougher on Gorsuch in their questioning than Republicans, with many Senators focusing on trying to pin Gorsuch down on controversial topics ranging from the President’s Muslim travel plan and the Second Amendment to the Hobby Lobby case, in which Gorsuch had played a role as a member of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and, of course, abortion. As expected, Gorsuch followed the example of recent Supreme Court nominees in invoking what has come to be called the ‘Ginsburg Rule’ named after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and responding that it would be inappropriate and unethical both as a present-day Judge and potential future Supreme Court Justice to comment directly on the merits of cases and issues that he could be asked to rule upon in the future. This response, while no doubt frustrating for Senators, is an appropriate one under the canons of Judicial ethics, which require Judges to take care not to express personal opinions on issues that they could be called upon to rule in the future. On some level I suppose one could argue that this is a dodge by nominees to avoid answering substantive questions, it is one that has unfortunately become necessary given the extent to which Supreme Court nomination fights have become in the last thirty years or so. Additionally, given that this is basically the same response we’ve gotten from Republican and Democratic nominees, many of which have been confirmed overwhelmingly, over the past twenty years it can hardly be argued that Gorsuch is doing anything unprecedented in only commenting in generalities about issues that might come before him in the future. Finally, I would argue that this is exactly the type of response we should hope for from a judicial nominee. As Gorsuch put it at one point yesterday the one thing he always hoped for when he was a practicing attorney was that, win or lose, the Judge he was arguing a case before would be fair. A Judge who takes the bench having already expressed opinions on the issues in a particular case is arguably putting their own fairness into doubt, and that undermines confidence in the judicial system as a whole.

There were several moments where yesterday’s questioning did manage to get into some of the substantive issues that I touched on in a post last week, most especially when it comes to Gorsuch’s view on the role of precedent and the respect it deserves even at the Supreme Court level. Gorsuch’s responses in this area revealed a Judge who strikes me as having an appropriately respectful view of the role of precedent and a future Justice who would recognize the grave responsibility that overruling long-standing precedent places on the nine members of the nation’s highest Court. In response to questioning from both Republican and Democratic Senators, Gorsuch made clear that precedent that has withstood the test of time should not be overruled unless there was a very good reason. Obviously, much of this talk about precedent was intended to be a veiled way of getting at what has long been the ‘third rail’ of modern judicial confirmation hearings, the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which established the right of women to have abortions at various points in pregnancy, which has been further elaborated on in follow-up opinions in cases such as Webster v. Reproductive Health ServicesPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, and, most recently, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which a 5-3 Court struck down the most restrictive provisions in a Texas statute that purported to regulate the operation of abortion clinics that made it essentially impossible for all but a handful of clinics in the state to operate. As with other issues, Gorsuch declined to let himself be trapped into responding substantively on the issue of abortion, but his comments on precedent were obviously intended to at least leave the impression that a Justice Gorsuch would be inclined to directly overrule Roe or its progeny, something that President Trump promised of his nominees during the Presidential campaign.

Gorsuch faces another day of questioning today and although it’s not likely to last quite as long as yesterday is, it will likely be just as contentious, at least on the Democratic side of the aisle. By and large, none of the Democratic Senators were able to really land a hard punch on Gorsuch yesterday, so they’ll likely use their time today trying again to pin him down on controversial issues such as abortion or issues of LGBT rights. However, if Gorsuch continues to handle those questions with the same skill he did yesterday then it’s unlikely they’ll cause much damage to his chances of being confirmed, something which seems even more likely after yesterday than it was before the hearings began. Republicans seem to be on track in their plan to get the nomination successfully voted out of the Judiciary Committee fairly quickly, something they’ll be able to accomplish even if every Democrat on the committee votes against him. At that point, the only question will be how quickly a floor vote can be arranged under Senate rules. Much of that, of course, will depend upon how united Democrats are in opposition and how much they actually choose to fight this nomination. As I’ve noted before, this isn’t as easy a question as it might appear to be given that it’s unclear that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer can keep his caucus united enough to block Republicans from getting the 60 votes they need to block a final floor vote. As a result, the idea that Gorsuch could be confirmed before the Easter break is not at all out of the question. If that happens, Gorsuch would be able to take the bench in time to participate in the final weeks of oral argument at the Court during which the Court will hear oral argument in some thirteen cases beginning on April 17th.

FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook


  1. CSK says:

    Trump appears to have been unhappy over the fact that Gorsuch suggested that the president wasn’t above the law. In any case, he went on a rant last night about his right to impugn judges.

  2. gVOR08 says:

    Yup. Nothing to see here. Standard issue Republican pro-establishment jurist. And well rehearsed. But should the Senate confirm a nominee in what may well be the last year of Trump’s Presidency?

    Off topic, but is there like an international vast right wing conspiracy? How many GOP/Russia stories are out there right now? Didn’t pushing democracy used to be bipartisan?

  3. Hal_10000 says:


    The day that Gorsuch rules against Trump on an issue will produce one of the all-time Twitter rants.

    It’s kind of astonishing that Trump picked this guy. He’ll pick guys who are crazy (Bannon), corrupt (Manafort) or crazy and corrupt (Flynn). And then he’ll run out and pick someone so sensible you have to wonder if he was just cut out of the loop by Pence or something.

  4. Moosebreath says:

    That trucking case bothers me a lot. It sounds like Gorsuch believes that if a person’s choices are to follow the law and die or to break the law to save your own life with no physical harm to any other person, he expects people to choose to die.

    Ladies and gentlemen, your pro-life party.

  5. Modulo Myself says:


    My experience with country-club GOP types is that they believe a lack of empathy equals rigor and rectitude. It’s a prescriptive way of thinking against the miserable chaos that lurks in the hearts and minds of actual people. The more autistic the better…

  6. CSK says:


    I’ve mentioned before that I don’t believe Trump knew Gorsuch from Gore-Tex. I don’t believe that Trump has the vaguest idea who the vast majority of his “picks” for anything are. I think Ivanka and Jared have been responsible for some of his “choices.” Bannon for others. Possibly Conway for some. Maybe Pence for a few.

    That’s why this is such a bizarre parade of misfits and, in several cases, outright loons and crooks. Trump “chooses” the name of a person that was whispered in his ear by the last minion who has influence over him.

    And yes, I anticipate that Gorsuch, if confirmed, will cross swords with Trump, and it will be entertaining. Not pretty, but entertaining.

  7. grumpy realist says:

    Most of this is kabuki theatre IMHO. Anyone who says he knows how a Supreme Court nominee will judge after he gets on SCOTUS has got rocks in his head. They become surprisingly independent.

  8. CSK says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Sure, but it’s Trump we’re talking about here, and his reaction to an independent-minded judge. He expects no less than 100% devotion from all of his lackeys–and believe me, a justice of the United States Supreme Court is, to Trump, just another lackey.

  9. Franklin says:

    @Moosebreath: There was a good write-up on that case over at Slate. Gorsuch f**ked that one up big time.

  10. teve tory says:

    Off topic, but is there like an international vast right wing conspiracy? How many GOP/Russia stories are out there right now? Didn’t pushing democracy used to be bipartisan?

    The GOP, at the top, only cares about one thing–making the wealthy happy. And that ain’t us.

  11. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:
  12. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    The Democrats should filibuster this guy until the Russia investigation is settled.
    Trump cannot be considered legitimate as long as it is underway.

  13. al-Alameda says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Most of this is kabuki theatre IMHO. Anyone who says he knows how a Supreme Court nominee will judge after he gets on SCOTUS has got rocks in his head. They become surprisingly independent.

    I generally agree on this.

    Also, I happen to believe that Gorsuch is probably the best nominee that liberal could expect from the current administration. I’m not saying that it will turn out well for liberals over the long run, but …

    I also agree with the kabuki going on now – liberals need to go on the record with respect to the “stolen” Merrick nomination. They need to let Democratic voters, as well as Republicans, know that there is an opposition party in Washington.

  14. grumpy realist says:

    If you go into SCOTUS decisions, quite often you see an opinion where one or more of the judges takes a “narrow interpretation” of something, not so much because they don’t think that there’s a problem, but because they want to shove the responsibility for fixing it back on Congress.

    SCOTUS usually doesn’t LIKE legislating from the bench and would much prefer Congress do the heavy lifting, especially if it’s a rat’s nest of a problem. (They also don’t like creating bright-line rules in patent law, either, which has infuriated everyone else.)

  15. george says:

    @grumpy realist:

    That’s a good point.

    Its interesting that one reason Gorsuch, like every recent SCOTUS nominee, refrains from commenting is that it protects them from both the opposition and the party controlling the senate. Given the almost certainty that the GOP would nuke a filibuster, you’d think it’d be in Gorsuch’s benefit to come down strongly in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade and other conservative desires – to the extent that some conservatives are grumbling that he’s not nearly pure enough and is likely to be another Kennedy; instead he’s being very careful.

    As you point out, by the time someone gets to the point where they’re seriously considered for this kind of thing they’re pretty much their own person, and tend to vote as they see best – party discipline doesn’t really apply too well. I half expect some of the GOP to vote against him hoping to get a more “pure” conservative.

  16. CSK says:

    OT, but this tells you everything you need to know about Trump:

    He’s taken legal action against a 17-year-old California girl–yes, a teenager–for creating a website in which the user clicks on an image of a cat’s paw, which then punches Trump in the face.

    Yes. The big man is so mortally offended that he’s threatening a kid with a lawsuit.


    So much for the First Amendment.

    This story really, really deserves to blasted all over the Internet.

  17. Tyrell says:

    I look for many Democrats to wind up voting for this judge. He received Democrat support in his past endeavors. He is one of the most qualified judges in terms of education. If Obama had nominated this person, they would be falling over each other to support him.
    What is needed are judges who will return the Supreme Court to the Constitution instead of trying to rewrite it.

  18. bill says:

    it’s like batting practice, the dude can’t be flustered. i always like how dems need to drag roe v wade into everything, like trump is against it or something!?

  19. grumpy realist says:

    @bill: Trump has stated that he’s “pro-life”, y’know. So it would be logical to conclude that a reversal of Roe vs. Wade is what he wants to see.

    (In fact, Trump will promise anything to anyone right in front of him to get approval/votes, then totally drop them after he’s gotten what he wants. I suspect those congresscritters who are supporting Trump’s “health care plan” in exchange for stuff that Trump has promised are going to discover this the hard way. Trump NEVER keeps his word when he thinks he can get away with not doing so.)

  20. Just 'nutha ig'nint cracker says:

    @CSK: Snopes has apparently debunked the “cease and desist order” part of the story, and the site isn’t entertaining at all. The graphics are lame, too.