On the recordApril 4, 2017
yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee voted out the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the death of Justice Scalia. During the meeting, as the Presiding Officer knows, our Democratic colleagues trotted out the same old tired arguments we have heard time and again about Judge Gorsuch. In the end, though, none of those arguments hold water, and of course many of them aren't even about him. Instead, these arguments reveal how our colleagues across the aisle are grasping for reasons to justify an unprecedented partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice. Some object to the nomination of Judge Gorsuch because they claim he refuses to answer specific questions. But I ask: How would any of us feel if the judge before whom we might later appear had previously, in order to get a confirmation of his nomination, made certain promises of how he would judge that case when presented at a future date? We would all feel more than a little bit betrayed and even cheated if the judge had prejudged our case before he even heard it. The judge is simply engaging in a common practice for Supreme Court nominees. They steer clear of any questions that may pertain to cases they may have to rule on later. It is a matter, as the Presiding Officer knows, of judicial ethics, and we wouldn't have it any other way. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set this precedent early on.…
