“I’ve ruled for disabled students, for prisoners, for the accused, for workers alleging civil rights violations and for undocumented immigrants,” Judge Neil Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Sometimes, too, I’ve ruled against such persons.”
President Trump’s high court nominee Neil Gorsuch appears today before the Senate Judiciary Committee. ScotusBlog explains how he has embraced the late Antonin Scalia’s “originalism” to rule against police searches.
Law Prof. Paul Rothstein of Georgetown University said Gorsuch appears to have a mixed record in criminal cases: “I think his primary area of concern for the citizen is in the privacy of your home or your private belongings.”
Senate Democrats don’t have the votes to block Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. What could a victory look like for Democrats? Three markers of possible success come to mind, write Dahlia Lithwick and Neil Siegel in Slate.
Whatever Trump’s nominee brings to the Supreme Court, it won’t be “Scalia-esque.” The late Justice’s approach to criminal jurisprudence was a product of his own unique interpretation of the Constitution—for both good and ill.
Admirers say Gorsuch, 49, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, would bring to the Court a strong record on gun rights and religious freedom, and a clearly articulated judicial philosophy.
A Democratic filibuster could force Republicans to find eight Democratic votes to get President Trump’s nominee approved. Three federal appeals court judges are favored for tonight’s nomination, one of whom serves with Trump’s sister.