Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch
to Serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Thursday, February 2, 2017
I want to take a couple of minutes to comment on some of the initial reactions I’ve heard from my Democratic friends on the President’s nomination of Judge Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
First of all, even before we had the nominee there were some Democrat members who vowed to filibuster the nominee, sight unseen. That’s, of course, unfortunate. But given how the Minority has treated the President’s cabinet nominees so far, it isn’t exactly surprising.
And then the President announced his nominee. Judge Gorsuch, of course, was confirmed by the Senate in 2006 without a single “no” vote, and is universally respected as one of the finest and most fair-minded judges in our country.
In fact, one of President Obama’s Solicitors General called him “one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served our nation over the last century.” If that’s not “mainstream,” I don’t know what is.
After the President’s announcement, something interesting happened. Right out of the gate, there were a number of Senate Democrats calling for “a hearing and a vote.” Well, that certainly sounds encouraging. The press picked up on these comments, and one newspaper even reported that after learning who the nominee was, there were already seven Senate Democrats opposed to filibustering him.
At first glance, it appears those Democrats were trying to be consistent with their stance from last year that a nominee deserves a hearing and an up-or-down vote. That’s what those comments would lead you to believe. Even the press was fooled.
But of course, now they conveniently seem to have dropped the “up or down” portion of that stance.
That’s a neat trick.
Take for example, one of my colleagues who just last year said, “The Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent, and that means having an up-or-down vote.” But, oddly, just yesterday, that same colleague said “I support a 60 vote margin for all Supreme Court nominees.”
That’s a nice sleight of hand. But most senators aren’t that gullible.
The Washington Post fact checker certainly took notice of their wordsmithing. And that has earned them two Pinocchios. When you look at the facts, a 60 vote threshold has never been the “standard” as the Minority Leader said yesterday. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have two of the current Justices sitting on the Supreme Court.
Of course, my colleagues tried unsuccessfully to filibuster Justice Alito. The Senate voted 72 – 25 to invoke cloture. He was then confirmed 58 – 42 on an “up or down” vote. Justice Thomas was confirmed 52 – 48. There was no cloture vote on his nomination.
In fact, the Senate didn’t set any sort of requirement that there be 60 votes for seven of the eight justices serving on the court. So if there has been any sort of requirement or practice in the Senate on Supreme Court nominees, it’s that the nominee does NOT have to get 60 votes, although many of them end up getting that kind of support.
We already know some members have pledged to filibuster the nominee. And this Minority Leader stated that part of the “fair process” is a 60 vote threshold. I suppose if you’re already committed to attempting a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee before you even know who it is, then you might consider that part of the “fair process.”
Of course, we all know – Republicans and Democrats – that launching a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee isn’t part of a “fair process.” It never has been.
But, I suppose we should cut our colleagues a little slack. They’re having a hard time figuring out how to make good on their promise to attack the nominee no matter who it is, when they’ve now been presented with a nominee with impeccable credentials and broad, bipartisan support.
And this brings me to the second brief point I wanted to make.
Judge Gorsuch had barely finished speaking at the White House, and there were already attacks on the nominee by some on the left. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have already taken to the Senate floor to attack and mischaracterize Judge Gorsuch’s record.
Though we expected it, these scurrilous attacks are untoward and misplaced.
After all, those on the left trot out the same tired arguments against every Republican nominee.
They attacked Justice Stevens because he “revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the problems women face.” They called Justice Kennedy a “sexist” who “would be a disaster for women.” And they said there was “ample reason to fear” Justice Souter.
This morning, the Washington Post editorial board noted that while we argued last year that the President shouldn’t fill a Supreme Court vacancy that occurs during a presidential election year, Senate Republicans “refrained from tarring Mr. Garland personally.”
In contrast, they noted that “trashing Mr. Gorsuch as an outlandish radical, despite his impeccable credentials, the wide respect he commands in his field, his long service as an appeals court judge and the unanimous voice vote he received the last time the Senate considered him for the federal bench, is at the very least premature.” Our friends on the other side of the aisle would do well to take note of this observation.
So, I’d like to make this point. If the process we’ve witnessed for the President’s Cabinet nominees is any guide, I’m quite confident we’ll hear all manner of reasons and arguments about why we should delay a hearing for Judge Gorsuch.
But, as my friend and former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, often noted: Supreme Court nominees don’t have the opportunity to respond to personal attacks outside of their confirmation hearing.
So, I’m going to consult with the Ranking Member on timing for the hearing. But I can tell you what we aren’t going to do. We’re not going to delay this hearing, especially in the face of all of these attacks on his record and character.
So, I’ll conclude with this. I met with Judge Gorsuch yesterday. He’s as impressive in person, as he is on paper.
I expect that as my friends on the other side of the aisle meet Judge Gorsuch and actually review his record, they’ll find him to be an eminently qualified and universally respected judge whose decisions faithfully applying the text of the law place him well within the judicial mainstream.
We are going to do our due diligence and send a questionnaire to Judge Gorsuch. I’m working with the Ranking Member on that now, and I hope to send it in the next day or so. I expect he’ll answer that questionnaire promptly. And, just as I said we’d do whether it was President Trump or President Clinton, we’ll have a hearing where members can ask him any questions they deem appropriate. We’ll vote on him in committee and the full Senate will vote on his nomination. And given his exemplary record and the facts, as we know them, I expect him to be confirmed.
-30-
