Type to search

How Neil Gorsuch Snowed One Side Of The Senate Aisle

Law National News Politics Top News White House

How Neil Gorsuch Snowed One Side Of The Senate Aisle

Share
Gorsuch, Gun Lobby

WASHINGTON — Judge Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court nominee speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, had all the answers — or so it seemed — at the theater.

Yet President Trump’s man for the Supreme Court deftly dodged Democratic efforts to engage on women’s constitutional privacy rights, dark money in politics, surveillance, corporations and torture. Substance was not his strong suit.

Not so long ago, as a Bush White House Justice official, Gorsuch wrote a presidential signing statement on detainee treatment that raised eyebrows. “I was a lawyer for a client,” Gorsuch shrugged it off.

As a sitting federal judge, his refrain was something like this: Judges don’t give a “whit” about politics, so I can’t prejudge this or that. We just apply the law. We’re all human beings, but a judge has to put that aside.

Here’s what the Gorsuch brought to his role. A perfect head of silver hair, suggesting wisdom at age 49, just like Alexander Hamilton. His Harvard and Oxford credentials worn lightly with easy manners. He knew his lines by heart under the lights and cameras in the Hart building hearing room.

“I’d like to convey to you, from the bottom of my heart … that I’m a fair judge. …I can promise you absolutely nothing less,” Gorsuch said. “Anyone, any law is going to get a fair and square deal with me.”

You could hear the corn popping in Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley’s plain-spoken voice as he presided over his party’s love fest

But wait, there’s more.

Back home in “the West,” the Colorado native said, “I love my life,” lest there be doubt. He’d be doing us a favor to leave the great outdoors.

Lord knows the embattled, unpopular President Trump desperately needs his first win in office. The talk in the halls is that Gorsuch may hand him a victory in early April, when the full Senate votes on his confirmation. As of now, Gorsuch needs 60 votes from a closely divided Senate: 52-48.

Whether he can pick up eight votes among the vexed, scrappy Democratic minority, though, is not a done deal. Senators Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., landed a few punches as the leading antagonists.

Durbin brought up one of Gorsuch’s dissents in the case of a trucker stuck with frozen brakes in subzero weather in Chicago. It was “so cold, but not as cold as your dissent, Judge Gorsuch,” Durbin declared.

Gorsuch looked pained.

Whitehouse noted that millions of “dark” dollars had been raised to buttress Gorsuch’s nomination, without names attached. “They obviously think you will be worth their money,” Whitehouse said bluntly.

Gorsuch’s rulings raised concern that he will be sympathetic to the Chief Justice John Roberts “corporate court,” senators said.

Among all the players, a ghost hovered in the room: Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s final pick for the high court last March. Republicans blocked the highly respected Garland, the first Supreme Court nominee who never had a hearing, from his day in the Judiciary Committee’s court.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein pointedly raised “the very unusual circumstance.” Everyone at the hearing knew a sore was seething under the surface.

Gorsuch rated Garland as an “outstanding judge.” He even called him to tell him he’d been nominated. That’s the kind of winner he is.

The four-day drama was watched closely because Gorsuch will effectively step into the shoes of ferocious conservative Antonin Scalia, who died last winter.

Gorsuch likes to say he was skiing when he heard of Scalia’s death. The older man, a mentor, and he were fly-fishing buddies.

And the story goes that he wept as he skied down the mountain slope. “I am not embarrassed to admit that I couldn’t see the rest of the way down the mountain for the tears,” he said.

Well. I have a better takeaway. Gorsuch also wept because a Democratic president would presumably fill the seat meant for him.

Has Washington made me cynical?

Here’s where I’m almost sure he lied under oath: “I never dreamt I’d be sitting here, I can tell you that.”

So spoke Gorsuch, with a straight face.

Tags:

9 Comments

  1. Leonardo Dunn March 27, 2017

    I was paid 104000 dollars previous 12 month period by doing an internet based work while I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r quite a few hours during the day. I tried job opportunity I stumbled upon on the internet and I am thrilled that I was in the position to earn such decent cash. It is genuinely newbie-friendly and therefore I’m so blessed that I found out about it. Look into what I do… http://nubr.co/tcFsDm

    Reply
  2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 27, 2017

    So far, Gorsuch has proven one thing, and one thing alone of importance: That he is thoroughly immersed in a sea of partisan ideology called “The Sea of of Conservatism”.
    And with that is a degree of a keen yet utterly misdirected intellect that renders Gorsuch a mechanical person, he exudes a coldness in his demeanor, as well as an expressionless manner of response—one honed and practiced over years to a point where he appears impervious to critical accounting of his approach to life.
    Having a robotic figure on the bench indoctrinated with such tendencies makes him a dangerous and unpredictable element in decision-making on any level.

    Reply
    1. Graceccreel March 28, 2017

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj391d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj391d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash391TopMarketGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj391d:….,…….

  3. drdroad March 27, 2017

    In my opinion this guy gets a vote right after Judge Garland gets his!

    Reply
  4. Thoughtopsy March 27, 2017

    They can nominate Garland or nobody.

    Stealing a seat is not to be allowed.

    Reply
    1. Sophia March 27, 2017

      <- I've earned $104,000 previous year by doing an online job and I was able to do it by w­o­r­k­i­n­g part time f­­o­­r several h /day. I was following work model I found online and I am thrilled that i earned such great money. It's really newbie friendly a­­n­­d I'm so blessed that i discovered it. Here’s what I did………… ➤➤➤➤https://5ly.me/15

  5. Lynda Groom March 27, 2017

    He may indeed be a brilliant jurist, but he has some weasel like tendencies.

    Reply
  6. dpaano March 30, 2017

    That “good ol’ boy” attitude doesn’t work with me, and I hope it doesn’t work with the Democrats! He failed to answer ANY questions with any real information, but he hemmed and hawed and “golly gee’d” until I thought I’d barf!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.