Leonard Leo: Democrats’ Fake Rules Threaten Judicial Independence
March 20, 2017
To keep up with conservative & legal experts on Twitter follow:
For the latest on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination: www.confirmgorsuch.com
Day 1 of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings
1. In the Weekly Standard, Leonard Leo – an advisor to President Trump for the Supreme Court – explains why Democratic demands of Judge Gorsuch lack consistency and historical precedent.
Leonard Leo: The Democrats are Making up Fake Rules to Stop a Supremely Qualified Nominee
“This time around, we’re told that the nominee must meet not one test but two. Judge Gorsuch will have to contend with question after question seeking commitments that no person truly qualified to sit on the Court would even consider making. More than that, Democrats insist that for the judge to receive a floor vote, 60 senators must first declare their support. Along with ‘no answers, no confirmation,’ we now have ‘no supermajority, no vote.’. . . Neither test has any basis whatever in either the Constitution or in historical practice. And it’s not only the nominees of Republican presidents who have been urged to make ideological pledges and firmly refused; others have done so as well, under great pressure and to their credit. . . . As for the 60-vote standard, it is now invoked by Democrats as if the idea came straight from James Madison himself. Hallowed tradition, we are given to believe, holds that no nominee merits confirmation short of the 60 votes it takes to break a filibuster. In reality, it is an entirely new invention with no historical basis predating the judicial battles of the Bush years, much less with any lineage traceable to the Framers of the Constitution.”
- In Real Clear Politics, Carrie Severino of Judicial Crisis Network walks through some of the ways Democrats “are flailing in the dark” with their attacks on Judge Gorsuch.
Carrie Severino: The Democrats’ Attacks on Gorsuch Are Intellectually Weak
“One of the points the Democrats have been making is that the supposedly autocratic style of President Trump means that federal judges will need to exercise judicial independence more than ever, and that Gorsuch has somehow failed to show that independence. . . . [But] Judge Gorsuch is one of the most articulate defenders of judicial independence currently serving on the federal bench. He wrote in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch that judges are ‘insulated from political pressures with the job of interpreting the law and applying it retroactively to resolve past disputes.’ In U.S. v. Nichols, he explained that ‘ours is supposed to be an independent judiciary making decisions based on the legal merits without respect to the vagaries of shifting political winds.’ He would certainly agree with the man he’s been nominated to succeed, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that federal judges ‘have life tenure . . . precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.’”
- The Washington Post reports that Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway has endorsed Judge Gorsuch.
John Elway: I Support Judge Gorsuch’s Nomination to the United States Supreme Court.
“A native of Colorado, Neil has demonstrated tremendous intelligence, character and fairness while serving for more than a decade on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. His credentials, integrity and sound moral compass are major reasons why he’s already received so much bipartisan support for his nomination.
“Neil is a big Denver Broncos fan, and I can tell you that I’m a big fan of his.”
- Judicial Crisis Network released a new digital ad today as part if its $10 million campaign to support Judge Gorsuch.
JCN Ad: In 1993, Democratic Nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wouldn’t Answer Question More Than 70 Times.
“Democrats are attacking Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch because he won’t promise to support their political agenda. But when a nominee from a Democrat was before the Senate? [Ruth Bader Ginsburg:] ‘It would be injudicious for me to address…I think I have to avoid responding to hypotheticals…I can’t answer a question like that…I can’t give you an advisory opinion.’ Democrats even encouraged avoiding questions. [Sen. Biden:] ‘You not only have a right to choose what you answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer, a question of what your view will be.’ More than seventy times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn’t answer. [Ginsburg:] ‘I reserve judgement on that question…I can’t answer the question…I can’t give you an answer.’ So when the Democrats complain, remember—[Ginsburg:] ‘I don’t feel equipped to address that subject.’ [Biden:] ‘You not only have a right to choose what you answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer.’ [Ginsburg:] ‘I can’t say…at this time.’”
- In the New York Daily News, a college classmate and friend of Judge Gorsuch explains why the nominee’s thoughtfulness and civility make him a great pick for the Court.
Michael Behringer: Neil Gorsuch Is an Inspiring Choice for the Supreme Court.
“I support Neil Gorsuch because in a world of increasingly shrill political rhetoric, he is a welcome voice of non-partisan reason, open mindedness and civility. . . . Neil Gorsuch is a throwback to an earlier time when debate was civil and substantive, when facts and logic mattered more than volume and rhetoric, when getting it right mattered more than being right — when we believed Mr. Smith could go to Washington. It’s an increasingly minority approach; perhaps a bit old-fashioned in this age of partisan news channels and Twitter. But maybe our country could use a little old-fashioned right now.’”
