The Road To 60 Votes: Confirming Neil Gorsuch

The Road To 60 Votes: Confirming Neil Gorsuch

For Mr. Gutierrez-Brizuela's lawyer, Mr. Cook, it's a tough call to predict how Judge Gorsuch's views on executive power will guide him if he's called on as a Supreme Court justice to review Mr. Trump's immigration restrictions.

Justice Antonin Scalia received a confirmation vote of 98-0.

A $10 million ad campaign spearheaded by the Judicial Crisis Network has targeted vulnerable Senate Democrats facing re-election in two years. Gorsuch wrote a dissenting opinion as a three-judge panel ruled past year that Maddin was wrongly terminated and had to be reinstated with back pay. In a speech honoring White, Gorsuch said he admired White "enormously".

His clerkships served "as something of a pole star throughout his career", said longtime friend Mark C. Hansen. In that case he ruled that Microsoft's (MSFT) decision not to share details of its Windows 95 operating system with rival vendors did not violate antitrust law. As principal deputy associate attorney general from 2005 to 2006, he played a significant role in some of the controversies involving so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques", including waterboarding. It is time to give the Court a justice with the humility to cast a ninth vote on a generation of landmark decisions. "I only hope Democrats and Republicans can come together for once, for the good of the country".

Referring to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), in which the court reasserted that the Constitution's guarantee of autonomy in intimate matters includes abortion, as the court considered the choice a personal decision, Gorsuch wrote in his dissertation, "If the Constitution protects as a fundamental liberty interest "intimate" or "personal" decisions, the Court arguably would have to support future autonomy-based constitutional challenges to laws banning any private consensual act of any significance to the participants in defining their 'own concept of existence'".

On March 15th they escalated their efforts, bringing a protest to the U.S. Supreme Court building itself.

Democratic senators are under enormous pressure from their left flank to resist the nomination, even though they privately admit the votes aren't there right now to stop Gorsuch. They believe Kennedy would feel better about leaving if he knew one of his former clerks was on the bench. Many Democrats, including Blumenthal, have high expectations for Gorsuch.

"We wish to call to your attention the following aspects of Judge Gorsuch's record and philosophy that are of particular concern to our organizations and our constituents, and that raise crucial questions of grave effect to LGBT people, everyone living with HIV, and anyone who cares about these communities". "But that judges should do none of these things in a democratic society". It is time to confirm Neil Gorsuch.

The groups take issue with Gorsuch's writings, including a book he penned on assisted suicide, which they argue reveal an "open hostility" to the idea of constitutionally protected fundamental rights beyond what is explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

At a law forum in Columbus, Ohio, on February 24, a gay man who had been one of several housemates of Gorsuch at Harvard Law said he felt Gorsuch was comfortable with him and two other housemates who were gay.

"Judge Gorsuch ruled against Patricia Caplinger, from Missouri, who sued after a medical device was implanted in a non-FDA approved way", Sen.

"This was a seven-year battle", Maddin said.

"I think that the Democrats realize they have likely lost on this issue, and will keep their powder dry for the next Supreme Court vacancy where the stakes will be much higher", Malcolm said. It reflects his deep respect for Thomas.

To Mr. Goldberg, the case shows Judge Gorsuch was "willing to ignore court practice and custom" in an ideologically driven dispute to "defend an otherwise illegal act".

Judges, Gorsuch went on to say, should "apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be".

"Brilliant stuff that completely demolishes the majority", he wrote. "But we have a constitutional duty to do".