SCOTUS

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote about SCOTUS

Mitch McConnell
This was a guy who was giving fund-raisers for [Senate Democratic leader] Chuck Schumer four or five years ago. In other words, what the administration is doing, not only am I comfortable with it, but I think the vast majority of Republicans in Congress feel that this is a right-of-center presidency, which is what we had hoped. If you look at what the president is actually for, it strikes me as indistinguishable from what a President Jeb Bush or a President Marco Rubio would have been advocating: deregulation, tax reform, repeal and replace of Obamacare, judges like Neil Gorsuch.feedback
share this quote
May 26 2017
“All human beings are intrinsically valuable, and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” said Neil Gorsuch speaking about SCOTUS. It’s one of the 429 quotes about SCOTUS you can find on this page. 164 people have said something about this topic. Among them: Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell. Browse the quotes by date and by name to find those that are relevant to you.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

All quotes about SCOTUS

Will Baude

Eric Segall has a blog post titled: “To Fix the Confirmation Process We Need to Face the Truth About SCOTUS.” The truth, Segall argues, is that “the Justices resolve cases, both important front-page controversies and less publicized back-page ones, through a combination of personal preferences, life experiences, partisan politics, and values writ large, where traditional legal norms play only a marginal role in generating (as opposed to explaining) their decisions.”.feedback

John G. Roberts Jr.

Before we commence the business of the court this morning, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of myself and my colleagues to welcome Justice Gorsuch as the 101st associate justice of this court. Justice Gorsuch, we wish you a long and happy career in our common calling.feedback

Samuel A. Alito Jr.

This is unbelievably complicated.… Nobody who is not a lawyer and no ordinary lawyer could read these statutes and figure out what they are supposed to do. Who wrote this statute? Somebody who takes pleasure out of pulling the wings off flies?feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Looking at the plain language of the statute, just help me with that.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Thank you to each of my new colleagues for the very warm welcome I received this last week. I appreciate it very much. No, just to continue to make things up. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute? What am I missing?feedback

Neal Katyal

I have seen Judge Gorsuch in action, hearing cases. And I have studied his written opinions. This is a first rate intellect, and a fair and decent man.feedback

Tonja Jacobi

If we know going in that he's a conservative male, then we would think there's a good chance that he would be an interrupter. Chief Justice Roberts is a very polite man. He seems to care about decorum. He cares about the reputation of the court. And he's one of the biggest interrupters, interestingly. I see Gorsuch as somewhat similar in style to Roberts.feedback

Tonja Jacobi

Conservatives have dominated the court for the last 50 years, and, knowing that, they feel they are more in power than liberals feel. Interruptions are generally considered an aspect of dominance, and the conservatives feel dominant over the liberals. With Gorsuch entering the court, that's going to reinforce that tendency. And that's pretty remarkable, because ideology has been shown to influence everything in judicial behavior. Both gender and ideology are much more significant.feedback

Tonja Jacobi

I don't think that a lot of men notice that they're doing this.feedback

Leslie Hiner

It is difficult to understand that a little school could not participate in a safety measure determined by the state because somehow safety of children is conflated with religious purpose.feedback

Michael Bindas

It has the potential to remove one of the last legal clouds hanging over school choice.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

President Trump’s approval polling remains dreadful by historical standards. In the latest Marist poll, he draws only 39 percent approval, 49 disapproval (statistically insignificant from a month ago, when his numbers were 38 percent/51 percent). Gallup shows him with 40 percent approval, 54 percent disapproval (up, but not dramatically, from his low point). Overall, his RealClearPolitics average is 41.4 approval/51.6 percent disapproval. All this follows confirmation of his Supreme Court pick, now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, and a show of force against Syria. There are a few takeaways from this.feedback

Marjorie Dannenfelser

This week the pro-life movement had two huge victories: first, the swearing-in of Justice Gorsuch, and now, President Trump will undo former president Obama's parting gift to the abortion industry. We expect to see Congress continue its efforts to redirect additional taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood through pro-life health-care reform after the spring recess.feedback

Sean Spicer

Gorsuch was confirmed, the media is saying nice things and nobody is talking about Russia – what a difference 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles can make!feedback

Elena Kagan

I pay attention, I don't lose focus and I communicate all our decisions. The third thing - this is the most important junior justice responsibility - I open the door. Well, you know, one of the justices forgot his glasses. The other justice forgot her cup of coffee. Literally, if I'm like in the middle of a sentence - let's say it's my turn to speak or something - and there's a knock on the door, everybody will just stare at me, waiting for me to open the door. It's like a form of hazing. So, that's what I do, I open the door. Pronto.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Justice, you're such a very fine writer. What would you attribute your success as a writer to? Oh, I can't read anything I've written. I'm interviewing you!feedback

Heidi Heitkamp

It was appalling. I didn't judge Judge Gorsuch by that. Elections have consequences. This was someone who was qualified. You may not agree with all of his decisions. There's a lot of people disappointed and there is a lot of people who walk by in the coffee shop and say thanks for your vote. They're tired of partisanship.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I've always heard that the most important thing that a president of the United States does is appoint people – hopefully great people like this appointment – to the United States Supreme Court. And I can say this is a great honor. And I got it done in the first 100 days – that's even nice. You think that's easy?feedback

Donald J. Trump

I can say this is a great honor. And I got it done in the first 100 days. That's even nice. You think that's easy? Together we are in a process of reviewing and renewing and also rebuilding our country. Justice Gorsuch , you are now entrusted with the sacred duty of defending our Constitution. Our country is counting on you to be wise, impartial and fair, to serve under our laws not over them, and to safeguard the right of the people to govern their own affairs.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

To the American people, I am humbled by the trust placed in me today. I will never forget to whom much is given to much will be expected, and I promise you that I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws of this great nation. To the Scalia family, I won't ever forget that the seat I inherit today is that of a very, very great man.feedback

Donald J. Trump

I have no doubt you will go down as one of the truly great justices in the history of the U.S. You think that's easy?feedback

Jennifer Rubin

President Trump and his fans are badly mistaken if they think a single show of force on Syria (followed by a declaration that nothing has changed) and the elevation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court are going to plug the hole in his sinking ship. By his own declaration, Trump seems bent on returning to President Barack Obama’s Syria policy, doing nothing to steer the ship of state in a different direction. There seems to be nothing much new that would accelerate “eradication” of the Islamic State, as Trump promised. Likewise, activists are glad that a conservative jurist is replacing Antonin Scalia, but Gorsuch’s confirmation merely defends a conservative seat. Until there are other replacements on the court, Gorsuch won’t be able to deliver on Trump’s and right-wing lawyers’ exaggerated promises of reversing liberal precedent. If the Syria strikes are not repeated or other Supreme Court openings don’t materialize, these two accomplishments will fade from the headlines.feedback

Elena Kagan

I've been on the cafeteria committee for six years. (Justice) Steve Breyer was on the cafeteria committee for 13 years. Somebody will say, Who's our representative to the cafeteria committee again?' Like they don't know, right? And then they'll say, This soup is very salty.' And I'm like supposed to go fix it myself? The third thing – this is the most important junior justice responsibility – I open the door.feedback

Brian Cashman

We've been brought down – some of it by decisions we've made that haven't worked out, and some of it by market constraints. Now we're going through that process of cleansing, and we're bringing ourselves back up.feedback

John McCain

Actually, the process that we went through, which was purely partisan, is not the way – generally speaking – to get things done. I think he deserves some credit for getting this done.feedback

Marc Short

I think when you look back and you say in the first 100 days we will confirm a Supreme Court Justice, I consider that a pretty significant achievement.feedback

Steve Moore

Politics creates its own momentum. If you're seen as unable to get things done, it emboldens your enemies. If [Trump] gets more victories, he gets more popular. If he gets more popular, he'll get more legislative victories.feedback

Jim Manley

I'm sure they're going to claim momentum out of this, but I think their legislative agenda is going to continue to be stalled. The House is in chaos. That's not going to change. There are still significant differences among Republicans on health care and tax reform, and as far as the president's budget, it's dead on arrival.feedback

Marc Short

I confess that any one of these is not really going to drive a news story. This is an important story that has not been told.feedback

Donald J. Trump

Judge Gorsuch will be sworn in at the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday at 11:00 A.M. He will be a great Justice. Very proud of him!feedback

Alec Baldwin

We all love Trump don't we? We do, we do. I just had an amazing week, folks. I met with leaders from China, Egypt and Jordan. Gorsuch was confirmed and the media is saying nice things and no one is talking about Russia. Well, what a difference just 59 Tomahawk missiles can make. You mean Paul Ryan couldn't. It's Susan Rice. My wife doesn't want to move either. So you asked her, point blank, and she said – ? OK, but when she said no, what was her vibe? Yeah, like when she said no, did her eyes say yes? Sometimes they'll do that.feedback

Richard H. Pildes

Neither Gorsuch nor Garland has written opinions in most of these areas, but if you treat them as place holders for 'conservative' or 'liberal' outcomes – which is too simplistic and unfair to both of them – these are where those fault lines have been in recent years.feedback

Pamela S. Karlan

A Garland appointment would have swapped a centrist justice for a conservative one. This means Garland would have been more likely to be a key vote on more issues than Gorsuch is likely to be, because Kennedy remains the critical vote for a five-justice conservative bloc, while Kennedy or Garland could have been the fifth vote for a liberal result.feedback

Ilya Shapiro - Cato Institute

Garland has a record of deferring to the government on pretty much everything, be it labor regulation or law enforcement, while Gorsuch is much more skeptical both of government action and of judicial deference to executive agencies.feedback

Bill Maher

They got their two favorite things: [Neil Gorsuch] on the Supreme Court and Trump finally blowing some s--- up. Even the liberals were all over this last night. Everybody loves this f------ thing. Cable news loves it when they show footage of destroyers firing cruise missiles at night. It's America's money shot.feedback

Elizabeth Wydra

Substituting Gorsuch for Scalia extends the conservative life of that seat for another few decades.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I hope Judge Gorsuch has listened to our debate here in the Senate, particularly about our concerns about the Supreme Court increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working Americans. So we are charging Judge Gorsuch to be the independent and fair-minded justice that America badly needs. If he is instead a justice for the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, that will spell trouble for America.feedback

Chuck Schumer

They have had other choices. They have chosen this one.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I believe it will make this body a more partisan place. It will make the cooling saucer of the Senate considerably hotter, and I believe it will make the Supreme Court a more partisan place.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Senator, he has no idea how I'd rule in that case. And, Senator, I'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that could come before the supreme court.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

To act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests only on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends … All human beings are intrinsically valuable, and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. Congress could have written the law differently than it did, and it is always free to rewrite the law when it wishes. But in our legal order it is the role of the courts to apply the law as it is written, not some different law Congress might have written in the past or might write in the future.feedback

Mitch McConnell

The practical result of where we are now is we're back to where we were as late as 2000. As "the most consequential decision I've ever been involved in.feedback

James Inhofe

No. 1, it's courageous. No. 2 it's genius, in that order, because he knew how much criticism he would get.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing 'merely more than de minimis' (underlining added by writer) progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to 'sitting idly…awaiting the time when they were old enough to 'drop out.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This is a person of extraordinary credentials who will bring honor to the Supreme Court for many, many years to come. So it is indeed a proud day.feedback

John McCain

I am very concerned about the future, which will then, with only a 51-vote majority required, lead to polarization of the nominees as far as their philosophies are concerned, when the majority does not have to consider the concerns and the votes of the minority.feedback

Samuel A. Alito

It was unreal. It was sort of surreal. I've had many times during those periods where I've had to pinch myself to say, Yeah, you're really here. You're on the Supreme Court. This is really happening.feedback

Donald J. Trump

It is a great honor to announce the historic confirmation of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Gorsuch's confirmation process was one of the most transparent and accessible in history, and his judicial temperament, exceptional intellect, unparalleled integrity, and record of independence makes him the perfect choice to serve on the Nation's highest court. As a deep believer in the rule of law, Judge Gorsuch will serve the American people with distinction as he continues to faithfully and vigorously defend our Constitution.feedback

Mitch McConnell

I would be the beneficiary – and my party would be the beneficiary – of changing that. I'm opposed to changing that. I think that's what fundamentally changes the Senate.feedback

Mitch McConnell

As I look back on my career, I think the most consequential decision I've ever been involved in was the decision to let the president being elected last year pick the Supreme Court nominee.feedback

Bob Corker

There was a lividness that was on the floor. This time it was very sanitary. Unemotional. Telegraphed in advance, planned in advance.feedback

Leonard Leo

Throughout his career, Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated his commitment to judicial independence and to deciding cases according to the law instead of political preferences. I applaud President Trump for choosing such an outstanding nominee, and Leader McConnell and his colleagues for defeating an unprecedented partisan filibuster. A year ago we lost Justice Scalia, a giant, and today we are one step closer to seeing the preservation of his legacy on the Court.feedback

Susan Collins

There's such a profound lack of trust, and that's what many of us are committed to trying to rebuild. We need to make very clear to the leaders on both sides that there's no support for curtailing our existing ability to filibuster legislation.feedback

Orrin Hatch

If the roles were reversed they would have just tromped all over us. I mean, you know, they'd have done the same thing.feedback

Joe Manchin

We're the saucer. Should be, anyway. Should be cooling off that tea. ... The hot tea's going to scald you now. It's going to burn you.feedback

Elizabeth Wydra

One notable difference between this nomination and those past is that Trump had clear, stated litmus tests for his nominee. Gorsuch will have the opportunity almost immediately to demonstrate just how closely he fits within two of President Trump's stated litmus tests for his high court nominee – guns and religion.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

We are going to continue fighting for a woman's right to determine her reproductive decisions. We're going to continue fighting for same-sex couples and [and their right to] marry the person they love. We're going to continue fighting for the workers who go to their jobs every day and they expect to be safe and come home to their wives and children.feedback

Orrin Hatch

Well, yeah! In my eyes, the best interest is not having another far-left liberal on the court.feedback

Bernie Sanders

I don't think there was a speech I gave where I didn't talk about the importance of the Supreme Court. The message, I think, is: We don't change America unless we increase voter turnout, and we get greater public consciousness. It'll be difficult to do that with Citizens United still standing, and with voter suppression taking place. And those are issues that come right before the Supreme Court. I think a lot of people are not fully aware of the impact of the Supreme Court on workers' rights, on the environment, on women's rights, and we've got to do better at communicating that.feedback

Bernie Sanders

Four years ago, Democrats, facing incredible, unprecedented obstructionism, decided to change the rules. But with the Democrats in control, what they also said – I was in the room, and there was a debate – was no, not the Supreme Court. It's so important that it does not become a place where you can just ram someone in.feedback

Bill Cassidy

Sometimes perception becomes self-reinforcing, and the idea that one would work across the aisle becomes a betrayal to left-wing politics, if you will, which frankly is clearly how this was driven.feedback

Lamar Alexander

If they're able to do that, that would demonstrate that the Senate is functioning and that they're working together as leaders. And it would be a good way to end this chapter and start another one.feedback

Lamar Alexander

If they were looking for 10 different ways to get off to a bad start, this would be 11.feedback

Sherrod Brown

Everything has been politics for him, trying to keep Obama from being re-elected, stopping Obama appointments, stopping Obama legislation. And I don't know where it leads, it's trying. It is troubling.feedback

Jon Tester

I think that Montanans have always expected me to have a reason for why I voted, and I have plenty of them on Judge Gorsuch.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Mr. President, the 60-vote bar in the Senate is the guardrail of our democracy. When our body politic is veering too far to the right or to the left, the answer is not to dismantle the guard rails and go over the cliff, but to turn the wheel back toward the middle. The answer is not to undo the guardrails–the rules–it's to steer back to the middle and get a more mainstream candidate.feedback

Chuck Schumer

While I'm sure we will continue to debate what got us here, I know that in 20, 30, or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court. This is a day when we irrevocably move away from the principles our Founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation, and consensus.feedback

Mitch McConnell

This is the latest escalation in the Left's never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet, and it cannot, and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards, one for the nominees of Democratic presidents and another for the nominees of Republican presidents.feedback

Mitch McConnell

One way or the other, we will confirm Judge Gorsuch. So let me say this to my Democratic colleagues: If you truly cannot support the nomination of this eminently qualified nominee, then at least allow the bipartisan majority of the Senate that supports Gorsuch to take an up-or-down vote. You already deployed the nuclear option in 2013. Don't trigger it again in 2017.feedback

Mitch McConnell

If you want to play games, set another precedent that you'll no doubt come to regret. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, you'll regret this and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.feedback

Chuck Schumer

The answer isn't to change the rules. It's to change the nominee, as presidents of both parties have done when a nominee fails to earn confirmation. Instead, my Republican friends seem intent on breaking the rules for Judge Gorsuch, and are trying to find reasons to justify it.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Democrats are bowing to hard-left special interests that can't get over the results of the election and thus are demanding complete Democratic opposition to everything this president touches.feedback

Jeff Merkley

We labored for the better part of a year, working with our Republican colleagues. It wasn't like what's going on now.feedback

John McCain

I could count, sure. But I had hoped that we could do what we had done in the past, and that was reach some agreement. And we haven't, so it's permanent damage to the body.feedback

Daniel W. Drezner

There’s a lot of talk about the erosion of political norms going around in 2017. Today might be the day that the GOP majority ends the Senate filibuster to ensure the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This is the inevitable endpoint to the “parliamentary arms race” caused by increased polarization. Of course, [].feedback

Tim Scott

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. An unprecedented action is going to provoke an unprecedented reaction.feedback

Chuck Schumer

The consequences for the Senate and for the future of the Supreme Court will be far-reaching. Democrats "have principled reasons to vote against this nominee.feedback

Jonathan Adler

Barring the unexpected, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday will seek to invoke cloture on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of Senate Democrats will vote to filibuster the nomination by opposing cloture, and McConnell will seek a majority vote to reinterpret the Senate rules to preclude a nomination filibuster as then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did in 2013.feedback

John Thune

I think Democrats are playing with fire. This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around, and someday they're going to be in the minority.feedback

Jeff Merkley

Gorsuch "is much like his idol and role model Antonin Scalia and other far-right conservatives on the Supreme Court. And while this unbalanced approach might make for interesting reading the courtroom is not an academic paper each case involves real people with real problems.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Senator McConnell would have the world believe that his hands are tied. That the only option after Judge Gorsuch doesn't earn 60 votes is to break the rules, to change the rules. That could not be further from the truth.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Both sides I know are pointing fingers at the other in this debate – saying that the other side started it. We did not even get our nominee, when Sen. McConnell broke 230 years of Senate precedent, didn't even allow Judge Garland a hearing or a vote.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

There's a reason they call it the nuclear option, and that is because there's fallout. And this fallout will be dangerously and perhaps disastrously radioactive for the Senate for years to come.feedback

Greg Sargent

As of now, Sen. Jeff Merkley continues to speak on the Senate floor, in an effort to prevent Neil Gorsuch from getting confirmed to the Supreme Court. But despite the Oregon Democrat’s valiant effort, which has lasted at least 14 hours, Gorsuch’s confirmation appears inevitable. On Wednesday the Senate will vote on Gorsuch; Democrats will filibuster; and Republicans will subsequently eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, allowing Gorsuch to get through.feedback

Martin B. Gold

I would never deny that it was a significant moment. As was 2013. But I do not believe it has implications for legislation. I believe whatever trauma arises now will be enough. No one will want to take steps to decapitate the legislative filibuster.feedback

Donald A. Ritchie

Mitch McConnell supported it, and Harry Reid opposed it. When Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option, McConnell protested against it, but when McConnell became majority leader, he did not act to overturn the precedent, and has been making much use of it in this Congress. It's hard to say what the long-range impact will be, but majority leaders since George Mitchell have been protesting the almost routine filibustering of nominations, so maybe the process needs some resolution.feedback

Donald A. Ritchie

Both parties have been on both sides of this issue, depending on whether they were in the majority. Bill Frist proposed it during the Bush years.feedback

Ben Cardin

There has been an abuse of the 60-vote rule. I thought it when Reid did it, but there is a question of who struck first. What Republicans did with the D.C. Circuit was wrong, that was an abuse, but there is blame on both sides.feedback

Chuck Schumer

If Senator McConnell is willing to be reasonable and cooperate in a bipartisan way, we can avoid the nuclear option.feedback

Ted Cruz

Their base demands total war, total obstruction, and they are begrudgingly bowing to this demand. Unfortunately for them, it has proven difficult to invent attacks against an obviously well-qualified judge.feedback

Elizabeth Warren

I'll be honest. I think it is crazy that we are considering confirming a lifetime Trump nominee to the Supreme Court at a moment when the president's campaign is under the cloud of an active, ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation that could result in indictments and appeals that will go all the way to the Supreme Court so that Trump's nominee could be the deciding vote on whether Trump or his supporters broke the law and will be held accountable. That is nuts.feedback

Chris Coons

There are Democrats and Republicans who I hope will be talking this week, in the next two days, to see if we could find some path forward where we preserve the filibuster.feedback

Ilya Shapiro - Cato Institute

Given Gorsuch's solicitude for religious liberty, his joining the court can only help the church.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Democrats are now being pushed by far-left interest groups into doing something truly detrimental to this body and to our country. They seem to be hurtling towards the abyss this time, and trying to take the Senate with them.feedback

Ilyse Hogue

The idea that you can actually reason with these people or that they're not going to use every tool to get what they want has been debunked.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I've never seen such dedication and action in the grass-roots communities since the Vietnam War, until this year. And you're really helping us.feedback

Ilyse Hogue

People are in a mood for a principled stance, not for backroom deals. We were told it was un-winnable, but we didn't really care about the political math. Women needed this fight to be fought.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't say that when the president's under investigation he loses the ability to do this.feedback

Heather McGhee

I want to thank Chuck Schumer for showing the backbone to do what Democrats demand he do at this moment.feedback

Mitch McConnell

It's not too late for our friends [Democrats] to do the right thing. The future of the Senate will hang on their choice.feedback

Angus King

Although there could be circumstances where it might be appropriate to support cloture and then vote against the nomination, the current status of this procedure does not strike me as such a case. If I am opposed to this nomination, it seems logical to oppose cloture because under the current rules, this would defeat the nomination. To support cloture in the current circumstance would make me guilty of 'complicity', to borrow Judge Gorsuch's memorable term.feedback

Mary Vought

My work product determined my success – not private dinners with the congressman. When looking back on my time in the office of the man who is now vice president, I don't consider it to be a period of missed opportunities. The fact of the matter is, it's not as though then-Congressman Pence was out having private dinners with male staffers and I was excluded. He wasn't having private dinners much at all.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

Watching senators’ arguments on Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation and on the deployment of the filibuster and nuclear option reminds us how disingenuous politicians can be. Whether you favor Gorsuch or not, support keeping the filibuster or not, the talking points on both sides demonstrate how intellectually dishonest both Democrats and Republicans have become.feedback

Gregory Koger

Concerns that a nuclear option on the Gorsuch nomination will make the Senate become like the House, in which the majority rules, are really overblown. As long as the ability to filibuster legislation is maintained, that's the important thing for the soul of the Senate as a place where ideas are thought out, moderated, and debated.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I cannot believe [McConnell] can stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and with a straight face say that Democrats are launching the first partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee. What the majority leader did to Merrick Garland by denying him even a hearing and a vote is even worse than a filibuster. For him to accuse Democrats of the first partisan filibuster on the Supreme Court belies the facts, belies the history, belies the basic truth.feedback

Mitch McConnell

It was unfortunate to see our Democratic colleagues on the Committee break with recent precedent and not support this clearly well-qualified and widely respected Supreme Court nominee. But it's not too late for our Democratic colleagues to make the right choice. I can tell you that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens really depends on our Democratic friends.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

The independence of our judicial branch has never been more threatened or more important. The possibility of a Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president of the United States is far from idle speculation. It has happened before in United States vs. Nixon. We're careening, literally, toward a constitutional crisis . And he's been nominated by a president who has repeatedly and relentlessly attacked the American judiciary on three separate occasions, their credibility and trust is in question.feedback

Abigail Lawlis Kuzma

I have reviewed both passages and do not see an issue here, even though the language is similar. Given that these passages both describe the basic facts of the case, it would have been awkward and difficult for Judge Gorsuch to have used different language.feedback

Steven Cheung

This false attack has been strongly refuted by highly-regarded academic experts, including those who reviewed, professionally examined, and edited Judge Gorsuch's scholarly writings, and even the author of the main piece cited in the false attack. There is only one explanation for this baseless, last-second smear of Judge Gorsuch: those desperate to justify the unprecedented filibuster of a well-qualified and mainstream nominee to the Supreme Court.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Senator McConnell will have the world believe that his hands are tied – that the only option after Judge Gorsuch doesn't earn 60 votes is to break the rules to change the rules. That could not be further from the truth. We did not get our nominee when Senator McConnell broke 230 years of Senate precedent and didn't even allow Judge Garland a hearing and a vote. We lost one. They lost one.feedback

Tom Carper

In an earlier day, we had presidents and leaders in Congress who would actually sit down and talk through these issues.feedback

John Cornyn

If Judge Gorsuch is unacceptable to our Democratic colleagues, there will never be a nominee by this president that you will find acceptable. Never.feedback

Chris Coons

We have eroded the process for reaching agreement and dishonoured our long traditions of acting above partisanship.feedback

Amy L. Wax

In the current ideologically charged climate, separate and unequal is superior to, and more effective than, diverse and unequal.feedback

Jia Tolentino

Trump may be blatantly irreligious and Pence exotically devout, but our President and Vice-President come together quite well in their stated inability to resist women.feedback

Luther Strange

It has all the appearances of a junior high school food fight but it's a serious matter. Very sad to see that we're in this place but I think there's no choice given the fact that Neil Gorsuch is a perfectly mainstream candidate. We're in territory that we've never been in. … If we do, it will be the Democrats' decision.feedback

Susan Collins

First of all I think it's important to recognize that there is absolutely no basis for filibustering such an eminently qualified nominee. And I am very troubled by the fact that the Democrats have put us in this situation. If it's necessary in order to get him confirmed I may have to vote that way, but I certainly don't want to. It's bad for the Senate as an institution and I think it is bad for the court as well.feedback

John McCain

It's over, it's over, there was plenty of talk – conversations that I had – they didn't come to fruition and they have enough declared (to support a filibuster) now that it's over.feedback

Chris Coons

This action by my colleagues was unacceptable and has scarred this process and this body.feedback

Chris Coons

Throughout this process, I have kept an open mind. … I have decided that I will not support Judge Grouch's nomination in the Judiciary Committee meeting today. I am not ready to end debate on this issue. So I will be voting against cloture.feedback

Dianne Feinstein

Our job is to assess whether the nominee will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all Americans and whether the nominee recognizes the humanity and justice required when evaluating the cases before him. Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch's record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate and his written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination.feedback

Lindsey Graham

When you complain about Garland, it's the arsonist complaining about the fire.feedback

Lindsey Graham

The Senate's traditions are going to change over this man. This says more about the Senate than it does Judge Gorsuch.feedback

Patrick Leahy

Now I respect this institution as much as anyone. I never expected to be here long enough to become the dean of the Senate. I've devoted myself to the good the Senate can accomplish. But I cannot vote solely to protect an institution when the rights of hard-working Americans are at risk. Because I fear that the Senate I would be defending no longer exists.feedback

Michael Bennet

Neither Republicans nor Democrats are blameless for where things stand in our politics and on this nomination. But at some point, we need to take the long view and stand up for our institutions. Using the filibuster and nuclear option at this moment takes us in the wrong direction. I have spent the past several weeks trying to avoid this outcome. Changing the Senate rules now will only further politicize the Supreme Court and prevent the Senate from blocking more extreme judges in the future.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

The Post reports on the upcoming fight to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace late justice Antonin Scalia.feedback

Angus King

The idea of a 60-vote requirement for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court doesn't strike me as out of line with Senate tradition. What I'm suggesting is I think the 60-vote margin requires some level of bipartisanship. And whether it's on legislation or on a major appointment like this, that isn't bad for the country that you have to have people and ideas that have some level of buy-in from both parties.feedback

Charles Grassley

He's a mainstream judge who's earned the universal respect of his colleagues on the bench and in the bar. He applies the law as we in Congress write it_as the judicial oath says, without respect to persons. And he refuses to compromise his independence.feedback

Russell Wheeler

Very few senators want where this is going to end up, which is ending the Supreme Court filibuster for nominees. So they're on this train headed to disaster and no one can put the brakes on it.feedback

Mitch McConnell

I don't think the legislative filibuster is in danger. It's a longstanding tradition of the Senate. The business of filibustering judges is quite new.feedback

Seung Min Kim - Politico

He's trapped between significant home-state pressure to back the Denver-bred judge and a scorching liberal base. Even more significant for Bennet – a stickler for Senate tradition – is that he's watching the chamber further collapse all around him as an institution … Bennet has sat down extensively with Gorsuch, likely longer than any of the other 70-plus senators whom the nominee has privately courted during his confirmation process. The two men met once in Denver and again in Washington, with the meetings running multiple hours.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I have offered no promises on how I'd rule on any case to anyone and I don't think it'd be appropriate for a judge to do so. Putting on a robe reminds us that it's time to lose our egos and open our minds.feedback

Chris Coons

There is not a lot of trust between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.feedback

Chris Coons

As I talk to Democrats, I think we are all outraged at how Merrick Garland was treated in the process and that got us to where we are today. As I talk to Republicans, they remind me of the 2013 changes in rules. And frankly there is a long list of back and forth, back and forth about we believe they badly mistreated Barack Obama's nominees and they believe that Barack Obama overreached and that we were oblivious or unconcerned about their issues to executive overreach.feedback

Norm Orenstein

It's a big deal. You have a situation where you have rules and you have norms of behavior. The rules provide some significant check, but you still gotta operate with norms.feedback

Yotam Ottolenghi

Such is my story and the story of my family: In order to live on, traditions need to be braided together to become something new.feedback

Dianne Feinstein

Judge Gorsuch's views were difficult to discern because he refused to answer many questions – even basic questions that had been answered by previous nominees.feedback

Charles Grassley

This is America, where people can spend their money where they want to spend it.feedback

Charles Grassley

This nominee that we're voting on today is a judge's judge. He's a picture of the kind of justice we should have on the Supreme Court. I believe then and I believe now that we took the right course for the Senate and for the court.feedback

Mark W. Warner

My understanding was he wouldn't even vouch for Brown v. Board of Education.feedback

Chuck Schumer

When Gorsuch refused to answer the most rudimentary questions in the hearings, after there were many doubts about him to begin with … there was a seismic change in my caucus. Our Republican friends are acting like, you know, they're a cat on the top of a tree and they have to jump off with all the damage that entails. Come back off the tree, sit down, and work with us and we will produce a mainstream nominee.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I don't think there's any thirst to change the legislative rules – 60 votes for that. Most Democrats and most Republicans have served in both the minority and the majority and know what it means.feedback

Joe Donnelly

After meeting with Judge Gorsuch, conducting a thorough review of his record, and closely following his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe that he is a qualified jurist who will base his decisions on his understanding of the law and is well-respected among his peers. I was deeply disappointed by the way the most recent Supreme Court nominee, Judge Garland, was treated by the Senate, but as Senator, I can only vote on the nominee that comes to the Senate floor. However, I believe that we should keep the current 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees.feedback

Mitch McConnell

What I can tell you is that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens really depends on our Democratic friends. How many of them are willing to oppose cloture on a partisan basis to kill a Supreme Court nominee? That's an absurd question. We were right in the middle of a presidential election year. Everybody knew that neither side – if the shoe had been on the other foot – would have filled it. But that has nothing to do with what we are voting on this year.feedback

Martin B. Gold

Between the Democrats taking offense at what the Republicans did on Garland and Republicans taking offense to what Democrats are doing to Gorsuch, you wonder who's going to put the weapons down, or if they'll always stay drawn. And if the partisan makeup flips, you wonder if a president will ever get anyone confirmed.feedback

Chuck Schumer

It looks like Gorsuch will not reach the 60 vote margin, so instead of changing the rules, which is up to Mitch McConnell and Republican majority, why doesn't President Trump, Democrats and Republicans in Senate, sit down and try to come up with a mainstream nominee? Look, when a nominee doesn't get 60 votes, you shouldn't change the rules, you should change the nominee. Mitch McConnell broke 230 of precedent and didn't call him [Garland] up for a vote. It wasn't in the middle of an election campaign, it was March.feedback

Jon Tester

With Judge Gorsuch on the bench, I am deeply concerned that dark money will continue to drown out the voices and votes of citizens, the Court will stand between women and their doctors, and the government will reach into the private lives of law-abiding Americans. These are not Montana values. Lawyers with degrees from Ivy League schools often get good at dodging questions. But a Judge cannot hide from his opinions. Over the years, Judge Gorsuch gave corporations the same Constitutional rights as a nurse from Plentywood, a teacher from Kalispell, or a farmer from Fort Benton.feedback

John Cornyn

If they filibuster Neil Gorsuch, they are going to filibuster everyone that this president might propose. They realize that this is their last gasp to try to prevent him from being confirmed. But they won't.feedback

Chuck Schumer

There was a seismic change in my caucus, and it's highly, highly unlikely that he'll get 60. That's why you get a mainstream – that's how you get a mainstream justice. Just about every – Mitch calls it a 'filibuster.' We call it the 60-vote standard. Most Americans believe in the 60-vote standard.feedback

Carrie Severino

Chuck Schumer is engaged in a scorched-earth, first-ever partisan filibuster to try and block Judge Gorsuch. If necessary, the constitutional option should be used to preserve Senate tradition.feedback

Mitch McConnell

I can tell you that Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed this week. How that happens really depends on our Democratic friends. How many of them are willing to oppose cloture, on a partisan basis, to kill a Supreme Court nominee? Never happened before in history, in the whole history of the country.feedback

Sonia Sotomayor

Lots of negative stuff was said about me. And it hurt. I actually, seriously thought about pulling out of the process.feedback

Sonia Sotomayor

There are judicial codes of conduct. We're not apolitical. To belong to the larger community is still important. We can't just talk to each other. We have to talk to everyone.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Senate Republicans are acting like if Gorsuch doesn't get 60 votes, they have no choice but to change the rules. That is bunk.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

We must assume that Judge Gorsuch has passed the Trump litmus test -- a pro-life, pro-gun, conservative judge. In question after question, Judge Gorsuch had an opportunity to distance himself from right-wing groups. His refusal to answer only deepens the doubt that he is not a neutral follower of the law -- an umpire who just calls balls and strikes -- but instead an acolyte of hard-right special interests.feedback

Claire McCaskill

This is a really difficult decision for me. I am not comfortable with either choice. While I have come to the conclusion that I can't support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court – and will vote no on the procedural vote and his confirmation – I remain very worried about our polarized politics and what the future will bring, since I'm certain we will have a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future. I cannot support Judge Gorsuch because a study of his opinions reveal a rigid ideology that always puts the little guy under the boot of corporations.feedback

John Cornyn

It's sort of like the Hatfields and McCoys – the feud's been going on for so long that people have forgotten what the initial causes were. But it did start back in the George W. Bush administration when this whole idea of filibustering judges with requiring 60 votes was cooked up. And, unfortunately, we've been through 15 years of that, and this is just the latest incarnation of that fight.feedback

Joe Manchin

During his time on the bench Judge Gorsuch has received praise from his colleagues who have been appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. He has been consistently rated as a well-qualified jurist, the highest rating a jurist can receive, and I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful man. I hold no illusions that I will agree with every decision Judge Gorsuch may issue in the future, but I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court Justice.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Respectfully, Senator, I think we're splitting hairs. I really do because I have told you quite clearly that both of those precedents are in the realm of 50 years old, that have serious reliance interests around them, that they've been repeatedly reaffirmed. And Senator, what I've tried to do with respect to all precedents is treat them equally, in my presentation before you. Because as a judge, I come at them equally. In my line of work, a precedent is a heavy, a weighty thing. And it deserves respect as precedent, as part of our history. And ….feedback

Neil Gorsuch

And he has cavalierly referred to contraceptive use as 'the wrongdoing of others'. No doubt, the Greens' religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens' beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

With all due respect, Your Honor, we're doing more than splitting hairs here, because words matter. And the words of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were different than yours. Asking you to agree that these results were correct, I think is a relevant and important question. And your declining to do so – I respect your reasons, but I think that it speaks volumes, with all due respect.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Well, let me try one more – this way, Senator, for you. Maybe this will help. The way I look at it is, I don't come at these issues fresh. It's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris. Because a precedent, once it's decided, it carries far more weight than what I personally think.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

As the Greens explain in their complaint, the ACA's mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. … No one disputes that the Greens' religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

Let me invoke your beliefs as a commentator. Do you believe it was the right result, based on your understanding of law – not your personal beliefs about whether contraceptives are a good thing or a bad thing, but your beliefs about the constitutional underpinning, the right to privacy, the Fourth Amendment, substantive due process, underpinning of Griswold versus Connecticut, was it the right result?feedback

Neil Gorsuch

All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case.feedback

Jeffrey Rosen

This is more the coup de grâce than a new beginning. It may indeed make it impossible for presidents to confirm any nominee at any point in their terms unless they also have control of the Senate.feedback

Sanford V. Levinson

The Democrats did escalate. And the Republicans in turn escalated further with regard to doing what they could to delay Obama's appointments – and then the kind of ultimate escalation with regard to Merrick Garland.feedback

Martin B. Gold

It was a function of norms of the Senate, not rules of the Senate. The rules would have permitted what the norms did not.feedback

Chuck Schumer

It's not vengeance for us. It's not payback. If they change the rules, it's their volition.feedback

Joe Manchin

During his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch has received praise from his colleagues who have been appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. He has been consistently rated as a well-qualified jurist, the highest rating a jurist can receive, and I have found him to be an honest and thoughtful man. I have no illusions that I will agree with every decision that Judge Gorsuch will make in the future, but I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court justice.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I don't think they'll be able to come to any kind of agreement. It's virtually impossible. I have not done the research. I'm not going to throw out a name now before the process unfolds.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

Republicans insist on getting Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. Democrats refuse to “reward” them for denying Obama nominee Judge Merrick Garland a vote. Democrats do not seem to have enough votes (40) to trigger the filibuster that would trigger the “nuclear option, ” abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Each side has risks. Republicans will one day be out of the majority and the White House, facing a super-liberal nominee. Democrats fear a second Trump nominee if a seat is vacated could make Gorsuch seem liberal by comparison. So where are we?feedback

Mitch McConnell

We're going to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed. There will be an opportunity for the Democrats to invoke cloture. We'll see where that ends. The Democratic Leader who will be out here shortly says that we will not get cloture, so that is a good question to ask him. But it'll be really up to them how the process to confirm Judge Gorsuch goes forward.feedback

Susan Collins

That is in the past, and it is not fair to Judge Gorsuch to deny him a straight up-or-down vote based on what happened with Merrick Garland. I think it would be wise of the Democrats to vote for him and live to fight another day.feedback

Adam Jentleson

McConnell will go nuclear at the first opportunity. There's just no question. It's an ugly vote.feedback

Chuck Schumer

The answer is not to change the rules. It's to change the nominee. We believe there are Republicans who are reluctant to change the rules, and we hope they won't do it.feedback

Joe Manchin

After considering his record, watching his testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee and meeting with him twice, I will vote to confirm him to be the ninth justice on the Supreme Court. Throughout Judge Gorsuch's career, he has come to his legal rulings objectively, through the letter of the law rather than through his own opinion. I hold no illusions that I will agree with every decision Judge Gorsuch may issue in the future, but I have not found any reasons why this jurist should not be a Supreme Court Justice.feedback

Chris Coons

I think this is tragic. And in talking to friends on both sides of the aisle – we've got a lot of senators concerned about where we're headed.feedback

Chuck Schumer

We're worried that this president is more susceptible to overreach than any other, and Judge Gorsuch has not shown any independence.feedback

Mitch McConnell

Gorsuch will come out of committee, will be on the floor of the Senate next week and confirmed on Friday. We fully anticipate getting an outcome before the end of April. We have to, actually.feedback

Claire McCaskill

I was invited to the White House right after Gorsuch was nominated with other red state Democrats. I had a conflict that night. But other than that, that's the only reach-out I've had from the administration or from Republicans in Congress.feedback

Bernie Sanders

It's not a question of filibuster. I am for the Republicans obeying the rules that currently exist, and not changing those rules. And the rules right now, for good reasons, are 60 votes. You're using the word filibuster. All it is, is there will be – no, it is not. There will be a vote. If he doesn't get 60 votes, he does not become Supreme Court justice. That's the rule right now. It's not like people are going to be there standing for months and months, bringing down the government. That is what the current rule is. And I think it's important that it be maintained.feedback

Al Franken

And then in about–I think in 1925, Congress passed the law called the Federal Arbitration Act.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I would like to cheer you up about the judicial process.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I can't get involved in politics. If you ever go to Philadelphia, you've got to go to Independence Hall and the Constitution Center and see how it all happened.feedback

Chuck Schumer

The bottom line is very simple, and that is that Gorsuch did not acquit himself well at the hearings and did not impress our caucus. It's going to be a real uphill climb for him to get those 60 votes.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

In a time of increasing polarization Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is one of the few remaining “centrists.” Speaking from the Senate floor as a centrist and as a veteran of many Supreme Court nominations, she reminded her colleagues of recent history, urging them not to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch.feedback

Chris Van Hollen

After carefully evaluating Neil Gorsuch's record and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I have concluded that he applies a cramped reading of the law and consistently sides with powerful special interests against the rights of individuals, workers, and consumers. When he had an opportunity during the hearings to clarify that bias, he chose instead to evade questions and answered with platitudes, not substance.feedback

Ben Cardin

I am greatly troubled by Judge Gorsuch's record. His extensive legal record is peppered with examples of putting corporate interests before working Americans, showing hostility to agency decisions that protect our environment, disregard for women's health, marginalizing students with disabilities and many more troubling decisions.feedback

Chris Van Hollen

While he is undoubtedly a skilled lawyer, his bias in favor of corporate power, coupled with his refusal to answer reasonable questions, lead me to conclude that he falls outside the judicial mainstream.feedback

John Whitbeck

We understand that both Tim Kaine and Mark R. Warner are under intense pressure from their far-left base to oppose any and all nominations President Trump has put forward. But continuing to obstruct Judge Gorsuch is simply a bridge too far. Regardless of whether or not Warner and Kaine decide to vote against confirming this highly-qualified nominee, he deserves an up-or-down vote.feedback

Ben Cardin

Despite his protestations, his record points to a jurist who has not separated his political views from his legal views. I do not believe that he would serve as an independent check on this president, who has tested the limits of the Constitution and the separation of powers in a way that no other modern president has done.feedback

Scott Reed

Trump's team needs to better focus on governing and getting broad based support for the Gorsuch nomination and a continuing resolution to keep the government open – including support from Senate Democrats in cycle and moderate House Democrats (both of them).feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

They can, but by all rights, 60 votes ought to be the standard. When he doesn't get 60 votes, that's going to give Mitch McConnell a tough choice. He'll have to either change the candidate or change the rules. And it's not going to be easy for him to change the rules, because a lot of people in his caucus will push back. We have to have the vote, show this guy can't get 60, and see where it goes from there. In the crucible of the Senate, sometimes good things can emerge.feedback

Chris Coons

In talking to friends on both sides of the aisle we've got a lot of senators concerned about where we're headed. There's Republicans still very mad at us over the 2013 change to the filibuster rule, we're mad at them about shutting down the government, they're mad at us about Gorsuch, and we are not headed in a good direction.feedback

Mazie Hirono

It matters that this person get more than a bare minimum of votes in the U.S. Senate. It just shows how shortsighted and political they want to make this process.feedback

Charles Grassley

It was a brilliant display before our committee. His testimony, and the testimony of those who actually know him, should create a dilemma for anybody who is desperate for a reason to vote no, because if you're voting on qualifications and not politics, you'd vote yes.feedback

Mike Rounds

A lot of us really hate the thought of using it. Nonetheless it may very well be the ultimate outcome because one way or the other, we will have Judge Gorsuch on the bench.feedback

Dick Durbin

Judge Gorsuch's hearing reinforced my fear that he would favour corporations and special interest elites at the expense of American workers and families.feedback

Gary Peters

Whether it is ruling against children who want an equal opportunity to get a quality education or women who want access to health care, Judge Gorsuch often fails to take into account the human face behind each case.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

If four, or five, or two, or no Democrats want to support him, the result is the same – not 60. This is a problem [Republicans] should have seen when they picked a nominee off of a list from special-interest groups. To my mind, there's no reason to lose a fight in order to save yourself for a later fight. You just face the same fight later, plus you've already lost.feedback

Chuck Schumer

To my Republican friends who think that if Judge Gorsuch fails to reach 60 votes we ought to change the rules I say: if this nominee cannot earn 60 votes, a bar met by each of President Obama's nominees, and President Bush's last two nominees, the answer isn't to change the rules – it's to change the nominee.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

If four, or five, or two, or no Democrats want to support him, the result is the same: Not 60. This is a problem [Republicans] should have seen when they picked a nominee off of a list from special interest groups.feedback

Lindsey Graham

To everybody that boos Judge Gorsuch, you're not persuading me at all. As a matter of fact, if you can't understand this is a qualified nominee, then you're not listening. In fact, most Muslims hate radical Islam more than you do because they're the ones getting killed the most. Let's realize that the election didn't go the way some of you wanted, and there's another one coming. I realize that I haven't voted for a winning president in 12 years, but my obligations are the same to those who win the job, (and that's) to try to help them when I can.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

You take a poor little kid, you find a sheep and you attach the one to the other and see how long they can hold off.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

If I did make a bunch of campaign promises here, what's that mean to the independent judiciary? It's the anchor of the law, it's the starting place for a judge. If I was wrong, senator, I was wrong because I was bound by circuit precedent and I'm sorry. Putting on a robe reminds us judges that it's time to lose our egos and open our minds. No one remembers who John Hancock was but they know that that's his signature, because he wrote his name so bigly, big and boldly.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

Senator, I appreciate the invitation. But I know the other side has their views of this, and your side has your views of it. That by definition is politics.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

If at one end of the moral spectrum is the superficial, narcissistic president who delights in his own ignorance, then at the other end is Judge Neil Gorsuch, a student of the law and a self-effacing and polite man, who repeatedly asserted in his confirmation hearing last week that judging is not all about him. It’s about the law.feedback

Lindsey Graham

Judge Gorsuch was one of the finest people, I think, President Trump could've chosen. I am going to enthusiastically support him, and if the Democrats try to filibuster him, they will be making a huge mistake. To everybody that boos Judge Gorsuch, you're not persuading me at all. As a matter of fact, if you can't understand that he is a qualified nominee, then you're not listening. If you don't understand that elections matter, then you don't understand America.feedback

Ilya Somin

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence is his opposition to “Chevron deference”: the doctrine (first imposed by a 1984 Supreme Court decision) that requires judges to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of federal law in most cases where the law may be “ambiguous” and the agency’s position seems “reasonable.” In what is probably his best-known opinion, Judge Gorsuch denounced Chevron deference as “a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.” He’s absolutely right about that.feedback

Justin Wedeking

We have not crunched any numbers yet, but it appears Gorsuch has been more hesitant than recent nominees to answer questions in a forthcoming manner, in some cases even refusing to offer a partially qualified answer.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

Millions and millions of women who had apprehensions about Roe v. Wade and whether you would vote to overturn it will find very little basis for confidence.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

The point of a precedent – I'm trying to be as helpful to you as I can be here, Senator – is that it represents collective wisdom. And to say I agree or I disagree with a precedent of the United States Supreme Court, as a judge, that's an act of hubris that to me just doesn't feel like a judicial function.feedback

John Malcolm

Once you start talking about which precedents you like and which precedents you don't, you're toast. I think they're very, very similar.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I appreciate the advice I've gotten, thoughtful advice on a number of issues from senators across the spectrum. You're thoughtful people who care deeply about this country, and you care deeply about the judiciary, and I appreciate that.feedback

Vicki Bliss

In ruling on religious legal issues that differ from your own, would you be able to judge fairly and truly separate church from state?feedback

John Consentino

Freedom of religion includes imposing your religious tenets on public policy?feedback

Josh White

In New Mexico, there is a state question: red or green?feedback

Catherine Tanaka

I think that might indicate to our elder detractors how hard and how much we work in our current economy.feedback

John Mayer

What has to happen for a guy to believe that he's totally well-adjusted and be that far out of touch? My GPS was shattered, just shattered. I never got an email. I never got a phone call. I was really caught off-guard, and it really humiliated me at a time when I'd already been dressed down. I mean, how would you feel if, at the lowest you've ever been, someone kicked you even lower?feedback

Kamala Harris

The stakes don't get any higher. Some argue that if a nominee has a stellar legal resume, he or she is qualified to sit on the bench and our job is done. I disagree. As U.S. senators, we have an obligation to also examine a nominee's legal approach and ask whether he or she considers the impact of those decisions on our society and the daily lives of our people.feedback

Jeffrey Perkins

Thank you for the opportunity today to give voice to my son, Luke, whose access to an appropriate education, and thus to a meaningful and dignified life, was threatened by views of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch thought that an education for my son, that was even one small step above insignificant, was acceptable.feedback

Chuck Schumer

Judge Gorsuch's nomination will face a cloture vote & as I've said, he will have to earn sixty votes for confirmation. My vote will be 'No.feedback

Paul Waldman

After days spent in fruitless attempts to get concrete answers out of Neil Gorsuch on just about anything, some Democrats in the Senate have decided they’ve had enough.feedback

Chuck Schumer

After careful deliberation, I have concluded that I cannot support Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. He declined to answer question after question with any substance. I say if this nominee cannot reach 60 votes...the answer isn't to change the rules. It's to change the nominee.feedback

Lindsey Graham

I think President Trump, with all of his problems and all of his mistakes, chose wisely when it came to this man. I want to congratulate the president. Thank you. I think you're a man of the law. And, I really want to congratulate the president to have picked you. Quite frankly, I was worried about who he would pick – maybe somebody on TV!feedback

Jonathan Adler

This week, while attention was focused on the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings, President Trump announced his first pick for a lower court. On Tuesday, the president announced his intention to nominate the Honorable Amul Thapar, a federal district court judge in Kentucky, to an open seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Judge Thapar is a former U.S. attorney and was the first person of South Asian descent confirmed to an Article III court.feedback

Patrick Leahy

You have been very hesitant to even talk about various Supreme Court precedents.feedback

Orrin Hatch

I've seen an awful lot of great people in the law come before this committee. And I haven't seen anybody any better than you.feedback

Joe Manchin

I want to get a working court, okay? What they did to Merrick Garland was wrong. I don't want to do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right. If Gorsuch is the right person or not, I can't say that as of yet. Is there 60 votes as of yet, I don't think, I don't see it. Can it happen? Anything can happen.feedback

Jonathan E. Meyer

I think this ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and I think it is likely to find a Supreme Court that is much more open to the government's arguments once Judge Gorsuch is confirmed and sworn in. So it's quite possible that part of what is going on right now is slowing things down to allow that to happen.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

No one is looking to return us to horse-and-buggy days. I was wrong senator, I was wrong because I was bound by circuit court precedent. And I'm sorry. Respectfully, none of you speaks for me. I am a judge. I am independent. I make up my own mind. A good judge starts with precedent and doesn't reinvent the wheel. I have declined to offer any promises, hints or previews of how I'd resolve any case.feedback

Lindsey Graham

What's happened? Did the Constitution change? I don't think so; I think politics has changed. I think it's changed in a fashion that we should all be ashamed of as senators, and I think we're doing great damage to the judiciary by politicizing every judicial nomination.feedback

Patrick Leahy

For the first time in the history of the United States, the Senate refused to hold a hearing, refused to have a vote.feedback

Bob Casey

I have serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch's rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I'm a judge now. I take that seriously. And you better believe I expect judicial decrees to be obeyed. That's the rule of law in this country. The question is: What exactly does that mean? I have to be very careful about expressing any views. My recollection of 12 years ago is that was the position that the clients were telling us. No one is looking to return us to horse-and-buggy days.feedback

Chuck Schumer

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, was unanimously rebuked today by the Supreme Court.feedback

Chuck Schumer

This is part of a continued, troubling pattern of Judge Gorsuch deciding against everyday Americans - even children who require special assistance at school.feedback

Orrin Hatch

You, sir, are one of the great ones. And I'm proud of you. Why anybody in this body would vote against you, I'll never understand.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

We have reached the part of the Supreme Court justice confirmation hearing when senators are repeating themselves. (In a court of law, the objection would be: “Asked and answered.” Alas, no one can tell a U.S. senator to hush up.) Just as in the confirmation hearings of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch has said everything that can ethically be said about particular matters. Accordingly, the party that did not nominate the judge has grown frustrated and downright cranky. Gorsuch has gone no further than those nominees of President Barack Obama - and certainly than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, 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.”).feedback

Charles Grassley

Gorsuch will be confirmed. I just can't tell you exactly how that will happen yet.feedback

Paul Waldman

Today brings yet another shocking revelation in the ever-widening Trump-Russia scandal, and Democrats are growing increasingly frustrated that this controversy isn’t an even bigger deal than it is. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wants a delay in the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court while the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is ongoing, but no one seems to take the idea seriously.feedback

Jennifer Rubin

In his back-and-forth with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) made an interesting remark concerning President Trump’s attacks on the courts. Blumenthal specifically referenced Trump’s crack about the “so-called” judge who ruled against him and recalled that Trump blamed the courts for any terrorist attack if the Muslim ban was not upheld. Blumenthal said that if a litigant came before Gorsuch, he might entertain a motion for contempt. That is an interesting proposition, one that may come into play and that we will get to in a moment.feedback

Lindsey Graham

You told Senate Leahy if there is a law passed that a Muslim could not serve in the military, you believe, based on current law, that would be an illegal act. So if we have laws on the book that prevent waterboarding, do you agree with me that the Detainee Treatment Act prevents waterboarding?feedback

Donald J. Trump

The courts are not helping us, I have to be honest with you, it's ridiculous. Somebody said I should not criticise judges, OK, I'll criticise judges. If something happens blame him and the court system.feedback

Richard Blumenthal

Isn't that reference by the President – to a so-called judge – isn't his attack on the same judges who struck down that order as plain politics… isn't that an attack on the judiciary, on its integrity?feedback

Neil Gorsuch

That's a softball, Mr. Chairman. I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party, other than based on what the law and facts in the particular case require. And I'm heartened by the support I have received from people who recognize that there's no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge. We just have judges in this country. I wasn't about to become a party to such a thing. It has been reaffirmed many times. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy of treatment of precedent like any other.feedback

Ed Rogers

Democrats in Congress are digging themselves a ditch that keeps getting deeper. There’s no good fight to be had on Judge Neil Gorsuch, they’re getting steamrolled on repealing and replacing Obamacare, and their base has lurched to the far left, fully outside their grasp. The result? An out-of-touch leadership that can’t stop babbling. And for all the Trump administration’s miscues, Democrats haven’t laid a glove on the president. They couldn’t appear any weaker.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

When I sit on the bench and someone comes to argue before me, I treat each one of them equally. They don't come as rich or poor, big guy or little guy. They come as a person and I put my ego aside when I put on that robe and I open my mind and I open my heart and I listen.feedback

John Cornyn

It's hard to find anything to criticize Judge Gorsuch about in terms of his record, his demeanor, his temperament, and his qualifications.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I do ask for a show of hands, How many of you have had questions like this asked in the employment environment, an inappropriate question about your family planning? And I am shocked every year, senator, how many young women raise their hand. It's disturbing to me.feedback

Chuck Schumer

I think he's made a very poor impression on most, many of our members in his refusal to answer questions. There's absolutely no legal basis, other than hiding.feedback

Dianne Feinstein

How do we have confidence in you that you won't just be for the big corporations, that you will be for the little men?feedback

Richard Blumenthal

I can't comment on specific cases and I can't get involved in politics. I've said what I think I ethically may in this area.feedback

Thom Tillis

For everybody in the audience it's Gor-SUCH.feedback

Ted Cruz

I will ask you this. As a judge today, and as I believe, a justice in short order, will you pledge to be faithful to the law and the Constitution and neither favor nor disfavor any litigant based on who they are? That is precisely what we should expect. My colleagues, the Democrats, have a right to engage in whatever attacks they choose. But it's a little rich for them to be maligning a sitting federal judge and at the same time giving speeches about how unacceptable it is for anyone to criticize a federal judge.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

I'm distressed to hear that you think that judges or the Supreme Court is an organ of the party. … It distresses me. It is, for me, a failure to appreciate the beauty of our system. Nobody will capture me.feedback

Curtis L. Decker

The de minimis standard was outrageous and really meant that schools could do nothing and get away with it, so of course we're pleased that the court soundly rejected that. But we would have preferred a clearer standard. The vagueness puts a burden on the family to try to show that their particular child needs a certain program to succeed.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. What I wrote in the book was I agree with the Supreme Court in the [Cruzan v. Director decision]. Then Senator, the position I took in the book on that was anything necessary to alleviate pain would be appropriate and acceptable, even if it caused death, not intentionally but knowingly. I drew a line between intent and knowingly. And I've been there. I have been there.feedback

Al Franken

No, I just thought it was very odd questions for this, but it's great. I'm sorry I laughed. I just – it caught me.feedback

Orrin Hatch

Do you think your writings reflect a knee-jerk attitude against common-sense regulations?feedback

Ted Cruz

What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything?feedback

Dick Durbin

We know your love of fly-fishing and rodeos and family. I know that senatorial assignment. I've been there myself.feedback

Neil Gorsuch

It matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the 14th amendment were racists, because they were, or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the law to all persons. Young women take everything for granted these days, and all of that could be struck out with one decision.feedback

Lindsey Graham

Frankly I was worried about who he'd pick. Maybe somebody on TV. I have offered no promises on how I'd rule, in any case, to anyone and I don't think it's appropriate for a judge to do so.feedback