Cornyn OpEd: Democrats Would be Wrong to Block a Vote on Gorsuch ‘Judge Gorsuch is no extremist or judicial radical. Senate Democrats agreed with that assessment back in 2006, when the chamber unanimously confirmed him to his current post.’
PoliticalNews.me - Apr 01,2017 - Cornyn OpEd: Democrats Would be Wrong to Block a Vote on Gorsuch
‘Judge Gorsuch is no extremist or judicial radical. Senate Democrats agreed with that assessment back in 2006, when the chamber unanimously confirmed him to his current post.’
‘If Democrats refuse to allow an up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has threatened, then there's no Republican nominee they won't filibuster.’
‘Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice. The question is whether Democrats will give him the up-or-down vote he deserves.’
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) authored the following OpEd on CNN.com ahead of Monday’s vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court:
Democrats Would be Wrong to Block a Vote on Gorsuch
Sen. John Cornyn
March 31, 2017
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch. Over the dayslong hearing, we learned who Judge Neil Gorsuch is, and who he is not.
We learned of the tremendous experience and superb qualifications he brings to the bench. He's served on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for a decade; as a senior official in the Department of Justice; and for a decade in private practice. He clerked for two Supreme Court justices after getting his law degree at Harvard and doctorate as a Marshall Scholar at Oxford.
Judge Gorsuch explained to the Judiciary Committee his belief that our Constitution and laws must be interpreted based on what their texts say—not on a judge's belief about what they should say, the whims of public opinion, or personal bias. This respects democracy and the separation of powers; gives citizens notice of the rules that bind them; and permits judges a common and neutral basis to decide cases.
Judge Gorsuch reminded the committee time and time again that the role of a judge is limited and narrow in scope—a judge's job is not to write the laws, but to interpret them faithfully.
The hearing last week also confirmed that the arguments peddled by the left against him are total straw men and non sequiturs.
Judge Gorsuch is no extremist or judicial radical. Senate Democrats agreed with that assessment back in 2006, when the chamber unanimously confirmed him to his current post. Since his nomination in January, lawyers and legal scholars on both sides of the aisle have urged his confirmation and commended his fair treatment of the law and his impartial, methodical reasoning.
The American Bar Association, which the Democrats have called "the gold standard" for judicial nominations, gives him its highest rating.
The Democrats cherry-picked a handful of cases to claim that Judge Gorsuch sides with big companies over sympathetic individuals. An examination of his record shows that is not true, but it is also beside the point. A good judge does not judge the litigants, but the case. His motivation in each and every case is to follow