Senator GRASSLEYR  	Chairman GRASSLEY. Thank you. We thank you, Judge. We are  delighted to have your family here as well for this very important  moment in your life.  Before I give my opening statement, I want to set out a couple  of ground rules. I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing  without obstruction. If people stand up and block the view of those  behind them or speak out of turn, it is not fair or it is not very  considerate to others. So officers will immediately, under our rules,  remove those individuals.  Now I would like to take a minute to explain about how we are  going to proceed. We will have 10-minute rounds of opening statements.  The Ranking Member and I may go a minute or two over  the 10 minutes, but I am going to ask everyone else to limit your  remarks to 10 minutes. And I hope everybody on both sides of the  aisle will respect that.  We will then turn to our introducers, who will be formally presenting  the judge. Then we will administer the oath to the judge,  and we will close today’s portion of the hearing with the judge’s  testimony.  Tomorrow morning, we will begin at 9:30 a.m. for the opening  round of questions. Each Senator will have 30 minutes for the  opening round. After the first round, the Senators will have 20  minutes for a second round.  And finally, as I have discussed with the Ranking Member, later  today we will notice a mark-up to consider the judge’s nomination  for next Monday the 27th. In anticipation of his nomination will be  held over for 1 week, as any Senator has that right under our rules  to do so, we will then vote on his nomination the following Monday,  April 3.  With that, I would turn to my opening statement and then to  Senator Feinstein for her opening statement.  One of Justice Scalia’s best opinions begins with this declaration.  It is ‘‘the proudest boast of our democracy that we have a government  of laws and not of men.’’  The phrase comes from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.  This infant State constitution linked the Government of laws, and  not of men, directly to the separation of powers.  Justice Scalia said the Founders ‘‘viewed the principle of separation  of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just government  because without a secure structure of separated powers, our  Bill of Rights would be worthless.’’  In plain words, it was the desire to preserve and protect liberty  and self-government that guided the Framers as they designed our  Constitution. And the founding charter they designed is a remarkable  document, as we know.  The Bill of Rights, of course, preserves liberty by restricting what  the Government may do. But the single most important feature of  our Constitution is not any particular enumerated right or even the  entire Bill of Rights taken together. The most important feature of  our Constitution is the design of the document itself.  That design divides the limited power of government vertically  between State and Federal Governments, and it distributes power  horizontally between co-equal branches.  It is this very delicate balance of power, entrusted to competing  factions, that ensures that liberty for the people will endure. It is  the Constitution’s design that protects against the mischief that results  from the concentration of political power.  The Founders understood this fundamental principle, and Justice  Scalia understood it better than anyone. He was fond of telling law  students, ‘‘Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president  for life, has a bill of rights. But the real key to the distinctiveness  of America is the structure of our Government.’’  Our constitutional republic is also designed around the notion  that the people, acting through their representatives, retain ultimate  authority to govern. It was the people, through their representatives,  who ratified the Constitution that establishes our system  of government.  Under that system, except where the Constitution has already  answered the question, decisions are made by elected representatives.  Elected, yes, but also accountable to the voters.  But to endure, our system of self-government requires judges to  apply the text of our laws as the people’s representatives enacted  them. So our judges, by design, play a crucial, but limited role.  They decide cases or controversies, but in resolving those cases,  they may look only to the laws the people wrote.  Judges are not free to rewrite statutes to get results they believe  are more just. Judges are not free to reorder regulations to make  them more fair. For sure, judges are not free to update the Constitution.  That is not their job. That power is retained by the people,  acting through their elected representatives.  And when our judges do not respect this limited power, when  they substitute their own policy preferences for those in the legislative  branch, they take from the American people the right to govern  themselves. As that happens, inch by inch and step by step,  representative government is undermined, the carefully constructed  balance of power is upset, and individual liberty is lost.  These are not stale concepts. If anything, the enormous size, the  enormous power, and the enormous complexity of the modern state  renders them more relevant than ever before.  In recent months, I have heard that now more than ever we need  a Justice who is independent and who respects the separation of  powers. Some of my colleagues seem to have rediscovered an appreciation  for the need to confine each branch of government to its  constitutional sphere.  I do not 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. Whether it was the executive branch unilaterally  rewriting Federal law, as the Obama administration did dozens  of times, or the Executive’s repeated failure to enforce and defend  the laws passed by Congress, over the last 8 years we have  witnessed repeated abuses by one branch at the expense of the  other two.  Just ask the Supreme Court, which unanimously rejected arguments  the Obama administration made in more than 40 cases. The  policies that drove those abuses were, of course, problematic. But  policies can be changed and must be changed.  To this Senator, what is far more distressing about each Executive  overreach and each failure to defend the law is the damage  that it does to the constitutional order. The damage those abuses  inflict is far more difficult to undo than the policies that animated  them. For as John Adams observed, ‘‘Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.’’  So the separation of powers is just as critical today as it was during  the administration, the last administration. And the preservation  of our constitutional order, including the separation of powers,  is just as crucial to our liberty today as it was when our founding  charter was first adopted.  No matter your politics, for all of these reasons you should be  concerned about the preservation of our constitutional order and,  most importantly, the separation of powers. And if you are concerned  about these things, as you should be, I want you to meet  Judge Neil Gorsuch.  Fortunately for every American, we have before us today a nominee  whose body of professional work is defined by an unfailing commitment  to these principles. His grasp on the separation of powers,  including judicial independence, enlivens his body of work.  As he explains, ‘‘To the Founders, the legislative and judicial  powers were distinct by nature and their separation was among the  most important liberty-protecting devices of the constitutional design.’’  About the Executive, he writes that through ‘‘the hard-won experiences  under a tyrannical king, the Founders found proof of the  wisdom of a government of separated powers.’’  The judge’s job, our nominee says, is to deliver on the promise  that ‘‘all litigants, rich or poor, mighty or weak, will receive equal  protection under the law and due process for their grievances.’’  The nominee before us understands that any judge worth his salt  will ‘‘regularly issue judgments with which they disagree as a matter  of policy, all because they think that is what the law fairly demands.’’  Fundamentally, that is the difference between a legislator and a  judge. All of us should keep this in mind during the course of this  hearing.  Judge, I am afraid over the next couple of days, you will get  some questions that will cause you just to scratch your head. Truth  be told, it should puzzle anyone who ever takes a civics class. We  will hear that when you rule for one party and against another in  a case, it means you must be for the winner and against the loser.  Senators will cite some opinions of yours, and then we will hear  that you are for the ‘‘big guy’’ and against the ‘‘little guy.’’ You will  scratch your head when you hear this because it is as if you judges  write the laws instead of us Senators.  But if Congress passes a bad law, as a judge, you are not allowed  to just pretend that we passed a good law. The oath you take demands  that you follow the law, even if you dislike the result.  So if you hear that you are for some business or against some  plaintiff, do not worry. We have heard all of that stuff before. It  is an old claim, from an even older playbook.  You and I and the American people know whose responsibility it  is to correct a law that produces a result that you dislike. It is the  men and women sitting here with me. Good judges understand  this. They know it is not their job to fix the law. In a democracy,  that right belongs to the people.  It is for this reason that Justice Scalia said this. ‘‘If you are going  to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the  fact that you are not always going to like the conclusion you reach.  If you like them all the time, you are probably doing something  wrong.’’  Judge, I look forward to hearing more about your exceptional  record, and I look forward to the conversation we will all have  about the meaning of our Constitution and the job of a Supreme  Court Justice in our constitutional scheme. 
Senator FeinsteinD.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  Judge Gorsuch, I want to welcome you and your family.  We are here today under very unusual circumstances. It was almost  a year ago today that President Obama nominated Chief  Judge Merrick Garland for this seat. Unfortunately, due to unprecedented  treatment, Judge Garland was denied a hearing, and this  vacancy has been in place for well over a year.  I just want to say I am deeply disappointed that it is under these  circumstances that we begin our hearings. Merrick Garland was  widely regarded as a mainstream moderate nominee. However,  President Trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the  mold of Justice Scalia and said that the nomination of Judge  Gorsuch illustrates he is a man of his word.  For those of us on this side, our job is not to theoretically evaluate  this or that legal doctrine or to review Judge Gorsuch’s record  in a vacuum. Our job is to determine whether Judge Gorsuch is a  reasonable mainstream conservative, or is he not. Our job is to assess  how this nominee’s decisions will impact the American people  and whether he will protect the legal and constitutional rights of  all Americans, not just the wealthy and the powerful.  We hold these hearings not because court precedent and stare  decisis are something average Americans worry about. We hold  these hearings because the U.S. Supreme Court has the final word  on hundreds of issues that impact our daily lives.  The Supreme Court has the final say on whether a woman will  continue to have control over her own body or whether decisions  about her healthcare will be determined by politicians and the Government.  It decides whether billionaires and large corporations will  be able to spend unlimited sums of money to buy elections and  whether States and localities will be able to pass laws and make  it harder for poor people, people of color, seniors, and younger people  to vote.  It is the Supreme Court that will have final word on whether  corporations will be able to pollute our air and water with impunity.  Or whether the NRA and other extreme organizations will be  able to block common sense gun regulations, including those that  keep military-style assault weapons off our streets.  And it is the Supreme Court that will have the ultimate say on  whether employers will be held accountable for discriminating  against workers or failing to protect workers when they are  harmed or killed on the job.  For example, last year Judge Gorsuch sat on a case that involved  a truck driver who was stranded in the freezing cold for several  hours after his trailer’s brakes froze. He had no heat. In fact, it  was so cold that the driver was having trouble breathing. His torso  was numb, and he could not feel his feet.  Despite this, his employer directed him to wait for a repairman  or else drive both the truck and the trailer. When no one came, the  driver unhitched the trailer to search for assistance because driving  with frozen brakes with a fully loaded trailer would have been  too dangerous. A week later, he was fired.  After hearing the case, the administrative law judge ruled that  firing the driver was a violation of the health and safety law intended  to protect workers. The United States Department of Labor’s  Administrative Review Board and the Tenth Circuit agreed.  Judge Gorsuch dissented and sided with the company.  In another case, Judge Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion, this  time to challenge a longstanding legal doctrine that allows agencies  to write regulations necessary to effectively implement the laws  that Congress passes and the President signs. It is called the Chevron  doctrine.  This legal doctrine has been fundamental to how our Government  addresses real world challenges in our country and has been  in place for decades. If overturned, as Judge Gorsuch has advocated,  legislating rules are very difficult.  In fact, Congress relies on agency experts to write the specific  rules, regulations, guidelines, and procedures necessary to carry  out laws we enact. These are what ensure the Clean Air Act and  the Clean Water Act to protect our environment from pollution.  They are the specific protections put in place by the FDA and the  Agricultural Department that safeguard the health and safety of  our food supply, our water, our medicines, and they are the details  needed to support the infrastructure of our communities, our roads,  highways, bridges, dams, and airports.  We in Congress rely on the scientists, biologists, economists, engineers,  and other experts to help ensure our laws are effectively  implemented. For example, even though Dodd-Frank was passed  nearly 7 years ago to combat the rampant abuse that led to our  country’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, it still  requires over 100 regulations to be implemented by the Securities  and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading  Commission, and other regulators in order to reach its full effectiveness  as intended by Congress when it was passed.  Judge Gorsuch’s position, were it to be adopted, would take away  agencies’ authorities to address these necessary details. Such a  change in law would dramatically affect how laws passed by Congress  can be properly carried out.  Two weeks ago, The Washington Post ran an op-ed written by a  woman who desperately wanted to have a baby. She described how  she and her husband went to great lengths for 4 years trying to  get pregnant and were thrilled when they finally succeeded.  Tragically, after her 21-week check-up, they discovered her  daughter had multicystic dysplastic kidney disease. They were told  by three separate doctors that her condition was 100 percent fatal  and that the risk to the mother was sevenfold if she carried her  pregnancy to term.  The mother described their excruciating decision and the unforgiving  process the couple endured to get the medical care they  needed. The debate over Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy, ladies  and gentlemen, is not theoretical.  In 1973, the Court recognized a woman’s fundamental and constitutional  right to privacy. That right guarantees her access to reproductive  healthcare. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly  upheld Roe’s core finding, making it settled law for the last 44  years.  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter into the record  the 14 key cases where the Supreme Court upheld Roe’s core holding  and the total 39 decisions where it has been reaffirmed by the  Court.  If these judgments, when combined, do not constitute super  precedent, I do not know what does. Importantly, the dozens of  cases affirming Roe are not only about precedent. They are also  about a woman’s fundamental and constitutional rights. Roe ensured  that women and their doctors will decide what is best for  their care, not politicians.  President Trump repeatedly promised that his judicial nominees  would be pro-life and ‘‘automatically’’ overturn Roe v. Wade. Judge  Gorsuch has not had occasion to rule directly on a case involving  Roe. However, his writings do raise questions.  Specifically, he wrote that he believes there are no exceptions to  the principle that ‘‘the intentional taking of a human life by private  persons is always wrong.’’ This language has been interpreted by  both pro-life and pro-choice organizations to mean he would overturn  Roe.  The Supreme Court is also expected to decide what kind of reasonable  regulation States and localities can implement to protect  our neighborhoods and schools from gun violence. In fact, just last  month, the Fourth Circuit became the fifth appellate court to up hold a State’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines  under Heller.  These new cases, taken together, enable the enactment of prudent  and legal legislation to restrict military-style weapons from  flooding our streets. Now while Judge Gorsuch has not written decisions  on the Second Amendment, he did write an opinion to advocate  making it harder to convict a felon who illegally possessed a  gun.  In this opinion, Judge Gorsuch argued against the Court’s own  precedent. Specifically, in this case, the defendant had been  charged with attempted robbery in July of 2009. After pleading  guilty, he was given probation.  However, ‘‘he was repeatedly both orally and in writing told that  possession of a firearm’’ violated his probation, which would mean  he could not ‘‘escape the consequences of his felony conviction.’’  Less than a year later, he was apprehended by the police holding  ‘‘a fully loaded Hi-Point .380-caliber pistol with an obliterated serial  number’’ in clear violation of his probation.  Later, he argued he did not know he was a felon. Six Circuit  Courts, including the Tenth, have determined that the Government  does not need to prove a defendant knew he was a felon to convict  for this crime. Despite this, Judge Gorsuch wrote two separate  opinions that argued in favor of making it harder to convict felons  who possess guns.  In one, he wrote that sometimes following precedent ‘‘requires us  to make mistakes.’’ I find this concerning. Following precedent in  this case was not a mistake. It led to the conviction of a felon who  should not have had a firearm.  Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should  look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they  decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal,  but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really  troubling.  In essence, it means the judges and courts should evaluate our  constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in  1789. However, to do so would not only ignore the intent of the  Framers that the Constitution would be a framework on which to  build, but it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds.  I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document,  intended to evolve as our country evolves. In 1789, the population  of the United States was under 4 million. Today, we are 325 million  and growing. At the time of our founding, African Americans  were enslaved. It was not so long after, women had been burned  at the stake for witchcraft, and the idea of an automobile, let alone  the internet, was unfathomable.  In fact, if we were to dogmatically adhere to originalist interpretations,  then we would still have segregated schools and bans on  interracial marriage. Women would not be entitled to equal protection  under the law, and government discrimination against LGBT  Americans would be permitted.  So I am concerned when I hear that Judge Gorsuch is an  originalist and a strict constructionist. Suffice it to say, and I con clude, the issues we are examining today are consequential. There  is no appointment that is more pivotal to the Court than this one.  This has a real world impact on all of us. Who sits on the Supreme  Court should not simply evaluate legalistic theories and  Latin phrases in isolation. They must understand the Court’s decisions  have real world consequences for men, women, and children  across our Nation. 
Senator HatchR  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH  Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Judge Gorsuch, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. This  will be more of an ordeal than your last. But your fitness for the  appointment, it will be just as apparent.  I served on this Committee for 40 years, and some things in the  confirmation process never change. The conflict over judicial appointments  in general, and over this nomination in particular, is a  conflict over the proper role of judges in our system of government.  I have long believed that the Senate owes the President some  deference with respect to his qualified nominees. Qualifications for  judicial service include legal experience, which summarizes the  past, and judicial philosophy, which describes the present and anticipates  the future.  Judge Gorsuch’s legal experience is well known. My Democratic  colleagues have referred to the American Bar Association’s rating  as the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees. The ABA’s  unanimous ‘‘well qualified’’ rating for Judge Gorsuch confirms that  he has the highest level of professional qualifications, including integrity,  competence, and temperament.  Judicial philosophy is both the more important qualification and  the more challenging to assess. It refers to a nominee’s understanding  of the power and proper role of judges in our system of  government. Over the last several weeks, I have addressed this  issue on the Senate floor and in opinion pages around the country  by contrasting what I have called impartial judges and political  judges.  An impartial judge focuses on the process of interpreting and applying  the law according to objective rules. In this way, the law,  rather than the judge, determines the outcome.  A political judge, in contrast, focuses on a desired result and  fashions a means of achieving it. In this way, the judge, rather  than the law, often determines the outcome.  In my experience, a Supreme Court confirmation process reveals  the kind of judge that Senators want to see appointed. A Senator,  for example, who wants to know which side a nominee will be on  in future cases or who demands that judges be advocates for certain  political interests, clearly has a politicized judiciary in mind.  The New York Times reported last week that the most prominent  lines of attack against this nomination will be that Judge Gorsuch  is ‘‘no friend of the little guy.’’ Something is seriously wrong when  the confirmation process for a Supreme Court Justice resembles an  election campaign for political office.  This dangerous approach contradicts the oath of judicial office  prescribed by Federal law. When taking the seat on the U.S. Court  of Appeals in 2006, Judge Gorsuch swore to administer justice  without respect to persons and to impartially discharge his judicial  duties.  His opponents today demand in effect that he violate that oath.  Advocates of such a politicized judiciary seem to think that the confirmation  process requires only a political agenda and a calculator.  When a nominee is a sitting judge, they tally the winners and  losers in his past cases and do the math. If they like the result,  it is thumbs up on confirmation. If they do not, well, it is thumbs  down.  What if, for example, Judge Gorsuch’s record on the appeals  court was as follows? He voted against the plaintiff in 83 percent  of immigration cases, against the defendant in 92 percent of criminal  cases, denied race claims more than 80 percent of the time, and  agreed with other Republican-appointed judges 95 percent of the  time.  I can just hear the cries of protest, accusations that he favors  certain parties and is hostile to others and threats of filibuster.  That is, in fact, the record of a U.S. Circuit Court Judge nominated  to the Supreme Court, but not the one before us today. It is the  record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, as described by Senator Charles  Schumer at her July 2009 confirmation hearing.  Not only did he champion her nomination, but he offered that  statistical summary of her record as proof that, as he put it,  ‘‘She is in the mainstream.’’ Oh, what a difference an election  makes.  Alexander Hamilton wrote about the importance of judicial independence,  what Chief Justice William Rehnquist later called the  ‘‘crown jewel of our judicial system.’’ Today, in a bizarre twist on  that principle, Judge Gorsuch’s opponents say that the only way for  him to prove his independence is by promising to decide future  cases according to certain litmus tests.  In other words, judicial independence requires that he be beholden  to them and their political agenda. If simply describing that  unprincipled position is not enough to refute it, the confirmation  process is in more trouble than I thought.  Judge, I know that the integrity of the judiciary, fairness to the  litigants who come before you, and your own oath of office are your  highest priorities. You will be in good company by resisting efforts  to make you compromise your impartiality.  When President Lyndon Johnson nominated Judge Thurgood  Marshall to the Supreme Court, Senator Ted Kennedy, my friend  who would later chair this Committee, said, ‘‘We have to respect  that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any  comments on any matters which are before the Court or very likely  to appear before the Court.’’  Now that was 50 years ago. When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  appeared before this Committee in 1993, she said, ‘‘A judge sworn  to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints, for that would  show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it  would display disdain for the entire judicial process.’’  Now in a speech earlier this year, Justice Sotomayor said this.  ‘‘What you want is for us to tell you how, as a judicial nominee,  we are going to rule on the important issues you find vexing. Any  self-respecting judge who comes in with an agenda that would permit  that judge to tell you how they will vote is the kind of person  you do not want—you do not want as a judge.’’  Now I will close by reading from the letter we received from dozens  of Judge Gorsuch’s Harvard Law School peers. After describing  how they were of all political, ideological, religious, geographical,  and social stripes, the signers wrote, ‘‘What unites us is that we  attended law school with Judge Neil Gorsuch, a man we have  known for more than a quarter century, and we unanimously believe  that Neil possesses the exemplary character, outstanding intellect,  steady temperament, humility, and open mindedness to be  an excellent addition to the U.S. Supreme Court.’’  I agree with that appraisal by people from all walks of life, from  different political views, people who agree with you and do not  agree with you, but acknowledge that you are a great judge.  And I look forward to this hearing, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 
Senator LEAHYD 	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT  Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I did find it interesting the Senator from Utah spoke about Justice  Sotomayor, saying that these are the reasons her nomination—  the speech, these are the reasons why Republicans should vote for  her and Democrats vote against her. I would note that, of course,  that Senator Hatch voted against her.  Today marks the first time the Senate Judiciary Committee has  met publicly to take action on a Supreme Court vacancy that resulted  from Justice Scalia’s death 13 months ago. It was just hours  after we learned of Justice Scalia’s sudden passing the Republican  majority leader declared that the Senate would not provide any  process to any nominee selected by President Obama, despite the  President having nearly a year left in his term.  This was an extraordinary blockade. It was totally unprecedented  in our country’s whole history. Some liken it to the action  of the tyrannical kings who claim that they have sole control, as  one of our Senators referred to here a few minutes ago, but it was  a blockage backed by then-candidate Donald Trump.  Committee Republicans met behind closed doors and declared  that they would surrender the independence of this Committee to  do the majority leader’s bidding, and they ignored the Constitution  in the process. In fact, this unprecedented obstruction is one of the  greatest stains on the 200-year history of this Committee.  Remember, the Judiciary Committee once stood against a Courtpacking  scheme of a Democratic President that would have eroded  judicial independence, and that was a proud moment. Now Repub licans on this Committee are guilty of their own Court-unpacking  scheme, and the blockade of Chief Judge Merrick Garland was  never grounded in principle or precedent.  While Senate Republicans were meeting in backrooms to block  President Obama’s nominee, extreme special interest groups were  also meeting in private to vet potential Supreme Court nominees  for then-candidate Donald Trump. I do not know of any other Supreme  Court nominee who was selected by interest groups rather  than by a President in consultation with the Senate, as required  by the Constitution.  Now Senate Republicans made a big show last year about respecting  the voice of the American people in this process. Now they  are arguing that the Senate should rubberstamp a nominee selected  by extreme interest groups and nominated by a President  who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.  That President has demonstrated hostility to our constitutional  rights and values. He has leveled personal attacks against Federal  judges and career prosecutors who dare to see his promised Muslim  ban for what it is, unconstitutional.  He called our constitutionally protected free press ‘‘the enemy of  the American people.’’ When the President’s chief of staff says the  nominee before us has the vision of Donald Trump, well, that  raises questions for people who have actually read the Constitution  or care about the rights it protects.  More than perhaps any confirmation hearing for the last 30  years, I expect this nominee’s judicial philosophy will play a central  role. Now Judge Gorsuch has spent more than a decade on the Federal  bench. He graduated from Harvard Law School. He clerked for  the Supreme Court. He served in the Department of Justice. He received  a unanimous ‘‘well qualified’’ rating from the American Bar  Association. All things very positive for a Supreme Court nominee.  And if all those things I have read were a sufficient reason to  confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court, of course, Chief Judge  Merrick Garland, who had exactly the same qualifications but was  refused by the Republicans, would be sitting on the Court today.  That is why philosophy becomes important.  In contrast to past nominees like John Roberts, whose judicial  philosophy was not clearly articulated when he appeared before  this Committee, Judge Gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive  originalist philosophy. It is the approach taken by jurists such as  Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, former Judge Bork.  While it has gained some popularity within conservative circles,  originalism, I believe, remains outside the mainstream of modern  constitutional jurisprudence. It has been 25 years since an  originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what  we have seen from Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas and Judge  Gorsuch’s own record, I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy  and that it becomes an agenda.  We know that conservative groups that have vetted Judge  Gorsuch, and the millionaires who fund them, have a clear agenda— one that is anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-corporate. And  these groups are obviously confident that Judge Gorsuch shares  their agenda.  The first person who interviewed Judge Gorsuch in this process  explained these groups did not ask, who is a really smart lawyer  who has been really accomplished? Instead, they saw a nominee  who understands these things like we do. After all, Judge Gorsuch  has been described by a former leader of the Republican Party as  a true loyalist and a good, strong conservative.  Now the concerns I have about Judge Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy  and the process by which he was selected, the views of the  President who nominated him, I hope and expect, Judge, that you  will answer my questions and the questions of all of the Senators,  both parties, as clearly as possible.  You know, it is not enough to say in private that the President’s  attacks on the judiciary are disheartening. I need to know that you  understand the role of the courts in protecting the rights of all  Americans. I need to know that you could be an independent check  and balance on the administration that has nominated you and on  any administration that might follow it.  Judge Gorsuch, these hearings, occurring the week after Sunshine  Week, are the first opportunity for the American people to  hear your views on the role of the courts and the meaning of our  Constitution. Like the Founders, who did not know what legal  questions would be presented in the decades to come, they set this  constitutional process. It is important to understand or to determine  whether you understand how the Court has a profound impact  on small businesses and workers, on law enforcement and victims,  on families and children across America.  It is not contrary to the duties and obligations of a Supreme  Court Justice to consider the effects of their rulings. The Court’s  aspiration, after all, is to provide equal justice under law. That is  inscribed in Vermont marble over the doorway to the Court.  Judge Gorsuch, these hearings will help us conclude if you are  committed to the fundamental rights of all Americans. Will you  allow the Government to intrude on Americans’ personal privacy  and freedom? Will you elevate the rights of corporations over those  of real people? And will you rubberstamp a President whose administration  has asserted that Executive power is not subject to judicial  review?  It is important to know whether you serve with independence or  as a surrogate to the President who nominated you or to the special  interest groups that provided that President with your name.  Now I approach these hearings with these thoughts in mind. I  can honestly say I have yet to decide how I am going to vote on  this nomination. Unlike those who blocked the nomination of Chief  Judge Merrick Garland, I believe it is my constitutional responsibility  to fairly evaluate a President’s nominee to the Supreme  Court.  I have voted for Supreme Court nominees, and I have voted  against others. I recall going on the floor of the Senate right after  our Democratic leader said he would vote against John Roberts for  Chief Justice. I was the next speech. I said I would vote for him.  But I am going to base my determination on the full record at  the conclusion of these hearings, just as I have done for the 16 previous  Supreme Court nominations I have been in the Senate.  The Supreme Court is the guarantor of the liberties of all Americans.  Judge Gorsuch, when you took the oath to sit on the Federal  bench, you spoke these following words that are in a judicial oath.  ‘‘I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal  right to the poor and to the rich.’’  If confirmed, you have to be a Justice for all Americans, not for  the special interests of a few. You know, I cannot think of any time  in our Nation’s history when that commitment is more important  than it is now. That is what I have been thinking of all weekend  long.  The stakes for the American people could not be higher. We  know that in Vermont, but America knows that.  I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator CornynR  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS  Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Judge Gorsuch, welcome to you and your family. As you can already  tell, this is going to be a much different experience than you  had 10 years ago when you were confirmed by voice vote of the entire  United States Senate to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to  a life tenure position.  The Senate Judiciary Committee undertakes no task more important  than the one before us, considering a nominee to the U.S. Supreme  Court. As you know, historically, these used to be pretty  routine. But that is until judges became seen as policymakers rather  than as impartial interpreters and appliers of the law.  The Nation is watching, and I think that is a really good thing.  At a time when fewer and fewer American citizens know our founding  story and the principles upon which it is based, I think this is  a wonderful opportunity for a teachable moment, and I would encourage  you to take every opportunity to engage in that.  We are considering a nominee, of course, left by the death of Justice  Antonin Scalia. And as we have heard before, Justice Scalia  was unique. His wit and style brought the Constitution to life for  lawyers in their first year of law school and for the American public  at large.  He led the most important legal revolution in our lifetimes, tethering  judicial interpretation to the written text. What a concept.  This was part of the broader project which the nominee before  us, Judge Neil Gorsuch, described as ‘‘reminding us of the differences  between judges and legislators. That judges should strive  to apply the law as it is, not to decide cases based on their own  moral convictions or the policy consequences they feel might serve  society best.’’  In one dissent, Justice Scalia wrote along similar lines that, ‘‘If  our pronouncements of constitutional law rely primarily on value  judgments, then a free and intelligent people’s attitude toward us  can be expected to be quite different. The people know that their  value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law  school and perhaps better.’’  The Framers, I believe, shared Justice Scalia’s and your modest  view of the role of judging. Alexander Hamilton wrote, for example,  ‘‘The judiciary may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but  merely judgment.’’  After Justice Scalia’s death, Senate Republicans decided to let  the American people in this last Presidential election choose his  successor. In Judge Gorsuch, President Trump chose one of the  most accomplished lawyers and jurists of his generation. As we  have heard, he is a husband and a father of two daughters, lives  in his native Colorado and, if confirmed, would be our only Western  Justice.  Judge Gorsuch attended Columbia and Harvard Law School and,  of course, got his doctorate at Oxford. After clerking for two Supreme  Court Justices, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, he went  to work for a startup law firm that grew to be one of the Nation’s  most prestigious, where he spent a decade, as he put it, working  in the trenches of the law.  As a recovering lawyer and judge myself, I think it is critically  important, Judge, it means that you understand better than most  the impact of your decisions, actually having represented real, live  clients. The law is not just an academic or intellectual exercise. It  has real consequences for real people, and I would encourage you  to talk about those real people that you came in contact with during  your legal and judicial career.  After serving his country at the Justice Department, Judge  Gorsuch, as I mentioned earlier, was nominated and confirmed to  the Tenth Circuit. Not one of our Democratic colleagues then in the  Senate opposed Neil Gorsuch for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals  because there was simply no reason to do so.  In the decade since, Judge Gorsuch has written hundreds of  opinions on the Constitution and innumerable laws. He has demonstrated  that he actually reads the text carefully to get the right  result. I am reminded that there is a difference between what we  sometimes loosely call a strict constructionist and a textualist, and  I would invite you to make that point during some of your testimony.  As you can see here today, his jurisprudence reflects brilliance  and humility, the humility of a man committed to the Constitution  and the law. That body of work is the best guide for the kind of  judge Judge Gorsuch will be.  Answers to questions posed during these hearings we have already  heard about specific issues cannot and should not be a guide.  You are not a politician running for election, Judge, as you know.  In the dissent I mentioned earlier, Justice Scalia warned that  ‘‘confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into  question and answer sessions in which Senators go through a list  of their constituents’ most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional  rights.’’ It should not be the forum in which you seek  the nominee’s commitment to support or oppose them.  So we are not here to ask you, even though some might, how you  will vote in specific cases. And it would be wrong for you to prejudge  those cases, as you know.  And that is the same reason why, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,  during her nomination hearing, said, ‘‘A judge sworn to decide  impartially can offer no forecast, no hints, for that would not  only show disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would  display disdain for the entire judicial process.’’  Can you imagine what a litigant might think if the judge before  whom he or she was to present their case said before they heard  a word how they were going to decide the case? That is why it is  improper for you, as you know, to prejudge cases in your testimony  before the Committee, and our colleagues know that as well. But  I expect them to ask a few questions nonetheless.  Well, lately, we have heard from some that they should criticize  you for failing to rule for a sympathetic constituency in one case  or another. But of course, as you know, Judge, if you follow the law  and the facts wherever it may lead, sometimes it is for the police.  Sometimes for a criminal defendant. Sometimes it is for a corporation.  Sometimes it is for an employee. Sometimes it is for the Government.  Sometimes it is against the Government.  That is how the rule of law works, and that is good for all Americans.  One law professor at Harvard wrote, following the law regardless  of the parties is, in the long run, it protects the little guy  a lot better than a system rigged to favor one side.  Because of your qualifications and a demonstrated record of following  the law, other than a few special interest groups, I believe  you have got a broad spectrum, really surprisingly broad spectrum  of people supporting your nomination. One of your colleagues on  the left wrote in The Washington Post, ‘‘The Senate should confirm  Judge Gorsuch because there is no principled reason to vote no.’’  Another liberal constitutional scholar joined a letter that stated,  ‘‘Judge Gorsuch has the unusual combination of character, dedication,  and intellect that will make him an asset on our Nation’s  highest court.’’  President Obama’s Solicitor General, from whom this Committee  will hear, wrote in The New York Times that ‘‘liberals should back  Judge Gorsuch because he would live up to the promises to administer  justice with respect to persons and to do equal right to the  poor and to the rich.’’  So, Mr. Chairman, the list goes on and on. So I am very pleased  the American people are about to learn why President Trump chose  you as his nominee for the Supreme Court. I look forward to hearing  from Judge Gorsuch, and I would encourage my colleagues to  carefully consider the nominee on the merits and nothing else.  Thank you. 
Senator DurbinD  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS  Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Judge Gorsuch, welcome  to you and your family.  I have often read stories about earlier Supreme Court nominees  and how little politics played any role in the selection and vetting  of the nominees. Those of us on the Democratic side, as you can  hear, are frequently warned not to let politics be part of this deci sion. When I consider the path to this historic hearing, this plea  rings hollow.  The journey began with the untimely death of Justice Scalia in  February 2016. President Obama met his constitutionally required  obligation by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to fill that vacancy  in March 2016. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell  announced that for the first time in the history of the United  States Senate, he would refuse Judge Garland a hearing and a  vote. He went further and said he would refuse to even meet with  the judge.  It was clear that Senator McConnell was making a political decision,  hoping a Republican President would be elected. He was willing  to ignore the tradition and precedent of the Senate so that you  could sit at this witness table today.  In May and September 2016, Republican Presidential candidate,  Donald Trump, released a list of 21 names, including yours, that  he would consider to fill the Scalia vacancy. President Trump  thanked the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, two  well-known Republican advocacy groups, for providing the list that  included your name.  Your nomination is part of a Republican strategy to capture our  judicial branch of government. That is why the Senate Republicans  kept the Supreme Court seat vacant more than a year, and why  they left 30 judicial nominees, who had received bipartisan approval  of this Committee, to die on the Senate calendar as President  Obama left office.  Despite all of this, you are entitled to be judged on the merits.  The Democrats of the Senate Judiciary Committee will extend to  you a courtesy which Senate Republicans denied to Judge Garland:  a respectful hearing and a vote.  Judge Gorsuch, you have been nominated to a lifetime appointment  on the highest court in the land, and this Court has the final  say on matters of fundamental importance affecting all Americans.  You have a lengthy record before the Tenth Circuit, and we will  ask many questions. We have found in the past that nominees try  their best to dodge most of the questions, but it is our job to try  to still seek the truth.  At the nomination hearing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, my  friend and predecessor, Senator Paul Simon, set forth the standard  for Supreme Court nominees. I have noted this with each Supreme  Court nominee that I have questioned. He said, ‘‘You face a much  harsher judge than this Committee, and that is the judgment of  history, and that judgment is likely to revolve around the question,  did you restrict freedom or did you expand it.’’  Let me be clear. When I talk about expanding freedom, I am not  talking about freedom for corporations. ‘‘We the people’’ does not  include corporations. Senator Simon could never have imagined  that the Supreme Court would give corporations rights and freedoms  that were previously reserved only for individuals under the  Constitution, and yet that is where we find ourselves with the Roberts  Court.  It is often said the Roberts Court is a corporate Court because  of its pro-business tilt. A study by the Constitutional Accountability  Center found that the Court ruled for the U.S. Chamber of Com merce 69 percent of the time. The Court has certainly favored big  business on issues like forced arbitration, corporate price fixing,  workplace discrimination cases, just to name a few.  But the Roberts Court has gone further than just ruling the way  corporate America wants. In the 2010 Citizens United case, the Supreme  Court held for the first time that corporations have the  same rights as living, breathing people to spend money on elections,  and that was followed in 2014 by the Hobby Lobby decision,  which allowed for-profit corporations to discriminate against employees  based on the corporation’s assertion of religious belief.  I do not recall ever seeing a corporation in the pews of Old St.  Patrick’s Church in Chicago. Our Founders never believed that corporations  were endowed with certain inalienable rights, but were  seeing the Supreme Court expand the rights of this legal fiction,  a corporation, at the expense of the voices and choices of the American  people. This strikes at the heart of the Supreme Court’s promise  to provide equal justice under the law.  Judge Gorsuch, you took part in that Hobby Lobby case when it  was before the Tenth Circuit. As I read the case, I was struck by  the extraordinary, even painful, lengths the court went to protect  the religious beliefs of the corporation and its wealthy owners, and  how little attention was paid to the employees, to their constitutionally  protected religious beliefs, their choices as individuals, and  the burdens that the court’s decision placed on them.  I want to hear from you about a pattern I have seen in your decisions  on the Tenth Circuit. In case after case, you either dismissed  or rejected efforts by workers and families to recognize the rights—  that recognized their rights or defend their freedoms. Cases like  TransAm Trucking, which we have already spoken to.  Alphonse Maddin. I had a chance to sit down with him just last  week. He was the truck driver from Detroit who was driving  around Chicago in the middle of January when a malfunction in  his trailer froze the brakes, and he was forced to pull over on the  side of the road. Al sat there on his cell phone with the dispatcher  for the truck company, who told him do not leave this truck no  matter what, and if you do, pull the trailer with you.  Well, that was a big problem because the brakes were frozen,  and it would have been a safety hazard. And so, he waited and  waited, and the hours passed, and he started feeling numb and  sick. You see, there was no heater in the truck, and, according to  his recollection, it was so cold. It was 14 degrees below.  Not as cold as your dissent, Judge Gorsuch, which argued that  his firing was lawful. You cited a strict textualistic argument to  make your point, but you chose the text that you focused on. Thank  goodness the majority in this case pointed out that common sense  and the Oxford Dictionary supported the majority view.  Compass Environmental Incorporated, another one of your cases.  Your dissent would have vacated a penalty against an employer  who failed to train construction employee Christopher Carder to  avoid the electrocution hazard that killed him. Strickland v. UPS,  your dissent would have kept Carol Strickland’s sex discrimination  case from going to a jury, even though your fellow judges said she  provided ample evidence that she was regularly outperforming her  male colleagues and treated less favorably.  I want to hear more about your views on fundamental individual  rights that the Supreme Court is tasked to defend: the right to privacy,  the right for all faiths to practice their religion, the right to  vote, equal protection, and the rights of women. The Committee  has received two letters from students who you taught last year  that raised some serious concerns. Tomorrow we will get to the bottom  of it, I hope.  We have learned you were an aggressive defender of Executive  power during the time of the Bush administration. In June 2004,  after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, I authored the first bill to  ban cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. That  legislation became the McCain Torture Amendment, which passed  the Senate in December 2005 by an overwhelming 90–to–9 vote.  But when President Bush signed the Amendment into law, he  issued a signing statement claiming he had the authority to ignore  the McCain Amendment. It turns out, you were deeply involved in  this unprecedented signing statement. We need to know what you  will do when you are called upon to stand up to this President or  any President if he claims the power to ignore laws that protect  fundamental human rights.  You are going to have your hands full with this President. He is  going to keep you busy.  It is incumbent on any nominee to demonstrate that he or she  will serve as an independent check or balance on the presidency.  There are some warning flags. February 23rd, White House chief  of staff, Reince Priebus, said, ‘‘Neil Gorsuch represents the type of  judge that has the vision of Donald Trump.’’ I want to hear from  you why Mr. Priebus would say that. Make no mistake, when it  comes to the treatment of workers, women, victims of discrimination,  people of minority religious faith, and our Constitution, most  Americans question whether we need a Supreme Court Justice  with the vision of Donald Trump.  With my constitutional responsibility firmly in mind, I look forward  to questioning tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator LeeR 	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL S. LEE,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH  Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Judge  Gorsuch. Welcome to the Committee. I also want to welcome your  friends, family members, supporters, former colleagues, and people  you have worked with over the years who have come to show their  support. I know they are proud of you, and they are proud of you  not just because of what you have done and what you have accomplished  professionally, but also because of who you are personally:  a man of integrity, a man of great accomplishment, a man of character,  and a man of faith.  Everyone knows that a Supreme Court confirmation hearing can  be dramatic, even emotional at times. The stakes are high. As Senators,  we understand that there are a few things that are more important  than the obligation that we are performing here than the  duty that we are carrying out in connection with this process.  These days it seems like standing for a confirmation hearing in the  United States Senate after being nominated to the Supreme Court  of the United States can appear a little bit like running for political  office.  As we have seen over the last few weeks, there are interest  groups out there, some supporting you, some opposing you, out  there waging campaigns almost as if they were running a campaign  for someone pursuing public office. Maybe that is why, especially  on this side of the dais, it can be easy to forget that a nominee  is an ordinary citizen, perhaps not ordinary in the usual sense,  but at least that person is not a politician.  You, sir, are not a politician, which means that the acrimony, the  duplicity, the ruthlessness of today’s politics are still a little foreign  to you, are still quite unfamiliar to you. I hope that they will remain  unfamiliar to you.  In a former life when I was a practicing attorney, I had the good  fortune of appearing in front of you on the Tenth Circuit, and so  I know from my own personal experience that you are one of the  best judges in the country. You come to oral argument prepared,  and you ask fair, probing questions that are designed to get at one  thing and one thing only, which is what the law says and what the  law requires in each individual case, depending on the facts and  circumstances of that case.  You are not there to promote a personal agenda or a political  agenda, and you are not there to grandstand. You are there to listen  to both sides of the argument in the case. You write thoughtful  and rigorous opinions. They are careful, and they are well reasoned.  And they are even interesting and pleasant to read, which  is very difficult to achieve in the world of appellate litigation. Now,  I know I am easily entertained.  [Laughter.]  Senator LEE. But I find your opinions particularly interesting.  You have the re´sume´ of a Supreme Court Justice, but I think  what is most impressive and, for our purposes, what is most important  about your career and about the approach you take to the law,  is your fierce independence from partisan influence and from any  personal biases that you might otherwise be inclined to harbor.  The judiciary is set apart from and, in a way, set far above the  other branches in our republic, the other organs of our constitutional  system, specifically because we allow it to invalidate and interpret  the actions of the elected branches. So, we have got two  branches of government that are political in that they are run by  people who are elected and stand for re-election at regular intervals,  thus, making themselves directly accountable to the American  people.  Our confidence in our entire system, including our confidence in  the American judiciary, depends entirely on judges just like you,  judges who are independent and whose only agenda is getting the  law right, regardless of whether any particular judge, or any particular  litigant, or any particular member of the public like—might  like or dislike the outcome in that case. You are essential to making  us accountable because unless you do your job right, were not  held accountable because our laws do not stand. That is what  makes your role, and your particular unique approach, and your  particular unique commitment to this so important.  Now, I want to take a moment to address some of the unique  criticisms that you yourself, Judge Gorsuch, might be facing this  week. I am sure that during this hearing some of my colleagues  might claim that you are outside the mainstream. In fact, we have  sadly heard some of that already today. We have heard arguments  to the effect that you are an originalist, and we have heard assertions  to the effect that originalism is somehow so far out of the  mainstream, that it is dangerous.  Well, I would remind my colleagues who have raised such concerns  or who might be harboring them, that if this is the case, then  they are going to have to acknowledge the fact that there is a pretty  broad spectrum of people on the U.S. Supreme Court they might  be painting with that brush.  Justice Elena Kagan, before she was Justice Kagan, when she  was standing before this Committee, in the second day of her confirmation  hearings said, referring to the Founding Fathers and the  need to figure out what the Founding Fathers understood about  particular words, about how those particular words were used by  the founding generation, said, ‘‘Sometimes they laid down very specific  rules. Sometimes they laid down broad principles. Either way,  we apply what they tried to do. In that way, we are all  originalists.’’ That was on June 29th, 2010, before this Committee.  Moreover, these out-of-the-mainstream arguments, out-of-themainstream  approach, for addressing you, referring to you as an  originalist, just does not stick. This is not a description that was  attributed to you the last time you stood before this Committee and  went through a confirmation process. Nowhere in the record is  there any reference to you being outside the mainstream. In fact,  your nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the  Tenth Circuit was so remarkably uncontroversial that one Senator  and only one Senator—Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina— was the only Member of this Committee who even bothered  to show up at your confirmation hearing.  Now, I would have been there, too, Judge. I was not yet a Member  of the United States Senate.  [Laughter.]  Senator LEE. You were confirmed unanimously by voice vote  without a single ‘‘no’’ vote.  I am sure that some of my colleagues will question your independence  because, in their view, perhaps you have not sufficiently  criticized the comments made by some of today’s politicians. Personally,  I think you have made your views on this subject very  clear. I am sure some of my colleagues will complain that you are  not providing any hints as to how you might rule in any particular  case. But that, however, is a reason for your confirmation, certainly  not against it.  In our system, judges do not provide advisory opinions. They do  not make legislation, they do not legislate, they do not make law,  they do not set policy, in the same sense that those things are  made in the political branches. They decide cases and controversies  only after each side has had the opportunity to make its case be fore the bench, and they do so outside the realm of political influence.  In an odd twist, some of the same colleagues who will question  your independence will also push you to answer questions that you  simply cannot. I am sure that some of my colleagues will pick apart  some of your rulings, and they will try to say that you are hostile  to particular types of claims or to particular plaintiffs. I do not  think it is productive to evaluate someone’s judicial record by looking  at who wins or who loses in his courtroom, at least outside the  context of evaluating how the law was interpreted in that case.  It goes without saying that in our system you face the same burden  of convincing a court, regardless of who you are. And judges  do not decide cases—they certainly should never decide cases—  based on their own personal preferences. But to my colleagues who  go down that road, the record shows with abundant clarity that you  apply the law neutrally in all cases without regard to the parties.  Finally, I would urge my colleagues to keep in mind that while  Judge Gorsuch’s reputation will not be affected by how we treat his  confirmation, the same cannot always be said of the Senate. The  night Judge Gorsuch was nominated, he said, ‘‘The U.S. Senate is  the greatest deliberative body in the world.’’ I tend to agree, but  these days it seems like this title is more of a challenge than an  observation. It is more of an aspiration than a present sense description  of reality. So, I hope we prove you right this week.  Thank you very much, and I really look forward to hearing answers  to the questions we will raise to you. 
Senator WhitehouseD.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND  Senator WHITEHOUSE. Judge Gorsuch, welcome. As we discussed  when we met, the question that faces me is, what happens when  the Republicans get five appointees on the Supreme Court? I cannot  help but notice the long array of 5–to–4 decisions, with all the  Republican appointees lining up to change the law to the benefit  of distinct interests: Republicans at the polls and big business pretty  much everywhere.  Let us look at the 5–to–4 decisions, first helping Republicans at  the polls. All the Republican appointees’ 5–to–4 decisions on election  law favor Republicans at the polls, 6–to–0. Helping Republicans  gerrymander, paving the way for the Republican red map  plan that won the House against the American majority in 2012,  Gobeille, 5–to–4, all the Republican appointees.  Helping Republican legislatures keep Democrat-leaning minorities  away from the polls with targeted voter suppression laws,  Shelby County, 5–to–4 all the Republicans; Bartlett v. Strickland,  5–to–4, all the Republicans. Helping corporate money flood elections  and boost Republican candidates, McCutcheon, 5–to–4, all the  Republicans, counting the concurrence; Bullock, 5–to–4 all the Republicans.  And the infamous Citizens United decision, 5–to–4 all  the Republicans. In each area, the Court made new law, 5–to–4,  and each decision predictably helped Republicans win elections. At  6–to–0, it is a partisan route.  Then look at cases that pit corporations against human beings.  All the 5–to–4 Republican appointee decisions line up to help corporations  against humans. Citizens United and the political money  decisions should, again, count here. All three of them, 5–to–4, all  the Republicans. Then come decisions to protect corporations who  have harmed their employees. In pay discrimination, Ledbetter, 5–  to–4 all the Republicans. In age discrimination, Gross, 5–to–4 all  the Republicans. In harassment cases, Vance, 5–to–4, all the Republicans.  In anti-retaliation cases, Nassar, yes, you guessed it, 5–  to–4, all Republicans.  Then there are the decisions that protect corporations from class  action lawsuits. Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 5–to–4, and Comcast, 5–to–4,  both all Republicans. Then there are decisions that help corporations  steer customers away from juries and into corporate-friendly  mandatory arbitration. Concepcion and Italian Colors Restaurant,  both 5–to–4, both all Republicans.  The Iqbal decision, 5–to–4, all Republicans, helped bar the courthouse  door for all types of plaintiffs. All of this helps keep corporations  away from juries, the one element of government hardest for  corporations to control. Indeed, as you know, tampering with a jury  is a crime.  The Court also helps big business against unions. Harris v.  Quinn, 5–to–4, all Republicans. Last year Friedrichs was teed up  as a 5–to–4 body blow against unions when Justice Scalia died.  With a new 5–to–4 Court, they will be back.  Throw in Hobby Lobby. Corporations have religious rights that  supersede healthcare for their employees, 5–to–4, all Republicans.  Add Heller and McDonald, reanimating for gun manufacturers a  legal theory a former Chief Justice once called a fraud, 5–to–4, all  Republicans.  Help insulate investment bankers from fraud claims? Why not?  Janus Capital Group, 5–to–4, all Republicans. Chamber of Commerce  v. EPA, gave corporate polluters an unprecedented victory,  again 5–to–4, all Republicans.  That is an easy 16–to–0 record for corporations against humans.  To me, every time seems like a lot.  There is no coincidence here. Big business has law groups out  trolling for test cases to go get those cases before the friendly  Court. The Republican politico-industrial complex piles in with  amicus briefs and floods to tell the Republican appointees on the  Court what it wants. Republican Justices are even starting to give  hints so big business lawyers can rush to get certain cases up pronto  to the Court.  It is kind of a machine. Special interests set up and fund front  groups. The front groups appear as amici before the Court. The  amicus briefs or the front groups tell the Court what the special  interests want. The Court follows the amicus briefs. The decision  benefits the special interests, and the special interests pour more  money to the front groups. On it goes like turning a crank. The biggest  corporate lobby of them all is winning better than two–to–one  at the Court.  This 5–to–4 rampage is not driven by principle. Over and over,  judicial principles, even so-called conservative ones, are overrun on  the Court’s road to the happy result.  Stare decisis, that is a big laugh. These are law-changing decisions,  many upending a century or more of law and precedent.  Textualism. The Second Amendment uses the military term,  ‘‘arms,’’ and talks about militias, but never mind that when the  gun lobby wants something. Originalism, there is a particularly  good one. Find me a Founding Father who planned a big role for  business corporations in American elections, or one who would  have countenanced the steady strangulation of the civil jury without  so much as a mention of the Seventh Amendment.  The Citizens United majority even fiddled with Court procedure  to get to the decision it wanted to deliver, dodging its way around  a record that would have belied their findings of fact, setting aside  that their findings of fact were factually preposterous, as events  have shown, and that appellate courts are not even supposed to  make findings of fact.  It is not just us who notice. Top writers and scholars describe the  Roberts Court as essentially a delivery service. Jeffrey Toobin  wrote in 2009, ‘‘Even more than Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts has  served the interests and reflected the values of the contemporary  Republican Party.’’ Linda Greenhouse in 2014, ‘‘I am finding it impossible  to avoid the conclusion that the Republican-appointed majority  is committed to harnessing the Supreme Court to an ideological  agenda.’’ Norm Ornstein has described what he called the new  reality of today’s Supreme Court: ‘‘It is polarized along partisan  lines in a way that parallels other political institutions and the rest  of society in a fashion we have never seen.’’  Studies of the Court’s decisions show it is the most corporatefriendly  Court in modern history, with Justices Roberts and Alito  vying to be the most corporate-friendly Justice. And the American  public knows something has gone wrong at the Court. A 2014 poll  revealed that a majority of Americans think a person will not get  a fair shake in this Court against a corporation.  Now, where do you fit in? When Hobby Lobby was in the Tenth  Circuit, you held for a corporation having religious rights over its  employees’ healthcare. Your record on corporate versus human litigants  comes in by one count at 21–to–2 for corporations. Tellingly,  big special interests and their front groups are spending millions  of dollars in a dark money campaign to push your confirmation.  We have a predicament. In ordinary circumstances, you should  enjoy the benefit of the doubt based on your qualifications, but several  things have gone wrong that shift the benefit of the doubt.  One, Justice Roberts sat in that very seat, told us he would just  call balls and strikes, and then led his five-person Republican majority  on that activist 5–to–4 political shopping spree. Once burned,  twice shy. Confirmation etiquette has been unhinged from the  truth.  Two, Republican Senators denied any semblance of due legislative  process to our last nominee, one I would say even more qualified  than you, and that is saying something. Why go through the  unprecedented political trouble to deny so qualified a judge even a  hearing if you do not expect something more amenable to come  down the pike? Those political expectations also color the benefit  of the doubt.  Finally, the special interests who have done so well in that 5–  to–4 extravaganza of decisions are now spending millions and millions  of dollars campaigning to push your nomination. They obviously  think you will be worth their money. These special interests  also supported the Republican majority keeping this seat open.  I am afraid at all costs, whoever now sits in that seat, the benefit  of the doubt to answer this question. Will you saddle up with the  other Republican appointees and launch the Court 5–to–4 again on  another massive special interest and Republican election spree?  I hope whatever we may disagree about on this Committee, we  can at least agree that we cannot have a Court where litigants in  these 5–to–4 decisions can predict how they will do based on who  they are, because here is what it looks like now. If they are big Republican  election interests, they will win every time. If they are  corporations against a human being, they will win every time. And,  Your Honor, every time seems like a lot.  Thank you, Chairman. 
Senator GrahamR.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O.GRAHAM,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA  Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a reason  I did not do this litany with Democratic nominees that appeared  before the Committee. I do not think it would have made any difference  in terms of how other people voted, and I did not expect  them to vote with the Republican majority.  Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, I could have spent a lot of  time talking about how antagonistic they are to the Second Amendment,  in my view, how the unborn does not have much of a chance  in their Court, how the environmentalists always win, and there is  no government too big to be said ‘‘no’’ to.  The reason I did not do that is because I thought they were  qualified, and 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. I did not believe that.  Followed closely by Ben. But apparently  what I said did not matter, and that is okay with me. The  American people chose Donald Trump, and here is what I can say  about the man in front of us.  No matter who had won our primary, no one could have chosen  better than Neil Gorsuch to represent conservatism on the Supreme  Court. So, Donald Trump deserves to be congratulated for  listening to a lot of people and coming up with, I think, the best  choice available to a Republican President in terms of nominating  somebody who is going to keep the conservative philosophy alive  and well in the Court.  And I doubt if you will be disappointed many times with Judge  Gorsuch, but he is a pretty independent guy from what I can tell.  You will probably be more—I have never been disappointed with  Sotomayor and Kagan in the sense I knew what I was getting.  They always vote with the liberal block. They are very qualified  people. Sometimes the Court comes together 9–to–nothing to reject  something, but most of the time people break along the lines of  where they came from.  And I think Sotomayor and Kagan came from a view of the law  that I do not accept in terms of who I would have chosen, but was  well within the mainstream of judicial philosophy from the left. I  thought they led exemplary lives quite frankly. There were a lot of  attacks on them that I did not echo because I thought, give me a  break. Really? Are these the two worst women in the world? They  lived exemplary lives, were highly qualified, and that is why I  voted for them.  I thought that is what we should be doing, and I am beginning  to wonder now how the game is played. I do remember when I  voted for them, how many good editorials I have from papers that  nobody in South Carolina read.  [Laughter.]  Senator GRAHAM. I miss Harry. Harry is around here somewhere,  Harry Reid. He said something about me. I cannot find it.  But he basically said that I wished more people would follow Senator  Graham’s lead when it comes to voting for very highly qualified  nominees. He said that on the floor. Maybe that will happen  in the future. Well, time will tell.  Now, as to whether or not this man is highly qualified, I am  dying to hear the argument that he is not. You may not like the  view he has of the law, but I am dying to hear somebody over there  tell me why he is not qualified to be sitting here when a Republican  President occupies down the street.  Now, when you look at the Federalist Papers, I saw the musical,  ‘‘Hamilton.’’ It was pretty good. Reading his work was even better.  And the Federalist Papers 78, 87—I cannot remember the number.  Basically, what he tells us is that the role of the Senate is, make  sure that the President does not pick someone specially favored for  their State and association to their family, someone really cronyism,  I guess, is what we are supposed to be doing. And most Supreme  Court Justices, up until modern times, basically were reconfirmed  without with a voice vote.  So, things have changed, and we cannot lay all the blame on our  Democratic friends about politicizing the selection process. What I  want to say to the public is, I am glad people like Judge Gorsuch  are willing to go through this, and I am sure Justices Sotomayor  and Kagan had wished on a couple of days they had not chosen  that path, but I think they made it through, quite frankly, with flying  colors.  So, the issue for me is, I am waiting to hear somebody over there  tell me why you are not qualified for the job that you are seeking.  Twenty-seven hundred decisions, and you have been overruled  once. An academic record. The reason I did not do all the things  you did academically, I could not get into any of the schools—into  the schools you were able to get into.  But the way you have handled yourself, I think you should be  proud of the way you have handled yourself on the court. I think  all the statements by your colleagues who know you better than  anybody up here when no TV camera is rolling say nothing but  great things about you, even people who have a different philosophy.  So, I just want you to know that from my point of view, you are  every bit as qualified as Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I think  you are just as good a man as they are two fine women. And over  the course of the next couple of days, the American people are  going to get to understand who you are and, within limits, your judicial  philosophy. They are going to want you to decide every case  they do not like here, and you will have to say ‘‘no.’’  And there is a reason I did not ask Justices Sotomayor and  Kagan to give me an opinion as to what they would do when they  got on the Court because I knew they would not tell me that. I did  not really feel comfortable asking them that.  As to Judge Garland, the one thing I can say for sure is that  when Justice Scalia passed on February the 13th, we had already  had three primaries on the Republican side, and the campaign was  in full swing on the Democratic side. I thought long and hard about  that. Are we doing something unfair here by not allowing the current  President to nominate somebody and fill a vacancy in the last  year of their presidency after the political process had started?  So, when I started looking around at what other people thought,  here is what Joe Biden thought in 1992. ‘‘If someone steps down,  I would highly recommend the President not name someone and  not send a name up. If Bush did send someone up, I would ask the  Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee.  It would be a pragmatic conclusion that once the political season  is underway, and it is, action on known Supreme Court nominations  must be put off until after the election campaign is over.’’  Now, that is what my friend, Joe, said in 1992.  The bottom line here is I have no doubt in my mind if the shoe  were on the other foot, the other side would have delayed the confirmation  process until the next President were elected. In a hundred  years, when we have had the President of one party in power  and the Senate in the hands of another party, I think we have had  one person confirmed in the last year of a term. So, I do not feel  like any injustice has been done to anybody here. And the bottom  line, when you read Democratic words from the past, they are saying  basically what we said.  The one thing I can say is that I have been consistent. I have  voted for everybody since I have been here, four: Justices Roberts,  Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. And I feel all four had one thing in  common: no Republican would have chosen Sotomayor or Kagan,  but how could a Republican say they were not qualified for the job  they had? They had lived an exemplary life, well qualified, and had  years on the bench.  Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I remember after I voted for  Ms. Kagan, all the headlines in The Washington Post were, this  will ensure that Graham gets primary. They were right. That is not  the only reason, to my primary opponents, but that was the main  reason, and I made it through just fine. And I do not know how  we got here as a Nation.  Scalia had 98–to–nothing. Ginsburg I think was 96–to–3. What  happened between now and then? How did we go from being able  to understand that Scalia was a well-qualified conservative, and  Ginsburg was a well-qualified liberal, and recognize that elections  matter? I do not know how we got there, but here is what I hope,  that we turn around and go back to where we were because what  we are doing is going to destroy the judiciary over time. 
Senator KlobucharD.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHARD,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA  Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,  Judge. We have already met once before in my office, and all of us  on the Judiciary Committee are looking forward to hearing from  you. And welcome to your family as well.  This Committee has no greater responsibility than the one before  us today. Our Constitution, our laws, and our values all depend on  a Supreme Court that is impartial, fair, and just. Your nomination  comes before us during an unprecedented time in our country’s history.  We are witnessing a singular moment of constitutional and  democratic unease.  In recent months, foundational elements of our democracy, including  the rule of law, have been questioned, challenged, and even  undermined. So, I cannot evaluate your credentials in the comfort  of a legal cocoon. Instead, I must look at your views and record in  the real world of America today. You see, you come before us this  afternoon not only as a nominee sitting at a table alone with your  friends and family behind you, but in the context of the era in  which we live.  From the highest levels of Government, we have heard relentless  criticisms of journalists. Seventeen intelligence agencies have confirmed  that Russia, an autocratic foreign government, attempted to  influence our most recent election. At the same time, voting rights  in the U.S. have been stripped from far too many, while dark  money and extraordinary sums, adding up to an estimated $800  million in just 6 years, continues to have an outsized influence in  our politics, distorting our representative democracy.  Just last month, we saw the President of the United States refer  to a man appointed to the Federal bench by President George W.  Bush as a ‘‘so-called judge,’’ and we have sadly seen hate unleashed  toward religious minorities from Jews to Muslims, venom directed  at innocent Americans, from kids in restaurants being told to go  back to where they came from, to a man gunned down while washing  his car in his driveway.  The pillars of our democracy and our Constitution are at risk.  You are not the cause of these challenges, Judge, these challenges  to our democracy, but if confirmed, you would play a critical role  in dealing with them.  This is a serious moment in our Nation’s history, and as representatives  of the American people, it is our duty up here to deter mine if you will uphold the motto on the Supreme Court building  itself, to help all Americans achieve equal justice under law.  Before I was elected to the Senate, I spent 8 years leading Minnesota’s  largest prosecutor’s office. I have seen firsthand how the  law has a real impact that extends far beyond the walls of a courtroom,  whether it is crime victims and their families, or people who  have seen a loved one sent to jail. The decisions made from the  bench affect people living right now in the 21st century with 21st  century problems.  So, though the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights were written  in the 18th century, though the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee  of equal protection of the laws was written in the 19th century,  the decisions made today affect not the lives of our 18th and  19th century ancestors, but of all Americans today.  So, Judge, these hearings will not just be about your legal experience.  They are about trying to understand what you would actually  do on the Court, for the law is more than a set of dusty books in  the basement stacks of a law library. It is the bedrock of our society.  We need to know how you approach the law.  After Judge Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme  Court last year, we often heard about how he is a careful jurist  who decides cases on the narrowest possible grounds, who builds  consensus across the ideological spectrum, who does not inject political  considerations into his rulings. We look forward to hearing  what your judicial philosophy would be on the Court.  Looking at your past decisions, I have questions about how you  would approach your work. In a speech last year, you spoke about  the differences between judges and legislators. You said that,  ‘‘While legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and  to claims about social utility to reshape the law as they think it  should be in the future, that judges should be none of those things  in a democratic society. Judges,’’ you said, ‘‘should instead strive to  apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking  to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader  at the time of the events in question would have understood the  law to be.’’  I want to understand better those views of the Constitution and  how they square with modern day life. Due process, equal protection  of the laws, these are general and sweeping terms. And the  Supreme Court, which has the power of judicial review, has the  constitutional duty to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution  means, rulings that can impact voting rights, civil rights, and the  right of people to marry.  Many of the issues we face today are ones that this country’s  founders never considered, and, in fact, never could have considered  because of all the social change and innovation that has taken  place. We are no longer dealing with plows, bonnets, and colony  deaths in England, but instead driverless cars, drones, and  cybercrimes. And those were just the topics of the hearings I attended  last week.  I want to understand how your judicial philosophy, which, as you  suggest, looks backward, not forward, may affect the rights of our  fellow citizens. I also want to understand the implications of your  views on legal precedent. One example of this occurs in the context  of the Chevron doctrine.  In stating that courts should generally defer to reasonable interpretations  of Executive agencies, this 33-year-old case guarantees  that the most complex regulatory decisions, ones judges themselves  may have little or no expertise to handle, are made by the scientists  and professionals best equipped to rise to these challenges.  These modern agency decisions include things like rules protecting  public safety, requirements against lead-based paint, and clean  water protections for our Great Lakes.  Last year in your concurring opinion in Gutierrez v. Lynch, you  suggested that Chevron should be overturned, yet this act would  have titanic real-world implications on all aspects of our everyday  lives. Countless rules could be in jeopardy, protections that matter  to the American people would be compromised, and there would be  widespread uncertainty. Judge, if you believe it is really time to  overturn Chevron, then we need to know with what you would replace  it.  Another opinion that I want to talk about is Riddle v.  Hickenlooper. In your concurring opinion, you suggest that the  Court should apply strict scrutiny to laws restricting campaign contributions.  If the Supreme Court adopted that view, it could well  compromise the few remaining campaign finance protections that  are still on the books. The notion that Congress has little or no role  in setting reasonable campaign finance rules is in direct contradiction  with the express views of the American people.  In recent polls, over three-quarters of Americans have said that  we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of money in  politics. While polls, as we know, are not a judge’s problem, democracy  should be. When unlimited, undisclosed money floods our campaigns,  it drowns out the people’s voices. It undermines our elections.  Other questions about your views in money and politics are  raised by your opinion in Hobby Lobby. In that opinion, you found  that corporations were legal persons and could exercise their own  religious beliefs. This ruling leaves open the troubling argument  that corporations have a right to free speech equal to that of citizens,  which would invalidate the prohibition of corporations donating.  These are not the only First Amendment issues I will raise.  I want to talk about New York Times v. Sullivan and freedom of  the press, as well as an area you have great expertise in, antitrust.  Judge, as I consider your nomination, I am reminded of something  a Justice who hailed from Minnesota, Justice Blackmun, once  said, ‘‘Surely,’’ he wrote, ‘‘there is a way to teach law, strict and demanding  though it might be, with some glimpse of its humanness  and basic good. There is room for flexibility and different answers,  and not all is Black and White. You see, there is a reason we have  judges to apply the laws to the facts. It is because answers are not  always as clear as we would like, and sometimes there is more  than one reasonable interpretation.’’  As a prosecutor, I knew that every charging decision that we  made, every case we chose to pursue, had real implications. It is  the same with judges, for in the end it was not a law professor or  Federal jurist who was helped by the Eighth Circuit is reliance on  Chevron. It was an hourly Minnesota grocery store worker who got  his hard-earned pension. And when the Court stripped away the  rules that opened the door to unlimited super PAC spending, it was  not the campaign financers or the ad men who were hurt. It was  a grandma in Lanesboro, Minnesota, who actually believed that  giving $10 to her Senator would make a difference.  And as the granddaughter of an iron ore miner, I can tell you  it was not a CEO or a corporate board chair whose life was saved  by mining safety rules. It was the Minnesota iron ore workers like  my grandpa, who went to work every day with a black lunch bucket  1,500 feet underground in a cage.  My dad, who ended up as the first kid in his family to graduate  from high school, and from there to community college, and then  to the University of Minnesota, still remembers as a little boy  standing in front of the caskets of those mine workers lining St.  Anthony’s Church. It was the worker protections, coupled with the  ability to organize as a union, that finally made those miners’ jobs  safe.  Judge, you have been rightfully praised for your impressive academic  credentials and experience, but at these hearings I want to  know more than just about your record. I want to know about how,  if you are confirmed, your decisions will, in fact, reflect precedent  and the law, whether your judgments and decisions will be good,  whether they will be done in a way that will help all Americans,  from that grandma in Lanesboro to that Minnesota grocery store  worker. That is not politics. That is why we are having these hearings  today.  Thank you. 
Senator CruzR.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS  Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Gorsuch, welcome.  Thank you for your decades of service, honorable service.  Thank you for your family being here today, and thank you for  your willingness to endure the spectacle of this confirmation hearing.  February 13th of last year was a devastating day for those of us  who revere the Constitution and the rule of law. On that day, we  lost Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia was one  of the greatest Justices to ever sit on the Bench. He was a trailblazing  advocate for the original meaning of the Constitution, and  a shining example of judicial humility.  His death left an enormous hole not only in our hearts, but in  the protections for the rule of law, and it left enormous shoes to  fill, a daunting task that I know weighs on you as you consider the  enormity of what is in front of you.  Today there is a sharp disagreement about the very nature of the  Supreme Court. Some people view the Court as a hyper-powerful  political branch. When they grow frustrated with the legislative  process and the will of the people, they turn to the Court to try to  see their preferred policies enacted.  For conservatives, we understand the opposite is true. We read  the Constitution and see that it imbues the Federal judiciary with  a much more modest role than the left embraces. Judges are not  supposed to make law. They are supposed to faithfully apply it.  Justice Scalia was a champion of this modest view of the judicial  role, but had his vacant seat been filled by Barack Obama or Hillary  Clinton, Justice Scalia’s legacy would have been in grave danger.  If they filled his seat, we would have seen a Supreme Court  where the will of the people would have been repeatedly cast aside  by a new activist Supreme Court majority.  We would have seen a Supreme Court majority that viewed itself  as philosopher kings who had the power to decide for the rest of  us what policies should govern our Nation and control every facet  of our lives. We would have seen our democratic process controlled  by five unelected lawyers here in Washington, DC.  That would have been a profound and troubling shift in the direction  of the Supreme Court and our Nation’s future. That is why  after Justice Scalia’s untimely death, the Senate chose to exercise  our explicit constitutional authority, and we advised President  Obama that we would not consent to a Supreme Court nominee  until the people in the midst of a Presidential election were able  to choose. For 80 years, the Senate had not filled a Supreme Court  vacancy that had occurred in a Presidential election year, and the  Senate majority rightly decided that last year would not become  the first in eight decades.  The people, therefore, had a choice, a choice between an  originalist view of the Constitution represented by Justice Scalia or  a progressive and activist view of the Constitution represented by  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. During the campaign, President  Trump repeatedly promised to nominate Justices in the mold  of Justice Scalia, and, indeed, he laid out a specific list of 21  judges, constitutionalists from whom he said he would choose his  nominee. Judge Gorsuch was one of those 21.  Issuing such a list was a move without precedent in our country’s  Presidential history, and it created the most transparent process  for selecting a Supreme Court Justice that our Nation has ever  seen. The voters had a direct choice. The voters understand the 21  men and women from whom the President would pick, and they  had a very different vision of a Supreme Court Justice that would  be put forth by Hillary Clinton.  And in November, the people spoke in what was essentially a referendum  on the kind of Justice that should replace Justice Scalia.  The people chose originalism, textualism, and rule of law. The people  chose judicial humility. The people chose protecting the Bill of  Rights, our free speech, our religious liberty, our Second Amendment  rather than handing policymaking authority over to judges on  the Supreme Court.  Given that history, given the engagement of the electorate nationally  on this central issue, I would suggest that Judge Gorsuch  is no ordinary nominee. Because of this unique and transparent  process, unprecedented in the Nation’s history, his nomination carries  with it a super legitimacy that is also unprecedented in our  Nation’s history. The American people played a very direct role in  helping choose this nominee.  Like the renowned Justice he is set to replace, Judge Gorsuch is  brilliant and has an impeccable academic record. His judicial  record demonstrates a faithful commitment to the Constitution and  the rule of law. He has refused to legislate his own policy preferences  from the bench, while recognizing the pivotal role the judiciary  plays in defending the fundamental liberties protected in the  Bill of Rights.  On the night he was nominated, Judge Gorsuch channeled Justice  Scalia when he explained that, ‘‘A judge who likes every outcome  he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results  he prefers rather than those the law demands.’’ That is exactly  right, and those words should give comfort to the American people  and to my Democratic colleagues.  And it is worth recalling that our friends on the Democratic side  of the aisle understand this and, indeed, not too long ago agreed  with it. A decade ago, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by this Committee  for the Federal Court of Appeals by a voice vote. He was  likewise confirmed by the entire United States Senate by a voice  vote without a single Democrat speaking a word of opposition. Not  a word of opposition from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, not  from Harry Reid, or Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry. Not from Senators  Feinstein, Leahy, or Durbin, who still sit on this Committee.  Not even from Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe  Biden.  Not a one of them spoke a word against Judge Gorsuch’s nomination  a decade ago, and the question this hearing poses to our  Democratic colleagues is, what has changed? What has changed?  Ten years ago, Judge Gorsuch was so unobjectionable, he did not  merit even a whisper of disapproval. In the decades since, he has  an objectively exemplary record. By any measure, he has shown  himself to be even more worthy of the bipartisan support he received  back then.  Unfortunately, modern reality suggests that is probably not  something my Democratic colleagues feel they can do in today’s political  environment. Many probably believe they have no choice but  to try to manufacture attacks against Judge Gorsuch, whether they  want to or not, just to preserve their own political future and protect  themselves from primaries back home.  We are seeing some of these baseless attacks already. Most recently,  some Democrats have tried to slander Judge Gorsuch as  being ‘‘against the little guy’’ because he has dared to rule based  on the law, the law that Congress has passed, and not on the specific  identity of the specific litigants appearing before him. This is  absurd.  For one thing, many of these same critics who spent the last 8  years attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity of  nuns, for having the audacity to live according to their deeply held  religious beliefs. You really need to take a long look in the mirror  if one day you find yourself attacking nuns, attacking the Little  Sisters of the Poor, and then the next day you find yourself orating  on the need to protect the little guy.  A judge’s job is not to protect the little guy or the big guy. A  judge’s job and a judge swears an oath to uphold the Constitution  and to follow the law fairly, impartially, and equally for every litigant,  little or big.  In the past weeks as well, some of my Democratic colleagues  have questioned Judge Gorsuch’s independence and suggested that  he needs to answer questions about the actions and statements and  even tweets of the President who appointed him. I would ask, was  Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer asked about the sexual harassment  suit that had been filed against President Clinton by Paula  Jones? No, neither was asked about that suit. Was Justice Kagan  asked about President Obama’s incendiary comments at the State  of the Union attacking the Supreme Court for a decision he disagreed  with? No, of course not.  Those questions were not asked because they were inappropriate  political questions that have nothing to do with the record of the  nominee before this Committee. Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer,  Justice Kagan were not asked those questions, and Judge Gorsuch  should not be either. Instead, we should evaluate this nomination  on the record, on the merits, and on that ground I have every confidence  that Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed as the next Associate  Justice of the Supreme Court. 
Senator FrankenD 	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA  Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Judge Gorsuch, congratulations on your nomination. You are a  man of considerable qualifications and experience. And having reviewed  your decisions, I can say that you are a man of strong opinions.  But the task before this Committee is not to determine whether  you are a man of conviction. Rather, it is incumbent upon us to determine  whether the views that you espouse, and whether your interpretation  of the Constitution, take proper measure of the challenges  the American people face every day.  We must determine whether your understanding of our founding  document is one that will make real its promise of justice and  equality to all Americans, Black and White, immigrant, Native  American, gay, straight, and transgender.  We must determine whether your interpretation of our laws and  the Constitution will unfairly favor corporate interests over working  families or limit the ability of Minnesotans to get their day in  court.  The Justices who sit on the Supreme Court wield enormous  power over our daily lives, so before this Committee decides whether  to advance your nomination, we have an obligation to fully examine  your views on these important issues, and to make sure that  those views are known to the public.  That is really the whole purpose of these hearings, to allow the  people of Minnesota, the American people, to meet you, to decide  for themselves whether you are qualified to serve.  But, Judge Gorsuch, having reviewed your decisions and your  writings, I have concerns. In the days ahead, I will use this hearing  as an opportunity to better understand your views and perhaps to  alleviate those concerns.  But in order for the hearing to serve its purpose, in order for the  public to determine whether you should be confirmed, you must answer  the questions this Committee poses fully, candidly, and without  equivocation, so I hope that is how you will approach our exchanges.  Now, with that in mind, I think it is important to acknowledge  just exactly how it is that you came before us today, and we talked  about this, namely through the Committee’s failure to fulfill one of  its core functions. Immediately following the death of Justice Scalia  and before President Obama even named a nominee, my Republican  colleagues announced that they would not move forward with  filling the vacancy until after the Presidential election.  The Majority Leader said, ‘‘The American people should have a  voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court.’’  The only problem with the Majority Leader’s reasoning is that  the American people did have a voice in this decision, twice.  Nonetheless, when President Obama nominated Chief Judge  Merrick Garland, the Republican Members of the Committee responded  by refusing to hold a hearing, a truly historic dereliction  of duty of this body and a tactic as cynical as it was irresponsible.  As a result of my Republican colleagues’ unprecedented obstructionism,  Justice Scalia’s seat on the Court remained vacant until  President Trump was able to name a replacement.  Now, during the campaign, then-candidate Trump made no secret  about what kind of nominee he would select. In fact, he openly  discussed his litmus test. He said that he would ‘‘appoint judges  very much in the mold of Justice Scalia.’’ During the final Presidential  debate, then-candidate Trump said, ‘‘The Justices I am  going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative  bent.’’  Now, Justice Scalia was a man of great conviction, and, it should  be said, a man of great humor. But Justice Scalia embraced a rigid  view of our Constitution, a view blind to the equal dignity of LGBT  people and hostile to women’s reproductive rights, and a view that  often refused to acknowledge the lingering animus in laws and policies  that perpetuate the racial divide.  Judge Gorsuch, while no one can dispute the late Justice Scalia’s  love of the Constitution, the document he revered looks very different  from the one that I have sworn to support and defend. So  it troubles me that, at this critical juncture in our Nation’s history,  at this moment when our country is so fixated on things that divide  us from one another, that President Trump would pledge to appoint  jurists whose views of our founding document seek to reinforce  those divisions rather than bridge them.  This is an important moment in our history. The public’s trust  in our Government and in the integrity of our institutions is at an  all-time low. But that erosion of trust did not take place overnight,  and it did not happen on its own.  The American people’s loss of confidence in our public institutions  was quickened by the Court. A study published in the Minnesota  Law Review found that the Roberts Court is more likely to  side with business interests than any Supreme Court since World  War II.  Time and time again, the Roberts Court issued decisions that  limit our constituents’ ability to participate freely and fairly in our  democracy, decisions like Shelby County where the Court gutted  one of our landmark civil rights laws and removed a crucial check  on race discrimination at the ballot box, or like Concepcion, a 5–  4 decision that allows corporations to place obstacles between consumers  and the courthouse door.  Perhaps most egregious of all was Citizens United, which paved  the way for individuals and outside groups to spend unlimited  sums of money in our elections.  It is no surprise that, during the 2016 elections, voters from  across the ideological spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike,  described our system as rigged. That is because it is. And the Roberts  Court bears a great deal of responsibility for that.  Now, in each one of those 5–4 decisions, Justice Scalia was  among the majority. So as this Committee sets about the task of  evaluating his potential successor, I want to better understand the  extent to which you share Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy, and  I will be paying close attention to the ways in which your views  set you apart.  One of the ways in which your views are distinct from Justice  Scalia’s is in the area of administrative law. Just this past August,  you wrote an opinion in which you suggested that it may be time  to reevaluate what is known as the Chevron doctrine.  Now, in broad strokes, the Chevron doctrine provides that courts  should be reluctant to overrule agency experts when they are carrying  out their missions, like when the FDA sets safety standards  for prescription drugs. This principle, outlined by the Supreme  Court, recognized that our agencies employ individuals with great  expertise in the laws that they are charged with enforcing, like biologists  at the FDA, and that where those experts have issued  rules in highly technical areas, judges should defer to their expertise.  Now, administrative law can be an obscure and sometimes complicated  area of law, but for anyone who cares about clean air or  clean water, or about the safety of our food and of our medicines,  it is incredibly important. And Chevron simply ensures that judges  do not discard an agency’s expertise without good reason. Justice  Scalia recognized this to be true.  But to those who subscribe to President Trump’s extreme view,  Chevron is the only thing standing between them and what the  President’s chief strategist Steve Bannon called the ‘‘deconstruction  of the administrative state,’’ which is shorthand for gutting any environmental  or consumer protection measure that gets in the way  of corporate profit margins.  Speaking before a gathering of conservative activists last month,  Mr. Bannon explained that the President’s appointees were se lected to bring about that deconstruction. And I suspect that your  nomination, given your views on Chevron, is a key part of that  strategy.  So this hearing is important. Over the next few days, you will  have an opportunity to explain your judicial philosophy, and I look  forward to learning more about how you would approach the great  challenges facing our country.  But if past is truly prologue, then I fear that confirming you  would guarantee more of the same from the Roberts Court, decisions  that continue to favor powerful corporate interests over the  rights of average Americans.  During your time on the Tenth Circuit, you have sided with corporations  over workers, corporations over consumers, and corporations  over women’s health. What this moment in our history, and  in our Nation’s history, calls for is a nominee whose experience  demonstrates an ability to set aside rigid views in favor of identifying  common ground and crafting strong consensus opinions,  someone like Merrick Garland.  But your record suggests that, if confirmed, you will espouse an  ideology that I believe has already infected the Bench, an ideology  that backs big business over individual Americans, and refuses to  see our country as the dynamic and diverse Nation that my constituents  wake up in every morning.  As I said before, I see this hearing as an opportunity to learn  more about your views, and perhaps to alleviate some of my concerns,  so I hope that we are able to have a productive conversation.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator SasseR.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN SASSE,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA  Senator SASSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Judge, this is a special moment in the life of our Republic. We  have an opportunity to stand back from more than 200 years of our  history to evaluate our civic health and to recommit ourselves to  a government that is intentionally limited, to powers that are intentionally  distinguished and divided.  That is what these next few weeks are actually about.  Arguably, the most important thing the U.S. Senate will do this  year is confirm the next Supreme Court Justice.  I want to focus my opening remarks around the simple image of  a judge’s black robe. It is a strange thing that judges wear robes.  You people are odd. But it is not something that we should just  look past as an odd convention. It is something that we should look  right at. It is not some relic from history that people wore long ago  in an era of formality, like a powdered wig.  So why do the robes exist, unfashionable and unattractive as  they often are? The reasons are better summed up by a current sitting  judge than I might be able to put them, ‘‘Donning a robe does  not make me any smarter, but the robe does mean something. It  is not just that I can hide the coffee stains on my shirt. It serves  as a reminder of what is expected of us, what Burke has called ‘the  cold neutrality of an impartial judge.’ It serves, too, as a reminder  of the relatively modest station we are meant to occupy in a democratic  society. In other countries, judges might wear scarlet. Here,  we are told to by our own plain, black robes, and I can attest to  the standard choir outfit of the local uniform supply store as a good  deal. Ours is the judiciary of an honest black polyester.’’  The author of these insightful words sits before us, Judge Neil  Gorsuch, and that statement is an excellent lens through which to  view the work of the Committee this week and, indeed, the work  of the Court over the next century and beyond.  I want to make three simple overlapping points about that  judge’s black robe. One, it changes the way that our eyes see the  court. Two, it reiterates the calling of a judge to the judge. And  three, it gives us a special opportunity to teach our kids something  about our—about their Constitution, the enduring paper that defines  what our Government can and cannot do.  First, then, how does it change the way we see the court? When  you look at the nine Justices sitting together in their robes, they  blend in with one another. It is hard to tell them apart if you  squint. And, thus, it calls attention to the office rather than to the  person. That is because when the judge puts on his or her robe, it  forces their personalities into the background so that we can focus  on the important but the modest job that they have to do, which  is to drill down on facts and law.  Facts are objective. They do not change based on your personality.  They are evaluated against written, objective laws, not  against what the judge wishes the law said.  Someone famously said that ‘‘empathy’’ is an essential ingredient  in arriving at a just decision. This belief is well-meant, but it is  very foolish. For standing before a court, your gender, your skin,  your bank account cannot decide your fate in the same way a  judge’s race, class, and gender should not decide your fate. Empathy  is actually not the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It is, in a  sense, our role, for we are men and women who have been hired  and can be fired by the American people to empathize. We are to  identify with the hopes and the struggles of 320 million Americans.  But the judge, instead, has a different job, to faithfully and dispassionately  apply the law to the facts of the particular case. The  judge’s robe is there to remind the judge and us of that—that if the  facts are on your side, it should not matter which judge you sit before.  Our ideal is one where you can trade out one judge for another  judge, and you should get the same outcome. This is the heart of  what we mean when we say that we believe in the rule of law, not  of men or of women, or of Black or White, or rich or poor. We are  not to be ruled by a judge’s passions or by a judge’s empathy or  by a judge’s policy preferences.  Here is the second thing that the black robe is supposed to do.  It is supposed to reiterate the calling of the judge back to the  judge. By way of loose analogy, many people across our country sat  in church pews yesterday morning and listened to someone preach  from behind a big wooden pulpit wearing a robe. Why the pulpit?  Why the robe? Because these things make it harder to see the  preacher. They help us all understand that yesterday morning, for  those of us in that tradition, knew that it was not about the messenger  but about the message that was being passed on from  above. It was also to remind the minister of the same cloaking.  Likewise, a good judge on the bench knows that. It is not about  you, so do not make it about you.  I said that it is only a loose analogy because, of course, the job  of a Supreme Court Justice is absolutely not to deliver some eternal  word from God. It is, rather, to interpret a man-made, written  Constitution as objectively and faithfully as they can, inserting  their opinions as little as possible.  When you put on your robe, you are cloaking your personal preferences.  You are cloaking your partisan views. There is not a red  robe for Republicans. There is not a blue robe for Democrats. We  issue here only black robes.  This brings us to the third and final point, which is that the  judge’s robe is also to teach our kids how they should understand  their Constitution. As all of us learned in ‘‘Schoolhouse Rock,’’ the  judiciary is not only a separate branch of government from the  President and the Congress, but it is also a coequal one. We have  different functions, but we have the same responsibility to be upholding  and to teach the Constitution.  As a coequal, the Court can examine whether the actions of the  other two branches are, in fact, unconstitutional. Time and again,  at important moments in our Nation’s history, the Court has struck  down laws passed by the Congress or put a stop to a President’s  Executive actions.  Here is what that means: The primary job of the Supreme Court  is not to uphold the will of the majority of the moment. The primary  job of a Supreme Court Justice is not to reflect the popular  opinions of the day. That might sound surprising. Do we not live  in a democracy where the majority is supposed to rule? The answer  to that question is only a very qualified ‘‘yes,’’ for there are critical  limits to that statement.  The Constitution is a decidedly and intentionally anti-majoritarian  document. The Constitution exists to protect our rights and  our liberties, even when we might hold unpopular views. And the  role of the Supreme Court in protecting those rights and liberties  is sometimes precisely to frustrate the will of the majority.  Think about how the Constitution deals with religion and public  opinion. The First Amendment prohibits the Government from establishing  any state religion, and it guarantees that every citizen  can worship or not worship, however their conscience dictates.  If, however, at some moment polling showed a 51 percent popular  desire in this country to pass a law making church attendance  mandatory, or to subsidize a particular religious denomination, the  Supreme Court would rightly strike down such flawed laws. This  is because, in the Constitution, we decided that we would limit our  own power. We the people decided, in the founding of this Republic,  that we would restrain our own majoritarian impulses. By enacting  the Constitution, we intentionally decided to tie our own hands so  that there are certain things that a majority can never do, like invade  someone’s conscience. And if the majority in its arrogance  should at some point in the future seek to cross that line, the Supreme  Court will rightfully shout ‘‘no.’’  When Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it is, in fact, the  Congress that is violating the long-term will of the people, for the  judiciary is there to assert the will of the people, as embodied in  our shared Constitution, over and against that unconstitutional but  perhaps temporarily popular law.  Each branch serves the people but in unique ways. It is the job  of the Congress and the President to act. It is the job of the Court  often, to react. Each branch holds the others in check. Each branch  faithfully seeks to uphold and teach the Constitution. Each branch  serves the American people, but with distinct offices.  When a Supreme Court Justice puts on his or her robe, we do  not want them confusing their job with those of other branches. We  want them policing the structure of our Government to make sure  that each branch does its job, but only its job.  Today, Judge Gorsuch sits in front of us wearing a suit and tie.  Before he can put back on the black robe, he must answer this  Committee’s questions. And I expect that Mr. Gorsuch the citizen  has policy preferences. He probably has desired outcomes. But I do  not know what they are, and that is a good thing. And I expect,  by the end of this week, it should be clear that Judge Gorsuch, the  judge’s judge, will faithfully embody the spirit of that black robe,  for the American people deserve the comfort of a judiciary that is  cold and impartial, not seeking to be super-legislators, for if a judge  seeks to be a super-legislator, he or she should run for office so the  American people can choose to hire them or fire them. But that is  not the calling you have before us today.  Thank you, and thank you to your family for being willing to endure  this calling and this service and this hearing. 
Senator CoonsD.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE  Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Welcome, Judge Gorsuch, and welcome to your family and your  friends. Congratulations on your nomination, and I look forward to  the opportunity to question you.  I believe my constitutional duty to advise the President on this  nomination to the Supreme Court is among my most important responsibilities  as a Senator. A nominee confirmed to the Supreme  Court shapes our law for decades. Justices decide cases that influence  the lives of generations of Americans. This hearing is our opportunity  to ask you, Judge Gorsuch, questions in front of the  American people to better understand how you interpret the text  of our Constitution and how you apply Supreme Court precedent.  We will explore how your approach to interpreting our Constitution  would impact our lives in the future. I am committed to ensuring  the consideration of your nomination by this Committee is thorough  and fair, and I am hopeful that as our hearing proceeds, it  will promote an important dialogue about the Constitution and the  courts. Based on our meeting, Judge Gorsuch, I know that you, too,  hope that this moment can serve as a shared civic experience.  I am considering your nomination with an open mind, and I  would ask that you be forthcoming in your responses to our questions.  I would like this hearing to be substantive and to reflect the  best traditions of the Senate.  However, I cannot let this moment, in commenting on the best  traditions of the Senate, pass without expressing my deep regret  that Chief Judge Merrick Garland was treated with profound and  historic disrespect. The disrespect shown by Senate Republicans to  Chief Judge Merrick Garland and to President Obama and to our  institutions was unprecedented and deeply damaging. For nearly  300 days, longer than any other nominee, Chief Judge Garland’s  nomination to the Supreme Court sat without action. My Republican  colleagues did not afford him a hearing and would not give  him a vote.  I believe we have a responsibility to work to re-elevate our democratic  institutions above these narrow partisan politics. I will support  a process worthy of its important purpose, to carefully evaluate  a candidate for the highest court in the land.  The American people are entitled to see you answer probing,  thorough, and challenging questions about your views on a wide  range of constitutional issues because the breadth of the issues  that come before the Supreme Court cannot be overstated. Just in  the last year, the Supreme Court considered cases involving Executive  power, affirmative action, intellectual property, partisan gerrymandering,  racial bias in the courtroom, and reproductive rights.  The seat you would fill, Judge Gorsuch, if elevated, was occupied  by Justice Scalia, and you have been compared to him. While it  may seem at times to many that the Supreme Court is engaged in  abstract intellectual exercises about originalism or textualism or a  living Constitution, even a small subset of landmark decisions Justice  Scalia took part in during his nearly 30 years on the Court  demonstrates otherwise.  It is because of Supreme Court decisions that gay men can no  longer be criminally prosecuted for engaging in consensual relationships;  that loving same-sex couples can get married in every State  in our Union; that women cannot be denied attendance at one of  the Nation’s premier military academies, and that women are entitled  to access the full range of reproductive healthcare; that juveniles  and intellectually disabled people can no longer be executed;  and that millions of Americans who obtained health insurance  under the ACA have been able to keep that care, at least for now.  These cases impacted the lives of millions of real Americans, and  Justice Scalia applied his understanding of the Constitution and  dissented in every one of them.  I would like to use these hearings to explore your interpretation  of the Constitution. I believe that our Constitution, which I view  as our Nation’s secular scripture, includes guarantees of equality  and privacy, hallmarks of our modern American society. I believe  in an independent judiciary that safeguards our rule of law from  unlawful intrusions of the most powerful, even the President of the  United States.  The legitimacy of our Supreme Court transcends the outcome of  any one case, but that legitimacy rests on the unyielding responsibility  of Justices to put their personal political views aside to decide  cases on their merits.  Judge Gorsuch, your nomination has been championed by the  ideologically driven Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.  Interest groups are already spending millions of dollars advocating  for your confirmation. But as I have told you during our meetings,  none of those facts will determine my vote on your nomination. I  am instead looking to you to demonstrate your ability to separate  politics from constitutional interpretation.  As my colleague from the State of Utah, Senator Hatch, once  noted, ‘‘Judges that say what the law is promote liberty. Judges  that say what they think the law should be undermine it.’’  I have spent a good deal of time reviewing your record. I appreciate  that you are an engaging and careful writer. I also have some  serious questions based on your decisions. What stands out to me  is your tendency to go beyond the issues that need to be resolved  in the case before you. I have seen a pattern in which you have  filed dissents, dissents from denials of rehearing, concurrences, or  even concurrences to your own majority opinions, to explore broader  issues than what is necessary, to revisit long-settled precedent,  and to promote dramatic changes to the law. This pattern concerns  me because these additional writings hint at an unwillingness to  settle on a limited conclusion and forge a narrow consensus with  your colleagues.  I want to know that you would apply the Constitution and settled  precedent to reach consensus and resolve narrowly the disputes  before you. And I want to know that our treasured freedoms  would be safe in your stewardship. Our Constitution, as you know,  is designed to protect our diversity of views. It guarantees to all of  us the freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the liberty to  make our most personal life decisions, equal protection, and the  ability to worship freely.  Take the freedom of religion, enshrined in the First Amendment,  which says, in part, ‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment  of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’’ I  believe we must balance our respect for the significance of faith  and free exercise with concerns about impacts on others’ liberty. As  my colleagues know, I studied both law and divinity in school, and  some of the most formative and meaningful experiences of my life  have been guided by my Christian faith. The command to care for  the most vulnerable among us inspires my work and service as a  Senator, and I value opportunities to share with my colleagues in  prayer.  Throughout our Nation’s history, religion has inspired countless  acts of charity, kindness, and good works. But when I think about  the Founders’ wisdom to protect both church and state by ensuring  their separation, I am in awe. Our United States were founded by  people who came here for many reasons, seeking opportunity, free dom from oppression, and hoping in many cases to be free to practice  their faith. From Pilgrims to Mormons, from the Amish to Jehovah’s  Witnesses, America from its founding to today has been  home to many faiths from many parts of the world, and part of our  Founders’ genius was to abandon the European practice of having  a state religion supported by state taxes.  Now today across the U.S., churches and mosques, synagogues  and temples find their own way, recruit and raise up their own believers  and funds free from state interference and unsustained by  state support.  The Supreme Court over decades has sought to strike and preserve  a careful balance between the free exercise rights of religious  minorities and the power of legislatures to compel compliance with  neutral laws.  Recently, the Court has decided several landmark and controversial  cases: in the Hobby Lobby case, where the free religious exercise  rights of a few were held to permit the infringement on personal  liberty of many; and in another important line of cases in  which substantive due process rights have been held to guarantee  a right to privacy and self-determination even when longstanding  practices and religiously motivated statutes are challenged as a result.  I look forward to exploring these decisions with you. Religious  freedom must be freedom not to have our values and practices  pushed into the public square. While other nations are besieged by  sectarian wars, inclusion of all faiths and all people have been  guiding lights in the success of our democracy. However, at other  times in our history, sincerely held religious beliefs have been invoked  to deny millions of Americans full equality under the law in  defense of laws prohibiting interracial marriage or LGBT relationships  or reproductive rights.  We live today in tumultuous times, as you know, Judge. The Supreme  Court is likely to hear many important cases in the years  to come. It will be important that we understand your values and  framework for interpreting the Constitution on areas as important  as Executive power, national security, the independence of the judiciary,  deference to agencies, and personal liberty.  There are disturbing developments that I see in our modern environment  as affronts to religious freedom and personal liberty.  President Trump campaigned on putting in place a Muslim ban  and has signed unlawful and discriminatory Executive orders to deliver  on that promise. The new administration’s Justice Department  has withdrawn guidance supporting protections for  transgendered individuals. And the Attorney General testified  under oath at his confirmation hearing before us that secular attorneys  may not have the same claim to understanding the truth as  religious ones.  Our next Supreme Court Justice will play a pivotal role in sustaining  and defending our rights during this critical time for our  country and in the years to come. America needs a Supreme Court  Justice who will protect the Constitution, not one who will countenance  the faith or fear of some as a justification for infringing the  liberty of many. It is against that backdrop, Judge, that I will be  seeking to understand your commitment to the rule of law, the  guarantees of the First Amendment, and individual liberty.  I look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 
Senator FlakeR.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA  Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,  Judge Gorsuch. Thank you for being here, and thank you to your  family as well and your many friends and associates who have  come to support you. That says a lot for you to have so many willing  to be here, and I have been astounded at the number of op-eds  I have read and statements I have heard from those—not just  those that you agree with, but those who do not always agree with  you. That says a lot about you.  I had a speech to deliver a while ago, and when it was fed into  the teleprompter, your name was not as familiar as some, and it  replaced it with ‘‘Judge Grouch’’ throughout the entire time.  [Laughter.]  Senator FLAKE. And I had to be careful.  Judge GORSUCH. I had similar problems.  Senator FLAKE. I think it is safe to say by the end of this week  every spell checker in the country will know your name, and  ‘‘Judge Grouch’’ is about as far as you can get from Judge Gorsuch  in terms of your temperament. So I commend you. That may  change by the end of the week as well, though.  [Laughter.]  Judge GORSUCH. I hope not.  Senator FLAKE. I do not think so.  As we all know, one of the most consequential decisions a President  makes is who he or she will select to fill vacancies on the Supreme  Court. This is a lifetime appointment. It means that a man  or woman who is selected will likely be interpreting our laws for  decades to come. Judge Antonin Scalia demonstrated how much  one Justice can impact and shift the gravity of the Court, and no  Justice in recent memory has so fundamentally influenced the trajectory  of the Supreme Court or our approach to reading the law.  He did this with an unshakable commitment to an originalist interpretation  of the Constitution and a textualist approach to statutes.  Justice Scalia’s passing marked a watershed moment for the future  of our judiciary. One law professor remarked, ‘‘What lets the  legal system survive is that people in power such as Scalia believe  that the system controls their individual judgments. What will happen  to the law without Justice Scalia to believe in it?’’  Now, fortunately, the President has nominated a jurist who believes  in the rule of law.  Now, in meeting with Judge Gorsuch and learning about his judicial  philosophy, I was impressed by his respect for the law and  his commitment to service. I have been particularly struck by his  recognition that, ‘‘It is for Congress, not the courts, to write new  law,’’ and that a Justice should make decisions based on what the  law demands, not an outcome he or she desires. And as we discussed  in my office, you said that when you don that black robe  that Ben Sasse talked about, you understand that you are not a  legislator. That is important.  It was brought up before by one of my colleagues that says that  Judge Gorsuch is pro-business or against the little guy. I think the  record suggests that he faithfully applies the law and the laws as  enacted by Congress. Good judges do not decide cases based on how  big the guy is but based on the law and the facts.  Now, I am not alone in thinking that. Harvard Law Professor  Noah Feldman, a self-described liberal, recently wrote that,‘‘Siding  with workers against employers is not a jurisprudential decision. It  is a political stance. And Justices, including progressive Justices,  should not decide cases based on who the parties are.’’ I think  Judge Gorsuch’s opinions show just that: He decides cases based on  what the law says, not who the parties are.  Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly reminded us that while we as legislators  may appeal to our own moral convictions in shaping the  law, judges in a democratic society should not decide cases based  on their own moral convictions or their policy preferences. With  Judge Gorsuch, I think the record shows that we can be confident  that he will read the law as written and not legislate from the  Bench.  With regard to the separation of powers, Judge Gorsuch has cautioned  against ‘‘governmental encroachment on the people’s liberties,’’  which could occur should the political majorities of the legislative  and executive branches be permitted to decide cases and  the political unresponsive judiciary branch be allowed to create or  execute policies. For my part, I am excited to confirm a Justice who  reveres the separation of powers as a central principle of our Constitution.  Judge Gorsuch has also demonstrated support for religious liberties.  Our country has always valued the right of individuals to  practice their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience.  He once wrote that our religious freedom statutes ‘‘do not  just apply to protect popular religious beliefs. It does perhaps its  most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating  this Nation’s long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge for  religious tolerance.’’  The Supreme Court later agreed with Judge Gorsuch that it is  the Government’s job to protect an individual’s ability to practice  their religion, not to instruct them how to practice their religion.  Now, finally, as an Arizonan, I am proud of the fact that Judge  Gorsuch is a fellow Westerner. Where you are from influences your  understanding of cultural and regional sensitivities, and the current  makeup of the Supreme Court has an unmistakable lack of geographic  diversity. Of the eight current Justices, five of them were  born in New York or New Jersey. As we say in Arizona and elsewhere,  ‘‘New York City.’’ This is nice to have someone from the  West with a Western perspective, and, fortunately, Judge Gorsuch  fits that bill.  When I met Judge Gorsuch earlier this week, we talked about  our respective Western backgrounds. I told him about my days  growing up on a cattle ranch in rural Arizona. He told me that his  heart has always been in the American West. You learn a lot about  a person by how they spend their time with their friends and family.  There is no mistaking it with Judge Gorsuch. He is a Westerner  through and through.  Now, what makes Judge Gorsuch a true Westerner is more than  just where he lives or what his personal interests are. In the West,  we pride ourselves on being a free people with strong communities  and limited Government. Judge Gorsuch’s jurisprudence reflects  what every Westerner knows to be true: An intrusive Federal Government  cannot interfere with the ability of Western States to govern  themselves. And perhaps more than anything, it will be Judge  Gorsuch’s Western perspective that most enriches debate on the  Supreme Court for years to come.  Now, there has been a lot said about what happened last year  with the nomination of Merrick Garland. I find it striking and very  revealing that one of the first calls that Judge Gorsuch made when  he received this nomination was to Merrick Garland, his friend. I  think that says a lot about the man, regardless of any of our  thoughts, and certainly what happened here should not reflect on  Judge Gorsuch. But I appreciate the temperament that you have  and your willingness to subject yourself and your family and  friends to this process. And I look forward to the rest of the hearing.  I yield back. 
 Senator BlumenthalD.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT  Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for  being here, Judge. I live in the Western part of Connecticut.  [Laughter.]  Judge GORSUCH. Close enough.  Senator BLUMENTHAL. I love Colorado, and my first job was on  a farm in Nebraska where my grandfather raised corn and cattle,  so we can go into other commonalities. But I want to join in thanking  you and your family and say that, despite the hardships of  going through this process, I suspect there are quite a few lawyers  in Connecticut who would not mind changing places with you.  But I also want to thank one group that perhaps should be given  gratitude, and that is your fellow judges on the Federal bench.  Some of them are here. I have no doubt that many are watching.  I have had the honor in the last 40 years to appear before many  of them, and they make sacrifices that are often unappreciated by  most Americans who enjoy the benefits of their service, often financial  sacrifices, personal sacrifices, sometimes even physical threats,  as happened when the schools were desegregated or when women’s  clinics were protected in the United States. And so I want to thank  them and, through you, express my gratitude.  The independence of those judges has never been more threatened  and never more important, and a large part of the threat  comes from the man who nominated you, who has launched a campaign  of vicious and relentless attacks on the credibility and capacity  of our judiciary to serve as a check on lawless Executive action.  His demeaning and disparaging comments about the judiciary have  shaken the foundations of respect for judicial rulings—rulings that  hold the President accountable to the people and our Constitution.  Respect for the opinions of our judges is fundamental, as you  well know. Without it, our democracy cannot function. Alexander  Hamilton said that the judiciary is the least dangerous branch because  it has the power of neither the purse nor the sword. Essential  to its power to protect us is its respect and trust and credibility.  And the President has gravely undermined it, and that is  why I believe you have a special responsibility here this week,  which is to advocate and defend the independence of our judiciary  against those kinds of attacks. It is not enough to do it in the privacy  of my office or my colleagues’ behind closed doors. I believe  that our system really requires and demands that you do it publicly  and explicitly and directly.  We meet this week in the midst of a looming constitutional crisis.  Just hours ago, not far from here, the Director of the FBI revealed  that his agency is investigating potential ties between President  Trump’s associates and Russian meddling in our election. The possibility  of the Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena  against the President is no longer idle speculation. It did so in  United States v. Nixon. So the independence of the judiciary is  more important than ever, and your defense of it is critical.  You are also the nominee of a President who set a set of litmus  tests, saying that his nominee would be pro-life and pro-Second  Amendment and of a conservative bent. In fact, he said that he  would nominate someone, and I am quoting almost exactly in one  of the debates, ‘‘who would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade.’’  So, again, if you fail to be explicit and forthcoming and definite in  your responses, we have to assume that you will pass the Trump  litmus test.  Your nomination also imposes on you a special burden because  of the process that brought you here. The President has largely  outsourced the selection process to conservative groups. He specifically  referred to them on May 11th when he said that a list would  be prepared by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.  On June 13th, he said, ‘‘We are going to have great judges, conservative,  all picked by the Federalist Society.’’  You must be clear that your views are not theirs, and while  under ordinary circumstances this Committee might be satisfied  with the platitudes of ‘‘I cannot reach conclusions or state conclusions  because of the possibility that I may have to consider a case  before the Court,’’ these times are not ordinary.  The rule of law is more than the pillars and the judicial robes  that people ordinarily associate with the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice  has a human face and a voice and, as you know from being  in the trenches, real clients with real lives, and the law has real  consequences in their lives.  I met with Alphonse Maddin, the trucker who was fired by  TransAm Trucking. When he left his truck in sub-zero weather,  that truck was disabled. It could not be driven, and he was freezing.  I met with Patricia Caplinger, who was denied relief by your  court after suffering a very serious injury resulting from a defective  product use.  I met with the children of Grace Hwang who was denied leave  by Kansas State University even though she was suffering from  cancer.  I am troubled by the results in those cases for those real people,  but also for the broader issues that those decisions reflect in workers’  safety and consumer protection, as well as the rights of women  to healthcare and reproductive decisions that are protected by the  Fourth Amendment. And the right of privacy goes beyond just  women’s healthcare. It also relates to surveillance and Government  snooping and a right that is central to our democracy.  Let me just close by saying that you have a special obligation to  be forthcoming about your views, not to prejudge the merits of a  particular case before the Court, but to share your views on longstanding  precedent that the President who nominated you indicated  would be overturned. And you have an obligation to be forthcoming  as well because the decision before us is not about Justice  Scalia, nor is it about your confirmation 10 years ago. The Supreme  Court is different. The Supreme Court is the ultimate resort of justice  in this country. And as much as you may have encountered little  difficulty 10 years ago, you now have a record. And we are here  to judge that record and to make sure that our decision—and I  agree with my colleagues that it will be probably one of the most  consequential and profoundly important decisions that I make as  a United States Senator—is the right one for the country and will  above all make sure that the rule of law is preserved for real people  with real lives, and that we assure that the independence of  our judiciary will continue to protect us from overreaching and tyranny  and the constitutional crisis that is now a real danger before  us. Thank you for being here.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator CrapoR.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO  Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, welcome and  congratulations on the high honor of your nomination.  Much of the discussion surrounding this nomination has centered  on answering the key question: What kind of Justice should serve  on the U.S. Supreme Court?  Some want a judge in their own making—predictable, ideological  and political. Others regard the role of judge as a final arbiter of  justice—clothed in those dark, black robes, unquestioned, and seated  on an elevated platform well above the court proceedings.  In recent years, selecting judges has become more about a numbers  game with the courts, measured at least in part by comparing  vacancies filled by each President. Often, in fact, as recent as last  week and this week, we read about Federal court proceedings in variably coupled with the name of the judge and the President who  appointed him or her.  Because venue shopping has become all too common a practice  today, the individual judge can become more important than the  facts of the case. In this scenario, the judge serves not justice, but  politics in another form.  Whenever Congress considers a judicial nomination, people talk  earnestly about the importance of independence. For some, that  word flows from the central work of the Founders of our Constitution,  who created a separate branch of government empowered to  review laws passed by the legislature and signed and executed by  the President and the executive branch. To others, independence is  more about giving judges the power to issue decisions without personal  consequence.  The true American vision of justice is one in which the judge  fairly and impartially finds the facts and applies the law. The law  is supreme. The facts decide the day. The judge could be substituted  with another and the outcome remains the same. The  President who nominated him or her is never mentioned in the article  about the decision, and venue shopping is a relic of another  era.  This is the vision most Americans have of the proper judge on  the Federal bench. As I reflect on the nomination of Judge  Gorsuch, I think back to our meeting soon after his nomination was  announced. I have met several Supreme Court nominees in my  service in the Senate. All of them have impressive credentials and  legal experience. But Judge Gorsuch stands out for a notable reason.  He understands and is focused on the principle that a judge  is the servant of the law, not the maker of it.  One of his comments during our visit still resonates with me. He  said, ‘‘My personal views are irrelevant as a judge.’’ Is that not the  ideal illustration of a judge steadfastly committed to the law?  To quote the late Justice Scalia, ‘‘If you are going to be a good  and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you  are not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like  them all the time, you are probably doing something wrong.’’  Judge Gorsuch recognizes that the law may be imperfect, being  the product of an imperfect system. But there is a remedy to the  imperfection of law: the political system, directly accountable to the  public. The people choose policymakers, not Federal judges.  The law can frustrate. In Black and White it is stark, and change  comes slowly and often deliberately, just as our forebears designed.  Law that can change in a moment and capriciously is inherently  destabilizing.  An activist judge who makes law plants insecurity in our system.  Rather, our Constitution provides for law to be enacted legislatively  with the sanction of the American people through the ballot box.  Policy changes advanced by judges can be reversed and reversed  again. Law properly grounded in the democratic and political process  cannot.  ‘‘Equal protection under the law.’’ ‘‘Justice is blind.’’ These are  not just catchy phrases that echo back to our time in civic classes.  These are guiding principles of our Republic and reaffirmed in the  Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution. Fundamentally, each  of us should know courts will find for us when the law is on our  side, whether we are rich or poor, strong or weak, or a big guy or  a little guy. That is principled justice.  Some may not like a particular law. That is fair and not unexpected.  But the remedy for this disagreement is not changing  judges but changing the law. Fortunately, our system of Government  has the exact solution available to us: passing a new law  through the deliberate, careful, and publicly accountable political  processes.  No one seriously questions Judge Gorsuch’s fitness and capability  to serve on the highest court in our land. His credentials are exemplary.  He is widely respected for his intellect, his judgment, and his  modesty. His admirers span the political spectrum. Judge Gorsuch  is intelligent and open-minded. He is exactly the model for an appointment  to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the nominee himself.  The next few days will prove extraordinarily insightful as we  discuss with Judge Gorsuch his philosophy of jurisprudence, what  animates him to interpret the law, and his vision for the Federal  judiciary.  I look forward to this hearing. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator TillisR.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOM TILLIS,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA  Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Judge Gorsuch, thank you  for being here, and congratulations to you and to your family and  friends who are either here present or watching on TV.  I have had a couple of opportunities to be in your presence, and  I really appreciate your calm, respectful demeanor, and I am completely  convinced you have an at-rest heart rate of about 4.  [Laughter.]  Senator TILLIS. Before I get into a few brief comments—and I  want to be brief so that we can get through the comments and to  the questions and move your nomination forward—I do think there  is a little bit of confusion right now in terms of the comments made  by some of my colleagues. This is not directed to you, Judge  Gorsuch, but perhaps to those watching and to my Members.  The nominee before us today is not President Trump. The nominee  before us today is not Leader McConnell. And the nominee is  not Judge Merrick Garland. It is one of the most extraordinarily  talented and capable people that we could possibly have going to  the Supreme Court. So I hope that this nomination hearing focuses  on the one person before us who will go on, I believe, to fill the vacancy  on the Supreme Court.  This is a very important role that we have. I consider it one of  the most important jobs that I have as a U.S. Senator. In the 2  years that I have been here, nothing rises to the level of importance  of your nomination and the composition of the Supreme  Court. These appointments last for life. They will outlast most  Presidents and many Senators. It affects all Americans, and the decisions  you render will last for decades.  I have no doubt that you have the qualifications. As a matter of  fact, Senator Graham—I associate myself with Senator Graham’s  comments. The only reason I did not pursue your academic line of  schools mainly had to do with their admission requirements. I appreciate  the hard work that you did academically. I appreciate the  hard work that you did as a litigator. And the work that you have  done as a judge I think is truly extraordinary.  I want to just go back to a comment or a conversation we had  in my office. I mentioned to you in my office that I do not like activist  judges, period—conservative or liberal. It is not their role.  The activists are us. We get elected. We go out to the people. We  convince them that we want to make changes. We pass laws. Your  job is to interpret them as a judge. And I believe that you responded  to me that you fully understood that your role fell squarely  within Article III and that mine fell squarely within Article I,  and you saw the very bright line between the two.  And I think you are going to do a great job. I think in your nomination  acceptance, your quote was, ‘‘It is for Congress and not the  courts to write new laws. It is the role of judges to apply, not alter,  the work of the people’s representatives.’’  There have been some comments today made about cases that  you have taken up, and I think they probably in some cases relate  to the instances where you were not really happy about the outcome.  And I look forward to getting to some of those. I think that  two or three have been mentioned that I intend to go through as  a part of my review of your decisions. There are a number of examples  where you interpreted the law. You did not become an activist.  You did not allow your empathy or your sympathy for a case to influence  what your job is. I for one find that inspiring.  And so, Mr. Chair, I am going to keep my comments short, not  for a lack of a desire to want to speak more about Judge Gorsuch’s  extraordinary background and history and qualifications for the  job, but because I desperately want the American people to get you  to spend more time talking and let us spend more time listening  so that they recognize the historic opportunity we have to confirm  you to the Supreme Court. And I look forward to the remaining testimony.  [The prepared statement of Senator Tillis appears as a submission  for the record.] 
Senator HironoD.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII  Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aloha, Judge  Gorsuch.  Judge GORSUCH. Hello.  Senator HIRONO. Thank you as well, of course, for being here.  This hearing is about more than considering a nominee for the  Supreme Court. It is about the future of our country. It is about  the tens of millions of people who work hard every day, play by the  rules, but do not get ahead. It is about the working poor who are  one paycheck away from being on the streets. It is about Muslim  Americans who are victims in a renewed wave of hate crimes asking  for protection from the courts. It is about women having the  choice of what to do with their bodies, our bodies. It is about  LGBTQ Americans who want the same rights as everyone else.  For me, this hearing is about the people in this country who are  getting screwed every single second, minute, and hour of the day.  I have into public service to help these people, and my questions  over the coming days will draw on their experience as well as my  own.  My story might be unique for a United States Senator, but it is  a story that is familiar for millions of people in our country. When  I was nearly 8 years old, my mom changed my life when she  brought me to this country from Japan, fleeing an abusive marriage.  Back then there were no religious tests to determine who  could immigrate to this country. There were no language requirements.  You did not need any special skills. If President Eisenhower  pursued the same policies President Trump would like to, it is very  possible I would not be here today.  I always knew I wanted to give back to my State and my country,  but I never thought politics would be the path that I would  choose. But the Vietnam War opened my eyes to how public service  could create social change. I joined campus protests, questioned  why we were sending so many young men to die in a far-off country.  A small group of us decided that in order for things to change,  we needed to do much more than protest. Many of us ran for office  because we needed to take a seat at the table to be able to fight  and help make lives better. It is why I am here today.  Over the past few months, I have heard from thousands of people  who are deeply worried about their families, their kids, and the future  of our country under the Trump administration. Many of them  are worried about what will happen if you are confirmed to the  Bench.  Apart from the legal analysis, whenever a case comes before a  judge, it invariably involves real people, people who are often there  because they have experienced the worst day in their lives. Whether  they are victims of a crime, suffered a serious injury due to corporate  malfeasance, or because they have lost their livelihood due  to discriminatory behavior from their employer, each of them is  looking to the Court to protect their interests and their rights.  During our meeting, I was encouraged when you said that the  purpose of Article III of the Constitution was to protect the rights  of the minority through access to the courts. But as I have reviewed  your opinions, I have not seen that the rights of minorities  are a priority for you. In fact, a pattern jumps out at me. You rarely  seem to find in favor of the little guy.  In TransAm Trucking, your dissent argued that the company  was justified in firing an employee who faced a choice between operating  his vehicle in an unsafe manner and freezing to death in  his truck.  In a number of other cases, including Thompson School District,  your decisions made it more difficult for families with special needs  children to get the help they needed as the law intended.    53  In Planned Parenthood of Utah v. Herbert, your dissent was far  too deferential to the decisions of a Governor who based those decisions  on unverified information.  In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, your opinion justified denying access  to contraception based on the argument that corporations, like people,  can hold religious beliefs.  The facts in each of these cases might be different, but there is  a clear pattern to your writing. You consistently choose corporations  and powerful interests over people. But more than that, you  have gone to great lengths to disagree with your colleagues on the  Tenth Circuit so that you can explain why some obscure or novel  legal interpretation of a particular word in statute must result in  finding for a corporation instead of an individual who has suffered  real live harm. This tendency demonstrates a commitment to ideology  over common sense and, indeed, the purpose of the law, and  it is deeply troubling.  For example, again, in TransAm Trucking, you fixated on the  plain meaning of the word ‘‘operate,’’ despite choosing a definition  out of context and using it at odds of the clear purpose of the statute,  which was a safety purpose. And in Longhorn Service Company,  you found a difference between a ‘‘floor hole’’ and a ‘‘floor  opening’’ in order to side with a corporation trying to avoid a citation  for a safety issue. You found a difference in these terms, between  a ‘‘floor hole’’ and a ‘‘floor opening,’’ that the rest of your colleagues  on the Tenth Circuit did not—truly a case of a distinction  without a difference. It is like arguing whether your nomination is  because of a vacancy or an opening on the Supreme Court.  These decisions affected not just the individuals who came before  you. As a Supreme Court Justice, your decisions will have lasting  consequences for the rest of us.  During the campaign, President Trump made it very clear that  he had a series of litmus tests for his Supreme Court nominees.  Over a 2-year period, the President said that his nominee must  favor overturning Roe v. Wade, denying women access to healthcare  on the basis of religious freedom, and upholding the Heller decision  on guns, which the NRA believes prevents Congress, States, or  local governments from passing commonsense gun safety legislation.  Each of these tests would have a profound impact on the lives  of every American.  Donald Trump’s litmus tests for his Supreme Court nominees  were crystal clear. In nominating you, Judge Gorsuch, I can only  conclude that you met the President’s litmus tests. Your ideological  perspective or, as some would say here, your judicial philosophy, on  these issues matter because if you are confirmed, you will have a  lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  In our courtesy meeting, you said you have a heart, so, Judge  Gorsuch, we need to know what is in your heart. We need to understand  how you will grapple with a number of important questions  the Court will be asked to consider in the years ahead.  Will the Court protect the rights of working people and our middle  class or side with corporations who want to dismantle organized  labor in America?  Will the Court uphold a woman’s constitutional right to choose  or upend decades of legal precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade?  Will the Court protect free and fair elections by stopping unfettered  campaign spending or allow corporations and the ultra-rich  to hijack our democracy with dark money?  Will the Court protect the right to vote for all Americans or allow  States to use voter fraud as an excuse to disenfranchise vulnerable  communities?  Will the Court protect our land, water, our earth, or gut decades  of environmental regulations?  Will the Court protect access to our justice system or slam the  courthouse door to all but the wealthiest among us?  Judge Gorsuch, my colleagues, this is not merely a hearing to  consider the confirmation of one Supreme Court Justice. No. We  are considering the affirmation of our country’s values. The Supreme  Court does not just interpret our laws. The Supreme Court  shapes our society. Will we be just? Will we be fair? Will America  be a land of exclusivity for the few or the land of opportunity for  the many? Will we be the compassionate and tolerant America that  embraced my mother, my brothers, and me many decades ago?  Make no mistake. A Supreme Court vacancy is not just another  position we must fill in our Federal judiciary. A Supreme Court vacancy  is a solemn obligation we must fulfill for our future generations.  Let us treat it as such.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator KennedyR.  	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY,  A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA  Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  How are you doing, Judge?  Judge GORSUCH. Great. Thank you very much.  Senator KENNEDY. I walked by the Supreme Court the other day.  I live nearby. And on that building, as many of us know, are the  words ‘‘Justice, the Guardian of Liberty.’’  Now, we live in cynical times, but I think those words are sacred— sacred to most Americans. And they really tell us everything  we need to know about the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court,  in my judgment.  Without justice, without equal treatment by the law, liberty—  which is why our country was founded—becomes an empty promise.  So even though it is easy to look to elected officials, the President,  Congress, Governors as last protectors of liberty, we as Americans  have entrusted that, I think we can all agree, to our Supreme  Court. And that is why, in my judgment, this hearing is important.  And that is why we need, if we can, to go beyond politics, beyond  the person who lives in the White House, beyond whatever the  issue of the day happens to be, and we need to try to truly understand  our role in this process, which is to advise and consent.  I hope we can focus on temperament, on legal philosophy, on  legal reasoning, on qualifications, on experience. And for just a  minute, I hope we can forget that we are all politicians here, you  excluded——  Judge GORSUCH. Thank you, Senator.  Senator KENNEDY [continuing]. And focus instead on the judiciary  and the role we get to play in affecting that most American of  institutions, the U.S. Supreme Court.  Now, I have had the opportunity to meet Judge Gorsuch and to  read his work, and I like what I see. A former Governor in my  State once said of the then-Attorney General, ‘‘If you want to hide  something from him, put it in a law book.’’ You obviously do not  have that problem. You appear to me to be exceptionally well qualified  to be a Supreme Court Justice. I was especially impressed with  your Doctor of Philosophy in law. That stuck out to me. A D.Phil  from Oxford is probably the most difficult terminal degree in the  world. You also attended Columbia and Harvard, and they are satisfactory  as well.  I have read about 20 of your opinions. My favorite is A.M. v.  Holmes. Your dissent was very short, four pages, but you packed  a lot in those four pages. As far as I am concerned, that dissent  should be required reading in every law school.  All I can say after reading those 20 opinions—some of which I  agreed with, some of which I did not—is that you write really, really  well. Your opinions are engaging, whether you agree with them  or not. Judge Gorsuch is direct, clear, concise. You are collegial,  and you have a clean grasp of the law. There is no boilerplate language  that lawyers often put in their briefs, and sometimes judges  do as well.  I also might add that another thing struck me about your opinions.  You show concern for the parties. You use their names. You  do not refer to the parties as ‘‘appellants’’ or ‘‘appellees’’ or ‘‘respondents.’’  You call them by their name, and I like that.  Judge Gorsuch’s respect for judicial independence and for precedent,  in my judgment, is apparent in all of his opinions. He is an  unyielding supporter of the separation of powers, and I believe that  he genuinely understands and values the role of the judiciary as  a check on both the legislative and executive branches. And that  is very, very important to me.  As are we all, I am rather fond of the Constitution and the structure  that it creates, separating powers so no branch of government  can bully another or bully the American people.  One of the main purposes of the United States Constitution, in  my opinion, is to tell us when to stop, to reaffirm that the authority  of the state over its people is limited and it is finite.  Let me be blunt. I am looking for a judge, not an ideologue. I do  not want somebody on the U.S. Supreme Court who is blinded by  ideology. I am not interested in people who want to use the judiciary  to advance their own personal policy goals, whether they are  to the right or to the left.  I want a judge to apply the law as it is as best he understands  it, not to try to reshape the law as he wishes it to be.  I also want a person who is intellectually curious, who is earnest  in his desire to rule fairly, and who is willing to really fight for his  view of justice.  I guess what I want is a cross between Socrates and Dirty Harry,  and I believe you just might be that person.  Let me say one final thing. I am an officer of the court, as a lawyer,  as are you. None of the questions that I am going to ask you  today are designed to trick you, as if I could. Nor are they designed  to suggest that you should violate Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of  Conduct for United States Judges, which says, ‘‘A judge should not  make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending  in any court.’’ Nor will my questions be designed to cause  you to violate Rule 2.10(A) of the American Bar Association Model  Code of Judicial Conduct, which, as you know, states, ‘‘A judge  shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected  to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter  pending or impending in a court.’’  And, finally, nor will my questions be designed to ask you to violate  Rule 2.10(B) of the American Bar Association Model Code of  Judicial Conduct, which states, ‘‘A judge shall not, in connection  with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before  the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent  with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of  his judicial office.’’  If you think any of my questions today or tomorrow or later this  week cross those lines, I hope you will speak up so we can talk  about it.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator GARDNERR 	PRESENTATION OF HON. NEIL M. GORSUCH, NOMINEE TO BE  AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  UNITED STATES, BY HON. CORY GARDNER, A U.S. SENATOR  FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO  Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Grassley,  Ranking Member Feinstein, I would like to begin by thanking  all of you on the Committee for your hard work during these hearings  in the next several days.  Today, it is with great pleasure that I introduce, along with my  colleague and fellow Coloradan, Senator Michael Bennet, and share  my strong support for our outstanding Supreme Court nominee,  Judge Neil Gorsuch.  If you have ever had the privilege of visiting Confluence Park in  Denver, you will notice a plaque bearing a poem by Colorado Poet  Laureate Thomas Hornsby Ferril. It is a poem known as ‘‘Two Rivers,’’  describing the settlement of the West: ‘‘I wasn’t here, yet I remember  them, that first night long ago, those wagon people who  pushed aside enough of the cottonwoods to build our city where the  blueness rested.’’ Where the optimistic blueness of our Colorado  skies rests against the mountains and the plains, we are reminded  about how incredibly diverse our great Nation is, its people and its  geography.  Judge Gorsuch’s nomination helps recognize that, indeed, there  are highly qualified jurists west of the Mississippi River. Judge  Gorsuch is a fourth-generation Coloradan, skier, fly fisher, serving  on a court that represents 20 percent of our Nation’s landmass,  whose family roots reflect the grit and determination that built the  West.  Once confirmed, Mr. Gorsuch will join Justice Byron White and  be only the second Coloradan to have served on the U.S. Supreme  Court and the only Coloradan to be serving on the U.S. Supreme  Court who did not break the NFL rushing record. But the good  news is, today, he does have the endorsement of number seven,  John Elway, of the great Denver Broncos.  Should he be confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will make history as he  represents the first Generation X Justice of the U.S. Supreme  Court, the emerging generation of American leadership. Judge  Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court unanimously by  voice vote in 2006. Eleven years ago, Senator Graham presided  over an empty Committee room, empty dais. What a difference a  court makes.  But when you look at his record, his writing, his statements, it  is easy to see why Judge Gorsuch has such overwhelming appeal.  Judge Gorsuch is not an ideologue. He is a mainstream jurist who  follows the law as written and does not try to supplant it with his  own personal policy preferences. As he said, ‘‘Personal politics or  policy preferences have no useful role in judging. Regular and  healthy doses of self-skepticism and humility about one’s own abilities  and conclusions always do.’’  Judge Gorsuch is not an activist judge but rather a faithful adherent  to and ardent defender of our Constitution. He is an  originalist, as Justice Kagan even described herself in her confirmation  hearing to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Judge Gorsuch recognizes that the judiciary is not the place for  social or constitutional experimentation, and that efforts to engage  in such experimentation delegitimize the court. As he said, ‘‘This  overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social  policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. As a  society, we lose the benefit of give-and-take of the political process  and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected  branches can provide.’’  Judge Gorsuch has a deep appreciation and respect for the constitutional  principles of Federalism and the separation of powers  prescribed by our Founding Fathers. As he stated, ‘‘A firm and  independent judiciary is critical to a well-functioning democracy.’’  Judge Gorsuch understands the advantage of democratic institutions  and the special authority and legitimacy that come from the  consent of the governed. As he said, ‘‘Judges must allow the elected  branches of government to flourish and citizens, through their  elected representatives to make laws appropriate to the facts and  circumstances of the day.’’  Judge Gorsuch appreciates the rule of law and respects the considered  judgment of those who came before him. As he said, ‘‘A  good judge will seek to honor precedent and strive to avoid its disparagement  or displacement.’’  It is this appropriate temperament, this fidelity to the Constitution,  this remarkable humility that has made Judge Gorsuch a consensus  pick among Colorado’s diverse legal and legislative communities.  Former Colorado Senator, Democrat Ken Salazar, in praising  Judge Gorsuch’s temperament during his Circuit Court confirmation,  said, ‘‘A judicial nominee should have a demonstrated dedication  to fairness, impartiality, precedent, and the avoidance of judicial  activism from both the left and the right. I believe that Mr.  Gorsuch meets this very high test.’’  Jim Lyons, a prominent Colorado lawyer and former adviser to  President Bill Clinton, said, ‘‘Judge Gorsuch’s intellect, energy, and  deep regard for the Constitution are well known to those of us who  have worked with him and have seen firsthand his commitment to  basic principles. Above all, this independence, fairness, and impartiality  are the hallmarks of his career and his well-earned reputation.’’  Colorado’s former Democratic Governor Bill Ritter and former  Republican Attorney General John Suthers jointly said, ‘‘It is time  to use this confirmation process to examine and exalt the characteristics  of a judge who demonstrates that he or she is scholarly,  compassionate, committed to the law, and will function as part of  a truly independent, apolitical judiciary. Judge Gorsuch fits that  bill.’’  According to the Denver Post, Marcy Glenn, a Denver attorney  and Democrat, recalls two cases before Gorsuch in which she represented  underdogs. And I quote Marcy Glenn, ‘‘He issued a decision  that most certainly focused on the little guy.’’ Judge Gorsuch  has a consistent record of applying the law fairly, and his reputation  among his peers and lawmakers is evidence of it.  For all of these reasons cited today, I am certain Judge Gorsuch  will make Colorado proud and that his opinions will have a positive  impact on this country for generations to come. I look forward to  Judge Gorsuch receiving a fair hearing and, after that, to working  with my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle to expeditiously  confirm his nomination.  Thomas Hornsby Ferril wrote another poem. This one memorialized  on a mural on the walls of the Colorado Capitol rotunda. It  ends with these words: ‘‘Beyond the sundown is tomorrow’s wisdom,  today is going to be long, long ago.’’  The wisdom of Neil Gorsuch, guardian of the Constitution, will  serve our Nation well for generations to come.  Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, thank you. 
Senator BennetD.  	PRESENTATION OF HON. NEIL M. GORSUCH, NOMINEE  TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT  OF THE UNITED STATES, BY HON. MICHAEL BENNET, A U.S.  SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO  Senator BENNET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you  and the Committee for allowing me to be here today. It is a distinct  privilege to be here with my colleague, Senator Gardner from Colorado,  to introduce Judge Neil Gorsuch, a son of Colorado born and  raised in Denver with a distinguished record of public service, private  practice, and outstanding integrity and intellect. And I welcome  as well his wife, Louise, who met the judge during their studies  at Oxford and who moved from the United Kingdom to Colorado,  where they now live with their two daughters in Boulder.  Senator Gardner has done a great job summarizing Judge  Gorsuch’s professional background. His experience and his approach  to his work has earned him the respect of the bench and  the bar in our State.  Judge Gorsuch’s family has deep roots in Colorado. His grandfather  grew up in an Irish tenement in Denver and began supporting  the family at the age of 8. His other grandfather was a lawyer  who worked his way through law school, serving as a streetcar  conductor in Denver. And his grandmother was one of the first  women to graduate the University of Denver in the 1920s.  As a person and as a lawyer, Judge Gorsuch exemplifies some of  the finest qualities of Colorado, a State filled with people who are  kind to one another, who, by and large, do not share the conceit  that one party or one ideology is all right and the other all wrong,  and who are conscious of the legacy we owe the generations who  forged our State out of a Western territory of the United States.  If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will be the first Justice since Sandra  Day O’Connor from the West. No less an authority than Justice  Scalia observed this lack of representation when he wrote in dissent  that the Court has ‘‘not a single genuine Westerner,’’ and then  added with parentheses, ‘‘California does not count.’’  And with respect to our Ranking Member, I  think I speak for my colleague from Colorado that, on this point,  and perhaps this point alone, he, I, and Justice Scalia are in agreement.  Senator BENNET. I am also here because I believe the Senate has  a constitutional duty to give fair consideration to this nominee, just  as we had a duty to consider fairly Judge Merrick Garland, President  Obama’s nominee to fill this vacancy.  I am not naive about the reasons the Senate majority denied  Judge Garland a hearing and a vote. The Senate’s failure to do its  duty with respect to Judge Garland was an embarrassment to this  body that will be recorded in history and in the lives of millions  of Americans.  And it is tempting to deny Judge Gorsuch a fair hearing because  of the Senate’s prior failure. But, Mr. Chairman, two wrongs never  make a right. The Supreme Court is too important for us not to  find a way to end our destructive gridlock and bitter partisanship.  In my mind, I consider Judge Gorsuch as a candidate to fill the  Garland seat on the Supreme Court. And out of respect for both  Judge Garland and Judge Gorsuch’s service, integrity, and commitment  to the rule of law, I suggest we fulfill our responsibility to  this nominee and to the country by considering his nomination in  the manner his predecessor deserved but was denied.  Mr. Chairman, there is a second cloud that hangs over this confirmation  hearing. It is President Trump’s reckless attacks on the  judiciary. These attacks, like the President’s attacks on the free  press, have no precedent in the history of our Republic.  The independence of our courts is an essential strength of our democracy.  Attacking the judicial branch erodes the public confidence  that gives force to their judgments. It damages the very foundation  of our constitutional system.  Disagreeing with a court’s decision is acceptable. Disparaging a  judge is always wrong.  I have no doubt that, unlike the President, Judge Gorsuch has  profound respect for an independent judiciary and the vital role it  plays as a check on the Executive and legislative branches. I may  not always agree with his rulings, but I believe Judge Gorsuch is  unquestionably committed to the rule of law.  Mr. Chairman, it is customary for Senators to introduce nominees  from their home State, and I am not here today to take a position  or persuade any of our colleagues how to vote. That is a matter  of conscience for each of us. I am keeping an open mind about  this nomination and expect this week’s hearings will shed light on  Judge Gorsuch’s judicial approach and views of the law. Like many  Americans, I look forward to the Committee’s questions and the  testimony from the nominee.  And as one of two Americans privileged to represent the State  of Colorado in the United States Senate, I am here this afternoon  to uphold a tradition with the hope that, in some small way, it  helps restore the Senate’s strong history of comity and cooperation,  especially in our Nation’s most difficult times.  Whatever the results of this hearing, we Senators must respond  in some way to the expectations of most Coloradans and most  Americans who are eager for us to work together and to treat each  other with respect, particularly when it comes to extraordinarily  important decisions like this one.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.