What to watch for during Senate confirmation hearings on Neil Gorsuch

“Judge Gorsuch’s intellect, energy and deep regard for the Constitution are well known to those of us who have worked with him and have seen first-hand his commitment to basic principles”, Lyons wrote.

In one ad, they say Gorsuch is “just who we need on the Supreme Court”.

Gorsuch’s record, according to that statement, is “more recklessly conservative” than that of Justice Antonin Scalia, the person he was nominated to replace.

“Notwithstanding Gorsuch’s superb qualifications and principled approach to judging, Democrats and their liberal allies strain mightily to find plausible grounds to oppose his nomination”, Hatch said in a newspaper article on Friday.

But he was also blunt about the end game: “We’re excited about the potential of Judge Gorsuch continuing on what was Judge Scalia’s legacy, philosophically”.

“It’s unclear exactly where he [Gorsuch] falls on the spectrum among conservative justices, but he certainly would fall on the conservative side of the line”, said University of California, Irvine law professor Rick Hasen. Gorsuch will undoubtedly be asked his opinions about common social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, say court watchers. “That could mean that things like access to birth control or privacy in your own bedroom are not things he would believe the Constitution protects”. He noted the possible Democratic filibuster of the nomination has led to speculation that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would seek the “nuclear option”-eliminating the filibuster and allowing Gorsuch to be confirmed with less that 60 votes in the Senate”.

On Monday, a hearing will be held for President Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court. I’m, for instance, a democrat. Then, of course, he stacked his Cabinet with hard-right, anti-government billionaires from places like Exxon Mobil and Goldman Sachs. There is no addendum that says “unless they’re really poor”.

Republicans believe they have little to fear.

In an interview on CBS News’ “Face The Nation”, Cruz said he figures there’s a “50/50” percent chance of a filibuster.

While some conservatives like the idea and the precedent it sets – especially if they get a second nomination to the court and the opportunity to even more radically change its political makeup – others worry that it is a can of worms that will never be shut, and that will come back to haunt them when they are next in the minority. In essence, expect him to show up to the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to be grilled. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “His decisions interpreting federal disability rights statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reflect this enmity as well as his misapprehension of these laws and their policy goals”. “But we have a constitutional duty to do”. The obvious Democratic response is that they would prefer a justice whose views would be consistent with the millions more Americans who voted for his chief opponent.

Blumenthal said that during that time, Gorsuch corresponded with Michael Davis, an official in the White House Office of Political Affairs. Yet the only reason why no president in the last eighty years nominated a Justice in the last year of his term is that, for the last eight decades, no Supreme Court vacancy arose during an election year. Seriously, had you ever heard of the Two Speech Rule before? The Supreme Court is different from other choices Trump will make, she said, because “this is forever, or at least for the rest of my lifetime”.

Neil Gorsuch does not belong on the Supreme Court. But the unlikely happened: Trump not only won the presidency, but he picked his nominee from a gold-plated list of 21 candidates that he had issued during his campaign. And whatever Gorsuch’s position on abortion rights, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s vote to strike down a Texas law past year reaffirmed the court’s rulings that say government may not pass restrictions that unduly burden a woman’s right to an abortion.