# Gorsuch confirmation hearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 20, 2017, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653 "2017-03-20T22:05:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/41 "2017-03-21T21:26:29Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > The reason that this strikes me as the most likely explanation is that Gorsuch is going to do what he can to avoid expressing an opinion on anything not in the abstract. He felt comfortable talking at this level of abstraction in the previous five minutes about religious bans. The charitable reading is that he no longer thought the topic was religious bans. Whether that’s the correct reading or not, I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/42 "2017-03-21T23:44:51Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > I think the Gorsuch goes through on a party line vote and the filibuster stays intact, at least for now. Either the cloture vote won’t be party line, or Gorsuch won’t go through, or the filibuster won’t stay in tact. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/43 "2017-03-22T00:02:10Z")
There won’t even be a vote, if [Chuck Schumer](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chuck-schumer-gorsuch-trump_us_58d189b3e4b0be71dcf8da7c?) has his way. > [@](#): > > “I’d like to point out that it is the height of irony that Republicans held this Supreme Court seat open for nearly a calendar year while President Obama was in office, but are now rushing to fill the seat for a president whose campaign is under investigation by the FBI,” Schumer said on Senate floor. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/44 "2017-03-22T00:07:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > He felt comfortable talking at this level of abstraction in the previous five minutes about religious bans. The charitable reading is that he no longer thought the topic was religious bans. Whether that’s the correct reading or not, I’m not sure. Is this the section? (Lifted from the C-SPAN closed captioning transcript, errors included): > [@](#): > > Leahy: THAT’S MORE THAN SILLY, THAT’S A – HE WANTS – THIS CONGRESSMAN WANTS YOU ON THE COURT SO HE CAN UPHOLD THE MUSLIM BAN. > > 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 OR MY COURT OF TENTH CIRCUIT. IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IF SOMEONE SITTING AT THIS TABLE IN ORDER TO GET CONFIRMED HAD TO MAKE PROMISES OR COMMITMENTS ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD RULE IN A CASE THAT’S CURRENTLY PENDING AND LIKELY TO MAKE ITS WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. > > Leahy: WELL, IS THE PRESIDENT’S NATIONAL SECURITY DETERMINATIONS, ARE THOSE REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT? > > Gorsuch: SENATOR, NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW. > > Leahy: OKAY. BECAUSE THEY’VE ASSERTED THAT THEIR NATIONAL SECURITY DETERMINATIONS ARE UNREVIEWABLE BY THE COURT. I’VE HEARD PRESIDENTS – OTHER PRESIDENTS SAY THAT IN THE PAST. I DISAGREE WHEN THEY SAY THAT. DO YOU DISAGREE? > > Gorsuch: SENATOR, AS A JUDGE I APPLY THE LAW AND THE LAW HERE I THINK IS YOUNGSTOWN. I LOOK TO JUSTICE JACKSON They go on on how cool Justice Jackson is and then the conversation switches to torture. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/45 "2017-03-22T00:47:00Z")
Yes, though I think to understand the context you might need some of the discussion before that. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/46 "2017-03-22T02:25:00Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Gorsuch can be confirmed with 50 votes plus the VP tiebreaker. If there’s a filibuster, you’d need 60 votes to stop the filibuster. Unless you vote to change the rules to not allow a filibuster, and the rule change would only take 50 votes plus the VP tiebreaker. Only if the Republicans change the rules. The Democrats changed the rules to avoid filibusters for all appointments except Supreme Court appointees. ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/47 "2017-03-22T02:26:45Z")
I was listening to the hearing today and Judge Gorsuch turned to address his pages and said, “(they know) I change tack as I’m drunk… as I’m drafting.” Did not sound good. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/48 "2017-03-22T02:40:37Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes, though I think to understand the context you might need some of the discussion before that. Yes but given the short context of the quote I suspect Falchion has the right idea. He was avoiding even remotely ruling on a future case. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/49 "2017-03-22T14:22:36Z")
I think Democrats made a huge tactical mistake on Gorsuch - if they wanted to filibuster his nomination without looking like unprincipled and hypocritical obstructionists, they should have boycotted the confirmation hearings in the committee. This way they would have looked as if they were sticking to the principle of “this is Garland’s seat”. Because if it is, then there is no reason to even consider Gorsuch, question him, or try to find faults with him. By fully participating in the confirmation hearings, questioning Gorsuch and entering into discussions of fairly obscure judicial issues with him (which Gorsuch “won” pretty handily anyway), Democrats have lost the perceived moral upper hand, not that it was that strong to begin with. I predict Gorsuch will be confirmed, because enough Democrats will know they will look like the hypocrites that they are for all the world to see otherwise. Democrats’ base bloodthirstiness notwithstanding. Not enough Democrats will be willing to look foolish just to appease the base. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/50 "2017-03-22T14:29:31Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Only if the Republicans change the rules. The Democrats changed the rules to avoid filibusters for all appointments except Supreme Court appointees. Oh they’ll change them rather than accept defeat. A knockback of Gorsuch’s nomination would be a political disaster for the Republicans and Presidency both. It would reinvigorate the Democrats and put them on a high which might last until the Senate races in 2018. There is no way the Republicans will let that happen. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/51 "2017-03-22T14:43:48Z")
I’ll wait until the vote for cloture to fully judge the Democrats’ strategy, but so far they’re going with my preferred one – hit hard and ask tough questions during the hearing. The next step in my preferred strategy is for 41+ to vote against cloture, pushing the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster if they really want Gorsuch. The key is not to present this as a vote about Obama, or Garland (even if that is my actual biggest objection), but just for 41+ Democrats to assert that they found Gorsuch’s answers and history troubling enough that they oppose him strongly. So just a mundane and every-day philosophical objection to an appointment… making the Republican move to end the filibuster the out-of-the-ordinary thing, not the Democrats’ vote against cloture. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/52 "2017-03-22T14:53:15Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I think Democrats made a huge tactical mistake on Gorsuch - if they wanted to filibuster his nomination without looking like unprincipled and hypocritical obstructionists, they should have boycotted the confirmation hearings in the committee. > > This way they would have looked as if they were sticking to the principle of “this is Garland’s seat”. Because if it is, then there is no reason to even consider Gorsuch, question him, or try to find faults with him. > > By fully participating in the confirmation hearings, questioning Gorsuch and entering into discussions of fairly obscure judicial issues with him (which Gorsuch “won” pretty handily anyway), Democrats have lost the perceived moral upper hand, not that it was that strong to begin with. > > I predict Gorsuch will be confirmed, because enough Democrats will know they will look like the hypocrites that they are for all the world to see otherwise. Democrats’ base bloodthirstiness notwithstanding. Not enough Democrats will be willing to look foolish just to appease the base. That’s what they would do if they wanted to act like the conservatives did this last year, you mean. There is nothing hypocritical about taking the job that you were elected to seriously. There is nothing hypocritical about participating in the democratic process that you were sent to washington to participate in. In fact, it would only be hypocritical if they refused to participate in the process, as the republicans did for Garland’s nomination. By participating in the hearings, they can say, “after participating in the hearings, and asking questions and hearing the answers, we do not support this candidate.” If they refused to participate in hearings or meetings, like the republicans did with garland, then it would be a bit hypocritical for them to say they don’t support the nominee, as the best the republicans could say, after refusing to participate in the process is, “We refuse to support this nominee because of the president who nominated him.” ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/53 "2017-03-22T14:54:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > but just for 41+ Democrats to assert that they found Gorsuch’s answers and history troubling enough that they oppose him strongly. Except they haven’t. There was nothing in the hearings to justify the vote against cloture. Add to that the fact that **not one single Democrat** objected to Gorsuch’s confirmation as a federal judge - and any attempt to filibuster Gorsuch will make Democrats look bad. Not that that’s such a bad thing in my opinion, but I predict not enough Democrats will want that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/54 "2017-03-22T14:58:24Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Except they haven’t. There was nothing in the hearings to justify the vote against cloture. That’s an opinion, not a factual assertion, and such opinions can differ. We’ll find out once the actual votes happen. > [@](#): > > Add to that the fact that **not one single Democrat** objected to Gorsuch’s confirmation as a federal judge - and any attempt to filibuster Gorsuch will make Democrats look bad. Not that that’s such a bad thing in my opinion, but I predict not enough Democrats will want that. Obviously I disagree – I think the most important thing for Democrats in office to do is to keep Democratic voters excited and motivated, to maximize turnout in 2018 and make it much more like 2006 than 2010. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/55 "2017-03-22T15:00:20Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Except they haven’t. There was nothing in the hearings to justify the vote against cloture. Add to that the fact that **not one single Democrat** objected to Gorsuch’s confirmation as a federal judge - and any attempt to filibuster Gorsuch will make Democrats look bad. Not that that’s such a bad thing in my opinion, but I predict not enough Democrats will want that. The Republicans loved Garland when he was confirmed as a Federal Judge too. Funny how only Democrats are supposed to get heat for things that apply to both parties. This whole “its ok if you’re a Republican” thing has really gotten out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/56 "2017-03-22T15:07:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll wait until the vote for cloture to fully judge the Democrats’ strategy, but so far they’re going with my preferred one – hit hard and ask tough questions during the hearing. The next step in my preferred strategy is for 41+ to vote against cloture, pushing the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster if they really want Gorsuch. The key is not to present this as a vote about Obama, or Garland (even if that is my actual biggest objection), but just for 41+ Democrats to assert that they found Gorsuch’s answers and history troubling enough that they oppose him strongly. So just a mundane and every-day philosophical objection to an appointment… making the Republican move to end the filibuster the out-of-the-ordinary thing, not the Democrats’ vote against cloture. Depends. People may very well see the Dems vote against cloture for a perfectly qualified judge to be “out of the ordinary”. Or, this is kind of playing out in the background, getting very little press due to the whole Russia/Wiretap thing. So it’s quite possible that only the die hard partisans on either side notice, in which case… who cares?? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/57 "2017-03-22T15:10:09Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > The Republicans loved Garland when he was confirmed as a Federal Judge too. True. Read my post. Republicans objected to Garland not because of his views or judicial history. Democrats will try to pretend to object to Gorsuch because of his views or his judicial history, and will be exposed as hypocrites. If Democrats did not participate in the hearings, then their stand could be viewed as principled. Since they did, they have no choice but to confirm Gorsuch or look like utter partisan idiots. Not that they aren’t - but I am sure enough of them don’t want that fact to be so blatantly and obviously exposed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/58 "2017-03-22T15:10:22Z")
It seems like the emerging Democrat line may be that the seat shouldn’t be filled as long as the Trump-Russia investigation is going on. That seems like a stretch to me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/59 "2017-03-22T15:18:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It seems like the emerging Democrat line may be that the seat shouldn’t be filled as long as the Trump-Russia investigation is going on. That seems like a stretch to me. There are no positions remaining, on either side, that couldn’t be reasonably perceived as “a stretch”. It’s a series of stretches that got us here. There is no more normal. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653/60 "2017-03-22T15:19:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > True. Read my post. Republicans objected to Garland not because of his views or judicial history. Democrats will try to pretend to object to Gorsuch because of his views or his judicial history, and will be exposed as hypocrites. > > If Democrats did not participate in the hearings, then their stand could be viewed as principled. Since they did, they have no choice but to confirm Gorsuch or look like utter partisan idiots. Not that they aren’t - but I am sure enough of them don’t want that fact to be so blatantly and obviously exposed. Your putting words together with a perceived conclusion, but there’s no connection that I can see. Of course, I favor the Democratic side in general – it’s likely that anything the Democrats do will be perceived as “utter partisan idiots” by many/most Republican supporters, and vice versa. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing/782653.md?page=4)