U.S. senators from New York on Neil Gorsuch's nomination

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Supreme Court vacancy, 2017: An overview

Portal:Legislative Branch
Features of Congress
Definitions
Classes of United States Senators • President Pro Tempore of the Senate • United States Speaker of the House • Filibuster • Reconciliation • Vote-a-ramas • Parliamentarian • Christmas tree bill
Notable events
Key votes • Presidential addresses
Elections
Election dates • Filing requirements for congressional candidates • Filling vacancies in Senate • Filling vacancies in House
Campaign finance
Federal Election Commission • Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee • National Republican Congressional Committee • Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee • National Republican Senatorial Committee
Sessions
119th Congress
118th • 117th • 116th • 115th • 114th • 113th • 112th • 111th • 110th

On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Scalia was a member of the U.S. Supreme Court for three decades.[1] President Trump said regarding the nomination,[2]

“

I am proud to announce the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for Justice of the Supreme Court ... This has been the most transparent and most important Supreme Court selection process in the history of our country and I wanted the American people to have a voice in this nomination. Judge Gorsuch has a superb intellect, an unparalleled legal education, and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its text. He will make an incredible Justice as soon as the Senate confirms him. [3]

”

Confirmation hearings on Gorsuch's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee were held from March 20-23, 2017. On April 3, 2017, voting 11-9 on party lines, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the full U.S. Senate. That same day, Senate Democrats announced that they had a sufficient number of votes to sustain a filibuster against the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. In anticipation of an expected filibuster, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated that he was prepared to restrict the use of filibusters on Supreme Court nominations, referred to as the nuclear option. The Senate voted on April 6, 2017, to end the use of filibusters on all presidential nominations and proceeded to vote to end debate on the Gorsuch nomination. Gorsuch was confirmed on a recorded 54-45 vote of the Senate on Friday, April 7, 2017, and he received his commission on Monday, April 10, 2017.[4]


HIGHLIGHTS
  • President Donald Trump (R) nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 31, 2017.
  • On January 3, 2017, the first day of the 115th Congress, Republicans held a 52-48 majority in the U.S. Senate.
  • Confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee began on March 20, 2017.



    • U.S. senators from New York on Neil Gorsuch's nomination

    Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

    Senator Gillibrand issued the following statement on February 1, 2017:[5]

    “

    All branches of the federal government should stand on the side of the citizens they were created to serve. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter of justice for our citizens. Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch has proven to have a judicial philosophy outside of the mainstream and time and again has subjugated individual rights to those of corporations. I fundamentally disagree with his ruling that a boss should be able to make family planning decisions for an employee and that corporations are people. I plan to stand up for individuals over corporations and oppose his nomination, and I will insist that his nomination meet a traditional 60 vote threshold. [3]

    		”

    Charles Schumer (D)

    Senator Schumer wrote an editorial in Politico in which he argued that a confirmation vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch should require 60 votes.[6]

    In a post on his official Senate Facebook page, Senator Schumer suggested that President Trump's criticism of Judge James Robart, a judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, could impact Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 3, Robart ordered a nationwide stay on Trump's January 27, 2017, executive order which indefinitely restricted entry by Syrian refugees to the United States and temporarily suspended entry by other refugees and citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries. Robart's stay preempts federal employees from enforcing the order. The Trump administration announced they would appeal the stay. President Trump stated on his Twitter account, "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"[7]

    In response to that tweet, Sen. Schumer posted on Facebook:[8]

    “

    The President's attack on Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee who passed through the Senate with 99 votes, shows a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesn't always bend to his wishes and a continued lack of respect for the Constitution, making it more important that the Supreme Court serve as an independent check on the administration.

    With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process. [3]

    		”

    Senator Schumer gave the following remarks from the Senate floor on February 2, 2017:[9]

    “

    Mr. President, I spoke at length about the Supreme Court nomination yesterday, but I just want to underscore a few points. We in the Senate have a constitutional duty to examine the record of Judge Gorsuch robustly, exhaustively, and comprehensively, and then advise and consent, as we see fit. We have a responsibility to reject if we do not.

    We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process. Part of that process entails 60 votes for confirmation. Any one Democrat can require it. Many already have. It was a bar met by each of Obama's nominations; each received 60 votes. Most importantly, it is the right thing to do. And I would note that a 60-vote threshold was reached by each of them either in cloture or in the actual vote.

    On a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan support is essential and should be a prerequisite. That is what a 60-vote threshold does; 60 votes produces a mainstream candidate. And the need for a mainstream consensus candidate is greater now than ever before because we are in major new territory in two ways.

    First, because the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, has shown increasing drift to become a more and more pro-business Court--siding more and more with corporations, employers, and special interests over working and average Americans--we need a mainstream nominee to help reverse that trend, not accelerate it. I will remind my colleagues, that is how President Trump campaigned, but his nominee seems not to be in that direction at all--not for the average working person but, rather, for special business interests.

    Second, given that this administration--at least at its outset--seems to have less respect for the rule of law than any in recent memory and is testing the very fabric of our Constitution within the first 20 days, there is a special burden on this nominee to be an independent jurist, someone who approaches the Court without ideological blinders, who has a history of operating outside and above politics, and who has the strength of will to stand up to a President who has already shown a willingness to bend the Constitution.

    Requiring 60 votes has always been the right thing to do on Supreme Court nominations, especially in these polarized times. But now in this new era of the Court, in this new administration, there is an even heavier weight on this tradition. And if the nominee cannot gain the 60 votes, cannot garner bipartisan support of some significance, then the answer is not to change the rules; the answer is to change the nominee and find someone who can gain those 60 votes.

    Changing the rules for something as important as the Supreme Court gets rid of the tradition, eliminates the tradition of mainstream nominees who have bipartisan support. It would be so, so wrong to do. I know many of my colleagues on the other side are hesitant to do it, and I hope they will remain strong in that regard. [3]

    		”

    Senator Schumer gave the following remarks from the Senate floor on February 1, 2017. Senator Schumer's speech concludes at the 1:03:00 mark.[10]


    Senator Schumer issued the following statement on January 31, 2017:[11]

    “

    A little more than a week into the Trump presidency, the new Administration has violated our core values, challenged the separation of powers, and tested the very fabric of our Constitution in unprecedented fashion. It is clear that the Supreme Court will be tried in ways that few Courts have been tested since the earliest days of the Republic, when Constitutional questions abounded.

    Now more than ever, we need a Supreme Court Justice who is independent, eschews ideology, who will preserve our democracy, protect fundamental rights, and will stand up to a President who has already shown a willingness to bend the Constitution.

    The Senate must insist upon 60-votes for any Supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees. The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the Executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans.

    Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch's ability to meet this standard. Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court.

    Make no mistake, Senate Democrats will not simply allow but require an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch's fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice. [3]

    		”


    In expanding on comments first made in an interview with Rachel Maddow, Sen. Schumer indicated to CNN's Jake Tapper that he would be willing to keep the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court vacant indefinitely.


    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ The New York Times, "Justice Antonin Scalia, Who Led a Conservative Renaissance on the Supreme Court, Is Dead at 79," February 13, 2016
    2. ↑ The White House, "President Donald J. Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court," January 31, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ Politico, "Gorsuch confirmation hearing set for March 20," February 16, 2017
    5. ↑ Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, "Senator Gillibrand statement on President Trump's nomination Of Judge Neil Gorsuch to U.S. Supreme Court," February 1, 2017
    6. ↑ Politico, "Neil Gorsuch needs 60 votes," February 7, 2017
    7. ↑ The Seattle Times, "Judge in Seattle halts Trump’s immigration order nationwide; White House vows fight," February 4, 2017
    8. ↑ Facebook, "Senator Chuck Schumer," February 4, 2017
    9. ↑ The Congressional Record, "Nomination of Neil Gorsuch - Mr. Schumer," February 2, 2017
    10. ↑ [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt09WC7ACX0 YouTube, "Senator Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer Addresses Senate Floor Debate," February 1, 2017[
    11. ↑ Syracuse.com, "Schumer doubts Neil Gorsuch will be independent Supreme Court justice," January 31, 2017
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=U.S._senators_from_New_York_on_Neil_Gorsuch%27s_nomination&oldid=10228864"